Early Church Motanismul

Early Church
History
The First Five Centuries
Hosted by:
Living Hope Bible Church
An Oasis of Hope in Christ
6N171 Gary Avenue
Roselle, Illinois 60172
(630) 529-8489
Tuesdays, 6:30-8:30pm
Begins June 19, 2012
Table of Contents
Early Church History
Introduction..1
Nature Preparation and Context of Christianity...14
The Second Century.32
Textual Criticism in the Patristics.123
The Lords Day in the Patristic Era..132
Patrology..167
Page 1 of 524
I.
INTRODUCTION
A. Warrant for the Study of Church History
1. The Bible does not teach us everything about the outworking

of Gods plan of redemption. Although this may sound like a
controversial thing to say in a church that believes (rightly)
in the sufficiency, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture, it is
because of what Scripture teaches that I draw this conclusion
cf. Matt 28:18-20; Rev 21:1-4. We learn from church history
how Gods plan of redemption has been worked out from the
time of the end of the first century until today. The events of
this worlds history set the stage upon which the drama of
redemption is enacted. Iain D Campbell, Heroes and
Heretics: Pivotal Moments in Twenty Centuries of the Church
(Christian Focus, 2004), 10.
2. The sovereignty of God over all of history cf. Isa 46:8-11.
History is His story just as much as it is ours. Therefore we
have an opportunity through the study of church history to
see how God protected and preserved his people to the
present day so as to bring about the sure accomplishment of
his redemptive purposes in Jesus Christ.
3. The Christian faith is historical in character cf. Luke 2:1-2.
Studying church history demonstrates concretely that the
Christian faith is historical in character it deals with real
people in real places in real time.
B. The Value of Church History
1. In order to understand where were going, we need to

understand where we came from. This is the value of
history in general.
a) Knowing your trajectory allows you to understand
yourself better, to put your experience in the proper
perspective.
1
Page 2 of 524
b) It surpasses in interest secular history. Both deal with

the facts of human life and the growth of society; but
church history is far broader in its range, taking in the
divine purposes and methods, on the one side, and the
destiny of man in a future world, on the other.
c) NOTE: Secular history treats of human life and
progress, as they are affected by human agencies.
Church history presupposes supernatural agencies
and the introduction of divine forces among men.
2. Without it, Christian theology becomes theoretical rather
than practical. Christianity is first and foremost the acts of
God in time (and ultimately in Christ) more than it is
morality, doctrinal formulations, or a worldview.
3. The study of church history provides perspective on the
churchs interaction with surrounding culture. Mark Noll
gives the example of choice of church music. Almost all the
issues we face in the modern era have been addressed at one
point or another politics, art, music, economics, etc.
4. It demonstrates the truth of Christianity. In demonstrating the
truth of any scientific law, we inquire if the facts demand the
law, and, then, if the law explains the facts. If the double
process holds good, the law is accepted.
a) Since the coming of Christ into our world, in every age,
among many nations and all classes of society,
multitudes have experienced a thorough change of
character, and have led a new life. A common result
implies a common cause; and they unite in ascribing
the change to Christian teaching, applied by the Divine
Spirit.
b) Before the death of Christ, He promised the gift of the
Spirit to the world, and predicted these results.
c) We have thus the facts demanding the law and the law
explaining the facts. The double line of proof is perfect.
Page 3 of 524
d) NOTE: The demonstration is equally complete for the

preliminary doctrine of human depravity. The best
men, the best institutions, the best measures, are all
tainted by it.
5. It inspires lofty aims, by an acquaintance with heroic men
and women, leading lives of self-sacrifice.
Note: Many church histories are barren, because they lay no
stress on the beauty and power of the Christian life.
Neander gives it great prominence. No century has failed to
produce noble Christians.
6. It warns against disloyalty to divine teachings and the divine
model.
NOTE: Dean Stanley says the Church has thought it wise to
change the mode of baptism, and to add a new class to its
subjects. The Roman Church, with its priesthood,
penances, confession, absolution, purgatory, and the
papacy, has grown out of the one error of an organic,
visible Church.
7. It cultivates a careful charity for errorists of many names.
NOTE: Most of the Fathers denounced heretics without stint,
and confirmed them in alienation from the truth. Origen won
many to orthodoxy by sympathizing with their partial views,
and opening the broader range of Christianity, leading into
error. A balance must be reached between the harsh
denouncing and the comprising charity.
Page 4 of 524
8. It relieves from the fear that modern heresies and systems of

unbelief may undermine the truth. NOTE: Most heresies of our
time, and the manifold forms of unbelief, are only a renewal
of old attacks which have utterly failed. Bushnell's moral
theory of the atonement, Beecher's denial of a human soul to
Christ, are old speculations. Baur's theory of a fundamental
difference among the apostles was anticipated by Porphyry
(Neander I., 171). The New Perspective on Paul is nothing
short of the old Judaizing spirit of the ancient church, and the
pop-psychology and New Age thought of our is old Gnosticism
in new clothes.
9. But perhaps the most valuable thing about church history for
Christians is that it provides perspective on the study of the
Scriptures cf. 2 Tim 3:14-15.
a) Provocative Quotes
i.
The discipline of church history cannot by itself

establish the rightness or wrongness of what ought
to be believed. On the other hand, Evangelicals in
particular, precisely because of their high view of
Scripture, have often been content to know far too
little about the history of the church; and efforts to
overcome this common ignorance can only be
commended. Thoughtful Christians who sincerely
seek to base their beliefs on the Scriptures will be a
little nervous if the beliefs they think are biblical
form no part of the major streams of tradition
throughout the history of the church; and,
therefore, historical theology, though it cannot in
itself justify a belief system, not only sharpens the
categories and informs the debate but serves as a
major checkpoint to help us prevent uncontrolled
speculation, purely private theological articulation,
and overly imaginative exegesis. D. A. Carson,
Recent Developments in the Doctrine of
Scripture, in D. A. Carson and John D Woodbridge
(eds.), Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon, (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1986, 1995), 18.
4
Page 5 of 524
ii.
If a contemporary believer wants to know the will

of God as revealed in Scripture on any of these
matters, or on thousands more, it is certainly
prudent to study the Bible carefully for oneself. But
it is just as prudent to look for help, to realize that
the question I am bringing to Scripture has
doubtless been asked before and will have been
addressed by others who were at least as saintly as
I am, at least as patient in pondering the written
Word, and at least as knowledgeable about the
human heart. Mark Noll, Turning Points: Decisive
Moments in the History of Christianity (Baker,
1997), 16.
b) From our historical vantage we can see that

interpretations of the past, even those that were
thought to be very persuasive, were in fact distortions
of Scripture. This will function to make us more
tentative about our own interpretative conclusions,
conclusions we are drawing for the present time.
c) It provides perspective on what is important vs. what
is more or less ancillary. What is essential and what is
non-essential? We will see threads running through
the tapestry of church history that reemerge or persist
in successive eras they are not fads, but classics of
the Christian faith.
d) It helps us to realize how dependent we are on
Christians who have gone before us for many of the
doctrines that for us are foregone conclusions but
historically had to be fought for in order to protect the
Christian faith from the onslaught of false teaching.
C. Church History and the History of Dogma
1. Church history is not simply the story of what happened to

the church, who the major players were, and when these
things happened, but precisely because it is church history
our study will necessarily involve a study of Christian
teaching cf. 1 Tim 3:15.
5
Page 6 of 524
2. Christian teaching is always in some sense culturally limited

and in some sense defined doctrines are formulated and
kinks worked out always against the backdrop of particular
places and times by particular persons. Sometimes people get
nervous to think about doctrinal development over time as if
it somehow threatens the stability of the teaching of
Scripture. Some think that if doctrine has changed over time,
then we have nothing stable, no foundation on which to build
our faith.
3. Two issues are important to recognize here:
a) First, since dogma is the human formulation of
biblical doctrine, we should not expect it to be
infallible. Quite the opposite we should expect it to
be flawed at some points. So insofar as dogma is not
infallible, we should expect some development over
time.
b) Second, to the extent that the dogmas comport with
Scripture, it is not really fair to say that such a dogma
was discovered or new. It was always there, it just
took difficulty to cause it to come to the surface.
Different issues threatening the church (especially
doctrinal) cause the church to reread Scripture to
read it with greater care and with particular interest
to the issues at hand. Such close reading tends to yield
new results new not in the sense of finding
something that was never there to begin with, but
new in the sense of discovering something for the
first time that was always there, but never noticed.
The rub forced us to look at it. And the rub paved new
pathways for further doctrinal study (and
development), which heretofore had never been
blazed. Tradition is the living faith of the dead;
traditionalism is the dead faith of the living Jaroslav
Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the
Development of Doctrine, Vol 1: The Emergence of
the Catholic Tradition (100-600) (University of
Chicago, 1971), 9.
6
Page 7 of 524
D. Roman Catholicism and the Authority of the Fathers (Schmid, Manual of

Patrology).
1. General Statement on Authority

a) By authority, as attributed to writers, is meant their
power and right to command intellectual assent
(auctoritas movens vel obligans). It is a moral power,
affecting the mind and will of the reader, determining
his judgment, and obliging him to assent to the words
or statements of the writer. This authority varies in
degrees. It may be greater or less, and even absolute,
according as it is calculated to produce in the mind a
more or less probable, or a certain assent.
b) The authority of the Fathers has been very differently
estimated at different times. Some few, after the
example of the Abbot Fredegis, in the ninth century,
placed their authority on a level with that of the
prophets and Apostles; while others, on the contrary,
especially Protestants, beheld in the writings of the
Fathers mere literary testimonials of no paramount
importance in matters of faith.
2. Criteria for Authority: The greater number of Romanist
theologians have determined the authority of the Fathers by
the following rules:
a) In matters of natural science, the words of one, or
many, or of all the Fathers together, have only as
much weight as the reasons on which they are based.
Tantum valent, quantum probant; i. e., their authority
extends no farther than their proofs.
b) Even in matters appertaining to faith or morals, the
testimony of one or two Fathers of the Church does not
suffice to produce certainty, but only probability. The
same holds good of the authority of many Fathers, in
cases where other Fathers contradict, or hold a
different opinion.
Page 8 of 524
c) But the agreement of all the Fathers of the Church

together (consensus Patrum), in matters of faith and
morals, begets complete certainty and commands
assent, because they, as a body, bear witness to the
teaching and belief of the infallible Church,
representing the Church herself. The consensus,
however, need not be absolute; a moral agreement
suffices, as, for instance, when some of the greatest
Fathers testify to a doctrine of the Church, and the
rest, though quite aware of it, do not positively oppose
it. "Whatever, therefore, the holy Fathers unanimously
teach as the divinely revealed tradition of the Church,
must be accepted and believed as such. He who
departs from the unanimous consent of the Fathers,
departs from the Church. "Qui ab unanimi Patrurn
consensu discedit, ab uni-versa Ecclesia recedit." "He
who rejects the holy Fathers, confesses that he rejects
the whole Church." "Qui sanctos Patres reiicit, fatetur
se universam Ecclesiam ,reiicere." (Aug. c. Julian. II,
87); "The things that are drawn from the unanimous
mind of the Fathers, possess a firm and invincible
force against adversaries." "Quse ex consensu
spiritual! Patrum depromuntur, firmain habent et
inexpugnabilem contra adversaries vim. (Pope
Martin).
d) Basis of Authority: This binding authority of the
"consensus Patrum in rebus fidei et morum" rests
both upon a natural and supernatural basis.
e) Natural or historical basis. As men of great
ecclesiastical learning, they are able to know and
testify to that which the Church believed and taught in
their times. As honest and holy men, they were willing
to bear witness to the truth, and, finally, their
agreement with each other is a guarantee for the
truth of their testimony. This may be called their
natural and historical authority.
Page 9 of 524
f) Supernatural basis. The Fathers give their testimony

as the expression of their own faith, in due
subordination to the supernatural power and
authority of the teaching Church, and under her
constant supernatural supervision. The Church,
moreover, approves, confirms, and authenticates their
testimony, inasmuch as she acknowledges them as
orthodox teachers, and appeals herself to this
unanimous testimony as proof incontestable of her
doctrine. This may be called their supernatural
authority. Although the supernatural authority of the
consensus Patrum rests ultimately upon the
infallibility of the Church, nevertheless their testimony
may, without fear of a vicious circle, be invoked also in
favor of doctrines for which there exists no
authoritative pronouncement by the Church. For, in
the first place, their consentient teaching is in itself an
equivalent of the authoritative teaching of the Church,
and, in the second place, their authority, as competent
historical witnesses of belief and tradition, is
independent of the Church, and is derived from the
natural principle of philosophy, that the unanimous
testimony of men capable of knowing the truth, and
willing to tell it, is trustworthy and deserving of
credence.
3. Scope of Authority: Relation of the Fathers to Holy Scripture
and the Church.
Page 10 of 524
g) As regards the relation of the writings of the holy

Fathers to the Sacred Scriptures, we may say, that
though both have the same object, namely, to explain
revealed truths, and though both are acknowledged
by the Church as trustworthy interpreters and
witnesses of revelation, nevertheless there is a great
and material difference between them. The sacred
writers are one and all inspired, and each of their
dicta represents infallible truth, which is not the case
with the Fathers or their dicta. So far, the Sacred
Scriptures are immeasurably superior to the works of
the Fathers. On the other hand, the Fathers, as the
organs of tradition, treat of many things appertaining
to faith which are not found in Holy Writ. Moreover,
they unfold the contents of Holy Scripture in all their
parts and show clearly how particular truths of faith
are contained in the written Word of God.
h) Concerning the relations of the Fathers and of
Scripture to the Church, it may be said that both stand
on the same level. For as the Church bears infallible
witness to the fact of inspiration and to the number of
divinely inspired books, and unerringly explains their
sense, so, in like manner, does she witness to and
interpret with the same absolute infallibility the
divine and Apostolic tradition contained in the
patristic writings. From this twofold source, the
Church, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, .ever
draws forth the truth, and proposes it to the faithful
as God's own word, to be accepted and held with
absolute certainty.
E. Reformers and the Fathers -- David C. Steinmetz
10
Page 11 of 524
1. The reformers had no place in their theology for unwritten

apostolic traditions, but that did not mean they had no
place for ancient tradition, whatever their overheated
rhetoric might sometimes have suggested. Indeed, they
claimed on more than one occasion to be more traditional
than their Catholic opponents, who had in their view
succumbed to non-traditional innovations in theology and
practice introduced in the Middle Ages. Protestants
regularly argued that they were 'more ancient than thou'
on the issues that mattered most, and certainly more
Augustinian than their Catholic opponents on the crucial
issues of sin, grace, and free will.
2. The Reformers themselves (including Luther, Zwingli, Calvin,
and others) were convinced that their position was not only
biblical, but also historical. In other words, they contended
that both the apostles and the church fathers would have
agreed with them on the heart of the gospel.
a) For example, the second-generation Lutheran
reformer, Martin Chemnitz (1522-1586), wrote a
treatise on justification in which he defended the
Protestant position by extensively using the church
fathers.
b) And John Calvin (1509-1564), in his Institutes,
similarly claimed that he could easily debunk his
Roman Catholic opponents using nothing but patristic
sources. Heres what he wrote: If the contest were to
be determined by patristic authority, the tide of
victory to put it very modestly would turn to our
side. Now, these fathers have written many wise and
excellent things. . . . [Yet] the good things that these
fathers have written they [the Roman Catholics] either
do not notice, or misrepresent or pervert. . . . But we do
not despise them [the church fathers]; in fact, if it were
to our present purpose, I could with no trouble at all
prove that the greater part Source: John Calvin,
Prefatory Address to King Francis I of France, The
Institutes of the Christian Religion, Section 4.
11
Page 12 of 524
3. To demonstrate their theological continuity with ancient

teaching, Protestants issued anthologies of quotations from
the fathers of the early church. They were convinced that
these anthologies supported their views concerning issues
such as the nature of the eucharist and justification by faith.
What Protestants did not accept was the notion that there
was an unwritten source for the church's knowledge of God's
self-revelation outside the written source of holy scripture,
There was no source co-equal to scripture in its authority for
faith. Ecclesiastical tradition undoubtedly played, for them,
an important role as a guide to the proper interpretation of
scripture. But tradition was not and could never be, for them,
a source co-equal with it.
F. The Limits of Church History
1. Not infallible
a) No infallible sources
b) No infallible interpretation. Although this is true with
respect to our interpretation of Scripture, it is further
complicated by the fallibility of the sources we use for
our study.
2. Limited information
a) In terms of what is available to us (the evidence that
survived)
b) In terms of whose perspective is preserved (the
learned and others in power)
G. Church History and the Development of Godly Character
1. Humility: as much as anything church history is a record of

our frailty and failures. It is not because we are so much
that the Christian church has continued to this day, it is
because God has been patient with us and faithful to his
promises.
12
Page 13 of 524
2. Gratitude: Because of what God has done for us, not only will
we refuse to congratulate ourselves for our historical
accomplishments, but we will be filled with gratitude for
Gods faithfulness to get us here.
READING FOR NEXT WEEKS DISCUSSION:

Advanced and Optional: Patrology, Introductory Lecture.
Ayer, SBACH, Apostolic Age, pp. 12-18.
1. What gave occasion for the Neronian persecutions? What
does this imply about Christians at this time? How
widespread was the persecution?
2. How does Tacitus describe Christians? What is his account of
the persecution under Nero, and what is assessment?
3. Who was Clement of Rome? According to him, who were the
victims of Neros persecution? What does he say about Paul
and Peter?
4. Who does Eusebius quote on the death of Peter and Paul?
What does it say where and how they died? What does is state
about their relationship to the churches there? Does this
support Romes arrogant view?
5. What does Irenaeus state about Johns death? What goes
Jerome tells us about Johns ministry, and how reliable is this
testimony? What do we know from Eusebius quote from
Polycrates?
6. In the persecution under Domitian, why were Christians
included? What possibly can the charge of atheism and
superstition indicate?
13
Page 14 of 524
I.
THE FIRST CENTURY

A. NATURE OF CHRISTIANITY AND PREPARATIONS FOR IT
1. Christianity differs from other religions

a) In claiming to be universal -- for all nations and all times.
i.
Most religions have been local and national. The ancient

world conceived that every district of country and every
nation was under the care of a local deity. There might be
one supreme deity; but subordinate gods, with different
grades of rank and power, were intrusted with the care of
individuals and nations.
This idea appears in the Old Testament, when the Syrians said (I.
Kings xx., 23): "Their gods are the gods of the hills therefore are they
stronger than we"; in the erection of the Roman Pantheon
(Uhlhorn's Conflict, p. 37), by which the Romans hoped to enjoy the
protection of the gods of conquered nations, as well as of their own
deities; and, curiously, in Homer, where Olympus is divided against
itself, Juno and Minerva favoring the Greeks, Venus and Mars the
Trojans, and Jupiter and Neptune drawn now to one side and then to
the other by the importunities of the partisan deities.
It appears more decisively in the ridicule in which Greek and Roman
writers indulged in opposing this claim of Christianity.
Porphyry hated Christianity, because it interfered with nature
worship (Neander, I., 70). Julian scoffed at its extravagance. "The
Germans and Romans and Greeks," he says, "have different natures,
different customs, different codes of laws, and must also have
different religions. The union of all nations in one religion is an
absurdity." (Neander, I., p. 51.)
ii.
Having no idea of the unity of the race, they could not

conceive of a common religion. The Greeks and Romans
despised barbarians, as of different stock. The Gnostics
carried the same spirit into Christianity. They alone were
capable of knowing its essence.
b) In its proselytizing character -- aiming to become universal.

1|Page
Page 15 of 524
i.
Every Christian is under obligation to extend his religion, because Christ

commands it, and because it reveals the only way of salvation.
ii.
Of all other religions, Buddhism was the only one of the ancient
faiths that aimed to extend itself, and this solely on ethical
grounds. Mohammedanism, since the Christian era, has been a
proselyting religion to build up a great empire. Mormonism, in
our day, has similar aims.
iii.
NOTE. The proselyting spirit of Christianity was a prominent

reason for the bitter persecutions of the Roman Emperors. They
would have tolerated its existence in Rome, as they tolerated
Eastern religions, if it had not aimed to undermine the national
faith.
c) In resting on an historical basis.

i.
Buddhism and Confucianism are purely ethical, and disclaim

theology.
ii.
Brahminism, Parseeism, and Mohammedanism are both doctrinal

and practical; but doctrines and precepts are alike independent of
their founders.
iii.
Christianity rests absolutely on the life, death, and work of Jesus

Christ. He is the revealer of God to men. He is the only bond of
union between men and God.
iv.
NOTES: In other religions, philosophy and religion might be

identical, treating of the same truths and following the same
methods. Scotus Erigena, in the ninth century (a Christian
pantheist), attempted to identify Christianity with
philosophy; and some of the Scholastics, at a later period,
imitated him. Such attempts must fail, of necessity.
Christianity is built on the historic truth of the Gospels.
Attacks like Strauss' or Renan's, if successful, would be fatal
to its claims. Its life is lost, if its facts are not trustworthy.
d) In its redemptive character

i.
2|Page
It alone provides a divine method of pardon for the guilty, and a

divine force for the recovery of the sinner.
Page 16 of 524
ii.
Notes: No religion but the Christian assures men of pardon.

No other shows how justice is consistent with mercy; The
early opponents of Christianity mocked at its power to
reclaim and elevate the vicious. Celsus says: "Those who
invite to the mysteries say, 'Let him approach who is free
from all stain, who is conscious of no wickedness, who has
lived a good and upright life.' These Christians call, '
Whoever is a sinner, whoever is foolish and unlettered, in
a word, whoever is wretched, him will the kingdom of
God receive.'" Neander, I., 166. "It is manifest to every
one that it lies within no man's power to produce an entire
change in a person to whom sin has become a second
nature, even by punishment, to say nothing of mercy."I.,
166. Julian thought Jesus an unworthy leader, because he
invited the heavy-laden, and promised to help the vicious.
Neander, II., 48, 49.
iii.
Any attempt to magnify the ethical element of Christianity,

at the expense of the redemptive, maims its divine beauty
and weakens its moral power. Jesus says, "To whom much is
forgiven, the same loveth much." As an historical fact,
gratitude for sovereign grace has been the most powerful
motive to a holy life.
e) In making God's love the corner-stone of theology, and man's

love to God, through Christ, the corner-stone of ethics.
3|Page
i.
NOTE: The classic religions have little to say of divine love.

Prometheus was doomed to endless torture for adding to men's
comfort. The Greek tragedians teach divine justice and the
certainty of retribution; but they teach also that the gods are
jealous of human happiness and success, even in the virtuous.
Fisher's Beginnings of Christianity, 101.
ii.
Socrates and Plato conceive of God as a spiritual and perfect

being. They treat of his providence, of his righteousness, his
justice, but not of his love Fisher, 142, 154.
iii.
The ethics of Socrates and Plato are lofty in aim, and so are those
of Buddha and Confucius; but they are never enforced by the duty
of love to God and love to man.
Page 17 of 524
iv.
Socrates makes virtue identical with knowledge. If one knows the

right, he will surely do it. Aristotle was wiser. He said: "If sin
were ignorance, there would be no blame. Virtue lies in the will,
choosing the right." Plato had a lofty idea of virtue, that it
consists in resemblance to God. Fisher's Beginnings, 145, 156,
153.
2. Christianity is the absolute and final religion.
a) Though recent in historic origin, it is the oldest of religions in

the divine purpose.
i.
The Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world.
ii.
It is the divine plan to gather together in Christ all things in

heaven and on earth and under the earth.
b) It is complete in its truths and methods, and admits of no

change, in a fuller unfolding and comprehension of what is
already revealed.
i.
Note: As an historic fact, no truth relating to God or to man,

beyond the teachings of the Bible, has been discovered by
the profoundest thinkers of eighteen centuries.
ii.
There has been a vast advance in insight into the Bible.

Doctrines have been unfolded, which seemed like new
discoveries of truth. There may be greater progress in the
future than in the past; but all lie in germ in the Bible, and
their growth reveals the divine law of development of
doctrine.
c) It includes all that is valuable in other religions, and

supplements their deficiencies.
i.
In a broad sense, all religions and philosophies may be

regarded as included in the divine, preparations for
Christianity, like the Jewish system.
NOTE: It is no objection to Christianity that the golden rule, in a

negative form, is found in Parseeism and Confucianism. It would be
no objection, if Tindal's claim were true, that all the elements of
Christianity are as old as the creation; or Bolingbroke's, that
Platonism contains the substance of Christian ethics.
4|Page
Page 18 of 524
ii.
All the old religions have in them elements of truth, and

these elements have done an important work in the
religious education of the race. They recognized, in general,
dependence on a divine power, and enjoined worship and
obedience.
iii.
Jewish history belongs to the revealed plan for introducing

Christianity to the world. Its theocracy was a preparation
for the kingdom of Christ. Its far-reaching moral law,
impossible to be kept, created a need for the gospel. Its
sacrifices foreshadowed the cross. Its prophecies foretold
the Messiah.
a.) Note: The Ebionites wished to absorb Christianity into

Judaism, and retain the old faith unchanged.
b.) Many of the Gnostics rejected Judaism as anti-Christian,
because it would not harmonize with their idea of
Christianity.
c.) Many, in our day, declare that the God of the Old Testament is
a different being from the God of the New Testament.
d.) But there is no antagonism to those who accept a divine plan
of revelation, unfolding in clearness and fulness, in
accordance with the capacities and needs of the race.
Mozley.
iv.
The Greeks furnished for the new religion a language

common to all civilized countries, and the most perfect
vehicle of thought ever known to the world.
a.) The Platonic and Stoic philosophies stirred lofty spiritual

aspirations, which could not be attained, and lifted high standards
of life, which could not be realized, and thus created a yearning
for divine help.
b.) In their mythology, the Greeks suggested the possible union of
God and man, though it was the deification of man rather than the
incarnation of God.
5|Page
Page 19 of 524
C.) NOTE: The Greeks had no profound sense of sin or of alienation of

man from God, and saw no hindrance to the union of the two. The
Jews had such an overwhelming sense of the alienation caused by sin
that the union seemed almost impossible.
v.
The Romans furnished a common government for the

civilized world, and facilities of travel for the preachers of
the new faith.They contributed also ideas of the majesty of
law, the rectitude of justice, and the certainty of penalty,
which may have given coloring to the greatest of the
Epistles, that to the Romans.
B. The Historical Context of the Early Church
1. Second Temple Judaism: This phrase describes the society and

culture o the Jews after they returned from the Babylonian
exile (538 BC) and built the second Temple to the destruction
of the Temple in AD 70.
a) Unifying factors: Although the Judaism of the first century was
marked by great diversity, there were, however, several factors
that unified the period.
6|Page
i.
Culture. More than doctrine, Jewish culture bound the Jews

together. No single interpretation necessary. Deviation on a
matter of lifestyle, especially eating, washing, ritual purity
would bring about instant ostracism.
ii.
Identity as Gods chosen people. Exile showed the Jews how

small they were and how in spite of (because of?) their size
God chose them to be the bearers of his truth. It also made
them sensitive to idolatry, since they saw the exile as
punishment for their spiritual adultery. They retained a
deep sense of commitment to fulfill their divine obligations
as his chosen ones.
iii.
The land. God placed them in a particular place and

promised that it would be their land forever.
iv.
The Temple, priesthood, and festivals. To speak against the

Temple was to speak against God cf. John 2:19.
Page 20 of 524
v.
Synagogue. This was especially so for Diaspora Jews (the

some six million Jews who lived outside of Palestine). The
synagogues at Jerusalem are said to have numbered 300500. There was also at least one in every town. It was
primarily a school where children learned the Law and
traditions of the elders. It was also a place of worship, civil
litigation, and socialization.
vi.
Law and the traditions, especially circumcision, food laws,

and the Sabbath.
vii.
Messianic anticipation. Especially in light of Roman

occupation in the land God promised, there was widespread
belief that He would choose and send a representative (a
Messiah) to defeat Rome and usher in a new era of universal
peace and prosperity with Jerusalem at the center of that
new era. In this connection, there was a high degree of
fervor, a sense that God was about to do something.
viii.
Very closely related to their common messianic

expectations was a worldview or outlook that was adopted
by many Jews in the first century called apocalypticism. It
had four main characteristics:
a) Sovereignty and transcendence of God

b) Cosmic struggle between good and evil, God and Satan
c) There is a spiritual order determining the course of
history; pessimism about mans ability to change it
d) Expectation of the cataclysmic intervention of God on
behalf of his people against the supernatural powers of evil
b) Diversity: This diversity was seen especially in the different
Jewish religious groups and their thought that peppered the
social and theological landscape.
i.
Pharisees
a) High interest in keeping Judaism Jewish. Did not want

Judaism influenced by the Greco-Roman world around them
that dominated their existence.
7|Page
Page 21 of 524
b) Emphasized practical piety. How does the individual keep

the Torah in everyday life? They were the biblical
fundamentalists of their day. In a sense, they are the
theological good guys, and if Jesus is closer to any group it
would be them. They were very concerned with enabling all
of the people to keep the Law.
c) The most influential group among the people, especially
through the synagogues.
d) Emphasized the tradition of the elders. Their intention
was not to add to Scripture; instead, it was to make the
Hebrew Bible practical . Regrettably, however, they used
their tradition as a way of relaxing Gods standards, to get
around their duty to him cf. Mark 7:8.
e) Theological emphases: They believed in the true and
living God, angels and spirits, the sovereignty of God,
prayer, the necessity of faith and good works, the last
judgment, a coming Messiah, and the resurrection of the
dead.
ii.
Sadducees
a) Not influential among common people. They were not

looked on favorably. The Jewish Historian, Josephus (AD 37100), describes them this way: The Sadduceesare, even
among themselves, rather boorish in their behavior, and in
their intercourse with their peers are as rude as to aliens.
C. K. Barrett, The New Testament Background: Writings
from Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire That Illuminate
Christian Origins (Harper Collins, 1956, 1987), 159.
b) Belonged to priestly aristocracy, had influence in places
of power through family ties.
c) Held only to Torah the 5 books of Moses with the rest
of the Hebrew Bible considered valuable but uninspired.
8|Page
Page 22 of 524
d) More likely to cooperate with the Roman secular

authorities, as they were more embracing of Greco-Roman
culture. In addition, since they rejected the resurrection of
the dead, they were very concerned with life in this world,
especially money and political power.
e) They were theologically at odds with the Pharisees at
virtually every point.
iii.
Essenes: We dont know about them from the New

Testament, but Josephus and Philo (c. 20 BC-AD 50)
mention them. And if, as most scholars suspect, they are the
group that kept the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran, we can
suggest the following characteristics:
a) Proselytes underwent a rigorous initiation process

lasting 2-3 years and including a series of solemn vows.
b) Theologically speaking, they believed themselves to be
Gods faithful remnant spoken of in the Old Testament;
spent much time studying and copying the Scriptures.
c) Strict predestinarians
d) Believed in preexistent souls and immortality
e) Looked for a political Messiah(s)
f) Lived communally (or sequestered in communities)
g) Engaged in asceticism, including celibacy
iv.
Zealots
a) Used physical violence to overthrow their political

oppressors and to bring about the rule of God through the
people of Israel.
b) Considered themselves patriots; however, they were often
little more than hired guns (assassins).
c) Theologically on the same page with the Pharisees.
v.
9|Page
Samaritans
Page 23 of 524
a) Multiethnic, multicultural, syncretic Judaism

b) Not permitted to participate in the rebuilding the Temple
c) Very resentful of the Jewsdesecrated the Temple in 6 AD
d) Set up their own Temple on Mt. Gerizim
e) Theological similarities with the Jews: Monotheistic; kept
the festivals; committed to the Law; practiced circumcision;
looked for the Prophet/Messiah
f) Theological peculiarities: refused to acknowledge Jewish
Temple; used only Torah (and their own version at that);
possibly did not believe in the resurrection
vi.
Peasantry, the am ha-aretz, the people of the land, a

derogatory term to refer to the majority of the people living
in Palestine they were poor and unlearned (i.e., they did
not study with the best teachers) cf. John 7:49. This group
made up most of Jesus disciples.
2. Roman Rule (63 BC-AD 70): During the first century, the whole
of Mediterranean Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East was
controlled by the Roman Empire. Below are four unifying
features of the Roman Empire during this time: [Letters a, c, d
below are adapted from N R Needham, 2,000 Years of Christs
Power, Part One: The Age of the Early Church Fathers
(Evangelical Press, 1997, 2002), 25-33.
a) Political loyalty
10 | P a g e
i.
One man ruled the empire the emperor, whose

government was based in the capital city of Rome.
ii.
In 510 BC a political revolution transformed the Empire into

a Republic, with aristocratic and democratic elements
blended in its government and a deep hostility to monarchy.
iii.
Civil wars in the first century BC brought fragmentation to

the Republic, which made a centralized and strong ruler
necessary to restore order.
Page 24 of 524
iv.
Caesar Augustus reigned from c. 27 BC-AD 14: He was so

successful that the Empire never became a Republic again.
b) Political and social stability:

i.
ii.
The pax Romana under Augustus provided political and social

stability, which made possible the easy movement of ideas
and people. The Roman roads were one such example of this
peace and easy movement.
On the pax Romana: It gave peace in place of constant
tribal war; it built a great network of roads and bridges that
made travel possible all over the then-known world; it
cleared the sea of pirates so that trade by sea and travel by
ship became common practice; it protected its citizens from
robbers and rioting.B. K Kuiper, The Church in History
(Eerdmans, 1951, 1964), 4.
c) Economy: A great network of trade bound together the costal

cities of the Empire into a single shared economy.
d) Intellectual and religious culture
i.
ii.
The dominant culture was not actually Roman, but Greek. By

the end of the 4th century BC, the language and values of
Greek civilization spread from Greece across the whole
Eastern world.
Even though Romes armies defeated Greece, Greeces
culture overwhelmed Romes. By the 1st Century BC, the
Greek language, Greek methods of education, Greek art and
literature, and Greek philosophy and science had taken root
across the Roman Empire. Needham, 2,000 Years of Christs
Power, 28. Greek became the first language spoken by the
Eastern Empire and the second language of the Western
Empire.
3. Philosophy
a) The 1st and 2nd centuries AD mark the high-point of Stoic and
Cynic influence
11 | P a g e
Page 25 of 524
b) Yet the general movement is towards the collapse of

philosophy into religion
4. Greco-Roman religion
a) Emperor cult was the most dominant and was an expression of
patriotic allegiance. Not even the emperors took the divinity
business literally.
b) Gods of the Pantheon becoming more myths to the people than
a representation of their true beliefs.
5. Mithraism: Persian warrior god transmuted into the lord of a
new mystery cult.
a) Especially attractive to soldiers and young men
b) Stressed courage and honor
c) Big competitor with Christianity until late 2nd & early 3rd
centuries
6. Other mysteries continued to flourish
7. Gnosticism: During the first century, there is no full-blown
Gnostic system, but there are many individual elements and
conjoining of individual elements which we can call Gnostic or
proto-Gnostic.
a) A tendency in Greek and Persian thought towards forms of
fundamental and eternal dualism.
b) Greek and late Perisan forms stressed the relative
worthlessness of matter over against the eternal, changeless
world of spirit/reason/etc: Spirit: good, soul, heaven; Material:
evil, body, earth
c) This is really anti-Stoic and more platonic
d) Emphasis on the efficacy of Knowledge (gnosis) in procuring
release from the realm of matter
e) Value in knowing the right things, not just knowledge
12 | P a g e
Page 26 of 524
f) The right knowledge can even bring salvation (found only in

the specific group). The mystery religions as well as some
philosophical schools had stressed the role of secret knowledge
imparted to the faithful.
8. General disposition
a) Sense of pessimism about really being able to know truth
b) Turing away from outward, future oriented pursuits
c) Loss of confidence in being able to find meaning from everyday
life
d) Expressed in a pessimism in endeavors of all sorts
e) This feeds a movement of philosophy into religions
f) A movement toward mystery religions offering new answers
g) A movement toward Gnostic trends offering new knowledge
h) There was a movement towards a kind of monotheism;
polytheism is dead
i) There was despair or at least a realism about mans ability to
fathom the deep metaphysical problems on a purely
philosophical or intellectual basis.
j) There was a deep concern for ethics and issue of human
meaning and happiness.
9. Judaism and the birth of Christianity
a) In Diaspora: Torah-centered belief mixed with cautious
Hellenization. At the same time there was a large population of
what Steve Taylor, Professor of New Testament at Westminster
Theological Seminary calls post-Jews. Jews who had become
so discontented with Judaism and so influenced by GrecoRoman religion and philosophy that their Judaism became
nothing more than an ethnic description.
b) Herod the Great, Roman rule and the relativizing of the High
Priesthood and Temple
13 | P a g e
Page 27 of 524
c) Herod launched a massive rebuilding and refurbishing of the

Temple.
d) Herod makes high priesthood completely political
appointment.
i.
This created a great loss of confidence in the office. Seen as

compromised, and therefore not relevant to the practice of
Judaism.
ii.
Further emphasis on traditional piety.
iii.
Radicalization of apocalyptic outlook and messianic

movements arising from a genuine desire for Gods
promised salvation held in the face of repeated frustrations
by foreign powers and corrupt Jewish rule.
10. Final reflection on the historical context of the early church:

Although the groups we have surveyed in many ways were full
of error, especially in the light of Christianity, these religious
and philosophical movements addressed deep needs in people.
Through peoples dissatisfaction and longings, God was at work
preparing the world to receive the gospel.
C. The Separation between Judaism and Christianity
1. Initial connections
a) Relations between Rome and Judea were from moderate to
good from about 161 BC to the first century. For example,
during Herod Antipaters reign (37 BC-AD 4), Jews were
exempt from military service, and did not have to take part in
any pagan rituals, not even emperor-worship.
b) As we move further into the 1st century AD, Rome considered
Christianity a sect of Judaism and because of that, the church
received the same perks as the Jews. Christianity, like Judaism,
was given status as a legal religion (a religio licita), which
protected the Christian church from state-sanctioned, official
persecution.
2. Theological considerations:
14 | P a g e
Page 28 of 524
a) Within the pages of the New Testament the foundations for a

definitive break between Judaism and Christianity are
forming, especially in the book of Acts.
i.
15 | P a g e
Acts 1-5: Hard line Jews traditional, native Hebrews living

in Palestine, especially Jerusalem.
ii.
Acts 6: dispute between Hellenists and native Hebrews.
iii.
Acts 7: Stephen (Hellenistic Jew) is more openly negative

toward Judaism, per se.
iv.
Acts 8:1: The apostles (native Hebrews) were not affected

by the persecution, Hellenistic section of the church seems
mainly affected. The scattering of Hellenistic believers from
Palestine was the event which first took the Jesus
movement into the non-Jewish world.
v.
Acts 8 Philip (Hellenistic Jew) courageously breaks the

divide between Jews and Samaritans.
vi.
Acts 10: Cornelius, the Macedonian (Greece)
vii.
Acts 11 (esp. v 26): Church at Antioch, first called Christians

(would need a designation because they would have
appeared to be something different than a Jewish sect to the
predominantly Gentile population.
viii.
Acts 13: Pauls ministry basically takes over. Through his

ministry the gospel traveled west into Europe rather than
staying put in Palestine. It is here that Gentiles begin to
dominate the churchs ethnic landscape. See Romans 9-11
for Pauls theological explanation of this.
Page 29 of 524
b) The theological divide began to see believing Jews gradually

separating themselves from Judaism proper.
c) There were different opinions among the non-Christian Jews as
to what to do with Jewish Christians.
i.
Sadducees: Get rid of them.
ii.
Pharisees: Wait and see.
3. Neros persecution of the church in AD 64: This represents the

first statesanctioned, but not Empire-wide persecution of
Christians. It took place after a fire that burned six days and
nights took down 10 of Romes 14 districts. Though many
people believed that Nero started the fire himself in order to
rebuild Rome with even more grandeur, he deflected this rumor
by blaming Christians for it.
a) The Roman historian Tacitus (AD 55-117) explains:
To kill the rumorsNero charged and tortured some people hated
for their evil practices the group popularly known as Christians.
The founder of this sect, Christ, had been put to death by the
governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, when Tiberius was emperor. Their
deadly superstition had been suppressed temporarily, but was
beginning to spring up again not now just in Judea, but even in
Rome itself, where all kinds of sordid and shameful activities are
attracted and catch on. First, the authorities arrested those who
confessed to being Christians. Then, on information obtained from
them, the court convicted hundreds more, not so much for starting
the fire as for their anti-social beliefs [they would not worship the
emperor or the gods of the Pantheon]. In their deaths they were
made a mockery. They were covered in the skins of wild animals,
torn to death by dogs, crucified, or set on fire so that when
darkness fell they burned like torches in the night. Nero opened up
his own gardens for this spectacle and gave a show in the arena.
Quoted in Needham, 2,000 Years of Christs Power, 50.
b) The reason we mention Neros persecution in connection with
the separation between Judaism and Christianity is that it
provides evidence that as early as the 60s AD, Christians were
considered a distinct group from Jews.
16 | P a g e
Page 30 of 524
4. The Jewish war and the destruction of the Temple

a) The Jewish War (AD 66-73): An uprising against Rome led by
the Zealots. Josephus estimates that 1.1 million Jews were
killed (with the destruction of the Temple) and some 97,000
taken captive to be sold into slavery or put to death in the
Roman arenas. Christians were spared because they heeded
the warnings of Jesus in Luke 21:20-24. Palestinian Jewish
Christians were viewed as traitors by the Jewish kinsmen
because they would not fight Rome.
b) The destruction of the Temple in AD 70: This made the dividing
line between Judaism more like a fixed chasm. It resulted in
Christians and Jews redefining themselves.
i.
Jewish redefinition
a) The wait and see option was eliminated.

b) Study of the Law becomes paramount when there is no
Temple and no land.
c) All Jews should aspire to study the Law.
d) The am ha-aretz refers by AD 135 to refer to Jews who
dont study the Torah as a way of life.
e) Process of fence-building accelerates; greater emphasis
on tradition.
f) Exclusion of groups unwilling to get with the new
program.
g) At this point, Jewish believers are excluded from
synagogue worship.
ii.
Christian redefinition
a) By this time, Christianity was moving out on its own.

Mark Noll, Turning Points, 26
b) Centering of Judaism around Jesus as the new
embodiment of Israel (not a new religion, but the true
Judaism, what Judaism was always meant to be).
17 | P a g e
Page 31 of 524
c) Progressive demographic shift toward Gentile

predominance.
d) Contextualization of the gospel in new frontiers.
e) No longer bound to address the Jew-Gentile issue, the
prominent issue in the writings of the Apostle Paul; instead,
the churchs questions and controversies centered on issues
of the influence of Hellenistic philosophy or Roman
conceptions of political order.
18 | P a g e
Page 32 of 524
I.
LECTURES ON CHURCH HISTORY
THE SECOND CENTURY: THE ERA OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS AND

APOLOGISTS
Introduction: Clarifying Terminology
1. Early Church Fathers: Broad category covering leaders in the

church for the first six centuries of church history.
2. Apostolic Fathers
a) A subset of early church fathers c. 95-140 AD
b) Traditionally connected directly with the apostles themselves,
but most scholars believe that this was only true for a few of
them. Received the moniker apostolic in the 17th century.
c) Still a valuable designation because it describes how these
church leaders were seeking to define themselves and the
church.
d) Little information about them survives. A few surviving
writings and incidental mention of these men in materials of
later generations. Because of this it is inaccurate at best and
dangerous at worst to try to appeal to the apostolic fathers to
argue for say, apostolic succession or the purity of the church
vis--vis its councils, etc.
Spread of Christianity
1. Summary:
a) The spread of Christianity was not hindered by the death of the
apostles.
b) New nations were reached, new churches were founded, and
renovated characters and lives attested everywhere the power
of the new religion.
Page 33 of 524
c) It is a remarkable fact that after the days of the Apostles no

names of great missionaries are mentioned till the opening of
the middle ages, when the conversion of nations was effected
or introduced by a few individuals as St. Patrick in Ireland, St.
Columba in Scotland, St. Augustine in England, St. Boniface in
Germany, St. Ansgar in Scandinavia, St. Cyril and Methodius
among the Slavonic races. There were no missionary societies,
no missionary institutions, no organized efforts in the anteNicene age; and yet in less than 300 years from the death of St.
John the whole population of the Roman empire which then
represented the civilized world was nominally Christianized. . .
d) To understand this astonishing fact, we must remember that
the foundation was laid strong and deep by the apostles
themselves. The seed scattered by them from Jerusalem to
Rome, and fertilized by their blood, sprung up as a bountiful
harvest. The word of our Lord was again fulfilled on a larger
scale: One soweth, and another reapeth. I sent you to reap that
whereon ye have not labored; others have labored, and ye are
entered into their labor (John 4:38) (Schaff).
2. Sources: No statistics or accurate statements, but only scattered
hints in
i.
Pliny (107): Ep. x. 96 sq. (the letter to Trajan). Ignatius (about

110): Ad Magnes. c. 10. Ep. ad Diogn. (about 120) c. 6.
ii.
Justin Martyr (about 140): Dial. 117; Apol. I. 53.
iii.
Irenaeus (about 170): Adv. Haer. I. 10; III. 3, 4; V. 20, etc.
iv.
Tertullian (about 200): Apol. I. 21, 37, 41, 42; Ad Nat. I. 7; Ad

Scap. c. 2, 5; Adv. Jud. 7, 12, 13.
v.
Origen (d. 254): Contr. Cels. I, 7, 27; II. 13, 46; III. 10, 30; De
Princ. l. IV. c. 1, 2; Com. in Matth. p. 857, ed. Delarue.
vi.
Eusebius (d. 340): Hist. Eccl III. 1; v. 1; vii, 1; viii. 1, also books
ix. and x.
vii.
Rufinus: Hist. Eccles. ix. 6.
Page 34 of 524
3. Earnest men took up and carried forward their work.

a) Immediately after the apostles, the chief teachers of the
churches were the Apostolic Father, including the following:
Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch: Polycarp of
Smyrna; Hermas of Phrygia.
b) The Epistle to Diognetus, by an unknown author, and the
writings of Justin/Martyr are also included.
c) There is no more convincing proof of inspiration than the
contrast, both in what is said and what is omitted, between the
New Testament and the writings of the Apostolic Fathers.
d) We discover the beginning of subsequent errors. Clement of
Rome suggests neither the papacy nor episcopacy; but Ignatius
teaches that there is no Church without the three orders of the
ministry; Hermas, that no one can be saved outside of the
Church; and Papias dwells on the sensuous enjoyments of the
Pre-millennial reign of Christ. While each has possible truth in
it, they are stretched into something else than the truth and
lead to other developments.
4. Hindrances and Helps
a) For the first three centuries Christianity was placed in the
most unfavorable circumstances, that it might display its
moral power, and gain its victory over the world by spiritual
weapons alone. Until the reign of Constantine it had not even a
legal existence in the Roman empire, but was first ignored as a
Jewish sect, then slandered, proscribed, and persecuted, as a
treasonable innovation, and the adoption of it made
punishable with confiscation and death (Schaff).
Page 35 of 524
b) But in spite of these extraordinary difficulties Christianity

made a progress which furnished striking evidence of its divine
origin and adaptation to the deeper wants of man, and was
employed as such by Irenaeus, Justin, Tertullian, and other
fathers of that day. Nay, the very hindrances became, in the
hands of Providence, means of promotion. Persecution led to
martyrdom, and martyrdom had not terrors alone, but also
attractions, and stimulated the noblest and most unselfish
form of ambition. Every genuine martyr was a living proof of
the truth and holiness of the Christian religion. Tertullian
could exclaim to the heathen: All your ingenious cruelties can
accomplish nothing; they are only a lure to this sect. Our
number increases the more you destroy us. The blood of the
Christians is their seed. The moral earnestness of the
Christians contrasted powerfully with the prevailing
corruption of the age, and while it repelled the frivolous and
voluptuous, it could not fail to impress most strongly the
deepest and noblest minds. The predilection of the poor and
oppressed for the gospel attested its comforting and
redeeming power (Schaff).
5. Proof s of Its Expansion
a) Proof of the outward growth of Christianity is given in the ten
persecutions in the Roman Empire
i.
Its aggressive spirit, making proselytes everywhere; its

exclusive claims, recognizing no other religion as true or valid;
its isolating spirit, separating its disciples from general society,
and forbidding them to take part in the religious rites which
entered into all civil life, awakened the fears of Roman rulers
that its growth would be fatal to the unity of the empire. The
best emperors, therefore, like Marcus Aurelius and Diocletian,
were the worst persecutors.
Page 36 of 524

ii.
Gibbon doubts the reality of the persecutions, because the

policy of Rome left each nation free to hold its religion and also
introduced strange gods into its own Pantheon. But
Christianity was unlike any other religion. It was not national,
and it aimed directly to overturn the religion of Rome. If the
old worships and institutions were be preserved, Christianity
must be put down.
iii.
The first persecution, under Nero, A.D. 64, was an attempt of

the emperor to throw suspicions of the burning of Rome on the
Christians and to shield himself from public censure. The
tortures were horrible. Many, covered with wax and pitch,
were burned alive at night in the imperial gardens. Peter and
Paul are supposed to have been put to death at this time. This
persecution was chiefly local, due to the ferocity and malignity
of Nero.
iv.
The second, under Domitian, 81-96, was limited in extent and

moderate in spirit. The emperor, suspicious of treason in the
kingdom, summoned two of our Lord's relatives from
Palestine; but, finding them poor and harmless, his fears
abated.
v.
The third was under Trajan, 98-117. Pliny, in Bithynia and

Pontus, was instructed to compel Christians to scatter incense
to the emperor's statue and to blaspheme Christ. Ignatius, of
Antioch, suffered martyrdom at this time. Pliny's letter is a
beautiful tribute to the moral character of Christians and to
their habits of worship. The worship of the emperor had come
to be a kind of religious patriotism in the provinces.
vi.
The fourth, under Marcus Aurelius, was wide-spread and

severe. He was a learned Stoic philosopher and a great
emperor, but despised and hated the Christians, because,
though, belonging largely to the lower classes, poor and
unlearned, they claimed to have a more certain knowledge of
divine things than the philosophers, and died with greater
heroism than the Stoics. Polycarp, one of the Apostolic Fathers,
was burned in this persecution.
Page 37 of 524
vii.
The fifth, under Septimius Severus, 193-211, was general.

Leontes, father of Origin, Irenaeus, and Perpetua and Felicitas
were among the martyrs.
viii.
Maximin, the Thracian, a rude barbarian, 235-38, waged a

fierce persecution, the sixth.
ix.
Under Decius, 249-51, the seventh, and one of the most

ferocious persecutions, went forward, involving a great
number of victims, including Origen, who was severely
tortured, and never recovered from the effects.
x.
In the eighth, under Valerian, 253-261, Hippolytus and Cyprian

were the most conspicuous victims.
xi.
The ninth was under Aurelian, 270-275, is really hardly worthy

of note.
xii.
The last, most extensive, and most severe was under Diocletian
and Galerius in 303.
b) Another proof of its growth and moral power is from the

attacks made upon it by eminent writers.
i.
Unless it had attracted public attention, and occasioned alarm

by its rapid spread, such writers would not have though it
worthy of notice
ii.
Lucian, born in Syria 130, died about 200, a writer of brilliant

wit and mocking irony (like Voltaire and Olive W. Holmes),
made sport of miracles as a cunning jugglery, of the hope of
immortality as an illusion, and of the brotherly love of
Christianity and the fortitude in martyrdom as a wild
enthusiasm. RidicuIe was his favorite weapon (Life of
Peregrinus).
Page 38 of 524
iii.
Celsus, about the same period, but and life unknown. Work
known only in reply of Origen. His attack is a ferocious one,
uniting argument and wit and sarcasm; assails the
incarnation, God cares for men no more than for flies, would
not sacrifice his glory for an earthly life. It is a degrading
religion that cares for sinners and outcasts instead
philosophers; and Christians are made up chiefly of workmen
and slaves. The New Testament writers were willful deceivers,
and Jesus himself a magician trained in Egypt. In spirit and
method and style, Celsus resembled Theodore Parker and
many of the modern new atheists. He anticipated most of the
objections of later writers.
iv.
Porphyry, a Neo-Platonist, in the latter part of the third

century, attempted a sharp criticism of the Scriptures, and
aimed to show contradictions between the Old and New
Testaments and between the apostles. He anticipated the
Tubingen School, in making a broad distinction between the
teachings of Jesus and of Paul.
v.
Hierocles, a Roman governor of Bithynia, persecuted

Christians, and wrote a work exalting Apollonius of Tyana,
above Jesus as a worker of miracles.
c) Another proof of Christianitys growth and influence is the

number of heresies that sprang from it, either a mixture of
Christianity and Judaism or Christianity and Gnosticism.
Page 39 of 524

i.
From the Jewish side, there are Ebionitism and Docetae.

Ebionitism was a heresy which denied the deity of Christ, and
held him to have been simply human, like Moses and the
Jewish prophets. He was the Messiah to carry forward the
Jewish religion to completeness. This Jewish idea of God was so
lofty that it could not conceive of a union with man. Note: The
Ebionites anticipated modern Unitarians. By inevitable laws of
thought, this magnifying of the human element in Jesus by the
Ebionites led another party to magnify the divine element; and,
as the union of the two seemed impossible, this party, the
Docetae taught that Christ had no real human body, and its
appearance during life and on the cross was only an illusion.
His sufferings, therefore, were apparent, not real.
ii.
From the Pagan side came the heresy of Gnosiicism, a

combination of Grecian philosophy and Eastern mysticism with
Christian ideas. Gnosticism marks a great intellectual revival,
and indicates the profound impression made on thoughtful
minds by the person of Jesus Christ. It was a bold attempt to
solve the problems of creation, of a finite world, and of evil by
the incarnation. It made little account of the redemptive work
of Christ; but his incarnation, bringing a divine force into
human life, was thought sufficient to overcome evil. There
were many forms of Gnosticism, some approximating to
Christianity, others at an infinite remove from it; but all alike
disparaged faith and exalted knowledge.
d) The Council of Nicaea (325), following soon after the adoption

of Christianity as the State religion by Constantine, gave proof
of the wide extension of the Church and of the great interest
taken in preserving a unity of faith.
i.
It was attended by three hundred and eighteen bishops, many

of them conspicuous for learning and ability, and was opened
and presided over by the emperor, who had called it. The
discussions were long and earnest; and, after an attempt at
compromise by the two Eusebiuses had failed, a decree was
passed, condemning Arianism and declaring that the Son was
begotten, not created, and was of the same essence with the
Father.
Page 40 of 524

ii.
Most of these three hundred and eighteen bishops were

Greeks: among the Latins we find only Hosius of Cordova,
Cecilian of Carthage, Marcus of Calabria, Nicasius of Dijon,
Domnus of Stridon (in Pannonia), the two Eoman priests Victor
and Vincent, representatives of Pope Silvester. With Hosius of
Cordova, the most eminent members of the Council were those
of the apostolic sees, Alexander of Alexandria, Eustathius of
Antioch, and Macarius of Jerusalem: then came the two bishops
of the same name, Eusebius of Nicomedia and of Csesarea;
Potamon of Heraclea in Egypt, who had lost one eye in the last
persecution; Paphnutius of the higher Thebais, and Spiridion of
Cyprus, both celebrated for their miracles. Paphnutius had one
eye bored out and his legs cut off during Maximin's
persecution. Another bishop, Paul of Neocsesarea, had had his
hands burnt by the red-hot irons that Licinius had commanded
to be applied to them. James of Nisibis was honoured as a
worker of miracles: it was said that he had raised the dead.
There was also seen among the foremost, Leontius of Cresarea,
a man endowed with the gift of prophecy, who during the
journey to Nicaea had baptized the father of S. Gregory of
Nazianzus; besides Hypatius of Gangra, and S. Nicolas of Myra
in Asia Minor, so well known for his generosity, that Eusebius
could say with truth: "Some were celebrated for their wisdom,
others for the austerity of their lives and for their patience,
others for their modesty; some were very old, some full of the
freshness of youth." Theodoret adds: "Many shone from
apostolic gifts, and many bore in their bodies the marks of
Christ. Hefel, A History of the Councils of the Church.
iii.
In 324, by a victory over Licinius, the supporter of Paganism,

Constantine became sole emperor, and urged all his subjects to
accept Christianity, though leaving them to their own choice.
iv.
This council was the first Ecumenical Council. It established the

law for such Synods, that decisions in doctrine must be
unanimous, in polity by majorities.
Page 41 of 524
Moral Influence of Early Church
1. Introduction
a) Spread of Christianity due eminently to Moral Influence of
Christianity
i.
10
We are brought here to the kernel of the matter. Christianity won

the day because, as already hinted, it met the deepest necessity of
the age into which it had come. It met the monotheistic tendency
of the age ; it met the universalistic tendency of the age; it met the
deeper and stronger ethical tendency represented by Stoicism.
Above all, it met the deep craving of the age for spiritual peace
and rest, its need of certainty, its longing for redemption, and for
direct communion with God. To these wants it brought a
satisfaction which no religion of the time could pretend to offer. It
did not meet them by teaching merely as if Christ were only a
new Socratesbut it met them by the positive exhibition of the
redeeming love of God in Christ, by the setting forth of the
personal Jesus in His life, death and resurrection, by the
proclamation of forgiveness of sins through Him, by the bestowal
of the power of the Holy Spirit. It was not a doctrinal religion
merely, but a religion of dynamic of power. It did not only tell
men what to do, but gave them power to do it. Its ideals were the
highest, and in many ways newa *' trans valuation of all values,"
to borrow a phrase of Nietzsche's 1 but it brought them within
men's reach as realizable. Hence it prevailed. In a striking passage
in his Representative Government, John Stuart Mill says: On the
day when the proto-martyr was stoned to death at Jerusalem,
while he who was to be the Apostle of the Gentiles stood by
consenting unto his death, would any one have supposed that the
party of the stoned man were there and then the strongest power
in society? And has not the event proved that they were so?
Because theirs was the most powerful of existing beliefs. That is
in brief the explanation of the success of Christianity. It was the
strongest thing in the world at that time, and it was sure to
conquer. The sword could not stop it. James Orr, The Factors in
the Expansion of the Christian Church, in Christ and Civilization: A
Survey of the Influence of the Christian Religion upon Civilization.
Page 42 of 524

ii.
11
Shall we then, mounting higher, seek the ultimate secret of the

power of the Gospel in its doctrine of redemptionin the
Cross? Here we might seem to have with us the Master Himself,
when He declares: I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw
all men unto Myself; and His great Apostle, when he extols the
Gospel of the Cross as the power of God. But attention to these
very words shows us that something lies yet behind. The
emphasis in Christ's saying is on the personal pronounI, if I
be lifted up. In Paul's statement, while Christ Crucified is
declared to be unto Jews a stumbling-block, and unto Gentiles
foolishness, it is, after all, not specifically of Christ Crucified
but of Christ Himself, that the assertion is made: Unto them
that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God,
and the wisdom of God. Here we come to the ultimate fact
Christ's own Personality; a Personality to be interpreted,
indeed, through all that He was and did; yet that which stands
behind, and gives significance and potency to everything else
in His religionstands behind Cross, Gospel, Church,
Scriptures, doctrines, changed characters, social
transformations, and makes them what they arefrom which,
supremely, stream out the forces that have made the world
new! The Apostle John gave the secret when he wrote: This is
the victory that hath overcome the world, even our faith. Who
is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that
Jesus is the Son of God. That here we reach the real spring of
the marvellous energy displayed by the Gospel in its early
course can readily be verified. One might proceed deductively
in showing how this faith in Jesus as the Son of God is
necessarily a principle of moral victory in the hearts that
possess it, and in society. We prefer, in closing, to ask
historically how this faith in Jesus did work in the ancient
world in gaining its moral victories, James Orr, Ibid.
Page 43 of 524
iii.
In an age like our own, when Christianity as a power of social

regeneration is again upon its trial, it is fitting that these
inestimable services of Christ's religion to the ancient world
should be gratefully recalled. The chief may be briefly summed
up thus: 1. A new spirit of active charity; 2. A new ideal of
moral purity; 3. Purification of the family; 4 The elevation of
woman; 5. The amelioration of the condition of the slave; 6.
The consecration of labour, James Orr, Ibid.
b) Causes of Moral Corruption of the Roman Society
12
i.
Pagan religions had little influence for morals
ii.
Influence of Greek Scepticism
iii.
Luxury: The influx of wealth from conquered nations diffused

the most extravagant luxury, which collected for a single meal
peacocks from Samos, pike from Pessinus, oysters from
Tarentum, dates from Egypt, nuts from Spain, in short the
rarest dishes from all parts of the world, and resorted to
emetics to stimulate appetite and to lighten the stomach. They
eat, says Seneca, and then they vomit; they vomit, and then
they eat. Apicius, who lived under Tiberius, dissolved pearls in
the wine he drank, squandered an enormous fortune on the
pleasures of the table, and then committed suicide. He found
imperial imitators in Vitellius and Heliogabalus (or Elaogabal).
A special class of servants, the cosmetes, had charge of the
dress, the smoothing of the wrinkles, the setting of the false
teeth, the painting of the eye-brows, of wealthy patricians.
Hand in hand with this luxury came the vices of natural and
even unnatural sensuality, which decency forbids to name.
Hopeless poverty stood in crying contrast with immense
wealth; exhausted provinces, with revelling cities. Enormous
taxes burdened the people, and misery was terribly increased
by war, pestilence, and famine. The higher or ruling families
were enervated, and were not strengthened or replenished by
the lower. The free citizens lost physical and moral vigor, and
sank to an inert mass, Schaff, History of the Christian Church.
Page 44 of 524
iv.
Imperial Apotheosis If emperors were gods, then it is OK to

live like them The pages of Suetonius remain as an eternal
witness of the abysses of depravity, the hideous, intolerable
cruelty, the hitherto unimagined extravagances of nameless
lust that were then manifested on the Palatine, and while they
cast a fearful light upon the moral chaos into which pagan
society had sunk, they furnish ample evidence of the
demoralising influences of the empire. The throne was, it is
true, occupied by some of the best as well as by some of the
worst men who have ever lived; but the evil, though checked
and mitigated, was never abolished. Lecky, History of
European Morals; The annals of the emperors, says Gibbon,
exhibit a strong and various picture of human nature, which
we should vainly seek among the mixed and doubtful
characters of modern history. In the conduct of those
monarchs we may trace the utmost lines of vice and virtue; the
most exalted perfection and the meanest degeneracy of our
own species. Never, probably, says Canon Farrar, was there
any age or any place where the worst forms of wickedness
were practised with a more unblushing effrontery than in the
city of Rome under the government of the Caesars.
v.
Slavery: idleness and increased demoralizing: Idleness,

amusements, and a bare subsistence were alone desired, and
the general practice of abortion among the rich, and of
infanticide and exposition in all classes, still further checked
the population, Lecky, Ibid; A proper middle class of
industrious citizens, the only firm basis of a healthy
community, cannot coxist with slavery, which degrades free
labor. The army, composed largely of the rudest citizens and of
barbarians, was the strength of the nation, and gradually
stamped the government with the character of military
despotism. The virtues of patriotism, and of good faith in public
intercourse, were extinct. The basest avarice, suspicion and
envy, usuriousness and bribery, insolence and servility,
everywhere prevailed, Schaff, History of Christian Church.
vi.
Gladiatorial games and other amusements
c) Antidote to the Moral Corruption of Roman Society
13
Page 45 of 524

i.
A new spirit of active charity:
[The custom, in these primitive times, seems to have been for everyone,
on the Lord's day, at the close of public worship, to bring to the notice of
the assembly the case of the poor, the aged, the widow, or the orphan, of
whose necessities he had any knowledge; and forthwith provision was
made for such from the public fund created by their weekly
contributions. This custom is distinctly specified by Justin Martyr in the
middle of the second century, and by Tertullian at the close of it, as is
indicated in the following paragraphs:
Of those who have abundance and are willing, each at his pleasure gives
what he thinks fit. What is collected is deposited with the president, who
succours the fatherless and the widows, and those who are in bonds, and
the strangers who are sojourning among us. In a word, he provides for
all who are in need."
"What is collected in the public chest is no dishonorable sum, as if it
belonged to a purchased religion. Everyone makes a small contribution
on a certain day, or when he chooses; provided only he is willing and
able; for no one is compelled; all is voluntary. The amount is, as it were,
a common fund of piety, since it is expended, not in feasting or drinking
or indecent excess, but in feeding and burying the poor, and in
supporting children of either sex who have neither parents nor means of
subsistence, and old men now confined to their houses and incapable of
work; in relieving those who have been shipwrecked ; and, if there are
any in the mines, or in the islands, or in prison, provided they suffer for
the cause of God's religion, they are the recipients of the bounty to which
their confession entitles them. But even the working of a charity like this
is made, by some, a cause of censure against us."
Numerous instances remain on record of the boundless charity of the
early Christians, of which, in this boasted age of Christian benevolence,
we have no parallel. Cyprian, A. D. 250, against the remonstrance of
Christian friends, sold the estate which he inherited, to supply the
necessities of the poor. At another time, by his own indefatigable efforts,
he raised, from his persecuted, afflicted flock, the extraordinary sum of
four thousand dollars to redeem some Christian captives of Numidia,
and forwarded it with a letter to the churches of Numidia, full of
Christian sympathy and tenderness.'
14
Page 46 of 524
The church at Rome, in the age of Cornelius, a. b. 250, supported more

than fifteen hundred widows, besides the afflicted and needy. In the
preceding century it was, as it had been from the beginning, their
practice to do good to all the brethren, in every way, and to send
contributions to needy churches in every city, thus refreshing the needy
in their wants, and sending needful supplies to the brethren condemned
to the mines. The church at Antioch, though its revenues were small, in
the fifth century, daily maintained more than three thousand widows
and maids, besides providing for its clergy, for strangers, for lepers, and
for such as were in bonds.
A better idea cannot, perhaps, be given of the sentiments of early
Christians on this subject than is furnished by an incident which
occurred in Rome. The liberality shown to the poor had led a Boman
officer, in the days of persecution under Decius, A. D. 251, to believe that
Christians had great treasures at their command. Laurentius, one of the
deacons or guardians of the poor, was commanded by the Roman
prefect to deliver up the treasures of the church. He demanded three
days to comply with the requisition. In that time he collected from the
whole city all the poor taken care of by Christian benevolence; and,
having assembled, in the courts and porches of one of their churches,
the immense multitude of the aged, infirm, lame, blind, diseased,
destitute poor, who received constant aid from the hands of Christians,
he called upon the prefect and said, " Come, see the treasure of our God;
you shall see a great court full of vessels of gold, and talents are heaped
up in the porches." The prefect followed, and was shown the assembled
poor. "Behold the treasures I promised you. I add to these the widows
and orphans; these are our pearls and precious stonesthe crown of the
church. Take this wealth for Rome, for the emperor, and for yourself."
But the benevolence of these Christians ended not with almsgiving. It
was manifested no less in their personal attentions to the poor, the
distressed, the sick, the dying, and the dead. In these deeds of charity
and walks of usefulness they passed much of their time, and often
periled their lives in their attentions to the sick who were infected with
some noisome pestilence, and to the dead who had died of contagious
diseases. Many examples to this effect might be given, of which the
following must given, presenting the benevolence of the Christians in
contrast with the barbarous neglect of the pagans of Alexandria, during
the prevalence of the plague in that city:"That pestilence appeared to
the heathen as the most dreadful of all things,as that which left them
15
Page 47 of 524
no hope. Not so, however, did it seem to us, but only a peculiar and
practical trial. The greater part of our people, in the abundance of their
brotherly love, did not spare themselves; and, mutually attending to
each other, they cheerfully attended to the sick without fear, and
ministered to them for the sake of Christ. Many of them died, after their
care had restored others from the plague to health. The best among our
brethren, priests and deacons, and some who were celebrated among
the laity, died in this manner; and such a death, the fruit ^of great piety
and strong faith, is hardly inferior to martyrdom. Many who took the
bodies of their Christian brethren into their hands and bosoms, closed
their mouth and eyes, and buried them with every attention, soon
followed them in death. But with the heathen, matters stood quite
differently : at the first symptom of sickness, they drove a man from
their society, they tore themselves away from their dearest connections,
they threw the half dead into the streets, and left thousands unburied,
endeavouring by all the means in their power to escape contagion,
which, notwithstanding all their contrivances, it was very difficult to
accomplish." Layman Coleman, Ancient Christianity Exemplified.
16
Page 48 of 524

ii.
A new ideal of moral purity:

Christianity is anything but sanctimonious gloominess
and misanthropic austerity. It is the fountain of true joy,
and of that peace which passeth all understanding.
But this joy wells up from the consciousness of pardon
and of fellowship with God, is inseparable from holy
earnestness, and has no concord with worldly frivolity
and sensual amusement, which carry the sting of a bad
conscience, and beget only disgust and bitter remorse.
What is more blessed, asks Tertullian, than
reconciliation with God our Father and Lord; than the
revelation of the truth, the knowledge of error; than the
forgiveness of so great past misdeeds? Is there a
greater joy than the disgust with earthly pleasure, than
contempt for the whole world, than true freedom, than
an unstained conscience, than contentment in life and
fearlessness in death?
iii.
Purification of the family:

Home: -- The primitive Christians observed with great
care the rule of the apostle forbidding unequal
marriages with unbelievers. Tertullian declares such
marriages to be an offence inconsistent with the
Christian profession, the punishment of which should
be excommunication. Cyprian, Augustine, Ambrose,
and Jerome are almost equally severe against such
marriages. They were also frequently the subject of
censure by councils, under different penalties of
suspension or excommunication.
17
Page 49 of 524

But the marriage relation between believers was
honoured as the means of mutual edification and
happiness. "How intimate," exclaims Tertullian, "the
union between believers! their hopes, their aspirations,
their desires, all the same. They are one in faith and in
the service of their Lord, as they are also in flesh and in
heart. In mutual concord they read the Scriptures, and
fast and pray together, aiding, sustaining each other by
mutual instruction and encouragement. They go in
company to the house of the Lord, they sit together at
his table. In persecution and in want they bear their
mutual burdens, and participate in each other's joys.
They live together in mutual confidence and in the
enjoyment of each other's society. In the freedom of
mutual confidence, they administer to the sick, relieve
the needy, distribute their alms, and each freely
engages in all his religious duties without concealment
from the other. Unitedly they offer their prayers to God
and sing his praise, knowing no rivalry but in these acts
of devotion. In such scenes of domestic bliss Christ
rejoices and adds his peace. To two so united he
grants his presence; and where he is no evil can
abide."
18
Page 50 of 524

Such scenes of domestic enjoyment were the result
only of Christian union and fellowship, unknown to
pagan families; neither could such purity, peace, and
joy be expected to result from the union of believers
with unbelievers. "Who that is yet a pagan would
accompany his wife from street to street in search of
the brethren in the house of strangers and in the
humblest abodes of the poor ? Who, without jealousy,
could allow her to frequent the Lord's supper, a mystery
to him unknown, and an object of suspicion ? Who
would allow her to enter secretly into the prison to kiss
the martyr's chains? Or where would a brother from a
foreign city, or a stranger find entertainment? If
anything is to be given in charity, the granary, store,
and cellar of the house are closed." "What," he
exclaims in the same connection, "what shall her
husband sing to her or she to her husband? Would she
wish to hear anything from the theatre or the tavern ?
What mention is there of God, what invocation of
Christ? Where is the nourishment for faith by repeating
portions of Scripture in conversation? Where the
refreshment of the spirit; where the Divine blessing? -Lyman Coleman
19
Page 51 of 524

Education:-- The Christian fathers abundantly insist on
the duty of giving daily instructions in the family. Speak
of divine things not only in the social circle, but in the
familythe husband with the wife the father with his
child; and very frequently renew the subject. Let no
man affirm that the child needs not to be addressed on
these topics; for they must be discoursed of, not only
sometimes, but at all times. You must immediately
begin to bring up your children in the nurture of the
Divine word. Leave to your children God for their
inheritance, and you leave them an inestimable
treasure. Be it our effort and our desire, then, not to
leave to them an inheritance, but to leave them in the
possession of personal piety. Preach the name and
doctrine of Christ on all occasions. Let every master of
a family know that this solemn duty rests upon him in
regard to all his house."
The writings of the early Christians are filled with
expressions of the deepest solicitude for the piety of
their children. The mother of Augustine bewailed the
early impiety of her son "with tears and sighs more
bitter and abundant than those of a mother for the
death of her child; for she looked upon him as already
dead in spirit. But the Lord finally heard her prayer, and
refused not her tears, for she gave herself wholly unto
prayer. When bewailing his hardened impiety to a
Christian friend, he said to her, Go in peace; it is
impossible that a child of so many tears should be lost.
20
Page 52 of 524

Children, says Jerome, are a trust committed to us of
the Lord, and, therefore, to be trained up with the
greatest care. The nearer they are allied to us in the
flesh, the more impressive is our responsibility.
Polycarp, the venerable disciple of John, earnestly
exhorts parents to bring up their children in the
knowledge and fear of God. These brief examples may
indicate the pious care of these Christians for the
religious education and the conversion of their children.
Their great desire and constant endeavour was to train
up If their children in the fear of God, to conduct their
education at home, to withdraw them as much as
possible from temptation, and to make them so happy
in their own quiet homes that they should neither desire
the noisy amusements of the world nor subject
themselves to its temptations. The children found their
happiness in their parents, and the parents in their
children. Such families were the nurseries of pure,
consistent, efficient churches; such Christians were the
lights of the world, which could not be hid; the salt of
the earth, which never lost its savour. Lyman Coleman.
Family Worship:-- These early Christians were
examples of devout piety in their families. There, at the
domestic altar, they fed the sacred flame of devotion,
which burned in their bosom with a triumphant,
deathless flame. There they formed and maintained the
spirit of a pure, deep, and earnest piety. Every master
of a family fulfilled, within the walls of his own house,
the office of private pastor, keeping up in it a regular
course of reading, prayer, and private instruction to all
the members of his household. Thus, every private
house was, in the words of Chrysostom, a church to
itself.
21
Page 53 of 524

The influence of pious mothers was also particularly
remarkable over their children. Gregory of Nazianzen
ascribed his conversion to the piety of his mother,
Nonna. His brother Csesarius, by the same means,
was enabled to maintain an exemplary life of piety in
the court of the emperor. Their sister Gorgonia also
religiously walked in the steps of her mother, and was
instrumental in the conversion of her husband and
training her children and her nephews in the ways of
piety. Theodoret ascribed his conversion, under God, to
his pious mother; and Basil the Great, to his
grandmother: Emmilia to his sister Macrina. Augustin
and Chrysostom, also the greatest lights of the ancient
church, were indebted to their pious mothers for those
instructions that brought them to the knowledge of the
truth as it is in Jesus.
The several members of a Christian family were
accustomed to rise very early in the morning and
address their thoughts to God by silent ejaculations, by
calling to mind familiar passages of Scripture, and by
secret prayer. Clement of Alexandria, A. D. 188, was
accustomed, whenever he awoke, to call to mind the
words of Christ; and often anticipated the dawning of
the day in these devout exercises. One must arise,
says Basil the Great, before the twilight of the morning,
to greet with prayer the coming day. Let the sun at his
rising find us with the word of God in hand. Let the
day begin with prayer. Soon as the day returns, and
before leaving his chamber, the Christian should
address his prayer to his Saviour; and, before resuming
his daily labour, begin the work of righteousness. Let
the child be accustomed, early in the morning, to offer
prayer and praise to God: and at evening again, when
the day is past and gone, let him end his labour by
bringing his evening offering to the Lord.
22
Page 54 of 524

After their private devotions, the family met for united
prayer, which was uniformly accompanied with the
reading of the Scriptures. The recital of such doctrinal
and practical sentiments as might best fortify them
against the prevailing scandals and heresies of the
times, constituted also, as it would seem, part of their
devotional exercises. In the family, as in all their
devotions, the primitive Christians delighted to sing
their sacred songs.
At the table they reverently sought the blessing of God.
Several of these examples of prayer before meals are
given at length in the fathers. Here also they rehearsed
some portions of Scripture and sang praise to God; a
custom which Clement of Alexandria and Chrysostom
earnestly recommend. The meal being ended, they
concluded with prayer, giving thanks for the blessings
received, and supplicating a continuance of the Divine
mercy. "As the body requires daily sustenance," says
Chrysostom, "so the soul needs to be refreshed with
spiritual food, that it may be strengthened for its warfare
against the flesh." Lyman Coleman.
The day was closed by devotions, renewed in much the
same manner as in the morning. Such was the pious
care with which these Christians ordered their
households in the fear of the Lord. Chrysostom made it
the first duty of the master of the house to seek so to
speak and so to act that the spiritual good of the whole
household might be promoted; and of the mistress of
the family, while she oversees her domestic affairs,
especially to see that all act in the fear of God and with
reference to the kingdom of heaven.
23
Page 55 of 524

There is extant a representation of one of these sacred
scenes of domestic worship in the families of the
primitive Christians; a view of which may fitly conclude
our remarks on this subject. It is a large sarcophagus,
which Munter, with the approbation also of Dorner,
refers to the middle of the second century, on which is
exhibited the religious worship of a Christian family. On
one side of this sarcophagus are three women standing
around a younger female who is playing on a lyre: on
the right side stand four men with apparent rolls of
music in hand, from which they are singing. This
interesting monument indicates not only the existence
at that early period of a collection of sacred music, but
the use of that delightful portion of religious worship,
sacred psalmody, in the devotions of the family.
Lyman Coleman.
24
Page 56 of 524
iv.
The elevation of woman:

Woman was emancipated, in the best sense of the
term, from the bondage of social oppression, and made
the life and light of a Christian home. Such pure and
heroic virgins as the martyred Blandina, and Perpetua,
and such devoted mothers as Nonna, Anthusa, and
Monica, we seek in vain among the ancient Greek and
Roman maidens and matrons, and we need not wonder
that the heathen Libanius, judging from such examples
as the mother of his pupil Chrysostom, reluctantly
exclaimed: What women have these Christians! The
schoolmen of the middle ages derived from the
formation of woman an ingenious argument for her
proper position: Eve was not taken from the feet of
Adam to be his slave, nor from his head to be his ruler,
but from his side to be his beloved partner. At the same
time here also we must admit that the ancient church
was yet far behind the ideal set up in the New
Testament, and counterbalanced the elevation of
woman by an extravagant over-estimate of celibacy. It
was the virgin far more than the faithful wife and mother
of children that was praised and glorified by the fathers;
and among the canonized saints of the Catholic
calendar there is little or no room for husbands and
wives, although the patriarchs, Moses, and some of the
greatest prophets (Isaiah, Ezekiel), and apostles (Peter
taking the lead) lived in honorable wedlock, Schaff.
v.
25
The Betterment of the condition of the slave:
Page 57 of 524

From the apostolic age of planting, we pass to the
period of development, from the death of John to the
conversion of Constantine;when Christianity as a
new religion, aiming at universal diffusion, came into
collision with the religious, social, and political
institutions of the pagan world. What was the first
bearing of Christianity toward slavery? And what its
general influence upon the system? Rightly to answer
these questions, we must remember, first, as stated
above, that, in the Roman empire, there was no such
thing as popular suffrage upon public questions and
therefore Christians had no power to act politically
against slavery, nor to influence the law-making power.
Next, we must remember, that at this time, Christianity
itself had no recognized legal or social status; but its
adherents were largely from the poor, and many of
them slaves. And, again, we must remember, that this
was one prolonged period of persecution; marked
especially by the ten great persecutions from Nero,
Domitian, and Trajan, down to Diocletian; a period in
which the church at times was compelled to hide itself
in the catacombs that underlie the city of Rome, in the
tombs along the valley of the Nile, and in the deserts of
Egypt and Arabia.
26
Page 58 of 524

Moreover, it was a period of which we have but meager
literary remains as materials of church history. We are
not therefore to look for the influence of Christianity in
public laws, or in public sentiment, or in great social
revolutions, or in judicial or literary monuments. Pagan
writers of this period,Tacitus and Suetonius, for
examplehad no conception of the genius of
Christianity, and took no pains to distinguish between
Christians and Jews. In fact, regarding Christians only
as a pestilential sect of Jews, these authors transfer to
them the hatred and contempt which so abounded
toward the race of Israel. In the absence of an accurate
census of the Pagan and Christian empires,
respectively it is difficult to trace the ameliorating
influence of the gospel upon slavery in the interval from
Augustus to Constantine. Yet we have striking evidence
that in this era of oppression from without, the spirit of
freedom and of equality was preserved within the
Church, and that instead of courting the patronage of
the world by winking at iniquity in the rich and great, the
Christians of that age so far maintained the
fundamental teachings of the gospel with regard to the
essential equality of men, that when owners of slaves
became Christians, they manumitted their slaves as a
preliminary to uniting with the church.
27
Page 59 of 524

It is not claimed that such manumission, in form, was a
pre-requisite, or a uniform preliminary to Christian
fellowship. The primitive Christians were not perfect,
either in the doctrines, or in the spirit and practice of the
gospel. The epistles of Paul and John rebuke doctrinal
errors, and James reproves the spirit of caste, and a
regard for social distinctions in the Christian assembly.
Besides, as noted above, in the first two centuries of
the Christian era, it was the general policy of the
Roman Emperors to obstruct by legal hindrances the
manumission of slaves by individual masters;just as
in some of the Southern States, emancipation upon the
soil is embarrassed by regulations almost prohibitory. It
is admitted, then, that there are traces of nominal
slaveholding in the churches in post-apostolic times.
Justin Martyr complains that the slaves of Christians
were put to the torture to compel them to calumniate
their masters (Apol. XL, 12); Athenagoras appeals to
the slaves in Christian households to vindicate their
masters from alleged scandals (Apology for
Christianity, 36); and Eusebius mentions that heathen
household servants belonging to the brethren, being
threatened with the torture, at the instigation of the
persecutors, charged upon Christians the most odious
vices and crimes (Eusbeius Hist., v., 1. See, also, the
Letter from the churches of Lyons and Vienna to Asia,
Sec. 4).
28
Page 60 of 524

But while traces of slavery are found as an occasional
residuum of paganism, among the early Christians, it is
certain from the tone of the Fathers, that, within the
pale of the church, the slave passed from the category
of things which the right of property placed at the
disposal of the master." (Wallon Histoire L'Esclavage,
III, 844). Slaves, said Clement of Alexandria, in the
second century, are men like ourselves; God is the
same for all, for slaves and for the free" (Paedag. III.,
12). Cyprian, of Carthage, in the third century,
defending Christians from false accusations, reminds
his pagan adversary of the unnatural crime of
slavery:you compel to be your slave, a man who was
born as you were, who dies as you do, whose body is
made of the same substance with your own, whose
soul had the same origin with yours, who has the same
rights and is - under the same law (Cyp. ad. Demet.
See, also, his Epistle on the duty and privilege of
redeeming captives. Epis. LXVI). That these principles
were carried into practice in' the church, we have the
evidence of credible history. For though the number of
slaves set free by individual masters may be
exaggeratedas when Ovinius, of Gaul, is said to have
emancipated five thousand, and Melanius eight
thousand that very exaggeration in the popular
traditions shows the tendency of Christianity toward
universal emancipation. In this view, making due
allowance for the exaggeration of numbers, such
instances as the following are valuable, not only as
substantial facts, but as the exponents of the spirit
which animated the church at that time concerning the
duties of Christian masters.
29
Page 61 of 524

"A Roman prefect, Hermas, converted in the reign of
Trajan (98-to 117), received baptism at an Easter
festival, with his wife and children, and twelve hundred
and fifty slaves, and on this occasion gave all his slaves
their freedom, and munificent gifts besides. So, in the
martyrology of St. Sebastian, it is related that a wealthy
Roman prefect. Chromatins, under Diocletian (284305), on embracing Christianity, emancipated fourteen
hundred slaves, after having them baptized with
himself, because their sonship with God put an end to
their servitude to man. In the beginning of the fourth
century, St. Cantius, Cantianus, and Cantianilla, of an
old Roman family, set all their slaves, seventy-three in
number, at liberty, after they had received baptism.
After the third century, the manumission became a
solemn act, which took place in the presence of the
clergy and the congregation. The master led the slave
to the altar; there the document of emancipation was
read, the minister pronounced the blessing, and the
congregation received him as a free brother, with equal
rights and privileges. Constantino found this custom
already established, and African councils of the fourth
century requested the Emperor to give it general force."
As an indication of the tone of feeling on slavery,
Lactanlius, in the beginning of the fourth century,
writes, Should any say: Are there not also among you
poor and rich, servants and masters, distinctions
among individuals ? No; we call ourselves brethren for
no other reason than that we hold ourselves all equal.
For since we appraise everything human, not by its
outward appearance, but by its intrinsic value, we have,
notwithstanding the difference of outward relations, no
slaves, but we call and consider them brethren in the
spirit, and fellow-servants in religion." The same writer
says: God would have all men equal. With him there is
neither servant nor master. If he is the same Father to
all; they are all with the same right free. So no one is
poor before God, but he who is destitute of
righteousness; no one rich but he who is full of virtues."
30
Page 62 of 524

These noble Christian sentiments and practices found
expression at last in the form of law, when Constantine
embraced Christianity, and made himself the patron of
the church. In the year 316, this Emperor decreed that
masters wishing to free their slaves might resort to the
churcftes, and perform the act of emancipation in
presence of the congregation, with the attestation of the
bishops, and that proper documents, signed by actors
and witnesses, should be preserved in the church
archives, for the protection of the freedman. What
would those modern evangelical Christians, whose
delicate consciences are shocked if the word slavery
falls from the pulpit, have done in such a church, and
with such a gospel! Liberty was declared imprescriptible
by its own nature, and, in 322, Constantine issued a
charter for the protection of freedmen, surrounding their
rights with all possible means of defense. And thus, as
the Duke de Broglie finely says, "the church was
invested with a sort of official patronage for the
enfranchisement of mankind [of whom the major part
were then in slavery]. The places consecrated to the
Christian faith became the asylums of libertythe
inviolable free soil. The church, at this solemn moment,
accepted from God and from Constantine the task of
emancipating the world without overturning it." This
imperial edict is a high and ineffaceable watermark by
which to measure the elevation of humanity through the
gospel.
31
Page 63 of 524

To appreciate it, we must remind ourselves again, how
the later pagan emperors had imposed new restrictions
upon the ancient right of manumission; how vainly one
looks for anything like common human feeling in the
Roman slave-law of republican times, and that of the
earlier empire; how the humane and candid historian,
Tacitus, commends, as a measure "both of justice and
security," the decree of the Roman Senate, that "if any
one was killed by his slaves, not only all his household
slaves, but all under his roof who were made free by his
will, should be executed for the murder ;" we must
remind ourselves how, when under Nero, the prefect of
the city, Pedanius Secundus, was murdered by a slave,
four hundred slaves were adjudged to death ; and when
the populace threatened to prevent the execution, the
Senate voted that it should go forward Caius Cassius
arguing that the mixed rabble of slaves must be
restrained by the utmost terrors of the law ; and through
lines of soldiers awing the people, these four hundred
bondmen were led to a butchery like that of Dahomey.
Tacitus records this bloody holocaust of slavery,
without one word of horror or of adverse criticism! At
that time, Paul, the prisoner of the same Nero, himself
in bonds at Rome, dictated by the hands of Onesimus,
whom he had enfranchised in the Lord, that immortal
decree of emancipation" Masters, give unto your
servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye
also have a master in heaven:there is neither Greek
nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian,
Scythian, bond nor' free ; but Christ is all, and in all.
Well may the skeptic whom I quoted at the outset,
confess his admiration of this sublime announcement.
"Antiquity recognized and valued the citizen alone;
Christianity inauourated the future of man; Paul
announces a new order of things. For the first time,
man has a value as such, without distinction of race or
of social condition. Jesus Christ is the Saviour of
humanity; all are called; the slave and the master have
one God ; they are brethren."
32
Page 64 of 524

Go forward now, 250 years, from Nero to
Constantinefrom the day when the streets of Rome
were lined with soldiers to enforce the Senators' decree
for the massacre of four hundred slaves in cold blood,
to the day when an imperial edict makes the old
basilica of despotism, converted into churches, the
asylum of the slave. Beautiful was the mission
assigned to Christianity, of presiding at this act of
humanity and equality; it associated with liberty a
religious idea, and announced to Christians that in the
bosom of the church there should no more be masters
or slaves. Every judicial act was forbidden upon the
Sabbath; but Constantine authorized the manumission
of slaves, as a religious solemnity upon the Lord's day,
in the house of God.
33
Page 65 of 524

I am far from claiming, in behalf of Constantine, an
enlightened Christian consistency, and adopting the
eulogy of Eusebius, that in words, and yet more in
actions, he was a herald of the truth to all mankind.
Constantine was a sagacious but not an unselfish ruler.
Living in troublous times, he looked chiefly to the
foundation of his throne. He would not hazard the
convulsion of his empire by a decree of universal
emancipation. But, although Constantine did not
abolish slavery, see what he did to ameliorate the
condition of slaves;raising the servant from a place
among things to the position of a person entitled to the
protection of the law. By an edict of 312, he declared it
homicide for a master maliciously to kill his slave. He
gave freedom to slaves who became witnesses against
fraud, adultery, and other crimes. By three successive
edicts, he enacted that all slaves whose manumission
was certified by the priests, should enjoy the freedom of
Roman citizens.* In all this he may have been
influenced by mixed political motives. It may be, as
sometimes alleged, that he sought to increase the
proportion of Christians in the empire, by holding forth
emancipation as a reward to slaves for the profession
OJT Christianity ; but this surely was a homage to the
spirit of the gospel, as approving human freedom. It
was the leaven of Christian doctrine slowly pervading
the legislation of an empire that was originally based
upon the distinction of master and slave as inhering in
nature itself. Joseph P. Thompson, Christianity and
Emancipation.
34
Page 66 of 524
vi.

The consecration of labor:
As to the various callings of life, Christianity gives the
instruction: Let each man abide in that calling wherein
he was called (1Cor. 7:20). It forbids no respectable
pursuit, and only requires that it be followed in a new
spirit to the glory of God and the benefit of men. This is
one proof of its universal application its power to
enter into all the relations of human life and into all
branches of society, under all forms of government.
This is beautifully presented by the unknown author of
the Epistle to Diognetus. Tertullian protests to the
heathens: We are no Brahmins nor Indian
gymnosophists, no hermits, no exiles from life. We are
mindful of the thanks we owe to God, our Lord and
Creator; we despise not the enjoyment of his works; we
only temper it, that we may avoid excess and abuse.
We dwell, therefore, with you in this world, not without
markets and fairs, not without baths, inns, shops, and
every kind of intercourse. We carry on commerce and
war, agriculture and trade with you. We take part in
your pursuits, and give our labor for your use.
But there were at that time some callings which either
ministered solely to sinful gratification, like that of the
stage-player, or were intimately connected with the
prevailing idolatry, like the manufacture, decoration,
and sale of mythological images and symbols, the
divination of astrologers, and all species of magic.
These callings were strictly forbidden in the church, and
must be renounced by the candidate for baptism. Other
occupations, which were necessary indeed, but
commonly perverted by the heathens to fraudulent
purposes inn-keeping, for example were elevated
by the Christian spirit. Theodotus at Ancyra made his
house a refuge for the Christians and a place of prayer
in the Diocletian persecution, in which he himself
suffered martyrdom.
35
Page 67 of 524

In regard to military and civil offices under the heathen
government, opinion was divided. Some, on the
authority of such passages as Matt. 5:39 and Matt.
26:52, condemned all war as unchristian and immoral;
anticipating the views of the Mennonites and Friends.
Others appealed to the good centurion of Capernaum
and Cornelius of Caesarea, and held the military life
consistent with a Christian profession. The tradition of
the legio fulminatrix indicates that there were
Christian soldiers in the Roman armies under Marcus
Aurelius, and at the time of Diocletian the number of
Christians at the court and in civil office was very
considerable.
36
Page 68 of 524

But in general the Christians of those days, with their
lively sense of foreignness to this world, and their
longing for the heavenly home, or the millennial reign of
Christ, were averse to high office in a heathen state.
Tertullian expressly says, that nothing was more alien
to them than politics. Their conscience required them to
abstain scrupulously from all idolatrous usages,
sacrifices, libations, and flatteries connected with public
offices; and this requisition must have come into
frequent collision with their duties to the state, so long
as the state remained heathen. They honored the
emperor as appointed to earthly government by God,
and as standing nearest of all men to him in power; and
they paid their taxes, as Justin Martyr expressly states,
with exemplary faithfulness. But their obedience ceased
whenever the emperor, as he frequently did, demanded
of them idolatrous acts. Tertullian thought that the
empire would last till the end of the world, then
supposed to be near at hand and would be
irreconcilable with the Christian profession. Against the
idolatrous worship of the emperor he protests with
Christian boldness: Augustus, the founder of the
empire, would never be called Lord; for this is a
surname of God. Yet I will freely call the emperor so,
only not in the place of God. Otherwise I am free from
him; for I have only one Lord, the almighty and eternal
God, who also is the emperors Lord ... Far be it from
me to call the emperor God, which is not only the most
shameful, but the most pernicious flattery. Schaff.
vii.
37
Entertainment and Amusements:
Page 69 of 524

To this gigantic evil the Christian church opposed an
inexorable Puritanic rigor in the interest of virtue and
humanity. No compromise was possible with such
shocking public immorality. Nothing would do but to flee
from it and to warn against it. The theatrical spectacles
were included in the pomp of the devil, which
Christians renounced at their baptism. They were
forbidden, on pain of excommunication, to attend them.
It sometimes happened that converts, who were
overpowered by their old habits and visited the theatre,
either relapsed into heathenism, or fell for a long time
into a state of deep dejection. Tatianus calls the
spectacles terrible feasts, in which the soul feeds on
human flesh and blood. Tertullian attacked them
without mercy, even before he joined the rigorous
Montanists. He reminds the catechumens, who were
about to consecrate themselves to the service of God,
that the condition of faith and the laws of Christian
discipline forbid, among other sins of the world, the
pleasures of the public shows. They excite, he says, all
sorts of wild and impure passions, anger, fury, and lust;
while the spirit of Christianity is a spirit of meekness,
peace, and purity. What a man should not say he
should not hear. All licentious speech, nay, every idle
word is condemned by God. The things which defile a
man in going out of his mouth, defile him also when
they go in at his eyes and ears. The true wrestlings of
the Christian are to overcome unchastity by chastity,
perfidy by faithfulness, cruelty by compassion and
charity. Tertullian refutes the arguments with which
loose Christians would plead for those fascinating
amusements; their appeals to the silence of the
Scriptures, or even to the dancing of David before the
ark, and to Pauls comparison of the Christian life with
the Grecian games. He winds up with a picture of the
fast approaching day of judgment, to which we should
look forward. He inclined strongly to the extreme view,
that all art is a species of fiction and falsehood, and
inconsistent with Christian truthfulness. In two other
38
Page 70 of 524

treatises he warned the Christian women against all
display of dress, in which the heathen women shone in
temples, theatres, and public places. Visit not such
places, says he to them, and appear in public only for
earnest reasons. The handmaids of God must
distinguish themselves even outwardly from the
handmaids of Satan, and set the latter a good example
of simplicity, decorum, and chastity. The opposition of
the Church had, of course, at first only a moral effect,
but in the fourth century it began to affect legislation,
and succeeded at last in banishing at least the bloody
gladiatorial games from the civilized world (with the
single exception of Spain and the South American
countries, which still disgrace themselves by bullfights). Constantine, even as late as 313, committed a
great multitude of defeated barbarians to the wild
beasts for the amusement of the people, and was
highly applauded for this generous act by a heathen
orator; but after the Council of Nicaea, in 325, he
issued the first prohibition of those bloody spectacles in
times of peace, and kept them out of Constantinople.
There is scarcely, says a liberal historian of moral
progress, any other single reform so important in the
moral history of mankind as the suppression of the
gladiatorial shows, and this feat must be almost
exclusively ascribed to the Christian church. When we
remember how extremely few of the best and greatest
men of the Roman world had absolutely condemned
the games of the amphitheatre, it is impossible to
regard, without the deepest admiration, the unwavering
and uncompromising consistency of the patristic
denunciations, Schaff.
39
Page 71 of 524
40
Page 72 of 524
Orthodoxy and Heresy
1. What is the difference between heresy and error?

2. Notable heresies and heretics
a) Ebionites: Pharasaic Judaizers
i.
The word Ebionite comes from the Hebrew ebionim, which

means the poor ones, which probable means that Ebionites
took a vow of poverty.
ii.
Refused to recognize Pauls apostleship, he was an apostate
iii.
All Christians should be circumcised
iv.
Denied deity of Christ and virgin birth
v.
Jesus was chosen by God as messiah because of his piety
vi.
Reluctant to think of him as subject to sufferings and death
b) Gnosticism
i.
41
The Gnostic were rooted the ethical issue of the problem of

evil: The interest, the meaning, of Gnosticism rest entirely
upon its ethical motive. It was an attempt, a serious attempt, to
fathom the dread mystery of sorrow and pain, to answer that
spectral doubt, which is mostly crushed down by forceCan
the world as we know it have been made by God? Cease, says
Basilides, from idle and curious variety, and let us rather
discuss the opinions, which even barbarians have held, on the
subject of good and evil. I will say anything, rather than admit
that Providence is wicked. Valentinus describes in the strain of
an ancient prophet the woes that afflict mankind. I durst not
affirm,' he concludes, ' that God is the author of all this. So
Tertullian says of Marcion, like many men of our time, and
especially the heretics, he is bewildered by the question of
evil.
Page 73 of 524
42

ii.
They approach the problem from a non-Christian point of

view, and arrive therefore at a non-Christian solution. Yet the
effort is one that must command our respect, and the solution
is one that a great writer of our own time thought not
untenable 3 . Many of them, especially the later sectaries,
accepted the whole Christian Creed, but always with reserve.
The teaching of the Church thus became in their eyes a popular
exoteric confession, beneath their own Gnosis, or Knowledge,
which was a Mystery, jealously guarded from all but the chosen
few. They have been called the first Christian theologians. We
may call them rather the first Freemasons. (Bigg, The Christian
Platonists of Alexanderia).
i.
The Greek gnosis is a special knowledge which transcended the

simple faith of the Church.
ii.
Belief that the creation of the world was the result of a precosmic disaster which accounted for the present misery of our
lot.
iii.
The elect few have a divine spark that has become

imprisoned in matter and has lost its memory of its true,
heavenly home.
iv.
The Gnostic gospel was an attempt to arouse the soul from its
sleep-walking condition and to make it aware of the high
destiny to which it is called.
v.
The world was in the iron control of evil powers whose home
was in the seven planets, and after death the elect soul would
be faced by a perilous journey throughout the planetary
spheres back to its heavenly home.
vi.
They were dualists believing that the spirit is everything, the

body nothing (if not actually evil).
vii.
Consistent with dualism they rejected as crude the Hebraic

doctrine of the resurrection of the body, preferring the Platonic
doctrine of the immortality of the soul; in any event, to those
who were already perfect, resurrection could add nothing.
Page 74 of 524
viii.
They fell into moral license justifying their eroticism by

appeals to the Symposium of Plato as teaching that love is
mystical communion with God.
ix.
The Fall of Eve was taken to symbolize a pre-cosmic

catastrophe in which a female power, the Mother went
astray.
x.
The principle ingredient which Gnosticism derived from

Christianity was the central idea of redemption. The divine
Christ might have appeared to blinded worldlings as if he were
tangible flesh and blood, but those with higher insight
perceived that he was pure spirit and that the physical
appearance was an optical illusion and mere semblance.
Salvation is knowledge which comes from the Great Spirit. The
one who brings the good news is Jesus Christ, who awakens
spiritual persons to their nature, and sets them on the way to
perfect knowledge.
xi.
They were persuaded to worship intermediate angelic powers,

identified with the heavenly bodies, and believed to possess a
power to determine human fate unbroken by the gospel.
xii.
A further consequence was the depreciation of the Old

Testament. The Gnostics liked to contrast the God of the Old
Testament as the God of justice, whose principle was an eye for
an eye and a tooth for a tooth, with the loving Father
proclaimed by Jesus.
xiii.
They believed in the existence of an ultimate spiritual being.

This being is superior to the physical world and its creator
The craftsman (demiurge, from the Greek, meaning
architect).
c) Montanism
43
Page 75 of 524
44

i.
Montanus from Mysia claimed to receive special prophecies

and revelations from God that told him that he had been
specially chosen as Gods mouthpiece. He had a large following
it seems also a large following of women (Montanists were
charged with loose living, which is in many ways a strange
view seeing that they were reacting to the loose morals of the
church).
ii.
Emphasized charismatic, ecstatic experiences (tongues,

prophecy,etc.).
iii.
An attempt to recover the prophetic note in primitive

Christianity, and to challenge both the intellectualistic
tendencies in Gnosticism and the ecclesiastical trend of the 2nd
century.
iv.
During the first century we can see the local churches creating
their ministry. The same independence marks their action in
the second century. They can be seen changing the ministry
they have inherited. The beginnings of the change date from
the early decades of the second century; by the end of the
century it was almost complete. The change was twofold, and
concerned both the prophetic and the local ministry. Stated in
the briefest manner it may be described thus: the " prophetic "
ministry passed away, its functions being appropriated by the
permanent office-bearers of the local churches; and every local
church came to supplement its organization by placing one
man at the head of the community, making him the president
of the college of elders. The one part of the change which came
about in the second century, that which gave the senate of the
congregation its president, was simple, natural and salutary; it
came about gradually and at different times in the various
portions of the Empire; it was effected peacefully, and we hear
of no disturbances in consequence.' The other change, which
meant the overthrow of the " prophetic " ministry of the
apostolic and immediately subsequent period, was a
revolution, provoked a widespread revolt and rent the >
Church in twain.
Page 76 of 524
45

v.
To understand the change in the ministry of the local churches

it is to be kept in mind that at the close of the first century
every local church had at its head a college or senate or session
of rulers, who were called by the technical name of elders, and
were also known by names which indicated the kind of work
they had to dopastors, overseers. This was the ministry of
oversight. To each congregation there was also attached a body
of men who rendered subordinate service, and who were
called deaconsbut whether they formed part of the college of
elders, or were formed into a separate college of their own, it is
not easy to say. The change made consisted in placing at the
head of this college of rulers one man, who was commonly
called either the pastor or the bishop, the latter name being the
more usual, and apparently the technical designation. The
ministry of each congregation or local church, instead of being,
as it had been, two-foldof elders and deacons became
three-foldof pastor or bishop, elders and deacons. This was
the introduction of what is called the three-fold ministry. It is
commonly called the beginning of episcopacy; but that idea is
based on the erroneous conception that a three-fold ' ministry
and episcopacy are identical. (Lindsay, The Church and the
Ministry in the Early Centuries).
vi.
The Didache shows us the transition stage, and explains how

this need was supplied in an ordinary way when the
extraordinary means failed. Appoint, therefore, for yourselves
bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men that are meek
and are not covetous, upright and proved; for they also render
you the service of the prophets and teachers. Therefore neglect
them not, for they are your honoured ones, together with the
prophets and teacher. These words in italics show us at once
the point of junction between the prophetic and the local
ministry, and ' indicate how the latter could fulfil the duties of
the former. . . .
Page 77 of 524
46
vii.
They also reveal the possibility of the abolition of the

prophetic ministry as a permanent part of the organization (to
use the word in its widest sense) of the local churches. When
the wave of spiritual enthusiasm and illumination which came
with the earliest proclamation of the Gospel had somewhat
spent itself, there was need to supply through the ordinary
office-bearers of the churches that exhortation and instruction
which in the earliest times had been left to the inspiration of
those gifted with the power of speaking the Word of God.
Hence the Didache counsels the community to select men for
its office-bearers in the knowledge that they may be called
upon to supply this need. But when once the local churches
began to have their spiritual needs satisfied within their own
circle and the bands of association grew stronger, it is easy to
imagine that the power of the office-bearers grew strong
enough to withstand the members of the prophetic ministry
the prophets were content to take a secondary place. . . .
viii.
The very fact that the office-bearers could render the service
of the prophets and teachers inevitably tended to place them,
the permanent officials of the local churches, permanently in
the position of the exhorters, instructors, and leaders of the
public worship of the communities. Hence, while we can trace
the presence and the power of the prophetic ministry during a
great part of the second century, we can also see that
complaints against false prophets became more and more
conmion, and that there was a tendency to make, the test of
true prophecy subordination on the part of the prophets to the
control of the permanent office-bearers of the churches.
Lindsay, Ibid.
ix.
Emphasized the nearness of Christs return.
x.
One church historian suggests that Montanism flourished for

two reasons: a.) Christ had not yet returned, people were
disappointed and looking for something from God; b.)
Consciousness of the work of the Holy Spirit was failing.
Page 78 of 524
xi.
The churchs opposition to Montanism rested upon the

conviction that the Christian revelation was complete. Nothing
new in principle could be added to the apostolic deposit of
faith. Though there is much to say about this, seeing that New
Testament prophets added nothing the Apostolic faith, nor did
prophets stop after the apostles died.
xii.
But is it, then, the case that Montanism represented the older
mindan older freedom of prophesying? Not in the least. The
Church never in fact committed herself at all to any position
with reference to the rights and powers which would be
allowed to those whose real inspiration she could recognise.
She did not admit Montanist inspiration and then deny that it
had accompanying rights; she simply denied that it was
inspiration. She was taking up no new line towards prophecy
whatever. Charles Gore, The Ministry of the Christian Church.
d) Marcion
47
i.
Came from Asia Minor to Rome
ii.
Excommunicated in 144 AD
iii.
Wrote Antithesis. He listed contradictions between the Old and

New Testaments to prove that the God of the Jews, the creator
of this miserable world, was quite different from the God and
Father of Jesus. It was inconceivable that the divine redeemer
could ever have been born of a woman, and Marcion rejected
the story of the birth and childhood of Christ as falsification
imposed on the authentic story.
iv.
Did not reject the OT, but accepts it as a divine revelation, and
insists that it be taken literally. But he maintained that the God
revealed therein could not be the God and Father of Jesus
Christ, who is absolutely good.
v.
Kept most of Paul, part of Luke (his list is important for

understanding canon questions of the 2nd century). The twelve
apostles had not possessed the insight to comprehend the true
meaning of Jesus.
Page 79 of 524
vi.
Contrasted the God of the Old Testament as the God of justice,

whose principle was an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,
with the loving Father proclaimed by Jesus.
vii.
Docetic as well, Marcion held that Christ had a body only in

appearance.
3. The role of heresy:

a) Heresy has a very important role to play, providentially, in the
growth of the church. In particular, heresy compels the church
towards self-examination, conscious reflection, clearer
thinking and formulation of its commitments. The following is
an example of the benefits of Gnostic influence for the church:
b) [The Church] learned to mark off clearly the limits of divine
revelation, and to determine the relation of the Old Testament
to the New. Moreover, it became keenly alive to the necessity of
drawing up short staements of the truth, based on current
baptismal formulas, which could serve as standards of
interpretation (Rules of Faith). There was also a very evident
doctrinal gain. Christianity was now first conceived as a
doctrine and as a mystery. The intellectual element in the
Christian religion was emphasized, and this marked the real
starting-point for doctrinal development. The Christian idea of
God was rescued from the mythological speculations of the
Gnostics. The Church came into conscious possession of the
truth that God is the Supreme Being, the Creator and Upholder
of the Universe, the same in the Old and in the New
Testament.
48
Page 80 of 524
c) [D]ualism making matter essentially evil, was overcome.

Over against the Gnostic tendency to regard Jesus Christ
merely as one of the aeons, His unique character as the Son of
God was emphasized, and at the same time His true humanity
was defended against all kinds of docetic denials. The great
facts of His life, His virgin birth, miracles, sufferings, death,
and resurrection, were all maintained and set in clearer light.
Moreover, the doctrine of redemption through the atoning
work of Christ was put forward in opposition to the speculative
vagaries of the Gnostics; and the universal receptivity of men
for the Gospel of Jesus Christ was stressed in answer to Gnostic
exclusiveness and pride. L. Berkhof, History of Christian
Doctrines.
4. The Apologists: defenders of the faith
a) Name:
i.
The name Apologists is given to a group of writersmore

especially of the second centurywho aimed to defend the
Christians from the accusations brought against them.
ii.
They sought to obtain for them tolerance under the civil laws
and to demonstrate to their persecutors that the Christian
religion is the only true one.
b) Charges:
49
i.
Christianity had scarcely begun to spread in the Roman world,

when it found itself beset with vexations and persecutions of
all kinds.
ii.
The principal accusation made against Christians was that of

atheism.
iii.
Contrary to the civil law, the Christians refused to adore the

gods of the empire and practiced a religion not approved by
the Roman Senate. In the eyes of the State, therefore, they were
atheists, guilty of practicing a forbidden religion (religio
illicita), and therefore enemies of the State and its fundamental
institutions.
Page 81 of 524
iv.
To this charge were added base calumnies, which were soon

circulated among the people and accepted even by a few
eminent writers.
v.
One report was that, in their meetings, the Christians feasted

upon the flesh of infants, previously slaughtered and then
sprinkled with flour; and were not ashamed of practicing such
immoralities as the intercourse of Oedipus with his own
mother.
vi.
Intellectualists and politicians accused them of indolence, i. e.;

of shunning the world and business and taking no interest in
the prosperity of the State, neglecting the affairs of this life for
those of a future life. They were regarded as bad citizens and
generally as a useless set of scoundrels.
c) Aim:
i.
The main effort of the Apologists was to refute these

accusations and to show that Christianity had the right to exist.
To attain this end, their work could not remain purely negative,
but had to include a positive demonstration of the excellence
and truth of the Christian religion.
ii.
Such a demonstration necessarily involved them in an attack

upon paganism, for a successful vindication of the superiority
of Christianity demanded that a contrast be drawn between it
and the State religion. The work of the Apologists, therefore,
was not purely defensive; it was also controversial and
expository.
d) Object: The apologies were directed partly against the pagans

and partly against the Jews.
iii.
50
The pagans may be divided into three groups.
Page 82 of 524

Those of the first group take the form of requests or
petitions addressed to the Emperor and to the Senate.
The emperors of the Antonine dynasty were looked
upon as just and moderate philosophers from whom
philosophers like Justin and Athenagoras could hope to
obtain a hearing. It is doubtful, however, whether or not
these apologies addressed to the emperors were really
brought to their notice. They were aimed at the public,
though written in the form of open letters to the
emperors.
The apologies of the second class are addressed
directly to the people. Such are, for example, the
numerous Discourses to the Greeks of the second and
third centuries.
Lastly and these form the third class, a few
apologies were addressed, at least primarily, to private
individuals, e. g., the three books of Theophilus of
Antioch to Autolycus and the Epistle to Diognetus.
iv.
Among the apologies against the Jews may be cited Justin's

Dialogue with Trypho.
In these apologies the expository and demonstrative
character predominates. The Jews harbored many
prejudices that had to be removed, and a spirit of
hatred that had to be overcome; indeed, they were not
the last to spread popular calumnies against the
Christians and denounce them to the authorities. But in
the writings addressed to them the Apologists are less
intent on refuting their accusations than on convincing
them of the divine mission of Jesus Christ and the truth
of His religion. Consequently, their purpose was to
demonstrate the Messiahship of Our Lord and for this
demonstration they use mostly the argument from the
prophecies, their thorough knowledge of the Scriptures
proving very useful for this purpose.
e) Character:
51
Page 83 of 524

i.
From a literary point of view, the writings of the Apologists are

generally superior to those of the Apostolic Fathers. Several of
their authors had been trained in the schools and had studied
philosophy: they gloried in the fact that they still remained
philosophers, even though they had embraced Christianity.
This may easily be seen from the vigor of their thought and
reasoning.
ii.
It is betrayed also by certain peculiarities of style, which often

remind us of the sophists (professional grammarians and
rhetoricians). Moreover, a number of these writings, at least,
are fairly extensive and touch on the most important questions
of moral and dogmatic theology. They are the first attempts at
scientific theology made in the Church.
f) Significant works
52
i.
The Letter of Clement c. 96 by Clement, a Bishop in the church

at Rome. Was written to the Corinthian church, to settle a
dispute there.
ii.
The Letters of Ignatius of Antioch (Ignatius was executed in

Rome in AD 110, and he wrote seven letters to various
churches as he traveled to Rome.
iii.
The Didache: This is the oldest surviving handbook of church

discipline in two parts: Part 1 is about Christian doctrine; Part
2 is about church practice.
iv.
The Fragments of Papias c. 110-130. Papias was the bishop of

the church in Heirapolis in Phrygia. His letters were intended
to preserve some of the saying of Jesus which have not been
recorded in the gospels. Not everyone in the church accepted
that these sayings originated with Jesus.
v.
The Letter of Barnabas c. 120, probably written in Alexandria

and is markedly anti-Semitic, portraying the Jews as the
murderers of Jesus.
Page 84 of 524
vi.
The Shepherd of Hermas (somewhere between 110 and 140),

written in Rome. Hermas claimed to have received revelation
from two heavenly figures. It emphasizes the need for moral
purity in the church.
vii.
The Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians c. 110. Polycarp was a

famous 2nd century martyr, and his letter is important as an
indicator of mainstream church life during the period. Quotes
extensively from the NT and warns against heresy.
viii.
The Letter to Diognetus (somewhere in the first half of the 2nd

century) written to demonstrate the superiority of Christianity,
author unknown.
5. Main characters
a) Justin Martyr (100-165 AD)
53
i.
Wrote his Apology in 151 for the emperor Antonius Pius.
ii.
Christ is for Justin the principle of unity and the criterion by

which the truth is judged. c) Justin sees the logos as Light of
Light, begotten, but distinct from the father, therefore not
diminishing or dividing the being of the Father.
iii.
160 AD Dialogue with Trypho the Jewconcerned with the

Christian claim to be the universal religion to which the Old
Testament prophets had looked forward, and dominated by
detailed arguments from particular prophetic texts. He was
convinced of the argument from prophecy.
iv.
This led him to renounce Marcions disparagement of the Old

Testament.
v.
In the Sermon on the Mount, Justin Martyr saw an ethic of

universal validity, continuous with the highest aspirations of
Judaism, but freed of the shackles of ceremonial rules peculiar
to one race among the hundreds of Gods creation.
Page 85 of 524
vi.
Early Christian theology and apologetic relied on

interpretation of Old Testament prophecy as foreshadowing
the gospel. It was also the prime content of the instruction of
catechumens. The defense of the hope within them was found
in the OT prophecy of Christ cf. Psalm 22; Isaiah 53.
vii.
Furthermore if the resurrection had been a fiction the apostles

would not have risked their life for it.
viii.
Interpreted the resurrection in the most literal sense of body

and soul.
ix.
Insisted that Christ was not a mere man but was also God. At
his birth he had been worshipped by the Magi, and there could
be not question of a holy life being rewarded by elevation to
divine rank.
b) Tertullian (155-230 AD)

i.
Converted as an adult, and quickly joined the Montanist

movement.
ii.
Scornfully mocked those who advocate a stoic or Platonic or

an Aristotelian Christianity.
What has Athens in common with Jerusalem?
I believe it [i.e. in Christianity] because it is absurd.
iii.
Was a significant exponent for Trinitarianism (3rd century).
c) Irenaeus of Lyons (b. c. 115 -125 d. c. 130-142 AD)

i.
Wrote Against Heresies a.k.a. On the Detection and Overthrow

of the So-called Knowledge.
Gnosticism is a ragbag of heathen speculations with
bits taken from different philosophers to dress out a
bogus, antirational mythology.
54
Page 86 of 524

He rested his case on the manifest unity of Old and
New Testaments apparent in the fulfillment of ancient
prophecy, and especially stressed the parallelism
between Adam and Christ which he found in Paul. The
divine plan for the new covenant was a recapitulation
of the original creation.
ii.
Was a significant figure in canon formation
d) Theophilus of Antioch (d. c. 183-185 AD) wrote in defense of

Christianity against the pagan philosophers
6. The general character and significance of the apologists
a) Illustrate local church life immediately after the death of the
apostles. These were documents that were occasional, sent for
particular purposes at particular times. Because of this they
testify to how believers were organized, how they worshipped,
and what they were actually believing.
b) Illustrate problems in the church false doctrine and
persecution and other localized problems.
c) Preserve cardinal doctrines. These documets demonstrate that
key elements of NT doctrine and practice were preserved in the
church.
A high Christology; Christs deity was not in doubt in the 2
century.
d)
nd
e) There is an emphasis on justification by grace, of faith, the

importance of the cross, the confession of Christ.
f) Showed the rational character of the Christian faith; its
reasonableness.
g) Proofs for the truth of Christianity
55
iii.
Pagan philosophy anticipates Christianity
iv.
The miracles of Christ and the apostles proved the truth of

Christianity
v.
Fulfilled prophecy also proved the truthfulness of Christianity
Page 87 of 524
56
vi.
Only the Christian philosophy/revelation could satisfy the

deepest needs of men; Christianity was the highest and surest
philosophy.
vii.
The spread of Christianity despite resistance.
viii.
Changed character and lives of Christians
Page 88 of 524
Worship of the Early Church
1. Character of the Worship

a) Simplicity and Liturgy
57
i.
From the N. T. writings and the Apostolic fathers, we see that

the worship of the early church was very simplistic. No set
liturgy as we know of it in the latter part of the ancient church
existed. We are told that they met on Sunday; they sang
psalms, hymns of praise to Christ as God, commemorated the
Lords death in the Supper, covenanted to be holy, read the
Scriptures NT and OT, took up an offering for the poor, and
heard the preaching of the Word of God. The language used
does not denote any idea of perpetual sacrifice. There are no
set prayers, and there seems to be real dynamic to the worship
service.
ii.
While no liturgy existed, there was a deliberate move to

include many things not included in the writings of the NT. For
example, Tertullian specifies many ceremonies connected with
baptism and the Lord's supper, for which he claims no
scriptural authority, but tradition; such as renouncing the devil
and his pomp and his angels, various responses, trine
immersion, the mingling of milk and honey with the wine,
offerings for the dead, commemoration of martyrs, refusing to
fast or bend the knee on the Lord's day and on Whitsunday, the
extreme care of the communicants that no particle of the
sacred elements be lost, and the sign of the cross, used on all
occasions. After this enumeration he adds, If for these and
similar rites you seek for the authority of Scripture, you will
find none; tradition is the sole authority: confirmed by custom,
the observance becomes a rule of faith (De Coron. c.4).
Page 89 of 524
iii.
Basil the Great, in answer to the inquiry, who has left any
written directions respecting the use of the form of invocation
in the blessing of the elements, replies that nothing is recorded
respecting it, and proceeds to say, We do not content
ourselves with the instructions of the apostle or of the gospel,
but we premise and subjoin other things as of great force in
this solemnity, which hare been received from unrecorded
instructions (Epistle 27, De Spirit. Sanct.).
iv.
Bohmer cites this passage as shedding light upon the darkness

that overshadows the origin of liturgies. The apostles of the
Gentiles, he supposes, would naturally organize the churches
which they might form of converts from paganism, after the
general pattern of the church at Jerusalem, and yet the forms
and ceremonies would be more or less modified according to
the circumstances of the people, and peculiar mental habits of
the apostle or evangelist by whom the church was founded. In
this manner a general agreement would prevail in all the
churches in connection with minor diversities. The rites and
ceremonies of the original organization would at first be
perpetuated by tradition, and by degrees be committed to
writing (Coleman, Ancient Christianity).
v.
Yet, in spite of this fact, the four main historical liturgies share
elements:
All of them direct that, previous to communion, those
who intend to communicate shall exchange ^ the kiss of
peace.'
In all of them, the more particularly solemn part of the
service commences with words exactly answering to
the English, Lift up your hearts,'etc., as far as Holy
Father, almighty, everlasting God.
All contain the hymn, Therefore with angels and
archangels,etc. with very trifling varieties of
expression.
Also, they all contain a prayer for the whole state of
Christ's church militant, as the Anglican churchs liturgy.
58
Page 90 of 524

And, likewise, another prayer, (which has been
excluded from the English ritual, due undoubtedly the
Protestant Reformation) for the rest and peace of all
those who have departed this life in Gods faith and
fear, concluding with a prayer for communion with
them.
A commemoration of our Lord's words and actions in
the institution of the Eucharist, which is the same,
almost word for word, in every liturgy, but is not taken
from any of the four Scripture accounts.
A sacrificial oblation of the Eucharistic bread and wine.
A prayer of consecration, that God will make the bread
and wine the body and blood of Christ.
Directions to the priest for breaking the consecrated
bread.
The Lord's Prayer.
Communion.
Roman
Lift up your
hearts, etc.
Oriental
The Kiss of Peace.
Therefore with
angels, etc.
Lift up your hearts, Lift up your hearts, Prayers for the dead.
etc.
etc.
Prayers for the

church on earth
Consecration
Prayer
Therefore with
angels, etc.
Commemoration
of the Lords
words.
The oblation.
Commemoration
of our Lords
words.
59
Alexandrian
The Kiss of Peace.
Gallican
Prayers for the church
on earth.
Prayers for the

church on earth.
Prayers for the
dead.
The Kiss of Peace.
Therefore with
angels, etc.
Therefore with angels,

etc.
Lift up your hearts, etc.
Page 91 of 524
The oblation.
Consecration
prayer.
Prayers for the

dead.
Breaking of bread.
Prayers for the

church on earth.
Prayers for the
dead.
The Lords prayer.
Breaking of bread.
Communion.
The Lords Prayer.

The Kiss of Peace.
Communion.
60
Commemoration
of our Lords
words.
The oblation.
Consecration
prayer.
Breaking of bread.
The Lords Prayer.
Communion.
Commemoration of our
Lords words.
The oblation.
Consecration prayer.
Breaking of bread.
The Lords Prayer.
Communion.
Page 92 of 524
vi.
Thus it appears, that the four original forms, from which all
the liturgies in the world have been taken, resemble one
another too much to have grown up independently, and too
little to have been copied from one another. They were
probably all constructed upon the basis of the form prescribed
in the Apostolical Constitutions; or, at all events, were
composed in conformity with some model of the third orfourth century. The prayers for the dead, which they all
contain, are unscriptural, and, therefore, unwarranted and
vain; some expressions in the consecration of the elements are
obvious departures from primitive doctrine; and the
appropriation of false titles, introduced after the composition
and use of the forms themselves, is as plainly opposed to
Christian simplicity and truth. But, together with these defects,
we recognise in these ancient formularies much that is truly
pious and devotional (Riddle, Christian Antiquities, p. 377).
b) Public and Secret
61
i.
From the later part of the 3rd century, there is a secret

discipline introduced into the church. Certain part of the
worship pertained to the baptized believers and one that
included both. Consequently, there was missa catechumens
(service that included the catechumens) and the missa fidelium
(service that only included the faithful).
ii.
Not only were unbelievers of every kind excluded from them,

but even candidates for admission to the church were kept in
profound ignorance of the peculiar ordinances and doctrines of
the church. These were themes upon which the private
professor and the public teacher were strictly forbidden to
touch. Not a hint was allowed to be given nor a whisper
breathed on these topics. Even the preacher, when led in public
discourse to speak of the sacraments and of the higher
doctrines of the Christian system, contented himself with
remote allusions, and dismissed the subject by saying, The
initiated understand me.
Page 93 of 524
iii.
Nothing like this secret discipline, which reserved certain

topics of religion exclusively for baptized believers, and
excluded all others, was known in the age of the apostles, or
that which immediately followed. But it became customary at
an early period to celebrate the ordinances of religion with an
air of profound mystery. The church became a secret society,
whose rites, in connection with certain doctrines, were
concealed with the strictest caution from the uninitiated
(Coleman).
iv.
Neander supposes that this stared in the theology of Origen

and the mysticism in the Alexandrian church. This would make
sense, seeing that this seems to be introduced at the same time
that we see the Alexandrian school becoming more influential.
Also Clement of Alexandria is the first writer (that we know of)
to speak on this.
v.
Moshiem traces the various forms of this secrecy showing that

it was used against the enemies of faith and for those who were
being rescued from the dominion of superstition and initiating
in the principles of Christianity. Bingham suggest that the
underlying idea is to keep Christianity from needless offense.
But none can deny that it added greatly to the
misunderstanding of the Christian faith, especially the Lords
Supper and the Agape Feast.
vi.
The subjects which were shrouded in such mystery, were

The manner of administering baptism.
The manner of administering unction or confirmation* 8.
Ordination.
The public prayers of the church.
The manner of celebrating the Lord's supper.
The creed.
The Lord's prayer.
The mystery of the Trinity.
62
Page 94 of 524
vii.
An example is found in the decree of the fourth council of

Carthage, A. D. 398, c. 84: until the dismission of the
catechumens, no one, whether Jew or Gentile or heretic, should
be excluded from the church.
viii.
After the 6th century, this disappears from the Oriental

churches, and by A. D. 700, it is not no longer seen in the
Occidental churches.
ix.
The influence of the system under consideration was

decidedly injurious to the church, in corrupting the simplicity
and purity of its worship. Indeed, it had no small influence in
introducing the corruptions and formalities which
subsequently dishonoured the Christian church. It gave a
mysterious importance to the rites of baptism and the Lord's
Supper. The doctrine of the efficacy of baptism to wash away
all sin, of the grace communicated in the sacramental supper,
and of actual presence in the bread and wine, are supposed by
some to have had their origin in these mysteries (Coleman).
2. Prayer of the Worship

a) Extempore and Read
63
i.
The Christian church, unlike the Jewish was far from

restricting prayer to certain stated times, as though there were
any merit in these carnal ordinances. It regarded prayer as a
quickening spirit, drawing forth the inward aspirations of the
soul after God. The entire life of the Christian should be
sanctified by prayer; and life should be but a continued prayer
of thanksgiving for saving grace and supplication for increasing
sanctification.
ii.
Origen, A. D. 285, speaks also of the life of the Christian as one

prolonged prayer, and each act of devotion as only a part of
this prayer. Some, says Clement of Alexandria, half of a century
earlier, contend for prayer at stated times, but the mature
Christian prays always; through all his life striving thus for
closer communion with God. So Cyprian also contends, that the
Christian should, day and night, without ceasing, pray and give
thanks to God.
Page 95 of 524
64
iii.
The primitive Christians contended earnestly against all

prescribed attitudes and forms in prayer, and directed their
attention only to the state of the heart, as the requisite
qualification for offering our prayers acceptably to God. Origen
directs the suppliant, first of all, to collect his thoughts and turn
them inward on himself, to impress on his mind a sense of the
majesty of God and of his own sins, and to lift up unto God his
heart rather than his hands; his mind rather than his eyes. He
then proceeds to say, that of all attitudes, that is to be
preferred in which the eyes are upraised and the hands
outstretched, as an emblem of the proper state of the mind in
prayer; but he adds, that other attitudes may be equally
acceptable and becoming in certain circumstances (Coleman).
iv.
God, says Tertullian, in opposition to those whose voice was

too loud in prayer, God listens not to the sound of the voice, but
to the utterance of the heart, for he looketh upon the heart."
Against those who laid undue stress upon the washing of the
hands before prayer he says, Of what avail is it to come before
the Lord with clean hands and an impure heart. True purity
consists in no outward rites, which many are so careful to
observe, reference being had to superstitions which Jewish
and pagan converts had transferred to the Christian religion.
Our hands, he adds, are sufficiently clean, since the whole
body has once for all been washed in Christ.
v.
According to Justin Martyr, half a century earlier than

Tertullian, and but a little more than this time from the age of
the apostles, the minister, not in private, but in public worship,
prayed according to his ability, that is, extempore, according to
all just interpretation.
vi.
This freedom does not exclude the recitation of the Lords

Prayer, as we see from Justin Martyr (Adv. Haeres. Bk. 5, c.xvii).
We have direct evidence from Tertullian that the Lords Prayer
was in use for public worship by 220. Cyprian and Origen also
concur.
Page 96 of 524
vii.
The primitive church never chanted their prayers, as was the

custom of the Jews, and still is of the Mohammedans, as well as
of the Roman Catholics, and many of the Protestant churches
both in England and on the continent; but reverently
addressed die throne of grace in an easy, natural, and subdued
tone of voice (Coleman).
b) Gestures
i.
65
Standing and Kneeling:
ii.
It was very common both to kneel and to stand in prayer. But

the assertion that kneeling was the uniform posture in prayer,
in all acts of worship except on the Sabbath and festive
occasions, is an unwarranted assumption. In fact, the facts
seem to suggest the opposite
iii.
From the writings of Basil, Chrysostom, and the Apostolical

Constitutions, it would seem that this was the usual attitude,
and not an exception to the general rule, as has often been
asserted, but an established custom from the earliest ages of
Christianity.
iv.
In singing, standing was regarded as the only proper and

becoming attitude.
v.
The Council of Nice, A. D. 325, formally ordered that the church

everywhere should observe the custom of standing in prayer.
The author of Questions and Answers to the Orthodox, which
some erroneously have ascribed to Justin Martyr, asserts that
the custom which is observed through the days of Pentecost
was of apostolic origin, and refers to a passage from Irenseus,
which is lost, in proof of the assertion. Epiphanius, Jerome,
Augustine, and Basil, also concur in sanctioning the custom of
standing in prayer.
Page 97 of 524
66
vi.
The act of kneeling was thought peculiarly to indicate humility

before God; to exhibit a sinner who had fallen away from him,
and in need of Divine grace and mercy. Accordingly, it was
uniformly required of all who had fallen under censure of the
church for their offences, as an indispensable condition of their
restoration to their former covenant relations. And it is
particularly worthy of remark, that penitent were denied the
privilege of standing, it being the prerogative and right only of
believers and consistent professors of the faith.
vii.
Sitting in prayer, according to Bingham, was never allowed in

the ancient church. It was universally regarded as an
irreverent and heathenish posture in their devotions. Even the
very heathen, as well as the whole ancient church, might justly
rebuke the shameful irreverence of many Christian assemblies
in sitting in prayer, a custom alike repugnant to every
sentiment of devotion and every dictate of decency and
propriety (Coleman).
viii.
This was a common rite in pagan worship, but with the

Christian fathers it was peculiarly significant as an emblem of
the cross, designed to assist them in holding in lively
remembrance Christ crucified. Occasionally the hands were
clasped together in prayer (Coleman).
Page 98 of 524
c) Veiled and Unveiled
67
i.
Tertullian states that women are veiled and condemns certain

women for not practicing this. Says that virgins should also veil
themselves, but undecided about children. The men prayed
with their heads bare, as not ashamed to look up to heaven for
what they begged of God; the women covered, as a sign of the
modesty of that sex; and therefore Tertullian severely checks
the practice of some women in his time, who in time of worship
had no covering on their heads, or what was as good as none.
(Cave, Primitive Christianity).
ii.
Chrysostom explains this passage amply, wherein he also

states the covering of the mens head was the practice of the
Greeks. Also says that women prophesied in the apostolic era.
iii.
Commenting on Gregory the Great, St. Basil writes, He was a

man of a prophetic and apostolic temper, and who, in the
whole course of his life, expressed the height and accuracy of
evangelical conversation. In all his devotions he was wont to
show the greatest reverence, never covering his head in
prayer, as accounting that of the apostle most proper and
rational, that every one praying or prophesying with his head
covered, dishonoureth his head. Caves, Primitive Christianity.
Page 99 of 524
3. Music of the Worship

a) Material and Subject
i.
The poetical parts of the Old Testament, and especially the

Psalms of David, supplied chiefly the spiritual songs of the
primitive church. At first the sacred psalmody of the
synagogue is supposed to have been transferred to the worship
of the Christian church. The apostles and their first converts
were Jews, and in the Christian church doubtless sang praises
to God in their own sacred psalmody, with which they were
already familiar (Coleman).
ii.
The distinction between psalms and hymns is not very clear.

The former term is restricted to the psalms of David; the latter,
to other poetical songs, like that of Moses, though the Latin
writers, like Augustine and Rufinus, define a hymn to be a song
sung to the praise of God.
iii.
The earliest songs of the Christian church of which profane

history gives us any knowledge was the Divine character and
mission of Christ.
b) Mode and Power

iv.
Congregational singing:
The prevailing .mode of singing during the first three
centuries was congregational. The whole congregation
united their voices in the sacred song of praise, in
strains suited to their ability.
Their music, if such it could be called, was, of
necessity, rude and simple. Indeed, it appears to have
been a kind of recitative or chant. The charm of their
sacred music was not in the harmony of sweet sounds,
but in the melody of the heart(Coleman).
68
Page 100 of 524

The most ancient and the most common mode of
singing was for the whole assembly --- men, women,
and children-- to blend their voices in their songs of
praise in the great congregation. Such is the testimony
of Hilary, of Augustine, and Chrysostom. Formerly all
came together, and united in their song, as is still our
custom. Men and women, the aged and the young,
were distinguished only by their skill in singing, for the
spirit which lead the voice of each one, blended all in
one harmonious melody (Chrysostom).
69
v.
Responsive Singing: First introduced at Antioch in A. D. 350 by

two heretical monks. Even Augustine and Chrysostom after
this age argue for congregational singing. Ambrose is the
major reason that it continued, making music highly artistic
and theatrical. Jerome and Chrysostom severely censured this
practice.
vi.
Choral Singing: Gregory the Great introduced this two in sixth

century. Music became very complicated and required a good
proficiency in music to perform. It was usually chanted by
choir. Speaking of its effect, Coleman writes, Church music
was thus a refined art of difficult attainment, and limited to a
few professional singers. The congregation were by the
exigencies of their condition excluded from all participation in
it. The devotional tendency of sacred music was lost in the
artistic style of its profane and secular airs. Thus, like our
modern church, the ancient soon impaired the devotional
tendency of sacred music by raising it above the congregation,
and limiting it to an orchestra or a choir, as they did that of
their prayers by restricting them to the cold and formal
rehearsals of a prayer-book.
vii.
Power:
Page 101 of 524

Speaking of the power of ancient hymns, Herde asks,
Whence then have they this mighty power? what is it
that so moves us?" To which he replies, their simplicity
and truth. Embodying the great and simple truths of
religion, they speak the sentiment of a universal
creedthey are the expression of one heart and one
faith. The greater part are suitable to be sung on all
occasions, and daily to be repeated. Others are
adapted to certain festivals; and as these return in
endless succession, so the sacred song perpetually
repeats the Christian faith. Though rude and void of
refined taste, they all speak to the heart, and, by
ceaseless repetition, sink deep the impress of troth.
Like these, the sacred song should ever be the simple
offering of nature, an incense of sweet odor, perpetually
recurring, with a fragrance that suffers no abatement.
Chrysostom eloquently descants upon the power of
music in the family. Wheresoever ungodly songs are
sung, there will the devils be gathered together; and
wheresoever spiritual songs are sung, there will the
grace of the Spirit fly, and sanctify both mouth and soul.
I say these things, not only that ye yourselves may give
praise, but that ye may teach both your wives and
children to sing such songs when engaged at the loom,
or in other labours; but especially at meat. Let us, with
our wives and children, arise and say, Thou, Lord, hast
made me glad through thy works: I will triumph in the
works of thy hands. Let the psalm be followed by
prayer, that our own souls and those of our household
may be sanctified. Those who invite David with his
harp, through him call Christ into their dwellings; and
where Christ is, there no evil spirit dareth to approach
or even cast a look. Thence will flow, as from a never
failing fountain, peace, and love, and fulness of
blessings. Make thou thy house a church; for a
company of souls who love God, joined together in holy
song and prayer, may well be called a church.
70
Page 102 of 524

Augustine gives the following account of the power of
this music over him on the occasion of his baptism.
Oh, how freely was I made to weep by these hymns
and spiritual songs; transported by the voices of the
congregation sweetly singing. The melody of their
voices filled my ear, and divine truth was poured into
my heart. Then burned the sacred flame of devotion in
my soul, and gushing tears flowed from my eyes, as
well they might.
c) Human and Divine --Bingham
71
i.
There is little doubt that the church allowed humanly

composed hymns. We find that Pliny spoke of the early church
singing hymns of praise to Christ as God. We may have
something along these lines persevered for us in the Scriptures
in Phil. 2:6-10.
ii.
Sect. XVII. No Objection made against Psalms and Hymns of

human Composition, barely as such: Neither was it any
objection against the psalmody of the Church, that she
sometimes made use of psalms and hymns of human
composition, besides those of the sacred and inspired writers.
For though St. Austin, as we have just heard before, reflect
upon the Donatists for their psalms of human composition, yet
it was not merely because they were human, but because they
preferred them to the divine hymns of Scripture, and their
indecent way of chanting them to the grave and sober method
of the Church. St. Austin himself made a psalm of many parts,
in imitation of Psalm cxix., as has been observed above in this
chapter, sect. xii.; and this he did for the use of his people, to
preserve them from the errors of Donatus.
Page 103 of 524
72
iii.
And it would be absurd to think, that he who made a psalm

himself for the people to sing, should quarrel with other
psalms, merely because they were of human composition. It
has been demonstrated, in the fifth chapter of the last Book,
that there were always such psalms, and hymns, and
doxologies, composed by pious men, and used in the Church
from the first foundation of it; nor did any, but Paulus
Samosatensis, except against the use of them : which he did not
neither because they were of human composition, but because
they contained a doctrine contrary to his own private opinions.
St. Hilary and St. Ambrose made many such hymns, which,
when some muttered against in the Spanish Churches, because
they were of human composition, the fourth Council of Toledo
made a decree to confirm the use of them, together with the
doxology, Glory be to the Father, &c, and Glory be to God on
high, threatening excommunication to any that should reject
them. The only thing of weight to be urged against all this, is a
canon of the Council of Laodicea , which forbid all private
psalms, and all uncanonical books, to be read in the church. For
it might seem, that, by private psalms, they mean all hymns of
human composition; but it was intended rather to exclude
apocryphal psalms, such as went under the name of Solomon,
as Balsamon and Zonaras understand it; or else such as were
not approved by public authority in the Church.
iv.
If it be extended further, it contradicts the current practice of

the whole Church besides, and cannot, in reason, be construed
as any more than a private order for the Churches of that
province, made upon some particular reasons unknown to us
at this day. Notwithstanding, therefore, any argument to be
drawn from this canon, it is evident the ancients made no
scruple of using psalms, or hymns, of human composition,
provided they were pious and orthodox for the substance, and
composed by men of eminence, and received by just authority,
and not brought in clandestinely into the Church.
Page 104 of 524
73
v.
Sect. XVIII. But two Corruptions severely inveighed against.

First, Over great Niceness and Curiosity in Singing, in Imitation
of the Modes and Music of the Theatre: But there were some
disorders and irregularities always apt to creep into this
practice, and corrupt the psalmody and devotions of the
Church, and against these the fathers frequently declaim, with
many sharp and severe invectives. Chiefly they complain of the
lightness and vain curiosity which some used in singing, who
took their measures from the mean and practice of the
theatres, introducing from thence the corruptions and
effeminacy of secular music into the grave and solemn
devotions of the Church.
vi.
We have heard St. Chrysostom before complaining of men's

using theatrical noise and gestures, both in their prayers and
hymns: and here I shall add the reflection which St. Jerome
makes upon those words of the apostle (Ephes. v. l ) Singing,
and making melody in your hearts, to the Lord. Let young men
hear this: let those hear it, who have the office of singing in the
Church, that they sing not with their voice, but with their heart,
to the Lord; not like tragedians physically preparing their
throat and mouth, that they may sing after the fashion of the
theatre in the church. He that has but an ill voice, if he has good
works, is a sweet singer before God.
Page 105 of 524
74
vii.
Sect. XIX. And, Secondly, Pleasing the Ear, without raising

the Affections of the Soul: The other vice complained of, was
the regarding more the music of the words, and sweetness of
the composure, than the sense and meaning of them: pleasing
the ear, without raising the affections of the soul, which was
the true reason for which psalmody and music was intended.
St. Jerome takes notice of this corruption in the same place,
giving this caution against it: Let the servant of Christ so order
his singing, that the words that are read may please more than
the voice of the singer; that the spirit that was in Saul may be
cast out of them who are possessed with it, and not find
admittance in those who have turned the house of God into a
stage and theatre of the people. St. Austin confesses he was for
some time thus moved to a faulty complacency in the
sweetness of the song, more than the matter that was sung;
and then he rather wished not to have heard the voice of the
singer.
viii.
St. Isidore of Pelusium brings the charge of these abuses more

especially against women, and goes so far as to say, that though
the apostle had allowed them to sing in the church, yet the
perverse and licentious use they made of this liberty, was a
sufficient reason why they should be totally debarred from it.
And some are of opinion, that it was abuses of this kind, in
excess, and not in defect, that made the Council of Laodicea
forbid all but the canonical singers to sing in the church; as
thinking that they might be better regulated and restrained
from such abuses by the immediate dependence they had upon
the rulers of the Church. But the experience of later ages rather
proves, that this was not the true way to reform such abuses;
since there are greater complaints, made by considering men,
of the excesses committed in Church music, after it was wholly
given up to the management of canonical singers, than there
were before. Bingham, Antiquities of the Ancient Church).
Page 106 of 524
4. Images in Worship
i.
The primitive Christians regarded with irreconcilable aversion all

pictures or images, none of which were allowed in their churches.
The Roman emperors required divine honours to be paid to their
statues, and the refusal to do this on the part of Christians was
frequently the occasion of their vindictive persecution, as is seen
in Pliny's letter to Trajan. . . . This circumstance, together with
their abhorrence of paganism, effectually excluded images from
the churches of the early Christians. . . . The origin of the custom of
introducing images into churches is described by Neander as
follows :It was not in the church, but in the family, that religious
images first came into use among the Christians. In
their daily intercourse with men, the Christians saw
themselves everywhere surrounded by the objects of
pagan mythology, or, at least, by objects offensive to
their moral and Christian sentiments.
Representations of this sort covered the walls in shops,
were the ornaments of drinking-vessels and seal-rings,
on which the pagans frequently had engraven the
images of their gods, so that they might worship them
when they pleased.
It was natural that, in place of these objects, so
offensive to their religions and moral sentiments, the
Christians should substitute others more agreeable to
them.
Thus they preferred to have on their goblets the figure
of a shepherd carrying a lamb on his shoulder, which
was the symbol of our Saviour rescuing the repentant
sinner, according to the gospel parable.
75
Page 107 of 524

And Clement of Alexandria says, in reference to the
seal-rings of the Christians, Let our signets be a dove,
(the symbol of the Holy Spirit,) or a fish, or a ship
sailing toward heaven, (the symbol of the Christian
church, and of the individual Christian soul,) or a lyre,
(the symbol of Christian joy,) or an anchor, (the symbol
of Christian hope;) and he who is a fisherman will not
be forgetful of the apostle Peter, and of the children
taken from the water; for no images of gods should be
engraved on the rings of those who are forbidden all
intercourse with idols; no sword or bow on the rings of
those who strive after peace; no goblets on the rings of
those who are the friends of sobriety.
Yet religious emblems passed from domestic use into
the churches, perhaps as early as the end of the third
century. The walls of them were painted in this manner.
The Council of Elvira, in the year 303, opposed this
innovation as an abuse, and forbade the objects of
worship and adoration to be painted on the walls. . . .
76
ii.
All this was in harmony also with the ceremonials of the

sensuous religion of the age, which, relying more on the
outward form than on the inward spirit, sought by imposing
rituals to enforce religious truth, rather than by a direct appeal
to the understanding and the conscience. Mosheim and
Augusti represent this to have been eminently the spirit of
several sects of the Gnostics, with whom it was a favourite
sentiment, that religious truth could better be enforced by
pictorial representations than by sermons and by books.
iii.
By such paintings they taught their religious tenets. Gregory

the Great, of the sixth century, particularly commends this as a
happy expedient for instructing the unlearned in religion.
What the letter is to the learned, such is the painting to the
unlearned. For here they see what they ought to obey, so that
the ignorant may read their duty in the pictured
representation. Pictures, therefore, are introduced into
churches, that they who cannot read from the written word,
may still understand it as depicted on the walls. . . .
Page 108 of 524
iv.

In these sentiments we recognise the temporizing spirit of the
church, in accommodating itself to the superstitions of the age.
This Gregory greatly encouraged, in total opposition to the
spirit of primitive Christianity. It was, indeed, a favourite
maxim of this renowned prelate, that Christianity should
accommodate itself more and more to paganism, to facilitate
conversions to the religion of Christ. Under such influences
and such teaching, the Christian church was soon filled with
images, pictures, and statues more becoming an idol's temple
than a sanctuary for the worship of the living God. These
images, though at first employed as aids to devotion, soon
became the objects of almost idolatrous veneration. (Coleman,
Ancient Christianity).
5. Revolution of the WorshipPhilip Schaff, Hist. Christian Church,

vol. 3. Chapter 7. Section 74.
i.
77
The change in the legal and social position of Christianity with

reference to the temporal power, produced a mighty effect
upon its cultus. Hitherto the Christian worship had been
confined to a comparatively small number of upright
confessors, most of whom belonged to the poorer classes of
society. Now it came forth from its secrecy in private houses,
deserts, and catacombs, to the light of day, and must adapt
itself to the higher classes and to the great mass of the people,
who had been bred in the traditions of heathenism. The
development of the hierarchy and the enrichment of public
worship go hand in hand. A republican and democratic
constitution demands simple manners and customs;
aristocracy and monarchy surround themselves with a formal
etiquette and a brilliant court-life. The universal priesthood is
closely connected with a simple cultus; the episcopal hierarchy,
with a rich, imposing ceremonial.
Page 109 of 524
ii.
78

In the Nicene age the church laid aside her lowly servant-form,
and put on a splendid imperial garb. She exchanged the
primitive simplicity of her cultus for a richly colored
multiplicity. She drew all the fine arts into the service of the
sanctuary, and began her sublime creations of Christian
architecture, sculpture, painting, poetry, and music. In place of
the pagan temple and altar arose everywhere the stately
church and the chapel in honor of Christ, of the Virgin Mary, of
martyrs and saints. The kindred ideas of priesthood, sacrifice,
and altar became more fully developed and more firmly fixed,
as the outward hierarchy grew. The mass, or daily repetition of
the atoning sacrifice of Christ by the hand of the priest, became
the mysterious center of the whole system of worship. The
number of church festivals was increased; processions, and
pilgrimages, and a multitude of significant and superstitious
customs and ceremonies were introduced. The public worship
of God assumed, if we may so speak, a dramatic, theatrical
character, which made it attractive and imposing to the mass of
the people, who were as yet incapable, for the most part, of
worshipping God in spirit and in truth. It was addressed rather
to the eye and the ear, to feeling and imagination, than to
intelligence and will. In short, we already find in the Nicene age
almost all the essential features of the sacerdotal, mysterious,
ceremonial, symbolical cultus of the Greek and Roman
churches of the present day.
Page 110 of 524
iii.
79

This enrichment and embellishment of the cultus was, on one
hand, a real advance, and unquestionably had a disciplinary
and educational power, like the hierarchical organization, for
the training of the popular masses. But the gain in outward
appearance and splendor was balanced by many a loss in
simplicity and spirituality. While the senses and the
imagination were entertained and charmed, the heart not
rarely returned cold and hungry. Not a few pagan habits and
ceremonies, concealed under new names, crept into the
church, or were baptized only with water, not with the fire and
Spirit of the gospel. It is well known with what peculiar
tenacity a people cleave to religious usages; and it could not be
expected that they should break off in an instant from the
traditions of centuries. Nor, in fact, are things which may have
descended from heathenism, to be by any means sweepingly
condemned. Both the Jewish cultus and the heathen are based
upon those universal religious wants which Christianity must
satisfy, and which Christianity alone can truly meet. Finally, the
church has adopted hardly a single existing form or ceremony
of religion, without at the same time breathing into it a new
spirit, and investing it with a high moral import. But the limit of
such appropriation it is very hard to fix, and the old nature of
Judaism and heathenism which has its point of attachment in
the natural heart of man, continually betrayed its tenacious
presence. This is conceded and lamented by the most earnest
of the church fathers of the Nicene and post-Nicene age, the
very persons who are in other respects most deeply involved
in the Catholic ideas of cultus.
Page 111 of 524
iv.

In the Christian martyr-worship and saint-worship, which now
spread with giant strides over the whole Christian world, we
cannot possibly mistake the succession of the pagan worship of
gods and heroes, with its noisy popular festivities. Augustine
puts into the mouth of a heathen the question: Wherefore
must we forsake gods, which the Christians themselves
worship with us? He deplores the frequent revels and
amusements at the tombs of the martyrs; though he thinks that
allowance should be made for these weaknesses out of regard
to the ancient custom. Leo the Great speaks of Christians in
Rome who first worshipped the rising sun, doing homage to
the pagan Apollo, before repairing to the basilica of St. Peter.
Theodoret defends the Christian practices at the graves of the
martyrs by pointing to the pagan libations, propitiations, gods,
and demigods. Since Hercules, Aesculapitis, Bacchus, the
Dioscuri, and many other objects of pagan worship were mere
deified men, the Christians, he thinks, cannot be blamed for
honoring their martyrs not making them gods but
venerating them as witnesses and servants of the only, true
God. Chrysostom mourns over the theatrical customs, such as
loud clapping in applause, which the Christians at Antioch and
Constantinople brought with them into the church. In the
Christmas festival, which from the fourth century spread from
Rome over the entire church, the holy commemoration of the
birth of the Redeemer is associated to this day, even in
Protestant lands with the wanton merriments of the pagan
Saturnalia. And even in the celebration of Sunday, as it was
introduced by Constantine, and still continues on the whole
continent of Europe, the cultus of the old sun-god Apollo
mingles, with the remembrance of the resurrection of Christ;
and the widespread profanation of the Lords Day, especially
on the continent of Europe, demonstrates the great influence
which heathenism still exerts upon Roman and Greek Catholic,
and even upon Protestant, Christendom.
6. Scripture of the Worship

a) General
80
Page 112 of 524
i.
The church first adopted the Jewish form of worship in reading

the Scriptures without any essential difference.
ii.
Justin Martyr is the first to mention the reading of the Gospels

and the Acts of the Apostles with the Scriptures of the Old
Testament. This was done in the public assembly on the Lords
Day by a reader appointed for the purpose. Afterwards the
minister would then deliver a message of exposition and
exhortation (Apology, i. c. 67).
iii.
Tertullian also insists upon the reading of the Scriptures, both

of the Old and New Testament, as an important part both of
public and of private worship. He mentions the literal
explanation of the divine Word for the instruction and
strengthening of the faithful, as the chief exercise of public
worship. In another treatise, the reading of the Scriptures, in
connection with the singing of psalms, exhortations are
specified as the several parts of public worship. (Apolog. c. 39;
Ad Uxorem. Lib. ii.c. 6; De Anima. c.9).
iv.
Tertullian and Cyprian speak of the reader as an officer in the

church, the latter describes the ordination of two readers to
this office (Tertullian de Praescript. Haeret. c.41; Cyrpian.
Epistle 34.33).
v.
81
The Apostolical Constitutions enjoin the reading of the

Scriptures as the most important part of public worship
(Constit. Lib. ii.c.25,c.57). And Origen and Chrysostom insist
upon this as the foundation of all correct religious service
(Origen, Contra Cels. iii.45, 50; Chrysostom. Homilies in John.
Hom. viii. In Epistle the Hebrews, Homilies in Pentateuch). To
these authorities, again, may be added those of various
councils, on the same subject (Council of Laodecia, c. 59;
Carthage, iii.c. 47; Chalecdon, c. 13, 14; etc).
Page 113 of 524
vi.
The reading of only the canonical books was permitted in

public worship, though other books in private were
recommended for personal edification, though not be seen as
having the same authority of the Scriptures. Obviously, until
the debates over the canon ended, there was a variety over
this. However, this debate shows the high view of Scripture
and its authority in the Church.
vii.
No distinction was made between the book of the Old

Testament and the New; both were regarded as of equal
authority. In the reading during the public services, selections
were taken from both.
b) Order
i.
While both the Jewish and the Christian sabbath continued to

be observed in the early church, it was the normal practice for
the Old to be read on Saturday and the New on Sunday
(Coleman; Mabillon, De Liturgy Gal. Bk 2, p. 137f.).
ii.
In the most primitive church, there was no set order to the

reading, but it was up to the ministers to establish it. This was
the practice up to the fifth century (Athansius Apolog. ii. Contra
Arius; Augustine in Psalm 138; Sermon 143, 144).
iii.
Early in the church, there was a division between the Gospels

and the Apostles. Normally, there were Psalms sung or
selections of the OT read between the Gospels and Apostles.
iv.
As time went on, the account of the resurrection from all four
Gospels would be read successively. Then during the time of
Pentecost, from Easter to Whitsunday, the Acts of the Apostles
was read. The West also read the Epistles and Revelation
during this season.
c) Manner
i.
82
Early we see that certain portions of Scripture were read and

others sung. Early the Psalms were uniformly sung, and the
rest was read. By the time of Gregory the Great, the Gospels
and Epistles were also read.
Page 114 of 524
83
ii.
Yet, we must not make the mistake of thinking that reading the
Scriptures was like the modern method. The mode of reading
was very unlike that in common use; it was indeed a recitative
or chant; each syllable was uttered with a measured cadence
and modulation, in a style and manner midway between that of
singing and ordinary reading (Coleman).
iii.
Augustine contended earnestly for an easy, simple, and

unstudied style of psalmody, and commends highly the singing
of Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, which more resembled the
performance of a reader than of a singer. In accordance with
this author, the approved style of conducting the services of
the church seems to have been to conform the exercise of
singing as nearly as possible to that of reading; and the
reading, to that of singing (Ibid.)
iv.
The reading was begun and closed with a set form. Before the
reading began, the deacon enjoined silence, and often called
aloud again, Attention! Attention! (Chrysostom Homily 3 in 2
Thess.). The reader, according to Cyprian, began by saying,
Peace be with you (Council of Carthage iii.c.4; Augustine Ep.
155; City of God, 22. C. 8). Then the reader proceeded, saying,
Thus saith the Lord in the lesson from the Old Testament, or
from the Gospels," etc., or again, Beloved brethren, in the
Epistles it is written." This was said to awaken attention and
veneration for the word read.
v.
At the close of the lesson, the people responded frequently, if

not uniformly, by saying, Amen. The purport of which was,
according to Alexander Halesius, God grant us to continue
steadfast in the faith. Or they said, "We thank thee, Lord; We
thank thee, 0 Christ,for the previous word. Such abuses
finally arose from this custom, that the people were forbidden
to join in the response, and the minister closed the reading of
the epistles by saying, Blessed be God, and that of the
evangelists by saying, Glory be to thee, 0 Lord (S. Gavanti.
Thesaur. Tom. 1. Pp. 90-94).
Page 115 of 524
vi.
The reader was at all times required to stand in the discharge

of his office; the people preserved the same attitude in the
rehearsal of the Psalms, and the reading of the lessons from the
Gospels and the Epistles. Cyprian represents this to have been,
on all occasions, the custom in Africa. The Apostolical
Constitutions recommend both the clergy and the people to
stand in profound silence during the reading of the Gospels
(Bk. 2. C. 57). Augustine urges all who are lame, or afflicted
with any infirmity, so that they cannot conveniently stand, to
sit and reverently listen to the word of God (Sermon 26).
vii.
But it was a general rule of the ancient church that the hearers
sat during the ordinary reading of the Scriptures and arose
when the Gospels were recited. If in the delivery of a sermon
the preacher introduced a passage from the Gospels, the
assembly immediately arose; which was the frequent occasion
of much noise and confusion. The reason for this usage in
relation to the Gospels is given by Chrysostom as follows:If
the letters of a king are read in the theatre with great silence,
much more ought we to compose ourselves, and reverently to
arise and listen when the letters, not of an earthly king, but of
the Lord of angels, are read to us (Chrysostom, Homily i. in
Matthew).
7. Sermon of the Worship

a) General
84
i.
A sermon, according to the idea of the ancient church, may be

defined to be a rhetorical discourse upon some passage of
Scripture, having for its object the spiritual edification of the
hearers. It is an exposition and application of Scripture, not
merely a religious discourse designed for the instruction of the
audience.
ii.
It has been stated by older historians (Mosheim) and modern

writers ( ) that the sermon was not a necessary part of the
worship service. But this can easily be dismissed by the
following observations.
Page 116 of 524
85
iii.
The homilies of the Christian church were only an imitation of

these discourses in the synagogue, from which they were
derived. (Vitringa, de Synagogue, pp. 580f.; 590f. See also
Schruer). We may, therefore, refer to all those passages which
relate to the usage of Jewish worship in their synagogues,
according to which that portion of Scripture which had been
read was made the subject of discourse. Luke 4:16; Matt. 4:23;
13:54; Acts 13:15-27; 15:21; 2 Cor. 3:15, etc: from all which it
appears that a discourse based on the Scriptures was an
essential part of the worship of the Jews. The first instance of
such on record is in the eighth chapter of Nehemiah. The
discourses of the apostles were either based on some specific
portions of Scripture, or else they were an abstract of sacred
history. Instances of the former class are found in Acts 1:15;
2:14-36; of the latter. Acts 7:2-53; 17:22-31; Acts 21 and 27.
iv.
For further illustration we may refer to 2 Tim. 3:14-17, and to

the miraculous gift prophesying, i. e. of teaching, which is
mentioned in 1 Cor. 12:28, 29; 14; Eph. 4:11. The churches to
whom the apostles addressed their epistles were required to
have them read in public, accompanied, no doubt, with suitable
explanations and applications. Col. 4:16 ; 1 Thess. 5:27; 2 Peter
3:15,16.
v.
Justin Martyr expressly asserts, that certain selections from

the prophets and memoirs of the apostles were not only read,
but explained and enforced. By the prophets and memoirs, he
evidently means the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament.
After the reading is ended, the minister of the assembly makes
an address in which he admonishes and exhorts the people to
imitate the virtues which it enjoins. This is the first mention
made in ecclesiastical history of a Christian sermon.
Page 117 of 524
vi.
So also Tertullian, in the second century: We come together to

acquaint ourselves with the sacred Scriptures, and to hear
what, according to the circumstances of the present time, may
be applicable to us, either now or at any future time. At least,
we establish our faith, we encourage our hope, we assure our
confidence; and, by the injunctions of the divine word, we
make its life-giving power efficacious to our hearts. We
admonish and reprove one another, and give ourselves up to
the teachings of the divine word. And this word of God has the
greater weight, because each regards himself as standing in the
presence of God. Who can doubt that this extract describes the
office of the preacher as an essential part of public worship?
vii.
This duty is also specified in the Apostolical Constitutions:

When the gospel is read, let all the elders and deacons, and the
whole assembly stand in silence. Afterward, let the elders, one
by one, but not all of them, exhort the people; and lastly, let the
bishop, as the master, address them. Again, they speak of the
bishop as the preacher of the word of God, and as preaching
to the people the things pertaining to their salvation.
b) Preachers
86
i.
From the earliest of times, laymen were involved in

preaching, though they were not the designated preachers of
the public worship. From Justin Martyr we see that there was
great freedom in making remarks by all in the social worship.
Hilary notes that from the beginning it was the right and
privilege of all first to teach and then to baptize.
ii.
The minister was a minster of the Word. Justin Martyr also

tells us that it was role of the minister or the president to make
an application of the Word and exhort the people, though in
times of persecution the elders and deacons were entrusted
with the office of preaching.
Page 118 of 524
87
iii.
The Presbyters and deacons officiated only as substitutes for

the main minister in the case of his absence or inability from
sickness or other causes. Both Augustine and Chrysostom
preached for their bishops in this capacity. In these cases, the
minister was responsible for what was said by his substitutes.
iv.
There is distinction between ruling and teaching elders. While

there certain extenuating circumstances where a minister
unable to teach was called to oversee a church, this was
regarded as an exception to a general ruleas an
extraordinary provision for a peculiar emergency, while the
office of preaching was accounted the most honourable and
important part of the ministers duties. Far from this seat,"
says Chrysostom, let him be removed who knows not how to
teach sound doctrine as he ought (Homily 10 in 1 Timothy).
The neglect of this duty is, by the Apostolical Canons, c. 58, to
be punished with suspension and removal from office.
v.
The early church was emphatic that a woman was not to teach.
The apostolic rule forbidding a Woman to teach was most
cautiously observed (Apostolic Constitutions, iii. 9).The
Montanists are, indeed, an exception to this remark, but
Tertullian, himself one of this sect, complains of this abuse (De
Bapt. C. 17; De praescript. C. 41). The fourth Council of Carthage
forbid it: Let no woman, however learned or pious, presume
to teach the other sex in public assembly (C. 99).
Page 119 of 524
c) Frequency and Length
88
i.
It has already been stated that the sermon consisted originally

in an explanation and application of the Scripture lessons
which had just been read. Sermons were, therefore, as a
general rule, as frequent as the reading of the Scriptures. If, in
any instance, a sermon was delivered without any foregoing
lesson from the Scriptures, it was an exception to the general
rule.
ii.
In some cases, several sermons were delivered by different

speakers in succession at the same meeting. At other times,
several were delivered by the same speaker on the same day
(Augustine, Tr. In Psalm 86). Sermons were an appropriate
part of every form of public worship, but they were especially
designed for the catechumen; and for this reason were a part of
the services designed for them, which means that they took
place prior to their dismissal and before the Lords Supper.
(Apostolic Constitution. ii.c. 57. Council of Laodicea c. 19.
Council of Aurelian c. 3; Augustine Sermon 237; De Tem.
Sermon 49).
iii.
There is no canon or rule of custom to be found. It was

regulated by the times and circumstances. As a general rule,
sermons were much shorter in the Latin than in the Greek
church. Bingham is of opinion that the sermons of the Latin
fathers could not have been an hour in length; most of the
sermons of the Latin fathers, according to him, could not have
occupied one half hour, and many not ten minutes (Vol. 6, p.
513), but this is based largely upon the records that we have.
iv.
Some conjecture as to their length may be formed from the

circumstance that more than one was delivered in succession;
and yet it is remarkable that some of the longest sermons
which remain to us were delivered in churches where this
custom prevailed. Some of Chrysostom's must have occupied
two hours in the delivery, although this was the usual time for
the whole service, as Chrysostom himself asserts (Homily 63).
Page 120 of 524
v.

Like the ancient orators, the preacher is supposed to have
spoken by an hour-glass, a water-dock, or a sand-glass
(Coleman).
d) Position and Attitude
89
i.
In regard to the attitude both of the speaker and of the

audience during the delivery of the sermon, the ancient custom
was precisely the reverse of the modern. In the primitive
church it was customary for the speaker to sit, and for the
audience to stand. Compare Luke 2:46; 4:20; 5:3; John 8:2;
Matt. 5:1, etc.
ii.
As in attending to the reading of the Scriptures they stood, in

token of reverence for the word of God, so in listening to the
sermon, in which it was explained and enforced, for the same
reason they preserved a similar attitude.
iii.
In Africa the custom above mentioned was observed with great

care. Augustan insists often upon it, and rebukes every
departure from it except in cases of infirmity, which rendered
it inconvenient for the hearer to preserve this attitude. At one
time he apologizes for the inconvenient length of his sermon,
especially inasmuch as he is permitted to sit while they are
required to stand.
iv.
The hearers of Gregory Nazianzen and Chrysostom preserved

the same posture. It is related even of Constantine the Great,
that he did not resume his seat during a long sermon by
Eusebius, and that all the assembly followed his example
(Eusebius h. e. lib. vii. c.30; Chrysost. Hom. 30 in Acts. Greg.
Naz. Orat. 32). From all which it is fairly inferred that this was
the prevailing custom.
Page 121 of 524
v.
The hearers it would seem, were accustomed to take great

liberties in regard to their attendance. At one time, they would
absent themselves from the service except during the
sermonan irregularity against which Chrysostom
vehemently denounces with great spirit (Homily 3 in 1Thess.)
At other times, they treated even the preaching with great
indifference and neglect (Gregory of Naz. Oration 2),
complaining bitterly of long sermons and even left the house
while the preacher was yet speaking. To prevent this, the doors
were ordered to be fastened after the reading and before the
sermon (Cyp. De Vit of Caeserii, c. 12). The fourth Council of
Carthage forbade this contempt of the preacher under pain of
excommunication (c. 24).
vi.
Another impropriety, of which Chrysostom complains with his

accustomed spirit, is that of disturbing the preacher by
needless noise and frivolous conversation: the prattling of the
women and the uncontrolled behavior of the young people are
among his subjects of complaint. Similar complaints are made
by others, particularly by preachers in the large cities, Rome,
Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Carthage, etc.
The custom was also introduced into the ancient church of

applauding the speaker by acclamations, by clapping, waving of
handkerchiefs, and other similar customs, but these customs
was severely censured as being barrowed from the theatre and
unbecoming of the church: Of what avail to me is this applause
and tumult? One thing only I require of youthat ye prove to
me your approbation and obedience by your works. That will
be praise for megain for yourselves; that will be to me a
greater honour than the imperial crown. I desire not your
applause and clamor. I have but one wishthat you hear me
with calmness and attention, and that ye practise my precepts.
For this is not a theatre: ye sit not here to behold actors and to
confer upon such men your applause. Here is the place to learn
the things of God (Socrates H. E. vi. c.4; Greg. Naz. Orat. 32;
Sozomen, h. e. lib. 8. c.27).
90
Page 122 of 524
vii.
91

The ancient Christians had also the custom of taking notes and
writing out the length the sermons which they heard. To this
laudable custom we owe many of the sermons of the fathers
which have come down to us. It was not, however, a universal
practice. Sermons in which the hearer took little interest, he
was not careful to retain in this manner. Some preachers
refused to have their sermons preserved in this imperfect
manner. Origen allowed no notes to be taken of his sermons
until he was sixty years of age.
Page 123 of 524
I.
PATRISTICS AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM

A. INTRODUCTION
1. Definition of Textual Criticism

a) The effort to determine the original text of any written work when
only the copies of the original work are extant
b) Applied to the Scriptures, it is the effort to determine exactly the
text of the Autographs
c) "This is a most important and fascinating branch of study, its
object being to determine as exactly as possible from the
available evidence the original words of the documents in
question" (Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They
Reliable?, p.19).
d) "Textual criticism is the study of copies of any written work of
which the autograph (the original) is unknown, with the purpose
of ascertaining the original text" (Greenlee, Introduction to New
Testament Textual Criticism, p, 1).
2. The Significance of Textual Criticism
a) The Greek text of the New Testament is the basis for
interpretation and theological systemization.
b) Without this foundation of knowing what and where the Biblical
text is, it is impossible to build further study in the Scriptures
c) "New Testament textual criticism, therefore, is the basic study,
prerequisite to all other biblical and theological work" (Greenlee,
p. 7).
3. The Process of Textual Criticism
a) By examining the various extant Mss. and determining by various
methods the value of the Mss.
b) By having a basic understanding of the materials of textual
criticism, of the men of textual criticism, and of the methodology
of textual criticism.
1
Page 124 of 524
B. The Early Church and Textual Criticism
1. Antiquity a major criterion for integrity of text

a) All agree that antiquity is a major issue, but we must also see that
it has to be defined in such a way that only a few manuscripts are
seen as authoritative.
b) It is not to a single or a few ancient authorities to which we
should look, but we should look to the whole of the body of
documents
But then, inasmuch as by Antiquity I do not even mean any one single
ancient authority, however ancient, to the exclusion of, and in
preference to, all the rest, but the whole collective body, it is precisely
the body of ancient authorities' which I propose as the arbiters. Thus, I
do not mean by * Antiquity ' either (i) the Peshitto Syriac : or (a)
Cureton's Syriac: or (3) the Old Latin Versions: or (4) the Vulgate: or (5)
the Egyptian, or indeed (6) any other of the ancient Versions:not (7)
Origen, nor (8) Eusebius, nor (9) Chrysostom, nor (to) Cyril,nor
indeed (11) any other ancient Father standing alone: neither (12) Cod.
A.nor (13) Cod. B,nor (14) Cod. C, nor (15) Cod. D,nor (16) Cod.
f,nor in fact (17) any other individual Codex that can be named. I
should as soon think of confounding the cathedral hard by with one or
two of the stones which compose it. By Antiquity I understand the
whole body of documents which convey to me the mind of Antiquity,
transport me back to the primitive age, and acquaint me, as far as is now
possible, with what was its verdict (Burgon, Traditional Text, 31).
2. The uniformity of the Greek from the 4th Century
a) The fundamental text of late extant Greek MSS. generally is,
beyond all question, identical with the dominant Antiochian or
Graeco-Syrian text of the second half of the fourth century. . . . The
bulk of extant MSS. written from about three or four to ten or
eleven centuries later must have had in the greater number of
extant variations a common original either contemporary with,
or older than, our oldest MSS (Westcott and Hort, Introduction, p.
92).
Page 125 of 524
b) Before the close of the fourth century, as we have said, a Greek

text, not materially differing from the almost universal text of the
ninth century and the Middle Ages, was dominant, probably by
authority, at Antioch, and exercised much influence elsewhere
(Ibid. p. 142).
c) There is observed to exist in Church Lectionaries precisely the
same phenomenon. They have prevailed in unintermitted
agreement in other respects from very early times, probably from
the days of St. Chrysostom ^, and have kept in the main without
change the form of words in which they were originally cast in the
unchangeable East (John William Burgon, The Traditional Text,
p. 15; cf. Scrivner, Plain Introduction, Vol. 1:75-76).
d) There are two main views on this prevalence. One is that someone
like Chrysostom edited a Greek edition, seeing that he is first
orthodox Father who consistently cites a Byzantine type of text
(d.407), which became the standard, though inferior text. This is
the position of WH.
e) Another view is that, while many regional copies would have been
lost in the first couple of centuries as a result of persecution, the
situation changed in the fourth century and onwards after
Constantine established Christianity as the official religion of the
Roman Empire. Now Christian communities could freely interact
with each other and share their copies of the Scriptures. As they
did so, over a number of centuries of copying, comparison, and
correction, a consensus text emerged that reflected the archetypal
text from which these regional variations had all been born
centuries before: the so-called "Byzantine" text form.
f) As Robinson puts it: "The result inevitably arrived at would be a
continually-improving, self-consistent Textform, refined and
restored, preserved (as would be expected) in an increasing
number of manuscripts which slowly would overcome the
influence of local texts and finally become the dominant text of the
Greek-speaking world. This explains both the origin and
dominance of the Byzantine/Majority Textform."
3. The Fathers use of Scripture reflect the majority text, verses the
critical text
3
Page 126 of 524
a) Apart from searching through the writings of the Church Fathers

individually, a primary source for information his been the
massive compilation of John Burgon. He gathered 86,489 patristic
Scripture quotations. These are bound in 16 volumes and located
at the British Museum. After his death, Edward Miller gathered
and edited much of Dr. Burgon's material. He prepared a book
entitled. "The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels" (1896). In this
work, he undertakes the mammoth task of categorizing the
patristic quotations according to its textual type. Oil pp. 99-101 is
a table of 76 Church Fathers who died before 400 AD The number
of titles each refers to the TR or WH kind of text is tabulated. The
overall ratio was three to two in favor of the TR.
b) Kenyon says the following about Miller's research The results of
his examination are stated by him is follows. Taking the Greek
and Latin (not the Syriac) Fathers who died before AD 400, their
quotations are found to support the TR in 2,630 instances (that is
the distinctive TR readings), the WH text in 1753. Nor is this
majority due solely to the writers who belong to the end of this
period. On the contrary, only the earliest writers be taken, from
Clement of Rome to Irenaeus and Hippolytus (AD 97 - 236), the
majority in favor of the TR is proportionately even greater, 151 to
84. Only in the Western and Alexandrian writers do we find
approximate equality of votes on either side. Further, if a select
list of- thirty important passages be taken for detailed
examination, the preponderance of early preponderance evidence
in favor of the TR is seen to be no less than 530 to 170, a quite
overwhelming majority."
c) Miller concludes - "As far as the writers who died before 400 AD
are concerned, the question may now be put and answered. Do
they witness to the TR as existing from the first, or do they not?
The results of the evidence, both as regards the quantity and the
quality of the testimony, enable us to reply, not only that the TR
was in existence, but that it was predominant, during the period
under review. Let anyone who disputes this conclusion make out
for the Western Text, or the Alexandrian, or the text of Vaticanus
and Sinaiticus, a case from the evidence of the Fathers which can
equal or surpass that which has now been placed before the
reader."
4
Page 127 of 524
4. Fathers speak of corruption of Scripture by heretics

a) '' The Divine Scriptures these heretics have audaciously corrupted
; . . . laying violent hands upon them under pretence of correcting

them. That I bring no false accusation, any one who is disposed
may easily convince himself. He has but to collect the copies
belonging to these persons severally ; then, to compare one with
another; and he will discover that their discrepancy is
extraordinary. Those of Asclepiades, at all events, will be found
discordant from those of Theodotus. Now, plenty of specimens of
either sort are obtainable, inasmuch as these men's disciples have
industriously multiplied the (so-called) "corrected " copies of their
respective teachers, which are in reality nothing else but "
corrupted " copies. With the foregoing copies again, those of
Hermophilus will be found entirely at variance. As for the copies
of Apollonides, they even contradict one another. Nay, let any one
compare the fabricated text which these persons put forth in the
first instance, with that which exhibits their latest perversions of
the Truth, and he will discover that the disagreement between
them is even excessive
b) Of the enormity of the offence of which these men have heen
guilty, they must needs themselves he fully aware. Either they do
not believe that the Divine Scriptures are the utterance of the Holy
Ghost, in which case they are to be regarded as unbelievers : or
else, they account themselves wiser than the Holy Ghost, and
what is that, but to have the faith of devils ? As for their denjdng
their guilt, the thing is impossible, seeing that the copies under
discussion are their own actual handy work ; and they know full
well that not such as these are the Scriptures which they received
at the hands of their catechetical teachers. Else, let them produce
the originals from which they made their transcripts. Certain of
them indeed have not even condescended to falsify Scripture, but
entirely reject Law and Prophets alike (Gaius in Eusbius, Hist.
Eccl. V.28)
Page 128 of 524
c) Polycarp (69 - 155) For many years the pastor of the church of
Smyrna Asia Minor. Irenaeus (130 - 200) states that he was a
disciple of the Apostle John. In writing to the Philippian church
(115), he makes about fifty clear quotations from many of the NT
books. He said "Whoever perverts the saying of the Lord that
one is the firstborn of Satan."
d) Tatian (110 - 172) A learned teacher who was "converted" to
Christianity and studied under Justin Martyr at Rome. He turned
to Syrian Gnosticism. He wrote the "Diatessaron" in which he
combined the four Gospel narratives into one, eliminating the,
genealogies and all passages referring to Christ's Jewish descent.
e) According to Metzger, the heretic Marcion (died 160) also did this
with his copy of the Gospel of Luke. The Diatessaron was so
corrupted that in later years a bishop of Syria threw out 200
copies, since church members were mistaking it for the true
Gospel.
f) Dionysius (died 176) Bishop of Corinth. He complained that his
own letters had been tampered with, and worse yet, the Holy
Scriptures also.
g) Metzger states, "Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian,
Eusebius and many other Church Fathers accused the heretics of
corrupting the Scriptures in order to have support for their
special views".
h) Burgon Says, "Even the orthodox were capable of changing a
reading for dogmatic reasons. Epiphanius states that the
Orthodox deleted he wept' from Luke 19 : 41 out of jealousy for
the Lord's divinity."
Page 129 of 524
i) Irenaeus (130 - 200) A western Father. He was born in Asia Minor,

and in his youth was a disciple of the aged Polycarp. He laboured
for some years in Lyons (Gaul) and became its bishop in 177. He
accused heretics of corrupting the Scriptures. His major work
"Against Heretics" (c l85) are about equal in volume to those of all
his preceding Fathers put together. He quotes the last twelve
verses of Mark. He quotes from every N.T. book except Philemon
and III John. Thus the dimensions of the Now Testament canon
recognized by Irenaeus are very close to what we hold today.
j) Irenaeus said "The doctrines of the apostles had been handed
down by the succession of bishops being guarded and preserved,
without any forging of the Scriptures, allowing neither additions
nor curtailment.' He demonstrates his concern for the accuracy of
the text by defending the traditional reading of a single letter. The
question is whether John wrote 666 or 616 in Rev. 13:19. Irenaeus
asserts that 666 is found "in all the most approved and ancient
copies" and that "those men who saw John face to face" bear
witness to it. And he warns ''there shall be no light punishment
upon him who either adds or subtracts anything from the
Scriptures."
k) Considering Polycarp's friendship with John, his personal copy of
Revelation would probably have been taken from the Autograph.
And considering Irenaeus' veneration for Polycarp, his personal
copy was probably taken from Polycarp's. Since 1881, the word
"vinegar" in Matthew 27:34 has been despised as a "late
Byzantine" reading. There are seven early witnesses against it.
Irenaeus is one ofthe eighteen witnesses for it. Contrary to Hort's
view, Miller found that Irenaeus sided with the TR 63 times and
with the WH 41 times (Jack Moorman).
5. The Transmission of the text was better persevered in the East
than the West, especially in Africa.
Page 130 of 524
a) The manuscripts were from the East and kept there for some
time: So who held the Autographs? Speaking in terms of regions,
Asia Minor may be safely said to have had twelve (John,
Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Philemon, 1
Peter, 1 and 2 and 3 John, and Revelation), Greece may be safely
said to have had six (1 and 2 Corinthians, Philippians, 1 and 2
Thessalonians, and Titus in Crete), Rome may be safely said to
have had two (Mark and Romans)as to the rest, Luke, Acts, and
2 Peter were probably held by either Asia Minor or Rome;
Matthew and James by either Asia Minor or Palestine; Hebrews by
Rome or Palestine; while it is hard to state even a probability for
Jude it was quite possibly held by Asia Minor. Taking Asia Minor
and Greece together, the Aegean area held the Autographs of at
least eighteen (two-thirds of the total) and possibly as many as
twenty-four of the twenty-seven New Testament books; Rome held
at least two and possibly up to seven; Palestine may have held up
to three (but in A.D. 70 they would have been sent away for safe
keeping, quite possibly to Antioch); Alexandria (Egypt) held none.
The Aegean region clearly had the best start, and Alexandria the
worstthe text in Egypt could only be second hand, at best. On
the face of it, we may reasonably assume that in the earliest
period of the transmission of the N.T. Text the most reliable copies
would be circulating in the region that held the Autographs.
Recalling the discussion of Tertullian above, I believe we may
reasonably extend this conclusion to A.D. 200 and beyond. So, in
the year 200 someone looking for the best text of the N.T would
presumably go to the Aegean area; certainly not to Egypt
(Pickering).
b) The language was better understood in the East than West: Bruce
Metzger observes that the Hellenized section of the population in
Egypt "was only a fraction in comparison with the number of
native inhabitants who used only the Egyptian languages (B.
Metzger, Early Versions, 104).
Page 131 of 524
c) The East was stronger and with less heretical dominance. Kurt
Aland states: Egypt was distinguished from other provinces of
the Church, so far as we can judge, by the early dominance of
gnosticism. He further informs us that "at the close of the 2nd
century" the Egyptian church was "dominantly gnostic" and then
goes on to say: "The copies existing in the gnostic communities
could not be used, because they were under suspicion of being
corrupt ( K. and B. Aland, The Text of the New Testament (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), pp. 52-53).
d) The majority of the corruptions were interjected into the text by
the end of the 2nd century: From the early third century onward
the freedom to alter the text which had obtained earlier can no
longer be practiced. Tatian is the last author to make deliberate
changes in the text of whom we have explicit information.
Between Tatian and Origen Christian opinion had so changed
that it was no longer possible to make changes in the text whether
they were harmless or not (Kirkpatrick, "Atticism and the Text of
the Greek New Testament", Neutestamentliche Aufsatze
(Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 1963), pp. 129-30); Zuntz
also recognized all of this. "Modern criticism stops before the
barrier of the second century; the age, so it seems, of unbounded
liberties with the text. (The Text, 11); "The overwhelming
majority of readings were created before the year 200", affirmed
Colwell."It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound that
the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been
subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was
composed", said Scrivener decades before.
Page 132 of 524
The Lords Day in the Patristic Era
INTRODUCTION
A. General Views on the Lords Day
1. Christianity admits no distinction of days.

a) "The whole Mosaic Law, call it what you will, ceremonial, political,
moral, has been fulfilled and has past away. Christ did not Himself
institute, He did not give authority to others to institute, nor may
others institute without His authority, any especial day of worship
or rest in lieu of or in succession to the Sabbath.
b) Therefore, the Sunday is altogether a fiction; there is now either no
Sabbath at all, or, if the mere word be contended for, it may be
under stood that a true Christian now observes a spiritual-everyday-Sabbath, a type of the better Sabbath in heaven."
c) These tenets were advocated by certain Antinomians and
Anabaptists in the past and by many dispensational and modern
writers today. Craig Blomberg argues for this position in
Perspectives on the Sabbath: 4 Views.
2. The Sabbath is part of the Decalogue is part of the moral law and in
full force today
a) The Decalogue is altogether and in every part of it moral. The
Sabbath, therefore, which is enjoined in it, is still in force under
Christianity, for our Lord did not come to destroy the law.
b) Though generally observed on the first day in the week, it cannot be
observed on that day without sin. It ought to be observed on the
Seventh day, that is, on Saturday, and of course with all the rigor
prescribed both in the Fourth Commandment, and in other parts of
Scripture.
c) This is the view of Seventh-Day Baptists and others. It is the argued
for by Skip MacCarty in Perspectives on the Sabbath: 4 Views.
3. The Sabbath has been transferred to the Lords Day
Page1
I.
Page 133 of 524
d) The Sabbath existed from the beginning, was re-enacted and

regulated by Moses, and has never since been abolished or
superseded. The day indeed has been changed, but, as the seventh
day and one day in seven obviously mean the same thing, we may
fairly transfer to the first day, whatever Scripture says of the "
seventh day.
e) Thus our Sabbath, for so we may designate it, must be observed as
strictly as was that of the Jews, in the wilderness under Moses, or in
Jerusalem under Nehemiah.
f) This is, on the whole, the Sabbatarian view as it Westminster
Divines in the statements made in their Confession of Faith and
their Larger and Shorter Catechisms. Two of their number,
Daniel Cawdrey and Herbert Palmer, published a very elaborate
work in vindication and explanation of it A.D. 1645 and A.D. 1652.
Joseph Pipa presents this view in Perspectives on the Sabbath: 4
Views.
4. The Sabbath has ecclesiastical importance but it has no binding
power.
a) The Sabbath was not enjoined on man at the Creation. It was
revealed in the first 61 instance to the Jews, a short time

before it was formally published in the Decalogue. The
Fourth Commandment is not a moral precept" (or contains
only a very slight moral element, the assertion of the
principle that God is to be worshipped at some time).
b) There are many and various groups that hold this, such as
Lutherans, Anglicans, and Evangelicals. Charles P. Arand in
Perspectives on the Sabbath: 4 Views argues for this view, Sabbath
commandment was given only to the Jews and does not concern
Christians; though rest and worship are still required, these are not
tied to any particular day.
B. The Term Lords Day
Page2
1. Linguistic:
Page 134 of 524
c) Formerly it was supposed that the adjective kuriakos (translated

"the Lord's") was a purely Christian word, but recent discoveries
have proved that it was in fairly common use in the Roman Empire
before Christian influence had been felt.
d) In secular use it signified "imperial," "belonging to the lord"--the
emperor--and so its adoption by Christianity in the sense "belonging
to the Lord"--to Christ--was perfectly easy.
e) Indeed, there is reason to suppose that in the days of Domitian, when
the issue had been sharply defined as "Who is Lord? Caesar or
Christ?" the use of the adjective by the church was a part of the
protest against Caesar-worship (see LORD). And it is even possible
that the full phrase, "the Lord's day," was coined as a contrast to the
phrase, "the Augustean day" he sebaste hemera), a term that seems
to have been used in some parts of the Empire to denote days
especially dedicated in honor of Caesar-worship.
2. Post-Apostolic:
a) "Lord's day" in the New Testament occurs only in Revelation 1:10,
but in the post-apostolic literature we have the following references.
b) Ignatius, Ad Mag., ix.1, "No longer keeping the Sabbath but living
according to the Lord's day, on which also our Light arose.
c) Ev. Pet., verse 35, "The Lord's day began to dawn" (compare Matthew
28:1); verse 50, "early on the Lord's day" (compare Luke 24:1).
d) Barn 15 9, "We keep the eighth day with gladness," on which Jesus
arose from the dead." I.e. Sunday, as the day of Christ's resurrection,
was kept as a Christian feast and called "the Lord's day," a title fixed
so definitely as to be introduced by the author of Ev. Pet. into phrases
from the canonical Gospels.
e) Its appropriateness in Revelation 1:10 is obvious, as John received
his vision of the exalted Lord when all Christians had their minds
directed toward His entrance into glory through the resurrection.
a) Apostolic Designation: The Lords Day in Revelation 1:10. A day that

was uniquely the Lords.
Page3
3. In the New Testament
Page 135 of 524
b) Apostolic Example: This "first day of the week" appears again in Acts
20:7 as the day on which the worship of the "breaking of bread" took
place, and the impression given by the context is that Paul and his
companions prolonged their visit to Troas so as to join in the service.
c) Apostolic Injunction: Again, 1 Corinthians 16:2contains the
command, "Upon the first day of the week let each one of you lay by
him in store," where the force of the form of the imperative used (the
present for repeated action) would be better represented in English
by "lay by on the successive Sundays."
d) Note: Worship is here not explicitly mentioned (the Greek of "by him"
is the usual phrase for "at home"), but that the appropriateness of
the day for Christian acts involves an appropriateness for Christian
worship is not to be doubted.
e) Note: Indeed, since the seven-day week was unknown to Greek
thought, some regular observance of a hebdomadal cycle must have
been settled at Corinth before Paul could write his command. Finally,
the phrase, "first day in the week" is found elsewhere in the New
Testament only in Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1,19.
The word in all passages for "first" is poor Greek (mia, "one," for
prote, a Hebraism), and the coincidence of the form of the phrase in
Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:2 with the form used by all four
evangelists for the Resurrection Day 'is certainly not accidental; it
was the fixed Christian base, just as "Lord's day" was to the writer of
Ev. Pet.
THE SECOND CENTURY

A. General Observations
Page4
II.
Page 136 of 524
1. The celebration of the Lords Day in memory of the resurrection of

Christ dates undoubtedly from the apostolic age. Nothing short of
apostolic precedent can account for the universal religious
observance in the churches of the second century. There is no
dissenting voice. This custom is confirmed by the testimonies of
the earliest post-apostolic writers, as
Barnabas, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr. It is also confirmed by the
younger Pliny. The Didache calls the first day "the Lords Day of the
Lord.
2. Considering that the church was struggling into existence, and that
a large number of Christians were slaves of heathen masters, we
cannot expect an unbroken regularity of worship and a universal
cessation of labor on Sunday until the civil government in the time
of Constantine came to the help of the church and legalized (and in
part even enforced) the observance of the Lords Day. This may be
the reason why the religious observance of it was not expressly
enjoined by Christ and the apostles; as for similar reasons there is
no prohibition of polygamy and slavery by the letter of the New
Testament, although its spirit condemns these abuses, and led to
their abolition.
3. We may go further and say that coercive Sunday laws are against
the genius and spirit of the Christian religion which appeals to the
free agency of man, and uses only moral means for its ends. A
Christian government may and ought to protect the Christian
Sabbath against open desecration, but its positive observance by
attending public worship, must be left to the conscientious
conviction of individuals. Religion cannot be forced by law. It loses
its value when it ceases to be voluntary.
Page5
B. The Sabbath and the Lords Day
Page 137 of 524
1. The fathers did not regard the Christian Sunday as a continuation

of, but as a substitute for, the Jewish Sabbath, and based it not so
much on the fourth commandment, and the primitive rest of God in
creation, to which the commandment expressly refers, as upon the
resurrection of Christ and the apostolic tradition. There was a
disposition to disparage the Jewish law in the zeal to prove the
independent originality of Christian institutions. The same polemic
interest against Judaism ruled in the paschal controversies, and
made Christian Easter a moveable feast. Nevertheless, Sunday was
always regarded in the ancient church as a divine institution, at
least in the secondary sense, as distinct from divine ordinances in
the primary sense, which were directly and positively commanded
by Christ, as baptism and the Lords Supper. Regular public
worship absolutely requires a stated day of worship.
a) Ignatius was the first who contrasted Sunday with the Jewish
Sabbath as something done away with.
b) So did the author of the so-called Epistle of Barnabas.
c) Justin Martyr, in controversy with a Jew, says that the pious before
Moses pleased God without circumcision and the Sabbath, and that
Christianity requires not one particular Sabbath, but a perpetual
Sabbath. He assigns as a reason for the selection of the first day for
the purposes of Christian worship, because on that day God dispelled
the darkness and the chaos, and because Jesus rose from the dead
and appeared to his assembled disciples, but makes no allusion to
the fourth commandment He uses the term "to sabbathize"
(), only of the Jews, except in the passage just quoted,
where he spiritualizes the Jewish law.
d) Dionysius of Corinth mentions Sunday incidentally in a letter to the
church of Rome, A. D. 170: "To-day we kept the Lords Day holy, in
which we read your letter."
Melito of Sardis wrote a treatise on the Lords Day, which
is lost.
Page6
e)
Page 138 of 524
f)
Irenaeus of Lyons, about 170, bears testimony
to the celebration of the

Lords Day, but likewise regards the Jewish Sabbath merely as a
symbolical and typical ordinance, and says that "Abraham without
circumcision and without observance of Sabbaths believed in God,"
which proves "the symbolical and temporary character of those
ordinances, and their inability to make perfect.
g) Tertullian, at the close of the second and beginning of the third

century, views the Lords Day as figurative of rest from sin and
typical of mans final rest, and says: "We have nothing to do with
Sabbaths, new moons or the Jewish festivals, much less with those of
the heathen. We have our own solemnities, the Lords Day, for
instance, and Pentecost. As the heathen confine themselves to their
festivals and do not observe ours, let us confine ourselves to ours,
and not meddle with those belonging to them." He thought it wrong
to fast on the Lords Day, or to pray kneeling during its continuance.
"Sunday we give to joy." But he also considered it Christian duty to
abstain from secular care and labor, lest we give place to the devil.
This is the first express evidence of cessation from labor on Sunday
among Christians. The habit of standing in prayer on Sunday,
which Tertullian regarded as essential to the festive character of the
day, and which was sanctioned by an ecumenical council, was
afterwards abandoned by the western church.
h) The Alexandrian fathers have essentially the same view, with some
fancies of their own concerning the allegorical meaning of the Jewish
Sabbath.
2. Conclusions
Page7
a) We see then that the ante-Nicene church clearly distinguished the

Christian Sunday from the Jewish Sabbath, and put it on independent
Christian ground. She did not fully appreciate the perpetual
obligation of the fourth commandment in its substance as a weekly
day of rest, rooted in the physical and moral necessities of man.
Page 139 of 524
b) This is independent of those ceremonial enactments which were

intended only for the Jews and abolished by the gospel. But, on the
other hand, the church took no secular liberties with the day. On the
question of theatrical and other amusements she was decidedly
puritanic and ascetic, and denounced them as being inconsistent on
any day with the profession of a soldier of the cross. She regarded
Sunday as a sacred day, as the Day of the Lord, as the weekly
commemoration of his resurrection and the pentecostal effusion of
the Spirit, and therefore as a day of holy joy and thanksgiving to be
celebrated even before the rising sun by prayer, praise, and
communion with the risen Lord and Saviour.
c) Sunday legislation began with Constantine, and belongs to the next
period.
d) The observance of the Sabbath among the Jewish Christians
gradually ceased. Yet the Eastern church to this day marks the
seventh day of the week (excepting only the Easter Sabbath) by
omitting fasting, and by standing in prayer; while the Latin church,
in direct opposition to Judaism, made Saturday a fast day. The
controversy on this point began as early as the, end of the second
century
C. The 2nd Century
1. Ignatius
a) Our earliest evidence from the second century is given by Ignatius,
the bishop of Antioch, in letters he wrote somewhere around the year
115.
b) He warned Christians to reject those who preach the Jewish law
(Philadelphians 6:1).
Page8
c) Similarly, If we still live according to the Jewish law, we

acknowledge that we have not received grace.... It is absurd to
profess Christ Jesus, and to Judaize.
Page 140 of 524
d) More specifically about the Sabbath, Ignatius praised some who

were no longer observing the Sabbath. Clearly, Ignatius did not
observe the Sabbath. It is debated, however, whom he is praising. In
the previous section, he was talking about the Old Testament
prophets, but it does not seem likely that he would accuse them of
abandoning the Sabbath, even though some ancient writers
mentioned the prophets criticisms of Sabbath-keeping (such as
Isaiah 1:13). More likely, he is praising Jewish Christians who had
given up the Sabbath those who were brought up in the ancient
order of things. This does not mean that all Jewish Christians had
abandoned the Sabbath, but some had, and Ignatius was praising
them. The lack of extensive explanation indicates that the Christians
in Magnesia, like Ignatius, did not observe the Sabbath, but that
Judaizers existed who advocated the Sabbath.
e) Furthermore, Ignatius praised some people for living in the
observance of the Lords Day. The meaning here is debated, but
Ignatius attitude toward the Sabbath makes it likely that he was
observing a different day, in a different way.
2. Barnabas
b) Barnabas cites Isaiah 1:13-14 as criticism of the Sabbath,

concluding, Your present Sabbaths are not acceptable to Me, but
that is which I have made, when, giving rest to all things, I shall
make a beginning of the eighth day, that is, a beginning of another
world. He also mentions our present inability to keep any day holy
by being pure in heart, and he concludes that we will be unable to
keep the Sabbath holy until the end-time new world, after we have
been made completely holy. In this passage,
Page9
a) Our next evidence comes from the Epistle of Barnabas, which was
probably written from Alexandria, perhaps as early as A.D. 70 or as
late as 132. He writes against Jewish sacrifices, fasts, circumcision
and other laws. Those laws were types prefiguring Christ. He gives a
figur a tive meaning for unclean meat laws, and then a figurative
meaning for the Sabbath: Attend, my children, to the meaning of
this expres sion, He finished in six days. This implieth that the Lord
will finish all things in six thousand years, for a day is with him a
thousand years.[5]
Page 141 of 524
c) Barnabas does four things, which will be repeated by later authors:

i.
He interprets the Sabbath in terms of moral holiness, not rest.
ii.
He associates the Sabbath with the prophesied age.
iii.
He associates the new age with the eighth day which he then
associates with the eighth day of the week: Wherefore, also, we keep
the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again
from the dead.
iv.
He associates the Christian day of worship with the resurrection of

Jesus.
d) Barnabas, with antagonism against Jewish laws, transferred the

Sabbath command entirely into the future and, since the future age
was called not only the seventh but also the eighth, could view
Sunday-keeping as likewise picturing the future. Thus first-day
observance was only indirectly related to Sabbath observance.
3. Justin Martyr
a) Justin Martyr gives us evidence from Rome, about the year 150. His
comments probably reflect Christian custom in other cities, too, such
as Ephesus, where he lived for a while.
c) Justin is clear: It was the widespread practice of Christians to

observe Sunday. Perhaps there were some Gentile Christians who
kept the Sabbath...but if so, they found no spokesman whose writings
survive (R.J. Bauckham, Sabbath and Sunday in the Post-Apostolic
Church, chapter 9 in D.A. Carson, editor, From Sabbath to Lords
Day: A Biblical, Historical and Theological Investigation (Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1982), p. 269).
Page10
b) On the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country
gather together in one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the
writings of the prophets are read.... Sunday is the day on which we
all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which
God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the
world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the
dead.
Page 142 of 524
d) An Adventist scholar writes, Many Christians were already honor

ing Sunday near the beginning of the second cen tury.... Evidence is
very strong...that many if not most Christians had given up the
Sabbath as early as a.d.130.... Just as Sunday observance came into
practice by early in the second century, so among Gentile Christians
Sabbath observance went out of practice by early in the second
century (C. Mervyn Maxwell and P. Gerard Damsteegt, eds., Source
Book for the History of Sabbath and Sunday (Berrien Springs, Mich.:
Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, 1992), pp. 136, 142).
e) But Sunday was not a replacement for the Sabbath: Sunday was
observed only as a day for worship, not as a Sabbath on which to
refrain from work.... Sunday was not at first celebrated as a
Sabbath.... It was not observed in obedience to the fourth command
ment.... Sunday was regarded by Christians generally not as a day of
rest or holiness but as a day of joy (Ibid., pp. 137, 139). See below on
discussion.
f) Justin Martyr gives a lengthy explanation of his understanding of the
Sabbath in his debate with a (possibly hypothetical) Jewish teacher
named Trypho, who explained the Jewish way to be accepted by God:
First be circumcised, then observe what ordinances have been
enacted with respect to the Sabbath, and the feasts, and the new
moons of God; and, in a word, do all things which have been written
in the law; and then perhaps you shall obtain mercy from God.... To
keep the Sabbath, to be circumcised, to observe months, and to be
washed if you touch anything prohibited by Moses, or after sexual
intercourse.[10]
Trypho criticized the Christians: You, professing to be pious, and
supposing yourselves better than others, are not in any particular
separated from them, and do not alter your mode of living from other
nations, in that you observe no festivals or sabbaths and do not have the
rite of circumcision.... Yet you expect to obtain some good thing from
God, while you do not obey His commandments. Have you not read, that
that soul shall be cut off from his people who shall not have been
circumcised on the eighth day?
Page11
i.
ii.
Justin replied that Christians were indeed obedient to God, even when
obedience was extremely painful: We too would observe the fleshly
circumcision, and the Sabbaths, and in short all the feasts, if we did not
know for what reason they were enjoined you namely, on account of
your transgressions and the hardness of your hearts. For if we patiently
endure all things contrived against us by wicked men...even as the new
Lawgiver commanded us: how is it, Trypho, that we would not observe
those rites which do not harm us I speak of fleshly circumcision, and
Sabbaths and feasts?
iii.
Justin explained the reason Christians ignored the Jewish laws: We live
not after the law, and are not circumcised in the flesh as your
forefathers were, and do not observe sabbaths as you do.... An eternal
and final law namely, Christ has been given to us.... He is the new
law, and the new covenant.... The new law requires you to keep
perpetual sabbath, and you, because you are idle for one day, suppose
you are pious, not discerning why this has been commanded you.... If
there is any perjured person or a thief among you, let him cease to be so;
if any adulterer, let him repent; then he has kept the sweet and true
sabbaths of God.
iv.
In Justins view, the Sabbath command was a command for morality,

and Christians, by behaving morally on every day, were in perpetual
obedience to the purpose of the Sabbath. Justin repeatedly said that the
patriarchs Abel, Enoch, Lot, Noah and Melchizedek, though they kept
no Sabbaths, were pleasing to God.... For if there was no need of
circumcision before Abraham, or of the observance of Sabbaths, of
feasts and sacrifices, before Moses; no more need is there of them now.
v.
Justin argued that, since Sabbaths and sacrifices and feasts began with
Moses, then they ended with Christ, who was the new covenant. Not
only do Gentiles not have to keep the Sabbath, Justin concluded that the
just men who are descended from Jacob do not have to, either.
vi.
Trypho asked, Could a Christian keep the Sabbath if he wished to?

Justin knew of some Jewish Christians who kept the Sabbath and
replied, Yes, as long as he doesnt try to force other Christians to keep
the Law of Moses. Justin explained some typology between Old
Testament rituals and Christian realities. Among these were a
connection between circumcision and Sunday. His argument assumes
that Trypho knew that Christians met on Sundays:
Page12
Page 143 of 524
Page 144 of 524
vii.
The command of circumcision, again bidding [them] always circumcise

the children on the eighth day, was a type of the true circumcision, by
which we are circumcised from deceit and iniquity through Him who
rose from the dead on the first day after the Sabbath, our Lord Jesus
Christ. For the first day after the Sabbath, remaining the first of all the
days, is called, however, the eighth.
4. Irenaeus
a) Irenaeus, leader of the church in Lyons (modern-day France) in the
last half of the second century, also gives us lengthy comments on
the Sabbath, and his views probably reflect those of Asia Minor, since
that is where he was from. He had also been in Rome and may have
been influenced by Justin Martyr.
b) Irenaeus, commenting on the grainfield incident of Matthew 12,
notes that Jesus did not break the Sabbath, but Irenaeus gives a
rationale that applies to Christians, too:
d) The idea is that, since all believers are priests, and priests are free to
work on the Sabbath serving God, then Christians are free to work on
the Sabbath. Regardless of the validity of his reasoning, he obviously
did not believe that Christians had to keep the Sabbath. Just as
circumcision was symbolic, he says, the Sabbath command was, too,
typifying both morality and prophecy: The Sabbaths taught that we
should continue day by day in Gods service...ministering continually
to our faith, and persevering in it, and abstaining from all avarice,
and not acquiring or possessing treasures upon earth. Moreover, the
Sabbath of God, that is, the kingdom, was, as it were, indicated by
created things; in which [kingdom], the man who shall have
persevered in serving God shall, in a state of rest, partake of Gods
table.
Page13
c) The Lord...did not make void, but fulfilled the law, by performing the
offices of the high priest...justifying His disciples by the words of the
law, and pointing out that it was lawful for the priests to act freely
[Matthew 12:5]. For David had been appointed a priest by God,
although Saul still persecuted him. For all the righteous possess the
sacerdotal rank. And all the apostles of the Lord are priests.
Page 145 of 524
e) Irenaeus, like Justin, said that the patriarchs before Moses did not
keep the Sabbath. But he also said that they kept the Ten
Commandments and that Christians also had to! His discrepancy can
be explained in two ways. Bauckham suggests that Irenaeus used the
term Ten Commandments loosely, as synonymous with the natural
law, as suggested in 4.16.3. Another possibility is that Irenaeus
considered a moral person to be de facto keeping the Sabbath
command, as suggested in 4.16.1 and in another work: Nor will he
be commanded to leave idle one day of rest, who is constantly
keeping sabbath, that is, giving homage to God in the temple of God,
which is mans body, and at all times doing the works of justice.
5. Tertullian
a) In the late second century and early third century, Tertullian also
rejected the literal Sabbath, said that the patriarchs did not observe
it, interpreted it in terms of morals, and worshipped on
Sunday.[24] He gives yet more evidence that second-century
Christians had, as far as we can tell, abandoned the Sabbath and
observed Sunday as the day for Christian worship.
c) Although a few Christians observed the Sabbath, Sunday was more

distinctively Christian. It became the day on which believers
worshiped the Lord, and the day became known in the second
century as the Lords day [kuriak hmera]. The term was so well
known that the word for day became unnecessary if a Christian
wrote about the kuriak, readers would understand that Sunday was
meant. This term therefore gives additional evidence that Sunday
was the Christian day of worship in the second century.
Page14
b) The written evidence is clear: Almost all second-century Christians

observed Sunday as a day of worship (not a day of required rest),
rather than the Sabbath. No matter what the original reason(s) may
have been for meeting on the first day of the week, Christians could
have easily seen a biblical significance to that day: It was the day on
which the risen Lord appeared to the disciples. Of all the days of the
week, only the first and the seventh were ever considered, and
Sunday was quickly understood as the day for Christian worship.
Page 146 of 524
d) Even in the early second century, Sunday-keeping was the norm

throughout Christendom (except for Jewish groups) with no trace
of controversy or any evidence that the custom was a recent
innovation. The church that began as a Sabbath-keeping group
became a Sunday-keeping group that rejected literal Sabbathkeeping.
6. How the church changed
a) Introductions
i.
Modern Sunday-keeping Christians often conclude that the apostles

authorized or even commanded Gentiles to meet on Sundays instead of
Sabbaths.
ii.
Of course, this conclusion must be rejected by anyone who thinks that

Christians should observe the seventh-day Sabbath. Therefore, Seventhday Advent ists have proposed ways in which the vast majority of
professing Christians could have become deceived about the Sabbath.
Some claim that the change from Sabbath to Sunday was introduced at
Rome in the middle of the second century.
i.
In support of that position, Samuele Bacchiocchi argues that Sundaykeeping was a Roman Catholic innovation that became widespread
because of the authority of the Roman church[25] Samuele
Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath to Sunday (Berrien Springs, Mich.: Biblical
Perspectives, 1987).
ii.
Anti-Jewish sentiments were strong in Rome, and Gentiles became

prominent in the church there. Since Hadrian fought against the Jews,
his reign would be a likely candidate for the beginning of Sunday
observance. The idea is that Christians wanted to be different than the
Jews. Bacchiocchi argues that only a powerful church (i.e., Rome) could
effectively switch the day of worship throughout the empire.
iii.
However, Bacchiocchis theory has serious weaknesses, as noted by

another Adventist scholar. The Roman church simply did not have that
kind of power in the second century. As evidence, we note the following:
When Ignatius wrote to the Roman church, he did not greet a bishop of Rome.
Page15
b) Bacchiocchis theory
Page 147 of 524

Irenaeus was willing to disagree with the bishop of Rome regarding their policy
toward the Quartodecimans
Polycarp and Polycrates acted as equals with the bishop of Rome.
It was only with difficulty and controversy that Rome pressured a change in
the date of Easter for one area in Asia Minor.
Even in later centuries, Rome was unable to force other cities to observe the
seventh day as a fast day.
In the fourth century, when many Eastern Christians began to observe the
Sabbath as well as Sunday, Rome was unable or unwilling to stop the practice.
(Kenneth A. Strand, From Sabbath to Sunday in the Early Christian Church: A
Review of Some Recent Literature. Part II: Samuele Bacchiocchis
Reconstruction, Andrews University Seminary Studies 17 (1979), pp. 96-99).
Although Rome could influence some areas of the empire, it would not
have been able to change long-standing customs, especially in the East,
without any visible evidences of controversy, especially when those
customs were based on apostolic practice. Another major difficulty with
Bacchiocchis theory is that Sunday-keeping is documented before the
reign of Hadrian and outside of Rome: Ignatius of Antioch was not a
Sabbath-keeper and presumably observed Sunday, and the Magnesians
and Philadelphians (and probably the other churches to which he
wrote) probably agreed with him in this. Barnabas gives evidence that
Alexandrians were observing Sunday early in the second century. In no
case is there evidence that the change in day of worship was recent. For
Justin, too, there is significant evidence that Justin may have been an
observer of Sunday long before a.d. 155 and long before he visited
Rome ([27] Maxwell, p. 138.
Page16
iv.
Page 148 of 524
v.
If second-century Rome ever decreed that Christians should observe

Sunday (there is no historical evidence for such a decree), it could have
been effective only if the majority of churches were already observing
Sunday. Nor can Sabbath-abandonment be explained simply as antiJewishness. The early church went to great lengths, against Marcion, to
keep the Old Testament Scriptures in their canon. They did not feel at
liberty to simply reject the Sabbath. Rather, they re-interpreted it and
claimed to be keeping its intent. Also, at certain times in history it would
have been to the Christians advantage to be seen as a branch of
Judaism, since Judaism was a legal religion and Christianity was not. The
complexity of the Christians attitude toward Judaism makes it highly
unlikely that Rome could have convinced all Christians in all parts of the
empire to change their day of worship. Many Christians would have had
reasons to resist such a change.
vi.
Another element of Bacchiocchis theory is that sun-worship, such as

Mithraism, influenced Rome to select Sun-day as the new day of
worship. Again, there is no evidence for such a factor (Tertullian
specifically rules it out), it is historically unlikely, and the selection of
Sunday can be explained without resorting to pagan precedents.
Moreover, the early church resisted pagan practices. Christians would
die rather than do something as simple as call the emperor Lord.
vii.
Strand gives a convincing critique: Would it not be somewhat farfetched to look to a pagan religion fostered mainly by soldiers in the
Roman legions as the source for the Christian day of worship?... Why
would Christians who were ready to give up life itself rather than to
adopt known pagan practices (e.g., Justin Martyr, who did precisely this)
choose an obviously pagan Sunday as their Christian day of worship (
Strand, p. 90).
viii.
In short, the theory of Roman initiation and enforcement is not

historically credible.
Page17
c) Other theories
Page 149 of 524
Maxwell explains some of the reasons that contributed to Sunday

observance: (1) The extraordinary impact of the Resurrection. (This is the
commonest reason given by the Christians themselves.) (2) The Christian
desire to honor Christ in a special way. (3) The in sistence of Gospel writers
(includ ing John in the later part of the century) on stating the day of the
week when the Resurrection occurred. (4) The effect of following for some
months, or even years, Pauls request to set aside money for the poor on
Sundays (Maxwell, p. 161C).
Page18
Maxwell, an Adventist, is not arguing for Sunday-keeping, but for honest

use of the second- and third-century evidence. He gives an excellent
summary of the evidence: These writers taught that the new covenant had
put an end to the old law and that now the new spiritual Israel, with its
new covenant and its new spiritual law, no longer needed the literal
circumcision, literal sacrifices, and literal Sabbath. Barnabas observed that
God has circumcised our hearts. Justin referred triumphantly to the new
spiritual circumcision in Christ. Irenaeus taught that circumcision,
sacrifices, and Sabbaths were given of old as signs of better things to come;
the new sacrifice, for example, is now a contrite heart. Tertullian, too, had a
new spiritual sacrifice and a new spiritual circumcision. Each of these
writers also taught that a new spiritual concept of the Sabbath had
replaced the old literal one.... This supplanting of the old law with the new,
of the literal Sabbath with the spiritual, was a very Christ-centered concept
for these four writers. Gods people have inherited the covenant only
because Christ through His sufferings inherited it first for us, Barnabas
said. For Justin the new, final, and eternal law that has been given to us was
namely Christ Himself. It was only because Christ gave the law that He
could now also be the end of it, said Irenaeus. And it is Christ who
invalidated the old and confirmed the new, according to Tertullian.
Indeed Christ did this, both Irenaeus and Tertullian said, not so much by
annulling the law as by so wonderfully fulfilling it that He extended it far
beyond the mere letter. To sum up: The early rejection of the literal
Sabbath appears to be traceable to a common hermeneutic of Old and New
Testament scriptures. (Maxwell, pages 154-156).
Page 150 of 524
ix.
I suggest that these writers, even though they were from various parts
of the empire, have a common hermeneutic because that same
hermeneutic was used in the Gentile mission ever since Acts 15: a
mission that did not require Gentiles to keep the laws of Moses,
including the Sabbath. It is unlikely that churches throughout the
empire would, without controversy, develop the same practice unless
that practice had been present from the beginning. It is also unlikely
that people throughout the empire would give the same reasons for
their practice unless those reasons had also been present from the
beginning. Their common hermeneutic is evidence of antiquity.
i.
I would also like to note that Jewish Christians had a practical need for
meeting times that did not conflict with synagogue observance. The
second-century writers show that the vast majority of Christians met on
Sunday and did not keep the Sabbath. They give no clues to suggest that
Sunday was a recent innovation. This suggests that Sunday observance
began in the first century.
ii.
The widespread nature of Sunday observance also argues for its

antiquity. The second-century church did not have the organization or
communication that might enable them to require a particular day of
worship without generating disagreement and controversy. Therefore it
is likely that Sunday observance began before or during the early stages
of the Gentile mission.
iii.
It is possible that Sunday observance even began in Jerusalem.

Thousands of law-observant Jews came into the church. They attended
temple and synagogue functions, yet they also wished to have more
private meetings for believers only. They wished to discuss Scriptures,
share meals, pray and sing Christian hymns. Initially, they met daily
(Acts 2:46). Sabbath restrictions, however, might have made it difficult
to prepare meals and gather large groups on Saturday evenings.
Page19
d) A practical need
iv.
Sundays would provide opportunities for large Christian gatherings.

Scriptures that had been read the previous day would be discussed,
especially if they had messianic significance. Sermons would be given;
Christians would celebrate their faith in Jesus the Messiah. As
Christianity spread to Jewish communities in Antioch, Alexandria and
Rome, similar situations would foster the development of post-Sabbath
Christian meetings.
v.
When Gentiles first began to be added to the church, they were Godfearing Gentiles who attended synagogue meetings and would also need
an after-Sabbath meeting time for Christian worship. Eventually
Gentiles from pagan backgrounds were also added, in Alexandria,
Ephesus and Rome. These converts were not in the habit of attending
synagogue, but they would nevertheless meet with the others after the
Sabbath. Thus there were two groups of Christians: those who kept
Sabbath and met after the Sabbath, and those who ignored the Sabbath
and met only after the Sabbath. This dual development would have been
common throughout the empire, since Jews lived in many cities, and
evangelists preached to the Jews first. But the need for dual worship
meetings would have ceased in most cities as Gentiles became the large
majority. Anti-Jewish sentiment could have accelerated this
development.
vi.
The custom of after-Sabbath meetings would have been spread by

traveling evangelists, and the tradition would have been maintained
even in areas without Sabbath meetings. Even in areas with synagogues,
meeting on the Sabbath would become less important, since synagogue
readings had to be interpreted, and the interpretations were given in
the after-Sabbath meeting. The desire for attendance at the synagogue
would become further reduced when Christian groups obtained their
own copies of the Scriptures.
vii.
This hypothetical reconstruction explains how an initially Sabbathkeeping Jewish group could become a Sunday-keeping Gentile group
within a generation, and it explains how this could have been done
throughout the empire simultaneously with a minimum of controversy:
It was part of Christianity from the beginning.
Page20
Page 151 of 524
Page 152 of 524
viii.
The Acts 15 conference had already concluded that Gentile converts did
not need to keep the Law of Moses and, judging by rabbinic writings,
uncircumcised Gentiles were not expected to keep the Sabbath. Paul,
writing to a church that contained both Jews and Gentiles, downplayed
the significance of days (Romans 14:5). He explained that the Sabbath
(like sacrifices) had typological significance and was not a matter for
judging Christians (Colossians 2:16). And he criticized any observance
of any days that were obligations (Galatians 4:10). The writer of
Hebrews explained that the Sabbath typologically prefigured a spiritual
rest, and it is that latter rest that Christians should strive to enter
(Hebrews 4:1-10).
ix.
These New Testament scriptures indicate that questions about worship

days did arise in the first century, and that they were resolved at an
early stage in church history with the conclusion that the Sabbath is not
a Christian requirement.
7. Review
a) The earliest Jewish Christians observed the Sabbath; Gentiles did
not.
b) Writings of the second century unanimously report Christians
meeting on Sundays.
c) No church had the power to enforce a change in day in both west and
east; this suggests that Sunday had been observed from the
beginning.
d) Many Sunday-keeping Christians would rather die than compromise
with paganism.
e) Question: Is this evidence that Christianity went astray as soon as
the apostles died, or evidence that the church understood Paul
correctly?
f) Why was there no controversy about the change?
1. Tertullian
Page21
D. The Lords Day in the Third Century
Page 153 of 524
a) The third century opened with statements in his Apologia ch. 16

made in about 200 A.D. by Tertullian of Carthage (d. 240) that "we
solemnize the day after Saturday, in contradiction to those who call
this day their sabbath, and we dedicate it to rest and food, diverging
from the ancient Jewish customs with which they are very unfamiliar
at this time.
b) In his treatise on prayer, Tertullian declares that "we, according to
the instruction which we have received, should on the day of the
Lords resurrection, and on that day alone [solo die dominico
resurrexionis], also refrain from all anxiety, putting aside our
worldly business in order to give no place to the devil. which
words prove Sunday worship to be very considerably older than
about 200 A.D. (when Tertullian wrote these words), or one century
after the completion of the New Testament.
c) And elsewhere Tertullian is said by some to have insisted that "the
seventh day sabbath is gone to its grave with the signs and shadows of
the Old Testament, whereas "every eighth day is the Christians
festival" and "we make Sunday [dies solis] a day of festivity.
2. Origen
Page22
a) Approximately twenty-five years later, Origen of

Alexandrias catechetical school (d. 255) is considered by some to
have written from about 225 A.D. onwards that after "the end of the
Covenant now grown old, which is the end of the Sabbath," "it is one
of the marks of a perfect Christian to keep the Lords day". And in
his contra Celsum VI ch. 61, after stating that the heretic Celsus
"knows nothing of the day of the sabbath and the rest of God which
follows the completion of the worlds creation and which lasts for the
duration of the world, and in which all those will keep festivals with
God who have done all their works in their six days . . . will ascend to
the contemplation of celestial things and to the assembly of
righteous and blessed things", goes on to declare of the Christians
behaviour in VIII: 22 that ". . . we ourselves are accustomed to
celebrate certain days, such for example the Lords day etc."
Page 154 of 524
b) To illustrate the excellence of the Lords day above the old Saturday
sabbath, Origen somewhat allegorically yet nevertheless
convincingly proves his point in his seventh Homily on Exodus, where
he argues that as "it is plain from Holy Writ that manna was first
given on earth on the Lords day . . . , and rained none on the sabbath
day, let the Jews understand that from that [?!] time our Lords day
was set above the true sabbath . . . For on our Lords day, God always
rains down manna from heaven . . . for . . , the words which are
preached to us have come down from God . . ."
c) And Origen is also believed to have written: "Therefore relinquishing
judaical observances of the (Saturday) Sabbath, let us see of what
sort the observance of the (Sunday) Sabbath ought to be to the
Christian. On the day of the Sabbath it behoves that nothing of all
worldly works should be done. If therefore you cease from all secular
employment and carry on nothing worldly and are at leisure for
spiritual occupation and go to church, giving ear to the reading and
treating of the Divine Word and think of heavenly things and are
solicitous about the future hope and have before your eyes the
coming judgment and have not respect to present and visible things,
but to the unseen and future, this is the observance of the Christian
Sabbath."
3. Fabian
Page23
a) A few years later, Bishop Fabian of Rome (236-250 AD.) wrote of the
ecclesiastical maintenance of "seven deacons in the city of Rome . . .
who attend to the services enjoined on them week by week, and on
the Lords day and the solemn festivals" (cf. I Cor. 16:1 & 2 with Acts
6:1-3), and further decreed that "on each Lords day the oblation of
altar should be made . . . in bread and wine" (cf. Acts 20:6, 7).
Page 155 of 524
b) Shortly after the above, in about 250 A.D., Bishop Cyprian of

Carthage wrote, "in respect of the observance of the Jewish
circumcision" that it was to be fulfilled with Christs advent in that
"the eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath, was to be that
on which the Lord should rise again, . . . the Lords day" (cf. John 20:1,
26 and Col. 2:9-16); and his younger contemporary Bishop Anatolius
of Laodicea (230-300 AD.) declared that "the first day of the week is
the resurrection day, and the Lords day. The Sabbath and the Lords
day are clearly designated and distinguished by name in the Easter
tables."
4. From about 250-313, Christianity was violently persecuted and
absolutely prohibited as a religio illicita or illegal religion. Yet
Christian Sunday observance continued nonetheless. For it is not
impossible that Commodian (c. 250-300 AD.) means Sunday
observance in his reference to "the Lords Day"; and it is certain
that Bishop Victorinus of Pettau (250?-303 AD.) wrote in about 290
AD.: On the former day [that is, the Saturday Sabbath] we are
accustomed to fast rigorously, that on the Lords day we may go
forth to our bread with giving of thanks (cf. Acts 20:6-7). Lest we
should appear to observe any Sabbath with the Jews, which Christ
Himself the Lord of the Sabbath in His body abolished. Cf. too
Pseudo-Ignatius.
E. The Lords Day and the 4th Century
1. Legislation of 4th Century
b) Probably just after Saturninus and Dativ were martyred in the

persecutions of about 304 AD. after insisting on celebrating the
Lords [day] [Dominicum celebrare or servare], Methodius(250?-31
17 A.D.) referred to "the first day of the resurrection" as the day
which was to mark the celebration of "the millenium of rest, which is
called the seventh day, even the true sabbath"; and Bishop Peter of
Alexandria declared in 306 that "We celebrate the Lords day as the
day of joy, because on it He rose again."
Page24
a) The fourth century was to see Sunday come into its own as the
official "sabbath" or day of rest throughout the Roman Empire which
was then becoming more and more Christianized, at least in name.
Page 156 of 524
c) If Sunday observance was a joy to the pious, Sunday desecration

resulted in anything but joy for the apostate. The strict 36th Council
of Elvira [or Eliberis] in 306, [which, significantly, prohibited the
worship of depictions on Church walls] also provided for "the
excommunication of all Christians who, without cause, absented
themselves from public worship for three Lords days."
d) In that same year (306 A.D.), Constantine succeeded his father as
the Emperor of the Roman Empire. Perhaps partly for political
motives842, he determined to revere the Christian God at a time
when, in spite of all their persecutions, the Christians amongst his
subjects were growing daily whilst the heathen were diminishing.
e) Having granted Christianity toleration as a religio licita by the Edict
of Milan in 313, on the 8th of March 321, Constantine, perhaps at the
request of Church authorities844, further enacted his far-reaching
"Sunday Edict": "Let all the judges and town people, and the
occupation of all trades (artium officia cunctarum), rest on the
venerable day of the sun; but let those who are situated in the
country, freely and at full liberty attend to the business of
agriculture; because it often happens that no other day is so fit for
sowing corn and planting vines; lest, the critical moment being let
slip, men should lose the commodities granted by Heaven.
Page25
f) Here was the first official legislation to enable Christians in

particular and men in general to rest on Sundays. All state
departments and official trades were to close down in the urban
areas, but works of necessity in the as then still rather imperfectly
Christianized847 rural districts were still permitted [although even
such rural Sunday work had already ceased in terms of the Fourth
Commandment within about fifty years848 by the time of Ephraem
the Syrian849]. At last the majority of Christians could rest from
their labours and devote the whole Lords day uninterruptedly to
God.
Page 157 of 524
g) Once the die had now been cast, more Sunday legislation soon
followed. On the 18th of April of the same year 321, Constantine
wrote to Bishop Hesius of Cordova that the liberation of slaves by
Christians would be valid even if not taken cognizance of by the
state, provided it occurred before the whole congregation of
believers850, and on the 3rd of June he decreed that as it would be
very agreeable to fulfil all vows to liberate ones slaves on Sunday,
all should "have liberty for every act of emancipation and
manumission on this feast day"851, on this sancta dies
Dominica852.
Page26
h) After Constantines imperial legislation of Sunday as an official day

of rest, he proceeded to favour Christian Churches with state aid, to
forbid Jews to stone such of their co-religionists as sought to
embrace Christianity, to construct and repair Christian edifices in
urban centres such as Jerusalem and Bethlehem, and to prohibit all
public religious exercises and practices which were contra bonos
mores and morally repulsive854.
Page 158 of 524
i) The Church was not slow to endorse Constantines official action

with its approval. Recording that only Jewish sects like the
Ebionites855 kept the Saturday Sabbath, but not the Christians,
Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea (circa 265-340) declared that
Constantine "had enjoined upon all the subjects of the Roman empire
to observe the Lords day, as a day of rest." As regards the army, the
emperor had ". . . freely granted to those among them who were
partakers of the divine faith, leisure for attendance on the services of
the Church of God, in order that they might be able, without
impediment, to perform their religious worship. For now that
Christ, "the Word of the New Covenant, has translated the feast of the
Sabbath and transferred it to the light of the morning, and given us
the true rest, namely the Lords day of salvation, the first [day] of the
light, in which the Saviour of the world, after all His labours among
men, obtained the victory over death, and passed the portals of
heaven", therefore "on this day, which is the first [day] of light and of
the true sun, we assemble, after an interval of six days, and celebrate
holy and spiritual sabbaths", for "whatsoever we were obliged to do
on the Sabbath, we have transferred to the Lords day, as being more
honourable than the Jewish Sabbath. For on that day, in making the
world, God said, Let there be light, and there was light; and on the
same day, the Sun of Righteousness arose upon our souls. Wherefore
it is delivered to us that we should meet together on this day", for
"Who else [besides Christ] has commanded the nations inhabiting
the continents and islands of this mighty globe to assemble weekly
on the Lords day, and to observe it as a festival . . . for the
invigoration of the soul by instruction in Divine truth?"
Page27
j) After the state decrees of Constantine in connection with official

Sunday observance as a day of rest, the Church too further exercised
its moral right to enforce obligatory religious Sunday sabbath
observance on its own members more and more, accordingly as the
increasingly Christianized State introduced more and more Lords
day legislation. Henceforth the Christian Church and the Christian
State would work hand in glove in their sanctification of the Lords
holy day.
Page 159 of 524
k) Four years after Constantines State edicts, the Churchs Council of

Nicea decreed in A.D. 325 that . . . "on the Lords days . . . all shall
offer their prayers to God standing", and that Easter was always to
be held on a Sunday.
l) In a later year, the Council of Laodicea (343-81) decided that
"Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday, but shall work
on that day; but the Lords day they shall especially honour, and, as
being Christians, shall, if possible, do no work on that day. If,
however, they are found Judaizing, they shall be shut out from
Christ."
m)The Council of Gangra, also 343-81, anathematized those who
absented themselves from the house of God and fasted on Sundays,
and the Council of Sardica in 347 (following the Council of Eliberis of
306) ordered the excommunication of all Christians who absented
themselves from public worship without cause for three successive
Sundays..
o) In agreement with and possibly sometimes antecedent to the Sunday

legislation of the increasingly Christianized State, the Christian
Church increasingly enjoined the sanctification of the Christian
Sunday sabbath, and forbad its members to fast or attend spectacles
or plays on the Lords day. The Fourth Council of Carthage of 398
held that "he who neglects divine service and goes instead to the
theatre, shall be excommunicated", whereas the Fifth of 401 decided
that "on Sundays . . . no plays may be performed", and petitioned the
emperor "that the public shows might be transferred from the
Christian . . . Sunday to some other days of the week" because "the
people congregate to the circus rather than to the church".
Page28
n) In 368, state legislation of the emperors Valentinian

and Valens legally freed Christians from Sunday tax collections, and
the emperors Valentinian, Gratian and Theodosius (Sen.) forbad
"public shows . . . by arranging entertainments" and law suits on the
Lords day (dies dominicus) in 386 A.D.866. In 389 the state required
respect for Sunday (dies solis) or the Lords day (dies
dominicus), and forbad Sunday circuses and public spectacles;
whereas in 399 Sunday theatrical shows were forbidden. Sunday
public amusements were legislated against in 409, in which same
year legal Sunday privileges were extended to prisoners.
Page 160 of 524
2. Church Father of 4th Century

a) The great Church Fathers of the fourth century apparently all
endorsed the Apostolic practice of keeping holy the Lords day. The
position of Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea (260-340) has been dealt
with above. However, this section may perhaps be concluded by
citing some of the Lords day teachings of the other great fourth
century Fathers.
b) Archbishop Athanasius of Alexandria (296-373) somewhat
allegorically yet nonetheless significantly declared of the musical
instrument called the Sheminith (= "the eighth") mentioned in Psalm
6: "What else could this octave be, but the resurrection day of
Christ?" And speaking of Psalm 118:24: "What day can this be but
the resurrection day of the Lord . . . to wit, the Lords day?". And
elsewhere he is believed to have stated: "We are met on a Sabbath
Day, not morbidly affecting Judaism, for we do not touch spurious
Sabbaths; but we have come together upon a Sabbath-worshipping
Jesus the Lord of the Sabbath. For of old there was among the
ancients the prized sabbaths, but the Lord changed the day of the
Sabbath to the Lords Day.
Page29
c) Ephraem the Syrian (306-79) expressed himself even more clearly

and forcefully: "Honour belongs to the Lords day, the firstling of the
days, . . . for it has taken away from the Sabbath the (first) birthright
. . . Blessed is he who honours it by spotless observance . . . The law
ordains that employees and animals be granted rest, so that
manservants, maidservants and day-labourers may cease labouring.
However, while our bodies rest (and) work is indeed refrained from,
we nevertheless (often) sin more on the day of rest than on other
days. For when we refrain from labouring in the fields and cease
labouring, we run the great risk of being condemned when we enter
business houses . . . Not only for the sake of your bodies shall ye
honour the day of salvation. (For) the Lords day is a holy day . . .
Page 161 of 524
d) Again, Bishop Epiphanius of Cyprus (310-403) claimed that the

Apostles instituted Sunday, and declared: "This is the day which God
blessed and sanctified, because in it He ceased from all His labours
which He had perfectly accomplished, the salvation both of those on
earth and those under the earth." And Bishop Hilary of
Poitiers (320-66) exclaimed: ". . . we rejoice in the festivity of a
perfect sabbath on the eighth day, which is also the first."
e) The testimony of the three Cappadocians is also illuminating.
Archbishop Basil of Caesarea (328-79), while expounding Gen. 1:25, claimed that Sunday was "the type of eternity, the first fruit of
days, the contemporary of light, the Lords holy day" and the type of
Gods "Eighth Day" or "Day of the Lord" and "Day without evening,
without succession, and without end"; whereas BishopGregory
Nazianzen of Sasima (329-90) also discussed the meaning of the
eighth day, and Bishop Gregory of Nyssa (331-96) claimed of Easter
Sunday: "This is the day which God made . . . It marks the beginning
of a new creation."
Page30
f) In the Italian Church the position is the same. The

great Jerome (331-420) wrote of the Jews: "They did no servile work
on the sabbath. We do none on the Lords day". And Bishop Ambrose
of Milan (340-97) regularly spoke of Sunday as a festival and
contrasted the pre-eminent Lords day with the old Saturday
sabbath, declaring that "the Lords day was consecrated by the
resurrection of Christ..
Page 162 of 524
g) The Greek Church clearly held to the same doctrine. For

Patriarch John Chrysostom of Constantinople (347-407) wrote on
Gen. 2:3: ". . . what do these words: He hallowed it, mean? . . . (God)
thereby teaches us that one of the number of the days of the week
must be set apart and dedicated to the service of spiritual things".
Elsewhere he declared that: "The Jews think that the Sabbath was
given them for ease and rest: its true purpose, however, is not this,
but that they may withdraw themselves from worldly affairs and
bestow all their study and labour upon spiritual things"885. And on
yet another occasion, he significantly advised: "You ought not, when
you have retired from the church assembly, to involve yourselves in
engagements contrary to the exercises with which you have been
occupied, but immediately on coming home read the Sacred
Scriptures, and call together the family, wife and children, to confer
about the things that have been spoken, and after they have been
more deeply and thoroughly impressed upon the mind, then proceed
to attend to such matters as are necessary for this life.
Page31
h) And in the Church of North Africa, Lords day observance was also
the godly rule. Bishop Augustine of Hippo (354-430) declared that
"we celebrate the Lords day" which "was by the resurrection of
Christ declared to Christians; and from that time it began to be
celebrated as the Christian festival". And Bishop Theophilus of
Alexandria (fl. 398) declared: ". . . we honour and keep holy the
Lords day, seeing on that day it was that our Lord Jesus completed
His resurrection from the dead . . . it is called as well the first [day],
because it is the beginning of our life, as also the eighth day, because
it has expelled the Sabbath observance of the Jews."
Page 163 of 524
III.
CONCLUSIONS
A. The Sabbath Day
1. Practical Significance of the Sabbath

a) The Jewish Sabbath was done away with
i.
The attitude of the Fathers is that with the passing of the whole system,
temple, sacrifice, circumcision, clean and unclean, went the sabbath as a
sign (Irenaeus, Haer. 4.I6.1f., PG vii. 1012f.; Origen, Contr. Cels. 2.7, PG
xi. 805, etc.).
ii.
The Fathers, it seems unanimously, claimed that there was no sabbath

observance before Moses; Abel, Enoch, and the patriarchs are held up as
examples of those who had no sabbaths and yet lived godly lives.l1 They
fufilled what it implied without having a rule for it observance. Without
sabbath regulations they observed its inner meaning. A modified form
of this is the idea of a pupil learning his lesson. The law of Moses was
'being under a tutor'. When the lesson was learned, the tutor could be
dismissed. Origen says, 'The work of the pedagogue is abolished by the
perfection of the pupil' (Comm. Rom. 3.5-5.7, PG xiv. 958).
b) The Sabbath was a day of physical rest

i.
Clement of Alexandria stresses this point of view, that man needs a day
of rest (Strom. 6;16, PG. x. 364).
ii.
Following Aristobulus, he says, God gave a seventh day for rest on

account of the trouble there is in life'. Aphrahat (Serm. 12), writing
between AD 336 and 345, and from outside the Roman Empire where
Constantine's edict would not hold, points out that the sabbath was not
instituted primarily for 'sin and righteousness, life and death', for it was
prescribed also for animals which have no soul.
i.
This viewpoint stems from Philo, as we have seen, and is taken up by

Cement of Alexandria (Strom. 6.16, PG ix. 364) and Origen (Ham. Exod.
7.7, PG xii. 347).
Page32
c) The Sabbath was a day of spiritual worship
Page 164 of 524
ii.
We have then in these varying attitudes a narrower view in which the

sabbath was seen as part of the Jewish national covenant life and a
wider view that it had a universal significance, a humanitarian, besides a
religious. significance. Perhaps these different views did not depend so
much on the individual writer as on those to whom he was writing. This
is brought out clearly in Tertullian. In writing against the Jews he claims
that the sabbath is temporary and with the coming of Christ has come to
an end. But in writing against Marcion, who claimed that the Old
Testament had no connection with the Christian, he says, 'He was called
the Lord of the sabbath because he maintained the sabbath as his own
institution, but he did not utterly destroy it ... he did not at all rescind
the Sabbath. He exhibits in a cleat light the different kinds of work, he
imparted an additional sanctity' (Adv. Jud. 6, PL ii. 608c; Adv. Marcion
4.I2, PL H. 383ff.).
iii.
his warns us that in examining teaching on the sabbath it is very

important to see what the purpose of the writer is. The Jewish Sabbath
has for all Christians passed away. The sabbath in its spiritual meaning
is still of great importance to the Christian. Of what that meaning is we
shall get glimpses in a study of what the Fathers felt the Old Testament
usage implied for Christians.
2. The Theological Significance of the Sabbath
Page33
a) It is possible to find various strands of thought in the Christian view

of the Jewish sabbath. One suggestion is that the sabbath was the
memorial of the first creation and of its completion (Irenaeus, Haer.
4.16.lf., PG vii. 1012f.; Origen, Contr. Cels. 2.7, PG xi. 805;
Ps.Athanasius, De Sab. et Circum., PG xli. 468). Another view was
that it represented a ceasing from our own works and a resting in
the work of God. Salvation was by faith not works (Clement Alex.,
Strom. 6.16, PG ix. 364). Rather another slant was to see the sabbath
as a picture of ceasing to do what was evil,a rest of conscience
(Epiphanius, Adv. Haer. 1.2.32, PG xli. 468; Ps.-Athanasius, De Sab. et
Circum., PG xli. 468).
Page 165 of 524
b) Then again, some saw it as a picture of the Christian experience, the

new land of promise into which the new Joshua was leading his
people, the Canaan of God,life consecrated and made holy (Jus tin,
Dial. 12, PG vi. 500; Irenaeus, Haer. 4.16.1-3, PG vii. IOI3ff.; Origen,
Contr. Cels. 8.23, PG xi. 1552). This was rest in comparison with the
toil of the old selfish life. To keep sabbath was to have the heart set
upon God all the time. All time belonged to God.
c) Yet another suggestion is that as in the Genesis account there is no
mention of an evening and a morning to the seventh day, the seventh
day becomes the eighth day without any break. The rest of the
seventh day merges into the perfect rest of the eighth day
(Augustine, Serol. 259, PL xxxviii. II97; Civ. Dei 22. 30, PL xli. 803).
d) As early as Barnabas this has already begun to take on a chiliastic
slant. The earth's existence will last for six thousand years. Then will
come the millennium, the thousand years of sabbath keeping. This
conception continued to catch the imagination of those who held
chiliastic views (Irenaeus, Haer. 4.I6, PG vii, 1017; Origen, Hom. in
Gen. 7, PG xii, 218; Methodius, Symp. 9.5, PG viii. 189)' Augustine at
first seems to have held these views, but later changed.
B. The Lords Day
1. It is a day like what the Patriarchs experienced: The patriarchs had

no Sabbaths (Justin, Dial. 19, PG vi. 516; ibid. 2.7, PG vi. 533;
Tertullian, Adv. Jud. 2., 3, PL ii. 60If.; Didascalia, FXF 6.18.16, p.
362; Connolly, op. cit., p. 237).
2. God did not cease all work on the Sabbath day (Tertullian,Adv.
Marcion Z.ZI, PL ii. 309; Origen, Comm. on Num. Z3.4, PG-xii. 750;
and the constant quotation of the text John 5: 17 in this
connection).
4. The sabbath intention, a devotion to spiritual things (Tertullian,

Adv. Jud. 4, PL ii. 605; Irenaeus, Haer. 4.16.1, PG vii. 1016).
Page34
3. The conception of a future fulfillment of the sabbath (Barnabas 15;

Irenaeus, Haer. 4.16.1, PG vii. 1015; Tertullian, Adv. Jud. 6, PL ii.
608; Clement Alex., Strom. 6.14, PG ix. 3z9; Origen, Hom. Exod. 7.5,
PG xii. 346; Methodius, Symp. 9.1, PG xviii. 177).
Page 166 of 524
5. The Christian devoting himself to the contemplation of divine

things (Origen, Contr. Cels. 8.23, PG xi. 15P).
6. The sabbath, a day for the multitude to have time for spiritual
things (Justin, Dial. 19, PG vi. 517; Irenaeus, Haer. 4.16.3, PG vii.
1017; Origen, Contr. Cels. 4.31, PG xi. 1076; ibid., 8.23, PG xi. I552).
7. The priests do not desecrate the sabbath (Justin, Dial. Z7, PG vi.
533; Irenaeus, Haer. 4.8.3, PG vii. 995; Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 2.2I,
PL ii. 309).
8. There are false Sabbaths and true (Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 4.12, PL ii.
384ff.).
9. Sunday, the image of the true rest (the eighth day)
10.
Sunday, the first day, a day of light (Justin, Apol. 1.67, PG vi.
429).
11.
The Christian Sunday a keeping festival (Barnabas 15;
Minucius Felix, Oct. 9, PL iii. 262; ibid., 3 I, PL iii. 337).
12.
The offerings have a Christian equivalent (Justin, Dial. 41, PG
vi. 564; Origen, Hom. Num. 23.3-4, PG xii. 748).
Sunday excels the sabbath (Justin, Apol. 1.67, PG vi. 429;
13.
Origen, Hom. Exod. 7.5, PG xii. ,45; Didascalia 6.18, FXF, P.360,
Connolly, op. cit., p. 233)
14.
The Sun of Righteousness arising (Origen, Comm. Num. 23.5,
PG xii. 751; ibid., Hom. Exod. 7.8, PG xii. 348).
15.
Sunday the day of rejoicing, quotation of Psalm II7(II8):23
(Tertullian, De Drat. Z3, PL i. II9I; Oement Alex., Strom. 6.16, PG ix.
364; Didascalia, FXF 5.10.1, p. z64; Connolly, op. cit., p. 178). xvi.
The sabbath and Sunday as feasts (Origen, Hom. Num. 23.4, pC;;.
xxi. 749); 80
Page35
16.
Sunday is a holy day (Dionysius of Corinth, in Eusebius, HE
4.23, PG xx. 388).
Page 167 of 524
Patrology: A Theological Study of the Early Church Fathers
(Picture of early Christians celebrating the Lords Supper in San Callisto Catacomb / 3rd century)
Page 168 of 524
Patrology: A Study of the Early Church Fathers
Table of Contents
I.
Introduction to Patrology ........................................................................................................................ 4

Definition of Patrology ...................................................................................................................... 4
Terms in Patrology ............................................................................................................................ 6
Scope of Patrology ...........................................................................................................................10
Divisions in Patrology ......................................................................................................................10
Objectives in Patrology ....................................................................................................................13
Methodology in Patrology ................................................................................................................13
Importance of Patrology ...................................................................................................................14
Sources of Patrology ........................................................................................................................14
II. Apostolic Fathers ...................................................................................................................................20
A. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................20
B. Writers ..............................................................................................................................................20
C. The General Character of the Apostolic Fathers ..............................................................................63
III. Apologists ..............................................................................................................................................79
A. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................79
B. Apologists.........................................................................................................................................82
C. Doctrine ............................................................................................................................................99
IV. The Heretical and Anti-Heretical Literature of the Second Century ...................................................111
A. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................111
B. Judeo-Christian Literature ..............................................................................................................111
C. Gnosticism ......................................................................................................................................117
D. The Anti-Gnostic Writers ...............................................................................................................133
V. The Canonical Controversy .................................................................................................................141
A. The Definitions of Canonicity ........................................................................................................141
B. The Errors of Canonicitity ..............................................................................................................142
C. The Significance of Canonicity ......................................................................................................145
D. The Recognition of Canonicity ......................................................................................................149
E. Catalysts of Recognition ................................................................................................................151
F.
The Process of Recognition ............................................................................................................164
G. The Disputes of Canonicity ............................................................................................................170
H. Closure of Canonicity .....................................................................................................................172
VI. The Ecclesiastical Controversies .........................................................................................................175
A. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................175
B. Callistus and the Doctrine of Repentance.......................................................................................176
C. Cyprian and Novatian Controversy ................................................................................................178
D. Donatistic Controversy and Further Development of the Doctrines of the Church and the
Sacraments by Augustine ........................................................................................................................187
VII. Trinitarian Controversies: Monarchianism, Arianism, and Athanasius ...............................................204
A. Background ....................................................................................................................................204
B. Monarchianism ...............................................................................................................................204
C. Arianism and the Homousia of the Son (the First Council of Nice) ...............................................212
D. Athanasius ......................................................................................................................................219
VIII.The Trinitarian ControversiesFurther Developments ......................................................................231
A. Council of NiceaA. D. 325 Philip Schaff .................................................................................231
B. Athanasius ......................................................................................................................................236
C. Further Development Until the Council of Constantinople, A. D. 381. .........................................246
D. Council of ConstantinopleA. D. 381Philip Schaff .................................................................254
E. Nicene Doctrine of the Trinitythe Trinitarian Terminology (Philip Schaff) ..............................256
IX. The Doctrine of One Person and Two Natures in Christ. ....................................................................264
A. Origin of the Controversies Upon the Two Natures of Christ ........................................................264
B. Apollinaris ......................................................................................................................................264
C. Opposition ......................................................................................................................................267
D. Antiochians.....................................................................................................................................268
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
Page 169 of 524
E. Other Greek Theologians ...............................................................................................................271

F.
Western Theologians ......................................................................................................................277
G. Nestorius and Cyril. The Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus. ..................................................282
H. Eutychian Controversy and Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. .................................................288
I.
Movements Growing Out of the Christological Conflict: Monophysite, Monothelete, and
Iconoclast Controversies..........................................................................................................................293
X. Pelagianism .........................................................................................................................................313
A. Introduction to Pelagianism ............................................................................................................313
B. Figures of Pelagianism ...................................................................................................................313
C. Sources of Pelagianism ..................................................................................................................316
D. Theology of Pelagianism ................................................................................................................318
E. Condemnation of Pelagianism ........................................................................................................328
F.
Augustines Doctrine of Sin and Grace .........................................................................................329
G. Evaluation of Pelagianism ..............................................................................................................340
XI. Semi-Pelagianism ................................................................................................................................341
A. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................341
B. People (427-529) ............................................................................................................................345
C. Problems .........................................................................................................................................352
D. Principles ........................................................................................................................................352
E. Opposition ......................................................................................................................................352
F.
Proclamations .................................................................................................................................354
I.
Page 170 of 524
Introduction to Patrology
A. Definition of Patrology
1. Patrology: The study of the writings of the Fathers of the
Church, has more commonly been known in England as
"patristics", or, more commonly still, as "patristic study".
2. Patristic: An adjective used to refer to the first centuries in the
history of the church, following the writing of the New Testament
(the "patristic period"), or scholars writing during this period (the
"patristic writers"). For many writers, the period thus designated
seems to be c.100-451 (in other words, the period between the
completion of the last of the New Testament writings and the
Council of Chalcedon).
3. Patrology is the science which deals with the life, writings, and
doctrine of the orthodox writers of Christian antiquity. Christian
antiquity means roughly the first eight centuries of the Church,
including the period about the death of Charlemagne as well as the
era of persecution, the ages of Constantine and Theodosius. It was
really one, composed of two partsGreek and Latin. As a result,
the writers are venerated by the whole of Christendom (Patrick J.
Hamell, Handbook of Patrology, 9).
4. Father: The title Father of the Church, which has its origin in the
name of "Father" given to pastors/bishops/elders as early as the
second century, was commonly used in the fifth century to
designate the old ecclesiastical writers - ordinarily bishops - who
died in the faith and in communion with the Church.
a) According to modern theologians, the title applies
only to those writers who have the four following
qualifications: orthodoxy of doctrine, holiness of life,
ecclesiastical sanction, and antiquity.
b) Practically, however, it is given to many others who
do not possess the first three requisites. Nobody,
indeed, would dream of eliminating from the list of the
"Fathers" such men as Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius of
Caesarea, Faustus of Riez, etc. Errors have been laid to
their charge, but these mar their works without making
them more dangerous than useful; whilst they are wrong
on a few points, there is in them much that is good. At
all events, they eminently deserve the title of
Ecclesiastical Writers.
4
Page 171 of 524
c) However comprehensive may be the name "Fathers

of the Church," Patrology is the study of the life and
works of the men designated by that name. As a
science, then, it is part of the History of Ancient
Christian Literature, since it excludes from the field of
its labors both the canonical writings of the New
Testament and all writings that are strictly and entirely
heretical. On this latter point, however, most authors
exercise a certain tolerance. As a knowledge of heretical
works is very often useful, even necessary, for
understanding the refutations written by the Fathers,
most Patrologies do not hesitate to mention and
describe at least the principal ones. We will follow this
leading.
d) Qualifications: orthodoxy of doctrine; holiness of
life; ecclesiastical approval; and antiquity (see scope
below).
5. Doctors of the Church:
a) Qualifications
(1)
(2) To be a Doctor of the Church, antiquity is not required;
however, besides the three other qualifications requisite in a
Father, an eminent degree of learning is also necessary, together
with a special declaration by ecclesiastical authority.
b) Identification
(1) The four great doctors recognized by the Latin Church are:
Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, and Gregory;
(2) The four great ecumenical doctors of the Greek Church are:
Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, Athansius, and John Chsysostom.
Page 172 of 524
B. Terms in Patrology
1. Alexandrian school: A patristic school of thought, especially
associated with the city of Alexandria in Egypt, noted for its
Christology (which placed emphasis upon the divinity of Christ) and
its method of biblical interpretation (which employed allegorical
methods of exegesis). A rival approach in both areas was
associated with Antioch.
2. Antiochene school: A patristic school of thought, especially
associated with the city of Antioch in modern-day Turkey, noted for
its Christology (which placed emphasis upon the humanity of
Christ) and its method of biblical interpretation (which employed
literal methods of exegesis). A rival approach in both areas was
associated with Alexandria.
3. Apollinarianism: Apollinarius was born about AD 310 at
Laodicea in Syria and became a lay reader under Bishop
Theodotus, who was an Arian. Apollinarius error was to deny the
human nature of Jesus Christ. He taught that Jesus did not have a
human soul, but that the Logos became one with the flesh in Marys
womb and functioned as His soul. Under this theory, Jesus was
totally divine, had no human nature at all, and could not be
tempted. Apollinarius critics, including Gregory of Nyssa, showed
that Apollinarius teachings contradicted the Biblical accounts of
Jesus human experience. Gregory also pointed out that according
to Hebrews 2:17, Jesus had to have a human nature in order to
redeem humanity. Apollinarius left the Church to start his own sect
in AD 375. His teachings were condemned by Bishop Damasus of
Rome by AD 377, by the Council of Alexandria in AD 378, the
Council of Antioch in AD 379, and the Ecumenical Council of
Constantinople in AD 381. The Roman Emperor implemented the
Councils rulings in his decrees between AD 383388 by outlawing
Apollinarian worship. Apollinarius also taught millennialism, which
the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople also ruled heretical.
4. Arianism: A major early Christological heresy, which treated
Jesus Christ as the supreme of God's creatures, and denied his
divine status. The Arian controversy was of major importance in the
development of Christology during the fourth century.
5. Augustinianism: A term used in two major senses. First, it refers
to the views of Augustine of Hippo concerning the doctrine of
salvation, in which the need for divine grace is stressed. In this
sense, the term is the antithesis of Pelagianism. Second, it is used
to refer to the body of opinion within the Augustinian order during
Page 173 of 524
the Middle Ages, irrespective of whether these views derive from

Augustine or not.
6. Cappadocian fathers: A term used to refer collectively to three
major Greek-speaking writers of the patristic period: Basil of
Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzen, and Gregory of Nyssa, all of
whom date from the late fourth century. "Cappadocia" designates
an area in Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey), in which these writers
were based.
7. Chalcedonian definition: The formal declaration at the Council of
Chalcedon that Jesus Christ was to be regarded as both human
and divine.
8. Docetism: An early Christological heresy, which treated Jesus
Christ as a purely divine being who only had the "appearance" of
being human.
9. Donatism: A movement, centering upon Roman North Africa in
the fourth century, which developed a rigorist view of the church
and sacraments.
a) The Donatist controversy erupted after AD 300 in
North Africa. A churchman by the name of Donatus
wanted to expel the bishop of Carthage from office. He
reasoned that the bishops consecration was invalid,
because Felix, who had consecrated him, had played a
questionable role during the persecution of Diocletian.
There was a separate Donatist denomination for a while,
but it was eventually reunited with the historic church.
Donatism is very attractive, because it seems to guard
the morals of the clergy, however, two separate synods
decided that the validity of a sacrament or rite does not
depend on the moral character of the person who
performs it.
10. Ebionitism: An early Christological heresy, which treated Jesus
Christ as a purely human figure, although recognizing that he was
endowed with particular charismatic gifts which distinguished him
from other humans.
11. Gnosticism: A movement placing especial emphasis upon a
contrast between the material and spiritual realms, which became
of major importance during the second century. Its most
characteristic doctrines include redemption apart from the material
world, a dualist worldview which held that different gods were
Page 174 of 524
responsible for creation and redemption, and an emphasis upon the

importance of "knowledge" (gnosis) in salvation.
12. Heresy: A heresy is a systematic teaching that has been
declared by the historic Church to be foreign to Christian teaching.
Therefore in most contexts, the term heresy only applies to belief
systems that were declared as such by one of the seven
Ecumenical Councils. In the ancient Church, the penalty for
teaching heresy was excommunication. It often happens that a
Christian becomes a heretic and then wishes to return to orthodoxy.
Historically, the Church welcomes returning heretics with open
arms, but receives them as if they had never been Christians. The
idea is not to rub their noses in their past, but to re-educate them in
the Christian faith.
13. Heterodox: The word heterodox is Greek, and it means different
teaching in the sense of Galatians 1:6. It is an error in teaching that
diverges from orthodoxy, and it is often an honest and correctable
mistake that comes from incomplete education.
14. Homoousion: A Greek term, literally meaning "of the same
substance," which came to be used extensively during the fourth
century to designate the mainstream Christological belief that Jesus
Christ was "of the same substance as God." The term was
polemical, being directed against the Arian view that Christ was "of
similar substance" (homoiousion) to God.
15. Hypostatic union: The doctrine of the union of divine and human
natures in Jesus Christ, without confusion of their respective
substances.
16. Manicheanism: Manicheanism was once a major world religion,
but even though it has completely vanished, it continues to have an
effect on western Christian theology.
a) The founder of Manicheanism was Manicheus, who
lived in Mesopotamia. Manicheanism assimilated much
of the Christian message, re-interpreting it to fit the
Gnostic belief system. Manicheanism affirmed
determinism. It viewed matter (and thus also the body)
as evil, holding that only the soul was good, so that
death was the liberation of the soul from the body.
b) By contrast, the ancient Church affirmed free will and
taught that since God created the body, it is good, that it
is part of the whole person, and that God plans to
Page 175 of 524
resurrect it on the last day. While the ancient Church

always admired personal discipline as a virtue and
valued regular prayer and occasional fasting, it rejected
Manicheanist ascetic practices as extreme.
17. Monarchianism: Monarchianism was considered a heresy in the
third century. It stressed the unity of God to the point of denying the
Trinity, which was at the time already normative Christian doctrine.
a) One form of Monarchianism originated with Paul of
Samosata, the bishop of Antioch. He was known for his
flamboyant preaching style and for requesting applause
for his sermons. During the service, he had a female
choir singing hymns to praise him. He also managed to
amass a large fortune without inheriting money or
conducting a business, which aroused some suspicion
about him. He taught that Jesus was not divine, but
merely a man who had achieved divinity through
personal righteousness. This is called Adoptionism or
Dynamic Monarchianism.
b) Sabellius originated another form of Monarchianism
in the third century. He taught that the Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit are modes of Gods involvement in human
history rather than persons of the Trinity. This called
Modalism, Patripassianism, or Sabellianism.
18. Orthodox: The word orthodox comes from Greek, and it can
mean either true teaching or true glory. A teaching that is orthodox
is genuine. When written with a capital letter, it can designate the
eastern churches after the split between Rome and Constantinople
in AD 1054.
19. Modalism: A Trinitarian heresy, which treats the three persons
of the Trinity as different "modes" of the Godhead. A typical
modalist approach is to regard God as active as Father in creation,
as Son in redemption, and as Spirit in sanctification.
20. Pelagianism: An understanding of how humans are able to merit
their salvation which is diametrically opposed to that of Augustine of
Hippo, placing considerable emphasis upon the role of human
works and playing down the idea of divine grace.
21. Sacrament: In purely historical terms, a church service or rite
which was held to have been instituted by Jesus Christ himself.
Although Roman Catholic theology and church practice recognize
Page 176 of 524
seven such sacraments (baptism, confirmation, eucharist,

marriage, ordination, penance, and unction), Protestant theologians
generally argue that only two (baptism and Lords
Supper/eucharist) were to be found in the New Testament itself.
C. Scope of Patrology
1. In the West, it includes all Christian authors up to Gregory the
Great (d. 604) or Isidore of Seville (d. 636).
2. In the East, it extends usually to John Damascene (d. 749).
3. See the map of Ancient Roman Empire for geographical scope.
D. Divisions in Patrology
1. General Division
a) Language: Often divided by language of Latin, Greek,
Syriac, Armenian, and Coptic. The last three have
numerous and sometimes important contributions, but
the Greek and Latin Fathers claim the majority and most
important authors.
b) Geographical: Because the empire was divided and
languages were provincial, one can generally divine the
authors into geographical groups, most importantly the
East and the Western (Orient and Occident,
respectively)
c) Theological: Not merely linguistically or
geographically divided, but one can properly divide
them up doctrinally. They have intellectual kinship that
is important, and whenever it is found that they are
sharing the same subjects, this should be noted and
outlined.
d) Historically: Seeing that they have not written in a
vacuum, the writings can be divided chronologically so
that the milieu of their writing is given is proper due.
2. Periods:
10
Page 177 of 524
a) Origin (90?? 300): The period of beginning and

growth, down to the Council of Nicaea (325), or, better,
to the peace of Constantine (313)
(1) This is the period of greatest interest, seeing that these
authors lived close to the founders of the Church and, therefore,
are preeminent as witnesses to the traditional doctrines of the
Trinity, Incarnation, and the foundation, constitution, and
discipline of the church.
(2) As such the Apostolic Fathers are the most important, being
closest
(3) The last authors of the 2nd century are also very important,
seeing their close proximity to the apostles.
(4) While the authors of the third century are far removed from
the Apostolic Age, their attempts to systematize doctrine are
highly important and make them true forerunners of the doctors
of the fourth century.
(5) Notes:
(a) There is a distinct problem associated with this.
First, the early Fathers often quote or use biblical
language in such away as they presuppose an
interpretation of the teaching of the New Testament.
Because of this, we do not always get the clarity, which
we would want for the frays of our day.
(b) The further you get from the Apostles, the greater
clarity is seen, due to the necessity of articulating the
faith in a hostile environment. However, since they are
far removed from the apostles, there is the distinct
possibility and probable phenomena that they have
strayed from the biblical teaching. It is here that
Protestants and Romanists debate.
b) Second Period (300 430): The golden age of

Patrology, extending from Athanasius to the death of
Augustine.
(1) In it appeared the most powerful minds in the history of the
church and there fought out the great doctrinal controversies on
the Trinity and Grace.
(a) Part 1: 300-360The Trinitarian problem comes to
the front
11
Page 178 of 524
(b) Part 2: 360-430The doctors grapple with the

difficulties raised by the Trinitarian doctrine in such a
fashion that later centuries have but to record and
uphold their teaching. Grace was also discussed.
c) Third Period (430-850): The period of decline, down

to 636 in the West and 850 in the East.
(1) Section OneThe great Christological controversies
extends from the Council of Ephesus (431) to the 2nd Council of
Constantinople (553).
(a) These begin with Apollinarianism but it was during
this century, during the rise and fall of semi-Pelagianism
in the West, that the Councils and Doctors reached a
definite solution.
(b) The authors of this age formed a link between the
early period and the missionary efforts among the
barbarians
(2) Section TwoThe Oriental writings of the church are
numerous and write against Monothelitism. The style of writing
is inferior to that which proceeded.
12
Page 179 of 524
E. Objectives in Patrology
1. Life of Fathers: study of their life is important and useful
because it helps toward understanding of their character and the
circumstances under which their works were written
2. Writings of the Fathers: The works must be authentic, and an
analysis must be made.
3. Doctrine of the Fathers: We should note the following
concerning their doctrine:
a) The various points on which a father insisted, points
in which a step forward is made that mark the writer as a
pioneer.
b) His opinions on controverted questions of his day or
controverted topics of later periods.
c) The points of his teaching requiring an explanation,
favorable interpretation, or condemnation.
F. Methodology in Patrology
1. General method: not mentioning the New Testament writings,
but describing, in part at least, and very briefly, the heterodox
writings best known in the early centuries.
2. The question may be raised here: Is Patrology to comprise not
only the history of the life and works of the Fathers, but also a
summary of their doctrine; that is, must Patrology supply the
elements of a Patristic Theology? Theoretically, yes; but in practice
nothing could be more difficult. A Patrology which would attempt to
give even a very condensed summary of the teaching of each and
every Father would have to be very lengthy and full of repetitions.
If, on the other hand, such a work simply pointed out teachings not
original and instead limited itself to what is proper and personal in
each, it would give a false - because incomplete -impression of
each author's doctrine.
3. For this reason we feel that is most profitable to outline the main
characters and then give the main development of doctrine. We
shall follow this method. By means of doctrinal synthesis,
Patrology can prove to be helpful in assisting us in understanding
where we as a church have come from.
13
Page 180 of 524
G. Importance of Patrology
1. Witnesses to the Source of Theology: The Fathers enshrine
tradition. Yet, how do we determine when they speak as
witnesses? Romanism states when they agree with the Church,
but this is terribly misleading. The proper criterion is the Bible. If
they do not conform to a historical, grammatical interpretation of the
Scriptures, then they must be rejected as in error.
2. Theological Training: Without a proper study of the fathers,
ones theological training is incomplete. All the great theologians of
the past studied the fathers carefully because all theology rests
upon the exegesis of Sacred Scripture. It was in the form of
scriptural commentaries that theology developed for many
centuries. So a study of the exegetical works of the Fathers is
indispensable for the theologian and exegete.
3. Christian Unity: All Christian bodies hold the Fathers in high
esteem. There is a certain unity that has been established by the
Fathers over core Christian truths, such as the Trinity, Hypostatic
Union of Christ, original sin, and the nature and necessity of grace.
A study of the Patristic writings should bring Christians to a better
knowledge of Christs teaching and promote unity by emphasizing
common core beliefs and the necessity of allowing for legitimate
differences.
4. Inoculation against Error: By understanding the Fathers, we are
vaccinated against the same types of errors through which they
sifted and to which they carefully crafted responses. Nothing is new
under the sun!
5. Synthesis of Learning: A study of the Fathers reveals that the
various theological topics that are often studied individually are truly
connected with other doctrines in an organic way. If one topic is
dealt with in a wrong way, then other topics with be ill affected.
6. Help to Teachers/Preachers: A study of the Fathers provides
immense help to teachers and preachers by giving them a full
grasp of theological truths, examples to follow, and illustrative
materials to draw from.
H. Sources of Patrology
1. Guides to Patrology
14
Page 181 of 524
a) Altaner, Berthold. Patrology. Trans. Hilda C. Graef.

New York: Herder and Herder, 1960. Based on the 5th
German edition, this English translation covers Eastern
and Western writers from the First to the Eighth century.
Entries provide information on the lives and writings of
the early Christian writers. For the Church Fathers,
additional sections are included outlining their major
points of doctrine. Extensive bibliographical information
is included.
b) Bardenhewer, Otto. Patrology: The Lives and Works
of the Fathers of the Church. Trans. Thomas J. Shahan.
St. Louis: Herder, 1908. Translated from the
Bardenhewer's 2nd edition of 1901, this volume reflects
the notable German scholarship of the period. Includes
early Christian writers from the East and West,
providing a bibliography of works by and about each
Father, biographical material and a discussion of his
writings and theology.
c) Cayre, F. Manual of Patrology and History of
Theology. Trans. H. Howitt. Paris: Society of St. John
the Evangelist, 1936. Four books in two volumes.
Arranged by period, coverage begins with the First
Century and extends to the 1600's. Each section places
the early Christian writers and their works into the
context of the historical setting. The following chapters
provide biographical material and citations to assist in
locating writings in the major patristic sets.
d) Jurgens, W. A., ed. The Faith of the Early Fathers.
Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1970-1979. This work is a
collection excerpting the most cited patristic texts found
in contemporary theological study. Writers from the
period of the first to the fourth centuries are included.
Passages are assigned a chronological number and
referenced to a doctrinal index that permits the user to
locate passages on a similar doctrinal matter. This work
is particularly useful for its comments introducing each
writing which states the best edition of the work.
(1) Volume 1: A Sourcebook of Theological and Historical
Passages from the Christian Writers of the Pre-Nicene and
Nicene Eras.
15
Page 182 of 524
(2) Volume 2: A Soucebook of Theological And Historical

Passages from the Christian Writings of the Post-Nicene and
Constantinopolitan Eras through St. Jerome.
(3) Volume 3: A Sourcebook of Theological and Historical
Passages from the Writings of St. Augustine to the End of the
Patristic Age.
e) Quasten, Johannes. Patrology. Westminster, MD:

Newman Press, 1950-. 4 volumes. This work, produced
for the English reader, updates the study of patristics to
include recent discoveries and scholarship. The
bibliographies list critical editions, available translations
and references to articles and books that treat the
writings discussed.
(1) Volume 1: The Beginnings of Patristic Literature.
(2) Volume 2: The Ante-Nicene Literature After Ireneaus.
(3) Volume 3: The Golden Age of Greek Patristic Literature
from the Council of Nicea to the Council of Chalcedon.
(4) Volume 4: The Golden Age of Latin Patristic Literature from
the Council of Nicea to the Council of Chalcedon
16
Page 183 of 524
f) Willis, John R., ed. The Teachings of the Church

Fathers. Montreal: Palm Publishers, 1966. Provides a
general overview of Catholic dogma through excerpts of
the writings of the Church Fathers. Under general
subject headings, excerpts are printed with references
to the location of the complete work found in major
series.
2. Texts of Patrology
a) Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum.
Editum consilio et impensis Academiae Litterarum
Caesareae Vindobonensis. Vindobonae: C. Geroldi,
1866-. Abbreviated as CSEL, this work of German
scholarship covers the Latin writers. Referred to as the
Vienna Corpus, each volume includes an introduction to
the text, bibliographical notes, and indexes of names,
places, and subjects.
b) Migne
(1) Produced in the nineteenth century, this series collected the
existent writings of the Greek and Latin Fathers and arranged
them chronologically. Texts are in Latin or in the original
language with Latin translation. Criticism of this work due to
errors in the text has led scholars to consult other editions when
possible, although this work is considered a major contribution
to the study of patrology.
(2) Patrologiae Cursus Completus Seu Bibliotheca Universalis...
Omnium S.S. Patrum Doctorum, Scriptorumque
Ecclesiasticorum. Series Graeca. By Jacques Paul Migne.
Parisiis: Migne, 1886. Volume 1-161. Abbreviated as PG, this
series includes the Greek Fathers from Clement of Rome to the
Council of Florence (1438-39).
(3) Patrologiae Cursus Completus Seu Bibliotheca Universalis...
Omnium S.S. Patrum, Doctorum, Scriptorumque
Ecclesiasticorum. Series Latina. By Jacques Paul Migne.
Parisiis: Migne, 1878. Volume 1-221. Abbrieviated as PL, this
series includes the Latin Fathers from Tertellian (200 A.D.) to
Pope Innocent III (d. 1216). Accompanied by supplemental
volumes.
c) Sources Chretiennes. Directeurs-foundateurs: H.

DeLubac, et J. Danielou.Paris: Les Editions du Cerf,
1949- . A product of French scholarship, the series
provides scholarly editions of the Latin and Greek
17
Page 184 of 524
Fathers, as well as Medieval Latin, Greek and Byzantine

authors. Each title includes the text in the original
language accompanied by the French translation.
Introductions in French are also included for each title.
d) Ante-Nicene Fathers; Select Library of Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers Students and scholars may find
later translations more readable than these works which
represent 19th century scholarship.
e) Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of
the Fathers Down to A.D. 325, American reprint of the
Edinburgh ed. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James
Donaldson, revised and chronologically arranged by
A. Cleveland Coxe. Grand Rapdis, Mich.: Eerdmans,
1981. First published in 1866 as the Ante Nicene
Christian Library, these volumes were republished in
1885 after being rearranged by Coxe.
f) Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of
the Christian Church, First series. edited by Philip
Schaff. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979-. The first series
in 14 volumes focuses on the writings of St. Augustine
and St. John Chrysostom.
g) Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of
the Christian Church, Second series. Edited by Philip
Schaff. NY: Christian Literature Co., 1890-1900. The
second series in 14 volumes contains the "chief works
of the Fathers from Eusebius to John of Damascus, and
from Ambrose to Gregory the Great" (preface v. 1)
h) Ancient Christian Writers: The Works of the Fathers
in Translation. edited by Johannes Quasten and Joseph
Plumpe. Westminster, MD: Newman Bookshop, 19471951. Seeking to fill the desire for a contemporary
Catholic translation, this series includes not only the
writings of the Fathers but also works previously
unavailable in English. Patristic scholars sought to use
the most reliable texts in creating this contemporary
English version.
18
Page 185 of 524
19
Page 186 of 524
II.
Apostolic Fathers
A. Introduction
1. Definition of the Apostolic Fathers
a) "Apostolic Fathers" is the name given to a certain
number of writers or writings (several of which are
anonymous) dating from the end of the first or from the
first half of the second century.
b) The name has been selected because the authors
are supposed to have known the Apostles and also
because their works represent a teaching derived
immediately, or almost immediately, from the Apostles.
These writings are, indeed, a continuation of the
Gospels and of Apostolic literature.
2. There are about ten Apostolic Fathers. One-half of their
writings is made up of epistles (Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp,
Pseudo-Barnabas) ; the other half comprises doctrinal,
parenetic or disciplinary treatises (The Didache, the "Secunda
Clementis," the Shepherd of Hermas, Papias, The Apostles'
Creed).
3. Character of the Apostolic Fathers
a) While these works are a continuation of the Gospels
and Apostolic literature, they have neither the intense
vividness of the canonical, inspired books nor the
fullness of theological thought found in the literature of
a later period.
b) With the exception of Ignatius, their authors do not
show much intellectual power or ability, which goes to
prove that, in the beginning, the Church recruited her
members chiefly from among the illiterate.
c) Nevertheless, the writings of these men are of great
value to us, both on account of their antiquity and
because they show how the Christians of the second
and third generations understood the work of Christ and
of his Apostles.
B. Writers
20
Page 187 of 524
1. Clement
a) Biography
(1) According to tradition, Clement was the fourth bishop of
Rome. Nothing prohibits our identifying him with the Clement
of whom Paul speaks when writing to the Philippians (Phil. 4:3)
and still less with Flavius Clemens, a consul, cousin of the
Emperor Domitian, who was beheaded in 95 or 96.
(2) Clement probably knew the Apostles. He was presumably a
freedman, or the son of a freedman. Clement was certainly in
some respects a remarkable elder, since he made a profound
impression on the early Church. Two "Letters to Virgins," two
"Letters to James," the brother of the Lord, and a collection of
Homilies are ascribed to him, besides the so-called "Second
Letter to the Corinthians."
(3) At the end of the 4th century Rome honored him as a martyr;
the alleged acts of his martyrdom, however, are not authentic,
but belong to another Clement, a Greek martyr buried at
Cherson.
b) Epistle to the Corinthians

(1) Authorship:
(a) This epistle is anonymous. It introduces itself as a
letter from "the Church of God which is in Rome to the
Church of God which is in Corinth." Although the letter
is written in the name of a community, it is undoubtedly
the work of an individual and this individual is Clement.
(b) Denis of Corinth (170-175?) gives us decisive proof
of this, and it would be difficult to find anyone in a
position to be better informed than he was.[Eusebius, H.
E., iv, 23, II].
(c) To his testimony we may add those of Hegesippus,[
Ibid., iv, 22, 1.] of Clement of Alexandria, and of
Irenaeus.[ Adv. Haer., iii, 3, 3.] Polycarp was certainly
acquainted with this epistle, since he made it the pattern
of his own to the Philippians, and this circumstance
alone is sufficient proof that the letter dates back
approximately to the time of Clement.
(2) Date:
21
Page 188 of 524
(a) Clement's pastorate is to be placed between the

years 92 and 101. His letter was written after a
persecution that appears to be that of Domitian. As this
persecution ended in 95 or 96, Clement must have
written to the Corinthians between the years 95 and 98.
(b) Seeberg, "early in A.D. 97"; Walker, "93-97";
Richardson, "A.D. 96 or 97", p. 34. ANF "about A.D.
97". Great certainty may be attached to a date in the
mid-90s of the 1st century.
(3) Origin: Rome
(4) Text:
(a) Of Clement we possess only one authentic writing,
the Epistle to the Corinthians (Epistola Prima
Clementis).
(b) It is contained in two Greek MS., the
"Alexandrinus," probably belonging to the 4th century
(now in the British Museum), and the
"Constantinopolitanus" or, better, "Hierosolymitanus,"
dating from 1056 (kept in Jerusalem). In the former
manuscript chapters Ivii, 6-lxiii, 4 are missing; the latter
is complete.
(c) There exist, furthermore, a very literal Latin version,
which seems to go back to the 2nd century [Discovered
and edited by D. G. Morin, S. Clementis Romani ad
Corinthios Epistulae Versio Latina Antiquissima,
Maredsoli, 1894 (Analecta Maredsolana, II], a Syriac
version, and two incomplete Coptic versions.
(5) Occasion
(a) The occasion was a schism which had broken out in
the Church of Corinth. One or two ringleaders [xlvii, 5,
6] had stirred up the faithful against the presbyters, of
whom several, of irreproachable life, had driven them
from office.
(b) We are ignorant of the nature of the accusation
raised against them. The Church of Rome was informed
and asked to intervene by the Church of Corinth [in ch.
I, 1]. Clement intervened for the purpose of restoring
peace and pointing out means of remedying the trouble.
(6) Content
22
Page 189 of 524
(a) The Epistle is divided into two main parts. The first
is general (iv-xxxviii) and contains a series of
exhortations to the practice of charity, penance,
obedience, humility, faith, etc., calculated to insure a
spirit of concord among the faithful. The train of thought
is interrupted (xxiii-xxx) by a lengthy parenthesis on the
certainty of the future resurrection. The second part
(xxxix-lix) deals more directly with the troubles at
Corinth. God, says Clement, established the
ecclesiastical hierarchy and sent Christ. Christ
appointed the Apostles, who appointed bishops and
deacons, who in turn, as the necessity arose, chose other
men to succeed them. To these men the faithful owe
submission and obedience, and this is why they who
drove the presbyters from office have sinned. They must
do penance and withdraw for a time from Corinth, in
order that peace may be re-established. Then follows a
long prayer (lix, -3 lxi), in which praises to God and
supplications for the Christians and for the authorities
succeed one another. The letter concludes with fresh
exhortations to unity and with spiritual good wishes
(Ixii-lxv).
(7) Estimation
(a) In the early Church the Epistle of Clement was held
in the greatest esteem. Some authors even went so far as
to rank it with the inspired writings. Irenaeus calls it
"very powerful"; Eusebius pronounces it "grand and
admirable" and testifies to the fact that in several
churches it was read publicly at the meetings of the
faithful [ H. E., iii, 16].
(b) The letter is worthy of such esteem because of the
happy blending of firmness and kindness which
characterizes it, and the shrewdness of observation,
delicacy of touch and lofty sentiments which the author
manifests throughout. The great prayer at the conclusion
has a majestic swing. Unfortunately, the abuse of Old
Testament quotations, especially in the first part, often
interferes with the development of the author's thought
and prevents it from attaining its highest flight.
(8) Theological
(a) Ecclesiology:
(i) Rome states that the Epistle of Clement is
of great importance because it marks a
supposed "epiphany of the Roman primacy,"
23
Page 190 of 524
being the first manifestation of the

consciousness of this prerogative in Rome.
However, this is a blatant reading into the letter
what is not there. Romanist writers ignore the
clear implication of I.1, which explicitly states
that the Corinthian church requested help with
their problem. The Romanists often state that
the Roman church heard about it and dealt with
them problem as if they were the leader over the
Corinthian church.
(ii) Rome also states that this letter contains the
first patristic affirmation of the divine right of the
hierarchy [ xlii, 1, 2, 4; xliv, 2]. While the letter
talks about the divine origin of the office of
elders and deacons, the Romanist stretches too
far, seeing that the passage teaches that the
elders are appointed with the consent of the
whole church, which the Romanist church
rejects.
(iii) The church is, in Clement, the people of
God, which he has chose for his own
possession (e.g., 59:4; 30:1; 6:1; 64 those called
to be saints (inscription; 65:2); the flock of Christ
(16:1).
(iv) It is of importance to note the legal
argument based upon the Old Testament by
which Clement supports the authority of the
elders. Their duty is (40) accordingly, the
conduct of worship () and sacrifice
().
(v) The fixed office and its authority here took
the place of the free activity of the Spirit in the
church. Problems were thus created which were
destined to occupy the best energies of the
church of the future (cf. also Did. 15:1; 14:1, 2).
In this fellowship reign discipline and order (2:6;
46; 47:6; 21:6; 40), subjection to leaders and to
one another (1:3; 21:6; 38:1), piety and practical
hospitality (1:2ff.; 2), firm fellowship one with
another (46:4ff.; 30:3; 15:1).
(b) God
(i) The leading thought is that of the One God,
the Lord (; cf. 49:6 and 47 fin. with 48
init.) of the world, the Creator, and, in this sense,
the Father (e.g., 35:3; 192).
24
Page 191 of 524
(ii) The conception of the latter term is different

in 29:1; 23:1; 56:16: the merciful and gracious
Father by his holy discipline protects men and
trains them for the reception of mercy. It. is our
duty to love him who elects us, and to draw near
to him with a holy heart. God is
(58:2;
46:6).
(c) Christ
(i) Christ is sent from God to deliver us (42:1;
59:2). In that God elected Christ, he elected us
through him as his own people (64; 59:3). As to
his nature, he is the Son of God, exalted above
the angels (36, following Heb. 1:3ff.); the Lord
Jesus Christ; the sceptre of the majesty of God:
and yet he came as the Humble One into the
world (16:2).
(ii) Already in the Old Testament he spoke
through the Holy Ghost (22:1). In harmony with
this, his descent from Abraham is by the term
discriminated from another descent
(32:2). The sufferings of Christ are described as
the sufferings of God (2:1), unless in this
passage we are to read instead
of (Funk).
(iii) Christ is the only mediator of our salvation.
Through him we have become Gods
possession (via. b). He is to us a helper in
weakness and a high-priest in the offering of
gifts (prayers; cf. 61:3). Through his mediation
we are made capable of seeing God and tasting
immortal knowledge; through it, faith, (godly)
fear, peace, patience, temperance, and wisdom
() become the portion of the Christian
(64).
(iv) Out of love Christ gave his blood for ushis
flesh for our flesh, his soul for our souls (49:6;
21:6). By the blood of the Lord there is
redemption () to all that believe and
hope in God (12:7).
(v) This blood, which was shed for the sake of
our salvation, is so precious to the Father of
Christ, that it has obtained the grace of
repentance for the whole world. The humility and
patience which Christ maintained in his lifes
25
Page 192 of 524
work are an example for us, who have through

him come beneath the yoke of grace (16:17).
(vi) To summarize: In Christ we have become
the possession of God. Through him the
knowledge of God, faith, and all virtues have
become ours. His blood has redeemed us, since
it brought us the grace of repentance. His life is
for us a pattern of humility. It may be said,
indeed, that Clement has not grasped the saving
efficacy of the death of Christ in its full biblical
significance; but it is going too far to maintain
that he believed nothing more to be
accomplished by it than blotting out of past sins
(Behm, l.c., p. 304. Vid. 7:4).
(vii) It may be mentioned, finally, that the author
distinctly and intelligently maintains the
resurrection of the body (24 and 25).
(d) Believers
(i) As to the personal standing of the believer,
Clement teaches: They were all (Old Testament
saints) therefore glorified and magnified not
through themselves nor their works, nor the
righteousness which they wrought, but through
his will. And we therefore, being called through
his will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through
ourselves, neither through our wisdom nor
knowledge nor piety nor works which we have
done in the holiness of our hearts, but through
the faith through which God Almighty has
justified all men from the beginning (32:3, 4).
(ii) Such are the paths of blessedness (31:1);
faith in Christ brings us everything good (22:1).
Clement writes thus with a full conception of the
wide scope of his words, for he follows them
immediately with the remark, that good works
are not thereby excluded, but on the contrary
zeal in such works is required (33:1, 7, 8). This
is as truly Pauline as the definition of faith as
confidence (, 35:2; 26:1; cf. 2:3;
58:1).
(iii) The humble temper of mind (16-19) and
believing trust in God, obedience to God, and
unreserved self-surrender to him (10:1; 11)
obtain salvation. But this line of thought is limited
by another: Blessed are we, beloved, if we shall
have fulfilled the commandments of God in the
unity of love, that so through love our sins may
be forgiven us (50:5).
26
Page 193 of 524
(iv) No great weight is to be laid upon the

mention of hospitality along with faith in the
cases of Abraham and Rahab (10:7; 12:1; cf.
also 10:1; 31.2); more upon the strong emphasis
laid upon the laws () and commandments
() of God and Christ (1:3; 2:8; 3, 4;
13:3; 37:1; 49:1; 40:1). When Clement is
thinking of the origin and nature of human
salvation, he is controlled by Pauline
conceptions; in view of the realities of life and
the judgment, he lays great weight upon the
moral activity of man in harmony with the law of
God (but cf. also 26:1).
(v) For Clements ideal of Christian character,
vid. Chapters I. and II.
(e) Summation:
(i) This document makes it clear that the ideas
embraced in the apostolic proclamation have
been preserved in the church, but that there may
be already traced a lack of independent scrutiny
of these ideas and of deeper penetration into
their significance.
(ii) One does not receive the impression that
the biblical conception of Christs work and the
significance of faith are really understood and
inwardly appropriated. However, in passing this
judgment, we should bear in mind the particular
object of Clement in the preparation of the work.
2. Ignatius
a) Biography:
(1) Ignatius, also callel Theophorus, according to tradition
succeeded Evodius, the first bishop of Antioch [ Eusebius, H. E.,
iii, 22]
(a) Rome teaches that Peter was also the first bishop of
Antioch, which all testimony is against this.
(b) The name mentioned is Eusebius [Symeon] is
probably son of Clopas and Mary [Hegesippus]. Clopas
is associated with Alpheus, and therefore Eusebius is
speaking of Symeon the brother of James, son of
Alpheus. Moreover, Eusebius refers to this Symeon as
the pastor at Jerusalem at the same time.
27
Page 194 of 524
(2) Nothing is known for certain of his youth or even of his

episcopate. It is surmised that he was born a pagan and became
converted to the faith later in life.
(3) He was bishop of Antioch when a persecution, the cause of
which is unknown to us, broke out. Ignatius was its noblest and
perhaps only victim. Condemned to be exposed to wild beasts,
he was led to Rome to undergo martyrdom.
(4) He travelled by land and sea. Passing through Philadelphia,
in Lydia, he arrived by land at Smyrna, where he was greeted by
its pastor, Polycarp, and received delegations from the
neighboring churches of Ephesus, Magnesia, and Tralles, with
their respective elders, Onesimus, Damasus, and Polybius. It was
at Smyrna that he wrote his letters to the Ephesians, to the
Magnesians, to the Trallians and to the Romans. From Smyrna
he came to Troas, whence he wrote his letters to the Churches of
Philadelphia and Smyrna and his letter to Polycarp. From there
he took ship to Neapolis, where he resumed the land route,
passing through Philippi and Thessalonica to Dyrrachium
(Durazzo) on the Adriatic Sea. The Philippians received Ignatius
with esteem and after his departure wrote to Polycarp, begging
him to send by his own courier the letter they dispatched to the
Christians of Antioch and asking him at the same time to
forward to them (the Philippians) whatever letters of Ignatius he
had in his possession. This is the last information we have of
Ignatius. At Rome he suffered the death he had so earnestly
longed for; but the two accounts of his martyrdom which we
possess (Martyrium Romanum and Martyrium Antiochenum) are
legendary.
b) Text
(1) The letters of Ignatius have reached us in three different
recensions:
(a) The longer recension, besides the seven letters
mentioned, more or less enlarged, contains six others: a
letter by a certain Maria of Cassobola to Ignatius and
five letters of Ignatius to Maria of Cassobola, the people
of Tarsus, Antioch and Philippi, and Hero, a deacon of
Antioch, - in all, thirteen letters.
(b) The shorter recension, in Syriac, which contains in
an abbreviated form the three letters to Polycarp, to the
Ephesians, and to the Romans.
(c) The mixed recension, comprising the seven letters to
the Ephesians, the Magnesians, the Trallians, the
28
Page 195 of 524
Romans, the Philadelphians, the people of Smyrna, and

Bishop Polycarp. The text of this recension is not so
developed as that of the longer recension, but more
developed than that of the shorter.
(2) Scholars are unanimous now in affirming that neither the
longer nor the shorter recension represents the authentic work of
Ignatius. If, therefore, his work has been preserved anywhere, it
is in the mixed recension. But the question arises: Are the seven
letters of this recension entirely authentic? This question, which
has been the subject of many violent discussions, must be
answered in the affirmative.
(3) Arguments based upon internal criticism are about the only
ones that can be brought against such a solution, but they are
really without force and must vanish before the evidence of
Eusebius, [ H. E., iii, 22; 36 and 38.] Origen,[ In Cantic.
Canticorum., prolog.; In Lucam, Homil. vi] Irenaeus,[Adv.
Haer., v, 28, 4] and Polycarp [ Ad Philip., xiii]. The thesis has
been completely established by J. B. Lightfoot, Apostolic
Fathers, part II, vol. 1, 1885.We may therefore say that the
authenticity of the Ignatian epistles is an established fact.
c) Date:
(1) When were these letters written? Evidently at a date which
coincides closely with that of the death of Ignatius, although it is
difficult to fix this date exactly. One thing alone seems certain,
vis., that Ignatius suffered martyrdom under Trajan (98-117).
(2) The acts of his martyrdom indicate the ninth year of Trajan
(107); Jerome [De Vir. ill., 16] says the eleventh year (109).
Seeberg - 110. Walker - 110-117. ANF, 107 or 116. We shall
hardly err, therefore, if we place the date of his martyrdom, and
consequently also that of the composition of his letters, about the
year 110.
d) Occasion
(1) The main purpose of Ignatius in all his letters, except that to
the Romans, is to warn the faithful against the errors and
divisions that certain agents of heresy and schism endeavored to
sow among them.
(2) The doctrine these men were trying to spread was a certain
kind of Judaizing Gnosticism: on the one hand, they urged the
preservation of Jewish practices; on the other they were
Docetists, i. e., they saw in the humanity of Jesus only an unreal
appearance.
29
Page 196 of 524
(3) Furthermore, they separated from the bulk of the Christian

community and conducted services apart from them. Ignatius
fought against their pretensions by affirming that Judaism had
been abrogated and by strongly insisting on the reality of the
body of Jesus.
(4) What he seeks above all, though, is to defeat the propaganda
of these heretics in principle by exhorting the faithful, as the first
of their duties, never to separate from their elders.
(5) The Epistle to the Romans was written for a special purpose.
Ignatius feared lest the Romans, moved by a false compassion
for him, should attempt to prevent the execution of his deathsentence and therefore begs them to abandon their efforts.
e) Theology
(1) Christology
(a) Christ is God, our God, and my God (Eph.
inscr.; 18:2. Rom. inscr.; 3:3; 6:3. Polycarp, 8:3). He is
God, (Smyrn. 1:1), (Trall. 7:1), the only Son
of the Father, , (Rom. inscr.),
and the Lord, (Polyc. 1:2).
(b) Ignatius uses the formula in Son and Father and in
Spirit (Magn. 13:1; in 2 is doubtful; cf.
Lightf.). He was with the Father before time began
(Magn. 6:1). At the, end of the days he became man
and this as a revelation of the One God, the Father,
who has manifested himself through his Son Jesus
Christ, who is his word, , proceeding from
silence (Magn. 8:2; cf. 9:2: our only teacher, and
Rom. 8:2: the genuine mouth in whom the Father truly
spake).
(i) Thus the Johannine term, Logos, was
authentically interpreted. Christ is the Word, or
the Mouth of God, i.e., the revelation of God.
Remarkable, further, is the combination of faith
and love with the triadic formula (e.g., Magn.
13:1. Ep. 9:1; cf. 1 Clem. 58:2; 46:6).
(ii) Were both formulasthey possess
something of the character of formulas already
in the New Testamenthanded down together
in the instruction preceding baptism?
30
Page 197 of 524
(c) Ignatius recognizes the reality of the earthly activity

of Christ and confirms his presentation of its separate
features by an emphatic truly, (Smyrn. 1 and
2. Tral. 9. It is not allowable to say that he only seemed
to suffer: Tral. 10. Smyrn. 2. Polyc. 3:2; cf. Smyrn. 12:2.
Ephes. 7). But since Christ has completed his work on
earth, he is now again with the Father( ),
but in consequence of this he may be but the better
known ( ), Rom. 3:3) on earth. Even
after his resurrection, which he himself effected (truly
raised himself, , Smyrn. 2, in
contrast with which, however, vid. 8:1: The Father
raised; cf. Trall. 9:2), although spiritually united
( ) with the Father, he is yet in
the flesh (Smyrn. 3:1, 3).
(d) Ignatius was fond of combining these two classes of
utterances. Christ is at once God and man: The one
Healer is both fleshly and spiritual, born and unborn.
God became incarnate, true life in death, both from
Mary and from God, first passible and then impassible,
Jesus Christ our Lord (Eph. 7:2; cf. 18:2. Smyrn. 1:1).
Upon the one hand he is, therefore, unborn, ,
but according to the flesh he is sprung from Davids
tribe, born of the Virgin according to the will of God
(Eph. 19:1), conceived in the womb of Mary, according
to the dispensation of Godon the one hand of the seed
of David, on the other of the Holy Spirit (Eph. 18:2).
He is, therefore, perfect () man (Smyrn. 4:2) and
just as truly God (cf. supra). It is impossible, in view of
the above, to hold that Ignatius regarded Jesus as by
nature a pre-existent spiritual being who, after
completing his work on earth, returned again to heaven.
(e) How could he describe such a being as his God and
the God of Christendom? We should observe further that
the title, Son of God, in Ignatius designates Christ, not
only as begotten in eternity, but also as the One sprung,
according to the dispensation of God, at once from
Mary and God, from Davids tribe and the Holy
Spirit, and entering upon a historical existence: being
truly of the tribe of David according to the flesh, the Son
of God truly born of a virgin according to the will and
power of God (Smyrna 1:1; cf. ZAHN, Ignat., p. 469f.).
By virtue of the double origin of his historical existence,
he is Son of man and Son of God. And, being this,
he is the new man ( , Eph. 20, a
term further explained in 19:3: God appearing in the
31
Page 198 of 524
form of man unto newness, , of eternal

life).
(f) Christ became man in order that he might, as the
of God, reveal God to men (supra, and Eph. 3:2:
the knowledge, , of the Father; Eph. 17:2: the
secret wisdom , of God; Philad. 9:1). His
appearance itself is for us a revelation of God, inasmuch
as he is God. This revelation is not nullified by the death
of Christ, but is attested by it anew for the contemplation
of faith (Magn. 9:2). He who was himself impassible is
for our sakes passible (Polyc. 3:2). To the prince of this
world, the virginity and motherhood of Mary and the
death of Christ were alike incomprehensible (three
mysteries). But faith knows that this all aims at the
abolition of death (Eph. 19). Especially does our life
now have its origin in the death of Christ (Magn. 9:1);
through, this mystery we have obtained faith (ib. 2).
Faith in his death enables us to escape death (Tral. 2:1).
Thus his suffering has in view and effects our salvation
and peace (Smyrn. 2; 7:1, cf. Tral. inscr. Philad. inscr.
Smyrn. 6:1).
(2) Believers
(a) Christ is our life, not only in that he will one day
bestow immortality upon us, but in that he personally
dwells in believers, working eternal life in them. This is
the leading thought of Ignatius. Christ is our
Inseparable life ( , Eph. 3:2, cf.
Magn. 15), our life forever (Magn. 1:2), our true life
(Smyrn. 4:1. Eph. 11:1, cf. Tral. 9:2). Christ now dwells
in the hearts of believers, as does also the Father (e.g.,
Eph. 15:3. Magn. 8; 12; 14: ye are full of God,
. Rom. 6:3). In harmony with this, Ignatius calls
himself a God-bearer (); and Christians are
God-bearers, temple-bearers, Christ-bearers, bearers of
the Holy One (, , ,
Eph. 9:2), the temple in which God and Christ dwell
(Eph. 15:3. Philad. 7:2). The expressions: being in
Christ, living and acting in him, constantly recur;
without whom we have no true life (
, Tral. 9:2, cf. Eph. 8:2; 10:3. Magn. 9:2).
(b) The Gospel has in it something peculiarly excellent,
the appearing of the Saviour, our Lord Jesus Christ, his
suffering and his resurrection. For the beloved prophets
32
Page 199 of 524
prophesied of him, but the gospel is the perfection of

incorruption. For all these things are together good, if
ye believe with love ( , Philad. 9:2). Man is,
therefore, to apprehend the gospel in faith. He takes his
refuge to the gospel as to the flesh of Jesus (Philad. 5:1.
Cf. also 8:2), or the presentation of his sufferings and
his resurrection (Smyrn. 7:2), and in faith in the death of
Jesus he escapes death (Tral. 2:1. Cf. Smyrn. 5:3). Faith
lead to love: Faith is the beginning, love the end. And
these two in union are divine. But all other things
relating to a holy life are consequences of these (Eph.
14:1). Faith and love are the entire sum ( )
of Christian life (Smyrn. 6:1). The aim is the glory of
God: Let all things be done to the glory of God (Pol.
5:2). It is thus the theory of Ignatius that the new life,
which has become mans through the indwelling of God,
consists in faith in the gospel message and in love, and
that this life is an eternal one, continuing after death. We
may quote as summarizing his general view the passage,
Eph. 9:1: As being stones of the temple of the Father,
prepared for a building of God the Father, drawn up on
high by the engine of Jesus Christ, which is the cross,
using for a rope the Holy Spirit. But your faith is the line
and love the way drawing up to God.
(c) When being led out to execution, Ignatius is filled
with holy longing through death to reach God. He has
only one passion, the Crucified (Rom. 7:2: my love,
, was crucified), and desires to be united to
him. Let me go, he begs the Romans, to find pure
light. Arriving there, I shall be a man (Rom. 6:2; 5:3;
2:2).
(3) Ecclesiology
(a) If the indwelling of God and Christ in us is for
Ignatius the one focal point in Christianity, the other is
his conception of church order. He is the first, so far as
is known to us, to employ the term catholic church
( ): Wherever the bishop appears,
there let the people be; just as wherever Christ is, there
is the catholic church (Symrn. 8:2. Cf. Martyr. Polyc.
8:1). It is certain that this does not at all involve the idea
of the binding of believers into an external unity.
(b) The is here the church universal
in contrast with the single congregation.
33
Page 200 of 524
(i) For other applications of the term "catholic,"

vid. Justin. Dial. 81: ; 102:
.
(ii) Cf. the Exposition of Cyril of Jerus.: "It is
called catholic on account of being through the
whole world from one end to the other (Cat.
18:23).
(iii) Similarly Martyr. Polyc. 8:1, where the
"catholic church" is the churches throughout the
world ); but ibid.
16:2 speaks of "the catholic church in Smyrna."
Cf. 19:2.
(c) This church universal has Christ as its center and

the apostles as its presbytery (Philad. 5:1). But the
episcopacy bears no relation to it. The idea of Ignatius
is, on the contrary, that as the universal church has its
center in Christ, so the separate congregation should
find its center in its bishop. What the apostles are to the
church at large, that is the presbytery to the individual
congregation. Accordingly, the bishop is a type of God
or of Christ, the presbyters types of the apostles (Tral.
2:1; 3:1. Magn. 2; 6:1. Smyrn. 8:1. Eph. 6). Christ, the
unseen Bishop, is contrasted with the bishop who is seen
(Magn. 3:2, cf. Rom. 9:1. Pol. inscr.). The individual
congregation subject to the bishop and presbytery is a
copy of the church universal, which is led by Christ and
the preaching of the apostles. Christ and the preaching
of the apostles, therefore, not the episcopacy, condition
the unity of the church universal.
(d) Ignatius, it is true, attaches great importance to the
episcopate, but in doing so he has in mind only the
relation of the individual bishop to his congregation. He
has, evidently, two motives for thus emphasizing the
authority of the bishops.
(i) First, he wished to maintain the moral
principle of authority and subjection in human
society (he demands the same subjection and
reverence for the presbyters and deacons).
Referring to the three offices, he says: Without
these it is not called a church (Tral. 3:1, cf. Eph.
2:2; 20:2. Polyc. 6:1. Philad. inscr. 4:7. Tral. 2:2;
13:2. Magn. 13:1 and 2: Be subject to the
bishop and to one another).
(ii) Secondly, there was a special reason for
supporting the bishops at that time, as they
34
Page 201 of 524
presented a fixed authority in opposition to the

gnostic tendencies then spreading in Asia Minor
(Tral. 7. Philad. 2:3.4. Smyrn. 9:1). The unity
and harmony of the members of a congregation
in prayer and in temper, in love and faith, in
subjection to one leader, the bishop, constitutes
for him the ideal of congregational life (e.g.,
Philad. 7:2; 8:1. Polyc. 1:2. Magn. 1:2; 3:2; 6:2;
7. Eph. 4:13). It is to be attained by attachment
to the bishop and obedience to him.
(a) It is historically incorrect to find
herethe case is somewhat different
with Clementthe beginning of the
Catholic hierarchy or "divine church
law," as does SOHM (Kirchenrecht i.,
1893), a position to which he is led by
his erroneous principle, that every form
of ecclesiastical law is in conflict with the
essential nature of the church and a
source of all manner of evil.
(b) Cf. Seebergs critique of the work of
Sohm in Theol. Lit. bl., 1893, Nos. 25
27.
(iii) The principle applies not only in matters of
doctrine and life, but particularly in baptism and
the celebration of the eucharist, in the Agap
and in the celebration of marriage: It is not
allowed without the bishop to baptize or hold the
Agape, but whatsoever he shall approve, that is
also well-pleasing to God, in order that
whatsoever is done may be safe and secure
(Smyrn. 8:2. Cf. Pol. 5:2).
(iv) Referring to baptism, Ignatius says that
Christ in his own baptism designed to purify the
water by his passion (Eph. 18:2), and that
baptism is for those who receive it, like faith,
love, and patience, a part of the Christian
panoply (Pol. 6:2). It belongs to the defensive
armor () of the Christian life, and has,
therefore, a practical daily significance.
(v) Of the Lords Supper it is said: The
eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour, Jesus
Christ, which suffered for our sins, which the
Father in his goodness raised from the dead.
(a) Of those who deny this, it is said: It
were profitable for them to commune
(== , Smyrn. 8:2.
Apparently in the same sense we find
35
Page 202 of 524
, Rom. 3, cf. ZAHN. p.

348f.), in order that they might rise
again (Smyrn. 7:1. Cf. also Rom. 7:3.).
(b) The effect of participating is thus
described: Breaking the one bread,
which is the medicine of immortality, an
antidote that we might not die, but live in
Jesus Christ forever (Eph. 20:2). This
view is based upon Jn. 6:5458.
Considered in its connection, this
asserts nothing especially new. It is the
meaning of the author that the Lords
Supper is on earth already a symbolic
means whereby we are made partakers
of eternal life.
(4) Relation to Judaism

(a) Christianity is sharply opposed to Judaism as well
as to heathenism. This also is a view closely related to
the Johns literature. To live according to the law of
Judaism is to have not received grace (Magn. 8:1). On
the contrary, we must put away the old Jewish leaven in
order that we may be salted in Christ (
Magn. 10, 2). It is absurd to name Jesus Christ
and to Judaize; for Christianity did not confess
( ) Judaism, but Judaism Christianity,
and every tongue confessing Christianity will be
gathered together unto God (ib. 3, cf. Philad. 6:1, 2).
(b) Judaism is thus only a positive, but now antiquated,
stage of preparation for Christianity. Believers, whether
Jews or heathen, belong to the one body of the church
(Smyrn. 1:2, cf. Paul in Eph. 2:16). How impressive is
this historic self-consciousness of Christianity, that
Judaism is for Christianity simply a vanquished position.
(5) Summary
(a) Summarizing, we find that Ignatius in Christ
worships God in person, who became man to reveal God
to man, and through his passion and death to redeem
men and make them partakers of eternal salvation. In the
hearts of those who in faith receive the gospel message
Christ henceforth dwells.
(b) The believer leads an eternal life, whose content is
faith and love. Christ is his life, and death his gain; and
he who believes on Christ shall live though he die. The
36
Page 203 of 524
congregational life develops harmoniously, since

believers are taught to be in subjection in life and
doctrine to their bishops. Finally, we note a
consciousness of living in the last times (
, Eph. 11:1. Cf. Magn. 6:1).
3. Polycarp and the Acts of His Martydom

a) Biography
(1) The memory of Polycarp is closely connected with that of
Ignatius. He was born very probably in the year 69 or 70, of
well-to-do parents, and was a disciple of John the Evangelist.[
Eusebius, H. E., v, 20, 6]. He conversed with those who had seen
the Lord and was made bishop of Smyrna at a relatively young
age, since he was holding that office when he received Ignatius
on his way to Rome. Irenaeus extols his great love of tradition
and of sound doctrine[ De Vir. Ill., 7].
(2) Towards the end of his life, Polycarp visited Anicetus in
Rome to discuss with him the question of the celebration of
Easter and to defend the custom which prevailed in his own
church. The two were unable to come to an understanding; but
parted in peace [ H.E., v, 24, 16, 17]. One or two years after this
incident, in 155 or 156, Polycarp died a martyr.
(3) The circumstances of his martyrdom have been preserved in
a letter written by a certain Marcion in the name of the Church of
Smyrna. This letter was addressed, in the year following the
martyrdom of the holy elder,[ xviii, 3] to the Church of
Philomelium "and to all the Christians of the world belonging to
the universal Church"[ chapters xxi and xxii,1]. Polycarp was
sentenced to be burned alive, but he was stabbed with a dagger
and his body afterwards burnt at the stake. The Christians were
able "to gather his bones, of more value to them than precious
stones and gold, and placed them in a becoming place," where
they could assemble to celebrate the anniversary of his
martyrdom [ XVIII, 2].
b) Writings
(1) Irenaeus speaks of a certain number of letters written by
Polycarp [ Eusebius, H. E., v, 20, 8], but we have only his letter
to the Philipplans, written on the occasion of Ignatius' sojourn
among them. Ignatius had induced the Christians of Philippi to
write to the faithful of Antioch and congratulate them upon the
fact that the persecution, which had carried away their bishop,
was now at an end. The Philippians had requested Polycarp to
send their letter to the brethren at Antioch by the same
37
Page 204 of 524
messenger he was about to despatch to that city; they also asked

him for copies of the letters of Ignatius which might be in his
possession. We have Polycarp's reply, written probably soon
after the death of Ignatius [ Cf. ix with xiii], but the entire text is
extant only in a mediocre Latin translation. All the Greek
manuscripts which have reached us stop towards the end of ch.
ix. Fortunately Eusebius has transcribed the whole of ch. ix as
well as ch. xiii, - the two most important chapters [ H. E., iii, 36,
13-15].
(2) The authenticity of these letters, bound up as it is with that of
the Ignatian epistles, has been disputed, but they are certainly
genuine.
(3) Character of the writings
(a) There is very little originality in the writings of
Polycarp. Both the matter and the style are destitute of
genius.
(b) Wishing to exhort the Christians of Philippi, with
whom he was but slightly acquainted, the Bishop of
Smyrna filled his letter with counsels borrowed from the
New Testament, and more especially from Paul's Epistle
to the Philippians. He adds that he is sending them,
together with this letter, all the letters of Ignatius in his
possession.
c) Theology
(1) The epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians assumes that those
to whom it is addressed acknowledge the divinity of Christ, the
fulfillment of his mission on earth, and his subsequent
glorification and exaltation above heaven and earth (1:2; 2:1;
9:2). It is just as firmly held that Christ suffered on account of
our sins for our redemption (1:2; 8:1). He knows also that we are
saved by grace, not by our own works, through Jesus Christ (1:3
extr.); and, further, that only upon the assumption that we now
have faith can we attain the glory which should crown our
earthly life (if we walk worthily of him, we shall also reign with
him, if we believe, 5:2. Cf. 2:1; 8:2). Faith, love, and hope are
the content of the Christian life (3:3).
(2) But the practical force of his exhortations is laid upon the
requirement that we walk in the commandment () of the
Lord (4:1; 5:1; 2:2). Only he who possesses faith, love toward
God and his neighbor, and hope fulfills the commandment of
righteousness. He who has love is far from all sin (3:3). The
righteousness () of the Christian consists in his moral
38
Page 205 of 524
activity, but the pledge () of our righteousness is Christ,

who lifted up our sins in his body on the tree (8:1. Cf. 1 Pet.
2:24). Christians should follow Christ and suffer with him (8:2;
9:2, cf. 2:2).
(3) These exhortations reach their culmination in the thought
that God will raise from the dead all those who, following Christ,
keep his commandments, and will permit them to share in the
dominion of Christ. He that raised him up from the dead will
raise us up also, if we do his will and walk in his
commandments, and love what he loved, abstaining from all
iniquity (2:2, cf. 5:1, 2).
(4) The leading thoughts of Polycarp are thus seen to be
thoroughly evangelical: The Christian, who has apprehended
Christ in faith, will in love fulfill the law of Christ, following
him with patience, in hope of being, like Christ, raised up by
God to everlasting life and of enjoying eternal fellowship with
Christ. The influence of Johannine ideas (especially from the
Epistles) is in this disciple of John just as apparent as is the
different spirit which animates him.
4. Barnabas
a) Introduction
(1) Under the name of Barnabas we have a letter preserved in
two principal codices, the Sinaiticus (4th century) and the
Hierosolymitanus (1056). With one voice Christian antiquity
indicated as the author of this letter Barnabas, the companion of
Paul, although it placed it among the antilegomenai grafai, that
is to say, contested its canonicity.
(2) Modern critics unanimously deny the genuineness of the
letter. When the Epistle was written, Barnabas was certainly no
longer alive and, even if he had been, he would not have adopted
the violent and severe attitude evinced throughout this document.
b) Occasion
(1) The letter was intended for certain converts from paganism,
whom a few Judaic Christians - more Jewish than Christian were trying to persuade that the Old Law was still in force. To
refute this claim the author devotes the greater part of his letter
(i-xvii) to showing that the Mosaic observances have been
abrogated and that the ancient covenant of God with the Jewish
people ceased with the death of Christ and the promulgation of
the Christian law. He goes farther and asserts that these
traditional observances in reality never existed in the sense in
39
Page 206 of 524
which the Jews understood them. The precepts relating to

fasting, circumcision, the Sabbath, the temple, etc., which they
had interpreted in a gross material sense, were to be understood
spiritually of the mortification of the passions and the
sanctification of the interior temple, which is the soul.
(2) In the second part, passing abruptly to a new set of ideas, the
author reproduces the contents of the chapters of the Didache
which describe the "Two Ways." It is probable that he borrowed
this description from some other writing, or from the Didache
itself. There are two "Ways of Life": the way of darkness and
vice and the way of light and virtue; we must follow the latter
and turn away from the former.
c) Origin
(1) Alexandria and Egypt are commonly designated as the
birthplace of the Letter of Barnabas. It is there we find it first
quoted (by Clement of Alexandria) and there it was held in great
veneration.
(2) We could suspect this also from the strong allegorism
displayed throughout the work. The author sees, for instance, in
the 318 slaves of Abraham the figure of Christ and of His cross
(T = 300, ih = 18). He believes in the millennium.
d) Date
(1) It is difficult to determine the date of this composition. All
depends on the interpretation we give to chapters iv and xvi.
Funk and Bardenhewer place it under Nero's reign (96-98); Veil,
Harnack, and Oger, under the Emperior Hadrian (117-131).
e) Theology
(1) Note: Despite the repulsive extravagances of Alexandrian
exegesis found in this author, he preserves the fundamental ideas
of the apostolic period in a relatively pure form.
(2) Christology:
(a) The pre-existence of Christ is affirmed, and with it
his divine creative activity (5:5, 6). He will one day
return again as Judge in divine omnipotence (15:5). He
is not Son of man, but Son of God (12:10; 7:9). He
appeared in the flesh, since men cannot look even upon
the created and perishable sun (5:10, 11).
40
Page 207 of 524
(b) The Son of God, who thus assumed human flesh,

suffered also upon the cross, according to the will of
God. His sufferings are understood also as a sacrifice
(5:1; 7:3: and since he would make the tabernacle of his
Spirit [i.e., his body] a sacrifice for our sins, 5; c. 8).
The object and result of the bodily sufferings are, first
the abolition of death and the demonstration of this in
the resurrection (5:6); but chiefly the forgiveness of sins
and sanctifying of the heart, since we are thus made new
creatures (5:1: For to this end the Lord endured, that
he might give his flesh to death, in order that we might
be sanctified by the remission of sins, that is, by his
blood of sprinkling; 6:11: Since, therefore, he has
renewed us by the remission of sins, he gave us another
character, so that we might have the spirit of children,
as he had moulded us anew). Accordingly, the heralds
of the gospel proclaim the remission of sins and the
sanctification of the heart (8:3). Through his suffering
for us Christ has bestowed upon us the covenant which
Israel (see below) forfeited, and has made us heirs of the
inheritance (14:4). Although Barnabas has not made
clear the necessity, nature, and object of Christs
sacrifice, there is no ground for attributing to him the
idea that the Saviors death has relation only to sins of
the past (BEHM, Ztschr. f. k. Wiss., 1886, p. 299f.). His
sufferings are represented as making death powerless
and establishing in us the principle of a permanent
renewal. Barnabas, it is true, has, like the other Church
Fathers, failed to realize and teach distinctly that the
forgiveness of sins remains a vital element of the
Christians entire life.
(3) Salvation
(a) The believer enters upon the possession of the
blessings of redemption through baptism: This he says
in order that we may go down into the water bewailing
our sins and uncleanness, and come up from it having
fruit in our hearts, having reverence and hope in Jesus
in our spirits (11:1, cf. 8). Through baptism,
therefore, we become free from sin. Our heart is
thenceforth a dwelling of God (8:15).
(b) As to the nature of this new state and the means
(preaching) by which it is produced, we are taught in
16:79: Before we believed in God, the abode of our
hearts was perishable and weak . . . so that it was full of
idolatry and the home of devils because we did the
things which were against God. But it is to be builded up
in the name of the Lord. . . How? Learn: Receiving the
41
Page 208 of 524
remission of sins and hoping in his name, we are become

new creatures, created again from the beginning.
Wherefore God truly dwells within us in the abode of our
hearts. How? His word of faith, his proclamation of the
Gospel, the wisdom of (his) pardons, the commandments
of (his) doctrine, he himself speaking in us and dwelling
in us, slaves to death as we are, opening to us the gate of
the temple, which is his mouth [for the proclamation of
the word], giving to us repentance, leads us into the
imperishable temple.
(c) It will be observed that here also faith is presented
as a fundamental act in the reception of grace (Cf. 2:2;
4:8; 6:17; 9:4; 11:11). But faith is in Barnabas most
intimately associated with hope. Faith and hope are but
different aspects of the same inner possession (1:4, 6;
4:8: In the hope of his faith; 6:3; 11:11, i.e., of
baptism: having in our spirits reverence and hope in
Christ; 8:5; 11:8; 12:2, 3, 7; 16:8; 19:7. Cf. Heb.
11:1). The expectation that Barnabas will place a
corresponding valuation upon justification (
and ) is not gratified. With the above
presentation of faith he combines a portrayal of moral
integrity (1:4; 4:12; 5:4; 20:2; 4:10; 15:7. The passage
13:7 is not decisive, nor is 1:6, where the text is also
fragmentary).
(d) He who has thus received with faith in Christ
through baptism the forgiveness of his sins and the
renewing indwelling of God will also seek to fulfill the
new law of our Lord Jesus Christ: (2:6). Barnabas
describes such an one as being without the yoke of
necessity (ib., cf. Jas. 1:5. Gal. 5:1). This assertion
must not be overlooked amid the very strong
emphasizing of the divine commandments (2:1; 4:11. Cf.
21:1, 5, 8).
(e) But that Barnabas was not free from moralistic
overvaluation of good works in the Christian life is
clearly evident from the language (not, indeed, original
with him, but adopted with approval) of 19:10: Or
work with thy hands for the ransom ( ) of thy
sins. Christians should not bring outward but inward
sacrifices (2:9, 10); the insight which they have gained
restrains them, as strangers, from observing the Jewish
law (3:6, cf. 4:6).
(4) Hermeneutics
42
Page 209 of 524
(a) In one point Barnabas fails entirely to understand

the connections of the traditional faith. He sees in
Christianity the people of God, but does not recognize
the historical relation of Israel in the development of the
plan of salvation. According to his view, the covenant
with Israel was never really concluded, since the tables
of the law were broken by Moses (4:8; 14). Likewise, the
assertion that the elder shall serve the younger (Gen.
25:21ff.; 48:14ff.) shows that the covenant was turned
over to us (c. 13).
(b) Circumcision is accordingly without divine sanction
(9:6), and the entire conception of the law among the
Jews, based upon a literal interpretation of it, is a
colossal misconception (e.g., 10:9).
(c) They rested in the allegorical exterior without
penetrating to the real meaning. = furnishes
Barnabas the proper and profound understanding of the
law. As Philo interprets it in the interest of philosophy,
so Barnabas in the interest of Christianity. For example,
the prohibition of the eating of swines flesh really
forbids the association with men who are like swine. The
prohibition of hyna flesh warns us not to become
seducers or adulterers, since that animal changes its sex
every year (10:3, 7).
(d) The 318 servants whom Abraham circumcised are
thus interpreted: Learn that he first says the 18, and,
after leaving a space, the 300. The 18: I is ten, H is
eight. There thou hast Jesus (). But because the
cross in the T would indicate grace, he says, and 300.
Thus he sets forth Jesus in the two letters and the cross
in the third (9:8), etc. This exegetical method, which
soon became the prevalent one, prevented for 1500
years a historical interpretation of the Old Testament;
but it also forbade the acceptance of anything found in
the Old Testament which was not thought to be in
consonance with New Testament teaching.
(5) Eschatology
(a) (Barnabas, too, looks forward to the end of the
world as near at hand (4:9; 21:3). The last offense
( ) of which Enoch speaks (4:3not
found in our Book of Enoch) is near.
(b) He calls attention to the signs of the end, as given in
Daniel 7:24, 7f. Cf. Barn. 4:4 and 9. The ten kingdoms
43
Page 210 of 524
are the Roman emperors from Augustus to Domitian.

The little king is Nero, as the eleventh emperor.
(c) The humiliating of the three kings together ( =) is
fulfilled in the three Flavians, Vespasian, Titus, and
Domitian, who are humbled together since their dynasty
loses the throne. There is need of watchfulness, lest the
devil ( , ) force his way and
gain power (4:9, 13). To avoid this, Christians must keep
the commandments and cling to () the
fellowship of the church (2:1; 4:10, 11; 21:8).
(d) Barnabas undertakes also to map out the future. As
there were six days of creation, so will God in six
thousand years bring the present dispensation of the
world to an end, since one day is with him as a thousand
years. Then follows a seventh millennium, corresponding
to the Sabbath of creation, in which Christ renews the
world and the righteous (
, ) hallow
this last day of the worlds week. Then dawns the eighth
day, the beginning of the other world (
). The type of this is seen in the joyous celebration
of Sunday, upon which day also Christ arose from the
dead and ascended (!) to heaven (15:59).
(6) Summary
(a) Through his passion and death Christ brought us
forgiveness of sins and deliverance from death.
(b) Through baptism the forgiveness of sins is imparted
to us, God dwells in us, and a new life begins. In this
new life wewith free willfulfill the commandments of
Christ.
(c) The author is writing for those who are in danger of
accepting the Jewish ordinances (3:6; 4:6. Cf. his own
description of the contents of his epistle, 17:1), but he is
free from any subjection to the Old Testament law.
(d) The nearness of the end of all things and the
severity of the account to be rendered should impel us to
zeal.
44
Page 211 of 524
5. The Doctrine of the Twelve or Didache

a) Introduction
(1) The Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles (Didach twu dwdeka
apostolwn), frequently called also by the shorter name of
Didache, was not entirely unknown when the complete text was
first discovered. The Epistle of Pseudo-Barnabas, Clement of
Alexandria, Origen, the author of the Apostolic Constitutions,
and others had quoted it or embodied fragments of it in their
works.
(2) Athanasius had even mentioned it expressly by its title, the
"Doctrine of the Apostles." The treatise was very popular in the
early Church; some looked upon it even as an inspired book.
However, Eusebius places it among the noqa, or non-canonical
apocrypha (H. E., III, 25, 4).
b) Text
(1) The complete original text was discovered only in 1873, by
Philotheos Bryennios in the Codex Hierosolymitanus, which
dates from 1056. The principal edition appeared in 1883. It has
since been followed by many others. Besides the original Greek,
there exist also a Latin version of the first six chapters[3] and a
few fragments from an Arabic translation. Quotations in the
Adversus Aleatores and by Optatus prove that there must have
existed, as early as the 2ndcentury, a Latin version, different
from the one we possess now, which contained the whole work.
c) Content
(1) The Didache may be divided into four clearly distinct parts:
(a) a moral catechesis (i-vi),
(b) a liturgical instruction (vii-x);
(c) a disciplinary instruction (xi-xv),
(d) a conclusion of an eschatological nature (xvi).
(2) The moral catechesis teaches us what we must do (The Way
of Life, i-iv) and what we must not do (The Way of Death, v, vi).
(3) The liturgical instruction treats of Baptism, how to
administer it and how to prepare oneself for its reception (vii);
45
Page 212 of 524
fasting (viii, 1); prayer (viii, 2, 3), and the celebration of the
Holy Eucharist (ix, x).
(4) The disciplinary instruction is concerned with the manner of
dealing with preachers, and especially with itinerant apostles (xi,
3-6), prophets (xi, 7-12; xiii, I, 3-7), travelling brethren (xii), and
teachers who settle in the community (xiii, 2) ; then passing on
to the interior life of the Church, it prescribes the divine service
for Sundays and lays down the line of conduct to be followed
with regard to bishops, deacons, and the brethren of the
community (xiv-xv).
(5) The conclusion is a warning to be vigilant because the
coming of the Savior is at hand. It contains also a description of
the signs which will precede and accompany the parousia (xvi).
d) Author
(1) The Didache is an anonymous writing and its author is
unknown. Whoever he was, he fused the different parts of the
work into a harmonious whole. The problem is to ascertain
whether he made use of works already in existence and, more
especially, whether the first six chapters (the moral catechesis)
constituted an independent treatise, which the author
appropriated and incorporated with his work.
(2) A few indications here and there seem to favor this view.
Under the title of The Two Ways a short moral treatise seems to
have been in circulation.
(3) The author of the Didache and several other writers who
have cited him. may have merely performed a work of
transcription. This conclusion, however, is not certain. As to the
hypothesis that The Two Ways was a Jewish work, Christianized
by the addition of passages I, 3 to II, 1, we must say that it is not
substantiated by the facts.
e) Date
(1) The dates fixed upon by critics for the composition of the
Didache fall between the years 50 and 160. The work was
probably composed between 80 and 110.
(2) The basis for such a conclusion is the fact that the liturgy
and hierarchy which the author describes, are quite primitive;
there is no trace in the work of a creed or a canon of the
Scriptures, and no allusion is made to pagan persecution or
Gnosticism.
46
Page 213 of 524
(3) On the other hand, the writer is acquainted with the gospels
of Matthew and Luke and entertains an obvious mistrust towards
wandering Christian teachers who visit the communities. This
state of affairs is characteristic of the end of the first century.
f) Origin
(1) It is impossible to determine precisely the place where this
work was composed.
(2) It was certainly written in the East, but nothing warrants our
saying with certainty whether its birthplace was Syria, Palestine,
or Egypt.
g) Significance
(1) The Didache is a work of considerable importance. Apart
from its dogmatic content, it gives us a pretty accurate picture of
what was, in those early times, the interior life of the Christian
communities from the point of view of moral teaching, the
practices they observed, and the form of government under
which they lived.
(2) Some authors have seen in this work the most ancient of
Christian rituals.
h) Theology
(1) Note: This document can be employed in tracing the History
of Doctrines only with the most extreme caution, since we know
that it was not designed to present a statement of Christian
teachingnot even of any particular doctrines.
(2) Christology
(a) The designations of Christ as the Son of God (16:4),
as the God (or is the proper reading?) of David
(10:6), and as the Servant of God (9:3; 10:2, 3) are to be
interpreted in the same sense as in the documents
already examined.
(b) We have also already met the representation of God
as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (7:1, 3), preserved in the
baptismal formula.
(3) Salvation
47
Page 214 of 524
(a) Of the blessings of salvation bestowed upon us by

God through Christ are here mentioned life, the deeper
knowledge (), faith, and immortality (10:2; 9:3,
cf. 16:1; 4:8), and also the indwelling of the name of
God in our hearts (10:2).
(b) Christians are those who hope in God (
, cf. Barnabas). The Spirit of God prepares us for
our Christian calling (4:10).
(4) Ecclesiology
(a) There can be no thought of hierarchical tendencies,
seeing that there is an emphasis upon the priesthood of
all believers who exercise their spiritual gifts.
(b) Official positions stand upon the same footing as the
free agencies of the Spirit, and it is especially noted that
the latter may fittingly render such service, and are,
therefore, to be accorded like honor (15).
(c) The church (or the saints, 4:2) is the body of
believers scattered throughout the world, who are to be
gathered into the (eschatological) kingdom of God (9:4,
cf. 10:5).
(d) In the introductory counsel to candidates for
baptism (The Two Ways, c. 16, cf. Barnab. 1820)
the Didache presents a formula which was frequently
used, in which the chief features of the moral life of the
believer are stated in a condensed form: (1) Love to God
and ones neighbor, (2) avoiding gross sins, (3)
opposing sins of physical and spiritual lust, (4) proper
conduct toward teachers, the church, the needy, children
and servants. The exhortation to the confession of sins in
the congregation before prayer, and also before
receiving the eucharist (4:14; 14:1, cf. 10:6), indicates a
vivid sense of sin. The Didache also quotes with
approval the counsel which we have found adopted by
Barnabas: If thou hast by (the work of) thy hands, thou
shalt give a ransom for thy sins (4:6). The moralism of
the document is sufficiently indicated in the above.
(e) God has through Christ bestowed upon Christians
an immortal life, which is displayed in faith, hope, and
knowledge. This is produced and preserved in man
through baptism and the Lords Supper, and through
teaching and instruction given in many ways. He
maintains this life in earnest moral striving and in
48
Page 215 of 524
perpetual penitence, and is thus prepared for the

approaching judgment and its terrors.
(5) Eschatology
(a) This eschatological conception of the kingdom of
God is a peculiarity of the apostolic fathers (the view of
Barnabas is different, 8:6). Here, too, we find a vivid
expectation of the approaching end of the world. Cf. in
the communion-prayer: Let grace come and this world
pass away (11:6). The last chapter of the Didache
treats of the Christian duty of watchfulness, of false
prophets which shall come, of Antichrist (then shall
appear the as the Son of God), of the final
testing of the church, of the signs in heaven, the sound of
the trumpets, the resurrection, and the coming of the
Lord upon the clouds of heaven.
6. The Homily Called the 2nd Epistle to Clement

a) Texts
(1) The so-called Second Epistle of Clement is found in two
Greek manuscripts and in the Syriac manuscript of the authentic
letter of Clement.
(2) However, Eusebius, who is the first to mention it, is careful
to remark [ H. E., iii, 38, 4] that "it was not as well known as the
first Epistle, since ancient writers have made no use of it." In
fact, it is neither a letter nor a formal epistle, but a homily or
discourse which was read in the meetings of the faithful.
"Brothers and Sisters, after [the word of] the God of truth, I read
to you this exhortation, that listening to the things which have
been written, you may save yourselves and your lector with you"
[ xix, 1].
b) Author
(1) The hypothesis that this epistle is identical with the Letter of
Soter to the Corinthians [ Eusebius, H. E., iv, 23, II], spoken of
by Denis of Corinth, is therefore untenable. Neither can this
homily be attributed to Clement. The silence of ancient writers
militates strongly against such an hypothesis, and "style, tone,
and thought are in such complete contrast with the (authentic)
Letter to the Corinthians that from internal criteria alone we
should be justified in refusing to attribute this second
composition to the author of the first Letter "[Hemmer].
49
Page 216 of 524
(2) It is, therefore, an anonymous sermon by an unknown

author.
c) Content
(1) As the work is not an orderly treatise on a particular subject,
its contents are difficult to analyze. After affirming the divinity
of Christ, the author dwells at length on the value of the
salvation He has brought us and on the care with which we
should observe the commandments (i-iv).
(2) We can work out our salvation only by waging a continual
warfare against the world. Let us then embark for this heavenly
battle (v-vii) and strive to practice the Christian virtues of
penance, purity, mutual love, trust in God, and devotion to the
Church (viii-xvii).
(3) Conclusion: Let us work for our salvation, come what may:
Glory be to God! (xviii-xx).
d) Character
(1) It is plain that this discourse is not a homily, properly so
called, upon a specific text of Scripture, but a stirring exhortation
to live a Christian life and thereby to merit heaven. "The thought
is often very commonplace, expressed awkwardly and not
always definitely. The composition is loose and devoid of
orderly plan, but there are a few striking sentences scattered here
and there." It is the work of a writer who is inexperienced, yet
full of what he has to say and who, at times, expressed himself
with unction.
(2) A number of critics, struck by the resemblance existing
between this work and the Shepherd of Hermas, have concluded
that it was written in Rome. The analogy, however, is not very
pronounced. Others have perceived in vii, 1, 3, where mention is
made of wrestlers who hasten to the combat under full sail and of
Christians embarking for battle, an allusion to the Isthmian
games, and think that the exhortation was read at Corinth. This
would explain how, in the manuscripts, it came to be placed
alongside of the Letter of Clement to the Corinthians. The
hypothesis does not lack probability.
e) Date
(1) As to the date of composition, critics agree in placing it in
the first half of the second century, more precisely between 120
and 140.
50
Page 217 of 524
(2) This would be before the rise of the great Gnostic systems of
which the writer does not seem to be aware.
f) Theology
(1) The sermon opens with the demand: It is necessary for us to
think of Jesus Christ as of God, as of the Lord of the living and
the dead (1:1). In proportion as we underestimate him will we
also underestimate the salvation to come (1:2). Of his person, it
is said: Christ the Lord who saves us, being first spirit, became
flesh and thus called us (9:5). That is, he who was at first a
spiritual being became flesh. But the author appears to regard
this spiritual being, and likewise the Holy Ghost, as a creature of
the Father. Male and female (Gen. 1:27) are applied
respectively to Christ and to the church as a spiritual entity
(14:2).
(2) God sent Christ to us as Savior and author of immortality
( ) and through him reveals to us the
truth and the heavenly life (20:5). It is said, indeed, that Christ
suffered for our sakes (1:2), and that he had compassion upon the
lost (2:7). But these ideas are, for the author, mere formulas. The
work of redemption means for him that Christ has abolished the
darkness of foolish creature-worship (1:6, 7) and brought us
instead the knowledge of the Father of Truth (3:1; 17:1) and
imparted to us his laws (3:4). The promise of immortality is
added as a reward for the keeping of his commandments (11:1).
(3) The conception of the Christian life corresponds with the
above. The controlling thought is: that we give to him some
recompense (), or some fruit worthy of what he has
given to us (1:3; 9:7, cf. 15:2). This consists herein: that we, in
view of the magnitude of the work of Christ, confess him as the
Saviour (3:3), and that we thus confess him by doing what he
says and not disregarding his commandments (3:4), or we
confess him by our works ( 4:3). Doing thus, we
may live without fear of death (5:1). The Christian should
preserve his baptism without stain. It has publicly cleansed him
from his sins (6:9; 8:6, here called a seal). He who in this way
serves God is righteous (11:1, 7; 12:1), and he who does
righteousness shall be saved (19:3). But he who transgresses
Christs commandments incurs eternal punishment (6:7). No
person nor thing can then save him: nor anyone be our
comforter, if we shall not be found having holy and righteous
works (6, 9 and 7). For doing such works men must, it is true,
have faith as a prerequisite; but faith is nothing more (in contrast
with doubt ) than a believing of the divine promise of
reward (11:1, 5:6).
51
Page 218 of 524
(4) But now, since men are sinful and full of evil lust (13:1;
19:2), this demand takes the form of a call to repentance. To this
the preacher summons (8:1f.; 9:8; 13:1; 16:1; 17:1; 19:1). This
embraces, first the forsaking of the former sins (13:1), and then
at once the fulfilling of the Lords commandments (8:3, 4).
Repentance is for the author not a change of mind, but a change
of habits by good works. This repentance () is the
recompense which we owe to God and Christ (9:8).
(5) The externalizing of the moral life is further manifest in the
fact that the orator (on the basis of Tobit 12:8, 9) recommends
certain particular works as peculiarly suited to repentance for
sins: Almsgiving is, therefore, excellent as a repentance for
sins; fasting is better than prayer; but almsgiving better than
either . . . for almsgiving becomes a lightening of the burden
() of sin (16:4).
(6) If man has thus fulfilled the will of God, or Christ, striven
against his evil passions, and done good, he receives from God
eternal life in the kingdom of God (eschatologically conceived)
as the reward for his works (8:4 and 11:7; 12:1; 6:7; 9:6; 10:4).
The day of judgment is already approaching (16:3). But the
Christian receives his reward in the body in which he was called.
The resurrection of the body dare not be called in question (9:1
5, cf. also 9:4). The kingdom of God will begin at the second
coming of Jesus. Terrible tortures are impending over those who
deny Jesus and do not keep his commandments (17:4.7).
(7) This last and latest, book of the so-called Apostolic
Fathers is beyond question the furthest removed from the
Christianity of the apostolic age. What we have been able to
detect in incipient form in the other Fathers here meets us in
clear and un-disguised form. Christ is essentially the Teacher of
the knowledge of God and the new Lawgiver. Christianity is the
reception of this teaching and this law into the heart and life. The
motives prompting to the keeping of the law thus given are the
consideration of the magnitude of the gift of God and faith in the
promise of reward.
7. The Shepherd of Hermas

a) Text:
(1) We possess under the name of Hermas a long composition
entitled The Shepherd, of which there are extant two Greek
manuscripts, both incomplete. The codex of Mt. Athos (14th
century) contains almost the entire text down to similitude ix, 30,
2
52
Page 219 of 524
(2) Two Latin versions (one very ancient, called Vulgata), an

Ethiopic version, and a few fragments of a Coptic version.
b) Title:
(1) The title of the work is borrowed from the personage who
plays the principal part in the second division of the work, the
Angel of Penance to whose care Hermas has been entrusted,
(2) The angel appears to him in the guise of a shepherd (Vision
v).
c) Author
(1) Who was the author of this book? Origen saw in him the
Hermas whom Paul greets at the end of his Epistle to the
Romans (xvi, 14).
(2) Others have made him a contemporary of Clement of Rome,
according to vision ii, 4, 3.
(3) By far the most probable opinion is that based upon the
authority of the Canon of Muratori, and that of the Liberian
Catalogue, which makes Hermas a brother of Pius I (c. 140-155).
"As to the Shepherd" says the Muratorian Fragment, "it has been
written quite recently, in our own time, in the city of Rome, by
Hermas, while Pius, his brother, occupied, as bishop, the see of
the Church of the city of Rome."
(4) This evidence seems conclusive. It does not, however, give
us any details concerning the life of Hermas. The author, in his
book, furnishes us with these. According to his autobiography,
Hermas was a slave and a Christian. He was sold at Rome to a
Christian lady, named Rhode, who soon set him free. He then
applied himself to agriculture and commerce and rapidly
acquired great wealth. In consequence, he began to neglect the
moral guidance of his family and, more especially, failed to
correct his wife and children, who led vicious lives. Then came
the persecution.
(5) Hermas and his wife confessed the faith, but their children
apostatized, denounced their parents, and indulged in all kinds of
debauchery.
(6) The result was that Hermas lost his fortune and was reduced
to the possession of a small farm, situated on the road leading to
the Roman Campagna; this was enough to support him. The trial
he had undergone proved very helpful.
53
Page 220 of 524
(7) Hermas had been an indifferent Christian; he now became

fervent. It was while he was endeavoring to make amends for the
past that the events occurred which he now relates.
(8) It is difficult to disentangle what is true from what is pure
fiction in these details. Hermas is surely a historical personage,
and probably certain features of his life are not without historical
foundation. Others may have been invented for the purposes of
the book. Since Hermas has invented many things, as we shall
prove, he may well have invented also his supposed
autobiography.
d) Content
(1) The end he had in view was to call sinners to repentance.
Hermas is conscious of grave disorders which have crept into the
Roman Church (Simil., viii, 6-10; ix, 19-31), not only among the
laity, but even among the clergy. Ought not these sinners to
repent? Certain imposters denied it (Simil., viii, 6, 5). Hermas
affirms that they should.
(2) Will this repentance, which is necessary, be useful to those
who perform it, and will it merit pardon for them? Some rigorist
teachers thought it would not, and asserted that the only
beneficial repentance was that performed before baptism
(Mandat, iv, 3, l); Hermas announces in the name of God that, at
least at the moment when he is writing, one repentance after
baptism is both possible and efficacious, and affirms that his
express mission is to invite sinners to take advantage of such a
favor.
(3) Lastly, how should repentance be performed? Hermas
describes the process in the course of his book. These three
ideas, the necessity of repentance, its efficacy, and its requisite
conditions, form the groundwork of The Shepherd.
(4) Hermas does not present these ideas as his own. In order that
they may be the more readily accepted by his readers, he
presents them as moral instructions that he has received through
the special agency of supernatural manifestations. He assumes
the attitude of a seer and a prophet, like those who existed in the
first days of the Church, and his entire book is nothing more than
an account of the visions and revelations which have been made
to him.
(5) From this point of view, viz., that of the form, The Shepherd
is divided into three parts, which comprise, respectively, five
Visions, twelve Commandments, and ten Similitudes (or
parables). This distinction is made by the author himself, but it
54
Page 221 of 524
must not be taken in a strict sense, "because the commandments

and the similitudes contain nearly as many visions as the visions
properly so called, and the visions and similitudes in their turn
are crammed with commandments."
(6) In reality, Hermas divides his book into two distinct sections,
according to the personage who appears and speaks to him. In
the first four visions that personage is the Church. She appears to
him first in the guise of an aged and feeble woman; in the
following visions she grows constantly younger and more
graceful. From the fifth vision on, a new personage appears and
remains upon the scene until the close of the volume. This is the
Shepherd or Angel of Penance to whose care Hermas has been
entrusted. The Shepherd first dictates to him the twelve
Commandments and next bids him write out the Similitudes or
parables.
(7) The twelve Commandments form a small code of practical
morals. They insist upon the virtues and good works which a
penitent must practice if his penance is to be efficacious, faith,
fear of God, simplicity, truthfulness, chastity in marriage,
patience, temperance, trust in God, Christian joy, the
discernment of true and false prophets.
(8) The Similitudes, or symbolical visions, are ten in number.
They resume the theme of the visions and further develop the
necessity and efficacy of repentance and the conditions requisite
for it. Three of these similitudes are particularly important: the
fifth (the parable of the vineyard and the faithful servant), the
eighth (the parable of the willow tree), and the ninth (which
returns to the third vision and relates the construction of the
tower of the Church).
e) Date
(1) The Shepherd was evidently written at Rome. The
Muratorian Fragment affirms that it was composed during the
pontificate of Pius I, between 140 and 155, or thereabouts.
(2) The best we can do is to accept this date, which is supported
by what Hermas says about the persecutions, the state of the
Roman Church, and the errors which were beginning to circulate
in his time.
f) Esteem
(1) From the moment of its appearance The Shepherd was
received with high esteem in both the East and the West. Several
Fathers (Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and
55
Page 222 of 524
Origen) considered it an inspired work, athough they did not

place it on the same footing as the canonical books.
(2) The Shepherd was esteemed as the work of a true prophet
and was appended to the New Testament in manuscripts of the
Bible. The Muratorian Fragment, Eusebius, and Athanasius are
more exact when they state that The Shepherd of Hermas is
assuredly an excellent book, but cannot be compared to the
books recognized by the Church as canonical.
(3) Its reputation did not last beyond the 4th century, and in 392,
Jerome could say that The Shepherd was almost unknown
among the Latin churches. The interest it had created dwindled
away in the Greek churches also. In the decree of Gelasius (496)
it is named among the apocryphal books.
(4) Considered in itself, the book is very interesting reading.
However, this is not owing to the literary gifts and genius of the
writer. Hermas was an uneducated man and seems not to have
read or known anything outside of the Bible and a few Jewish or
Christian apocrypha. He was entirely unacquainted with
philosophy. He lacks imagination. "His grammar is faulty, his
style clumsy and diffuse, and filled with long sentences and
wearisome repetitions ... his logic is extremely defective; he does
not even know the art of writing correctly"[Lelong]
g) Theology
(1) Christology
(a) Hermas associates salvation directly with the
Person of Christ (Sim. 9:12:46). His views in regard to
this, however, furnish nothing really new.
(b) It is a perversion to make him a representative of an
adoptionistic Christology, as though teaching that Christ
was a man chosen of God, in whom the Spirit of God
dwelt, and who, after having proved himself worthy, was
elevated to a position of lordship (Harnack, DG., ed. 3,
p. 182f.).
(c) Christ, the Son of God, is as well the ancient Rock,
out of which the tower of the church is hewn, as the new
Door through which we enter this tower. The Son of
God is, indeed, more ancient () than
any creature; insomuch that he was in counsel with his
Father at the creation of all things (Sim. 9:12:2, 3). He
could very well have protected his people through an
angel (Sim. 5:6.2; cf. 2:2); but he did more, since he
56
Page 223 of 524
purified them by his own toil (Sim. 5:6.3). The angels

are his to command (Sim. 5:5.13; cf. 2:2), and he
upholds the whole world (Sim. 9:14:5; cf. Heb. 1:2). It
cannot therefore be doubted that Christ is for Hermas a
preexistent Being, exalted above the angels.
(d) It has been contended that, according to Hermas,
Christ is not a separate divine person, but that the Holy
Spirit dwelt in his flesh (BAUR, v. ENGELHARDT, p.
425f. HARNACK, p. 185. HCKSTDT, p. 26ff.). But
Sim. 5 distinctly discriminates between the lord of the
farm, i.e., the Father, the servant, i.e., the Son, and the
son, i.e., the Holy Ghost. The lord commits to the servant
the cultivation of the farm, and after this has been done,
he rejoices over it with the son, i.e., the Holy Ghost
(5:2.6; 5:2). If it is said immediately after this (6:5) that
God caused the Holy Ghost to dwell in the flesh of
Christ, and that the latter served the Spirit without
defiling it, the meaning is not that the Holy Spirit
constitutes the divine nature of Christ, but that the preexistent Christ is holy spirit (
, ), and that this
flesh, since it did not defile the spirit, has been by God
taken with the spirit to himself (6ff.).
(e) The other passage adduced in support of the theory
in question, Sim. 9:1.1: For that spirit is the Son of
God means only to say that the holy spiritual being that
spoke with Hermas was the Son of God. The pre-existent
Christ was not the Holy Spirit, but a pre-existent holy
spiritual being. It was not uncommon to speak in this
way in the second century. Christ is called Spirit of God
( ) in 2 Clem. 9:5. Iren. adv. haer., v. 1:2;
cf. Arist. Apol., 2:6. Celsus in Orig. c. Cels., vi. 75.
Theophil. ad Autol., ii. 10. Tertul. Apol., 21; adv. Prax.
8:26; de orat. 1. See already 1 Cor. 3:17. The view of
Hermas is, therefore, not essentially different from that
of the New Testament. It would have been
incomprehensible that he should, in view of the
baptismal formula, have fallen into such confusion. See.
also Dorner, Christol., i., ed. 2, p. 200ff., 194.
(2) Salvation
(a) Christ, the Son of God, placed men (evidently
meaning believers of Old Testament times) under the
protection of angels; then himself became man in order
to purify men: And he himself labored very much and
suffered much that he might blot out their offenses . . .
57
Page 224 of 524
wherefore having himself blotted out the sins of the

people, he showed to them the paths of life, giving them
the law which he had received from the Father (Sim.
5:6.2, 3).
(b) Thus Christ brought forgiveness for the sins of the
past, and for the future gave to men his commandments.
Cf. Link, Christi Person u. Werk im Hirten des Hermas
(Marburg, 1886).
(c) As to the personal state of the believer, we are
taught: In the hearts of men, which are in themselves
weak and full of sin (e.g., Mand. 4:3.4. Sim. 9:23:4),
which turn away from God, do not know him, and will
not obey him (Vis. 3:7.2. Sim. 4:4.4, etc.), God causes
his Spirit to take up its abode, or the powers of the Son
of God are imparted to them. Only such as have
obtained these are able to enter into the kingdom of God
(Mand. 3:1; 12:4.3; 6:2, 1ff. Sim. 9:32:4; 13:2; cf.
25:4). But this good Spirit cannot live in man together
with the evil spirits (Mand. 5:1.3; 2:5ff. Sim. 10:3.2).
Sim. 8 explains how this gift is imparted. Branches from
a willow-tree are given to believers. Some bring them
back fresh and blooming: others, withering and withered
(both classes in various degrees). The willow-tree is the
law of God. But this law is the Son of God, preached
throughout the whole earth (3:2). It is therefore the
preaching of Christ as a new code of moral life that
accomplishes the above results in believers. We are
futher told that life is given us through the water of
baptism, and this is so necessary that it must in some
way be applied even to Old Testament believers (Vis.
3:3.5. Sim. 9:16:2, 3, 5). Through baptism all the sins
which a man has committed are forgiven (cf. below).
(d) The fundamental subjective condition of the moral
life in man is faith (Sim. 6:12). This comes from above,
and equips man with power; whereas its opposite,
double-mindedness, is of the earth and has no power
(Mand. 9:11). Since the latter, which leads to doubt,
must be overcome, as well as care and trouble (),
man turns in faith with his whole heart to God, praying
and sure that his prayer is heard (Mand. 9:1, 2, 5; cf.
Vis. 4:2.4-6. Mand. 10). He who fears God becomes free
from the fear of the devil (Mand. 7:4). Although faith
may be apparently presented as one among the Christian
virtues (Mand. 8:9; 12:3, 1. Sim. 9:15:2), it is evident
from the above that it is not so regarded. The elect are
saved through faith. The other virtues are daughters of
faith (Vis. 3:8.3, 4; cf. Mand. 5:2.3). The essential
58
Page 225 of 524
content of faith is presented in the passage quoted as

Scripture by Irenus, Origen and Athanasius, Mand.
1:1: First of all, believe that there is one God, who
created and framed all things, and made them from
being nothing to be all things (cf. 2 Macc. 7:28), and
who comprehends all things, and who is alone
incomprehensible (). God created the world
for the sake of men and the church (Mand. 12:4. Vis.
2:4.2; 1:4). That faith in Christ is not unknown to
Hermas is of course to be taken for granted (vid. Sim.
8:3.2 extr.).
(e) Faith is therefore not only a knowledge and
acknowledgment of God as the Creator, but also an
undivided turning of the heart to God, which makes man
strong and is the root of all moral activity. It is as truly
fundamental duty as fundamental power (ZAHN, p.
175.).
(f) But the relationship of faith and good works is not
always observed by Hermas. Take heed, therefore, ye
that serve the Lord, and have him in your hearts: work
the works of God, being mindful of his commandments
and of the promises which he has given, and believe that
he will perform these if his commandments are kept
(Sim. 1:7). The moral activity commended is the
fulfillment of the separate divine requirements. To such
an observance of the commandments is attached the
promise of life (Sim. 8:11:3; 6:1.1; 7:6; 10:1.2; 2:4; 4:1.
Mand. 4:2.4; 7:5). Although this cannot be interpreted
as equivalent to the later moralism, it yet distinctly
prepares the way for it. Cf. also the designation of the
preaching concerning Christ as law, (Sim. 8:3.2,
3).
(g) The view of Hermas as to the possibility of fulfilling
the divine commandments is not fairly represented in the
assertion: The power thereto is innate in man
(Schmid-Hauck, DG., p. 11). On the contrary, it is the
man having the Lord in his heart (Mand. 12:4.3; cf.
Sim. 10:3.1) who has this ability.
(h) A certain narrowing of the moral horizon is manifest
in Sim. 5:3.3: If thou shalt do some good thing not
embraced in the commandment of God, thou shalt
purchase to thyself the greater dignity, and thou shalt be
more honored before God than thou shouldst otherwise
have been (cf. Mand. 4:4.2
59
Page 226 of 524
(i) Finally, it is very important to note his conception of

repentance, which is the dominating note in his
discussions. His fundamental idea here is: that there is
no other repentance than this, that we go down into the
water and receive the forgiveness of our past sins
(Mand. 4:3.1; cf. 4:1.8). It is a special favor of God, that
now through the preaching of Hermas, in an exceptional
way, a second repentance is granted the congregation of
believers (Vis. 2:2, 4, 5. Mand. 4:4.4. Sim. 8:11:1, etc.).
He who from this time forward keeps the commandments
shall find the forgiveness of his sins (Mand. 4:4.4) and
be saved. This idea of one repentance is based, indeed,
upon representations in the New Testament (1 Jn. 5:16ff.
Heb. 6:4.ff.). As Christianity was regarded as the
consummation upon which very shortly should follow the
end of the world, there seemed to be no further room for
apostasy and repentance (cf. Apoc. Baruch, 85:12).
Although Hermas in other connections by no means
regards sin as consisting merely in outward works, but
includes in it inward desire (, Vis. 1:1.8; 3:8.4.
Mand. 12:1.1; 2:2; 4:2. Sim. 5:1 5), yet of repentance he
can say: For he that hath sinned is conscious that he
hath done evil in the sight of the Lord, and his deed that
he has done comes into his heart, and he repents and no
more does evil, but does good most abundantly, and
humbles his soul and afflicts it, because he has sinned
(Mand. 4:2.2; cf. Sim. 7:4). But it is not held that he
whose sins have been forgiven can thereafter live
without sin. The Shepherd himself since his
conversion remains liable to many moral faults, and the
righteous as well as the wicked must, after every
transgression, take refuge to the Lord (Sim. 9:31:2; cf.
ZAHN, p. 355). Hermas does not venture to condemn to
death the man who, after hearing the call to repentance,
shall sin under pressure of temptation ( ,
Mand. 4 3:6). He has in mind such sins as effect a
surrender of the moral power of the Gospel, a complete
corruption: he is thinking of apostasy, which is to be
followed by a new conversion (Sim. 9:14:1ff.; cf. Mand.
4:1.8. Sim. 9:26:6). Accordingly, repentance is like
conversion: If ye turn to the Lord with your whole
heart, and work righteousness the remaining days of
your life, and serve him strictly according to his will, he
will heal your former sins (Mand. 12:6.2; cf. Sim.
8:11:3). This is the starting-point of the Catholic
discrimination between venial and mortal sins. The error
lies not really in the general idea of repentance, but in
an underestimate of minor sins. But the chief defection
from the biblical standard lies in the failure to
understand grace as the forgiveness of sins extending
60
Page 227 of 524
continuously throughout the whole life. Hence the

moralism of Hermas.
(3) Church
(a) (In connection with the preaching of repentance,
Hermas gives great prominence to the conception of the
church. The church rests upon Christ, the ancient rock
with the new door (Sim. 9:2.2; cf. 12:2.3), i.e., the preexistent Son of God, who became manifest only in the
last time.
(b) It is built upon the waters of baptism (Vis. 3:3.5.
Sim. 9, 16:2), and is extended through the preaching of
Christ (Sim. 8:3.2). The church is the city of God with its
own laws (Sim. 1:1, 3, 9). But not all who receive
branches from the great willow-tree, or the word
concerning Christ, preserve them; and not all who have
been admitted to the tower of the church stand the test
when tried by Christ (Sim. 9:6). Thus the essence and the
appearance of the church are often not in harmony. The
task of the preaching of Hermas is the purification of the
church (Sim. 9:18:3). There is a pause in the building of
the church in order that sinners may be purified and
again admitted to the structure of the church (e.g., Sim.
9:7.2; 10:4.4). It is necessary to turn quickly to
repentance, since the building of the church, and with it
the time of the world, will soon be ended (e.g., Vis. 3:8.9.
Sim. 9:9.4; 26:6; 10:4.4, etc.). Thus by repentance the
contradiction between the essence and the appearance
of the church may be overcome. In this way the ideal of
the church would be attained: After these (the wicked)
are cast out, the church of God shall become one body,
one understanding, one mind, one faith, one love: and
then the Son of God shall exceedingly rejoice among
them and receive his pure people (Sim. 9:18:4). It is
not hidden from Hermas, that this state shall never be
attained on earth. As in winter dead and living trees look
alike, so it is also in the church: Neither the righteous
nor the wicked are recognized in this world, but they are
alike (Sim. 3:2, 3). Only the future world will reveal the
difference (Sim. 4:2).
8. Papias
a) Papias is known to us through Irenaeus and
Eusebius. He was bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, a
friend of Polycarp, and, having conversed with the
immediate disciples of the Apostles, belonged, at the
61
Page 228 of 524
latest, to the third generation of Christians [Eusebius,

H. E., iii, 39, 2-4]. Critics are still debating whether the
John, whose disciple he was, was John the Apostle, or a
presbyter of that name. Eusebius speaks of Papias as a
feeble man of limited mental power.
b) Papias composed only one work, the "Explanation of
the Sayings of the Lord", in five books. This treatise not
only explains the words of Christ but also deals with His
life. The author does not take the sayings of Christ from
the Gospel text alone but relates parables from oral
tradition, which Eusebius thought queer, reports a
number of special utterances of the Redeemer, and a
few stories which are pure fables [Ibid., II] Among the
latter are to be classed certain realistic descriptions of
the millennium, in which Papias was a fervent believer.
c) According as they see in John the presbyter, with
whom Papias conversed, the Apostle John, or another
personage of the same name, critics assign the
composition of the Explanation to an earlier or a later
date. Zahn places this composition in A. D. 125-130;
Bardenhewer, 117-138; Harnack, 140-160; Batiffol, c.
150.
d) Of the work of Papias we possess only a few short
fragments given by Irenaeus, Eusebius, and Apollinaris.
The two most important relate to the gospels of Mark
and Matthew.
e) Ancient writers (Origen, Clement of Alexandria,
Papias himself, and especially Irenaeus) often mention
the presbyters or one presbyter in particular as having
said certain things or taught certain doctrines. Papias
gives this name to the Apostles [Eusebius, H. E., iii, 39,
4], but it applies more generally to the disciples of the
Apostles, or to the disciples of these disciples, the word
presbyter (ancient) being used relatively to the speaker.
Thus Papias is a presbyter for Irenaeus and Aristion a
presbyter for Papias. The presbyters are men who lived
between A. D. 70-150 and who may have conversed
either with the Apostles or with their immediate
disciples. A few among them seem to have been writers,
Aristion for example. Their accounts and teachings are,
however, quoted as oral traditions and in the form of
62
Page 229 of 524
brief sentences. There is no complete collection of the

words of the presbyters.
f) The fragments paint in glowing colors the wonderful
fertility of the earth during the millennial reign: The
kingdom of Christ being established bodily upon this
very earth (Euseb. H. E. iii. 39:12). The description is
drawn from the Jewish apocalyptic books (Enoch 10:19.
Apoc. Bar. 29), which accounts for the vivid
eschatological expectations and the conformity to
Jewish theology (Cf. Just. Dial. 80).
C. The General Character of the Apostolic Fathers
1. Introduction:
a) The general character of the doctrinal thought of the
Apostolic Fathers is our focus here. The normal reaction
of one with high expectations who sits down to read the
writings of men who were the younger contemporaries
of the Apostles is, to say the least, disappointment.
b) That disappointment is the result of what I might call
"the Cliff Phenomena." When one passes from the
Apostles to the Apostolic Fathers he feels as if he has
fallen from a cliff at the edge of a veritable garden of
Eden into a desert wilderness. Schaff and Berkhof
confirm this observation.
(1) If we compare these documents with the canonical
Scriptures of the New Testament, it is evident at once that they
fall far below in original force, depth, and fulness of spirit, and
afford in this a strong indirect proof of the inspiration of the
apostles. Yet they still shine with the evening red of the apostolic
day, and breathe an enthusiasm of simple faith and fervent love
and fidelity to the Lord which proved its power in suffering and
martyrdom. They move in the element of living tradition and
make reference oftener to the oral preaching of the apostles than
to their writings.....For by the wise ordering of the Ruler of
history, there is an impassable gulf between the inspiration of the
apostles and the illumination of the succeeding age between the
standard authority of holy Scripture and the derived validity of
the teaching of the church. The Bible - to adopt an illustration
of a distinguished writer is not like a city of modern Europe,
which subsides through suburban gardens and groves and
mansions into the open country around but like an Eastern city in
the desert from which the traveler passes by a single step into a
barren waste. The very poverty of these post-apostolic writings
63
Page 230 of 524
renders homage to the inexhaustible richness of the apostolic

books which like the person of Christ, are divine as well as
human in their origin, character, and effect.
(2) It is frequently remarked that in passing from the study of
the New Testament to that of the Apostolic Fathers one is
conscious of a tremendous change. There is not the same
freshness and originality, depth and clearness. And this is no
wonder, for it means the transition from truth given by infallible
inspiration to truth reproduced by fallible pioneers. Their
productions were bound to lean rather heavily on Scripture and
to be of a primitive type, concerning itself with the first
principles of faith rather than with the deeper truths of religion.
c) What, then, is the general character of the Apostolic

Fathers and, in particular, what aspects of their thought
give rise to such disappointment?
2. A Conscious Preservation of, Adherence to, and Exemplification
of Apostolic Christianity
a) Doctrinally
(1) In our disappointment that the Apostolic Fathers do not
approach the Apostles in their doctrinal thought, it would be easy
to overstate the case against them. Harnack, Torrance, and
Kasemann are examples of such overstatement. Harnack said
"Marcion was the only Gentile Christian who understood Paul
and even he misunderstood him." Green points out that most of
the literature of the Apostolic Fathers concentrates on the inner
workings of the Christian communities and not the gospel they
proclaimed. This is valid. (Cf. Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp,
Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, and the Early Christian Sermon
known as 2nd Clement.)
(2) Only the Epistle of Diognetus really is about the business of
the gospel preaching. It is true that this letter has a much more
evangelical tone than much of the early literature of the church.
(a) And He has manifested Himself through faith, to
which alone it is given to behold God. For God, the Lord
and Fashioner of all things, who made all things, and
assigned them their several positions, proved Himself
not merely a friend of mankind, but also long-suffering
(in His dealings with them.) Yea, He was always of such
a character, and still is, and will ever be, kind and good,
and free from wrath, and true, and the only one who is
(absolutely) good; and He formed in His mind a great
and unspeakable conception, which He communicated to
64
Page 231 of 524
His Son alone. As long, then as He held and preserved

His own wise counsel in concealment, He appeared to
neglect us, and to have no care over us. But after He
revealed and laid open, through His beloved Son, the
things which had been prepared from the beginning, He
conferred every blessing all at once upon us, so that we
should both share in His benefits, and see and be active
(in His service). Who of us would ever have expected
these things? He was aware, then, of all things in His
own mind, along with His Son, according to the relation
subsisting between them....But when our wickedness had
reached its height, and it had been clearly shown that its
reward, punishment and death, was impending over us;
and when the time had come which God had before
appointed for manifesting His own kindness and power,
how the one love of God, through exceeding regard for
men, did not remember our iniquity against us, but
showed great long-suffering, and bore with us, He
Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities , He
gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for
transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the
righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One
for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that are
mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering
our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was
it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be
justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet
exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits
surpassing all expectation! that the wickedness of many
should be his in a single righteous One, and that the
righteousness of One should justify many transgressors!
Having therefore convinced us in the former time that
our nature was unable to attain to life, and having now
revealed the Saviour who is able to save even those
things which it was (formerly) impossibly to save...
(3) Clement of Rome also manifests an understanding of
justification by faith - and even feels the proper tension it
involves. This is all the more remarkable because the atmosphere
of Clements letter is moralistic. His maintenance of the sola fide
is a conscious preservation of an element of Apostolic teaching,
which he didnt fully comprehend and couldnt fully adjust to his
system.
(a) For from Jacob there came all the priests and the
Levites who serve at Gods altar. From him came the
Lord Jesus so far as his human nature goes. From him
there come the kings and rulers and governors of Judah.
Nor is the glory of the other tribes derived from him
insignificant. For God promised that "your seed shall be
65
Page 232 of 524
as the stars of heaven." So all of them received honor

and greatness, not through themselves or their own
deeds or the right things they did, but through his will.
And we, therefore, who by his will have been called in
Jesus Christ, are not justified of ourselves or by our
wisdom or insight or religious devotion or the holy
deeds we have done from the heart, but by that faith by
which almighty God has justified all men from the very
beginning. To him be glory forever and ever. Amen.
(b) What, then, brothers, ought we to do? Should we
grow slack in doing good and give up love? May the
Lord never permit this to happen at any rate to us!
Rather should we be energetic in doing "every good
deed" with earnestness and eagerness.
b) Practically
(1) As was noted before the literature of the Apostolic Fathers is
almost completely concerned with the inner workings of the
early Christian communities. They reveal local communities
exemplifying to a high degree the ethical and practical
implications of the gospel. What is more amazing is that these
local communities felt a great degree of oneness with other
churches with whom they had no hierarchical connection.
(2) Rome can write Corinth and effect a reversal of its recent
change of leadership by the simple expedient of brotherly
exhortation. The epistles of Ignatius, Pseudo-2nd Clement, and
the Didache all are evidence of a high concern for the
maintenance of the Apostolic tradition and the shunning of false
teachers. Cf. also Polycarps response to Philippi.
c) A Simple, Meager, Indefinite, and even Superficial

Understanding of Apostolic Doctrinal Teachings
(1) Seeberg remarks, "The Circuit of Theology inherited from
the Apostolic Age is preserved in outward form and in general
content, but the connection of thought of the component thoughts
is destroyed; and the apprehension of truth becomes at decisive
points uncertain, when it does not entirely vanish ..... A lack of
comprehensive understanding and profound apprehension of the
gospel itself ... is here undeniable."
(2) The writings of the Apostolic Fathers are characterized by
their simplicity.
(3) It is a matter of common observation that the writings of the
Apostolic Fathers contain very little that is doctrinally important.
66
Page 233 of 524
Their teachings are generally in harmony with the truth revealed

in the Word of God, and are often represented in the very words
of Scripture, but for that very reason cannot be said to increase
or deepen our insight into the truth or to shed light on the interrelations of the doctrinal teachings of Scripture.
(4) They are also characterized by superficiality. Note, for
instance, Clements naivete regarding the instrumental means of
forgiveness and justification.
(a) You see, brothers, how great and amazing love is,
and how its perfection is beyond description. Who is
able to possess it save those to whom God has given the
privilege? Let us, then, beg and implore him mercifully
to grant us love without human bias and to make us
irreproachable. All the generations from Adam to our
day have passed away, but those who, by the grace of
God, have been made perfect in love have a place among
the saints, who will appear when Christs Kingdom
comes. For it is written: "Go into your closets for a very
little while, until my wrath and anger pass, and I will
remember a good day and I will raise you up from your
graves." Happy are we, dear friends, if we keep Gods
commandments in the harmony of love, so that by love
our sins may be forgiven us. For it is written: "Happy
are those whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins
are covered. Happy is the man whose sin the Lord will
not reckon, and on whose lips there is no deceit.:" This
is the blessing which was given to those whom God
chose through Jesus Christ our Lord. To him be the
glory forever and ever. Amen.
d) A Pervasive (and Moralistic) Practical and Ethical

Focus.
(1) Throughout Clement, the Didache (2 ways), Polycarp, and
Hermas (to name only those who come first to mind) there is a
pervasive tone of moral exhortation. Reading them is like
reading James and Ephesians 4-6, but never coming to Romans
or Ephesians 1-3.
(2) Illustration of this may be gleaned from the Shepherd of
Hermas.
(a) I said to him, "Sir, explain to me what this tree
means, for I am perplexed about it, because, after so
many branches have been cut off, it continues sound,
and nothing appears to have been cut away from it. By
this, now, I am perplexed." "Listen," he said: "This great
67
Page 234 of 524
tree that casts its shadow over plains, and mountains,

and all the earth is the law of God that was given to the
whole world; and this law is the Son of God, proclaimed
to the ends of the earth; and the people who are under
its shadow are they who have heard the proclamation,
and have believed upon Him.
(3) The Epistle of Barnabas speaks of "the new law of our Lord
Jesus Christ." Christianity becomes more and more the new law
during the period under discussion.
(4) Faith, grace, and the forgiveness of sins fall into the
background, and in their stead the new law and good works
come into prominence. The thoughts which we have rapidly
sketched are not always a real possession, but in some cases
merely titles of possession, not understood by those who hold
them. Several observations need to be made on this matter:
(a) First, it is possible (as already noted) to over-state
the incipient legalism of the Apostolic Fathers. Our
emphasis on justification can make us unable to
appreciate the fact that the Apostolic Fathers in their
pervasive practical and ethical focus are reflecting both
Jesus and the Apostles. Second Clement provides an
illustration of the kind of language which tends to make
modern professing Christians very nervous.
(i) So while we are on earth, let us repent. For
we are like clay in a workmans hands. If a potter
makes a vessel and it gets out of shape or
breaks in his hands, he molds it over again; but
if he has once thrown it into the flames of the
furnace, he can do nothing more with it.
Similarly, while we are in this world, let us too
repent with our whole heart of the evil we have
done in the flesh, so that we may be saved by
our Lord while we have a chance to repent. For
once we have departed this world we can no
longer confess there or repent any more. Thus,
brothers, by doing the Fathers will and by
keeping the flesh pure and by abiding by the
Lords commands, we shall obtain eternal life.
For the Lord says in the Gospel: "If you fail to
guard what is small, who will give you what is
great? For I tell you that he who is faithful in a
very little, is faithful also in much." This, then, is
what he means: keep the flesh pure and the seal
undefiled, so that we may obtain eternal life.
(ii) That may sound legal to us but what about
Matthew 5: 17-20, 6:14-15, 7:13-26?
68
Page 235 of 524
(b) Second, it is necessary to recognize that the

developing legalism of the Apostolic Fathers was the
product of good and well-intentioned Pastors. They saw
the need of moral exhortations, but did not see the need
of the gospel. The gospel was, thus, forgotten. The
Apostolic Fathers were moralistic not by what they said
so much, as by what they didnt say, or didnt
emphasize. How much we need a profound
understanding of truth that keeps us from such
imbalance!
3. An Unconscious Adulteration of the Gospel resulting in Incipient

Catholicism.
a) Sources:
(1) Greek Moralizing.
(a) The Christians resisted immoral heathenism, but
couldnt resist the moral heathenism of the Greek
philosophers.
(b) But, as the most reliable result of the study of the
period under review, it may be asserted that the
variations of the range of Christian thought from the
views of the apostles are not to be ascribed directly to
Judaistic tendencies. The conclusion thus directly drawn
from the general character of the prevalent conception is
enforced by the fact, that in not a single point can any
specific influence of Jewish-Christian thought or of the
ceremonial law be detected. The legality which here
appears is not of the Jewish sort, but it, nevertheless,
without awakening suspicion, prepared the way for the
intrusion of Judaic influences. The moralism is that of
the heathen world, particularly in that age, and it has its
origin in the state of the natural man as such. The
misconceptions of the gospel may be traced directly to
the fact that the Gentile Christians did not understand
the Old Testament ideas presupposed in the apostolic
proclamation of the gospel. Making much of mans own
works, the age accepted )e.g., from the Book of Tobit)
the legalistic works of the later Jewish piety.
(2) Oriental Theorizing.
(a) While the moralizing of the Greeks came into the
church more or less consciously, oriental theorizing
affected it in spite of its fierce opposition.
69
Page 236 of 524
(b) Ignatius, for instance, emphasizes the authority of

the bishop against the Gnostic heresy and constantly
warns against it. Notice, however, how he speaks of the
Christian sacraments in oriental categories: At these
meetings you should heed the bishop and presbytery
attentively, and break one loaf, which is the medicine of
immortality, and the antidote which wards off death but
yields continuous life in union with Jesus Christ.
(c) Pseudo-2nd Clement is a sermon directed against
the Gnostic heresy which, however, itself reflects
Gnostic modes of thought: So, my brothers, by doing
the will of God our Father we shall belong to the first
Church, the spiritual one, which was created before the
sun and the moon. But if we fail to do the Lords will,
that passage of Scripture will apply to us which says,
"My house has become a robbers den." So, then, we
must choose to belong to the Church of life in order to
be saved. I do not suppose that you are ignorant that the
living "Church is the body of Christ." For Scripture
says, "God made man male and female." The male is
Christ; the female is the Church. The Bible, moreover,
and the Apostles say that the Church is not limited to the
present, but existed from the beginning. For it was
spiritual, as was our Jesus, and was made manifest in
the last days to save us. Indeed, the Church which is
spiritual was made manifest in the flesh of Christ, and so
indicates to us that if any of us guard it in the flesh and
do not corrupt it, he will get it in return by the Holy
Spirit. For this flesh is the antitype of the spirit.
Consequently, no one who has corrupted the antitype
will share in the reality. This, then, is what it means,
brothers: Guard the flesh so that you may share in the
spirit. Now, if we say that the Church is the flesh and the
Christ is the spirit, then he who does violence to the
flesh, does violence to the Church. Such a person, then,
will not share in the spirit, which is Christ. This flesh is
able to share in so great a life and immortality, because
the Holy Spirit cleaves to it. Nor can one express or tell
"what things the Lord has prepared" for his chosen
ones.
(d) Though the church doggedly resisted the oriental
denial of the incarnation and bodily resurrection it
imperceptibly began to think in oriental categories of
thought. Not just certain doctrines of the oriental
theorists were false, but even the categories in which
they thought. Oriental theorizing had infected the very
intellectual air the Christians breathed. Thus baptism
and the Lords table became "mysteries" and once that
70
Page 237 of 524
happened (since everything Christian must be better)

greater and more tremendous mysteries than those of the
oriental cults. Thus a realism developed concerning
their efficacy and nature which while well-intentioned
was thoroughly alien to Christianity.
(e) Observe how subtly our intellectual environment
affects our thinking in anti-Christian ways! What need
we have to try the spirits!
b) Characteristics:
(1) Sacramentalism.
(a) Ignatius manifests incipient sacramentalism in these
words: They hold aloof from the Eucharist and from
services of prayer, because they refuse to admit that the
Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which
suffered for our sins and which, in his goodness, the
Father raised (from the dead).
(b) Hermas speaks as follows of the water of baptism.
He refers to "a great tower, built upon the waters." This
explanation follows, "Hear then why the tower is built
upon the waters. It is because your life has been, and
will be, saved through water." The ceremonies
surrounding baptism also betray the growing
sacramentalist flavor of Christian thinking.
(c) Now about baptism: this is how to baptize. Give
public instruction on all these points, and then "baptize"
in running water, "in the name of the Father and of the
Son and of the Holy Spirit." If you do not have running
water, baptize in some other. If you cannot in cold, then
in warm. If you have neither, then pour water on the
head three times "in the name of the Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit." Before the baptism, moreover, the one who
baptizes and the one being baptized must fast, and any
others who can. And you must tell the one being baptized
to fast for one or two days beforehand.
(2) Penance and Satisfaction.
(a) Again the Shepherd of Hermas provides the clearest
illustration of incipient Catholicism here. "Listen," he
said: "all who once suffered for the name of the Lord are
honorable before God; and of all these the sins were
remitted, because they suffered for the name of the Son
of God. And why their fruits are of various kinds, and
71
Page 238 of 524
some of them superior, listen. All," he continued, "who

were brought before the authorities and were examined,
and did not deny, but suffered cheerfully - these are held
in greater honor with God, and of these the fruit is
superior; but all who were cowards,and in doubt, and
who reasoned in their hearts whether they would deny or
confess, and yet suffered, of these the fruit is less,
because that suggestion came into their hearts; for that
suggestion - that a servant should deny his Lord - is evil.
Have a care, therefore, ye who are planning such things,
lest that suggestion remain in your hearts, and ye perish
unto God. And ye who suffer for His name ought to
glorify God, because He deemed you worthy to bear His
name, that all your sins might be healed. (Therefore,
rather deem yourselves happy), and Think that ye have
done a great thing, if any of you suffer on account of
God. The Lord bestows upon you life, and ye do not
understand, for your sins were heavy; but if you had not
suffered for the name of the Lord, ye would have died to
God on account of your sins.
(b) Second Clement also contains such incipient
elements: So, Brothers, since we have been given no
small opportunity to repent, let us take the occasion to
turn to God who has called us, while we still have One
to accept us. For if we renounce these pleasures and
master our souls by avoiding their evil lusts, we shall
share in Jesus mercy. Understand that "the day" of
judgment is already "on its way like a furnace ablaze,"
and "the powers of heaven will dissolve" and the whole
earth will be like lead melting in fire. Then mens secret
and overt actions will be made clear. Charity, then, like
repentance from sin, is a good thing. But fasting is better
than prayer, and charity than both. "Love covers a
multitude of sins," and prayer, arising from a good
conscience, "rescues from death." Blessed is everyone
who abounds in these things, for charity lightens sin.
(c) Notice also the words of the Didache: Do not be
one who holds his hand out to take, but shuts it when it
comes to giving. If your labor has brought you earnings,
pay a ransom for your sins. Do not hesitate to give and
do not give with a bad grace; for you will discover who
He is that pays you back a reward with a good grace.
(3) Asceticism.
(a) The Didache contains these words: See "that no one
leads you astray" from this way of the teaching, since
such a ones teaching is godless. If you can bear the
72
Page 239 of 524
Lords full yoke, you will be perfect. But if you cannot,

then do what you can."
(b) This was the first manifestation of the so-called
Councils of Perfection. These councils were based
(supposedly) on statements of Matthew 19, I Corinthians
7. They were also popularized by later statements of
Origen and Tertullian.
(4) Supererogation.
(a) The Shepherd of Hermas also provides one of the
first hints of the doctrine of supererogation: I said to
him, "Sir, I do not see the meaning of these similitudes,
nor am I able to comprehend them, unless you explain
them to me." "I will explain them all to you," he said, "
and whatever I shall mention in the course of our
conversations I will show you. (Keep the commandments
of the Lord, and you will be approved, and inscribed
amongst the number of those who observe His
commands.) And if you do any good beyond what is
commanded by God, you will gain for yourself more
abundant glory, and will be more honored by God than
you would otherwise be. If, therefore, in keeping the
commandments of God, you do, in addition, these
services, you will have joy if you observe them according
to my command."
(5) Episcopacy and the Primacy of Rome.
(a) The development of Episcopacy will be covered in
more detail later. In Ignatius there are seed ideas out of
which sprung the later system. Of the Primacy of Rome
there is nothing even in incipient form. Clement of
Romes brotherly exhortation to Corinth is an
interesting foreshadowing of the later claims. It only
reflects at most, however, a sense of big-brotherly
responsibility on the part of the Roman Church.
(6) Legalism.
(a) This is reflected clearly in its incipient stages in
some of the earlier references. The Didache cited above
reflects the beginning of extra-biblical ceremonies
surrounding baptism. Hermas reflects (in incipient form)
a distinction between mortal and venial sins.
(b) Hermas also has clear pelagianizing tendencies in
his doctrine of apostasy from true grace: "Those stones,
73
Page 240 of 524
sir, that were rejected," I inquired,"on what account

were they rejected? for they passed through the gate,
and were placed by the hands of the virgins in the
building of the tower." "Since you take an interest in
everything," he replied, " and examine minutely, hear
about the stones that were rejected. These all," he said,
"received the name of God, and they received also the
strength of these virgins. Having received, then, these
spirits, they were made strong, and were with the
servants of God; and theirs was one spirit, and one
body, and one clothing. For they were of the same mind,
and wrought righteousness. After a certain time,
however, they were persuaded by the women whom you
saw clothed in black, and having their shoulders
exposed and their hair dishevelled, and beautiful in
appearance. Having seen these women, they desired to
have them, and clothed themselves with their strength,
and put off the strength of the virgins. These,
accordingly, were rejected from the house of God, and
were given over to these women. But they who were not
deceived by the beauty of these women remained in the
house of God. You have," he said, "the explanation of
those who were rejected.".....Restore to Him, therefore, a
spirit sound as ye received it. For when you have given
to a fuller a new garment, and desire to receive it back
entire at the end, if, then, the fuller return you a torn
garment, will you take it from him, and not rather be
angry, and abuse him, saying, "I gave you a garment
that was entire: why have you rent it, and made it
useless, so that it can be of no use on account of the rent
which you have made in it?" Would you not say all this
to the fuller about the rent which you found in your
garment? If, therefore, you grieve about your garment,
and complain because you have not received it entire,
what do you think the Lord will do to you, who gave you
a sound spirit, which you have rendered altogether
useless, so that it can be of no service to its possessor?
for its use began to be unprofitable, seeing it was
corrupted by you. Will not the Lord, therefore, because
of this conduct of yours regarding His Spirit, act in the
same way, and deliver you over to death?
(c) Hermas also manifests pelagian tendencies in his
references to the innocence of infants which he implies
some Christians can attain. Note the following: "And
they who believed from the twelfth mountain, which was
white, are the following: they are as infant children, in
whose hearts no evil originates; nor did they know what
wickedness is but always remained as children. Such
accordingly, without doubt, dwell in the kingdom of
God, because they defiled in nothing the commandments
74
Page 241 of 524
of God; but they remained like children all the days of

their life in the same mind. All of you, then, who shall
remain stedfast, and be as children, without doing evil,
will be more honored than all who have been previously
mentioned; for all infants are honourable before God,
and are the first persons with Him. Blessed, then, are ye
who put away wickedness from yourselves, and put on
innocence. As the first of all will you live unto God."
(d) The Didache unconsciously manifests an externalism
often associated with legalism. Referring to Jesus
warning in the gospels not to fast as the hypocrites do
(Matt. 6:16; Luke 18:12), it remarks, "Your fasts must
not be identical with those of the hypocrites. They fast on
Mondays and Thursdays; but you should fast on
Wednesdays and Fridays."
c) Conclusions:
(1) The Supernatural Character of the Scriptures of the Apostles
(a) This is strikingly deduced from the facts we have
been considering
(b) Cunningham sums this up when he states the
following: The striking contrast between the writings of
the apostles and their immediate successors has been
often remarked, and should never be overlooked or
forgotten. Neanders observation upon this subject is
this: "A phenomenon singular in its kind, is the striking
difference between the writings of the apostles and the
writings of the Apostolic Fathers, who were so nearly
their contemporaries. In other cases, transitions are
wont to be gradual; but in this instance we observe a
sudden change. There are here no gentle gradations, but
all at once an abrupt transition from one style of
language to another; a phenomenon which should lead
us to acknowledge the fact of a special agency of the
divine Spirit in the souls of the apostles."
(2) The Speed of Early Decline from the Plane of Apostolic
Thought.
(a) The Churchs apprehension of the teaching of the
Apostles was not lost through a slow decline into the
middle ages. Rather there is a swift plummet into the
simplistic thinking of the Apostolic Fathers. It is from
that low point of understanding (out of which error
quickly developed) that the church has only through
75
Page 242 of 524
immense pains and conflict with error through the

centuries been gradually raised by the work of the Spirit.
(b) Thus, the thought of the Apostolic Fathers is not
only a bit lower, but a great deal lower than the
Apostles. This brings us to the third conclusion:
(3) The Uselessness of the Apostolic Fathers as Authoritative
Guides
(a) Hear Cunningham again.Such are the apostolical
fathers, and such their writings, in as far as God has
been pleased to preserve them, and to afford us the
means of distinguishing them. And I think this brief
survey of them must be quite sufficient to show the truth
of the two positions which I laid down in introducing this
topic - viz., first, that we have no certain information,
nothing on which we can rely with confidence as a mere
question of evidence, as to what the inspired apostles
taught and ordained, except what is contained in the
canonical Scriptures; and, secondly, that there are no
men, except the authors of the inspired books of
Scripture, to whom there is any plausible pretence for
calling upon us to look up as guides or oracles. It was
manifestly, as the result proves, not the purpose of God
to convey to us, through the instrumentality of the
immediate successors of the apostles, any important
information as to the substance of the revelation which
He made to man, in addition to what, by the inspiration
of the Holy Spirit, has been embodied in the sacred
Scriptures, and has in His good providence been
preserved pure and uncorrupted. The apostolical fathers
hold an important place as witnesses to the genuineness,
authenticity, and integrity of the Scriptures; but this is
their principal value. There is much about them, both in
their character and in their writings, which is fitted to
confirm our faith in the divine origin of Christianity, and
the divine authority of the Scriptures; but there is
nothing about them that should tempt us to take them
instead of, or even in addition to, the evangelists and
apostles as our guides. They exhibit a beautiful
manifestation of the practical operation of Christian
principle, and especially of ardent love to the Saviour,
and entire devotedness to His service, which is well
fitted to impress our minds, and to constrain us to
imitation; but there is also not a little about them fitted
to remind us that we must be followers of them only as
they were of Christ, and that it is only the word of God
that is fitted to make us perfect, thoroughly furnished
unto all good works.
76
Page 243 of 524
(b) Illustration of this is provided by Clement of Romes

letter to the Corinthians. This letter most closely
parallels the thought of apostolic literature of any of the
Apostolic Fathers. If any book outside the New
Testament could be argued to be authoritative it is this.
It was in fact frequently included in early lists of the
New Testament books. Even here, however, the contrast
with the Apostles is apparent.
(i) Let us consider, dear friends, how the
Master continually points out to us that there will
be a future resurrection. Of this he made the
Lord Jesus Christ the first fruits by raising him
from the dead. Let us take note, dear friends, of
the resurrection at the natural seasons. Day and
night demonstrate resurrection. Night passes
and day comes. Day departs and night returns.
Take the crops as examples. How and in what
way is the seeding done? The sower goes out
and casts each of his seeds in the ground.
When they fall on the ground they are dry and
bare, and they decay. But then the marvelous
providence of the Master resurrects them from
their decay, and from a single seed many grow
and bear fruit.
(ii) Let us note the remarkable token which
comes from the East, from the neighborhood,
that is of Arabia. There is a bird which is called a
phoenix. It is the only one of its kind and lives
five hundred years. When the time for its
departure and death draws near, it makes a
burial nest for itself from frankincense, myrrh
and other spices; and when the time is up, it
gets into it and dies. From its decaying flesh a
worm is produced, which is nourished by the
secretions of the dead creature and grows
wings. When it is full-fledged, it takes up the
burial nest containing the bones of its
predecessor, and manages to carry them all the
way from Arabia to the Egyptian city called
Heliopolis. And in broad daylight, so that
everyone can see, it lights at the altar of the sun
and puts them down there, and so starts home
again. The priests then look up their dated
records and discover it has come after a lapse of
five hundred years. Shall we, then, imagine that
it is something great and surprising if the Creator
of the universe raises up those who have served
him in holiness and in the assurance born of a
good faith, when he uses a mere bird to illustrate
the greatness of his promise? For he says
somewhere: "And you shall raise me up and I
shall give you thanks"; and, "I lay down and
77
Page 244 of 524
slept: I rose up because you are with me." And

again Job says, "And you will make this flesh of
mine, which has endured all this, to rise up."
78
Page 245 of 524
III.
Apologists
A. Introduction
1. Name:
a) The name Apologists is given to a group of writers
more especially of the second centurywho aimed to
defend the Christians from the accusations brought
against them.
b) They sought to obtain for them tolerance under the
civil laws and to demonstrate to their persecutors that
the Christian religion is the only true one.
2. Charges:
a) Christianity had scarcely begun to spread in the
Roman world, when it found itself beset with vexations
and persecutions of all kinds.
(1) The principal accusation made against Christians was that of
atheism.
(a) Contrary to the civil law, the Christians refused to
adore the gods of the empire and practiced a religion
not approved by the Roman Senate. In the eyes of the
State, therefore, they were atheists, guilty of practicing a
forbidden religion (religio illicita), and therefore
enemies of the State and its fundamental institutions.
(2) To this charge were added base calumnies, which were soon
circulated among the people and accepted even by a few eminent
writers.
(a) One report was that, in their meetings, the
Christians feasted upon the flesh of infants, previously
slaughtered and then sprinkled with flour; and were not
ashamed of practicing such immoralities as the
intercourse of Oedipus with his own mother.
(b) Intellectualists and politicians accused them of
indolence, i. e.; of shunning the world and business and
taking no interest in the prosperity of the State,
neglecting the affairs of this life for those of a future life.
79
Page 246 of 524
They were regarded as bad citizens and generally as a

useless set of scoundrels.
3. Aim:
a) The main effort of the Apologists was to refute these
accusations and to show that Christianity had the right
to exist. To attain this end, their work could not remain
purely negative, but had to include a positive
demonstration of the excellence and truth of the
Christian religion.
b) Such a demonstration necessarily involved them in
an attack upon paganism, for a successful vindication of
the superiority of Christianity demanded that a contrast
be drawn between it and the State religion. The work of
the Apologists, therefore, was not purely defensive; it
was also controversial and expository.
4. Object: The apologies were directed partly against the pagans
and partly against the Jews.
a) The pagans may be divided into three groups.
(1) Those of the first group take the form of requests or
petitions addressed to the Emperor and to the Senate. The
emperors of the Antonine dynasty were looked upon as just and
moderate philosophers from whom philosophers like Justin and
Athenagoras could hope to obtain a hearing. It is doubtful,
however, whether or not these apologies addressed to the
emperors were really brought to their notice. They were aimed at
the public, though written in the form of open letters to the
emperors.
(2) The apologies of the second class are addressed directly to
the people. Such are, for example, the numerous Discourses to
the Greeks of the second and third centuries.
(3) Lastly and these form the third class, a few apologies
were addressed, at least primarily, to private individuals, e. g.,
the three books of Theophilus of Antioch to Autolycus and the
Epistle to Diognetus.
80
Page 247 of 524
b) Among the apologies against the Jews may be cited

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho.
(1) In these apologies the expository and demonstrative
character predominates. The Jews harbored many prejudices that
had to be removed, and a spirit of hatred that had to be
overcome; indeed, they were not the last to spread popular
calumnies against the Christians and denounce them to the
authorities. But in the writings addressed to them the Apologists
are less intent on refuting their accusations than on convincing
them of the divine mission of Jesus Christ and the truth of His
religion. Consequently, their purpose was to demonstrate the
Messiahship of Our Lord and for this demonstration they use
mostly the argument from the prophecies, their thorough
knowledge of the Scriptures proving very useful for this purpose.
81
Page 248 of 524
5. Character:
a) From a literary point of view, the writings of the
Apologists are generally superior to those of the
Apostolic Fathers. Several of their authors had been
trained in the schools and had studied philosophy: they
gloried in the fact that they still remained philosophers,
even though they had embraced Christianity. This may
easily be seen from the vigor of their thought and
reasoning.
b) It is betrayed also by certain peculiarities of style,
which often remind us of the sophists (professional
grammarians and rhetoricians). Moreover, a number of
these writings, at least, are fairly extensive and touch on
the most important questions of moral and dogmatic
theology. They are the first attempts at scientific
theology made in the Church.
B. Apologists
1. LOST APOLOGIESARISTIDES OF ATHENS
a) We know of about twelve Apologists in the second
century, but out of this number there are about five
whose works have been entirely lost or from which we
have only a few passages.
b) Quadratus
(1) Among them is Quadratus, whom certain critics have
identified with the prophet of the same name spoken of by
Eusebius [H. E., iii, 37, 1; v, 17, 2].
(2) He presented to the Emperor Hadrian (117-138) an apology
which Eusebius had read and from which he quotes one sentence
[H. E., iv, 3].
c) Aristo of Pella
(1) To Aristo of Pella, we owe the first treatise against the Jews,
written about 140, a Disputation between Jason and Papiscus
concerning Christ.
(2) In this work, Jason, a Christian, with the help of the
prophecies, proves against Papiscus, a Jew from Alexandria, that
Jesus is the Son of God.
82
Page 249 of 524
(3) This little work, defended by Origen against Celsus, was

made use of (we know not to what extent) by later
controversialists, notably in the Altercatio Simonis Judaei et
Theophili Christiani, brought to light by Evagrius.
d) Militiades
(1) Miltiades, very probably from Asia Minor, wrote between
160 and 193.
(2) He composed three apologies, so Eusebius tells us, one
Against the Greeks, a second Against the Jews, and a third "To
the Princes of this World, an apology of the philosophy he
followed."[H. E., v, 17, 5]
(3) Nothing remains of these writings.
e) Apollinaris
(1) The same may be said of Apollinaris, bishop of Hierapolis in
Phrygia, who flourished in the time of Marcus Aurelius (161180).
(2) We know through Eusebius that he was the author of an
apology addressed to this emperor (probably in 172), five books
Against the Greeks, two books On Truth, which appear also to
be an apology, and two books Against the Jews [H. E., iv, 26, i;
27].
f) Melito
(1) We may note, finally, the apology of Melito, Bishop of
Sardis, likewise addressed to Marcus Aurelius.
(2) Eusebius quotes three passages from it [H. E., IV, 26, 5-11].
Melito is the author of another work, entitled On Truth,[Ibid., 2]
also a defense of Christianity.
(3) The Oratio Melitonis philosophi quae habita est coram
Antonio Caesare has nothing to do with the Bishop of Sardis.
Syriac seems to be the language in which this work was
originally written. A recent opinion ascribes it to the Gnostic
Bardesanes.
g) Aristides
(1) The earliest Apologist whose work we possess in its entirety,
is Aristides, a philosopher of Athens, whom Eusebius names
83
Page 250 of 524
immediately after Quadratus [H. E., IV, 3. 3]. For a long time
his apology was given up as lost, but it was found both in a
Syriac version and in a revised Greek text of the legend of SS.
Barlaam and Joasaph. We possess also a fragment in Armenian,
but the Syriac text is the best of the three.
(2) The contents of this apology are simple enough: the whole
question of the differences between pagans and Christians is
reducible to the knowledge of the true God. God exists, for the
existence and order of the world prove it. He must be eternal,
impassible, and perfect. Now if we examine the beliefs of the
four classes of men that make up humanity,the barbarians, the
Greeks, the Jews, and the Christians, we find that the last
mentioned alone have the right conception of God and of the
worship due Him. The barbarians have worshipped as gods the
elements and famous men (iii-vii). The Greeks have created gods
who were slaves to passion. The Jews have certainly known the
true God, but they have worshipped Him in a childlike way and
have worshipped the Angels more than Him (xiv). The
Christians alone know Him and serve Him with a pure
conscience by leading a life worthy of Him (xv-xvi).
Consequently, cease to persecute the Christians and be converted
to their religion.
(3) This treatise, evidently the work of an energetic man who
was convinced of what he said, was addressed about 140 to the
Emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161).
2. JUSTIN MARTYR
a) Biography
(1) One of the earliest and most eminent of the Apologists of the
second century is Justin. Born between 100 and 110 of heathen
parents at Flavia Neapolisthe modern Nablus and the ancient
Sichem he felt at an early age a strong attraction for
philosophy. He has himself given us a sketch of his intellectual
and moral development (Dial. i-viii); artificial details may be
discerned here and there, but the substance is certainly true. He
received lessons successively from a Stoic, a Peripatetic, and a
Pythagorean, but none satisfied him. Platonism seemed to afford
him some peace of mind; but a venerable old man, whose
acquaintance he had made (probably at Ephesus), pointed out to
him the insufficiency of philosophy and urged him to study the
Scriptures and the teachings of Christ.
(2) Justin followed this advice and was converted about A. D.,
130.
84
Page 251 of 524
(3) As a Christian, he continued to wear the philosopher's

mantle, leading the life of a lay missionary, preaching the
doctrine of Christ and defending it as the highest and safest
philosophy. Twice he came to Rome, where he spent a
considerable time and founded a school which was quite
successful. In the same city, most probably, he held, with
Crescens, the cynic, the disputations which he mentions in his
Second Apology. It is supposed that Crescens denounced him
and had him condemned, but there is nothing to prove this. Justin
was beheaded in Rome with six other Christians, under Junius
Rusticus, prefect of the city, between 163 and 167. We have the
authentic acts of his martyrdom [H. E., iv, 18].
(4) Justin was always admired for the earnestness of his
convictions, the nobility of his character, and the perfect loyalty
of his dealings. He was an apostle and a saint in the true sense of
the words, filled with an ardent desire to do good to those whom
he addressed. His reputation as a writer is not so high. Critics
generally agree that his composition is defective. Instead of
keeping to the point, he makes useless digressions and does not
always conclude the arguments he has begun. His manner is
monotonous, heavy, and often incorrect. The earnestness of the
writer and the warmth of the discussion alone at times impart to
his style eclat and life. From a theological point of view,
however, the writings of Justin are exceptionally valuable. Not
only is he an undeniable witness of the important dogmas of the
Incarnation and the Holy Eucharist, but he is the first who
carefully studied the relations between faith and reason and who
introduced the Greek categories and a philosophical terminology
into his doctrinal expositions. In this he is a true pioneer.
b) Works
(1) Introduction
(a) We are acquainted with the titles of nine or ten of
Justin's authentic works: Eusebius mentions the two
Apologies, a Discourse against the Greeks, A Refutation
against the Greeks, a writing known as De Monarchia
Divina, another entitled The Psalter, a treatise On the
Soul, written in the form of scholia, and the Dialogue
with Trypho.
(b) Justin, on his part, speaks of a Syntagma against all
the Heresies, [I Apol., xxvi, 8] which perhaps comprised
the treatise Against Marcion, cited by Irenaeus [Adv.
Haer., iv, 6, 2]
(c) Apart from a few citations or fragments, only three
of these works have reached us in a single manuscript,
85
Page 252 of 524
the Codex Parisinus 450, of the year 1364. They are the
two Apologies and the Dialogue with Trypho.
(2) First Apology
(a) The First Apology is addressed to Antoninus Pius,
Marcus Aurelius, and Lucius Verus, to the Senate and
the whole Roman people. Antoninus Pius reigned from
138 to 161, but a number of indications in the text of the
address lead us to conclude that it was written between
150 and 155. To all appearances it was written in Rome.
(b) The plan which the author followed in his
composition is not easy to trace, but critics generally
admit a twofold category of considerations and proofs.
(c) The "proposition" occupies ch. i-iii. The Christians
must not be condemned if they are innocent of the crimes
laid to their charge. That they are innocent Justin proves
in two ways.
(i) By a direct refutation (iv-xiii). The Christians
are not atheists, although they do not adore
idols; neither are they immoral, or homicides, or
enemies of the Empire. They are virtuous and
peaceful citizens.
(ii) This refutation alone would suffice; but it
does not satisfy Justin. Convinced that
Christianity is persecuted only because it is
misapprehended, he devotes most of the
remaining chapters of his First Apology to
explaining to the pagans the Christian religion in
its moral teaching (xvi-xvii), in a few of its
dogmas (xviii-xx), in its founder and its history
(xxi-xxiii; xxx-lv), in its worship and the initiation
of its adepts (lxi-lxvii). xxiv-xxix and lvi-lx form
two parentheses, in which the author returns to
a subject he had previously treated, or speaks of
the counterfeits of Christianity set up by the
demons. The conclusion is contained in lxviii:
Justin again demands that Christians be not
condemned without examination and without
trial.
(3) Second Apology

(a) The Second Apology is addressed to the Senate. It is
much shorter than the first and must have been written
very soon after the latter (c. 155, at the latest), although
it is in nowise a mere continuation of it. It was written in
86
Page 253 of 524
Rome on the following occasion. A Christian woman had

separated from her pagan husband, a debauche, who, to
avenge himself, denounced her catechist, Ptolemaeus,
who was put to death with two other Christians by order
of Urbicus, prefect of Rome (144-160).
(b) Justin immediately protested. The main idea of this
new treatise is the same as that of the First Apology.
(c) The Christians are not known; their doctrine is
purer, nobler, and more complete than those of the
philosophers; their conduct is free from reproach.
(d) The demons are responsible for the fact that they are
persecuted. All these ideas are jumbled together. But in
reading the Apology, we feel that the author is aroused
and foresees his own martyrdom; he awaits it, but this
does not prevent him from proclaiming loudly that he is
a Christian.
(4) Dialogue with Trypho the Jew
(a) The third work of Justin which we possess is the
Dialogue with Trypho. In this book it is no longer a
question of defending the Christians against their pagan
persecutors; but to convince the Jews of the Messiahship
of Jesus Christ and the truth of His religion. Trypho is a
learned rabbi, with whom Justin is supposed to have had
a lengthy dispute at Ephesus, about 132-135, of which
dispute the Dialogue professes to be an exact
reproduction. It cannot be said for certain whether the
debate really took pace or whether Justin merely
describes an imaginary bout, to set forth his ideas. It is
evident, however, that the arguments and retorts were
not exactly those which Justin gives. We find in them,
summarily, the various positions taken by Justin and the
proofs he makes use of in his controversy with the Jews.
(b) The text of the Dialogue has reached us in an
imperfect state. In ch. lxxiv, 3, a considerable fragment
has been lost, unnoticed by the copyist of the
manuscript. It very probably lacks also the dedication to
a certain Marcus Pompeius, who is not named till
towards the end of the book (ch. cxli, 5).
(c) According to Justin himself (lxxxv, 4), the
disputation with Trypho lasted two days, and the
Dialogue was accordingly divided into two parts. The
transition between these two parts was made in the lost
87
Page 254 of 524
ch. lxxiv. This remark of the author, however, by no

means gives us the logical division of the treatise, for on
the second day Justin repeats a number of things he had
said the day before. The absence of all order from his
composition renders it as difficult to determine the
logical division in the Dialogue as in the Apologies. All
we can say is that, after describing his conversion in the
introduction (i-viii), Justin develops three principal
ideas: 1. the decline of the old Covenant and its
precepts; 2. the identity of the Logos with the God who
appeared in the Old Testament, spoke to the patriarchs
and prophets and, last of all, became incarnate in the
virgin Mary; and 3. the calling of the Gentiles as the
true people of God. According to Otto, the first idea is
developed in chs. x-xlvii; the second in chs. xlviii-cviii,
and the third in chs. cix-cxiii. Other authors propose
other divisions.
(d) As we have said, the disputation with Trypho must
have taken placeif it took place at allat Ephesus
[Eusebius, H. E., iv, 18, 6] during the war of BarCocheba in I32-I35.[Dial., i, 3] However, the Dialogue
itself, which reproduces the disputation, is subsequent to
the first Apology.[ Dial., cxx, 6] Critics are generally
agreed in placing the date of composition between 155161. Where it was written is not known.
(e) The Apologies and the Dialogue constitute the
essential part of Justin's authentic works. Of somewhat
less value are four fragmentsthe first of which is quite
lengthyconcerning a treatise On the Resurrection
ascribed to Justin by Procopius of Gaza and John
Damascene. Whatever may be said concerning the
authenticity of this treatise, it is certainly very ancient,
since Methodius of Olympus seems to allude to it at the
end of the third century. Harnack places it between the
years 150 and 180.
(5) Pseudo-writings:
(a) Identical with, or similar to, the titles of treatises of
Justin, mentioned by Eusebius and falsely attributed to
him. These are the Oratio ad Gentes, the Cohortatio ad
Gentiles, and the De Monarchia. The Oratio and
perhaps also the De Monarchia belong to the second
century; the Cohortatio to the second half of the third.
(b) The six treatises which follow in the complete
editions of Justin have still less right to be there. The
Epistula ad Zenam et Serenum is an exhortation
88
Page 255 of 524
addressed, it seems, to monks and ascetics. According to

a conjecture of Batiffol, it was written by Sisinnius, the
Novatian bishop of Constantinople (c. 400).
(c) The other fiveExpositio Rectae Fidei, Confutatio
Dogmatum Quornndam . . ., Responsiones ad
Orthodoxos . . ., Quaestlones Christianorum . . ., and
Quaestiones Centlliumhave been ascribed by Harnack
to Diodorus of Tarsus (d. 391-392).
(d) According to Funk, the Expositio belongs to the fifth
century and the Responsiones should be ascribed to
Theodoret. It seems certain that the three or four last
treatises are the work of one and the same author.
3. TATIAN
a) Introduction:
(1) Tatian was born of heathen parents, probably in 120, in
Assyria, i. e., in the country situated beyond the river Tigris. He
received a Greek education, studied history, rhetoric and
philosophy, and became a sophist, travelling from city to city to
deliver his speeches and give his lessons in ethics. He studied
many different religions and was initiated into several mystery
cults, but nowhere found satisfaction. It was in reading the
Scriptures that he found the light he was seeking, and so became
a Christian [Or. 29].
(2) His conversion occurred probably in Rome. Almost
immediately he became a "hearer" and disciple of Justin and, like
him, was pursued by Crescens [Or. 19], c. 155-160. Eusebius
tells us that Tatian opened a school in Rome and that Rhodon
was one of his disciples [H. E., v, 13, i, 8]. It is not known
whether this took place before or after the death of Justin. In
either case, Tatian did not remain faithful to the teaching of his
master: he abandoned the Church in the twelfth year of Marcus
Aurelius. Eusebius and Epiphanius say that he founded the sect
of the Encratites. According to Irenaeus he denied that Adam
was saved, condemned marriage as fornication, and believed in a
series of eons.
(3) Tatian had probably left Rome by this time. He withdrew
into Mesopotamia, the land of his birth, and there spent the last
days of his life. We do not know the date of his death.
(4) A comparison has often been drawn between the character
and disposition of Tatian and that of Tertullian. This comparison
is justified because, although Tatian has not the genius of
89
Page 256 of 524
Tertullian, they are both excessive, violent, and fond of paradox.

Instead of trying to conciliate his opponents in order to win them
over, Tatian repulses them by invective and sarcasm. He can find
no good in them: Greek art is immoral, Greek literature childish,
Greek philosophy false, the Greek language neither pure nor
uniform. From beginning to end his is an apology of the
clenched fist. Each line betrays arrogance and bitterness.
(5) From a literary point of view, the Apology of Tatian the
only work of his that is entirely preservedis extremely obscure
and difficult to interpret. This obscurity is due partly, no doubt,
to the imperfect condition of the text, but partly also to the
author's style. Tatian had been a sophist and retained the affected
style of a sophist, seeking for new figures and sensational
phrases. This does not prevent him from sometimes being
careless and trivial. Although he loses sight of his subject less
often than Justin, he allows himself to drift into digressions,
which interrupt the trend of his discourse. What we most admire
in him is the brilliance, the sincerity, and the enthusiasm of the
controversialist. "Tatian," concludes Puech, " . . . sometimes
offends by his negligence, sometimes by his affectation, but it
would be too severe a judgment to call him a barbarian; ... he is a
pretentious but able writer." We know from Tatian himself that
he composed a work
(6) On Animals or On Living Beings [Or. 15], and perhaps
another in which he treated of the nature of demons [Or. 16]. He
intended to write "Against Those who have Treated of Divine
Things," i. e., against the pagan theologians [Or. 40]. Rhodon, a
disciple of Tatian, mentions a "Book of Problems" [Eusebius, H.
E., v, 13, 8] probably a collection of obscure passages in the
Scriptures. Clement of Alexandria refers to a work of Tatian "On
Perfection according to the Precepts of the Savior," which
forbids marriage [Strom., iii, 12]. The only two writings of
Tatian we can read to-day are the Discourse to the Greeks,
preserved entire, and the Diatessaron, which has been partly
reconstructed.
(7) The Discourse was not composed at Rome, but more likely
at Antioch, for the author addresses native Greeks, and not
merely Greek-speaking persons [Or., 35]. It was probably
written after the death of Justin, but before the author's break
with the Church, c. 172-173. The date of its composition must be
placed between 165 and 173. It was evidently intended for wide
circulation.
(8) The work is divided into three parts: (1) an introduction (14) in which Tatian begs the Greeks not to deal too rigorously
with the barbarians (i. e., Christians), who are in fact superior to
them; (2) an exposition of the principal Christian teachings (5-
90
Page 257 of 524
30) concerning the Logos, the Resurrection, the Angels and

demons, the soul, the spirit, the world, etc., compared with the
religious and philosophical teachings of the Greeks and in
particular with their mythology: the superiority of the former is
more than evident; (3) a chronological discussion (31-41). Not
only is the Christian doctrine superior to the pagan teachings; it
is more ancient. Moses lived 400 years before the Trojan War
celebrated by Homer, lived even before the sages who
preceded this poet. Chs. 33 and 34 contain what is called the
Catalogue of Statues. It is an enumeration of the Greek
sculptures Tatian had seen in Rome, interesting for the history
of art. In a short conclusion the Apologist reaffirms his faith and
his intention to persevere in it.
(9) Tatian's other work, of which only fragments remain, is the
Diatessaron. It is a Gospel-harmony compiled from the four
Gospels with the texts arranged in such a way as to give a
chronological exposition of the life and teachings of Christ. This
work was originally written in Syriac and must be assigned to a
date subsequent to Tatian's return to the East (c. 172). Up to the
fifth century it was very popular throughout the Christian
churches of Syria, which adopted it for their liturgical services. It
is quoted by Aphraates and commented upon by Ephraem.
(10)
We have not the complete text, but it has been possible
partly to reconstruct it by means of an Armenian translation of
Ephraem's commentary and with the help of a later revision of
the Gospel-harmony in Arabic, and of another in Latin, both of
which have preserved the plan of composition of the original
Diatessaron.
4. ATHENAGORAS
a) Biography:
(1) Athenagoras is mentioned neither by Eusebius nor by
Jerome, and we know very little about him. He was an Athenian
philosopher, though perhaps not born in Athens. According to a
sketch in the Christian History of Philip of Side, who wrote c.
430, he was at first a heathen, and became a Christian by reading
the Scriptures.
(2) Perhaps he lived for a time in Alexandria.
b) Writings
(1) Character
91
Page 258 of 524
(a) We can get an idea of his character and methods

from what writings of his have come down to us. He is a
philosopher in every sense of the term. His primary
object is to instruct and to demonstrate. Whilst Justin is
an apostle, and Tatian a polemist, Athenagoras is a
professor who discourses according to all the rules of
grammar and logic. His composition is as lucid and
orderly as that of Justin and Tatian is loose and
careless.
(b) He never for a moment strays from his subject; he
makes no display of rhetoric or figurative language. In
all his writings we meet with forcible reasoning and a
powerful style, so concise that it borders at times on
dryness, truly the style of a philosopher.
(c) Strange to say, this convinced Christian, in writing
against the pagans on the resurrection of bodies, draws
no proof for this dogma from revelation of the
Scriptures.
c) Apology
(1) The apology is entitled Supplication for the Christians. It
was addressed to the Emperors Marcus Aurelius Antoninus and
Lucius Aurelius Commodus. The titles given to Marcus Aurelius
and to Commodus, as well as the reference, in the first chapter,
to the profound peace then prevailing, enable us to fix the date of
the composition of this work between December A. D. 176, and
the first months of 178. The work was undoubtedly written at
Athens.
(2) The arrangement of ideas is most lucid. After soliciting the
attention of the Emperors, Athenagoras enumerates the three
chief accusations current against the Christians: atheism,
immorality and anthropophagy (1-3).
(3) He refutes these three calumnies successively. The
Christians are not atheists: they adore one God, Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost. It is true they do not offer any bloody sacrifices, nor
do they worship the pagan gods; but the true God has no need of
such crude sacrifices, and the gods of paganism are no gods at
all, but men who have been deified (4-30).
(4) The second accusation, that of immorality, is equally without
foundation. Christians profess belief in the torments of hell; they
condemn even the thought of evil. The pagans themselves
commit the atrocities of which they accuse the Christians (3134).
92
Page 259 of 524
(5) With regard to the Thyestean banquets, Christians are in no

way guilty of such crimes, but hate homicide, avoid the
gladiatorial fights, condemn the exposure of children, and
believe in the resurrection of bodies (35-36).
(6) He concludes with an appeal to the justice and clemency of
the Emperors (37).
d) On the Resurrection of Bodies

(1) In ch. 36 of his apology, Athenagoras promised a discussion
of the doctrine of the resurrection. This work must have followed
very closely upon the former, and was perhaps written in 178 or
179. Certain details in chs. 1, 19, 23, and the order of ideas
followed still more rigorously than in the apology, favor the
opinion that it was a lecture or conference, first delivered orally
and later circulated in written form.
(2) The lecture is divided into two parts: (l) a refutation of the
objections brought against the possibility of the resurrection (110), and (2) a demonstration of it as a fact (11-25). In the first
part the author proves that there is nothing in the resurrection of
bodies above the power of God and contrary to His attributes. In
the second he emphasizes more especially the unity of the human
person, concluding that the eternal life and happiness, which are
the end of man, are for his body as much as for his soul, and that
the body which participates in the good and bad actions of the
soul, must be punished or rewarded with it. This cannot take
place without the resurrection.
5. THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH
a) Theophilus came from that part of Syria that borders
on Mesopotamia. He was born a pagan and was
converted to Christianity by meditating on the
Scriptures. Towards the year 169, he succeeded
Cornelius as bishop of Antioch. Eusebius places the
end of his episcopate in 177; most probably it lasted
until 182 or 183, for the books To. Autolycus were not
completed until after the death of Marcus Aurelius (Mar.
17, 180).
b) Theophilus received a Greek education and seems to
have had some knowledge of Hebrew. He is inferior to
Justin and Athenagoras in depth of philosophical
thought, but surpasses them in extent and variety of
literary culture. His style is lively, imaginative, and
original; his diction, elegant and ornate. He was well
93
Page 260 of 524
read, but his reading had not stifled personal reflection

and judgment.
c) Besides the Apology to Aulolycus, which we shall
examine presently, Theophilus wrote a work, in at least
two books, upon the origin of mankind according to the
Bible and mythology (cf. Ad Autolyc., ii, 28, 30, 31, iii, 3,
19).
d) Eusebius mentions other writings of his,a work
against the heresy of Hermogenes, another against
Marcion, and a few books for the instruction and
edification of the faithful [H.E., iv, 24]. Jerome mentions
a Commentary on the Book of Proverbs and
Commentaries on the Gospel [Vir. ill., 25]. Of all these
works, there remain but the fragments of the
Commentaries cited by Jerome.
e) We have in full, however, the three books To
Autolycus. Autolycus was a learned heathen, who
seems to have been a magistrate. The three Discourses
(logoi) addressed to him by Theophilus are not, properly
speaking, parts of the same work, but three distinct
treatises which have been joined together. This was
done because there is a real connection among them:
they are addressed to the same person and deal with
almost the same topics.
f) The first book contains fourteen chapters and was
written regarding a conversation with Autolycus, who
had asked Theophilus to show him his God, had praised
the gods of paganism and scoffed at the name of
Christian. Theophilus treats of the nature of the true
God, who is invisible to the eyes of the body, but whose
existence is known to us, and whom we shall
contemplate as He is when we shall be clothed in
incorruptibility. He denounces the gods of paganism
and extols the Christians.
g) The second book contains thirty-eight chapters. It
reverts to the thoughts previously expressed in order to
develop them more fully. In the first part (2-8) the author
exposes the insufficiency and childishness of the pagan
teachings. In the second part (9-38) he contrasts these
teachings with those of Holy Scripture concerning the
94
Page 261 of 524
origin of the world, the worship due to God, and the

moral life man should lead.
h) The third book contains thirty chapters and is an
answer to an objection of Autolycus. "Your religion," he
says, "is new, and your Scriptures are recent writings."
The first fifteen chapters show the futility of the
accusations brought against Christians concerning
immorality and anthropophagy. In ch. 16 he takes up the
chronological discussion and gives a resume of Jewish
history. He concludes that Moses must have lived from
900 to 1000 years before the Trojan War. He counts 5695
years from the beginning of the world to the death of
Marcus Aurelius.
i) From the fact that the author ends his calculation
with Aurelius' death we conclude that the third book to
Autolycus was written in the first years of the reign of
the Emperor Commodus (c. 180-182). As the three books
followed very closely upon one another, we may assume
that the entire work was written approximately between
178 and 182.
6. THE LETTER TO DIOGNETUS
a) Not a single ancient writer mentions the Letter to
Diognetus. The only manuscript which contained it
destroyed in 1870 attributed it to Justin, but the letter
is certainly not from his pen. As we lack all evidence
from other extrinsic sources, we can only make more or
less probable conjectures concerning its authorship.
The epistolary form given to this small work may be only
a literary fiction.
b) We are limited to conjectures based on internal
evidence. The letter comprises ten chapters. Diognetus
had asked the author why the Christians neither adore
the pagan gods nor practice the Jewish worship, what
life they lead and why Christianity appeared so late in
the world. The author answers these questions in due
order. 1. The Christians do not adore the gods of the
heathen because these gods are nothing more than
wood, stone, or metal. 2. Neither do they imitate the
worship of the Jews, because, although this worship is
rendered to God, it is childish and unworthy of Him. 3.
There follows an ideal description of the Christian way
95
Page 262 of 524
of living. The Christians are to the world what the soul is

to the body, a superior and life-giving principle (5-7).
4. That Christianity has appeared so late, is because
God wished to make men conscious of their weakness
and corruption before sending them the Redeemer (8-9).
The conclusion is an exhortation to conversion (10).
c) The Letter to Diognetus is one of the most perfect
literary compositions handed down to us from ancient
Christian times. The author is as sympathetic and wellmeaning meaning as Justin, but he is a better writer.
With soundness of doctrine and loftiness of thought he
combines the gift of developing his ideas in a clear,
harmonious, and progressive manner and of putting into
his exposition force and life without breaking the thread
of his theme. He was evidently a man of breadth and
culture.
d) The Letter belongs to a period after the first and
before the fourth century; this is sufficiently proved by
the mention the author makes of present persecutions
(5, 6). Renan, Zahn, and Harnack would place it in the
third century; Kihn, Kruger, and Bardenhewer, in the
second. The last-named author takes this view because
Christianity is represented in the Letter as a recent
foundation and depicted in its first fervor.
7. HERMIAS
a) The Mockery of Heathen Philosophers by Hermias,
the philosopher, in 10 chapters, is entirely different from
the Letter to Diognetus. The author wishes to show that
the heathen philosophers are not in agreement, nay hold
contradictory opinions concerning the nature of the soul
(1-2) and the first principle of all things (3-10). He proves
this by placing under the reader's eye the principal
philosophers and their schools of thought, calling
attention to the solutions they have given to the above
problems.
b) This treatise is very superficial and all but worthless.
It is not an apology, but a light and bantering satire that
is of no value since the philosophical systems ridiculed
by the author are neither studied nor criticized.
96
Page 263 of 524
c) We do not know who Hermias was. The author and

his work are never mentioned by ancient writers. A few
critics (Diels, Wendland, Harnack) assign the
composition to the fifth or sixth century, when paganism
was no longer popular. Bardenhewer places it in the
third century, on the ground that Hermias seems to
know nothing of Neo-Platonism.
8. MINUCIUS FELIX
a) One of the best apologies of the period from the
second to the third century, and one of the most ancient
productions of Latin Christian literature, is the Octavius
of Minucius Felix.
b) The Octavius is a dialogue divided into four parts.
(1) It opens with an introduction (1-4) in which the characters
appear upon the scene. The author, who calls himself Marcus,
wishes to tell how his friend Octavius succeeded in winning over
to Christianity the pagan Caecilius Natalis. One day these three
were enjoying a walk by the sea, near Ostia, when they passed
before a statue of Serapis. Caecilius salutes the statue and the act
starts a discussion of the religious question. They determine to
thresh out the question thoroughly, and Marcus is constituted
arbiter of the controversy between Caecilius and Octavius.
(2) The second part (5-13) is taken up almost entirely by a
speech of Caecilius. In this speech we may distinguish three
leading ideas:
(a) A philosophical development. Truth is inaccessible:
we know nothing about the gods, who, at any rate, are
little concerned with men. Hence, in matters of religion
it is wiser to follow the laws of one's own country.
(b) An attack upon Christianity. The Christians do not
follow these laws: they form a secret society, immoral
and criminal, the enemy of all mankind. Moreover, their
worship is absurd, since they adore a crucified man.
(c) Conclusion. Away with all religious innovations: let
things remain as they are.
(3) In the third part (14-38) Octavius closely follows the
arguments of his opponent and refutes them one by one. We can
know God: reason proves the existence of one God and of a
Providence. Polytheism originated from a suggestion of the
97
Page 264 of 524
demons; they are the ones who spread against the Christians the
calumnies mentioned by Caecilius. The Christians are pure in all
their ways; their beliefs and their worship are reasonable and, in
spite of persecutions, they find in the testimony of a good
conscience a peace and happiness no one can take away. Things
must not be allowed to remain as they are: "Cohibeatur
superstitio, impietas expietur, vera religio reservetur."
(4) The fourth part (39-41) is the conclusion: Caecilius admits
his defeat and becomes a Christian.
c) Critics are of one accord in declaring the Octavius to

be the masterpiece of an able writer who, though
possessed of very few original ideas, treated his subject
in classic literary form. The dialogue has artistic
freshness and beauty; the life and emotion that pervade
it are never expressed in terms that are too violent. It is
evidently modeled on Cicero's De Natura Deorum and
De Divinations, as well as on Seneca's De Providentia
and De Superstitions. The author wished to offer to
educated pagans a defense of Christianity that would be
acceptable to them, clothed as it was in a literary form
that they relished. Hence his care to set aside in this
exposition of the Christian religion everything
mysterious or obscure for human reason and to bring
into bold relief instead the lofty spiritual and moral
teaching of the new faith.
d) The author of the Octavius calls himself, as we have
already said, Marcus (3, 5). Lactantius and Jerome give
us his full name, Marcus Minucius Felix. He was a
distinguished lawyer, probably of African extraction,
who lived in Rome and who, in his later years, passed
from Stoicism to Christianity (1). The hero of the
dialogue, Octavius Janu- arius, was also a convert, but
he was dead when the book was written (1). As to his
pagan friend, Caecilius Natalis, he too lived in Rome,
although he seems to have come from Cirta (9,31). An
inscription has been found there relating to a certain
Marcus Caecilius Quinti films Quirina Natalis, who was a
triumvir under Caracalla (211-217).
e) The Octavius was certainly written after the year 175,
because Fronto, who is spoken of as being dead or, at
least, as a very old man (9, 31), died shortly after 175. A
more precise dating of the composition would depend
upon the opinion adopted concerning the relations of
98
Page 265 of 524
the Octavius with the Apologeticum of Tertullian. It is

certain that one of the two authors knew and borrowed
from the other. The Apologeticum dates from the year
197, and if its author made use of the Octavius, the latter
must be placed between 175-197. If, on the contrary, the
author of the Octavius used the Apologeticum, the
former work must be posterior to 197 and must be
placed at the end of the second or in the first half of the
third century. This question is one of those upon which
most critics are divided. Muralt, Ebert, Schwenke, and
others uphold the priority of the Octavius; Massebieau,
Harnack, and Monceaux, that of the Apologeticum.
According to the latter group, the Octavius must be
placed between 197 and 250.
C. Doctrine
1. Introduction
a) We are now to note the beginnings of Christian
theology. I was the pressure of practical necessity, no
less than the force of inward development, which gave
birth to theology. It was, on the one hand, necessary to
assume a positive position against the assaults from
without and the efforts of the age to produce a new
Christianity. On the other hand, in proportion as
Christianity became more widely diffused and
permeated the thinking of the world, was it compelled to
explain what it claimed to possess in its revelation. The
Apologists undertook in their biblical writings to set
forth Christianity in forms intelligible to the cultured
classes of their age, while at the same time repelling all
unjust accusations. The Antignostic Fathers displayed
the unbiblical and unchristian character of Gnosticism,
and in opposition to it gave form to an ecclesiastical and
biblical Christianity. The Alexandrian theology first
presented Christianity in the forms of science, and thus
proved that the faith of the church is a Gnosis superior
to the pretended Gnosis of their adversaries. We must
first consider the Apologists.
b) To outline the Christianity of the early Apologists is a
task to be undertaken with great caution. They defended
Christianity after the traditional fashion against certain
definite traditional charges.
99
Page 266 of 524
(1) In Eus. h.e.v. 1:9: "that there is no atheistic nor impious

person among us." Tert. Ap. 10: "We are assembled for the sake
of sacrilege and sedition. This is the chief, yea, the whole
charge."
(2) Athenag. 3: "they prefer three charges against us: atheism,
Thyestian feasts, and Oedipean intercourse" (cf. Plinii ep. 10:79.
Aristid. 17. Just. Ap. i. 6:26f.; ii. 12. Dial. 10. Theoph. iii. 4:15.
Eus. h.e.v. 1:9, 14, 19, 26, 52. Minuc. 8ff.; 28ff. Tert. Apol. 27f.;
7ff., 39. Orig. c. Cels. vi. 27; viii. 39, 41, 65, 67, etc.
100
Page 267 of 524
c) In doing this, those features of Christianity which

might most readily be comprehended and
acknowledged by cultivated heathen (the unity of God,
the Logos, virtue, immortality) were expounded. There
was danger that in this process Christ might be almost
entirely overlooked (Theoph. Mimic. Ath. 10. Cf. the
apology, 11 init.). Christian doctrines were skillfully
presented as similar to heathen teachings (Polytheism,
Just. i. 6. Ath. 10 fin.; per contra, Ath. 24. The sons of
Zeus, Just. i. 20ff.; 24 init. Tert. 21; per contra, Just. i.
53f. Lat. 21). A choice was made of doctrines suitable to
the purpose in view, and the material was adapted to the
conceptions of those for whom the documents were
written. That the Christian beliefs of the writers were not
exhaustively presented under such circumstances is
evident, and finds confirmation from the comparison of
the apologetic writings in question with other
productions of the same authors (Just. Dial., Tert. in
other works, Aristid. Hom.). It may be said of the
majority of these writers that they had no clearer
conceptions of the gospel that had the Apostolic
Fathers; but at the same time it must be conceded that
their views were no more defective. The study of their
works is instructive, not as adding anything to the
general faith of the church, but as furnishing the earliest
attempts of ecclesiastical theology. They have in
common with the Gnostics the attempt to make
Christianity comprehensible to the heathen, but they
differ from them in that they do not admit the syncretism
of the age into their conception of Christianity. In their
view, Christianity stands in bold contrast with the
religions of the heathen world. Only in the case of
philosophy is any parallel conceded. The most
important of their doctrinal views may be classified as
follows:
2. Christianity, Heathenism, and Judaism.
a) Of Christianity Justin Martyr declares: I found that
this philosophy only is safe and useful (Dial. 8, cf.
Tatian. 31. Melito in Eus. v. 26:7, cf. Miltiades, ib. v.
17:5). The words of the Saviour should be observed,
for they are full of power and spirit (Dial. 8, 9). The
attitude toward heathenism is one of repulsion. When
the purpose is to show the necessity for Christianity, the
religious life of heathenism is characterized as folly and
101
Page 268 of 524
immorality, and its gods as demons (cf. Just. Ap. i. 12,

14, 21. Dial. 79 fin., 83. Ath. 25ff. 23. Minuc. 21ff. Tert. 23.
For Scriptural proof, Psalm 95:5 is quoted: The gods of
the heathen are demons (), in connection with
which the different meanings of the term in
heathen and Christian parlance must not be
overlooked).
b) The philosophers and poets are only promoters of
idolatry (Arist. 13), inspired by demons (Theoph. ii. 8);
their productions are nothing but self-contradictory
frivolity (Tat. passim, Theoph. ii. 8; iii. 2f., 5ff. Min. Fel.
38. Tert. 46). Whatever is undeniably good in them has
been borrowed from the Jewish prophets, who far excel
them in antiquity (Just. Ap. i. 44, 54, 59f. Tat. 31, 40f.
Theop. i. 14; iii. 23; ii. 30, 37 fin. Minuc. 34. Tert. 47). But,
on the other hand, the Trinity, angels, and the Son of
God are represented as paralleled in Polytheism and in
the heathen conception of Sons of God (vid. supra). In
the philosophers of Gentile nations the same Logos was
supposed to have dwelt that afterward appeared in
Christ. Our [doctrines] appear more splendid than all
human teaching because the Christ revealed through us
was the whole Logos-nature ( ), body,
intellect, and soul. For whatever things the philosophers
and lawgivers excellently uttered or invented were
wrought out by them through the co-operation of the
Logos in discovery or contemplation (Just. Ap. ii. 10).
c) Only germs () of the Logos dwelt in the
prophets, whereas he revealed himself completely in
Christ. Hence much is found in heathen authors that is
erroneous. Platos teachings are thus related to the
doctrines of Christ: not alien () to Christ, but
that they are not everywhere the same (Just. Ap. ii. 13).
Again, it is said, Those living according to the Logos
are Christians, such as Socrates, Heraclitus, Abraham,
Elijah, etc. (Just. Ap. i. 46; cf. Minuc. 20 init.). The entire
truth is contained in the primitive writings of the Old
Testament prophets, for they were inspired; the Logos
himself spoke in them; they correctly prophesied of
future things (Just. Ap. i. 30f., 36. Ath. 9: Who, in the
ecstasy of the thoughts within them, the divine Spirit
moving them, gave utterance to the things they were
impelled to utter, the Spirit using them as a flute-player
102
Page 269 of 524
plays his flute. Cf. Just. Dial. 115). Their utterances are,
therefore, to be acknowledged even by the heathen as
absolute proof of the truth. Christianity, is, therefore, not
a new religion, as Celsus charged (cf. Just. i. 53. Ath. 7,
9. Theoph. ii. 9, cf. 36, the Sybils. As to this evidence
from prophecy, cf. also Celsus in Orig. c. Cels. iii. 26;
viii. 12; vi. 2). The prophets taught One God, true
morality, and future rewards and punishments (Theoph.
ii. 34 fin.; iii. 9). Their writings contain the Christian truth
(Just. Dial. 29). With their real spiritual contents,
however, was combined, on account of the hardness of
heart of the Jewish people, the ceremonial law (Just.
Dial. 1922, 42, 44, 46, 67), which contains also veiled
references to Christ (I say that a certain law was
ordained for the cultivation of piety and right living, and
a certain law and ceremony was also announced as a
mystery of Christ, or on account of the hardness of your
hearts, Dial: 44). The Jews have, by their doctrines
() supplanted those of God (Just. Dial. 78).
They are, consequently, no more the people of God. In
accordance with the prophecies, Christians from the
heathen world are now the people of God and the true
Israel (Just. Dial. 25, 26, 123, 135 fin.).
3. Theology
a) There is One God, the Creator, Adorner, and
Preserver of the world (Just. i. 6. Ath. 8. Theop. iii. 9).
The invisible God is an unbegotten, nameless, eternal,
incomprehensible, unchangeable Being, without any
needs and free from all passions (Arist. 1. Just. i. 10, 13,
25, 49, 53; ii. 6. Dial. 127. Tat. 4. Ath. 10, 13, 16, 44, 21.
Theoph. i. 4:3; ii. 10, 3, 22). He made everything for
mans sake, and is therefore to beloved (Arist. 2. Just. i.
10; ii. 4. Tat. 4. Theoph. i. 4 fin.; ii. 16). He created the
world out of nothingness and gave form to matter
(Theoph. ii. 4, 13, 10: That in some way matter was
begotten, created by God, from which God made and
formed the world). Yet, with all this, the true nature of
the living God does not find expression. There is no
advance beyond the mere abstract conception that the
Divine Being is absolute attribute less Existence.
b) In both operations, God employed the Son as
mediator. This is not to be understood in a mythological
sense (Ath. 10). He is the Logos of God. This was a
103
Page 270 of 524
favorite term of the cultured classes. Whenever it was

mentioned, the interest of all was at once secured. But
that precisely this term was chosen proves how entirely
the thoughts of the church were centered in the exalted
Christ. If they had thought chiefly of the man Jesus, they
might have easily characterized him as a second
Socrates. But they thought of him as God, in God, and
with God, and hence selected a term such as Logos,
in order to make the matter plain to the heathen.
Originally God was alone, but by virtue of the reasoning
faculty ( ) belonging to him he had in
himself the Logos. By a simple exercise of his will, the
Logos sprang forth (). He is the first-born work
of the Father (Tat. 5; cf. Just. Ap. ii. 6. Dial. 100. Ath. 10:
The first begotten thing not as coming into being, for
from the beginning God, being eternal intelligence, ,
had in himself the Logos, being eternally Logos-natured,
). Of the manner in which the Logos originated, it
is said: This power was begotten from the power of the
Father and his counsel; but not by a separation, as
though the nature of the Father were distributed, i.e.,
somewhat as a fire does not diminish another by which
it is enkindled, and that which is taken away from it
appears to be also the same and does not diminish that
from which it was taken (Just. Dial. 128, 61, 100. Tat. 5).
He is not an angel, but divine; divine (), but not God
himself ( ) (Dial. 60; vid. per contra, Ap. i. 6). In
respect to the Father, he is something else ( )
and another ( ), and is such in number but not
in mind, (Just. Dial. 56, 50, 55, 62, 128, 129: And
that which is begotten is other in number than that
which begets, as everyone must confess). Thus the
Logos is God together with the Father, and to him alone,
as to the Father, is worship due (Just. Dial. 68, 63f. Ap.
ii. 13).
c) Through the Logos, God has revealed himself. He it
is who in the Old Testament period appears to men
(Just. Dial. 56ff., 60. Ap. i. 36). He is the messenger of
God, our teacher and apostle, God revealed,
(Just. Dial. 60, 127. Ap. i. 12. Dial. 64; cf.
Theoph. ii. 22). When God determined to create the
world, he begat the word which he had in himself (
104
Page 271 of 524
) as the word uttering itself in speech (

). For the use of the terms by the Stoics and
Philo, Orig. c. Cels. vi. 65: the Logos always existing
resident in the heart of God. For before anything was
created, he had this counselor, which was his own
reason () and purpose (). But when God
determined to make whatever he desired, he begat this
Logos as the word (), the first-born of the
whole creation, he himself not being emptied of the
Logos, but begetting the Logos, and always remaining
associated with his Logos (Theoph. ii. 22; cf. 10. Ath.
10. Tert. adv. Prax. 5: sermonalis and rationalis). Chris
is, therefore, the Reason imminent in God, to which God
granted a separate existence. As the divine Reason, he
was not only operative at the creation and in the Old
Testament prophets, but also in the wise men of the
heathen world. The philosophical conception of the
Logos (cf. HEINZE in loco) here determines Christian
thought, although the important difference must not be
overlooked, that the Logos of the Christian writers is an
independent personality. The divine person of Christ is
acknowledged without any limitations; and when the
Johannine conception of the Logos is presented as
parallel with that of the Stoic philosophy, it must be
understood merely as an outward clothing of the
thought (momentous indeed in its consequences) in
such garb as to commend it to the heathen world.
d) Along with the Word is mentioned also the Wisdom
of God, or the holy prophetic Spirit; but comparatively
little prominence is given to the latter (Just. Ap. i. 6:60.
Ath. 12:24). But the Trinity is certainly an article of the
common faith. The term , occurs first in Theoph. ii.
15. Although the Apologists find little occasion to speak
of this mystery, the apprehension of it constitutes for
them the profoundest problem and the supreme desire
of their hearts: carried away with this desire only, to
see God and the Logos with him. What is the unity of the
Son with the Father? what the fellowship of the Father
with the Son? what the Spirit? what the union and the
difference of those who are thus unitedthe Spirit, the
Son, and the Father? (Ath. 12).
4. The Work of Christ.
105
Page 272 of 524
a) The Logos of God, who, before the incarnation, was

only a holy spirit ( ), became man, born of
the Virgin Mary (Arist. 2:6. Just. Ap. i. 22, 31, 32f. Dial.
43, 45, 48, 63, 66, 76, 78, 84f., 100). The full reality of his
bodily human nature is firmly held (Just. Ap. i. 21; ii. 10.
Dial. 85, 99: He became a man, truly subject to
suffering, made incarnate, , Dial. 70),
yet he was not by any means on that account only a
man in the ordinary sense (Just. Dial. 54), but God and
man (ib. 59); his divinity was concealed in his flesh (
) and he attested
both in his life and work. For, being alike both God and
perfect man, he placed his two natures over us. It is
said of him: God suffered (Melito, Corp. apol. ix. 415f.
Cf. Tat. 13 fin., ). Accordingly, he is now
not a man executed upon the cross, but the Son of God,
whom Christians honor next to the Father (
), and together with the prophetic Spirit
(Just. Ap. i. 13, 53). This view is supported by quotations
from the prophets (Just. Ap. i. 30ff.).
b) Justin, according to a quotation attributed to
Jeremiah, taught a preaching of Christ in the Lower
World (cf. Marcion): "And he went to them to preach his
salvation to them" (Dial. 72 fin.; also Iren. v. 31:1. Cf. iv.
27:2, 21:1; iii. 20:4. Cf. also Herm. Sim. ix. 16:5. Barn.
5:7. Ignat. Philad. ix. 1; Tral. ix. 1).
c) Later this becomes an issue.
d) In defining the work of Christ, it is first of all
emphasized that he became the teacher of the race
( , Just. Dial. 18), as he had already
shown himself before his incarnation. The content of his
teaching is found in the ideas of the One God; the new
law, requiting a virtuous life; and immortality (),
more strictly speaking, the resurrection, bringing with it
rewards and punishments (e.g., Just. Ap. i. 1319).
Aristides thus reports to the Emperor what is contained
in the Christian Scriptures: But you may learn from
their writings, O King, to know their words and their
commandments, and the glorious character of their
service, and the expectation of compensating reward
106
Page 273 of 524
according to the deeds done by each of them, which

they expect in the other world (c. 16:3. Cf. Just. Apol. i.
65 init.).
5. Anthropology
a) Man has the ability to keep these commandments,
since God created him free (Just. Dial. 88, 102, 141.
Apol. i. 28. Tat. 7). Although man, by disobeying the
commandments of God, fell and became subject to
death (Theoph. ii. 25. Tat. fin.), he is, nevertheless, still
free to decide for God through faith and repentance
(Just. Ap. i. 28, 43, 61; ii. 14; Dial. 141. Theoph. ii. 27):
For just as the man who refuses to hear brings death
upon himself, so he who willingly submits to the will of
God is able to secure for himself eternal life. For God
has given us the law and the holy commandments,
everyone who keeps which can be saved (
) and, experiencing the resurrection, inherit
immortality.
b) Freedom here appears, it will be observed, as an
inamissible element of mans endowment. However
deeply the fall and corruption of man is conceived, his
freedom yet remains unquestioned. From this it may be
understood also that Justin includes grace, in the sense
of the effectual power of God, in his conception of
Christian doctrine. Grace is no more than the revelation
of doctrine and of the law.
6. Salvation
a) Although it does not appear from such presentations
of the subject why the sufferings and death of Christ
were necessary (except as in fulfillment of Old
Testament prophecy), yet the Apologists very positively
testify that the belief in the significance of these
experiences of the Lord formed an essential part of the
common Christian faith.
b) The sufferings of Christ deliver men because he
thereby took upon himself the curse which rested upon
them; they bring forgiveness of sins and set free from
death and the devil (Just. Ap. i. 63, 50, 32; ii. 13. Dial. 40,
41, 45, 95, 54, 80, 88, 111, 134. Melito, Corp. ap. ix. 418).
107
Page 274 of 524
He who now believes in the Crucified is purified from his

past sins, the Spirit of God stands by his side to help in
all assaults of the devil, and Christ will deliver him from
all trouble and receive him to his kingdom if he will but
keep his commandments (Dial. 116).
c) The wood of the cross, the water of baptism, faith,
and repentance are the means by which to escape from
condemnation on the day of judgment (Dial. 138). There
was no attempt to enlarge upon these ideas in the
controversial writings of the period; but there can be no
doubt that they held the same place in molding the life
of the church at large as in the post-apostolic age.
7. The Church
a) The Christian Church is the people of God, the true
Israel, the high-priestly generation of God (Just. Dial.
116, 123, 135). The churches are islands of safety in the
stormy sea of the world, where the truth is taught (there
are, it is true, also desert islands inhabited by ravenous
wild beasts, i.e., heresies, Theoph. ii. 14).
b) In the Christian world prevail strict morality, holy
love, and readiness to suffer with rejoicing. Its members
belong to another world.
c) They are a new generation, the generation of the
pious, winged to fly like birds above the things of this
world; but it is for their sake that the world is preserved
(cf. Arist. 15ff. Theoph. ii. 17. Just. Ap. ii. 7. Melito in
Eus. h.e. iv. 26:5, etc.).
d) Esoteric elements, which the Apology mentions only
for the sake of completeness in its survey (vid. Just. Ap.
i. 61 init.), are the means employed in public worship by
which one becomes and remains a Christian.
(1) They consist of the reading of the prophets and the gospels,
preaching and exhortation, united prayers (ib. 67), baptism, and
the Lords Supper.
(2) The candidate for baptism is washed in the name of the
triune God, after having prayed for the forgiveness of his sins.
108
Page 275 of 524
(3) Baptism brings repentance and the pardon () of sins,

it transplants into a new existence, and without it there is no
salvation (Just. Ap. i. 61: being made new, ;
66: the washing for the pardon of sins and unto regeneration,
cf.
Dial. 19, 29, 44. Theoph. ii. 16; 61: enlightenment, ;
Dial. 8: becoming perfect, ).
(4) Of the Eucharist, Justin (Ap. i. 66) says: We have been
taught that the food blessed by the word of prayer employed by
him (Christ), from which our bodies and blood are by its
transformation ( ). nourished, is also the body
and blood of the same Jesus who was made flesh.
(a) These words, of course, do not teach
transubstantiation. The meaning is only that the very
same food, which, by virtue of its transformation,
nourishes our bodies, is for faith the body and blood of
Christ (see also Dial. 41:70).
(b) The opinion of Harnack, that "bread and water are
the eucharistic elements in Justin" (Texte u. Unters. vii.
2:117ff.Just. Ap. 65 fin. mentions "bread, wine, and
water," as also 67. On the contrary, in 65, " "the last
two words being wanting in Cod. Ottob. Harnack
declares that they, as well as the , are later
interpolations. Cf. especially Cypr. ep. 63), is refuted by
critical textual examination, as well as by the unvarying
historical tradition.
e) The last article of the common faith of the church is

the doctrine of the resurrection.
(1) Only upon the supposition of such an experience does the
nature () of man remain true to its essential character. As
body and soul have become believing and done good, so shall
both become participants in immortality (Just. Frag. de resur. 9,
10. Athenag. de resur. 15, 25, 21, cf. Theoph. ii. 13f. Tat. 13.
Tert. Ap. 48). As Christ promises immortality also to the body,
he excels the philosophical representations upon the subject of
the future life (Just. ib. 10).
(a) There was a wavering of opinion upon the
question whether the soul is essentially immortal

(Theoph. ii. 19 fin.).
109
Page 276 of 524
(b) Justin (Dial. 6) and Tat. (13) deny this, and
Theoph. (ii. 24, 27) writes: "He made it, therefore,

neither immortal nor mortal, but . . . capable of
both."
(2) The prophets foretold a first and a second coming
() of Christ (Just. Ap. i. 52. Dial. 40, 49, 110f.). Christ
will return again in glory and as judge; the world will perish in
fire; and after the resurrection, both the righteous and the wicked
shall receive their just reward (Just. Ap. i. 20, 52; ii. 7). For
entire orthodoxy (and if any are in all respects right-thinking
Christians) Justin thinks necessary also an acknowledgment of
the millennial kingdom in the restored, adorned, and enlarged
Jerusalem (Dial. 81f.; also Ap. i. 11).
(3) The Apologists are of importance to us from a double point
of view. In the first place, they make it evident that the general
conception of Christianity in their day labored under the same
defects and limitations as in the generation immediately
preceding them (the work of Christ; moralism). In the second
place, we discover here the beginnings of theology in the church.
In order to bring the Christian religion within the comprehension
of the cultivated in heathen lands, it was forced into a foreign
framework (the religion of reason) and remolded after foreign
patterns. The prominent ideas thus employed were the abstract
(Platonic) conception of God, the attempt to make the divinity of
Christ comprehensible by utilizing the (Stoic) conception of the
Logos, and the theory that mans fallen state consisted
essentially in his ignorance and subjection to death, and
redemption in instruction and the granting of immortality
(). It is upon these attempts that the significance of the
Apologists for the History of Doctrines rests. That back of their
formulations lay a richer fund of religious belief, of which we
find only hints in the formal theological statements, has been
already emphasized.
110
Page 277 of 524
IV.
The Heretical and Anti-Heretical Literature of the Second

Century
A. Introduction
1. The Church in the second century had not only to maintain her
right to exist against the pagans; she had also to defend her faith
against the heretics. Side by side with the Apologists, therefore,
she numbered many controversialists and doctors. Before speaking
of their works, a word should be said of the principal authors and
writings they had to confute. We shall complete the study with a
passing notice of the Apocryphal Writings, especially the New
Testament Apocrypha, a great number of which, as we shall see,
are of heretical origin.
2. In many cases we shall have to content ourselves with merely
indicating the titles of the writings, both for the sake of brevity and
because many of these works are known only by their names. With
the exception of a few books, the heretical literature of the second
century has perished, because the Church waged war against it
and also because such uninteresting works were naturally
neglected. Once the sects died out, their literary productions
passed quickly into oblivion.
3. Three great heterodox movements assailed the Church or
developed in her bosom during the second century: JudeoChristianity, Gnosticism, and Montanism. We shall devote a few
pages to each.
B. Judeo-Christian Literature
1. Introduction
a) Judeo-Christianity, known also, in its strictest and
frankly heretical form, as Ebionitism, sprang from an
excessive attachment of certain Jewish Christians to the
ceremonies and prescriptions of the Mosaic Law.
b) These Christians looked upon certain observances
that the Gospel had annulled as indispensable for
salvation and regarded Jesus as a human Messias, such
as the Jews were expecting.
111
Page 278 of 524
c) Their principal center was at Pella, beyond the

Jordan, and in the surrounding country. They formed
various sects: the Ebionites, the Essenians, and the
Elkesaites.
2. Sources
a) Justin. Dialogus c. Tryphone, c. 47.
b) Iren. adv. haereses i. 26:2.
c) Origenes contra Celsum 2:1, 3; v. 71.
d) Hippolyt. Refut. vii. 34.
e) Epiphan. Panarion haer. 29, 30.
f) Euseb. hist, eccl., iii. 27.
g) Jerome, esp. Ep. 112 (or 89) and occasionally.
3. Jewish Christians
a) First, Justin speaks of Jewish Christians who require
of all believers a strict observance of the law, as well as
of others who, while observing it strictly themselves, do
not demand this of all Christians. He himself does not
maintain that the latter class are excluded from
salvation, but he knows that some Christians so believe
(Dial. 47).
b) Jerome still knows of these as a heresy widely
spread throughout all the synagogues of the Jews in the
East, called Nazarenes, who believe Christ to be the Son
of God, born of the Virgin Mary, and say that it was he
who suffered under Pontius Pilate and arose from the
dead, and in whom we also believe. But his opinion of
them is: While they wish to be both Jews and
Christians, they are neither Jews nor Christians (Ep.
112:13 [or 89]. Cf. Epiph. h. 29:79). It appears thus that
for centuries a Jewish Christianity maintained itself in
the East, whose confessors agreed in faith with the
catholic Church, used only a Hebrew Gospel,
acknowledged Paul and his work, but in their practice
remained faithful to their national law, without
demanding an observance of the latter by all Christians.
112
Page 279 of 524
They were really Jewish Christians, whereas the two

following groups were only Christian Jews.
c) Eusebius (H. E. iii. 27:3) says of these Christians,
whom he discriminates sharply from the "Ebionites,"
that they held indeed to the birth of Christ from the
Virgin, but did not acknowledge the pre-existence of the
Logos: And these likewise do not acknowledge that he
pre-existed, being God, Logos, and Wisdom," etc. Cf.
Orig. in Matth. tom. 16:12 Delarue iii. 733. Origen
testifies that the Jews know nothing of the identification
of the Logos with the Son of God (Celsum ii. 31).
d) Justin speaks of Jewish Christians who require of all
believers a strict observance of the law, as well as of
others who, while observing it strictly themselves, do
not demand this of all Christians. He himself does not
maintain that the latter class are excluded from
salvation, but he knows that some Christians so believe
(Dial. 47). Jerome still knows of these as a heresy
widely spread throughout all the synagogues of the
Jews in the East, called Nazarenes, who believe Christ
to be the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary, and say
that it was he who suffered under Pontius Pilate and
arose from the dead, and in whom we also believe. But
his opinion of them is: While they wish to be both Jews
and Christians, they are neither Jews nor Christians
(Ep. 112:13 [or 89]. Cf. Epiph. h. 29:79). It appears thus
that for centuries a Jewish Christianity maintained itself
in the East, whose confessors agreed in faith with the
catholic Church, used only a Hebrew Gospel,
acknowledged Paul and his work, but in their practice
remained faithful to their national law, without
demanding an observance of the latter by all Christians.
They were really Jewish Christians, whereas the two
following groups were only Christian Jews.
e) Eusebius (H. E. iii. 27:3) says of these Christians,
whom he discriminates sharply from the "Ebionites,"
that they held indeed to the birth of Christ from the
Virgin, but did not acknowledge the pre-existence of the
Logos: And these likewise do not acknowledge that he
pre-existed, being God, Logos, and Wisdom," etc. Cf.
Orig. in Matth. tom. 16:12 Delarue iii. 733. Origen
testifies that the Jews know nothing of the identification
of the Logos with the Son of God (Celsum ii. 31).
113
Page 280 of 524
4. Judaized Christians
a) They are Christian Pharisees. They held to
circumcision and the law, demanding the practice of
these by all Christians (Just. Dial. 47). They rejected
Paul as an apostate from the law (apostata legis) and
used only a recension of Matthews Gospel, the Ebionite
Gospel of the Hebrews (Iren. adv. haer. i. 26:2).
b) Besides this, the divinity of Christ and his birth from
the Virgin were denied (Iren. iii. 21:1; v. 3). This is not to
be understood as indicating a conservative tendency,
but as a concession to Judaism.
c) Origen classifies the two kinds of Ebionites
according to their attitude toward the birth of Christ (c.
Celsus, v. 61). The son of Joseph and Mary was through
his baptism endued with the Spirit of God. He then
assumed the prophetic office, and through his piety
became the Son of God (Epiph. h. 30:14, 18). In this path
we should strive to follow after Christ, confessing that
we are justified according to the law (Hippol.). With this
are combined the crass conceptions of the millennium,
derived, it is claimed, from the prophets of the Old
Testament (Iren. i. 26:2. Jerome, on Isa. 1:18, chap.
66:20).
5. Theosophic Judaism-- Elkesai
a) As it has not been found possible always to draw the
line accurately between the first and second groups, a
similar difficulty is met in contrasting the second and
third groups, the latter of which presents a type of
Jewish Christianity marked by theosophic speculations
and strict asceticism. The existence of this class is
implied in the Epistle to the Collosians (cf. the
Alexandrian Judaism and the Essenes). This tendency
appears to have received a strong impulse during the
reign of Trajan at the beginning of the second century
through a man named (according to
Wellhausen, a man Alexius, Skizzen iii. p. 206, note, or
hidden power, Epiph.
haer. 19:2. Hippol. Ref. ix. 16, p. 468. Epiph., h. 30:17,
applies the same name to the book itself).
114
Page 281 of 524
b) An angel of terrible dimensions (Christ),

accompanied by a female angel (the Holy Ghost), is said
to have handed to Elkesai, in the land of the Seri, a book
with new revelations. In this was enjoined a second
baptism in the name of the Most High God and his Son,
the great king, for the forgiveness (
) of all sins, even the greatest (adultery), and
for the healing of wounds from the bite of mad dogs,
and of severe diseases (in their clothing into the water
with appeal to the heavens, the water, holy spirits, the
angels of prayer, the olive tree, the salt, and the earth,
accompanied with the promise to forsake evil).
c) The doctrine to be accepted, and which must be kept
secret, related to the observance of the law and the
reception of circumcision. Christ was not born of the
Virgin, but as other men. He had often appeared (an
angel) at earlier periods. Paul was rejected, as were
bloody sacrifices. The eucharist was celebrated with
water (cf. Epiph. h. 30:16; 19:3). To this were added
various astrological superstitions. In general, we must
conclude that this Jewish-Christian movement is an
attempt to aid Jewish Christianity to attain the
ascendency by adapting it to the syncretistic tendency
of the age. The whole movement falls, then, into a close
parallel to Gnosticism. It is Gnosticism in the sphere of
Jewish Christianity. (See Orig. in Euseb. h. e., 6:38.
Epiph. h. 19, cf. 53:1; 30:17.)
6. Writings
a) Among the Ebionite writings we must mention first
those of Symmachus. He is known for his translation of
the Old Testament into Greek (c. 161-211), but
composed also commentaries on an adulterated gospel
of Matthew [Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., VI, 17; Jerome, Vir.
Ill., 54]; the so-called Journeys of Peter (Periodoi
Petrou); interpolated Acts of the Apostles in use among
the members of the sect, which included the Ascents of
James (oi anabaqmoi 'Iakwbou); and, most important of
all, the Clementine Romances, which have been
preserved.
b) These writings have been collected under the name
of Clementine Literature, because Clement of Rome
115
Page 282 of 524
plays an important part in them and is even supposed to

be their author. They comprise the Greek Homilies and
the Recognitions.[3]
c) The Homilies are twenty in number; they are prefaced
by a letter of Peter to James, an attestation (diamarturia)
of James and his priests, and a letter of Clement to
James, in which he informs him that he is sending a
summary of Peter's discourses. The twenty Homilies
follow. They are a mixture of more or less fantastic
stories and theological controversies. Clement tells the
story of his own conversion and of his travels with Peter
in the persecution of Simon Magus. The primary
purpose of the work, however, is to give an exposition
of the pretended doctrinal teaching of Peter. This
doctrine is, of course, Ebionite: Christian revelation is
simply a restoration of Mosaic revelation, which, in turn,
is a restoration of primitive revelation.
d) The subject matter of the Recognitions is about the

same as that of the Homilies. We possess them only in a
rather inaccurate Latin translation by Rufinus. The
peculiar title of "Recognitions" is given to the work
because, according to the fictitious accounts which, in
both books, form the framework of the doctrinal
discussions, Clement recovers in the course of his
journeys his father, mother, and two brothers, whom he
had lost.
e) According to Waitz and Harnack, the Homilies and
the Recognitions are two independent recensions of an
anterior work which bore, perhaps, the title of Clement's
Epitome of the Sermons made by Peter (KlhmentoV twn
Petrou epidhmewn khrugmatwn epitomh) or Journeys of
Peter [written] by Clement (Periodoi Petrou dia
KlhmentoV; v. supra). This work is regarded as the
synthesis of two others still more ancient,the
Sermons of Peter (Khrugmata Petrou), clearly EbioniteGnostic, and the Acts of Peter (PraxeiV Petrou), antiGnostic. The Homilies and the Recognitions, and the
writings of which they are summaries, are said to be the
work of orthodox authors, whose primary purpose was
to write an edifying apology, but who did not take
sufficient care to eliminate the Judeo-Christian
characteristics contained in the Khrugmata. Harnack
thinks that the Homilies and the Recognitions received
116
Page 283 of 524
their present form in the fourth century at Rome, or in

Syria, the book of which they are recensions having
been composed between 225 and 300 at Rome, and the
two primitive works c. 200.
f) A work entitled The Book of Elkesai (Elxai), brought
to Rome c. 220-230 by a certain Alcibiades [
Philosophoumena, ix, 13 ff.], was attributed to Elkesai
(Elxai), the (problematical) founder of the sect of the
Elkesaites.
g) Epiphanius [Haer., xix, 1; liii, 1] mentions a book of
Jexai, brother of Elkesai, which was also in use in the
sect.
C. Gnosticism
1. Introduction
a) The generic name of Gnostics comprised a number
of sects the doctrines and tendencies of which were
often at great variance, but all of which claimed to be in
possession of a superior religious science and a far
more penetrating insight into Christian revelation than
that of the simple faithful and the official Church. Two
important questions above all others attracted the
attention of these sects: the origin of evil and the
manner in which the redemption was effected. Each sect
discussed these problems and each endeavored to
solve the mystery.
b) Gnostic literature was very extensive. Since the
Gnostics generally professed that men have to work out
their salvation by means of science (gnosis), they were
naturally led to write out for the use of their adepts a
good part of their teachings and secret traditions. Very
little, however, remains of all this literature, at the
most five or six complete works and a number of
fragments inserted in the writings of the historians of
heresies. In the following sketch we can mention only
the principal works.
c) We will follow the order commonly adopted in
speaking of the Gnostic sects: Syrian Gnosis,
Alexandrine Gnosis, Marcionism and Encratism. This
classification is merely provisional and questionable in
117
Page 284 of 524
some details; but for want of a better one it may be

accepted.
2. Syrian Gnosis
a) It is a well-known fact that ancient authors are agreed
in recognizing Simon Magus as the father of
Gnosticism. Hippolytus gives us quotations from, as
well as an analysis of, a Revelation, the book used by
the Simonians.[Philosoph., vi, 7-20]
b) We do not know whether Cerinthus, Menander, or
Satornilus wrote anything.
c) The Nicolaites possessed some Books of Ialdabaoth,
a book entitled Noria, a Prophecy of Barkabbas, a
Gospel of Perfection (or consummation) and a Gospel of
Eve, which seems to have been an
apocalypse.[Philastrius, Haer., 33; Epiphanius, Haer.,
xxv-xxvi.]
3. Alexandrine Gnosis
a) This Gnosis is represented first by three great
leaders Basilides, Valentine and Carpocratesand
secondly by a multitude of more or less definite sects
without leaders, who have received the generic name of
Ophites.
b) Basilides taught at Alexandria, between 120 and 140,
a doctrine which, according to his followers, he received
from a certain Glaukias, interpreter of Peter. He had a
son named Isidorus, who kept up the teaching after his
father's death. Basilides wrote a Gospel, 23 or 24 books
of Commentaries on it, a few quotations of which still
remain, and some Odes, mentioned by Origen and the
Muratorian Fragment. His son, Isidorus, left three works:
On the Second, i.e., the soul of man under the influence
of the passions; Ethica, and an Exposition of the
Prophet Parchor in at least two books.
(1) The Valentinians were the most considerable and the best
known of all the Gnostic sects. Valentine himself was an
Egyptian and pretended to have studied under a certain Theodas,
a personal disciple of Paul. He preached his doctrine first in
Egypt, came to Rome under Hyginus, and resided there until the
118
Page 285 of 524
advent of Anicetus, about 135-160. He was driven out of the

Church several times and at length retired to the Isle of Cyprus.
(2) Tertullian praises the wisdom and eloquence of Valentine.
Early writers are acquainted with his Letters, Homilies, and
Psalms, but he does not seem to have written the Gospel of Truth
which, according to Irenaeus (iii, 11, 9), was in use among the
members of his sect.
(3) This sect spread throughout the Roman Empire and soon
divided into two branches, known respectively as the Western or
Italian branch, which declared that the body of the Savior was of
a psychic nature, and the Eastern branch, which maintained that
it was pneumatic.
c) Western Branch
(1) Heracleon belonged to the Western branch and was the
ablest of Valentine's disciples. He wrote between 155 and 180.
We have more than forty fragments, some of them lengthy, of
his commentary on John. The commentary itself probably went
no further than the tenth chapter. As a rule his exegesis is
allegorical.
(2) Ptolemy was another personal disciple of Valentinus, He has
left us a Letter to Flora, the complete text of which was
preserved by Epiphanius[ Haer., xxxiii, 3-7]. Flora was a
Christian lady, who hesitated to undertake the studies or gnosis
imposed by the Gnostics. To convince her, Ptolemy undertakes
to prove that at least part of the Old Law was the work, not of the
Supreme God, but of the Demiurge.
(3) After these two great representatives of Western
Valentinianism, we must name: Florinus, to whom Irenaeus
addressed a letter reproaching him with his blasphemous
writings; Theotimus, who wrote on the figures of the Old
Testament, and Alexander, author of a book alluded to by
Tertullian [De Carne Christi, 16, 17], which may have been
entitled Syllogisms.
d) Eastern Branch
(1) The principal writers of the Eastern branch of the
Valentinians are Marcus, Theodotus, and Bardesanes.
(2) Marcus, whom some authors assign to the Western branch,
taught in Asia Minor, c. 180. He is known to us principally
through Irenaeus, who very probably possessed one of his works
and also some of the numerous works of his sect.
119
Page 286 of 524
(3) Of Theodotus we know nothing, but Clement of Alexandria

had at least one of his writings, since he gives a series of extracts
from it in his Excerpta ex Scriptis Theodoti.
(4) Bardesanes
(a) Bardesanes is generally counted among the
Valentinians, and indeed Eusebius [H. E., iv, 30] affirms
that, before he became an orthodox Christian, he was
more or less infected by Valentinianism. It is infinitely
more probable, however, that the qualification of
Gnostic is less applicable to the master than to his
disciples, who distorted his teachings. Bardesanes
devoted himself especially to the exact sciences and to
astrology. He was born of noble parents at Edessa, July
11, 154, and in his youth was the companion of the
future toparch of Edessa, Abgar IX (179-214). After the
conquest of Edessa by Caracalla, 216-217, he was
forced to withdraw into Armenia, but returned to his
native town and died there in 222 or 223.
(b) Ephraem relates that Bardesanes composed 150
Psalms as well as melodies for them; this would make
him the most ancient of Syriac hymnologists. It is
possible that a few fragments of these songs may yet be
found in the Syriac Acts of Thomas. Different authors,
among them Eusebius [ H. E., iv, 30, attribute to him a
few dialogues written against the Marcionists and other
heretics. His most popular work is that On Fate (Peri
eimarmenhV), which has been found in Syriac, bearing
the title of Book of the Laws of the Countries The work is
written in dialogue form, and Bardesanes has been
considered its author because he is the chief
interlocutor. In reality, however, it is written by one of
his disciples, named Philip. Bardesanes makes a study of
the laws and customs of various countries and proves,
against a certain Avida, that human liberty is in no way
affected by the stars.
(c) Harmonius, the son of Bardesanes, wrote many
works in Syriac. His Odes are mentioned, and Sozomen
[H. E., iii, 16] says that he was the true author of the
150 Psalms mentioned above.
(5) Carpocrates was the third leader of the Alexandrine
Gnostics. He was a contemporary of Valentine and Basilides.
We do not know if he wrote at all. His son, Epiphanes, who died
when only seventeen years of age, has left us a treatise On
Justice, cited by Clement of Alexandria [Strom., III, 2]. He is an
120
Page 287 of 524
advocate of out-and-out communism. Irenaeus mentions in globo

several Carpocratian writings (I, 25, 4, 5).
(6) Under the Alexandrine Gnosis must also be ranged the many
subsidiary sects derived from it and designated under the general
name of Ophites, or "Brethren of the Serpent." The Ophites were
the first to take the name of Gnostics. The name Ophites was
used in connection with the part generally played in their system
by the serpent in the garden of Eden. These sects branched out
very widely and produced many writings. Apocrypha of the New
Testament (to be mentioned later) abounded among them.
Among their other productions we may mention: Great and
Small Questions of Mary, Hymns and Naasinian Psalms, a
Paraphrase of Seth, some books attributed to the children of
Seth, entitled Strangers ('AllogeneiV), a Symphony, an
Apocalypse of Abraham, and an Assumption of Isaias. The
Gnostic Justin, mentioned in the Philosophoumena, cites, among
others, a work entitled Baruch [Philos., V, 24]. Moniumus left us
a Letter to Theophrastes [ Ibid., viii, 15].
e) Ophitic Literature
(1) Several other Gnostic writings, preserved entirely or almost
entirely in Coptic, belong to the Ophitic literature. These are the
Pistis Sophia and the writings contained in the Bruce papyrus.
(2) The work entitled Pistis Sophia, in four books, contains three
distinct writings. The first of these, which alone deserves the title
of "Pistis Sophia," comprises paragraphs 1-181, and relates the
fall and deliverance of the eon bearing that name. The second,
which probably ought to be identified with the Little Questions
of Mary (Mary Magdalen), commences with paragraph ii, and
ends with Book III. It discusses the salvation and fate after death
of the different categories of men. The third, embodied in Book
IV, describes the faults and wickedness of the Archontici, the
celebration of the mystery of water, and, finally, the punishment
of the wicked.
(3) The Bruce codex (Vth-VIth century) contains two distinct
writings. The first, in two books, is identical with the Two Books
of Jeu cited in the Pistis Sophia. One of these explains the
emanation of the eons, describes the invisible world, and
furnishes the reader with the necessary pass-words to reach the
Father. The other initiates us into the three baptisms of water,
fire, and spirit, and gives other formulas analogous to the
passwords in order to overcome the evil spirits. This treatise is
followed immediately by a second, considerably mutilated in the
beginning, which seems to be a description of the origin of the
suprasensible world and the visible cosmos.
121
Page 288 of 524
(4) All these Coptic writings are translated from the Greek and
date from the third century. From the point of view of antiquity
they rank as follows: the second treatise in the Bruce papyrus
comes first, then the books of Jeu and the fourth book of the
Pistis Sophia and, finally, the first three books of this work.
f) General Teaching
(1) Without entering into the details of the various systems,
we must examine somewhat more closely their chief
features.
(2) The world of spirit and that of matter stand dualistically
opposed to each other, as above and below, as good and
bad.
(3) From the spirit-world (profundity, , the selffather, , pleroma, ), which is
internally agitated by the aeons (, sensations and
emotionsmovements of the primal spirit, or even
personal entities, substanti, Tert. adv. Val. 4. Iren. ii.
13:10; 28:4), the present world appeared by emanation or
evolution.
(4) The creator of this world was not the supreme God, but
a subordinate being, the Demiurge, or God of the Jews
(e.g., Ep. Ptol. ad. Flor.: And this Demiurge is hence also
the creator of the whole world, being different from those
other beings [the supreme God and the devil], occupying
properly a place between them), or even an angel.
(5) In the world of matter there exists a remnant from the
spirit-world, and the deliverance of this remnant is the aim
of the soteriological process. According to the proportion
of spirit in the matter in their composition, men are spiritual
(), psychical (), and carnal
() (e.g., Iren. i. 7:5. Tert. adv. Val. 29). This
classification may be used to characterize Christianity,
Judaism, and Heathenism.
(6) Sensuousness constitutes (in true heathen fashion) the
evil in men. The spirit is imprisoned in the body: It
explains the conflict in the body, that its structure
() is composed of warring elements (Hippol. Ref.
v. 8, p. 154. Cf. the hymn of the Naasenes, ib. c. 10, p. 176:
122
Page 289 of 524
From thy breath it wanders awayit seeks to flee from

the black chaosand does not know how to pass through,
etc.). Demons of many kinds have their abode in the soul of
man, and injure and defile it as travelers an inn (Valent. in
Clem. Al. Str. ii. 20:114). From this results the universality
of sin, and the fact that it is so natural to man (Basilid. in
Clem. Al. Str. iv. 12:83, in Hilgenfeld, p. 208. Iren. iv.
27:2).
(7) Redemption originates in the world of spirit. The
Redeemer is Jesus Christ. There are many and greatly
variant delineations of his person. He is a celestial aeon,
which inhabits a body, practices self-restraint, and thus
comes to be of the same nature as the latter: For we say of
that which is seen, and of that which is unseen, that they are
one nature (Valent. in Clem. Al. Str. iii. 7:59, and in
Photius Bibl. cod. 230. Vid. Hilgenf. 297, 302). Or he is an
aeon which assumed a body formed of a psychic substance:
being impassible, he did not suffer, but only his psychic
body,thus the school of Valentine (Iren. i. 6:1; 7:2.
Otherwise, Tertul. adv. Val. 39:1). Or the man Jesus,
bearing the image of God, and by a special dispensation
born through Mary, is chosen by God; with him at his
baptism the aeon Christ, also called Man or Son of
man, unites himself,thus Marcion in Iren. i. 15:3. Cf.
Cerinthus in Iren. i. 26:1. Carpocrates, Iren. i. 25:1, 2. Ps.Tert. adv. omn. h. 15.Satornil (He held that the unbegotten Saviour was both incorporeal and invisible, but he
thought that he appeared a man, Iren. i. 24:2) and
Basilides (That Christ came in phantasm, was without
substance of flesh, did not suffer at the hands of the Jews,
but instead of him Simon was crucified; whence we are not
to believe in him who was crucified, Ps.-Tert. 4. Cf. Iren.
i. 24:4. Philaster 32, etc.) agree in discriminating sharply
between the historical Jesus and the celestial Christ, either
considering the celestial aeon as dwelling in an apparent
body, or regarding the man Jesus as led and prompted by
the aeon.
(8) In regard to the object of Christs coming, it is to be
said: For the Father of all wished to dispel ignorance and
destroy death. But the recognition of himself became the
dispelling of ignorance (Iren. i. 15:2, Marcion). In the
hymn of the Naasenes, Christ says to the Father: Having
the seals I shall affirm: I travel through all ages. I shall
unfold all mysteriesI shall show the forms of the gods
123
Page 290 of 524
the hidden things of the holy wayI shall summon wisdom

() and teach (Hipp. Ref. v. 10. Cf. also Pist.-Soph.,
p. 1f. 182, 232: Verily I say unto you, that ye shall know
how the world, , was formed, vid. the
enumeration, p. 206ff.). The gospel is the knowledge of
supermundane things ( , Hipp.
Ref. vii. 27, p. 376). At the beginning of the Je-books, p.
142, it is said: This is the book of the knowledges of the
invisible God by means of the hidden mysteries which lead
to the elect generation. This is the doctrine in which the
entire sum of knowledge dwells. Christ thus brings
knowledge to the world, and thereby the spiritual elements
are strengthened to release themselves from matter. The
self-consciousness of the human spirit begins, and it now
recognizes the means of grace and sacred formulas which
aid it to rise from this world into that above.
(9) Redemption has to do chiefly with the pneumatic.
They teach that these are not only by practice, but by
nature pneumatic, and will everywhere and absolutely be
saved (Iren. i. 6:2. Cf. Cl. Al. Str. v. 1:3). The only good
Father himself looks upon the heart of man in Christ, and
it is illuminated and blessed in the vision of God. The man
now lives bound to the Saviour in mutual fellowship, and
has become in himself immortal (Val. in Cl. Al. Str. ii.
20:114; v. 6:52; iv. 13:91 in Hilgenfeld, pp. 296, 301, 298).
The knowledge () of the great Unutterable is
redemption, but it has to do only with the spirit, and not
with the soul or body (Iren. i. 21:4; 7:5). Thus the spirit by
knowledge becomes free from the oppression of the
sensuous and mounts to God. The psychic, i.e., ordinary
Christians in the church, may be saved through faith and
works, but the hylic will all be lost (Iren. i. 6:2). In practical
life the Gnostics regarded all their actual adherents as
pneumatic (cf. Iren. i. 6:1 fin.; iii. 15:2. Hipp. Ref. v. 9, p.
174).
(10)
The moral philosophy accompanying these views of
redemption was dominated by the false estimate of
sensuousness, and assumed a double form (Iren. iii. 15:2), either
a strict ascetic abstinence (Iren. i. 24:2. Hipp. Ref. v. 9, p. 170.
Pist.-Soph., pp. 250, 254f.), or a lax carnality, confident that
nothing could harm these favored ones, with scornful criticism of
the strict morality of the church, as, for example, on the subject
of martyrdom (Iren. i. 6:2, 3; 25:3; 28:2; 31:2. Cl. Al. Str. iv.
124
Page 291 of 524
9:73. Agrippa Cast., in Eus. h. e. iv. 7:7. Isadore, in Cl. Al. Str.
iii. 1:1, assails the theatric ascetics. Cf. also Plot. ii. 9:15).
(11)
In keeping with the whole trend of the system of
Gnosticism, there is found in it no recognition of the resurrection
of the dead, nor of the early Christian eschatology as a whole.
The return of the spirit freed from matter to the pleroma marks
the end (cf. Iren. i. 7:1, 5. Tert. c. Val. 32).
4. Marcionism
a) Sources
(1) Iren. i. 27:24; iii. 12:12, fin.
(2) Celsus, in Orig. c. Cels. vi. 7453.
(3) Tert. adv. Marc. 11:5.
(4) Ps.-Tert. 17.
(5) Philast. h. 44, 45.
(6) Epiph. h. 41, 42.
(7) Hippol. Ref. vii. 2931.
(8) Adamantius, Dial, de orth. fid. i., ii.
b) Biography
(1) Marcion was born at Sinope in Pontus, apparently driven
from his home church in Sinope on account of adultery (Ter. iv.
4).
(2) About 135-140, he came to Rome and was received into the
Church. He soon left the Roman communion, however, and
founded a sect, which spread and became strong, and was
destined to last for many years. His death occurred, at the latest,
in the year 170.
c) Teaching
(1) Marcion's system is based upon the opposition between the
Law, the work of a just God, and the Gospel, the work of a good
God. In support of his doctrine he published a work known as
Antitheses, a collection of sentences from the Old and New
125
Page 292 of 524
Testaments, which seem to be complete antinomies. He also

gave his disciples a New Testament which he himself had
composed. This comprised the Gospel of Luke, abbreviated and
adulterated, and ten epistles of Paul. Tertullian attributes to him a
letter in which he tries to justify his apostacy.
(2) One question burns within him, i.e., how can the new wine
be poured into the old bottles? or, to put it in another form, the
conviction that no good tree can bring forth evil fruit, nor evil
tree good fruit (Matt. 9:16f.; 7:18). The replies of the elders to
his inquiries did not satisfy him. His eyes were opened as he read
the Epistle to the Galatians (Tert. iv. 3; i. 20). He there finds Paul
opposed by the Judaistic teachers, who corrupt the gospel
through the law, among whom are to be numbered the other
apostles. In this way is the preaching of the gospel corrupted, the
latter being commingled with the law (Iren. iii. 2:2). The
separation of the law and the gospel is the peculiar and principal
work of Marcion (Tert. i. 19; iv. 1, 6). The Old Testament and
the New, the law and the gospel, he held, are absolutely distinct
the one from the other. Perhaps he already felt the bold contrast
between the natural life and the kingdom of grace. His doctrinal
views assumed their final form when he learned of the Gnostic
teachings from the Syrian Gnostic CERDO (Iren. iv. 27:1, 2.
Tert. i. 2; iv. 17). His theory of opposite could be best explained
upon the supposition of a double God. The one God is imperfect,
full of wrath, a wild and warlike sovereign, subject to error,
mistakes, and regrets (Tert. 1:6; 2:2026. Adam. i. 11). This is
the creator of the world. Of grace he knows nothing; he rules
with rigor and justice only. All the misery of human existence
results from the character of this God (e.g., Tert. iii. 11, Cl. Al.
Str. iv. 7, p. 584). The Old Testament comes from him: the
Messiah whom it foretells has not yet come, since the prophecies
do not agree with the record of Christs life. (He was not called
Immanuel, and did not rule in Samaria and Damascus, Tert. iii.
1223), and since he speaks against the law of the God of the
Jews, and died on the cross which the latter had cursed
(Adamant, i. 10ff.; ii. 10:15ff.). Over against this creator is the
other God, who is good and merciful (Tert. i. 6:26, etc.). He was
the unknown God until the 15th year of Tiberius, when Tie
revealed himself in Christ (Iren. i. 27:2. Tert. iii. 3; iv. 6; i. 19).
(3) Christ is frequently called the Saving Spirit (sp. salutaris,
Tert. i. 19). He is the manifestation of God himself. As to his
relation to God, there are no plain deliverances. He is commonly
spoken of as the good God himself (Tert. i. 11:14; ii. 27; iii. 9;
iv. 7). He did not defile himself with the body of the demiurge,
butmerely in order to make himself intelligible assumed an
apparent body (Tert. iii. 8:11). Thus his work was a conflict with
the ancient God. Because he revealed the good God, and
abrogated the law and all the works of the demiurge (Iren. i.
126
Page 293 of 524
27:2. Tert. iv. 2527; i. 8:19. Epiph. h. 42:4), the latter secured
his execution on the cross. Christ thereupon went into the nether
world and there liberated the Gentiles, even the Sodomites and
Egyptians, but not the pious of the Old Testament (Iren. i. 27:3).
Paul has faithfully preserved the truth. It is to be received in faith
(cf. Apelles in Eus. h. e. v. 13:5, 7. Adam. ii. 6: he changed
them through faith, that, believing in him, they might become
good). Thus one attains the forgiveness of sins and becomes a
child of God (Adam. ii. 2:19). An earnest spirit prevailed among
the adherents of Marcion, and the strictest asceticism was
advocated, particularly celibacy (Tert. i. 29. Cl. Al. Str. iii. 3, p.
515). But the majority of men will finally be lost (Tert. i. 24),
i.e., they will be consigned to the fire of the demiurge (Tert.
1:28). The good God does not punish; but he does not desire to
have the wicked. This is his judgment (Tert. i. 27, cf. Adam ii.
4f.). The bodily resurrection is denied (Iren i. 27:3. Tert. i. 29).
(4) Such was the teaching of Marcion. The contrasts of law and
gospel, Judaism and Christianity, nature and grace, the just and
the good God, dominate all his utterances. He has presented this
distinctly in his Antithesen (Tert. i. 19; iv. 6:9). His
understanding of the Epistle to the Galatians led him to the idea
that the apostolic writings in use in the church were partly
interpolated and partly spurious. Inasmuch as he held firmly to
the literal interpretation of Scripture, the only remedy lay in
criticism of the texts of the accepted books. This led to the
publication of Marcions New Testament, which, besides a
revised Gospel of Luke, contained ten similarly emended Pauline
Epistles (Iren. i. 27:2. Tert. iv. 2, 3, 5; v.). This undertaking is an
evidence of the high place which the New Testament writings
held at that time in the regard of the church.
(5) Marcion was a practical genius. After leaving the church, he
began to work. He proposed to reform the church and restore the
pure gospel. For they say that Marcion did not so much change
the rule [of faith] by the separation of the law and the gospel, as
restore it again to an unadulterated form (Tert. i. 20). He
established congregations (Tert. iv. 5, etc.), and as early as A. D.
150 his doctrine was spread through the whole race of men
(Just. Apol. i. 26). In the sixth century, Marcionite congregations
still existed in the East, their doctrinal views having been
modified by either Gnostic or catholic influences.
(6) The sufferings of Christ redeem men from the power of the
demiurge. The Hyle as third principle, Adam. i. 27. Esnik, cf.
Adam. i. 3. Cl. Al. Str. iii. 3, p. 515). The Marcionite controversy
led the church to the clearer apprehension of two thoughts: that
the Creator and the Redeemer are the same God, and that in God
justice and mercy are combined.
127
Page 294 of 524
d) Texts
(1) The best known of Marcion's disciples is Apelles. He lived
for a time with his master in Rome, but afterwards left him to
settle in Alexandria. There he modified to a certain extent the
doctrine of Marcion, but returned to Rome, where he died shortly
after A. D. 180. He wrote a work entitled Syllogisms, cited by
Ambrose [De Paradiso, 28, probably according to Origen]. This
is a very lengthy book, in which the author attempts to prove that
the Books of Moses contain nothing but lies. Another work of
his is the Revelations (fanerwseiV), which describes the
pretended revelations of a certain female visionary of the sect,
named Philumena.
(2) The Marcionites made use of a special collection of Psalms,
distinct from those of David, and also of a work bearing the
obscure title of Liber Propositi Finis, destined to supplant the
Acts of the Apostles.
5. Encratism
a) The Encratites do not seem to have formed a distinct
sect. They were found nearly everywhere and marked by
their tendency to reject as sinful both matrimony and
the use of meat. The Valentinian dissenter, Julius
Cassianus, was one of their greatest writers. He
flourished at Antioch or Alexandria c. 170. Clement of
Alexandria [Strom., i, 21; iii, 13] cites two of his works:
"Commentaries, in several books, and On
Continence, a condemnation of matrimony.
6. Montanistic Literature
a) Sources
(1) The most ancient replies and thus sources have also been
lost, e.g., those, APOLINARIUS, MELITO, APOLLONIUS,
MILTIADES, an ANONYMOUS WRITER from whom
Eusebius gives large excerpts, SERAPION (vid. Eus. h. e. v. 16
19; iv. 26:2). IREN. adv. haer. iii. 11:9. Hippol. Ref. viii. 6:19; x.
25. Ps.-Tert. 21. Philast. h. 49. Epiphan. h. 48, 49
(2) Although Hippolytus [Philosophoumena, viii, 19] speaks of
countless books written by the founders of Montanism, we know
of very few writings belonging to this sect.
(3) The oracular replies of Montanus, Maximilla, Priscilla, and
other prophets were certainly collected [Eusebius, H. E., v, 16,
128
Page 295 of 524
17]. About 19 of these some very doubtful are cited by

different authors.
(4) Tertullian [Adv. Praxean, i] is of the opinion that
Montanistic communities dispatched letters to Rome in order to
obtain recognition. These letters dated very probably from the
commencement of the Montanistic movement, c. 173-180.
Eusebius [H. E., v, 17, 1] mentions a reply to the antiMontanistic work of the apologist Miltiades and [Ibid., v, 18, 5]
a Letter called Catholic, written by a certain Themison. It is also
very probable that Proclus wrote some work or other. He was a
defender of Montanism in Rome under Zephyrinus (198-217),
and Caius argued against him [Ibid., ii, 25, 6; iii, 31, 4].
(5) If we add to these works the Montanistic treatises of

Tertullian, we have a fairly complete summary of the writings of
the sect that are known to us.
b) The Man
(1) In A. D. 156 (Epiph. h. 48:1. According to Eus. Chron.
ed. Schoene ii. 172f., not until January, 172. Cf. h. e. iv. 27
with v. 5:4) Montanus appeared in Phrygia, and there first
found a following. Hence the designation of his teaching as
the Phrygian ( ) heresy.
(2) He and the women, Prisca and Maximilla, announced
themselves as prophets. The style of this prophecy is
indicated by the claim of Montanus: Behold man is as a
lyre, and I play upon him as a plectron. Man is asleep, and I
arouse him. It is the Lord who changes the hearts of men
and gives a heart to men (In Epiph. h. 48:4, cf. 11, 12, 13;
49:1. Anon, in Eus. h. e. v. 16:7, 9, 8). On the basis of the
writings of John, it was held that the last and highest stage
of revelation had been reached. The age of the Paraclete
had come, and he spoke in Montanus. The descent of the
heavenly Jerusalem was near at hand. It would be located at
Pepuza and Tymios (Epiph. h. 49:1. Cf. Apollon. in Eus. v.
18:2). In view of this, Christians should dissolve the bonds
of wedlock, fast strictly, and assemble in Pepuza to await
the descent of the New Jerusalem. Money was gathered for
the support of the preachers of the new doctrine.
(3) Such was probably the original form of Montanism. It
soon spread through Asia Minor, and extended into Thrace,
Rome, and North Africa, where Tertullian accepted its
teachings. The fate of Montanism was that of all
129
Page 296 of 524
eschatological movements. When the end, whose

imminence it had declared, failed to appear, the certainty of
its coming became a mere dogma. The expectation of the
immediate coming of the end was supplanted by a complex
of legal moral precepts. And instead of the Spirit which
was to be imparted to all, men were obliged to content
themselves with the belief that it has been manifested in
certain persons.
c) Theology: Instead of the original enthusiasm, the
movement gained greater fixity in theological form and
may be summarized:
(1) 1. The last period of revelation has opened. It is the day
of spiritual gifts. The recognition (agnitio) of spiritual
charismata is a distinguishing trait of Montanism (Tert.
monog. 1. adv. Prax. 1. Passio Perpetuae 1). This involves
primarily the acknowledgment of the Paraclete. Maximilla
said: After me there will be prophecy no longer, but
fulfillment (Epiph. h. 48:2). But there were visionary
prophecies also at a later day. Prisca had prophesied this
(Tert. de exh. cast. 10), and accordingly such actually
appeared (Tert. de anima 9. Pas. Perp. 1, 14, 21, 4, 7f, 10,
11f.). Thus the possession of the charisms is a badge of
Montanism. It is necessary, say they, that we also receive
the charisms (Epiph. h. 48:1). These ideas were
propagated by collections of Montanistic writings (Hip.
Ref. viii. 19: . Eus. h. e. v. 16:17; 18:5 [the
Catholic Epistle of Themison]. Pas. Perp. 1).
(2) 2. The orthodoxy of the Montanists is acknowledged
their acceptance of the rule of faith (Tert., cf. Epiph. h.
48:1. Philast. h. 49). The Monarchianism in utterances of
Montanus (Did. de tr. iii. 41:1. Epiph. h. 48:11) is due to
lack of theological culture (cf. Tert. adv. Prax. 3. Orig. c.
Cels. viii. 14), but was here and there retained at a later day
(Hip. viii. 19. Ps.-Tert. 21. Theodoret h. f. iii. 2. Did. de tr.
iii. 41:1. Jerome ep. 41:3).
(3) 3. The nearness of the end of the world is strongly
emphasized.
(4) 4. There are strict moral requirements. (a) Marriage to
be but once. (b) Fasting to be strictly observed (Tert. de jej.
1). (c) Strict moral discipline. The Paraclete said: The
church is able to pardon an offense, but I cannot prevent the
130
Page 297 of 524
commission of other offenses (Tert. de pud. 21). There is

no pardon for gross sins (especially fornication) committed
after baptism. Another regulation, however, covers the
faults that daily beset (Tert. de pud. 6, 7, 19). In the West
this conception led to a conflict, as it was maintained that
only the church of the Spirit through a spiritual man, and
not the church as a number of bishops, can forgive sins
(Tert. pud. 21). Only martyrdom can atone for mortal sins
(ib. 9:22). (d) Martyrdom is extraordinarily exalted (Anon,
in Eus. v. 16:20). Flight from persecution (Tert.) is
forbidden. A prophetic warning urges: Do not wish to die
upon couches nor from mild ailments and fevers, but in
martyrdoms, in order that he may be glorified who has
suffered for you (Tert. de fug. 9; de an. 55).
(5) 5. In the later period, the organization of separate
congregations was effected. Pepuza was the central point,
where assemblies were annually held (Jerom. ep. 41:3.
Epiph. h. 49:2).
d) Reaction
(1) The church was placed in a very embarrassing position
(cf. the attitude of the Roman bishop in Tert. adv. Prax. 1).
The Montanists were orthodox and opponents of
Gnosticism. In the days of Irenus, the church still
recognized special charisms (Justin Dial. 39, 82, 87, 88;
Ap. ii. 6. Iren. adv. h. i. 13:4; ii. 31:2; 32:4; v. 6:1. Eus. h.
e. v. 1:49; 3:2, 3, 4. Anon, in Eus. h. e. v. 17:4). But such
manifestations grew less and less frequent: But signs of
the Holy Spirit were shown at the beginning of the teaching
of Jesus, more after his ascension, and afterward fewer:
except that there are yet traces of this in a few whose souls
have been purified by the word and by their lives in
accordance with it (Orig. c. Cels. vii. 8, cf. ii. 8; i. 46; cf.
also Iren. adv. h. iii. 11:9: They [the so-called Alogi] at
the same time reject both the gospel and the prophetic
Spirit). There was also a noticeable relaxation of moral
earnestness and of expectation of an early end of all things
(cf. Tert. Apol. 39: we pray for a delay of the end.
Hip. Com. on Dan. ed. Bratke, p. 18: Tell me if thou
knowest the day of thy departure, that thou mayest be so
much concerned for the consummation of the whole
world. Just., Dial. 80, declares that even many orthodox
Christians take no interest in the millennial kingdom). It is
not difficult, therefore, to understand the favorable
131
Page 298 of 524
reception of the Montanistic prophecy. The Scriptures, they

said, teach that the end is at hand. Charisms are necessary
for the church. Her life on earth is but a pilgrimage, and she
should hence keep her members free from contamination
with the natural secular life of the world. It was thought to
be in full accord with Scripture to hold that with the
prophetism of Montanus the age of the promised Paraclete
had come, and it was felt that through this form of
Christianity the secularized church (adherents of the church
were regarded as psychic, and the Montanists spiritual,
Tert. monog. 1) was being reformed. While Marcion based
his efforts at reform upon the teachings of the greatest
apostle, Montanus made similar appeal to the authority of
the last apostle. But this reformation was a revolution (cf.
the Irvingites), as the church gradually came to understand
very fully.
(2) From the eighth decade of the second century raged the
conflict by which Montanism was driven out of the church.
The confessors of Lyons, A. D. 177, write in condemnation
of it to the Roman bishop (Eus. h. e. v. 3:4. Cf. Voigt, 1. c,
p. 71ff.). The fanaticism involved in the new prophetism
( ), as it was called, is easily seen. An
attempt was made to reclaim Maximilla by exorcism (Eus.
v. 16:16, 17, here a saying of Maximilla). Miltiades
published a book: That it is not necessary for a prophet to
speak in ecstasy (Eus. v. 17:1). The prophets of the Old
and New Testaments, it was said, as those of the later
church, were not in such a state when uttering their
prophecies. The new prophetism was pronounced a pseudoprophetism, inspired by the devil (Anon. in. Eus. v. 16:4, 7,
8; 17:2ff. Apollon., ib. 18:1. Epiph. h. 48:18. Cf. Orig. de
princ. ii. 7:3). It was also felt to be impossible that this
enthusiastic prophetism should usher in a new era of the
world (Eus. v. 16:9. Epiph. h. 48:8, 11, 12. Did. de tr. iii.
41:2). It is quite easy to understand that this opposition
should be carried too far, and that with the false prophetism
the genuine gift of prophecy should be discredited (Iren. iii.
11:9: they are imprudent who deny that pseudoprophetism is anything, but reject prophetic grace from the
church). The Muratori fragment says: I consider the
prophets a finished thing (l.79). And Tertullian writes:
And hence the offices have ceased, as also their benefits;
therefore thou mayest deny that he has continued the
endowments until the present age, because this law and the
prophets were also until John. It remains that ye put away
132
Page 299 of 524
from you whatever in you is so profitless (de jej. 11 fin.).

The church sees herself compelled to surrender one element
of her former experience, the charismata. She in principle
abandons her claim to the Spirit. Tradition triumphs over
the Spirit. It was charged upon the Montanists that their
teachings were unknown to tradition (Eus. h. e. v. 16:7, 9).
The Spirit expressed in the word and historical tradition
triumphs over the Spirit which had become fanaticism.
Synodsthe first known to uswere held in Asia Minor,
and the adherents of the new prophetism excluded from the
church (Anon, in Eus. v. 16:10. Thus also later in Iconium,
Cypr. ep. 75:19). Thus was Montanism expelled from the
church. After the fourth century it began to feel the
pressure of the civil power. With the sixth century it
disappeared.
(3) The church rejected Montanism because she recognized
these reformatory efforts as out of harmony with the principles
of the gospel, her judgment being here entirely correct. She freed
herself from responsibility for the charisms still claimed by a
few, asserted more clearly the authority of biblical revelation (cf.
the peculiar remark of the anonymous writer in Eus. h. e. v.
16:3), and prepared the way for the forms of a compact
organization. The conflict had, therefore, a most important
influence upon the development of the church.
D. The Anti-Gnostic Writers

1. Introduction
a) We have seen that most of the Gnostic writings have
perished. The same is true of the answers which they
called forth. As they were mostly occasional writings,
once the heresy abated, people ceased to read and copy
them, so that many of them disappeared with the danger
which had occasioned them.
b) To this class belong the writings mentioned above,
namely those of Justin against heresy in general and
against Marcion in particular, and those of Theophilus of
Antioch against Marcion and against Hermogenes. To
these may be added the works of the Apologist Miltiades
[Tertullian, Adv. Valentinianos, 5], the treatise of Agrippa
Castor, who wrote against Basilides in the reign of
Hadrian (117-138) [Eusebius, H. E., iv, 7, 6-8], and the
writings of the Asiatic Rhodon, disciple of Tatian,
against Marcion, against Apelles, and perhaps also
133
Page 300 of 524
against Tatian himself [Ibid., v, 13]. Eusebius names

besides, among the champions of orthodoxy, Philip,
bishop of Gortyna in Crete [iv, 21; 23, 5; 25], Modestus
[iv, 25; cf. 21], and Musanus [iv, 28; cf. 21], all three
under Marcus Aurelius and Commodus (161-192), and
Heraclitus, Maximus, and Candidus, and Apion, at the
end of the reign of Commodus and under Septimus
Severus. The last two wrote on the Hexaemeron.
Eusebius also mentions a work of Sextus on the
Resurrection and another of Arabianus on some other
subject. He then adds that there existed a multitude of
other writers whose date, works and names he could not
indicate in detail, as many of the writing were
anonymous. It is surprising he does not speak of one of
his predecessors, Zachaeus, bishop of Caesarea,
mentioned by the Praedestinatus as having written,
towards the end of the second century, against the
Valentinians.
c) Side by side with these polemists, who are scarcely
known to us, and whose works were not copied, there
are some whose memory has been better preserved or
whose names have even remained famous in the
Church. Such are, in the second century, Hegesippus
and Irenaeus.
2. Hegesippus
a) Very little is known of Hegesippus. Probably he was
a Palestinian Jew, born c. 110, and later converted to
Christianity. Under Anicetus (155-166) he undertook a
journey throughout Christendom, which led him to
Corinth and later to Rome. The purpose of this trip was
to collect on the spot the teachings of the various
churches which he visited, and to ascertain their
uniformity with Rome. He determined in this city the list
of the succession of bishops down to Anicetus. On his
return to his native land he composed, during patorate
of Eleutherius (174-189), the work of which we are about
to speak. According to the Paschal Chronicle, he died c.
180.
b) The work of Hegesippus bears the title of Memoirs. It
comprised five books, but is almost entirely lost. We are
able, however, to form some idea of the work with the
aid of indications and citations furnished by Eusebius. It
134
Page 301 of 524
was not, as Jerome would have it, a coherent history of

the Church from the passion of our Lord until the middle
of the second century, but rather a polemical treatise
against the Gnostics, setting forth the facts and the
evidence for the truth of the Church's official teaching.
Eusebius does not hesitate to rank Hegesippus among
the defenders of tradition. "He has narrated," he says,
"in a very simple way the infallible tradition of the
Apostolic teaching "[H. E., iv, 8, 2]. This is the reason
why Hegesippus was so interested in the traditions of
the churches and in the succession of the bishops who
guaranteed their integrity.
c) Hegesippus does not seem to have been a very
learned man nor a very able writer. His Greek is
awkward and he lacked critical acumen; but he was an
attentive observer and a sincere witness, highly
esteemed by Eusebius.
3. Irenaeus
a) Irenaeus was born in or near Smyrna c. 135-140.
Polycarp was then bishop of that city. and from his
childhood Irenaeus listened to his discourses and
received his instructions. The profound impression
made upon his mind proves that he was, if not a
disciple, at least an assiduous and thoughtful listener of
the aged Bishop, and he loved to appeal later on to his
authority. Polycarp was not his only master, for Irenaeus
often mentions Asiatic presbyters with whom he had
conversed and whose teachings he relates.
b) We do not know the circumstances which led
Irenaeus to leave Asia and go to Gaul, nor do we know
when this transfer took place. What we have said only
proves that at this time he had reached the age of
manhood and his intellectual and religious formation
was already completed. In 177 we find him in Lyons, as
a priest in the church of which Pothinus was bishop.
Afterwards, he was delegated by the martyrs of Lyons,
most of whom were still in prison, to carry to
Eleutherius a letter concerning the Montanistic troubles.
He was furnished with a letter of recommendation, in
which the martyrs styled him "one zealous for the
Testament of Christ." It was perhaps owing to this
135
Page 302 of 524
journey that Irenaeus escaped the fury of the

persecutors. In 177 or 178 he was made bishop of
Lyons, succeeding Pothinus. Three circumstances
relative to his activities as a bishop are known: he
combatted the Gnostics, he labored in the
evangelization of the country about Lyons, he
interceded (c. 190-191) with Victor I in the question of
the Paschal observance, in order to preserve peace
between the Church of Rome and the churches of Asia.
It is commonly thought that he died in 202-203. The
Church honors him as a martyr. Jerome is the first to
give him this title in his commentary on Isaias, written
between 408-410, and this is astonishing. However, the
silence of ancient authors may be explained by the
small notice which would be taken of the violent death
of Irenaeus if he had been put to death under Septimus
Severus in the general massacre of the Christians of
Lyons.
c) Two complete works of Irenaeus have been
preserved together with a few fragments of other
writings that have disappeared. The first of these
complete works is the treatise Adversus Haereses,
whose proper title is The Detection and Overthrow of the
Pretended but False Gnosis. The greater part of the
original Greek text is lost; but there exists a
contemporary Latin version, which is, happily, literal to
a fault, and also fragments of an Armenian and some
Syriac translations. Of its five books, the first two were
written and sent to their addressee first; then the third
and fourth, and finally the fifth. In the third, Eleutherius
is designated as "Bishop of Rome" (iii, 3, 3), and the
Church is spoken of as enjoying peace, whence we
conclude that the first three books were written between
180 and 189. The two other books may be more recent,
i.e. written under the pontificate of Victor I (189-198), but
it is equally probable that they were composed at some
earlier date, before the death of Eleutherius.
d) Irenaeus wrote the Adversus Haereses at the request
of a friend, perhaps a bishop, who desired an exposition
of the errors of heretics with which he was not well
acquainted. The author originally intended the work to
be very short, but it seems to have grown larger as he
wrote. The first book is devoted to the detection or
exposure of the errors of the different Gnostic sects.
136
Page 303 of 524
The Bishop of Lyons seems to have in view particularly

the system of Ptolemaeus. He then passes to the other
forms of Valentinianism, and from Valentinianism to the
other forms of the Gnosis. The second and fifth books
are devoted to a refutation (anatroph) of these errors. In
the second book, dialectics philosophical arguments
are chiefly resorted to. Irenaeus shows the absurdity
of his adversaries and of the arguments they adduce. In
the third and most important book he lays special stress
on tradition. He argues that the rule of faith is to be
found in the teaching of the Apostles, as preserved in its
integrity by the Church, and this teaching of the Church
and the Apostles contradicts that of the Gnostics. Qn
the fourth book, the argument is confirmed "by the
words of Jesus Christ," among which he includes also
the teachings of the Old Testament, since it was always
the Divine Logos who spoke through the sacred writers.
In this book, Irenaeus proves the identity of origin of
both Testaments against the Marcionites. No new
arguments are used in the fifth book, but Irenaeus deals
more especially with the question of our last end, which
is neglected in the previous books. The work ends with
a few lines on the harmony of the divine plan in
humanity.
e) From a theological point of view, the Adversus
Haereses is a work of the first order and goes beyond
the needs of the particular question of Gnosticism. It
may even be said that, by the principles which he
establishes concerning the doctrinal authority of the
Church, and of the Church of Rome especially, Irenaeus
has refuted in advance all future heresies. In his
exposition of the Gnostic systems he proves to be
sincere and well informed, although he does not always
take into account the exact age of his documents. In
refutation his dialectic is both strong and flexible. Of a
clear and precise mind, he was never overawed by the
pretentious abstractions of his opponents and even
took a malicious pleasure in exposing their follies. His
style is simple and easy and appears diffuse and
awkward in the Latin translation only because the latter
is literal to a fault. In the introduction to his work (i,
Pref., 3), the Bishop of Lyons expresses the fear that his
habit of speaking Celtic may influence his Greek style.
This fear seems to have been groundless.
137
Page 304 of 524
f) The second treatise of Irenaeus, entirely preserved,

is the Demonstration of the Apostolic Teaching
('EpideixiV tou apostolikou khrugmatoV), discovered
recently in a literal Armenian translation of the seventh
or eighth century. The work was composed after the
Adversus Haereses and was addressed to a friend,
whom the author calls Marcian. It contains, first, an
exposition of the principal Christian dogmas; secondly,
a demonstration of the truth of these dogmas from the
prophecies. It was meant to be a small apology to be
placed in the hands of the faithful. Irenaeus does not go
beyond the ideas he has developed in the Adversus
Haereses.
g) Among the fragmentary writings of the Bishop of
Lyons must first be mentioned a Letter to Florinus, On
the Monarchy of God or that God is not the Author of
Evil. Florinus had received the teaching of Polycarp with
Irenaeus in Asia but later had joined the Gnostics. In a
fragment, which has been preserved, Irenaeus recalls to
his mind the teachings of their common master
[Eusebius, H. E., v, 20, 4-7].
h) The heresy of this same Florinus gave rise to another
treatise of Irenaeus, On the Ogdoad, and perhaps to the
letter to Victor, of which a fragment is preserved.
Eusebius quotes the final clause of the treatise On the
Ogdoad [H. E., v, 20, 1, 2].
i) Eusebius mentions also a letter to Blastus, On
Schism [H. E., v, 20, 1; cf. v, 15]; a brief and very useful
work against the Greeks (pagans), entitled On Science
[v, 26; probably an apology]; a book of miscellaneous
discourses [Ibid.]; and lastly some letters to Victor
(bishop of Rome] and other bishops on the Paschal
question [H. E., v, 23, 3; 24, 11-18].
4. Anti-Montanistic and Other Writers
a) Montanism, like Gnosticism, found in the Church,
and especially among the bishops, ardent opponents,
who fought it by word of mouth and in writing, but
whose works have disappeared, or are known to us only
through a few citations. Such are the work of
Apollinarus, bishop of Hierapolis between 170 and 175
[Eusebius, H. E., v, 16, i; 19, 1 ff.], and that of the
138
Page 305 of 524
apologist Miltiades, That a Prophet must not Speak

when in Ecstacy [Ibid., v. 17, l], both of which are lost.
On the other hand, Eusebius made several excerpts
from the work of an anonymous writer, bishop or priest,
of Eastern Phrygia, not far from Ortrys, published c. 192193.[3] This treatise, in three books, was dedicated to a
certain Avircius Marcellus.
b) Other writers against Montanism are the Asiatic
Apollonius, c. 196-197, cited by Eusebius [H. E., v, 18],
and, in the reign of Zephyrinus (199-217), the Roman
minister Caius, who denied that the Apostle John was
the author of the Apocalypse, and even of the fourth
Gospel, in order to deprive the heretics of one of their
main arguments [H. E., vi, 20; cf. ii, 25, 6, 7; iii, 28, 1, 2;
31, 4].
c) Other refutations, more or less direct, might be
pointed out. Nothing prevents us, either, from ranking
among the anti-Montanistic writers a few authors of the
end of the second century who busied themselves in the
condemnation of heresy. They are:
d) Victor (189-199), who dealt vigorously in Rome with
the Montanists, with those who retained the
quartodeciman customs, and with the Adoptianists.
According to Jerome [De Vir. Ill., 53], he wrote some
theological treatises and is to be considered, with
Apollonius, as the first Latin ecclesiastical writer, even
before Tertullian [Ibid., 34]. We are at a loss to know
what exact interpretation is to be placed on this
information.
e) Three bishops deserve our attention in the East.
(1) The first is Dionysius of Corinth (c. 170), who was one of
the most frequently consulted men of his time, Eusebius was
acquainted with eight letters of Dionysius and has briefly
indicated their contents. The first six are addressed to various
communities: the seventh, to Soter, and the eighth, to a Christian
lady named Chrysophora. Eusebius cites passages from the letter
to Soter, bishop of Rome.
(2) After Dionysius we must name Serapion of Antioch (191212). Eusebius admits that he probably does not know all of
Serapion's works [H. E., vi, 12]. He mentions, however, certain
writings To Domnus, who had fallen away from the Christian
139
Page 306 of 524
faith and become a Jew; To Pontius and to Caricus, and various

letters, especially one to the Christians of Rhossus, On the
Gospel Attributed to Peter, warning them not to read it.
(3) The most famous of the three bishops, and the one whose
literary title is best established, is Melito, bishop of Sardis in
Lydia. Very little is known of his life. He was well known
already under Antoninus Pius (138-161) and reached the summit
of his fame under Marcus Aurelius (161-180). Eusebius has
given us the titles of about twenty of his works, among which are
two books On Easter, others On the Church, On Sunday, On
Baptism, On Prophecy, On the Apocalypse of John, On the
Corporeity of God, etc., and a book entitled The Key. Anastasius
Sinaita [Hodegos, xii, xiii] mentions two more, On the Passion
(of our Lord) and On the Incarnation of Christ. Besides the
citations of Eusebius and Anastasius, there remain of all these
works only a few Greek and Syriac fragments, and even their
authenticity is not always sure. This is all the more to be
regretted as it seems that Melito was representative of the Asiatic
school, to which he belonged.
f) Two other documents must be named to make this

section more complete:
(1) The Letter of Polycratus, bishop of Edessa, to Victor (c.
190), in which he vindicates for the churches of Asia the right to
follow their own tradition in the celebration of the feast of Easter
[Eusebius, H. E., v, 24, 1-8; iii, 31, 2, 3].
(2) The inscription of Aabercius. It is the self-written epitaph, in
twenty-two verses, of a certain Abercius, a citizen of Hierapolis
in Phrygia. Abercius, in language of simple allegory, declares
himself a disciple of the Good Shepherd, speaks of his journeys
to Rome and Syria, and mentions Baptism and the Eucharist. The
inscription is certainly Christian and dates from the end of the
second century. Abercius is probably the Avircius Marcellus, to
whom the anonymous anti-Montanist, mentioned above, had
dedicated his work.
140
Page 307 of 524
V.
The Canonical Controversy

A. The Definitions of Canonicity
1. Canon
a) The English word 'canon' is a transliteration of two
words which sound the same: QANEH (Hebrew) and
KANON (Greek). The meaning is "rod, stick, measure".
This is the origin of the English word 'cane' also.
b) When we speak of 'the canon of Scripture', we speak
of Scripture as the measuring rod of all truth. The
phrase also refers to the books that properly belong in
the Bible - the inches, as it were, on the yardstick. Omit
or add one, and the measure is that much shorter or
longer.
c) The question of the N.T. canon differs slightly from
that of the O.T. For one, Jesus upheld the Jewish canon,
but what about after the time of Jesus? Is the N.T. canon
still open until Christ returns a second time? Then there
are differences between the 2 covenants and the 2
covenant peoples. Israel was a national lineage; the
Church is not. Israel had a geographic center in
Jerusalem; the Church does not. Then there was the
change in language from Greek to Hebrew.
d) However, as we shall see, the Lord Jesus made
provision for these changes. We do well to remember
the principle of 'Providential Preservation'. Christ's
Word will never pass away in whole or in part (Matt.
24:35). And as with the O.T. canon, so the principles
governing what should be in the N.T. canon are given to
us in the Bible itself. We accept certain books and reject
others, not because any church says so, but because
Christ laid down certain principles and promises
regarding the Holy Spirit (who inspired the Bible). We
take God's Word for it.
2. Classifications
a) Preface: several writers, especially Origen and
Eusebius, drew up lists by categories. These explain the
141
Page 308 of 524
reasons why some books were recognized, others

doubted.
b) The Homologoumena were the books which
everyone except the rankest Gnostics accepted without
question. These included the Gospels, Acts, Paul's
epistles, I Peter and I John. Eusebius included Hebrews
in Paul's, Origen did not.
c) The Antilegomena were books disputed by a few
persons and churches. These included Hebrews (in
some places), James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and
Revelation. Hebrews was questioned because it was
anonymous. James was doubted by some because of its
Jewish tone and stress on works. 2 Peter, because its
literary style differed from I Peter. Jude, because it
resembled 2 Peter so closely and because it cited
material from the book of Enoch. 2 and 3 John, because
they were so short, private, and not often quoted by
Fathers. And Revelation because it was so apocalyptic
in its visions.
d) The Notha were books like the apostolic Fathers useful, not inspired.
e) The Forgeries were books such as the N.T.
Apocrypha (see below).
B. The Errors of Canonicitity
1. Canon was established slowly over a period of time
(takingperhaps several hundred years for the canon to be
established).
a) Failure to understand recognition verses
establishment
b) Failure to understand criteria of canon verses criteria
of confirmation.
2. Canon was determined by a group of men who lived long after
the age of miracles.
a) This is the doctrine taught by the Roman Catholic
Church. This is one of the basic arguments made by the
142
Page 309 of 524
Roman Catholic Church to prove that the Roman

Catholic Church speaks authoritatively.
b) If the Roman Catholic Church established the canon,
then the Roman Catholic Church speaks authoritatively.
(1) Its sole absolute criterion, therefore, is the Holy inspiring
Spirit witnessing decisively to Itself, not in the subjective
experience of individual souls, as Calvin maintained, neither in
the doctrinal and spiritual tenor of Holy Writ itself, according to
Luther, but through the constituted organ and custodian of Its
revelations, the Church. All other evidences fall short of the
certainty and finality necessary to compel the absolute assent of
faith (George J. Reid, Canon of the New Testament, s. v. in
Catholic Encyclopedia).
(2) It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned
which writings are to be included in the list of sacred books
(CCC, #120).
(3) "Because it never was a Bible, till the infallible Church
pronounced it to be so. The separate treatises, each of them
inspired, were lying, as it were dispersedly; easy to confound
with others, that were uninspired. The Church gathered them up,
selected them, pronounced judgment on them; rejecting some,
which she defined and declared not to be canonical, because not
inspired; adopting others as being inspired, and therefore
canonical." (What Is the Bible? p. 6).
(4) "And since the books of the Bible constituting both the Old
and the New Testament were determined solely by the authority
of the Catholic Church, without the Church there would have
been no Bible, and hence no Protestantism." (The Faith of
Millions, p. 10).
(5) "If she had not scrutinized carefully the writings of her
children, rejecting some and approving others as worthy of
inclusion in the canon of the New Testament, there would be no
New Testament today.If she had not declared the books
composing the New Testament to be inspired word of God, we
would not know it.The only authority which non-Catholics
have for the inspiration of the Scriptures is the authority of the
Catholic Church." (The Faith of Millions, p. 145)
(6) "It is only by the divine authority of the Catholic Church that
Christians know that the scripture is the word of God, and what
books certainly belong to the Bible (The Question Box, p. 46)
143
Page 310 of 524
(7) "It was the Catholic Church and no other which selected and
listed the inspired books of both the Old Testament and the New
Testament...If you can accept the Bible or any part of it as
inspired Word of God, you can do so only because the Catholic
Church says it is." (The Bible is a Catholic Book, p. 4).
144
Page 311 of 524
C. The Significance of Canonicity

1. Introduction
a) An important corollary to the formation of the New
Testament canon is the principium cognoscendi.
Principium congnoscendi refers to "the principle of
knowing or cognitive foundation of theology."( Richard
A. Muller, "sola Scriptura," q.v. Dictionary of Latin and
Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from
Protestant Scholastic Theology, 284).
b) While history deals with the grounds upon which the
church has come to this conviction of canonicity, the
ground of canonicity is in the realm and domain of
theology. Any theological study of the canon, therefore,
must underscore this difference because the very
marrow of canonicity is the premise that Scripture is the
regula fidei, the rule of faith. Therefore, the question of
canonicity is truly the question of an infallible, inerrant
authority.
c) In other words, intrinsic to the concept of canon is
this idea that Scripture is the epistemological
foundation of a true theology. In this light, the canon is a
collection of divinely authoritative books, not an
authoritative collection of books, as some have alleged
(See Bruce Metzger's discussion on this, The Canon of the
New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance, 282288).
d) As such they are an absolute norm by which the
Church can find a true knowledge of God.
2. Early Fathers View of Canon
a) One area of evidence that points to the canon as the
cognitive foundation for theology is the normative use
of the New Testament canon.
b) This regulative use is seen very early.
(1) In a letter to the Corinthian Christians, dating A. D. 96,
Clement of Rome places the word of Christ in Matthew 26:24
and Luke 17:2 on par with Jeremiah and I Samuel (1 Clement
13f. Cf. 46:7f).
145
Page 312 of 524
(2) In A. D.110, Ignatius of Antioch cites the Gospel with the

technical phrase "scripture says," declaring that his authority is
Jesus Christ (Ignatius, To the Philadelphians 8:2; see both Bruce,
p. 121, and Metzger, p. 48, on this statement).
c) In addition to these, other early Christians use

phrases like "it is written" and "scripture says" in their
writings [Cf. Second Epistle of Clement, 2:1-4; 3:2-5; 14:2;
Letter of Barnabas, 4:14; f) Polycarp, To the Philippians,
12:1; g) Basilides, quoted by Hippolytus, Refutation of
All Heresies, 7:25.2; 7.26.3; 7.27.8. Also Justin Martyr (A.
D. 100-165) uses 'It is written' in his Dialogue with
Trypho, 49, 103, 105,107].
d) It is evident that these writers used the writings of
the New Testament canon to substantiate their
arguments on the basis of a normative authority.
(1) While these references to do prove the concept of canon,
they do suggest that the early church considered these writings as
normative.
(2) On this, Bruce wisely remarks, "Authority precedes
canonicity; had the words of the Lord and his apostles not been
accorded supreme authority, the written record of their words
would not have been canonized (Bruce, 123).
(3) Furthermore, this normative use of the New Testament
suggests something more. The Church did not create this
doctrine of an authoritative collection; rather, they inherited the
very concept from the Jews (Benjamin B. Warfield, "The
Formation of the Canon of the New Testament," Revelation and
Inspiration, in The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, 10 Volumes.
reprint, I:451.
(4) And when they use such phrases as "it is written" or
"Scripture says," they reflect this heritage of deriving their
theology on the basis of divinely authoritative books alone. B. B.
Warfield correctly states, "This use was an inheritance, not an
invention. The idea of a 'canon' of 'Sacred Scriptures,' and, with
the idea, the 'canon' itself were derived by Christianity from
Judaism. Whatever stood written in them was a word of God,
and was there referred to indifferently as something which 'the
Scripture says' or the 'All-merciful says,' or even simply 'He
says'-- that God says. Every precept or dogma was supposed to
be grounded in Scripture teaching, and possessed authority only
as buttressed by a Scriptural passage, introduced commonly by
one of the formulas, 'for it is said,' or 'as it is written, though of
course a great variety of less frequently occurring similar
146
Page 313 of 524
formulas of adduction are found," B. B. Warfield, "The

Scriptures, in the New Testament," Revelation and Inspiration, in
The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, 10 Volumes. Reprint,
I:115-116.
(5) Consequently, the principium cognoscendi is self-evident in

the normative use of the New Testament canon. This is not
reading a concept back into the church; this is the very
essence of their usage.

3. Nature of Canon verses Recognition of Canon
a) What books properly make up the canon for the
church? In answering this question, it is imperative that
we not confuse the nature of the canon with the
recognition of certain writings as canonical. The
legitimate authority of canonical books exists
independently of their being personally acknowledged
as authoritative by any individual or group. The nature
(or grounds) of canonicity is thus logically distinct from
the history (or recognition) of canonicity.
b) It is the inspiration of a book that renders it
authoritative, not human acceptance or recognition of
the book. If God has spoken, what He says is divine in
itself, regardless of human response to it. It does not
"become divine" through human agreement with it.
c) Accordingly, the canon is not the product of the
Christian church. The church has no authority to
control, create, or define the Word of God. Rather, the
canon controls, creates and defines the church of
Christ: "...having been begotten again, not by
corruptible seed, but by incorruptible, by the word of
God which lives and abides forever.... And this is the
word of good news which was preached unto you" (I
Peter 1:23-25).
d) When we understand this, we can see how erroneous
it is to suppose that the corporate church, at some
council of its leaders, voted on certain documents and
constituted them the canon. The church cannot
subsequently attribute authority to certain writings. It
can simply receive them as God's revealed word which,
as such, always has been the church's canon. Authority
147
Page 314 of 524
is inherent in those writings from the outset, and the

church simply confesses this to be the case.
4. Conclusion
a) The evidence above shows that the church "came to
recognize, accept, and confirm the self-authenticating
quality of certain documents that imposed themselves
as such upon the Church."(Metzger, 287).
b) In other words, the books within this complete list
possess an inherent authority. Because of this selfauthenticating, authoritative quality of these books, the
church based its theology upon them alone.
c) Principium cognoscendi is the core concept of
canonicity.
d) As F. F. Bruce says, authority must precede
canonicity. And it is on the basis of this selfauthenticating authority that the canon has been
confirmed and recognized as the only rule of faith and
practice. Throughout history, theologians have been
very aware that this is the nature of canon.
e) As Thomas Aquinas said, "canonical Scripture alone
is the rule of faith (Thomas Aquinas, On the Gospel of
Saint John, Lesson 6 on Chapter 21. Quoted by F. F.
Bruce, 18).
f) Speaking of the canonical books of the Bible, the
Westminster Confession of Faith states, "All which are
given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and
life" (Westminster Confession of Faith, I.2).
g) The Belgic Confession of Faith declares, "We receive
all these books, and these only, as holy and canonical,
for the regulation, foundation, and confirmation of our
faith" (The Belgic Confession of Faith, Article V,
"Whence the Holy Scriptures Derive Their Dignity and
Authority").
h) The French Confession uses similar language: "We
know these books to be canonical, and the sure rule of
our faith" (The French Confession, Article IV).
148
Page 315 of 524
i) On this theme, Martin Luther said, I have learned to

ascribe the honor of infallibility only to those books that
are accepted as canonical. I am profoundly convinced
that none of these writers has erred. All other writers,
however they may have distinguished themselves in
holiness or in doctrine, I read in this way: I evaluate
what they say, not on the basis that they themselves
believe that a thing is true, but only so far as they are
able to convince me by the authority of the canonical
books or by clear reason (WA, 2:618).
j) The important point being made here is that the only
authoritative source for theology is the canonical books
of the Old and New Testaments. This is the theological
axiom of the canon of the New Testament. In a day in
which Charismatics claim extrabiblical revelations and
the Papacy continues to profess the ability to make
infallible proclamations, the church must stress this
axiom. The canon must continue to be the principium
cognoscendi.
D. The Recognition of Canonicity
1. Leon Morris has given a concise answer to the question, "Did
the Church originate the canon?": The Church did not originate the
Bible. Its inspiration is divine, not ecclesiastical. It stands or falls
because of its relationship to God, not to the Church. Moreover,
any official action of the Church is late. We do not find it before the
last part of the fourth century. But by then the canon had to all its
intents and purposes been decided. [L.Morris, "Canon of the New
Testament", in The Encyclopedia of Christianity, 2:337].
2. The wording of the conciliar decisions is also significant here.
The decrees are never in the form: "This council decrees that
henceforth such and such books are to be canonical". The Church
never attempted to confer canonicity. The Church did not give
authority to the canon, rather it recognized its authority. Hence the
conciliar decrees have the form: "This council declares that these
are the books which have always been held to be canonical". It
would therefore be truer to say that the canon selected itself than
that the Church selected it. Canonicity is something in the book
itself, something that God has given to it, not a favoured status that
the Church confers upon it. [cf. Morris, Ibid. 2:338]
3. Herman Ridderbos sums up the situation rather aptly: It must
be emphasized that the Church does not control the Canon, but the
149
Page 316 of 524
Canon controls the Church. For the same reason the Canon cannot
be the product of the decision of the Church. The Church cannot
'make' or 'lay down' its own standard. All that the Church can lay
down is this, that it has received the Canon as a standard and rule
for faith and life, handed down to it with absolute authority ["Canon
of the New Testament", 196].
4. Roman Catholic theologians have traditionally held that the
authority of the canon was guaranteed by an infallible Church. The
Reformers sensed here a threat to the sola Scriptura principle. For
them the authority of Scripture was not dependent on the Church.
Rather it was self-authenticating and sealed to the hearts of God's
people by the witness of the Holy Spirit. (However, this witness was
generally appealed to more to affirm the overall authority of the
Bible than to validate the specific contents of the canon. For this,
appeal was made to God's overriding providence).
5. The Scripture is of divine origin, character and authority. It bears
the marks of its divinity. It clearly evidences that it is of God, but
man is unable to perceive this on his own and hence needs the
internal testimony of the Holy Spirit.
6. The Reformed and Roman Catholic positions are clearly
contrasted in the Belgic Confession, Article 5 ("The Authority of
Scripture"): We receive all these books and these only as holy and
canonical, for the regulating, founding, and establishing of our faith.
And we believe without a doubt all things contained in them - not so
much because the church receives and approves them as such but
above all because the Holy Spirit testifies in our hearts that they are
from God, and because they prove themselves to be from God
["The Belgic Confession", The Book of Forms -Reformed Churches
of Australia, Geelong: Reformed Churches Publishing House, 1991,
21].
7. The internal witness of the Holy Spirit is not communication of
additional information. It is not a divinely given proposition. It is
simply one aspect of the organic action of the sanctifying activity of
the Holy Spirit. It is always cum verbo ('with the Word'). It is an
integral element of the process by which the mind of the sinner is
enlightened and his will renewed (1 Cor.2:10-16; 1 Thess.2:4,13).
8. John Murray refers to it as "supplementary attestation. In
addition to the objective excellencies inherent in Scripture. The
Word must be allowed to establish its own claim, i.e. independently
of the Church [John Murray, "The Attestation of Scripture", The
150
Page 317 of 524
Infallible Word, edited by Paul Woolley, Philadelphia: Presbyterian

and Reformed, 1967, 42ff.].
9. An appreciation of the internal witness of the Holy Spirit will
enable us to view the proposed criteria of canonicity in their proper
perspective. While certain criteria may appear to solve the canon
question they are all in the nature of the case a posteriori. The art
will be to isolate "factor x" as the index mark of canonicity. While a
number of plausible suggestions have been made throughout the
history of the Church, no conclusive criteria have successfully been
established.
E. Catalysts of Recognition
1. Heretical Writing & Apocryphal Literature of the New Testament
a) The Apocryphal Gospels
(1) Introduction
(a) The authors of the New Testament Apocrypha are
naturally Christians. From the point of view of form,
these writings, like the canonical New Testament
literature, comprise Gospels, Acts of the Apostles,
Epistles and Apocalypses. From the point of view of
origin and tendency, we may divide them into two
distinct groups. The first group is of heretical and
particularly of Gnostic origin and purposes to inculcate
a very definite doctrinal error, namely, that Jesus Christ
and His Apostles gave out teachings contrary to those of
the Church. The second is of orthodox origin and written
with the intention of edifying; hence details of the lives
of Christ, the Blessed Virgin, the Apostles and Joseph,
which are lacking in the official writings, are added in
these compositions.
(b) Whatever may have been their origin, these
Apocrypha have two traits in common. The first is the
weirdness and strangeness of their accounts, in which
uncalled-for wonders and miracles are scattered
profusely. The various actors move about in an unreal
world where the marvelous is the rule. The second is the
variance of their texts. As these books were not
consecrated by the authority of the Church, but were
widely circulated, people modified them and added to
them to suit their own tastes. This accounts for the many
recensions of the same work new ones are still being
found 2 and also renders it very difficult, nay impossible,
151
Page 318 of 524
to determine the origin and date of these writings. It is

not always easy to distinguish between the primitive
work and later alterations. Again, many of these
Apocrypha, heretical in the beginning, were afterwards
corrected and purged of their heresies and have come
down to us only in the latter form.
(2) The Gospel of the Hebrews.
(a) Some of the Apocryphal Gospels bear the name of
an author, others are anonymous. Among the latter we
must mention, first, the Gospel according to the Hebrews
(to kaq' 'EbraiouV euaggelion), spoken of by Clement of
Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome, and
probably known also to Hegesippus and Ignatius of
Antioch. Unfortunately, their citations lack precision;
they prevent us especially from seeing the relation of this
Gospel with the "Gospel of the Ebionites," cited by
Epiphanius [Haer., xxx, 13-16, 22].
(b) It seems safe, however, to treat these two Gospels as
two distinct compositions. The Gospel according to the
Hebrews was in use among that orthodox portion of
Judeo-Christians called the Nazaraeans. It was written
in Aramaic, with square characters, and closely follows
the canonical narrative of Matthew.
(c) The quotation by Clement of Alexandria is a proof
that this apocryphal gospel was composed in the middle
of the second century at the latest. If, however, as
Jerome affirms, it was cited by Ignatius in his Letter to
the people of Smyrna (iii, 2), it would date at least from
the end of the first century, as Harnack thinks it does.
(3) The Gospel of the Ebionites
(a) The Gospel of the Ebionites was in use among the
heretical Judeo-Christians, for the quotations by
Epiphanius prove that it contains their heretical
teachings.
(b) According to Bardenhewer, it was a compilation
from the canonical Gospels and is identical with the
Gospel of the Twelve Apostles, marked out as heretical
by Origen [In Lucam, Homil., i. It was written in Greek
at the end of the second or in the beginning of the third
century.
(4) Gospel of the Egyptians.
152
Page 319 of 524
(a) Clement of Alexandria [Strom., iii, 9; 13] cites a

Gospel according to the, known also to Origen,
Hippolytus, and Epiphanius, who all regarded it as a
heretical work.
(b) It condemns matrimony and upholds Sabellianism
and metempsychosis. Several critics have exaggerated
the importance of this work. It was probably written in
Egypt, towards the end of the second century. The date
of its composition would have to be placed much earlier
if it were certain that it is quoted in the Secunda
Clementis (xii, 2).
(5) The Gospel of Peter
(a) Until 1886, the Gospel of Peter was known to us
only through the fragment of a letter of Serapion of
Antioch cited by Eusebius [ H. E., vi, 12, 2-6].
(b) Since that date, a large fragment, including the
history of the Passion and Resurrection, was recovered,
in 1892, and published. Serapion characterized this
Gospel by saying that, as a whole, it was conformable to
the teaching of the Savior, but of Docetic tendencies.
(c) This is precisely the impression made upon one who
reads what we possess of the work. The author made use
of the three synoptic Gospels and probably also of the
Gospel of John, and may have composed his book at
Antioch towards the middle of the second century.
Harnack believes that the work was known to Justin [ I
Apol., xxxv, 6; Dial., xcvii, 3, and therefore he places its
composition in 110-130.
(6) The Gospels of Mathias, Philip, and Thomas form a trilogy
of Gnostic origin, for these three Apostles are represented in the
Pistis Sophia as being the three privileged witnesses chosen by
Jesus Christ after His resurrection.
(a) The Gospel of Mathias we know only by its title;
very probably it should be distinguished from the
Traditions of Mathias, cited by Clement of Alexandria
[Strom., ii, 9; iii, 4; vii, 13], and especially favored by
the Basilidians. It was composed in Egypt, no later than
the beginning of the third century. The Traditions, on the
contrary, date back to 110-130.
(b) The Gospel of Philip was in use among the
"Gnostics" in Egypt. Epiphanius [Haer., xxvi, 13] has
153
Page 320 of 524
given us a quotation which sufficiently marks it out as

heterodox. It was probably written towards the end of
the second or at the beginning of the third century.
(i) The Gospel of Thomas was found cited in a
Naassenian work by Hippolytus [Philos., v, 7],
and he has even preserved for us one sentence
from it. Irenaeus had probably known the work
before him, which means that it was written in
the middle of the second century.
(ii) We no longer have the Gnostic "Gospel of
Thomas," but we have a compilation in Greek,
Latin, Syriac, and Slavonic which is, to all
appearances, derived from the original work and
which may be a much expurgated original copy.
These forms are entitled Statements of Thomas,
Jewish Philosopher, upon the Infancy of the
Lord.
(iii) They relate the miracles performed by the
Infant Jesus from His fifth to His twelfth year.
These miracles do not always agree with the
character of the Divine Child and the Gnostic
color of the original has not completely
disappeared from the book in spite of the many
transformations it has undergone. In their actual
state these writings seem to belong, as a whole,
to the fourth or fifth century.
(7) Protoevangelium of Jacobi

(a) The Protoevangelium Jacobi is the best known and
most popular of the Apocryphal Gospels.
(b) There are many Greek manuscripts and versions of
it in different languages. The title varies with the
manuscripts, but in none is to be found the name
"Gospel." The purpose of the book is to give an account
of the birth of Mary, her childhood, her betrothal to
Joseph, the birth of Jesus, the slaughter of the Innocents
and the execution of Zacharias in the temple.
(c) The author pretends to be James (evidently the
Lesser), the brother of the Lord. The Greek text, as it
stands, does not seem to date back further than the
fourth century.
(d) It is supposed to be a composite work, made up of
three previous writings: (a) An account of the birth,
infancy, and betrothal of Mary (chs. i-xvii, i), the work of
154
Page 321 of 524
a Judeo-Christian, 130-140; (b) An account given by

Joseph of the birth of Jesus Christ and the adoration of
the Magi (chs. xvii, 2-xxi), called Apocryphum Josephi,
written probably in the second century; (c) an account of
the slaughter of the Innocents and the execution of
Zacharias (chs. xxii-xxiv), called Apocryphum
Zachariae, the groundwork of which also dates back to
the second century.
(8) The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew
(a) The "Protoevangelium Jacobi" has its Latin
counterpart in the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, entitled
Liber de Ortu Beatae Mariae et Infantia Salvatoris,
(b) The contents of which are much the same as that of
the "Protoevangelium," plus the subject matter of the
"Gospel of Thomas." It is a compilation of the fifth
century.
(9) The Arabic Gospel of the Infancy and other analogous
compositions in Syriac and Armenian belong to a still later
period.[16]
(10)
Besides these Gospels, we know that there once existed
a Gospel of Bartholomew, a Gospel of Thaddeus, mentioned in
the decree of Pope Gelasius, and a Gospel of Judas Iscariot in
use among the Cainites and spoken of by Irenaeus (i, 31, 1).
Greek, Latin and Coptic fragments have been found of the
Gospel of Bartholomew.
(11)
To the literature of the Apocryphal Gospels belong also
the accounts concerning Pilate and the descent of Jesus into hell,
those about the death of the Blessed Virgin and of Joseph.
(a) Under the title of Gospel of Nicodemus we possess a
composition the most ancient recension of which in
Greek dates back to the first half of the fifth century.
The work may be divided into three parts, which in the
beginning probably formed two, or even three, distinct
writings. The first part (chs. l-ll) relates to the
interrogatory of Jesus before Pilate, His death and
burial. It intends to show that Pilate was convinced of
the innocence of Our Lord. The special title, Acta Pilati,
is given to this part. Epiphanius [Haer., I, 1] was
acquainted with some acts of this kind from which the
Acta Pilati must be derived. It is even possible that
Tertullian knew of a supposed report of Pilate to
Tiberius, the apologetical purpose of which was the
155
Page 322 of 524
same [Apologeticum, 21. The nucleus of the Acta Pilati

would then date back to the second century. The second
part (chs. 12-16) relates the discussions which took
place in the Sanhedrin after the resurrection of Christ.
Its purpose is to prove that the leaders of the Jews
themselves must have admitted the truth of His
resurrection. The third part (chs. 17-27), which was
certainly once an independent treatise, relates the
descent of Jesus into hell and the deliverance of the just
of the Old Law. The action and brilliancy of style of this
part are remarkable.
(b) The title of Dormition of Mary is given to an
account of the death ot the Mary, the most ancient
recensions of which are the Greek recension and the two
Syriac recensions, B and C. The book narrates how
Mary died in Jerusalem, surrounded by the Apostles,
and how her body was carried up into heaven. The story
contains very ancient elements, but the actual form of
the work supposes that the Mariolatry was already well
developed in the Church. It is the general belief that this
work does not date earlier than the fourth or fifth
century.
(c) The History of Joseph the Carpenter, which exists in
two recensionsone Coptic, the other Arabiccontains
an account, supposedly by Jesus Himself, of the life and
more especially the death of Joseph. The author seems to
have borrowed from local traditions as well as from the
"Gospel of Thomas." The purpose of the book is well
indicated in ch. 30: it was intended to furnish matter
for liturgical readings for the Feast of Joseph,
celebrated on the 26th of the month of Epiphi, i.e., July
20. The original Greek text from which the recensions
were made dates back, at most, to the fourth century. It
is probably even more recent.
b) Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles

(1) Introduction
(a) The imagination of certain writers has, perhaps,
thrown off restraint more in the apocryphal Acts of the
Apostles than in the apocryphal Gospels.
(b) Indeed, they were allowed much more freedom in
this by the official text of the canonical Acts, which does
not mention the fate of the Twelve, with the exception of
Peter, Paul, and James, nor relate the last years of the
ministry of the two great apostles.
156
Page 323 of 524
(2) Preaching of Peter

(a) Concerning Peter, we have first a Preaching of Peter,
known to Clement of Alexandria, Heracleon the Gnostic,
Origen, and Eusebius. The work must probably be
identified with the Preaching of Peter cited by John of
Damascus.
(b) It comprises a series of missionary discourses of the
Apostle, together with a connecting narrative. There is
nothing to prove that it was a heretical writing. It was
composed in the first half of the second century, either in
Egypt or in Greece.
(3) The Acts of Peter
(a) The Acts of Peter, on the contrary, are plainly
Gnostic. Two parts of this work are extant, namely,
(b) The conclusion of the work in the Marturion tou
agiou apostolou Petrou, of which the Martyrium Beati
Petri Apostoli a Lino Apostolo Conscriptum is only an
enlarged Latin version; and
(c) The episode of the triumph of Peter over Simon
Magus in the Actus Petri cum Simone of the manuscript
of Vercelli. In this work are to be found the details
concerning the fall of Simon Magus, the "Quo Vadis"
and the crucifixion of the Apostle, head downwards.
Although various corrections have been introduced into
the actual text, it still bears traces of Docetism and
Encratism. The original composition must have dated
back to the second half of the second century. Innocent
[Epist. ad Exsuperium, 13] declared that the author was
identical with the author of the Gnostic "Acts of John,"
i.e., Pseudo-Lucius (the Lucius Charinus spoken of by
Photius).
c) Preaching of Paul
(1) Just as there was a "Preaching of Peter," so there was a
Preaching of Paul. It is mentioned in the Liber de Rebaptismate
(17), which was written in the time of Cyprian.
(2) The work does not appear to be orthodox; however, we lack
information concerning it.
157
Page 324 of 524
d) Acts of Paul
(1) Quite different has been the fate of the Acts of Paul, which is
said to have contained 3560 or 3600 lines. These Acts have been
recently found in a Coptic version, although the manuscript is in
bad condition.
(2) This discovery has enabled us to ascertain that the original
text comprised the Martyrdom of the Holy Apostle Paul, the
Correspondence of Paul and the Corinthians (apocryphal), and
the Acts of Paul and Thecla, which at a later date took on an
independent form. But since Tertullian affirms[De Baptismo, 17]
that the story of Paul and Thecia was composed in Asia by a
minister who was very enthusiastic about Paul, and who was
deposed for his writing, it is likely that the entire Acts of Paul are
the work of the same author and were composed in Asia. They
were orthodox in the beginning. Certain details warrant our
fixing the date of their composition c. 170.
e) Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul

(1) Besides the "Acts of Peter" and the "Acts of Paul," we have,
in revised texts, a composition entitled Acts of the Holy Apostles
Peter and Paul.
(2) Originally these acts comprised an account of the journey of
Paul to Rome, where Peter was already residing, and an account
of the labors of the two Apostles and their martyrdom.
(3) This is the order followed by a whole series of manuscripts.
Like the "Acts of Paul," this work is an orthodox composition,
which the author wished, perhaps, to substitute for the Gnostic
"Acts of Peter." According to Bardenhewer, they date from the
first half of the third century.
f) The Acts of the Apostle Andrew

(1) The Acts of the Apostle Andrew, probably from the second
half of the second century, are mentioned by Eusebius [H. E., iii.
25, 6] and other ancient writers, who regard them as heretical.
Some critics attribute them to Pseudo-Lucius.
(2) Only a few short citations from this work have been
preserved, but we have in Greek, and in expurgated and revised
texts in other languages, three principal episodes of the story
which form the subject matter for three separate writings: the
Acts of Andrew and Mathias in the town of the Anthropophagi,
the Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Andrew and the
Martyrdom of the Holy Apostle Andrew.
158
Page 325 of 524
(3) The latter pretends to be the work of eye-witnesses,

ministers and deacons of the Churches of Achaia. In reality, it is
not older than the fifth century.
g) Acts of John
(1) The same authors who speak of the "Acts of Andrew"
mention also Acts of John, of heretical origin. Innocent I
attributed them to Pseudo-Lucius. These Acts, probably
composed, as those of Andrew, in the second half of the second
century, are now almost entirely lost.
(2) A fair number of fragments have reached us through
citations and other manuscripts and have enabled us to
reconstruct approximately the order of the narrative.
(3) To accomplish this work, orthodox recensions of a later
period have been used, which have more or less retouched and
corrected the original copy. Such are, in Greek, the Acts of the
Holy Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian, written by his
disciple Prochoros (first half of the fifth century), and, in Latin,
the Virtutes Joannis, written by Pseudo-Abdias (end of the sixth
century), and the Passio Joannis, written by Pseudo-Melito (still
more recent).
h) The Acts of the Apostle Thomas

(1) The Acts of the Apostle Thomas have been preserved better
than all the Gnostic Acts of the Apostles We have not, it is true,
the original; but two recensions in Greek and Syriac have
reached us, and they preserve both the spirit and form of the
work.
(2) The whole clearly shows Encratic tendencies. Some poetical
pieces written originally in Syriac and inserted here and there,
form an integral part of the treatise and have led the majority of
critics to conclude that the entire work was written first in that
language.
(3) It may have been originally composed at Edessa by some
disciple of Bardesanes. Everything indicates that it was written
in the beginning of the third century.
i) The Acts of Philip

(1) The Acts of Philip (apocryphal) are first mentioned in a
statement of Gelasius. We possess these Acts in two forms, both
of orthodox origin, but of small value.
159
Page 326 of 524
(2) In them there is a confusion of Philip the Apostle with Philip

the Deacon. The Greek acts are incomplete and seem to have
been compiled from two independent writings; they do not date
beyond the end of the fourth century. The Syriac acts seem still
more recent.
j) The Acts of Matthew

(1) The Acts of Matthew are not mentioned by any ancient
author; yet such a work must have existed, since we have in
Greek the conclusion, which is an account of the ministry of the
Apostle and his martyrdom at Myrne.
(2) The author of these Acts was acquainted with the "Acts of
Mathias," which were, perhaps, called "Acts of Mathias" by
mistake instead of "Acts of Matthew."
k) The Acts of Thaddaeus

(1) The Acts of Thaddaeus, who was one of the seventy-two
disciples, were known to Eusebius, who analysed them partly
and copied out a few extracts, notably those referring to the
famous correspondence between King Abgar of Edessa and
Jesus.
(2) These Acts, called the Acta Edessena, were written first in
Syriac and may date back to the first half of the third century.
(3) We possess, under the title of Doctrina Addaei, a Syriac
recension of the work, which is much more elaborate and may be
dated from 390-430.
(4) The Greek recension edited by Tischendorf is shorter and
has substituted the Apostle Thaddaeus or Lebbaeus for the
disciple Addaeus or Thaddaeus. The work is not older than the
fifth century.
2. Apocryphal Epistles
a) Introduction
(1) Apart from the Epistles mentioned in the Apocryphal Acts of
the Apostles, of which they form a part, there remain only a very
small number of Apocryphal Epistles.
(2) The reason for this is simple. Epistolary literature is one in
which the imagination finds little field for exercise and to which
it is much harder to give an authentic ring.
160
Page 327 of 524
b) Epistle of the Apostles

(1) Fragments, still partly unpublished, of an Epistle of the
Apostles, have recently been discovered in Coptic and Latin.
(2) This Epistle recounts the resurrection of Our Lord and the
deliverance of Peter. Harnack fixes the date of its composition
between 150 and 180.
c) Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans

(1) We have an Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans[1] written
evidently for the purpose of answering a passage in the "Epistle
to the Colossians" (iv, 16).
(2) The most ancient text extant is in Latin. Both the matter and
the form of this composition are mediocre; very probably it has
nothing in common with the "Epistle to the Laodiceans"
mentioned by the Muratorian Fragment.
(3) There is no sure witness of it before the fifth century.
d) Epistle of Paul to the Alexandrians

(1) The same Muratorian Fragment mentions an Epistle of Paul
to the Alexandrians, forged by the Marcionites.
(2) All trace of this work has been lost.
e) Correspondence Between Paul and the Corinthians

(1) We have, however, a Letter of the Corinthians to Paul and a
(third) Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, which originally
formed part of the "Acts of Paul" and,
(2) like it, were written in Greek. They remain only in Latin and
in one Armenian translation.
(3) The contents of these letters may be summed up as follows:
The Corinthians make known to Paul that Gnostic doctrines are
creeping in among them. Paul answers, insisting strongly on the
doctrine which he had preached to them. These letters have been
held in great esteem by the churches of Syria and Armenia. Like
the "Acts of Paul," they date from c. 170.
161
Page 328 of 524
f) Correspondence Between Seneca and Paul

(1) As to the fourteen Latin letters between Seneca and Paul
(eight letters of Seneca, six of Paul), which have been preserved,
it is certain that they are not genuine and are the work of a very
mediocre author.
(2) The poverty of thought, rough diction, and unpolished style
are striking.
(3) Are they the same as those mentioned by Jerome in De
Viribus Illustribus (12)? Most critics admit it and consequently
fix the date of their composition about 360-380, at the latest;
others think they are more recent.
(4) In any case, they are based on the belief that relations once
existed between Paul and Seneca, the truth of which is in nowise
proved. Seneca may have heard about the Christians, but he
certainly never borrowed anything from their doctrines.
3. Apocryphal Apocalypses
a) Apocalypse of Peter
(1) The Apocalypse of Peter, about half of which has been found
in a manucsript of Akhmin, is mentioned in the Canon of
Muratori and cited and even commented upon by Clement of
Alexandria.
(2) The fragment contains two visions, one of heaven, the other
of hell. The work enjoyed great popularity in many churches. It
must have been composed at the latest in the middle of the
second century.
(3) An Apocalypse of Peter by Clement, a more lengthy work
extant in Ethiopic and Arabic, is not older than the 7th or 8th
century.
b) Apocalypse of Paul
(1) The passage of St. Paul's second Epistle to the Corinthians
(12:2 ff.) relating to his being rapt into the third heaven, and the
mysterious words he heard there, was a natural inducement for
some author to reveal these wonders.
(2) Epiphanius [Haer., xxxviii, 2] mentions an Assumption of
Paul of the second or third century, used by the Gnostics.
162
Page 329 of 524
(3) We know nothing more about this book. But there does exist
in Greek, Latin, Syriac and other recensions (the Latin is the
best), an Apocalypse of Paul which enjoyed great vogue.
(4) The Apostle is represented as visiting successively the
dwelling-place of the elect, that of the damned, and the Garden
of Eden. The work is orthodox and states in the introduction that
it was discovered during the reign of Theodosius (379-395)
beneath the house in which Paul lived at Tarsus, and was sent by
that prince to Jerusalem. Traces of it first appear in Tractate
xcviii, 8, of Augustine on John (c. 416); consequently, it dates
from the end of the fourth century and was written in the
neighborhood of Jerusalem.
c) Apocalypse of Thomas and Stephen

(1) Besides the "Apocalypse of Paul," the decretal of Gelasius
mentions an Apocalypse of Thomas and an Apocalypse of
Stephen.
(2) Nothing is known of this latter work; perhaps it has been
confounded with a document of the fifth century on the finding
of the relics of Stephen.
(3) The Apocalypse of Thomas, a very short work, has recently
been found in Latin and seems to be of the fourth century and of
Manichean character.
d) Apocalypse of Zacharias
e) The Apocalypse of Zacharias, mentioned by the catalogues of
Biblical apocrypha, may refer to the Old or to the New Testament.
f) Not having the text, we do not know whether the Zacharias
referred to is the prophet or the father of John the Baptist.
163
Page 330 of 524
4. Persecution
a) "Persecution" was certainly a motivating factor in the
formation of the canon.
b) Why was this so? Well, imagine that you are being
persecuted as a Christian, and that your holy books are
a target and will be confiscated. If you don't turn them
over to the authorities, you may be harmed or killed.
Wouldn't you want to be sure you were not just suffering
for the sake of something that was not a genuinely
authoritative work?
c) Indeed, during the persecution of Diocletian (303),
this is exactly what happened: Scriptures were burned,
churches were demolished, and Christian meetings
were banned, with the bans enforced on pain of torture,
imprisonment or death.
d) Also, individual houses were searched for copies of
Christian scriptures.
F. The Process of Recognition
1. Introduction
a) Here we will find, as Metzger tells us, a striking
agreement as far as the core of the NT, in spite of
barriers of distance and doctrine.
b) It is at this time, c. 200, that Campenhausen tells us
that the NT truly reached its final form and significance
[Hans Von Campenhausen, The Formation of the
Christian Bible, 327].
c) This is not, we should point out in response to
certain skeptics, due to any kind of influence or force
being used or because of power plays by church
officials.
d) Rather, Von Campenhausen writes [ibid., 331-2]:
...official decisions by the Church are not involved.
Synodal judgments and episcopal pastoral letters
concerning the contents of the Bible become usual only
in the fourth century, and at first are of only local
importance. They encourage uniformity between the
164
Page 331 of 524
various areas of the church, but are unable to bring

about a completely uniform canon until the Middle
Ages.
e) Let it not be said, then, that force was the prime
mover behind acceptance of the NT canon!
f) Metzger and others divide history between the
Eastern and Western sectors of the Roman Empire; we
shall follow suit for convenience.
2. Eastern Stages
a) Metzger notes these three significant developments
in the Eastern half of the late Roman Empire in the late
2nd century AD:
(1) First, the four Gospels became a sort of "mini-canon," a
closed collection which would admit no other Gospels. "...the
Gospels became part of the (final) canon as a collection and
not individually." (Patzia, The Making of the New Testament,
64; see also Grant, Formation of the New Testament, 148) .
(2) The Pauline letters, Acts, and Revelation are accepted as
divine Scripture. For the first, we have seen that Marcion
evidently had some collection of Pauline letters; but the
"final" set of 13 attributed to Paul, we may safely say was
assembled as a corpus by the beginning of the third
century. [Patzia, Ibid., 88]
(3) Other letters are on the fringe of acceptance: Hebrews,
James, Jude, and letters attributed to Peter and John.
b) Tatian
(1) The East saw the invention of the very first harmony of all
four Gospels: Tatian's Diatessaron. Composed around 156 AD,
this work demonstrates that the four Gospels we have today were
considered authoritative; no other Gospels were included, other
than an occasional phrase or clause.
(2) In Tatian, incidentally, we see a perfect example of someone
who "crossed out" things he did not like. He rejected the
authenticity of 1 Timothy, and was the founder of the
Encratites, a group that rejected marriage, meat, and wine
- the latter of which is recommended for stomach disorder
in 1 Timothy! [Metzger. The Canon of the New Testament,
116]
165
Page 332 of 524
c) Clement
(1) Somewhat later, Clement of Alexandria (180-211) is found
quoting all of our current NT books as authoritative except
Philemon, James, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John.
(2) Except for James, these books are so short that
Clement may not have had cause to cite them. He also
refers to the Gospels as "Scripture." [Von Campenhausen,
294]
(3) At this point, aside from the Gospels, the canon is still
"open." [Metzger, 135]
d) Origen (185-250) is the first writer to use the name

"New Testament" and to indicate a classification of its
works.
(1) He divided the NT into two collections: Gospels and works
of the Apostles. These he proclaimed as "divine Scriptures,"
written by the evangelists under the same Spirit of the same God
as in the OT.
(2) He also makes note of heretical Gospels: those of Thomas,
Matthias, the 12 Apostles, Basilides, and the Gospel of the
Egyptians.
(3) However, Origen does not issue any directive that these
alternate Gospels be burned or thrown away; indeed, he does
quote them, though with the qualifying phrase, "If anyone
receives it..."
(4) Origen accepts the four Gospels, the 13 letters of Paul, and
Revelation [Gamble, The New Testament Canon, 50].
(5) He also comments on several works that were on the "fringe"
of acceptance as authoritative.
(6) Of 2 Timothy he writes: "...some have dared to reject this
Epistle, but they were not able." Of Peter's Epistles, he notes of
one that is acknowledged, and "possibly a second, but this is
disputed."
(7) To John he attributes one Gospel and one Epistle, "and, as it
may be, a second and third - but not all consider these to be
genuine."
166
Page 333 of 524
(8) Of James, he implies some doubt as to its authenticity; but

does accept the genuineness of Jude.
(9) He also mentions two books outside of our current NT: the
Shepherd of Hermas, which he calls "divinely inspired," and the
Preaching of Peter, which he rejects because: 1) it was not
composed by Peter; 2) it was not inspired by the Spirit of God,
although he recognizes in it "elements of inspired value." (ibid.,
136-141).
(10)
He also felt free to use works like the Acts of Paul and
the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.
(11)
It is important to note here that:

(a) Origen does NOT tell people to burn or get rid of the
heretical Gospels. Quite the contrary, he expresses
admirable tolerance for them, even as he rejects their
authenticity. That he does not viciously attack them
indicates that the presence of false Gospels was an
accepted fact, but one easily dealt with, not requiring
any kind of "political war" to get rid of them or the views
they express! This would also suggest that the false
Gospels were so poorly grounded in reality that they had
to struggle to survive (as indeed may be seen from those
that survive to this day).
(b) The authenticity of 2 Peter, James, and 2 and 3 John
are apparently being discussed throughout the church based on their genuineness! The issue, again, is
apostolic authority: do these books truly come from the
hands of an Apostle? The church did NOT rush to
judgment on these issues; although if they had, I wonder
if skeptics would criticize them for being to hasty in their
decisions!
e) Western Stages
(1) Justin Martyr, c. 150 AD, refers to "memoirs of the
Apostles" and quotes them as authoritative. Allusions in his
work are identifiable from Mark, Matthew, Luke, and possibly
John and Revelation. Metzger notes that these works were "read
interchangeably with the Old Testament prophets," indicating
their importance and authority in the eyes of Justin. (ibid., 145;
see also MacDonald, The Formation of the Christian Biblical
Canon, 163-4)
(2) Hippolytus (170-235), mirroring developments in the East,
accepts all four Gospels as Scripture; he also acknowledges as
167
Page 334 of 524
authentic 13 Pauline Epistles (not including Hebrews), Acts, 1

Peter, 1 and 2 John, and Revelation. He does quote Hebrews,
though not as Scripture; other works he quotes less
authoritatively, including the Shepherd of Hermas. His work
may show knowledge of 2 Peter and James. [ibid., 150]
(3) Irenaeus (130-202) quotes all of our present NT works
except Philemon, 2 Peter, 3 John, and Jude - whether due to
length or lack of recognition cannot be determined.
(a) He sees the Gospels quartet as fixed: the famous
"four winds" quote, which many skeptics misuse,
thinking it means that 4 Gospels were chosen, and not 3
or 5, because there were 4 winds; more likely, though
not discernibly, Ireaneus was "simply confirming a
concept that (was) well established in the churches"
[Patzia, 65] by means of a natural analogy.
(b) The rest of the forming canon, however, is still open.
(c) Ireneaus does identify two criteria for acceptance:
1) apostolic authority, and 2) agreement with the
traditions maintained by the church.
(4) Tertullian (converted to Christianity c. 195) made citations
to every current NT book except 2 Peter, James, and 2 and 3
John - again, possibly due to their length, or perhaps due to
ignorance of their existence! [Metzger, 159-60].
(a) He regarded the books he quoted as being equal in
stature to the OT Law and Prophets.
(b) The Book of Hebrews he accepted on the basis of
authorship by Barnabas, an associate of Paul (again,
note that apostolic authority plays a role in acceptance).
(c) On the other hand, he used Jude to argue for the
status of Enoch as Scripture.
(d) Important point here: It is assumed that apostolic
authorship of Jude was adequate authoritative basis to
decide questions of OT canon - showing a high degree of
authority has been accorded to Jude!,
(e) Early in his career accepted the Shepherd of Hermas
as inspired, although he later rejected it when he
converted to Montanism.
168
Page 335 of 524
(5) Cyprian of Carthage (converted 246 AD) cites as

authoritative all four Gospels, all of the Pauline Epistles (except
Philemon), 1 Peter, 1 John, and Revelation. He does not cite
Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude - but again,
whether due to shortness or rejection, we cannot say. (ibid., 1601)
(6) The Muratorian Canon, by an unknown author, is usually
dated to the end of the second century; attempts to date it later
have been unconvincing, according to Metzger.
(a) Discovered by the Italian historian, archivist, and
librarian Ludovico Antonio Muratori, and published in
1740, this fragment indicates books that are accepted
and rejected by the church.
(b) The only books clearly missing from the text are
James and Hebrews, but Hahneman suggests that we
have simply lost these references from the fragment,
which has a number of defects.
(c) 2 and 3 John may be missing; but that is a matter of
debate: The text indicates two epistles of John as
accepted, and these may be 2 and 3 John, with 1 John
subsumed categorically under John's Gospel.
(Hahnemen notes that the close relationship of 2 and 3
John make it improbable that the fragment only knows of
1 and 2 John.)
(d) Only one presently non-canonical book was noted as

accepted: A book of Wisdom by Solomon. Two
apocalypses are mentioned, of John (Revelation) and
Peter, though it is noted of the latter that "some of us are
not willing that (it) should be read in church." There are
also indications in the Canon as to which books are to
be rejected as heretical.
(7) The list of Eusebius refers to all 27 of our current books. 22
of the 27 were placed in the "universally accepted" category: The
four Gospels, Acts, Paul's 13 epistles, 1 Peter, 1 John, and
finally, Revelation "if it really seems proper." The 5 remaining
books were placed in a category that were "disputed, but familiar
to the people of the church." A final list set out books that were
to be rejected or were heretical; curiously, Eusebius puts
Revelation in this category also, saying that it should be
excluded if it seems proper!
(8) The "final" listing comes from 367 AD, at which time
Athanasius of Alexandria set forth a NT canon with a listing of
169
Page 336 of 524
books identical to those we have today [Grant, 175]. Councils at

Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) confirmed this en meration. To
be sure, this was not the end of the controversy, but when has the
resolution of any issue among human beings ever been simple?
G. The Disputes of Canonicity

1. Excluded Books
a) Let us now briefly consider a few of the books that
did not make the canon cut, and look for reasons why.
Again, any time these titles are brought up, it is a good
idea to see if whoever flies them on the flagpole knows
what they actually contain and what their history is. If
they do NOT know, then they are just blowing hot air or
arguing for the sake of it.
b) We will ask the basic question of WHY these books
we will examine (and dozens of others) were even put
under consideration - and achieved what Metzger calls
"temporary canonicity."[Metzger, 165] First, what were
the contents of these works? "It is obvious the great
majority...are the result of attempts to produce literary
forms that parallel those of the several genres of
literature (in the NT)," that is, gospels, acts,
apocalypses, and epistles. Epistles were the fewest
made, "for clearly, it was more difficult to produce an
epistle that possessed some semblance of authority
than it was to draw up a narrative of events in which
Jesus and various Apostles figured as heroes." In other
words, it was easier to write about events that no one
could verify than to pretend to be someone with the
authority to write an epistle!
c) Now let us look at these books individually:
(1) Epistle of Barnabas. If this book was truly by the companion
of Paul, then there might be reason to consider it for the canon.
But there is insufficient proof of this, and its late date (c. 90-130)
makes it unlikely to have been written by Barnabas [MacDonald,
146]. It also makes use of numerology.
(2) Shephard of Hermas. Reading this book, which Von
Campenhausen describes as "more jejune [dull, boring, empty]
and superficial than the Johannine Revelation," [Von
Campenhausen, 216] brought to mind another book - Bunyan's
Pilgrim's Progress. It is, like that work, self-evidently allegorical,
170
Page 337 of 524
and perhaps indeed inspired; but it was obviously written too late
(2nd century) to be attributed to the Apostles.
(3) Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans. Metzger notes that this
work was finally, once-and-for-all excluded from the canon in
the mid-1400s. Now of course it should be easy to see why this
work hung around for as long as it did: if it truly is a work of
Paul, then it meets the criteria of apostolic authority and deserves
to be considered for the canon. But there is nothing to assuredly
connect it to Paul, and even if there were, it is in content "almost
entirely a compiliation of extracts from the Pauline Epistles."
[Black Marcion and His Influence, 61] In other words, without
Laodecians, we ain't missin' nothin' anyway!
(4) 1 Clement (also consider 2 Clement). It comes as nosurprise
that the works of Clement (or works allegedly by him - 2
Clement's authenticity is questionable) were considered by some
as worthwhile, for he was a disciple of Peter. Hence, under the
criterion of apostolic authority, his works could have entered the
canon under the same principles as Luke and Mark did, but he is
disqualified by other criteria. In particular, 1 Clement refers to a
phoenix as an actual living creature!
(5) Preaching of Peter. A late date makes this document
unlikely to have been written by Peter.
(6) Apocalypse of Peter. Same as the above. This work was
written around 125-50 AD [Metzger, 184], too late for Peter. g)
Gospel According to the Egyptians. This work was written
around 150 AD (ibid., 169) and was accepted as canonical only
in Egypt (naturally). It appears to have been written to promote
the doctrines of the Encratites.
(7) Gospel According to the Hebrews. We have no current
translation of this work (ibid., 169) so we cannot evaluate it,
other than to say that it was probably written in the middle of the
second century.
(8) For none of the above books, therefore, do we have any
evidence that would indicate that in any sense they deserved to
make the "final cut" for the canon of the NT.
171
Page 338 of 524
H. Closure of Canonicity
1. We have seen that the canon was closed in the first century,
and that since then God has not revealed anything on the level with
Holy Scripture.
2. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for
His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set
down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be
deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be
added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of
men (Westminster Confession, 1:10).
3. According to this statement, which sums up the Protestant view
of Scripture, nothing is to be added or subtracted from the Bible.
The revelation from God to man has been completed.
4. However, there is no direct word in the Bible that says God has
stopped revealing Himself. Some have appealed to the following
verses in the Book of Revelation (22:18, 19).
a) For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the
prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things,
God will add to him the plagues that are written in this
book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the
book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from
the Book of Life (Revelation 22:18,19).
b) This is only speaking of the Book of Revelation. It is
not a commandment against adding any other book to
Scripture. If taken literally, then you could not have any
other book in Scripture but the Book of Revelation!
c) Yet there is a principle here that is clearly taught. No
one is to add or to take away from the revealed Word of
God.
5. Jude makes a statement that is pertinent.
a) I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to
contend earnestly for the faith which has one for all
delivered to the saints (Jude 3).
b) This verse teaches that a body of truth from God has
been delivered to man and that this faith has been
wholly delivered. This seems to indicate that no further
172
Page 339 of 524
revelation from God is necessary. God has told us in

Scripture everything that we need to know about who He
is, who we are, and what will happen to the earth in the
future.
6. Objective Criteria is absent
a) The apostolate was as much an unrepeatable,
redemptive-historical event as the death, burial, and
resurrection of Christ, because "the announcement of
redemption cannot be separated from the history of
redemption itself." (Ridderbos, pp. 12-15).
b) The apostolate was closed after the calling of Paul,
since he states that Christ appeared to him "last of all" (I
Cor. 15:8).
c) The Roman Catholic doctrine of apostolic
succession has no exegetical foundation (Cullmann, pp.
207, 236).
d) The presence of the apostolate was a necessary
condition for the production of the inspired New
Testament scripture. "The redemptive historical ground
of the New Testament canon must be sought in [the]
apostolic authority and tradition." (Ridderbos, p. 24)
e) Therefore, like the apostolate, the New Testament
scripture is an unrepeatable, unique, and completed
redemptive-historical event. "When understood in terms
of the history of redemption, the canon cannot be open;
in principle it must be closed. That follows directly from
the unique and exclusive nature of the power of the
apostles received from Christ The closed nature of the
canon thus rests ultimately on the once-for-all
significance of the New Testament history of redemption
itself, as that history is presented by the apostolic
witness." (Ridderbos, p. 25)
f) The passing of the apostolate necessarily implies the
closure of the canon of the New Testament. For
prophecy (including tongues-see "a pivotal
presupposition" above) to continue on into subsequent
sub-apostolic generations of the church, beyond the
foundational period, would necessarily create tensions
with the closed, finished character of the canon. In fact,
173
Page 340 of 524
such a continuation would exclude a completed canon

in the strict sense. (Gaffin, p. 100).
7. Even if a work met all of the above criteria, it would not
necessarily be the Word of God. While theoretically it is possible
that God could add something to what He has previously revealed,
it is highly unlikely that this would be the case. The faith has
already been delivered to mankind. Any further word from God to
man is not necessary. The canon of Scripture is complete.
8. The closing of the canon is not accidenta. Instead in the
production, preservation, and collection of the books of the New
Testament, the whole process can also be rightly characterized as
the result of divine overruling in the providentia Dei (Metzger, 285)
174
Page 341 of 524
VI.
The Ecclesiastical Controversies

A. Introduction
1. The church is the general body of men who believe the truth.
The further development of the doctrine concerning the church by
Irenus and Tertullian started with this idea. The bishops are the
bearers of the truth. The Catholic church is the church of pure
doctrines, guaranteed and represented by the bishops. But the
church is also the holy people of God. The recognition of this truth
led to consequences of historical importance. There were three
possible interpretations of the holiness of the church, each of which
found its advocates: (1) Every separate individual is holy
(Novatian). (2) The bishops are holy (Cyprian). (3) The sacraments
and ordinances of the church are holy (Rome).
2. Hermas had, in his day, in accordance with a special revelation
(p. 61f.), proclaimed the possibility of a second repentance. The
church did not lose sight of this idea, and it is almost certain that it
was through the authority of this publication that the idea of the
second repentance secured such general acceptance (cf. Tertul.
de pud. 10, 20). The resulting praxis was at about the close of the
second century the following: A discrimination was made between
sins of daily occurrence (as anger, smiting, cursing, swearing,
lies) and sins more serious and destructive, mortal (1 Jn. v. 16),
capital and irremediable (homicide, idolatry, fraud, denial or false
testimony, blasphemy, adultery, fornication, and if there be any
other violation of the temple of God, Tert. de pud. 19; c. Marc. iv.
9). Sins of the first class might find at once forgiveness through the
mediation of Christ, through prayer, good works and intercession,
since the sinner by these means offered to the offended God
sufficient satisfaction (see p. 133); but sins of the second group
require an exclusion from the congregation of the saints (see Tert.
de pud. 19). There was, however, a difference in the praxis of the
church in regard to transgressors of the second class. To the
greater number of these it granted the second repentance, but
only (Tert de poenit. 7, 12) upon condition that they felt bitter regret,
manifesting this by their outward deportment, requested
intercession in their behalf, and made the required confession
(exomologesis) in the presence of the assembled congregation.
The church granted this privilege through her presbyters and
confessors (Tert. de poenit. 9, 12, 22; Apol. 39). Thus is suitable
satisfaction made to God (let him repent from the heart, ex animo
confession of sins, confessio delictorum confession is the
method of satisfaction, satisfactionis consilium, poen. 8 fin.). These
175
Page 342 of 524
are the elements of the Romish sacrament of penance. The

worship of idols, murder, fornication, and adultery were absolutely
excluded from this second repentance (Tert. pud. 5, 12, 22; cf.
Orig. de orat. 28 fin.). Practically, the discussion centered about two
offenses: in times of peace, especially fornication; in times of
persecution, denial of the faith and apostasy. The conflicts of the
future naturally raged about these two centres. The opinions
entertained concerning this second repentance were still for a
time, indeed, quite fluctuating. Not to speak of the Montanists,
Tertullian, even before joining their ranks, had only reluctantly
accepted the theory (I am afraid of the second, I should rather say,
last hope, poen. 7). But others found fault with the strictness of the
treatment (poen. 5, 10), and even thought that open sinners might
be tolerated in the church, as the ark, which typifies the church,
held unclean animals (Tert. de idololatr. 24 fin.; cf. remarks of
Dionysius of Corinth in Eus. h. e. iv. 23:6).
B. Callistus and the Doctrine of Repentance
1. Introduction
a) Such was about the situation when CALLISTUS of
Rome (217222), by the publication of a new penitential
order, introduced a change of momentous import in the
praxis of repentance, and thus also in the conception of
the church.
b) Source. Hipp. Ref. ix. 12, p. 458f. Tert. de pudic. The
following analysis proceeds upon the supposition that
the bishop whom Tertullian attacks in his De pudicitia
was Callistus, and that we may, accordingly, from the
work of Tertullian, fill out the portraiture given in Hippol.
Ref. ix. 12.
2. Doctrine
a) Callistus was the first to allow the second repentance
in the case of fornication: He first contrived to connive
with men in matters pertaining to their lusts, saying that
sins were forgiven to all men by him (Hipp.), i.e., he
declared: I remit by penitence to those who have
committed them also sins of adultery and fornication
(Tert. 1). But this applied, as Tertullians polemics prove,
only to sins of the flesh, and made provision for but one
second repentance.
176
Page 343 of 524
b) In justification of this innovation, Callistus (or his

adherents) presented a number of biblical arguments,
e.g.: God is merciful, and does not desire the death of
the sinner, etc. (Ez. xxxiii. 11. Tert. ii. init.); it is not for
us to judge our brethren (Rom. xiv. 4, ib.); the parables
of the prodigal son and the lost sheep (7f.); Christs
treatment of the woman taken in adultery (11); Pauls
manner of dealing with such (2 Cor. ii. 5ff. c. 13), etc.
The aim of repentance is forgiveness (3); fellowship
(communicatio) may be withdrawn from the sinning, but
only for the present (ad presens). If he repent, let it be
granted him again according to the mercy of God (18). If
the blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin (1 Jn. i, 7, c.
19), then it is also perfectly scriptural for Callistus to
grant pardon to fornicators. The church has the
authority to do this (but the church has, I say, the
power of pardoning sins, c. 21); particularly the
bishops. And, therefore, the church will indeed pardon
sins, but the church as a spirit (ecclesia spiritus)
through a spiritual man, not the church as a number of
bishops (c. 21).
c) Callistus here appeals to Matt. xvi. 18 (ib.), and
appears to have attributed to himself, as the successor
of Peter, peculiar authority (cf. the form of address,
apostolice, c. 21, and the titles, pontifex maximus,
episcopus episcoporum, c. 1). A similar authority is also
ascribed to the confessors (22).
d) The forgiveness of sins is thus practically given into
the hand of the bishop, who exercises it as a divine
right. His own moral character is not taken into
consideration. He is not subject to removal: If a bishop
should commit some sin, even a mortal one, it is not
permitted to remove him (Hipp. ix. 12). If the bishop
tolerates sinners in the church, no objection can be
made. He must allow the tares to stand among the
wheat, and the ark contained many kinds of animals
(Hipp. ix. 12, p. 460; Tert. de idol. 24).
e) The innovation of Callistus was certainly in harmony
with the spirit of the age. Many of his deliverances have
an evangelical sound. But that such is not really their
character is evident from subsequent developments
from the fact that he did not advance a single new idea
looking to the awakening of repentance, but only
177
Page 344 of 524
changed the praxis in regard to fornication upon

practical grounds, and, above all, from his conception of
the church, which gave direction to all his thought.
f) Callistus was evangelicaland even liberal
because he was the first conscious hierarch. Henceforth
the church is no longer the holy people of God, holding
in common the faith of the apostles, i.e., the faith of the
bishops; but it is an association of men, subject to the
control of the bishop, whom he tolerates in the church,
and this by virtue of the divine authority which has been
given him to pardon or retain sins. He whom the bishop
recognizes belongs to the church. The bishop is lord
over the faith and life of the Christian world by virtue of
an absolute supremacy divinely bestowed upon him.
g) Callistus was the author of the Roman Catholic
conception of the church.
C. Cyprian and Novatian Controversy
1. Introduction
a) The penitential praxis introduced by Callistus had
become universal by about A. D. 250 (e.g., Cypr. ep.
55:20; 4:4), although there were still lingering
recollections of opposition to it (Cypr. ep. 55:21).
b) The circumstances of the congregations during the
Decian persecution produced a further and logically
consistent (cf. Tert. de pud. 22) step in advance. Even to
such as had denied the Christian faith must now be
extended the opportunity of return to the church.
c) It was chiefly CYPRIAN ( A. D. 258) who justified this
step, and, in doing so, developed more fully the Catholic
conception of the church.
d) Sources: Collection of Cyprians letters, his De lapsis
and De catholicae ecclesiae unitate (Cypr. Opp. omn. ed.
Hartel, 1868), and the letter of Cornelius of Rome to
Fabius of Antioch, in Eus. h. e. vi. 43. Dionysius of
Alexandria to Novatian, ib. vi. 45. Ambrose, de poen. ll.
2.
178
Page 345 of 524
e) During the Decian persecution it became evident that

it would be impossible, in view of the number of
backsliders (lapsi), to maintain the ancient praxis, i.e., to
exclude all such from the communion of the church (the
eucharist, Cypr. ep. 57:2), and to refuse to allow them to
receive the benediction (pax) with the congregation.
f) Those who had fallen applied to their confessors
for letters of recommendation (libelli), which were freely
granted (Cypr. ep. 20:2; cf. 22:2; 27:1). Although these
were primarily intended only as letters of
recommendation (ep. 15:1; 16:3; 18:1; 19:2; 22:2 fin.; cf.
36:2), this recommendation (cf. the more ancient praxis,
Tert. de pud. 22, and Dionys. of Alex, in Eus. h. e. vi.
42:5f.; ep. eccl. Lugd. in Eus. h. e. v. 1:45, 46; 2:6, 7)
soon came to have the force of a command (see the
letter of the confessor Lucian to Cyprian, ep. 23; cf.
21:3).
2. Issues
a) Cyprian did not dispute the right of the confessors,
but he thought that an assembly of the bishops should
first consider the matter and lay down the principles to
govern such cases before any action was taken
particularly in the midst of the distractions caused by
the persecution (ep. 19:2; 20:3; 20, cf. 31:6). This was
also the position of the church at Rome (ep. 30:3, 5, 6;
21:3; 36:3).
b) Meanwhile some presbyters at Carthage, during the
absence of their bishop, Cyprian, admitted certain of the
lapsed to the communion upon the basis of their libelli,
without previous public confession (ep. 15:1; 16:2, 3;
17:2; 20:2), and in some cities the mass of the people
(multitudo), relying upon the testimonials of the martyrs
and confessors, compelled the bishops to pronounce
the benediction upon them (ep. 27:3).
c) In contrast with those who, with the testimonial of
the confessors in their hands, believed themselves
authorized to demand the benediction, stood others,
who declared their purpose to repent and to await the
bishops declaration (ep. 33:1, 2; 35, cf. 36:1). Cyprian
instructed that the presbyters who would not submit to
the episcopal decision should be excluded from
179
Page 346 of 524
fellowship (communicatio, ep. 34:3; cf. 42). Thus the

episcopal authority on the one hand, and on the other
the pastoral office of the presbyters and the prerogative
of the confessors, stand arrayed in opposition (cf. 16:1).
It is not in reality a discord in the praxis of repentance
which here comes to view, but a discord between the
bishop and the presbyters. As a result, an opposition
party was formed under the leadership of five
presbyters and a certain FELICISSIMUS (ep. 41:2).) If the
latter was the standard-bearer of sedition, the
presbyter, NOVATUS, was the soul of the insurrection,
a torch and fire for kindling the flames of sedition
(52:2). FORTUNATUS became the bishop of this party
(59:9). Their motto was, to restore and recall the
lapsed (43:5), and they were opposed to an episcopal
decision in the matter and to a more prolonged
probation for penitence (43:2). In accordance with the
ancient privilege of confessors, they admitted at once to
fellowship those who were recommended by the latter.
3. Schism
a) About the same time a schism arose also in Rome,
occasioned by an election for bishop (ep. 44:1. Euseb. h.
e. vi. 43), in which CORNELIUS and NOVATIAN (about A.
D. 251) were the candidates. Novatian, otherwise an
orthodox man, established a party in opposition to
Cornelius by retaining the ancient praxis in relation to
the lapsed. He sought to build up a congregation of the
pure (, Eus. h. e. vi. 43:1), since the idolatrous
worship of some contaminates the remaining members
of the church: They say that one is corrupted by the sin
of another, and in their zeal contend that the idolatry of
an offender passes over to the non-offending (Cypr. ep.
55:27). He proposes to have a congregation of actually
holy men.
b) Hence he has those who come to him from the
church at large re-baptized (Cypr. ep. 73:2; Dionys. of
Alex, in Eus. h. e. vii. 8; Ambros. de poenit. i. 7:30). His
adherents were compelled at the reception of the Lords
Supper to bind themselves by oath to adhere to his
church (Cornel, in Eus. h. e. vi. 43:18). There should
thus be established a congregation of saints, such as
Montanism had endeavored to form. But to what an
extent church politics and personal motives were
180
Page 347 of 524
involved on both sides is manifest from the league

formed by Novatianafter his confessors had
forsaken him (Cornel, to Cypr. ep. 49:1, 3; cf. 53, 54)
with Novatus (see ep. 47:50).
c) Novatian appointed opposition-bishops also in other
places (ep. 55:24; 68:1). Novatianism grew deep roots
also in the Orient (Eus. h. e. vi. 46:3; vii. 5). A Novatian
counter-church, which afterward extended its rigor
toward the lapsed to all guilty of mortal sins (see e.g.,
Athanas. ad Serap. ep. iv. 13; Socrat. h. e. i. 10), had
soon spread, variously combined with Montanism, over
the whole church. But it never gained a more than
superficial influence. It was an essentially powerless
reaction in the interest of an archaistic idea, which never
was nor could be applied with real seriousness in
practical life.
4. Reaction
a) In Carthage, after Cyprians return, the proposed
assembly of bishops was held (A. D. 252). Its decrees
present the actual results of the agitation. In expectation
of a new persecution, it is here held to be proper that to
those who have not departed from the church of the
Lord, and from the first day of their lapse have not
ceased to exercise repentance and lament and pray to
the Lord, the pax should be given.
b) Although this had been granted only to those in
immediate peril of death (cf. Cypr. ep. 55:13; 57:1; de
laps. 16), yet it is now, upon the suggestion of the Holy
Spirit and plain visions, extended to all the lapsed (see
Cypr. ep. 57; cf. 55:6). To this Rome also agreed (ep.
55:6).
c) This principle was not, indeed, at once acted upon in
all places (see ep. 55:22; 59:15), but as a principle it had
carried the day. It is not in this fact, however, that the
real significance of the decision lay. In the question
concerning repentance, Cyprian accepted fully the
position of his opponents; but it was bishops who
passed the final decree, bishops were to decide in the
case of individuals who had lapsed, and from their
authority the latter could not appeal.
181
Page 348 of 524
d) In these controversies, therefore, Cyprians

conception of the church was perfected. The whole
heart of the great bishop was bound up with this idea. In
it centered all the elements of his religious thought and
feeling. He had the juristic, logical bent of a Roman.
Tertullian was his instructor. He had a warm heart. He
was fanatically devoted to the hierarchy, and he loved
Christ.
5. Doctrine: Cyprians conception of the church embraces the
following:
a) The successors of the apostles are the bishops, who,
like the former, are chosen by the Lord himself and
inducted into their office (Cypr. ep. 3:3; cf. Firmil. 75:16)
as leaders (praepositi) or pastors (pastores) (ep. 8:1;
19:2; 20:3; 27:3; 33:1; 13:1; 59:14). This is to be
understood not merely in the sense of an ordinance of
succession, but every individual bishop is inducted
into his office by a divine decree, for his own sake
(59:5). He is a bishop, however, and his sacrifices and
prayers are effectual, only so long as he remains faithful
and leads a holy life.
(1) Ep. 65:4: "to separate the brothers from the folly and
remove them from the contagion of these, since neither can

a sacrifice be consecrated where there is not a holy spirit,
nor does the Lord favor anyone on account of the addresses
and prayers of one who has himself offended the Lord."
(2) And in ep. 67:3 (circular letter of 37 bishops) it is announced
as a fundamental principle: "All are completely bound to sin who
have been contaminated [according to Hos. 9:4] by the sacrifice
of a profane and wicked priest," and "a people obedient to the
Lords commands and fearing God ought to separate themselves
from a sinful leader, praepositus, and not participate in the
sacrifice of a sacrilegious priest" (Numb. 16:26).
(3) These are statements to which the Donatists could
afterward appeal.
b) He who criticizes the bishops presumes thereby to
pass judgment upon the judgment of God and Christ:
This is not to believe in God; this is to be a rebel
against Christ and his gospel, as, when he says: Are
not two sparrows, etc. (Matt. 10:29) thou wouldst
think that priests of God are ordained in the church
182
Page 349 of 524
without his knowledge For to believe that those who

are ordained are unworthy or corrupt, what else is this
but to contend that his priests are not appointed in the
church by God nor through him? (66:1).
(1) The divine decision at elections does not exclude "the
vote of the people, the consensus of associated bishops
"(ep. 59:5; 55:8; 67:4, 5; 49:2).
(2) It is even said of the populace (plebs): "Since it most
fully possesses the power of electing worthy or rejecting

unworthy priests" (ep. 67:3).
c) In harmony with this, the bishops are said to be
guided in their decisions by divine suggestions and
visions (e.g., ep. 11:3, 4; 57:5; 68:5; 66:10; 63:1; 73:26,
cf. 40; 81; see also de aleat. 3:2). The bishop, according
to Cyprian, is, upon the one hand, a successor of the
historical apostolate and hence the legitimate teacher of
the apostolical tradition. But he is also an inspired
prophet, endowed with the charismataa claim not
found in the teachings of Irenus. Thus the bishop
discharges the office of the ancient Spirit-endowed men,
for he receives revelations from the Spirit. The place of
the former is filled by the bishop, as
afterward by the monastic system. But if the bishops
have the Spirit, it may be easily understood that all
criticism must be forestalled by their deliverances, as
formerly by those of the prophets.
d) According to Matt. xvi. 18f., the church is founded
upon the bishop and its direction devolves upon him:
Hence through the changes of times and dynasties the
ordination of bishops and the order of the church moves
on, so that the church is constituted of bishops, and
every act of the church is controlled by these leaders
(33:1). One in the church is for the time priest and for
the time judge, in the stead of Christ (ep. 59:5.). How
seriously these principles were accepted is evident from
the controversy above noted. The bishop decides who
belongs to the church and who shall be restored to her
fellowship (16:1; 41:2; de laps. 18, 22, 29). He conducts
the worship as the priest of God, who offers the
sacrifice upon the altar (67:1; Cyprian is the first to
assert an actual priesthood of the clergy, based upon
the sacrifice offered by them, vid. sub, p. 196), and cares
183
Page 350 of 524
for the poor. He defends the pure tradition against

errorists (ep. 63:17, 19; 74:10). He is the leader
(praepositus), whose office it is to rule the laity (laici, or
plebs) by virtue of divine authority.
e) The bishops constitute a college (collegium), the
episcopate (episcopatus). The councils developed this
conception. In them the bishops practically represented
the unity of the church, as Cyprian now theoretically
formulated it. Upon their unity rests the unity of the
church. The episcopate is one, a part of which taken
separately is regarded as the whole: the church is one,
which is ever more widely extended into a multitude by
the increase of reproductive energy (de unit. eccl. 5).
The church, which is one and catholic, is in a manner
connected and joined together by the glue of the
mutually cohering priests (ep. 66:8). In this connection
it is said: These are the church united (adunata) to the
priest and the flock adhering to the pastor. Whence thou
shouldst know that the bishop is in the church and the
church in the bishop, and he who is not with the bishop
is not in the church, and they flatter themselves in vain
who, not having peace with the priests of God, deceive
themselves and think that they may secretly hold
fellowship with any persons whatsoever (ib.). This
unity of the episcopate rests upon the divine election
and endowment which the bishops have in common as
successors of the apostles, and finds expression in the
same sense (e.g., 75:3) in their united conferences and
mutual recognition (cf. ep. 19:2; 20:3; 55:1, 6, 7, 24, 30;
cf. 75:4, 45, etc.). The unity is manifest in the fact that
the Lord in the first instance bestowed apostolic
authority upon Peter: Here the other apostles were
also, to a certain extent, what Peter was, endowed with
an equal share of both honor and power; but the
beginning proceeds from unity, in order that the church
of Christ may be shown to be one (de un. eccl. 4).
Accordingly, the Roman church is the mother and root
of the catholic church (ep. 48:3; cf. 59:14, etc.). The
Roman bishop made practical application of these ideas
(ep. 67:5; esp. 68:13; cf. also ep. 8; 71:3; 75:17; de
aleatoribus 1, as well as the ideas of Callistus, supra, p.
177). As understood by Cyprian, no higher significance
was attached to them than by Irenus (supra, p.137). In
reality all the bishopsregarded dogmaticallystand
upon the same level, and hence he maintained, in
184
Page 351 of 524
opposition to Stephanus of Rome, his right of

independent opinion and action, and flatly repelled the
latters appeal to his primacy (ep. 71:3; 74; cf. Firmilians
keen criticism, ep. 75:2, 3, 17, 24f.; see also 59:2, 14;
67:5). The bond which holds the church to unity is thus
the episcopate.
f) Rebellion against the bishop is, therefore, rebellion
against God. The schismatic is also a heretic (59:5; 66:5;
52:1; 69:1; de unit. eccl. 10). He who does not submit to
the rightful bishop forfeits thereby his fellowship with
the church and his salvation. Whosoever he is, and
whatever his character, he is not a Christian who is not
in the church of Christ (55:24, referring to Novatian! cf.
43:5; de unit. 17, 19). The possession of the same faith,
to which such persons are wont to appeal, benefits them
as little as it did the family of Korah (ep. 69:8). It is
always chaff which is blown from the threshing-floor (de
un. eccl. 9; ep. 66:8), even though the individuals
concerned were martyrs for the faith (ep. 73:21):
because there is no salvation outside the church. The
true members of the church will, therefore, above all,
recognize the bishop and obey him. Thus they remain in
the one church, outside of which there is no salvation:
It is not possible that he should have God for his father
who has not the church for his mother (de un. 6). The
members of the church are related to the bishop as
children to their father (ep. 41:1); members of the
fraternitas to one another as brothers, in that they give
full sway to peace and love, and avoid all discord and
divisions, praying with one another in brotherly accord,
and even sharing with one another their earthly goods
(de un. 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 24f.; de orat. dom. 8, 30; de op. et
eleem. 25 fin.; de pat. 15; de zel. et liv. 6).
g) A logical result of this conception of the church is
seen in Cyprians denial of the validity of heretic
baptism. Tradition was here divided. The bishops,
assembled three times (A. D. 255256) at Carthage
under Cyprian, supported their opposition by appeal to
their predecessors (ep. 70:1; 71:4; 73:3; cf. Tert. de bapt.
15), and, as Firmilian reports (ep. 75:19), the synod at
Iconium had taken the same view. The Roman usage
was, however, different, and Stephanus followed it (let
there be no innovations, let nothing be done except
what has been handed down, 74:1; cf. Ps.-Cypr. de
185
Page 352 of 524
rebaptismate 1; also Alexandrines, Eus. vii. 7:4), and

appealed to the primacy of Peter (71:3; cf. sent,
episcoporum, proem.). When confronted by tradition,
Cyprian always appealed to the decision (consilium) of
a sane mind (68:2 and 71:3; 73:13; 74:2, 3, 9; cf. 75:19.
Compare Tert., supra, 135, n.), i.e., to the logical
consequences of his conception of the church,
according to which, it was evident, no one who was
himself outside of the church could receive anyone into
it. The baptism of heretics is a sordid and profane
bath (tinctio, 70:1; 72:1; 73:6, 21, etc.). On the other
hand: the water is purified and sanctified through the
priest of Christ (70:1). Only the leaders, who receive the
Spirit, have the power to impart the forgiveness of sins,
and it is only in the church that the Spirit of God is
received (73:7; 74:5; cf. 75:9); therefore, in receiving
those baptized by heretics, the term employed should
be not re-baptism, but baptism (73:1). Stephanus
severed fellowship with the churches of Africa (75:25)
and threatened to pursue the same course with the
Orientals (Dionys. in Eus. h. e. vii. 5:4). Thus Cyprians
conception of the church was used as a weapon against
himself. Cyprian held in this controversy apparently the
more logical position. But the instinct of Rome was
keener. Individuals are changeable and open to assault.
A principle is firmly established only when it has
become rooted in institutions, and when these bring
individuals into subjection. Accordingly, the seemingly
more liberal praxis of Rome prevailed.
6. Implications
a) We have thus witnessed a momentous
transformation in the general conception of the Church.
By the term is no longer understood the holy people of
God believing on Jesus Christ, but a group of men
belonging to the episcopacy. They obey it, not because
it advocates the truth proclaimed by the apostles, but
because the bishops have been endowed and appointed
by God to be the leaders of the congregations, ruling
them in Gods name and by virtue of divine authority.
This subjection under the episcopacy is the essential
feature in the church, for it constitutes her unity.
b) Only he who obeys the bishop belongs to the church
and has relationship with God and salvation. The ideas
186
Page 353 of 524
of Irenus must now receive a new interpretation and

be brought into harmony with this new conception, and
the holiness of the church is more and more distinctly
associated with her sacraments. The evangelical
definition of the church was superseded by the catholic.
The church is no longer essentially the assembly of
believers and saints, nor an object of faith, but a visible
body, controlled by divinely authorized ecclesiastical
law. Much is yet in a crude state, but the foundation
has been laid.
D. Donatistic Controversy and Further Development of the Doctrines
of the Church and the Sacraments by Augustine
1. The Donatistic Controversy
a) Background
(1) The greatest schism in the ancient church arose from
personal and local conditions in the congregation at Carthage. As
in the case of the Novatian schism, a persecution furnished the
occasion. Various courses of action were advocated in North
Africa in response to the demand for the surrender of the
Scriptures during the Diocletian persecution. Bishop
MENSURIUS OF CARTHAGE represented the milder view
(surrender of other writings of indifferent character permitted).
He and his archdeacon CAECILIAN also opposed the
exaggerated veneration of confessors and martyrs. SECUNDUS
OF TIGISIS advocated a rigoristic view. After the death of
Mensurius, Caecilian, who was hated by the strict party in
Carthage, was chosen bishop and consecrated to the office by
FELIX OF APTUNGA, whom the strict party regarded as a
traditor. This election awakened great indignation among the
pious (Lucilla), which was encouraged by the foreign rigorists.
The Numidian bishops had sent Docetus from Casae Nigrae to
Carthage as vicar of the bishopric. An assemblage of 70 bishops
in Carthage (A. D. 312) declared the ordination invalid.
MAJORINUS was then elected Bishop of Carthage. His
successor was DONATUS THE GREAT.
(2) Through a combination of many influences, this conflict led
to the formation of two warring churches sharply opposing one
another, the Catholic and the Donatistic. The pride of the
martyrs, the spirit of piety quickened anew under the stress of
persecution, the idea of the holiness of the church, archaistic
religious reminiscences, the pressure soon brought to bear by the
civil authorities, the league of the Catholic church with the state,
social distress, perhaps also national motives, all united to
expand the personal dispute into the great schism which
187
Page 354 of 524
distracted the church of Africa for a century. The African church

was really split in two (in A. D. 330 there were 270 Donatistic
bishops at a council, and in A. D. 311, at Carthage, 266). Outside
of Africa, Donatism secured no following worthy of mention (a
bishop in Spain and another in Rome are spoken of), only
Caecilian and his followers being recognized.
b) 1st ResponseCouncil of Arles

The emperor, Constantine, after being drawn into the matter by
the Donatists, assumed a similar attitude. He ordered an
investigation of the subject; then examined it himself, deciding
that Caecilian and Felix were innocent, but that their assailants
were contemptible slanderers. Stringent laws were enacted
against the latter, but, proving ineffectual, they were soon
revoked.
But the most important measure was that adopted, under the
influence of Constantine, at the council of Arles (A. D. 316; cf.
Eus. v. C. 44, 45), i.e., the establishment of the milder view on
the ground of principle. It was here decreed that even the
ordination administered by a traditor is valid, provided only
that the persons so ordained remain reasonable (can. 13); also,
that persons who had been baptized by heretics should be
questioned only upon the Creed, and that, if it be found that they
have been baptized in the name of the Triune God, only the
laying on of hands shall be further administered to them (can. 8).
According to this, ordination and baptism are not dependent
upon the worthiness of the administrant.
c)
Continued Problems
(1) Thus a doctrinal difference runs parallel with the personal

and historical conflict. The agitation spread with great rapidity,
especially among the lower ranks of society. Socialistic ideas as
to property and a reckless fanaticism, leading to a complete
outward separation, to frightful deeds of violence, and to wanton
and contemptuous surrender of life, became distinguishing marks
of the church of the saints (Circumcelliones, Agonistici, vid.
Opt. ii. 18f. 21; vi. 1f.; iii. 4. Aug. unit. eccl. 19:50; c. ep. Parm.
ii. 3:6; c. Crescon. iii. 42:46; brev. iii. 11).
(2) Against this, church and state were alike powerless.
Restrictive measures under CONSTANS and CONSTANTIUS,
as under JOVIAN, VALENTINIAN, GRATIAN, and
HONORIUS, were unable to suppress the movement. The most
serious obstacle encountered by the party was its division into
mutually antagonistic groups (Rogatus, Tyconius, Maximian,
and Primian)the fate of all separatists.
188
Page 355 of 524
(3) Augustine, soon after entering upon the episcopacy,

addressed all his energy to the work of reconciling the opposing
factions. This resulted in the three-day conference at Carthage in
June, 411 (vid. gesta collationis in M. iv. and Aug. brevic. coll.).
Both the historical and the doctrinal questions were here
discussed. No reader of the proceedings of this assembly can
escape the impression that the Donatists here appear in the light
of embittered fanatics, incompetent but vain, adepts in the most
trifling legal quibbles, in questions of formality and in intrigue,
always seeking to impede the progress of the proceedings. The
imperial presiding officer (Marcellin) accorded the victory to the
Catholics upon both points of dispute. His decision was a just
one.
(4) Augustine continued to labor in the same spirit. Strict
imperial edicts forbade the assemblage of the Donatists upon
penalty of death, and their churches and church property were
given over to the Catholics. The power of Donatism was broken,
and it soon after disappears from church history.
d) Doctrinal Differences
(1) Donatist View
(a) Donatism does not question the episcopal
foundation of the church. It demands only that the
bishops be holy men, and maintains that only when they
are such are the sacraments administered by them
effectual. In this, as at other points, it could appeal to
Cyprian. It was well known that Cyprian denied the
validity of heretic baptism (p. 184). He taught that there
was no virtue in the sacrifices or prayers of fallen priests
(referring to Jn. 9:31), and warned against the
contamination of their touch (p. 181, n. 1).
(b) When the Donatists appealed to the miracles
performed by their bishops, to visions and dreams (Aug.
unit. eccl. 19:49), they had in this also a precedent in
Cyprian (p. 181, n. 3). They maintained, further, that
they were the only true and real Catholic church (gesta
coll. i. 148, 202; iii. 22, 91, 165), the holy, persecuted
church of the martyrs (ib. i. 45; iii. 116).
(c) The Catholics are not a church, but adherents of
Caecilian, traditors, and blood-thirsty oppressors
(Optat. ii. 14, 18; gest. i. 148; iii. 14, 29, 258). The
Donatist church is in reality the holy bride of Christ,
without spot or wrinkle, because it requires holiness of
its bishops and its members (ib. iii. 75, 249, 258. Optat.
ii. 20; vii. 2). They apply the term, Catholic, not to
189
Page 356 of 524
provinces or races, but: the name Catholic is that

which is filled with the sacraments (sacramentis
plenum, gest. iii. 102, cf. Aug. brev. iii. 3), or, thou
shouldst interpret the name Catholic, not from the
fellowship of the whole world, but from the observance
of all the divine commandments and of all the
sacraments (Aug. ep. 93:7.23).
(d) In accordance with the holiness of this church, its
members are to carefully avoid association with all who
are not in its fellowship, all such being regarded as no
better than heathen.
(i) At the religious colloquy at Carthage, the
Donatists could not be induced to sit with the
Catholics.
(ii) Any connection whatever of the church with
the civil government is regarded with
abhorrence: What have Christians to do with
kings, bishops with the palace? (Opt. i. 22; Aug.
c. litt. Petil. 92:202).
(iii) Yet the Donatists themselves called upon
Constantine to act as umpire, and, as it appears,
did not at a later day disdain the assistance of
the secular arm (gest. iii. 194. Aug. brev. iii. 11).
(e) The dogmatic reason for this separateness lies in the

invalidity of the Catholic sacraments. The moral
unworthiness of the bishops of the traditor-church robs
their sacraments of value: How can he give who has
nothing to give? (Opt. v. 6; cf. gest. iii. 258). Hence the
repetition of the sacraments, the second baptism, and the
repetition of extreme unction are necessary (Opt. i. 5; iii.
2; iv. 4; v. 1:3f.; vii. 4). Yet it is going too far to regard
re-baptism as, without any modification, a characteristic
mark of Donatism. The Donatist Tyconius advocated the
validity of the Catholic sacraments, and maintained that
this was the genuine Donatist viewa position that is
supported by historical evidences from other sources
(Aug. ep. 93:43). But, since the Donatists have the full
observance of the sacraments, they are the Catholic
church. Hence, Christ and true baptism are to be found
only among them: For how can it be, if the church is
one and Christ undivided, that anyone located without
may obtain baptism (gest. iii. 258)?
190
Page 357 of 524
e) Catholic View:
(1) The orthodoxy of the Donatists is acknowledged, as well as
the validity of their sacraments, and they are regarded as
Christian brethren (gest. i. 16, 55, 62; ii. 50. Opt. i. 4f.; iv. 2):
Both among you and among us there is one ecclesiastical life
(conversatio), common texts, the same faith, the same
sacraments of the faith, the same mysteries (Opt. v. 1).
(2) Even their baptism is unassailable, for baptism is baptism,
even though administered by thieves and robbers (gest. i. 62); for
it is not a man, but the holy Trinity, which here bestows a gift
(Opt. v. 7).
(3) The Trinity is necessary in baptism, and also the faith of the
recipient. These elements are unchangeable; but the administrant
is a variable element. Administrants may be changed, but the
sacraments cannot be changed. If, therefore, you consider all
who baptize, they are administrants, not lords; and the
sacraments are holy in themselves and not through men (Opt.
iv. 4, 1). Thus regarded, the Donatists are also a part of the
church.
(4) But they are not so in the full sense of the word, since they
lack catholicity and are only quasi ecclesia. They build a
ruinous wall (Ez. 13:10). There is no other house beside the
house of God. What they build is only a wall, and that not even
resting upon the cornerstone: your part is a quasi-church, but is
not Catholic (Opt. iii. 10). They array novelty against
antiquity (ib. iii. 2), and cut themselves off from the root (iii. 7).
Among the Catholics, on the contrary, is found the house of God
and the one Catholic church. It is the latter, because, according to
the promise of Christ, it spreads abroad over all nations and is
not confined to a small part of Africa, to the corner of a little
region (Opt. ii. 1, 5; iii. 2, 3). But it is also the holy church, and
this not because of the character of the men belonging to it, but
because it has the symbol of the Trinity, the chair of Peter, the
faith of believers, the salutary precepts of Christ (ib. ii. 9, 10;
vii. 2), and, above all, the sacraments: whose holiness is derived
from the sacraments, not measured by the loftiness of persons
(ib. ii. 1).
(5) When the Donatists refuse to accord holiness to the church
because some bishops at the time of the Diocletian persecution
became traditors, they magnify what is irrelevant, if true, and
what is, moreover, historically incorrect (gest. i. 16, 55. Aug.
brev. iii. 19ff.). There are, indeed, unholy persons in the church,
but we are forbidden to cast these out before the time by the
parables of the tares and of the net in which are gathered good
and worthless fishes (gest. i. 18, 55. Opt. vii. 2).
191
Page 358 of 524
(6) Those passages of Scripture which speak of a state of

unmixed holiness in the church are to be understood as referring
to her condition of final blessedness (Aug. brev. iii. 9. Opt. ii.
20). The church, therefore, as a whole, is holy in the present day
by virtue of the divine agency exerted within its bounds in the
sacraments, and it will one day be holy in all its members.
(7) The error of the Donatists consists in seeking to realize this
final state before the time. It is certain that, viewed dogmatically,
the Catholic position was the more correct, yet its victory was
not a clear step in advance. The ancient idea, that the people of
God should consist of holy children of God, was forced another
step backward.
2. Augustines Doctrine of the Church, the Sacraments, and the

Relation of Church and State.
a) Augustines doctrine of the church is a complicated
structure. Ideas evolved in the conflict with the
Donatists, the popular conception of the church, his
own doctrine of grace, and certain Donatistic tendencies
are here brought into combination. Augustine was
influenced especially by Tyconius conception of the
church. This Donatist maintained, indeed, that the
church is composed of saints only, but he also taught
that empirically the church for the present embraces evil
as well as good persons, and that this is so by divine
ordering. True, this mixed condition of the church is,
according to his view, soon to be terminated, and to this
end Donatism is a beginning (vid. HAHN, TyconiusStudien, p. 80ff.). As opposed to Donatism, Augustine
thus formulates the point at issue: The question is,
indeed, discussed between us, Where is the church,
whether among us or among them? (de unit. eccl. 2:2).
With Optatus, Augustine holds that the great church is
the one Catholic church by virtue of the distribution of
the latter throughout the whole world (c. litt. Petil. ii.
38:91; iii. 2:3; de unit. eccl. 6:11ff.) and by virtue of its
connection with the church of the apostles, whose
successors the bishops are (c. Cresc. iii. 18:21; de unit.
eccl. 11:30, cf. in Joh. tr. 37:6). Outside of this one
Catholic church, the body of Christ, there is no truth, no
salvation (ep. 141:5; de unit. 2:2). Separation from it is a
sacrilegium (c. ep. Parm. i. 8:14; 10:16). Only chaff is
blown off by the fan (bapt. v. 21:29); only pride and lack
of love can impel a Christian to split the unity of the
church (c. Cresc. iv. 59:71; c. litt. Petil. ii. 77:172). The
192
Page 359 of 524
declaration of Augustine is not, however, inspired by

hierarchial motive, but rests ultimately upon the thought
that it is only in the Catholic church that the Spirit and
love are bestowed upon man. But the saints are to be
found only in the Catholic church. In this connection,
Augustine championed the motto, Extra ecclesiam nulla
salus, no less positively than Cyprian; but, at the same
timeas a result of the different character of the
oppositiondisplayed less of hierarchical interest than
the latter (cf. REUTER, 1.c, p. 253ff.).
b) The idea of the ROMAN PRIMACY likewise receives
no special elucidation at the hands of Augustine. We
find a general acknowledgment of the primacy of the
apostolic chair (e.g., ep. 43:7), but Augustine knows
nothing of any special authority vested in Peter or his
successors. Peter is a figure of the church or of the
good pastors, and represents the unity of the church
(serm. 295:2; 147:2). In this consists the significance of
his position and that of his successors (thus also
Cyprian, p. 183). As all bishops (in contradistinction
from the Scriptures) may err (unit. eccl. 11:28), so also
the Roman bishop. This view is plainly manifest from
the bearing of Augustine and his colleagues in the
Pelagian controversy (vid. p. 355f., cf. ep. 177, 191; pecc.
orig. 21:24, cf. 8:9). The infallible authority of the pope in
the church at large was a dogma in which only the
popes believed (vid. the letters of Innocent, p. 355; cf. as
to Leo, p. 268, and Callistus, p. 177). Dogmatically, there
had been no advance from the position of Cyprian. The
Africans, in their relations with Rome, played somewhat
the role of the Gallicanism of a later period (cf. REUTER,
p. 291ff.).
c) The opposition between the Donatistic and Catholic
churches was based upon their different conceptions of
the sacraments. From the time of the Council of Arles (p.
314), the great point of discussion was whether baptism
and ordination administered by an unworthy person
retained their validity. Augustines views concerning the
sacraments, by an inner necessity, determined his
attitude upon this question (cf. REUTER, p. 278). The
sacraments are gifts of God, and the moral condition of
the administrator cannot detract from the value of the
gift conveyed: What he gives is, nevertheless, real
(verum), if he gives not what is his own, but Gods (c.
193
Page 360 of 524
litt. Pet. ii. 30:69; unit. eccl. 21:58). Only thus is the
result certain, and salvation dependent upon God, not
upon men. It is not the intercession of men, but that of
Christ, which helps us (c. litt. Pet. i. 3:4; c. ep. Parm. ii.
8:16). No reason is shown why he who cannot lose
baptism itself can forfeit the right of administering it. For
each is a sacrament, and each is given to man by the
same consecrationthe one when he is baptized, and
the other when he is ordained: therefore, in the Catholic
church neither dare be repeated (c. ep. Parm. ii. 12:28).
This is explained by the fact that these sacraments
impart to the recipient a permanent character: just as
baptism, so ordination remains whole in them (ib.).
Baptism and ordination impress upon man a fixed
dominical character. This military form of expression
implies that, as there is a military brand (nota militaris)
whose significance continues through the whole life, so
also baptism and ordination have a perpetual and
indelible (the term employed in the Middle Ages) force
for the recipient (c. ep. Parm. ii. 13:29). There remains in
him something sacred, a sanctum. The spirit is
preserved to him, not in a moral sense, but in the sense
of an official equipment. He may have committed
heinous crimesmay have severed himself from the
church, yet this character once impressed upon him
remains, and the sacraments administered by him retain
their force. If he be converted, there is no need for a
repetition of the sacrament (c. ep. Parm. ii. 11:24;
13:28f.; bapt. iv. 12:18; vi. 1:1; de symbol. 8:15; de bon.
conjug. 24:32: in those ordained, the sacrament of
ordination remains; bapt. vi. 5:7; in 1 Joh. tract. 5:7). It
is evident that this character indelebilis may be
employed as the most telling argument against
Donatism; but it also brought Augustine into new
difficulties. If the sacraments have bestowed such a
character, how can objection be brought against the
Donatistic church? It was necessary, therefore, to
maintain the validity of the Donatist sacraments, and yet
to condemn them as seriously defective. This was
accomplished by discriminating between the sacrament
itself and the effectus or usus sacramenti. By failing to
observe this distinction, Cyprian and others were led to
the view that the baptism of Christ cannot exist among
heretics or schismatics. By observing it, we may say:
its effect or use, in liberation from sin and in rectitude
of heart, could not be found among heretics (bapt. vi.
194
Page 361 of 524
1:1). Baptism imparts to the recipient an abiding

character, but if he do not live in the church, the effect
in the forgiveness of sin does not follow. The- baptism
cannot, indeed, be repeated; but only when the
individual is converted to the unity of the true church
does it become effectual: He who has received the
baptism of Christ, which they have not lost who have
separated themselves in any heresy or schism, in
which sacrilegious crime his sins were not remitted,
when he shall have reformed and come to the fellowship
and unity of the church, is not to be again baptized,
because in this very reconciliation and peace it is
offered to him, that the sacrament which, when received
in schism, could not benefit, shall now in the unity (of
the church) begin to benefit him for the remission of his
sins (bapt. i. 12:18; v. 8:9; vi. 5:7). In the case of
ordination, it was held that the character remains,
bringing, however, to the individual himself not
blessing, but the contrary: the Holy Spirit fails,
indeed, to effect his salvation yet does not desert his
ministry, by which he works through him the salvation
of others (c. Parm. ii. 11:24; de bon. conjug. 24:32). By
this means the Donatist theory is discountenanced and,
at the same time, the necessity of the return of its
adherents to the Catholic church is made evident.
d) The means by which the church is built up are the
sacraments, especially baptism and the Lords Supper,
and also the Word. Blood and water flowed (Jn. 19:34),
which we know to be the sacraments by which the
church is built up (civ. dei, xxii. 17). God begets sons
from the church we are, therefore, spiritually born,
and we are born in the Spirit by word and sacrament.
The Spirit is present, that we may be born (in Joh. tract.
12:5; serm. 88:5; ep. 21:3). The term, sacramentum
corresponding exactly to is applied also to
other ecclesiastical acts, such as confirmation (bapt. v.
20:28; c. Faustum xix. 14), the presentation of the
consecrated salt to catechumens (de catechizandis
rudibus, 26:50), ordination (bon. conjug. 24:32; c. ep.
Parm. ii. 13:28; cf. supra), exorcism (serm. 27). But the
proper sacraments are the two which proceeded from
the side of Christ (civ. dei, xv. 26:1; in Joh. tract. 15:8;
120:2; 50:12; doctr. christ. iii. 9:13), to which is to be
added ordination. The representation of the divine
agency exerted is essentially the same in the word and
195
Page 362 of 524
in the sacraments. The human transaction is

accompanied by a divine, inwardly effectual act. The
word is read in the hearing of others, preached, sung,
and chanted by men: we enjoy the hearing of it, the
truth speaking to us without sound inwardly (in Joh. tr.
57:3; 40:5; 71:1; 77:2; bapt. v. 11:24). Augustine is thus
the first to formulate a doctrine of the word as a means
of grace. The problem is here presented, how the
spoken human word can be the medium through which
the divine Spirit operates. In the same way in the
sacraments as in the word, men work outwardly, God
inwardly (c. ep. Parm. ii. 11; bapt. v. 21:29; ep. 98:2: the
water, therefore, presenting the sacrament of grace
outwardly, and the Spirit inwardly effecting the benefit
of grace). It is to be, however, here noted that the
outward observance of the sacrament and the inner
work of grace do not always correspond (bapt. iv. 25:32;
in Lev. iii., quaest. 84; enarr. in. ps. 77:2).
e) We are now in position to define Augustines
conception of a sacrament. We must, first of all,
discriminate carefully between the outward sign and the
inward power and efficacy: the sacrament is one thing,
the virtue of the sacrament another (in Joh. tr. 26:11).
Viewed in the first aspect, the sacrament is purely
symbolical. There are needed, says Augustine, in
genuine Neo-Platonic spirit, in religious associations
signs (signacula) or visible sacraments (c. Faust. xix.
11). The visible signs are symbols of an invisible
content: they are, indeed, visible signs of divine things,
but in them are to be honored the invisible things
themselves (de cat. rud. 26:50). They are called
sacraments, because in them one thing is seen, another
thing understood (serm. 272). The symbol has at the
same time a certain resemblance to that which it
represents (ep. 98:9). Accordingly, the visible symbols
become what they are through the interpreting word:
the word comes to (accedit) the element and it
becomes (fit) a sacramentitself also, as it were, a
visible word. The fit is used here not in the objective,
but purely in the subjective sense: Whence is there in
the water such virtue that it can touch the body and
purify the heart, unless the word effects this?not
because it is spoken, but because it is believed (in Joh.
tr. 80:3). In the light of this explanation, Augustine would
seem to have a purely symbolical view of the sacrament;
196
Page 363 of 524
and it is beyond doubt that the Neo-Platonic caste of his

thought at least inclined him in this direction. But we
must not overlook the fact, that an actual exertion of
divine energy, as a rule, accompanies the sacrament.
God really forgives sins in baptism, in it, as in
ordination, imprinting a character upon the recipient. In
the Lords Supper there is really an effectual
refreshment (salubris refectio) in the Lords flesh and
blood. Thus to drink is to live; a spiritual eating and
drinking accompanies the visible reception (serm.
131:1). The two-fold aspect of the sacramental theory of
the ancient church here comes into distinct prominence:
The sacraments are purely symbols, but the reception of
the sacraments brings real, objective exertions of divine
energy. In Augustine, indeed, the whole conception is
wavering, since there is no fixed connection between
the sacrament and the gracious divine energy. Here, too,
is felt the influence of his theory of predestination. As to
the sacramental character, see p. 319.
f) The peculiarities of the separate sacraments may be
briefly stated.
(1) Baptism, as the sacramentum remissionis peccatorum, (bapt.
v. 21:29) works the forgiveness of sins, primarily the forgiveness
of the guilt of original concupiscence; in this consists its chief
efficacy (cf. p. 314). Augustine frequently speaks of a blotting
out of sins (e.g., by baptism sins are destroyed, delentur, in
ps. 106:3). Discrimination is to be made between this
forgiveness once granted and the recurring forgiveness of daily
sins in response to the fifth petition of the Lords Prayer (e.g.,
serm. 58:5.6). Augustine, however, made the latter dependent
upon the former: by that which is given once it comes to pass
that pardon of any sins whatsoever, not only before but also
afterward, is granted to believers. Prayer, alms, and good works
would bring no forgiveness to the Christian if he were not
baptized (nupt. et conc. i. 33:38). But this idea was obscured by
the penitential discipline (vid. sub) and by the relatively
unimportant place of the forgiveness of sins in the consciousness
of Augustine (p. 346f.).
(2) In contradistinction from Ambrose (e.g., de fide iv. 10:124:
through the mystery of the sacred prayer they are transfigured
into flesh and blood), the symbolical character of the
sacraments comes in Augustine into distinct prominence: The
Lord did not hesitate to say, This is my body, when he gave the
sign of his body (c. Adimantum Manich. 12:3; in ps. 3:1). The
blessing, or gift, of the sacrament is conceived in harmony with
197
Page 364 of 524
this. The body of the Lord is the mystic body, or the church:
hence he wishes the food and drink to be understood as the
fellowship (societas) of his body and of his members, which is
the holy church (in Joh. tr. 26:15, 14; serm. 272; civ. dei, xxi.
25:2); or, this is, therefore, to eat that food and to drink that
drinkto remain in Christ and to have him remaining in us (in
Joh. tr. 26:18; civ. dei, xxi. 25:4). Augustine can even say that
the eating of the body of the Lord is delightfully and profitably
to store away in memory that his flesh was wounded and
crucified for us (doctr. christ. iii. 16:24). It is true, there are not
wanting passages in which Augustine expresses himself
differently and more fully, speaking of the reception of the body
of Christ, etc. (e.g., serm. 131:1; bapt. v. 8:9); but his real
thought is even here not that which the words seem to convey,
although he still has in mind the bestowal and reception of a real
gift. Thus Augustines theory of the Lords Supper has more of a
really religious character than his doctrines of baptism and grace,
since the personal nature of fellowship with God here finds due
recognition. It is to be observed, further, that in the view of
Augustine, Christ is, indeed, omnipresent according to his divine
nature, but according to his human nature he is in one place in
heaven (ubique totum praesentem esse non dubites tanquam
deum et in loco aliquo caeli propter veri corporis modum, ep.
187:12:41). In this again we see the model after which the
medieval theories were patterned. The genius of Augustine is
manifest in his interpretation of the sacrifice of the mass: the
congregatio sanctorum presents itself to God in good works
under its head, Christ. This is the sacrifice of Christians: Many
one body in Christ (civ. dei, x. 6). Of which thing [the sacrifice
of Christ] he wished the sacrifice of the church (which, since it is
the body of him, the Head, teaches that it offers itself through
him) to be a daily sacrament [symbolical imitation] (ib. x. 20).
() As to the sacrament of ordination, see p. 319f., and cf.
REUTER 1.c., 253, 264ff.
(3) But we have thus far seen but one side of Augustines
conception of the church. When we remember that the
infusion of the Spirit and of love makes the Christian (p.
347f.), we realize that we are brought to face another line
of thought. (a) The good, who have the Spirit and love,
constitute among themselves a communion (congregatio,
compages). These saints are the unspotted bride of Christ,
his dove, and the house of God, the rock upon which the
Lord builds his church, the church which possesses the
power to loose and bind (unit. eccl. 21:60; c. litt. Pet. ii.
58:246; bapt. vii. 51:99). It is not being outwardly in the
church, nor partaking of the sacraments, that decides, but
belonging to the church in this sense: Nor are they to be
thought to be in the body of Christ, which is the church,
198
Page 365 of 524
because they become corporeally participants in its

sacraments they are not in the union (compages) of the
church, which, in the members of Christ, grows through
connection and contact to the increase of God (c. litt. Pet.
1.c.). It is this communion of the saints, united by the Spirit
and love, through whose intercession sins are forgiven, and
through whose mediation the gifts of grace are bestowed.
(a) The term, communio sanctorum, is found in the
first canon of the Council at Nimes (A. D. 394.) and
among the Donatists (Aug. in ps. 36; serm. 2:20 and
opp. xvii. 2532).
(b) In Augustines own writings, serm. 52:3.6; cf.
congregatio sanctorum (civ. dei, x. 6; bapt. i.
17:26); communis unitatis corporis Christi (bapt. i.
4:5); societas credentium (bapt. vii. 53:102);
christiana societas (c. litt. Petil. ii. 39:94); bonorum
societas (ib. ii. 77:174); also communio malorum
(bapt. vii. 25:49).
(c) At a later date, as is well known, it appears in
the Nicene Creed.
(4) To it, and not to the officials of the church, are given
these great promises. God gives the sacrament of grace,
indeed, through evil men, but not grace itself except
through himself or through his saints. And, therefore, he
effects remission of sins either through himself or through
the members of that dove, to whom he says: If to anyone ye
remit, they are remitted (bapt. v. 21:29). Or does the
sacrament and a secret dispensation of the mercy of God,
perhaps, through the prayers of the spiritual saints who are
in the church, as through the continuous cooing of the dove,
accomplish the great thing, that even the sins of those who
have been baptized, not by the dove but by the hawk, are
remitted? (ib. iii. 17:22; 18:23). This is the essence of the
communion of the good and pious: They love God and one
another, and they pray for the church. This is the invisible
union (compages) of love (bapt. iii. 19:26; de unit. eccl.
21:60) with the invisible anointing of love (unctio caritatis,
c. litt. Petil. ii. 104:239). But this exists, and is conceivable,
only within the Catholic church, separation from which is
at once a renunciation of the Spirit and of love (ep. 141:5,
and citations on p. 318). Only in the Catholic church is the
spirit of love thus present. But Augustine here thinks not
199
Page 366 of 524
only of the efficacious working of the sacrament, but also,

and particularly, of the working of the Spirit upon the
spiritual life through the personal fellowship of the
believing and holy with one another. He has not, therefore,
yet reached the position of medieval Catholicism.
(5) But is not the church then split into two churches, the
mixed church of the present and the pure church of the
future (Donatist criticism, brev. iii. 10:19)? Augustine
meets this objection with a variety of illustrations. The
question is one solely of a present relationship. Good and
evil are commingled in the church. According to the
instructions of Christ, the latter cannot be outwardly
excluded, although they are inwardly entirely separated
from the pious (c. ep. Parm. iii. 2:12; c. Cresc. iii. 65:73;
bapt. vi. 3:5; vii. 51:99), just as are heretics: Whether they
seem to live within or are openly without, that which is
flesh is flesh . And even he who in carnal obduracy is
mingled with the congregation of the saints is always
separated from the unity of that church which is without
spot or wrinkle (bapt. i. 17:26; also vii. 51:99 extr.). But:
he tolerates the wicked in communione sanctorum (serm.
214:11). It is a relationship like that between the wheat and
the tares upon the same threshing-floor (bapt. v. 21:29);
between belonging to a house and being in the house (ib.
vii. 51:99); between the outer and the inner man (brev. iii.
10:20); or even: thus there are in the body of Christ in
some way evil humors (in 1 Joh. tr. 3:4). We may,
therefore, speak of the true and the commingled, or
counterfeited, body of the Lord, or of a commingled
church. Hence, in the proper sense, the church consists of
only the good and holy: the wicked and heretics only
apparently belong to it by virtue of the temporal
commingling and the communion of the sacraments
(doctr. christ. iii. 32:45). We can see that Augustine takes
some account of the demand of the Donatists; but he effects
only in thought the separation which they sought to realize
in fact. We understand the departure (recessio) spiritually,
they corporeally (serm. 88. 20:23). From a critical point of
view, the Donatistic objection is not without justification,
for the church of the sacraments and the church of grace
can only with the greatest difficulty be intellectually
harmonized.
(6) This difficulty is intimately connected with Augustines
definition of grace, and it becomes still more serious when
200
Page 367 of 524
the doctrine of predestination is taken into account. The

invisible union of love is not identical with the number of
the predestinated. As the latter may extend beyond the
bounds of the church (p. 351), so, on the contrary, some
may belong to the church who are not in the number of the
predestinated, and, therefore, do not have the gift of
perseverance (corr. et grat. 9:22; don. pers. 2:2).
Practically, indeed, Augustine did not realize this
discrepancy any more than that between the inward and the
outward church. That it nevertheless exists, cannot be
denied, although Augustine only occasionally combines the
conceptions, church and predestination.
(a) We read, de bapt. v. 27:28: The church as an
enclosed garden, paradise, etc., consists of the sancti
and justi. Then appears as equivalent: "the certain
predestinated number of saints," and from this again:
"the number of the just." Yet many of the predestinati are
now living carnally and unworthilyare heathen and
heretics. And yet these are all to be considered as
included in the enclosed garden, the church, which
originally consisted of the holy and righteous.
(b) We may, accordingly, speak of a two-fold, or even a
three-fold, definition of the church in Augustine.
g) It must be mentioned, finally, that Augustine applied

the term, KINGDOM OF GOD, also to the church of the
present, whereas the ancient church, as represented in
other teachers, regarded the kingdom as the result and
goal of the churchs development, looking to the future
for the highest good. But Augustine says: The church
is even now the kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of
heaven (civ. dei, xx. 9:1; cf. de fid. et op. 7:10; serm.
213:7; 214:11). This utterance means primarily only that
the saints are the kingdom of Christ and reign with him.
But this dominion is at once attributed to the leaders
(praepositi) through whom the church is now
governed (ib. 2). The kingdom of God is thus for
Augustine essentially identical with the pious and holy;
but it is also the episcopally organized church. The
contrast between the city of God (civitas dei) and the
cityof the world (civitas mundi), or of the devil, is for him
that between Christanity and heathenism (in the first 10
books): between the good and the bad, including the
devil and angels (civ. dei, xii. 1; 27:2), or between the
saints and the wicked even within the church; between
201
Page 368 of 524
the spiritual and the carnal, the love of God and selflove, grace and nature, those foreordained to glory or to
torment (e.g., xx. 9:3; xiv. 1; 4:2; 28; xv. 1:2; 16:3). The
evil world is never represented, indeed, as itself
equivalent to the state. But since the civitas dei may be
and is conceived as the empirical church, the reader
very naturally thinks of the civitas mundi concretely as
equivalent to the state (e.g., xiv. 28; xv. 4; i. 35). This is
encouraged by the fact that, although Augustine
recognizes the necessity of the (Christian) state and the
civil law (xv. 4 in Joh. tr. 6:25f.), yet everything really and
permanently good is found upon the side of the church.
From this it follows, that it is the duty of the state to
execute the commandments of Christ, or of the church
(xv. 2, ep. 138:2.14; 105:3.11). From this point of view,
Augustinein conflict with his earlier convictions (ep.
93:5.17)desired the state to employ force against
Donatists and heretics: Compel them to come in (Lk.
14:23; vid. ep. 93 and 185 in Joh. tr. 11:14). Here, as so
frequently, he falls into the current of the popular
Christianity of the day. The great work upon the City of
Godcapable of many interpretations (a double line of
aims and means running through the work, just as
through Platos State)became the criterion for the
development of the church polity of the Middle Ages.
h) Such, in outline, was Augustines conception of the
church. The power of the historic Catholic tradition, the
opposition of the Donatists, the fundamental tendency
of his doctrine of grace, the predestination theory, and a
grandly broad view of the course of historywere the
threads woven into the texture. In it the best and the
worst elements appear side by side. It is Evangelical and
Catholic; superior to the world and compromising with
the world; at once, true and untrue. Theoretically
contemplated, it is a malformation without parallel:
practically considered, a redundancy of large
conceptions and impulsesnot an organism, but a
vessel full of fermenting elements.
i) Augustine prepared the way for the medieval
ecclesiasticism; but he also revived and gave practical
efficacy to a central idea of primitive Christianitythe
present kingdom of God. He embraced the many
treasures of Christianity in the one treasurethe
kingdom of God, and thus made them concrete and
202
Page 369 of 524
historically visible. He also, in his conception of the

church, saved from the confusion of Donatistic ideas
the primitive truth of the church as the communion of
saints. In connection with this, he definitely asserted the
natural character of the charismata. The Spirit, who
creates new life, is the great gift of divine grace to the
church. It may be said that Augustine was the first since
Paul to renounce the grace of visions, dreams, and inner
suggestions (cf. Cyprian and the Donatists), since he
understood grace as consisting in the spirit of love
animating the church. Not only could Rome appeal to
Augustine, but the Evangelical theory of the church
finds in him as well a champion.
203
Page 370 of 524
VII.
Trinitarian Controversies: Monarchianism, Arianism, and

Athanasius
A. Background
1. The divinity of Christ is, in the second century, a recognized
fact. The learned attempts to define the relation of Christ to the
Father (Logos, second God) were, indeed, far from satisfactory.
Christ was regarded as a God, and his human nature was
asserted.
2. The Logos-Christology was, in the main, framed in such a way
as to guard the unity of God. But when the Logos, proceeding from
the Father, assumes an independent existence, he is then regarded
as the second God, and thus Monotheism is endangered.
3. Monarchianism made an effort to reconcile Monotheism, the
most precious treasure of Christianity as contrasted with the
heathen world, with the divinity of Christ without resort to the
expedient of the second God.
4. In this consists its historical significance. It reminded the church
that there is only One personal God. To this task it addressed itself,
under the guidance of the two-fold principle: (1) making the man
Jesus the bearer of the divine Spirit, (2) recognizing in Christ the
person of the Father himself: Since they reflected that God is
one, they thought it was not possible for them to maintain this
opinion unless they should hold the belief, either that Christ was
such a man, or that he was truly God the Father (Novatian, de trin.
30; cf. Tert. adv. Prax. 3: Therefore they charge that two or three
Gods are preached by us, but imagine that they are worshipers of
the one God they say, We hold a monarchy. Hippol. Refut. ix.
11: Ditheists, , Epiph. h. 62:2; Hilar. de Trin. i. 16).
B. Monarchianism
1. Sources
a) Monarchians: Hippol. Refut. vii. 35. Ps.-Tert. adv.
omn. haer. 23 (8). The small Labyrinth, Eus. h. e. v. 28.
Epiph. h. 54.
b) Paul of Samosata: Eus. h. e. vii. 2730. Epiph. h. 6.
204
Page 371 of 524
c) Patripassians: Tert. adv. Prax. Hippol. c. Not. Refut.

ix. 6:12. Epiph. h. 62. Eus. h. e. vi. 33.
2. Dynamistic Monarchianism
a) The Alogi are generally treated under this heading,
but improperly so. Epiphanius, indeed, was disposed
thus to classify them (h. 54:1), but, following the
authority before him, recognizes their orthodoxy (h.
51:4; cf. Iren. and supra, p. 108, n.).
b) Theodotus, the Fuller
(1) Theodotus, brought this doctrine to Rome about A. D.
190: Maintaining in part the doctrines commonly held
among those of the true church concerning the beginning of
all things, confessing that all things were made by God, he
yet holds that Christ came into existence in some such
way as this: that Jesus is, indeed, a man born of a virgin
according to the counsel of the Fatherliving in common
with all men, and most pious by birth; and that afterward at
his baptism in the Jordan, the Christ from above, having
descended in the form of a dove, entered into him;
wherefore miraculous powers were not exerted by him
before the Spirit, which he says is Christ, having
descended, was manifested in him. Some think that he did
not become God until the descent of the Spirit; others, until
after his resurrection from the dead (Hipp. Ref. vii. 35; cf.
Ps.-Tert. 8).
(2) Victor, bishop of Rome, excommunicated him (small
Lab. in Eus. v. 28:6).
c) In the time of Zephyrinus this view again appeared
under the leadership of Asclepiodotus and Theodotus,
the Money-changer (Eus. v. 28:7; see also 17).
(1) Here again it was held: He asserts that this man Christ
(springs) only from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
(Ps.-Tert. 8).
(2) He was inferior to Melchizedek (see Epiph. h. 55:8).
(3) But this bare man was at his baptism endowed with
the Spirit of God (Hipp. vii. 36).
205
Page 372 of 524
(4) The attempt was made to prove this doctrine

exegetically, calling in the aid of textual criticism and
subtle logical distinctions (Eus. v. 28:1318; cf., for
examples, Epiph. h. 54).
(5) Nevertheless, these men claimed to teach the ancient
confessional doctrine. For they say that all the former
teachers, and the apostles themselves, both received and
taught these things which they now proclaim, and that the
truth of the gospel message was preserved until the times of
Victor but that the truth was perverted by his successor,
Zephyrinus (small Lab. in Eus. v. 28:3; cf. the charge
brought against them by their orthodox opponent: They
have impiously slighted the divine Scriptures and
repudiated the canon of the ancient faith, and have not
known Christ, ib. 13).
(6) The origin of this form of Monarchianism may be very
easily traced to the Logos-ideathe Logos, or Spirit, being
conceived not as a personal being, but as a divine energy.
d) After the middle of the third century we find this view
still advocated by Artemas (or Artemon) at Rome, and
he appears to have gathered about him a congregation
of his own (Eus. h. e. vii. 30:17).
3. Paul of Samosata
a) This domineering and worldly-minded Bishop of
Antioch (from about A. D. 260; cf. encycl. letter of Synod
of Antioch, in Eus. h. e. vii. 30:715) taught Jesus
Christ from below (, in contrast with , ib.
vii. 30:11).
b) In the man Jesus, born of the virgin, dwelt the divine
Wisdom. This is not a separate hypostasis, but exists in
God as human reason exists in man: That in God is
always his Logos and his Spirit, as in the heart of man
his own reason (logos); and that the Son of God is not in
a hypostasis, but is in God himself But that the Logos
came and dwelt in Jesus, who was a man; and thus,
they say, God is one one God the Father, and his Son
in him, as the reason (logos) in a man (Epiph. h. 65:1).
c) A parallel to this is seen in the indwelling of Wisdom
in the prophets, except that this indwelling occurred in a
206
Page 373 of 524
unique way in Christ as the temple of God: In order that

neither might the anointed of David be a stranger to
Wisdom, nor Wisdom dwell so largely in any other. For it
was in the prophets, much more in Moses; and in many
leaders, but much more in Christ as in a temple. But
also: He who appeared was not Wisdom, for he was not
susceptible of being found in an outward form for he
is greater than the things that are seen (fragm. disput.
c. Malchionem in Routh, Rel. sacr. iii. 301; in Leontius,
ib. p. 311).
d) As to the mode of this union, Paul teaches that the
man Jesus was from his birth anointed with the Holy
Ghost. Because he remained immovably steadfast in
this relationship and kept himself pure, the power of
working miracles became his, and, having been born
pure and righteous, he overcame the sin of Adam.
e) It is a moral union (in the way of learning and
fellowship) in the will and in love, which here meets us,
not a merely natural one: Thou shouldst not wonder
that the Saviour has one will with God. For just as
nature shows us a substance becoming out of many one
and the same, so the nature of love makes one and the
same will out of many through one and the same
manifested preference. (Also: the things obtained by
the natural reason have no praise, but the things
obtained by the nature of love are exceedingly
praiseworthy, frag. in Mai, Vet. scr. nov. coll. vii. 68f.;
cf. Athanas. c. Arian, or. iii. 10.)
f) Thus Jesus in his moral development united himself
intimately with God by the influence of the Spirit and
unity of will, thus securing the power to perform
miracles and fitness to become the Redeemer, and in
addition attaining a permanent oneness with God. The
Saviour, born holy and righteous, having by his struggle
and sufferings overcome the sin of our progenitor,
succeeding in these things, was united in character
() to God, having preserved one and the same
aim and effort as he for the promotion of things that are
good; and he, having preserved this inviolate, his name
is called that above every name, the prize of love having
been freely bestowed upon him (Mai, 1. c).
207
Page 374 of 524
g) Three synods were held at Antioch to consider the

matter (264269; Eus. h. e. vii. 30:4, 5). Paul at first
resorted to evasions and no conclusion was reached.
Finally, the presbyter Malchion vanquished him at the
third synod. He did not formerly say this, that he would
not grant that in the whole Saviour was existent the
only-begotten Son, begotten before the foundation of
the world (frg. disp. adv. Paul. a Malch. hab. in Routh
iii. 302; also Pitra, Analecta sacra iii. 600f.; iv. 424. Eus.
h. e. vii. 28, 29).
h) The decree of the synod proclaimed the heresy of
Artemas and his exclusion from the fellowship of the
church (Eus. h. e. vii. 30:16, 17).
i) But Paul retained a following and his office until, in
A. D. 272, the degree of Aurelian gave the church
property to the control of the one who should be upon
terms of epistolary correspondence with the bishops of
Italy and Rome (Eus. vii. 30:19). This was the first time
that imperial politics carried into effect a condemnatory
decree of the church.
4. Patripassian Monarchianism
a) Introduction
(1) This is the more influential and more widely prevalent form
of Monarchianism. It is not accidental that Rome and Egypt were
the breeding places of Sabellianism and the pillars of the
homousia.
(2) The history of the separate representatives of this party is, to
some extent, obscure, and it is, therefore, difficult to keep the
peculiar tenets of each distinct in our minds. Here and there we
may trace a connection with the primitive form of the doctrine.
(3) The prevalent term, Patripassians, may be traced to
Tertullian (adv. Prax.).
(4) Their fundamental idea is: For thus it is proper to state
Monarchianism, saying that he who is called Father and Son is
one and the same, not one from the other, but he from himself,
called by name Father and Son according to the figure of the
times, but that this one appearing and born of a virgin remains
one confessing to those who behold him that he is a Son
208
Page 375 of 524
and not concealing from those who approach him that he is the
Father (Hipp. Ref. ix. 10).
b) Praxeas
(1) He was a martyr of Asia Minor, came with Victor to
Rome, and gained an influence over this foe of Dynamistic
Monarchianism by means of his Christology as well as by
his anti-montanistic tendencies.
(2) His doctrine found acceptance also in Africa (Tert. c.
Prax. 1).
(3) He taught: After that time the Father was born and the
Father suffered. Jesus Christ is proclaimed as the Father
born, the Father suffering, God himself, the omnipotent
Lord (Tert. adv. Prax. 2 init.). Father and Son are therefore
the same person (ib. 5 init.). In support of this the
Scriptures were appealed to, particularly Isa. 45:5; Jn. 10:
30; 14:9, 10 (ib. 18, 20).
(4) It reveals a leaning toward the orthodox view,
employing the term, Son of God, in the Biblical sensebut
at the same time an inclination toward Dynamistic
Monarchianismwhen distinction is, after all, made
between the Father and the Son: And in like manner in the
one person they distinguish the two, Father and Son, saying
that the Son is the flesh, i.e., the man; i.e., Jesus; but that
the Father is the Spirit, i.e., God, i.e., Christ (ib. 27). In
this way they avoided the assertion that the Father suffered
(Thus the Son indeed suffers (patitur), but the Father
suffers with him (compatitur); ib. 29; cf. Hipp. Ref. ix.
12).
c) Noetus of Smyrna
(1) He and the adherents of his theory, Epigonus and
Cleomenes, found again at Rome in the beginning of the
third century an influential centre for the dissemination of
their views (Hipp. Ref. i. 7), which were the same as those
of Praxeas: That when the Father had not yet been born,
he was rightly called the Father; but when it had pleased
him to submit to birth, having been born, he became the
Son, he of himself and not of another (Hipp. Ref. ix. 10).
209
Page 376 of 524
(2) He said that Christ is himself the Father, and that the
Father himself was born and suffered and died (Hipp. c.
Not. 1). Thus the Father also called himself to life again
(ib. 3). The Scriptures require us to believe this. Thus the
Son is glorified (ib. 1) and thus salvation made possible:
For Christ was God and suffered for us, being the Father
himself, in order that he might be able also to save us (ib.
2).
(3) It was a theolgoically-inspired interest in the full
divinity of Christ which led these men to insist upon their
theory, and this accounts for their wide influence. They
wished to maintain that Christ was God, and yet not waver
in the assertion of the unity of God as confessed in the
churchs creed: For some simple persons (not to say
inconsiderate and ignorant, as is always the majority of
believers) since the rule of faith itself leads us from the
many gods of the world to the one and true God (cf. p. 85,
n.), not understanding that he is to be believed as being one
but with his own economy (), are terrified at this
economy. They think that the number and order of the
Trinity implies a division of the unity (Tert. adv. Prax. 3
init.).
d) Sabellius of Pentapolis
(1) The final form of this doctrine appears in Sabellius of
Pentapolis (?) at Rome (under Zephyrinus and Callistus).
(2) Father, Son, and Spirit are only different designations
of the same person, corresponding to the degree and form
of his revelation. God is, in his nature, the Father of the Son
(, Athan. Expos, fid. 2): He himself is the
Father; he himself is the Son; he himself is the Holy
Spiritas I say that there are three names in one object
(hypostasis), either as in man, body and soul and spirit
or as, if it be in the sun, being in one object (I say) that
there are three, having the energies of light-giving and heat
and the form of roundness (Epiph. h. 62:1; also Athanas.
Orig. c. Arian. iii. 36; iv. 2, 3, 9, 13, 25, 17).
e) Western Patripassians
(1) The Patripassian Christology had its adherents in the
West as well as in the East.
210
Page 377 of 524
(2) In Rome, the bishops Victor (Ps.-Tert. adv. omn. haer.

8: after all these a certain Praxeas introduced a heresy,
which Victorinus sought to corroborate), Zephyrinus
(Hipp. Ref. ix. 7, 11), and Callistus (ib. ix. 11, 12) adopted
it, with the assent of a large part of the local church.
Hippolytus and his following, who opposed it, were
charged with Ditheism.
(3) Callistus, indeed, as bishop, upon grounds of
ecclesiastical prudence, denied his agreement with
Sabellius; but he felt himself compelled, for the sake of
consistency, to advocate a somewhat modified
Monarchianistic Christology. Father, Son, and Spirit are, of
course, one and the same, and the Spirit who became
incarnate in the Virgin is identical with the Father, but the
flesh of Jesus is to be designated as the Son: For that
which is seen, which is the man, this is the Son; but the
Spirit dwelling in the Son, this is the Father. Therefore we
should not, indeed, speak of a suffering by the Father, but
the Father suffered with () the Son
(Hipp. Ref. ix. 12, p. 458). But this is simply the doctrine of
Praxeas (see p. 167) used by Callistus as a formula of
compromise.
f) Eastern Patrapassians
(1) A representative of this Christology in the East may yet be
mentioned, Beryl of Bostra. As we have only one sentence of
Eusebius setting forth his view, it is difficult to form a clear idea
of it. "Beryl . . . attempted to introduce certain new articles of
faith, daring to say that our Saviour and Lord did not pre-exist
according to his own form of being before his coming among
men, and that he did not possess a divinity of his own, but only
that of the Father committed to him" (h. e. vi. 33:1).
(2) Origen vanquished him at a synod at Bostra about A. D.
244. The synod took occasion, in refuting him, to lay emphasis
upon the human soul of Jesus (Socrates h. e. iii."). According to
this, Beryl (1) knew nothing of a personal divinity of his own
inhering in Jesus; his divinity was that of the Father. (2) He
taught that Christ became a separate personality only through his
incarnation. (3) He does not appear to have been led to this
conclusion by the study of the inner human life of Jesus during
his incarnation (?). (4) He is not charged with teaching, as did
the Dynamistic Monarchians, that Jesus was a "bare man." He,
therefore, probably approximated the position of the Sabellians,
that it was not until the incarnation that God assumed the special
mode of existence as Son (cf. sub, Marcellus of Ancyra).
211
Page 378 of 524
(3) Of the Libyan Sabellians we shall have occasin to

speak hereafter. It may be well at this point to call attention
to the fact that the "Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs"
were, during this period, inserted by a Patripassian writer.
See Sim. 6. Levi 4).
g) Evaluation
(1) They endeavored to understand the divine-human nature of
Christ from the point of view of his historical appearance
without regard to the prevalent formulas.
(2) They did not, indeed, attain their object, for their theory does
not give due prominence to the scriptural idea of redemption, nor
does it make it possible to understand the historical significance
of the person and words of Jesus. But, on the other hand, we
must give them credit for certain profound intuitions which their
contemporaries did not understand, and, under the prevalent
system of theology, could not comprehend.
(3) Of these the most important were: (1) The strong emphasis
laid upon the personal unity of God and the attempt to reconcile
it with the divinity of Christ. The Sabellian position may have
been at this point not without significance for Athanasius. (2)
The attempt to establish the divine-human nature of Christ, not
from the point of view of the two natures, but from that of the
personal life, and thus of the will (especially Paul of Samosata).
At this point the Antiochians joined them, but in such a way that
they, by the orthodox coloring of their teaching, only enforced
the chief weakness of the Monarchiansthe impossibility involved
in their conception of the appearance of Jesus in the flesh.
C. Arianism and the Homousia of the Son (the First Council of Nice)
1. Introduction
a) We have had occasion to observe the diversity of
views concerning the divinity of Christ which prevailed
before the outbreak of the great controversy; but we
have also noted a certain unity of religious conviction at
this point: the church unanimously adoring the divinity
of Christ.
b) Although there was little attempt to fathom the
procession of the Son from the Father, yet he, like the
Father, was regarded as God, as the brightness of his
glory and the image () of his person
212
Page 379 of 524
() (Heb. i. 3). These were regarded as the

apostolic dogmas of the church (vid. Alex. ep. ad Alex,
in Theodoret. h. e. i. 3).
c) Opposite conceptions must now inevitably lead to
conflict, as had become evident in the Monarchian and
Dionysian controversies. After the unity of the church
had become a theory of practical importance, and the
conception of heresy had, in consequence of the
fixation of the churchs doctrine, become more definite,
the ancient indefinite formulas became unsatisfactory,
especially as they left room for such interpretations as
that of Arius.
d) But we shall utterly fail to understand the conflicts of
the period before us if we shall interpret them as merely
a result of the metaphysical tendency of Grecian
thought. On the contrary, beneath these controversies
lay most thoroughly practical and religious motives.
Christ was the center of Greek piety; the new immortal
life, the periphery; the idea of salvation, the radius. The
center must be so located that all the radii may actually
meet in it. Christ must be conceived of as in nature and
character capable of bestowing the new divine life upon
men.
2. Sources:
a) Of the writings of Arius himself we possess: a letter
to Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, in Athanas. de
synodis Arim. et Seleuc. 16 and Epiph. h. 69:7, 8; a letter
of Eusebius of Nicomedia in Theodoret. h. e. i. 4, and
Epiph. h. 69:6.
b) Fragments from his in Athanas. c. Arian. or. i.;
de synod. Arim. et Seleuc. 15).
c) For statements of his teaching, vid. especially the
writings of Athanasius and the letter from Alexander of
Alexandria to Alexander of Byzantium, in Theodoret. h.
e. i. 3, and the Ep. encyclica in Socrat. h. e. i. 6.
3. Background
213
Page 380 of 524
a) Lucian of Antioch was an adherent of Paul of

Samosata, and hence out of harmony with the church
(ib. in Theod. i. 3, p. 739).
b) Arius was his pupil, as was also Eusebius of
Nicomedia (ep. Arii ad Eus. in Theod. h. e. i. 4 fin. and
Alex. ib. 4).
c) Traces of relationship with Paul may be found in
Arius (see Athanas. c. Arian. or. iii. 10, 51); but the views
of Paul were developed by him in harmony with the later
age.
d) The impersonal energy () in the Father has
become a special personality, which, however, does
notto the gratification of heathen and Jews (ep. Alex,
in Theod. h. e. i. 3)call the unity of God in question,
and yet, in keeping with the consciousness of the
church and the prevalent theory of the Logos, preserves
the independence of the second divine person. It is thus
that the doctrine of Arius. which, in its main features,
Lucian may have already taught, is to be understood. It
is merely the Chrisrolopy of the third century
theoretically carried to its logical conclusion. But it was
this very fact of the logical consistency of the theory
which opened the eyes of the church. The same process
has been repeated in the case of most heresies. The
controversies to which they gave rise have led to the
construction of dogmas.
4. Doctrine
a) The dominant idea in the views of Arius is the
monotheistic principle of the Monarchians (cf. Athanas.
c. Ar. or. iii. 7, 28; iv. 10).
(1) There is One unbegotten God: We know only one God,
unpegotten. This axiom led to a keen criticism of the prevalent
representations of the relation of Christ to the Father.
(2) The Son dare not be represented as an emanation (),
nor a part of the Father having the same nature (
), nor as alike uncreated ().
214
Page 381 of 524
(3) For if the Father were compound, divided, or mutable

(, , ), we should have to think of
him as corporeal, and be compelled to accept two uncreated
beings ( ). The Son would then be a brother of the
Father (ep. ad Al. and ep. ad Eus.; Athanas. c. Arian. or. 1:14; iii.
2, 62, 67; de decr. syn. Nic. 10).
b) God alone is unoriginated, or unbegotten, without

beginning.
(1) The Son had a beginning, and was from a non-existent state
created by the Father before the beginning of the world: The
Son is not unbegotten, nor a part of the unbegotten One nor
from something previously existing, but he existed with will and
design before times and ages, the complete, only-begotten,
unchangeable God; and before he began to be, or was either
created or founded, he was not. The Son has a beginning, but
God is without beginning He is, out of things not being (ep.
ad Eus.).
(2) God was not always Father, but there was [a time] when God
was alone, and was not yet Father, and afterward he became
Father. The Son was not always. For, all things coming into
being from not being, and all things created and made having
begun to be, this Logos of God also came into being from things
not existing; and there was [a time] when he was not, and he was
not before he was begotten, but he also had a beginning of being
created (Thal. in Athan. or. 1:5).
c) The Son is the Logos and the Wisdom of the Father,

but he is to be distinguished from the Logos immanent
in God.
(1) The latter is a divine energy (), the Son a created
divine being, having participation in the immanent Logos (cf. the
Dynamistic Monarchianism).
(2) He says thus that there are two sophias; the one peculiar to
God and co-eternal with him, and the Son was born in the
sophia, and, sharing in it, he is called simply sophia and Logos
and he says thus also that there is another Logos besides the
Son in God, and that the Son, sharing in this, is again by grace
called Logos and the Son himself (Athan. l. c. i. 5).
215
Page 382 of 524
d) The Logos is, therefore, a creature of the Father,

created by him as the medium in the creation of the
world (ib. and ii. 24; ep. encycl. Alex, in Socr. h. e. i. 6).
(1) Accordingly, he is not God in the full sense of the word, but
through his enjoyment of the divine favor he receives the names,
God and Son of God, as do also others (and although he is
called God, he is yet not the true God, but by sharing in grace,
just as all others also, he is called by name simply God, Thal.
ib. 1:6; cf. ep. Al. ad Al. in Theod. i. 3. p. 732).
(2) It is, therefore, clear that the Logos is different from and
unlike the substance () and peculiar nature () of
the Father in all respects (Thal. ib.).
e) In view of the significance of this unoriginated

character () for the divine nature of the Son, a
further consequence is unavoidable.
(1) The Logos is by nature mutable. But since God foresaw that
he would remain good, he bestowed upon him in advance the
glory which he afterward as man merited by his virtue (Thal. in
Ath. i. 5; cf. i. 35 init.; ep. Al. ad Al. in Theod. i. 3, p. 732; cf.
ep. encycl. Alex, in Socr. i. 6: mutable, , and variable,
, by nature).
(2) The Arians held, with Paul of Samosata, that Christ is
through unity of will one with the Father (Athan. c. Arian. or. iii.
10).
f) By the use of logic (Athan. c. Ar. or. ii. 68) and by the
citation of passages of Scripture treating of the humility
of Christ (Alex, in Theod. i. 3, p. 740), the Arians sought
to establish their own view and disprove that which was
becoming the accepted doctrine of the church. Arianism
did not attribute a human soul to Christ (see Greg. Naz.
ep. ad Cledon. i. 7. Epiphan. ancdr. 33).
5. Evaluation of Theory
a) If we contemplate this theory as a whole, we at once
observe its relationship with Paul of Samosata and
Dynamistic Monarchianism. But the earlier views
referred to, in the process of accommodation, became
much worse. What Paul taught concerning the man
Jesus, Ariusand apparently Lucian before him
216
Page 383 of 524
transferred to a median being, the Logos. It is not the

man Jesus who is endowed with divine energy ()
and preserves it in a moral life, but the Logosthe man
Jesus does not even possess a human soul. The Logos
is, therefore, a creature of God and yet complete
God. The unity of God is preserved, but only at the
price of teaching that there are three persons
(), Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (ep. ad Al. in
Epiph. h. 69:8). Thus a mythological element is
introduced into Christianity, and bare Monotheism is
transformed into the Polytheism of heroes and
demigods; cf. Athan. c. Ar. or. iii. 15, 16), or there is
thought to be a necessity, with Philo, for a median being
between the world and God (cf. ib. ii. 24). Arius reminds
us at many points of the old Apologists ( 13), but what
was in their case apologetic art and necessity is here a
deliberate theory, set up in opposition to other views.
b) There is also the further difference, that by the
Apologists Christ, as the Divine Logos, is regarded as
truly God; whereas Arius makes him but a rational
energy created by God. If we look for the inspiring
motive of this doctrinewhich is the worst Christology
imaginableAthanasius is probably not wholly wrong in
regarding it as Samosatianism modified by lack of
courage (ib. iii. 51; i. 38). Arius interpreted Paul of
Samosata in the sense of the subordinationistic
utterances of Origen and pressed every point thus
gained to its extreme logical conclusion.
6. Advancement
a) With great activity, political sagacity, and tact, Arius
made provision for the propagation of his theory. He not
only gained a following in Egypt, among bishops and
virgins (see ep. Al. ad Al. init.), but he succeeded in
winning the schismatic Meletians (Alex. ep. encycl.
Sozomen. h. e. i. 15), and also found comrades among
the bishops in Palestine and Syria (Theod. h. e. i. 3;
Sozomen. h. e. 1:115.
b) The mighty co-Lucianist, Eusebius of Nicomedia (see
his letters to Paulinus of Tyre in Theod. i. 5), became the
patron of this doctrine.
217
Page 384 of 524
7. Opposition of Alexander
a) The first to oppose Arius was the Alexandrine
bishop, Alexander. He really understood the new
doctrine (see his account of it in Theod. h. e. i. 3 and
Socr. h. e. i. 6).
b) He points out that the Word cannot itself have come
into existence in time, since all things were made by it
(Jn. i. 3). His person () is beyond the
comprehension of men (or angels, cf. Isa. liii. 8; xxiv.
16).
c) If Christ is the effulgence of God (Heb. i. 3), then to
deny his eternity is to deny the eternity of the Fathers
light. The sonship () is, therefore, different in kind
from that of human beings.
d) The theory of Arius is related to the heresies of
Ebion, Paul, and Artemas. Against it, Alexander regards
the claims of the apostolic doctrines of the church,
i.e., of the Apostles Creed, as vindicated by his defense
of the eternal divinity of the Son, together with that of
the Holy Ghost (Theod. 1:3, p. 745f., 742).
e) Less certain is his positive teaching. He appears
himself to have at an earlier period recognized an
existence of the Father before that of Christ (and he
exists therefore before Christ, as we taught in harmony
with your preaching in the church, says Arius of him,
Ar. ad Al. in Epiph. h. 69:8). But he now taught
concerning the Son: Always God, always Son . The
Son exists unbegottenly () in God, always
begotten (), unbegottenly begotten
() (Ar. ep. ad Eus. in Epiph. 69:3).
f) He does not deny the birth of the Saviour (that his
unbegottenness is a property having relation to the
Father alone); but it is a birth without beginning so far
as the Father is concerned, an always being from the
Father ( ). He is thus
immutable and unvariable, and is rightly worshiped as is
the Father. When John locates the Son in the bosom of
the Father, he means to indicate that the Father and the
218
Page 385 of 524
Son are two entities (), inseparable from one

another. There are in the person () two
natures (). When the Lord declares himself one
with the Father (Jn. x. 30), he wishes to make himself
known as the absolute image of the Father. The Son is
therefore a nature () separate from the Father; but,
since he is untemporally begotten of the Father, he is
God as is the Father. This view is not clear.
D. Athanasius
1. Introduction
a) It seems proper at this point to present connectedly
the teaching of Athanasius [born before A. D. 300; died
A. D. 373], which he maintained unswervingly and
unyieldingly in a long life, subject to constant assault
and persecution.
b) Such a study will reveal to us the profoundest
motives underlying the great controversy.
2. Sources: Apologia c. Arianos; expositio fidei; de decretis synodi
Nicaenae; Ep. ad episc. Aeg. et Lib.; apol. ad Constant, imperat.;
apol. de fuga sua; hist. Arianorum ad monach.; ep. ad Serapionem
de morte Arii; ad Serapionem, ep. ii.; de synodis Arim. et Seleuc.;
and especially his chief work, Orationes iv. c. Arianos.
3. Doctrine
a) Negatively Considered: Denunciation of Arius
(1) We notice first the denunciation of Arianism. Athanasius
clearly recognized the unchristian and irreligious conclusions to
which this doctrine leads. If Arius is right, then the triune God is
not eternal; to the unity was added in time the Son and the Spirit.
The three-foldness has come into existence from the nonexistent. Who can assure us that there may not be a further
increase? (c. Ar. or. i. 17, 18).
(2) According to Arius, baptism would be administered in the
name of a creature, which can after all render us no aid (ib. ii.
41; iv. 25). But not only is the Trinity thus dissolved by the
Arians; even the divinity of the Father is imperiled. The Father
has not always been Fathersome change has taken place in
219
Page 386 of 524
him in the course of time, and he did not always have within him
the Word, Light, and Wisdom (ib. i. 20, 24, 25).
(3) Further, Arianism leads logically to the polytheism of the
heathen world. Only if the Son partakes of the same nature and
substance as the Father, can we speak of One God. The Arians,
on the contrary, have two different Gods: It is necessary for
them to speak of two Gods, one the creator and the other the
created, and to worship two Lords, which leads to Greek
polytheism (ib. iii. 15, 16). This is illustrated particularly in the
worship rendered to Jesus in the church. It is heathenish to
worship the creature instead of the Creator (ep. encycl. 4), and,
according to Rev. xxii. 9, worship is not to be rendered even to
the angels (c. Ar. or. ii. 23): Who said to them that, having
abandoned the worship of the created universe ( ), they
should proceed again to worship something created and made?
(ib. 1:8, 38, 42; de deer. 11 fin.).
(4) But, above all, the Arian view destroys the certainty of
salvation.
(a) If the Logos is mutable, as the Arians consistently
maintain, how can he reveal to us the Father, and how
can we behold in him the Father? How can he who
beholds the mutable think that he is beholding the
immutable? (ib. i. 35; cf. Jn. 14:9).
(b) In this way man can never reach the assurance of
salvation, of fellowship with God, the forgiveness of his
sins, and immortality: For if, being a creature, he
became man, he as man remained none the less such as
he was, not partaking of God; for how could a creature
by a creature partake of God? . . And how, if the Logos
was a creature, would he be able to dissolve a decree of
God and forgive sin? (ii. 67; iv. 20). Again, the man
partaking of a creature would not be deified, unless the
Son was truly God; and the man would not be equal with
the Father, unless he who assumed the body was by
nature also the true Logos of the Father (ii. 70).
(5) Finally, this median being () between God and the
world is an utterly useless and senseless invention.
(a) Neither is God too proud to come himself as Creator
into direct touch with a creature, nor in that case would
the matter be made any better by the supposed Logos,
since at his creation also some median creature would
have been necessary, and so on ad infinitum (ii. 25, 26;
de decr. 8).
220
Page 387 of 524
(b) Hence, if Christ is not the true God and one

substance with the Father, then it is all over with the
Trinity and the baptismal-symbol; then polytheism and
the worship of creatures are again introduced into the
church; then the salvation of Christian believers comes
to naught; and yet, after all, no logically tenable
position has been reached.
(c) Thus the theory of Arius is just as impious as it is
unscientific.
b) Positively Considered: Construction of Doctrine

(1) And since Christ is God of God and the Logos, Wisdom,
Son, and Power of God, therefore, One God is proclaimed in the
Holy Scriptures. For the Logos, being the Son of the one God, is
referred back to him from whom he is, so that Father and Son are
two, yet the monad of divinity is unseparated () and
undivided (). Thus it might be said also that there is
one original source of divinity and not two original sources, and
hence, also correctly, that there is a monarchy the nature
() and the person () are one (c. Ar. or. iv. 1).
(a) These theses voice the conviction that the divinity of
the Son must be understood with a distinct and
conscious effort to guard the divine monad. No basis is
left for the second God.
(b) Athanasius was led to recognize the importance of
this position by the conclusions which Arius had drawn
from his second God. He may, perhaps, have been
influenced also by the significant part played by
Sabellianism in Egypt.
(c) In this case we have another illustration of the
historical recognition of the element of truth lurking in a
false theory. But the circumstance should not be
overlooked that Athanasius labored in the West, where
the consciousness of the unity of God was always more
vivid than in the East, which was so unquestionably
controlled by the formulas of the Logos idea.
(2) But Athanasius will not recognize a Son-Father ()
with the Sabellians, nor a sole-natured () God, for
the existence of the Son would thus be excluded.
(a) On the contrary, the independent and eternally
personal existence of the Son is a fixed premise, always
221
Page 388 of 524
bearing in mind that we are not to think of three

hypostases separated from one another, which would
lead to Polytheism.
(b) The relationship between the Father and the Son is
rather like that between a fountain and the stream that
gushes from it: Just as a river springing from a
fountain is not separated from it, although there are two
forms and two names, so neither is the Father the Son,
nor the Son the Father (expos, fid. 2; c. Ar. or. iii. 4).
(3) This distinction, as well as the unity, finds expression in the
term oneness of essence ( ).
(a) The Logos is a production, or generation
(), from the nature () of the Father (de
decr. 3, 22, 23; c. Ar. i. 29).
(b) As to his relation to created beings, it follows that
the Son is different in origin and different in nature
from created beings, and, on the other hand, is the same
and of the same nature () as the nature of the
Father (ib. i. 58; de decr. 23, 12; de syn. 53).
(c) As he is thus other-natured () than
created beings, so he is same-natured () with
the Father, i.e., he shares with him the one divine
substance (the Son is and of the of the
Father, ad Serap. ep. ii. 5; de syn. 40).
(d) But if this is the case, then the Logos is immutable
and eternal (de decr. 23:12).
(4) The Son comes forth from the Father by a begetting, or birth.
(a) In view of the unique character of the divine nature,
we cannot here think of any outflow from the Father, nor
any dividing of his substance. The begetting of men and
that of the Son from the Father are different. For the
things begotten of men are in some way parts of those
who beget them men in begetting pour forth from
themselves. But God, being without parts, is without
division and without passion the Father of the Son. For
neither does there take place any outflowing of the
incorporeal One, nor any inflowing upon him, as with
men; but, being simple in his nature, he is the Father of
the one and only Son This is the Logos of the Father,
222
Page 389 of 524
in whom it is possible to behold that which is of the

Father without passion or division (de decr. 11).
(b) Nor is it as though the Son was begotten from the
Father by purpose and will (c. Ar. iii. 59), for thus the
Son would be again degraded to the position of a
creature created in time, one which the Father first
determined to make and then made (iii. 6063). All
things were created by the will of God, but of the Son it
is to be said: He is outside of the things created by the
purpose [of God], and, on the other hand, he is himself
the living purpose of the Father, in which all these
things come into being (64). But the Son of God is
himself the Logos and wisdom, himself the counsel and
the living purpose, and in him is the will of the Father;
he himself is the truth and the light and the power of the
Father. (65). As the very image ( ) of the
Fathers person (), he did not originate in an
arbitrary act of the Fathers will (ib.). But this does not
imply that the Son was not desired by the Father. For it
is one thing to say: he was begotten by desire
(), and another thing to say that the Father
loves his Son, who is the same in nature as himself, and
desires him (66).
(c) The Son is thus related to the Father as radiance to
the light: the living Counsel and truly by nature a
production, as the radiance is a production of the light
(67).
(d) Father and Son are, therefore, two persons (the
Logos is not impersonal, , as the word of
man, de syn. 41 fin.), the Begetting and the Begotten; but
they are again, by virtue of this same relationship, one
a divine Being: The Father is Father and not himself
Son, and the Son is Son and not himself Father, but the
nature () is one. For that which is begotten is not
unlike him who begets, for it is his likeness ()
therefore the Son is not another God . For if, indeed,
the Son as a begotten being is another, yet as God he is
the same, and he and the Father are one in the
peculiarity and structure of their nature and in the
identity of the one divinity (ib. iii. 4). But this
relationship of the Begetting and the Begotten is an
eternal one: The Father was always by nature
generating () (iii. 66). It is evident that
the Logos is both of himself and always existent with the
Father (1:27).
223
Page 390 of 524
c) Methodology
(1) Athanasius starts with the conception of the One divine
Being, but this one God leads a double life. As Begotten and
Begetting. Son and Father stand opposed to one another as two
persons, but not as two Gods. They are one nature ( )
of the same nature ().
(2) In these declarations is really expressed all that the church
had believed and taught concerning Christ since the days of the
apostles: the one Godhead and the divine I of the Son. The
elements of truth in Monarchianism and in the popular
Christology, with their conceptions of the second God, the
divine part, and the Logos of the Father, are all here combined
and the errors of thought and expression carefully avoided: The
ancient formulas can never recur in the church in the same shape.
(3) Athanasius really furnished something new. He reduced the
manifold representations of Christ to a simple formula, and he
established the necessity of this formula firmly by displaying its
relation to the doctrine of redemption. Imperfections, of course,
still remain. The theologian of to-day will find fault, in addition
to the defectiveness of the scriptural proof, chiefly with the
indefiniteness of the term ; he will not fail to observe that
the one personal God of Athanasius is, after all, to a certain
degree, only the Father (and thus there will be proclaimed in
the church one God, the Father of the Logos, ad Epict. 9 fin.;
the Father as the source () and fountain () ad Serap.
ep. i. 28); and he will demand a more distinct recognition of the
divine personality, as well as a proper application of the
principle of historical revelation in connection with the life of
Christ.
(4) The problem which Athanasius endeavored to solve thus
becomes more complicated. But it will not be denied that
Athanasius made the best possible use of the materials then at
hand. And we can in our day, with the New Testament in hand,
scarcely do otherwise than acknowledge the problem of
Athanasius as one well worthy of our study, andperhaps from
other points of view, in other terms, and with other methods of
proofhold fast to the .
d) Objective
(1) It was not the demands of logical consistency, forced upon
him alike by the assaults of his opponents and by the
requirements of his own position, which inspired Athanasius.
The arguments, both positive and negative, by which he justifies
224
Page 391 of 524
his discussions are primarily of a religious nature (see p. 207),

and it is precisely this fact which constitutes the novelty and
importance of his view. Only if Christ is God, in the full sense of
the word and without qualification, has God entered humanity,
and only then have fellowship with God, the forgiveness of sins,
the truth of God, and immortality been certainly brought to men.
(2) This will become clear, if we consider the soteriological
ideas of Athanasius.
(a) The Logos assumed human flesh () and

became man. He was true God and true man (ib. ii.
70; iii. 32, 41, 30; iv. 35, 36).He became man, and
did not enter into man, as, for example, he visited
the Old Testament believers (iii. 30; ad Epict. 11).
He who was God by nature was born a man, in
order that both might be one (c. Apollin. i. 7). But
the union () between the flesh (), i.e.,
the entire human nature (ad Epict. 8; c. Ar. iii. 30)
and the divinity () exists from the womb
(c. Apol. i. 4), and the union is indissoluble, but
without leading to any mixture (c. Apol. 1:6: In
order that the body might be according to its
nature, and again, without division, might be
according to the nature of the divinity of its Logos.
He ascended in the body, c. Ar. i. 45; i. 10: Shall it
not suffice thee that the body in the undivided
physical union with the Logos has been made his
own?).
(b) The Logos was not therefore in some way
transformed into the flesh (ad Epict. 8), but he is so
related to human nature as to use the latter as his
instrument. Hence, the works of the divine nature
are accomplished through the flesh. But, on the
other hand, inasmuch as this impassible flesh
belongs to the Logos, we may attribute to it that
which, strictly speaking, applies only to the human
nature, since the divine nature is not capable of
suffering. Being God, he had a body of his own,
and, using this as an organ, he became man for our
sakes; and, therefore, the things properly spoken of
[the body] are said of him, when he was in it, such
as hunger, thirst, suffering, of which things the
flesh is susceptible; but the works peculiar to the
Logos himself, such as raising the dead and making
225
Page 392 of 524
the blind to see, he did through his own body,

and the Logos bore the infirmities of the flesh as
though they were his own, for it was his flesh, and
the flesh assisted in the works of the divine nature,
because it was in the latter; for it was the body of
God (c. Ar. or. iii. 31, 32, 35, 41; ad Epict. 5, 10,
11). We may therefore, in a certain sense, speak of
the sufferings of the Logos. For the things which
the human body of the Logos suffered, the Logos,
being one with it, transferred to himself, in order
that we might be enabled to become partakers of the
divine nature of the Logos. And it was a paradox,
that he was a sufferer and not a sufferera
sufferer, because his own body suffered and he was
in it as it suffered; and not a sufferer, because the
Logos, being by nature God, cannot suffer (ad
Epict. 6; c. Ar. iii. 37, 35).
(3) Hence Athanasius designates even the human acts of
Christ as good deeds () of God (c. Ar. or. iii.
41; cf. ad Serap. ep. iv. 14: All things were connectedly,
, done for he spat like men, and his spittle
was full of God), and he could speak of the crucified
God (ad Epict. 10; cf. c. Ar. iii. 34), of worshiping the
man Jesus (c. Apol. i. 6), and of Mary as the Mother of God
().
(4) The object of this whole method of regarding the subject is
to establish a firm foundation for the salvation () of
men.
(a) Inasmuch as Christ was really God, he could deify
the flesh which he assumed; and inasmuch as this was
really human flesh (c. Epict. 7), human nature has
thereby been deified. Man could not have been deified,
unless he who became flesh had been by nature of the
Father and his true and peculiar Logos. Therefore such
a conjunction was effected, in order that to that which
was according to the nature of the divinity he might join
that which was by nature man, and the salvation and
deification of the latter might be secure (c. Ar. ii. 70).
For as the Lord, having assumed the body, became
man, so we men are by the Logos deified, having been
taken into partnership through his flesh, and,
furthermore, we inherit eternal life (ib. iii. 34).
226
Page 393 of 524
(b) Accordingly, since Christ assumed flesh, he assumed

human nature, and thereby deified and immortalized it:
From the holy and God-bearing Virgin he raised up the
new form and creation of Adam, making it his own by
union ( = ), and thus appeared the man Christ,
God from eternity, and we are members of Christ. 1
Cor. 6:15 (c. Apol. i. 13, cf. c. Ar. i. 43; ii. 61; iii. 33; iv.
36). He is thus the second Adam (c. Ar. i. 44; ii. 65). The
life of the Lord is to be interpreted in the light of this
purpose. He was, according to the flesh, without
knowledge, in order that to his flesh, and thus to
humanity, might be given power to know the Father (c.
Ar. or. iii. 38; ad Serap. ii. 9).
(c) He feared death, in order that we might become free
from the fear of death and partakers of immortality (ib.
iii. 54ff.; cf. ii. 70). He was baptized, anointed with the
Spirit of God, received grace, and ascended to heaven,
in order that we through his flesh might secure the
Spirit, grace, and immortality (ib. i. 4348). To all
assertions of this kind must be added, to insure a proper
understanding, the words: And all such things in the
flesh wholly for our sakes (ib. iii. 34, 38ff.; cf. iv. 6:
for on this account he became incarnate, that the things
thus given to him might pass over to us). But this all
happens to the flesh of Christ, and thus to the human
race, because that flesh is joined with true divinity (ib. ii.
70, 67; iv. 36). Thus sin is destroyed () and
humanity becomes free from sin and immortal (ib. iii.
32; 2:56).
(d) Thus, too, we become a temple and sons of God (i.
43; ii. 59), the Spirit of Christ dwells in us and we are
thereby made one with the Father (ii. 25). We must in all
these discussions avoid the erroneous idea that in this
deification of man Athanasius sees a magical process by
which the seeds of immortality are physically implanted
in man. The deification embraces, on the contrary, all
the spiritual and mystical processes in which Christ
operates by his word and his example upon the hearts of
men (ib. iii. 19ff.). What Athanasius means to assert is
that Christ dwells in us, and, by the power of his Spirit,
gives us a new, eternal life. But now, since God was in
Christ, and from him a divine life flowed out upon men,
the man Jesus has become in all things the
representative of the race, or the second Adam. His
death is, therefore, the death of all, or he has given his
body to death for all, and thereby fulfilled the divine
sentence against sin (ii. 69).
227
Page 394 of 524
(e) This guiltless self-surrender to death is designated

as a ransom of the sin of men and an abolition of
death (i. 45). He presented this ransom, or sacrifice, to
God the Father, and by his blood cleansed us all from
sin (ii. 7). Athanasius here adopts traditional ideas. His
own thought remains clear. Since we have become one
body with Christ, his death is our death, and his victory
over death is ours: All men being ruined in accordance
with the transgression of Adam, the flesh of this one was
first of all saved and set free, as being the body of the
Logos itself, and thereupon we, as being of one body
() with him, are saved . Having endured
death for us and abolished it, he was the first man to
arise, having raised up his own body for us.
Furthermore, he having arisen, we also in our order
arise from the dead on account of and through him (ib.
ii. 61).
(f) As in all these positions we can trace the influence
of the general point of view above noted, so too in the
passages in which Christ is represented as the only
mediator of the knowledge of the Father (i. 12, 16; ii.
81), as the pattern of unvarying righteousness (i. 51), as
the dispenser of the forgiveness of sins (ii. 67), and as
the bestower of the Holy Spirit (iii. 2325, 33; de decr.
14). But it still remains the matter of chief importance
that, through the incarnation of the Logos, God himself
has entered into the human race for abiding fellowship,
and the latter have thereby secured grace and
righteousness, the Holy Spirit, a new life, and with it
immortality: Therefore the perfect Logos of God
assumes the immortal body in order that, having paid
the debt for us ( = ), the
things yet lacking to man might be perfected by him; but
there was yet lacking immortality and the way to
paradise (ii. 66).
4. Conclusion
a) That these are really Christian ideas cannot be
doubted.
b) They follow the Johannine type of doctrine, and, at
the same time, one of the lines of Pauline teaching (cf.
Ignatius, Irenus, Methodius).
c) That the apostolic conception of the gospel is here
reproduced, however, in a one-sided way, can as little
228
Page 395 of 524
be questioned. Yet it remains true, that it is a religious

and Christian foundation from which the views of
Athanasius are logically developed. Christ is God, or we
cannot have God dwelling and operating in us and be
sure of our salvation, i.e., of the new eternal life and the
forgiveness of our sins.
d) We mention here by anticipation that Athanasius at a
later period employed the same means to prove the
Homousia of the Holy Spirit (vid. ep. iv. ad Serap. and cf.
tomi ad Antiochenos).
e) As against the opinion that the Holy Spirit is a
creature () or an angelic being (ad Serap. i.
10:12), it must be remembered that something of
different nature (a ) would thus be
introduced into the Trinity, and the latter thereby be
destroyed, or transformed into a Diad (, i. 29).
f) Whatever is true of the Son must therefore be true
also of the Holy Spirit (i. 9, 20, 21). He is of like nature
(, i. 27), immutuble (, i. 26), and
, ib.). And, as in the case of the Son, this is
manifest also from the nature of his work as attested by
our experience. He sanctifies us, and enables us to
participate in the divine nature (, i, 23). When
now we are called partakers of Christ and partakers of
God, the anointing within us bears witness and the seal,
which is not of the nature of things made, but of the
nature of the Son through the Spirit who in him unites
us to the Father (cf. 1 Jn. 4:13) But if in the fellowship
of the Spirit we become partakers of the divine nature,
he would be mad who should say that the Spirit is of
created nature and not of the nature of God. Therefore,
indeed, they into whom he enters are deified; and if he
deifies, it is not doubtful that his nature is that of God
(i. 24).
g) Such is the doctrine of Athanasius. It, in his
judgment, faithfully reproduces the teachings of the
Scriptures, as well as of the Fathers (e.g., Ignat. Ephes.
7, cited in de syn. 47), the great councils, the
baptismal command, and the baptismal confession (ad
Serap. ep. i. 28, 30, 33; ii. 8; iii. 6; c. Apol. i. 2; ad Epict. i.
229
Page 396 of 524
3). Its profound religious basis, as well as its simplicity

and consistency, must be evident to all.
230
Page 397 of 524
VIII.
The Trinitarian ControversiesFurther Developments

A. Council of NiceaA. D. 325 Philip Schaff
1. Sources
a) The twenty CANONES, the doctrinal Symbol, and a
DECREE OF THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA, and several Letters of
bishop Alexander of Alexandria and the emperor
Constantine (all collected in Greek and Latin in Mansi:
Collect. sacrorum Conciliorum, tom. ii. fol. 635-704).
Official minutes of the transactions themselves were not
at that time made; only the decrees as adopted were set
down in writing and subscribed by all (comp. Euseb.
Vita Const. iii. 14). All later accounts of voluminous acts
of the council are sheer fabrications (Comp. Hefele, i. p.
249 sqq.)
b) Accounts of eye-witnesses, especially Eusebius, Vita
Const. iii. 4-24. The Church History of Eusebius, which

should have closed with the council of Nice, comes
down only to the year 324. Athanasius: De decretis
Synodi Nic.; Orationes iv contra Arianos; Epist. ad
Afros, and other historical and anti-Arian tracts in tom. i.
and ii. of his Opera, ed. Bened. and the more important
of them also in the first vol. of Thilos Bibliotheca
Patrum Graec. dogmat. Lips. 1853. (Engl. transl. in the
Oxford Library of the Fathers.)
c) The later accounts of Epiphanius: Haer. 69; Socrates:
H. E. i. 8 sqq.; Sozomen: H. E. i. 17 sqq.; Theodoret: H.
E. i. 1-13; Rufinus: H. E. i. 1-6 (or lib. x., if his transl. of
Eusebius be counted in). Gelasius Cyzicenus (about
476): Commentarius actorum Concilii Nicaeni (Greek
and Latin in Mansi, tom. ii. fol. 759 sqq.; it professes to
be founded on an old MS., but is filled with imaginary
speeches). Comp. also the four Coptic fragments in
Pitra: Spicilegium Solesmense, Par. 1852, vol. i. p. 509
sqq., and the Syriac fragments in Analecta Nicaena.
Fragments relating to the Council of Nicaea. The Syriac
text from am ancient MS. by H. Cowper, Lond. 1857.
2. Theological Parties
231
Page 398 of 524
a) Orthodox Party: The orthodox party, which held

firmly to the deity of Christ, was at first in the minority,
but in talent and influence the more weighty. At the head
of it stood the bishop (or pope) Alexander of
Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, Macarius of
Jerusalem, Marcellus of Ancyra, Rosins of Cordova (the
court bishop), and above all the Alexandrian
archdeacon, Athanasius, who, though small and young,
and, according to later practice not admissible to a
voice or a seat in a council, evinced more zeal and
insight than all, and gave promise already of being the
future head of the orthodox party.
b) The Arians or Eusebians numbered perhaps twenty
bishops, under the lead of the influential bishop
Eusebius of Nicemedia (afterwards of Constantinople),
who was allied with the imperial family, and of the
presbyter Arius, who attended at the command of the
emperor, and was often called upon to set forth his
views. To these also belonged Theognis of Nicaea,
Maris of Chalcedon, and Menophantus of Ephesus;
embracing in this remarkable way the bishops of the
several seats of the orthodox ecumenical councils.
c) The majority, whose organ was the renowned
historian Eusebius of Caesarea, took middle ground
between the right and the left, but bore nearer the right,
and finally went over to that side. Many of them had an
orthodox instinct, but little discernment; others were
disciples of Origen, or preferred simple biblical
expression to a scholastic terminology; others had no
firm convictions, but only uncertain opinions, and were
therefore easily swayed by the arguments of the
stronger party or by mere external considerations.
3. Process
a) The Arians first proposed a creed, which however
was rejected with tumultuous disapproval, and torn to
pieces; whereupon all the eighteen signers of it,
excepting Theonas and Secundus, both of Egypt,
abandoned the cause of Arius.
b) Then the church historian Eusebius, in the name of
the middle party, proposed an ancient Palestinian

Confession, which was very similar to the Nicene, and
232
Page 399 of 524
acknowledged the divine nature of Christ in general

biblical terms, but avoided the term in question,
, consubstantialis, of the same essence. The
emperor had already seen and approved this
confession, and even the Arian minority were ready to
accept it.
c) But this last circumstance itself was very suspicious
to the extreme right. They wished a creed which no
Arian could honestly subscribe, and especially insisted
on inserting the expression homo-ousios, which the
Arians hated and declared to be unscriptural, Sabellian,
and materialistic. The emperor saw clearly that the
Eusebian formula would not pass; and, as he had at
heart, for the sake of peace, the most nearly unanimous
decision which was possible, he gave his voice for the
disputed word.
d) Then Hosius of Cordova appeared and announced
that a confession was prepared which would now be
read by the deacon (afterwards bishop) Hermogenes of
Caesarea, the secretary of the synod. It is in substance
the well-known Nicene creed with some additions and
omissions of which we are to speak below. It is
somewhat abrupt; the council not caring to do more
than meet the immediate exigency. The direct concern
was only to establish the doctrine of the true deity of the
Son. The deity of the Holy Spirit, though inevitably
involved, did not then come up as a subject of special
discussion, and therefore the synod contented itself on
this point with the sentence: And (we believe) in the
Holy Ghost. The council of Constantinople enlarged the
last article concerning the Holy Ghost. To the positive
part of the Nicene confession is added a condemnation
of the Arian heresy, which dropped out of the formula
afterwards received.
e) Almost all the bishops subscribed the creed, Hosius
at the head, and next him the two Roman presbyters in
the name of their bishop. This is the first instance of
such signing of a document in the Christian church.
Eusebius of Caesarea also signed his name after a days
deliberation, and vindicated this act in a letter to his
diocese. Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea
subscribed the creed without the condemnatory
formula, and for this they were deposed and for a time
233
Page 400 of 524
banished, but finally consented to all the decrees of the

council. The Arian historian Philostorgius, who however
deserves little credit, accuses them of insincerity in
having substituted, by the advice of the emperor, for
- (of the same essence) the semi-Arian word
- (of like essence). Only two Egyptian
bishops, Theonas and Secundus, persistently refused to
sign, and were banished with Arius to Illyria. The books
of Arius were burned and his followers branded as
enemies of Christianity.
f) This is the first example of the civil punishment of
heresy; and it is the beginning of a long succession of
civil persecutions for all departures from the Catholic
faith. Before the union of church and state ecclesiastical
excommunication was the extreme penalty. Now
banishment and afterwards even death were added,
because all offences against the church were regarded
as at the same time crimes against the state and civil
society.
g) The two other points on which the council of Nicaea
decided, the Easter question and the Meletian schism,
have been already spoken of in their place. The council
issued twenty canons in reference to discipline. The
creed and the canons were written in a book, and again
signed by the bishops. The council issued a letter to the
Egyptian and Libyan bishops as to the decision of the
three main points; the emperor also sent several edicts
to the churches, in which he ascribed the decrees to
divine inspiration, and set them forth as laws of the
realm. On the twenty-ninth of July, the twentieth
anniversary of his accession, he gave the members of
the council a splendid banquet in his palace, which
Eusebius (quite too susceptible to worldly splendor)
describes as a figure of the reign of Christ on earth; he
remunerated the bishops lavishly, and dismissed them
with a suitable valedictory, and with letters of
commendation to the authorities of all the provinces on
their homeward way.
h) Thus ended the council of Nicaea. It is the first and
most venerable of the ecumenical synods, and next to
the apostolic council at Jerusalem the most important
and the most illustrious of all the councils of
Christendom. Athanasius calls it a true monument and
234
Page 401 of 524
token of victory against every heresy; Leo the Great,

like Constantine, attributes its decrees to the inspiration
of the Holy Ghost, and ascribes even to its canons
perpetual validity; the Greek church annually observes
(on the Sunday before Pentecost) a special feast in
memory of it. There afterwards arose a multitude of
apocryphal orations and legends in glorification of it, of
which Gelasius of Cyzicus in the fifth century collected
a whole volume.
4. Evaluation
a) The council of Nicaea is the most important event of

the fourth century, and its bloodless intellectual victory
over a dangerous error is of far greater consequence to
the progress of true civilization, than all the bloody
victories of Constantine and his successors. It forms an
epoch in the history of doctrine, summing up the results
of all previous discussions on the deity of Christ and the
incarnation, and at the same time regulating the further
development of the Catholic orthodoxy for centuries.
b) The Nicene creed, in the enlarged form which it
received after the second ecumenical council, is the
only one of all, the symbols of doctrine which, with the
exception of the subsequently added filioque, is
acknowledged alike by the Greek, the Latin, and the
Evangelical churches, and to this, day, after a course of
fifteen centuries, is prayed and sung from Sunday to
Sunday in all countries of the civilized world. The
Apostles Creed indeed, is much more generally used in
the West, and by its greater simplicity and more popular
form is much better adapted to catechetical and
liturgical purposes; but it has taken no root in the
Eastern church; still less the Athanasian Creed, which
exceeds the Nicene in logical precision and
completeness.
c) Upon the bed of lava grows the sweet fruit of the
vine. The wild passions and the weaknesses of men,
which encompassed the Nicene council, are
extinguished, but the faith in the eternal deity of Christ
has remained, and so long as this faith lives, the council
of Nicaea will be named with reverence and with
gratitude.
235
Page 402 of 524
B. Athanasius
1. Introduction
a) It seems proper at this point to present connectedly
the teaching of Athanasius [born before A. D. 300; died
A. D. 373], which he maintained unswervingly and
unyieldingly in a long life, subject to constant assault
and persecution.
b) Such a study will reveal to us the profoundest
motives underlying the great controversy.
2. Sources: Apologia c. Arianos; expositio fidei; de decretis synodi
Nicaenae; Ep. ad episc. Aeg. et Lib.; apol. ad Constant, imperat.;
apol. de fuga sua; hist. Arianorum ad monach.; ep. ad Serapionem
de morte Arii; ad Serapionem, ep. ii.; de synodis Arim. et Seleuc.;
and especially his chief work, Orationes iv. c. Arianos.
3. Doctrine
a) Negatively Considered: Denunciation of Arius
(1) We notice first the denunciation of Arianism. Athanasius
clearly recognized the unchristian and irreligious conclusions to
which this doctrine leads. If Arius is right, then the triune God is
not eternal; to the unity was added in time the Son and the Spirit.
The three-foldness has come into existence from the nonexistent. Who can assure us that there may not be a further
increase? (c. Ar. or. i. 17, 18).
(2) According to Arius, baptism would be administered in the
name of a creature, which can after all render us no aid (ib. ii.
41; iv. 25). But not only is the Trinity thus dissolved by the
Arians; even the divinity of the Father is imperiled. The Father
has not always been Fathersome change has taken place in
him in the course of time, and he did not always have within him
the Word, Light, and Wisdom (ib. i. 20, 24, 25).
(3) Further, Arianism leads logically to the polytheism of the
heathen world. Only if the Son partakes of the same nature and
substance as the Father, can we speak of One God. The Arians,
on the contrary, have two different Gods: It is necessary for
them to speak of two Gods, one the creator and the other the
created, and to worship two Lords, which leads to Greek
polytheism (ib. iii. 15, 16). This is illustrated particularly in the
worship rendered to Jesus in the church. It is heathenish to
worship the creature instead of the Creator (ep. encycl. 4), and,
236
Page 403 of 524
according to Rev. xxii. 9, worship is not to be rendered even to

the angels (c. Ar. or. ii. 23): Who said to them that, having
abandoned the worship of the created universe ( ), they
should proceed again to worship something created and made?
(ib. 1:8, 38, 42; de deer. 11 fin.).
(4) But, above all, the Arian view destroys the certainty of
salvation.
(a) If the Logos is mutable, as the Arians consistently
maintain, how can he reveal to us the Father, and how
can we behold in him the Father? How can he who
beholds the mutable think that he is beholding the
immutable? (ib. i. 35; cf. Jn. 14:9).
(b) In this way man can never reach the assurance of
salvation, of fellowship with God, the forgiveness of his
sins, and immortality: For if, being a creature, he
became man, he as man remained none the less such as
he was, not partaking of God; for how could a creature
by a creature partake of God? . . And how, if the Logos
was a creature, would he be able to dissolve a decree of
God and forgive sin? (ii. 67; iv. 20). Again, the man
partaking of a creature would not be deified, unless the
Son was truly God; and the man would not be equal with
the Father, unless he who assumed the body was by
nature also the true Logos of the Father (ii. 70).
(5) Finally, this median being () between God and the
world is an utterly useless and senseless invention.
(a) Neither is God too proud to come himself as Creator
into direct touch with a creature, nor in that case would
the matter be made any better by the supposed Logos,
since at his creation also some median creature would
have been necessary, and so on ad infinitum (ii. 25, 26;
de decr. 8).
(b) Hence, if Christ is not the true God and one
substance with the Father, then it is all over with the
Trinity and the baptismal-symbol; then polytheism and
the worship of creatures are again introduced into the
church; then the salvation of Christian believers comes
to naught; and yet, after all, no logically tenable
position has been reached.
(c) Thus the theory of Arius is just as impious as it is
unscientific.
237
Page 404 of 524
b) Positively Considered: Construction of Doctrine

(1) And since Christ is God of God and the Logos, Wisdom,
Son, and Power of God, therefore, One God is proclaimed in the
Holy Scriptures. For the Logos, being the Son of the one God, is
referred back to him from whom he is, so that Father and Son are
two, yet the monad of divinity is unseparated () and
undivided (). Thus it might be said also that there is
one original source of divinity and not two original sources, and
hence, also correctly, that there is a monarchy the nature
() and the person () are one (c. Ar. or. iv. 1).
(a) These theses voice the conviction that the divinity of
the Son must be understood with a distinct and
conscious effort to guard the divine monad. No basis is
left for the second God.
(b) Athanasius was led to recognize the importance of
this position by the conclusions which Arius had drawn
from his second God. He may, perhaps, have been
influenced also by the significant part played by
Sabellianism in Egypt.
(c) In this case we have another illustration of the
historical recognition of the element of truth lurking in a
false theory. But the circumstance should not be
overlooked that Athanasius labored in the West, where
the consciousness of the unity of God was always more
vivid than in the East, which was so unquestionably
controlled by the formulas of the Logos idea.
(2) But Athanasius will not recognize a Son-Father ()
with the Sabellians, nor a sole-natured () God, for
the existence of the Son would thus be excluded.
(a) On the contrary, the independent and eternally
personal existence of the Son is a fixed premise, always
bearing in mind that we are not to think of three
hypostases separated from one another, which would
lead to Polytheism.
(b) The relationship between the Father and the Son is
rather like that between a fountain and the stream that
gushes from it: Just as a river springing from a
fountain is not separated from it, although there are two
forms and two names, so neither is the Father the Son,
nor the Son the Father (expos, fid. 2; c. Ar. or. iii. 4).
238
Page 405 of 524
(3) This distinction, as well as the unity, finds expression in the

term oneness of essence ( ).
(a) The Logos is a production, or generation
(), from the nature () of the Father (de
decr. 3, 22, 23; c. Ar. i. 29).
(b) As to his relation to created beings, it follows that
the Son is different in origin and different in nature
from created beings, and, on the other hand, is the same
and of the same nature () as the nature of the
Father (ib. i. 58; de decr. 23, 12; de syn. 53).
(c) As he is thus other-natured () than
created beings, so he is same-natured () with
the Father, i.e., he shares with him the one divine
substance (the Son is and of the of the
Father, ad Serap. ep. ii. 5; de syn. 40).
(d) But if this is the case, then the Logos is immutable
and eternal (de decr. 23:12).
(4) The Son comes forth from the Father by a begetting, or birth.
(a) In view of the unique character of the divine nature,
we cannot here think of any outflow from the Father, nor
any dividing of his substance. The begetting of men and
that of the Son from the Father are different. For the
things begotten of men are in some way parts of those
who beget them men in begetting pour forth from
themselves. But God, being without parts, is without
division and without passion the Father of the Son. For
neither does there take place any outflowing of the
incorporeal One, nor any inflowing upon him, as with
men; but, being simple in his nature, he is the Father of
the one and only Son This is the Logos of the Father,
in whom it is possible to behold that which is of the
Father without passion or division (de decr. 11).
(b) Nor is it as though the Son was begotten from the
Father by purpose and will (c. Ar. iii. 59), for thus the
Son would be again degraded to the position of a
creature created in time, one which the Father first
determined to make and then made (iii. 6063). All
things were created by the will of God, but of the Son it
is to be said: He is outside of the things created by the
purpose [of God], and, on the other hand, he is himself
the living purpose of the Father, in which all these
239
Page 406 of 524
things come into being (64). But the Son of God is

himself the Logos and wisdom, himself the counsel and
the living purpose, and in him is the will of the Father;
he himself is the truth and the light and the power of the
Father. (65). As the very image ( ) of the
Fathers person (), he did not originate in an
arbitrary act of the Fathers will (ib.). But this does not
imply that the Son was not desired by the Father. For it
is one thing to say: he was begotten by desire
(), and another thing to say that the Father
loves his Son, who is the same in nature as himself, and
desires him (66).
(c) The Son is thus related to the Father as radiance to
the light: the living Counsel and truly by nature a
production, as the radiance is a production of the light
(67).
(d) Father and Son are, therefore, two persons (the
Logos is not impersonal, , as the word of
man, de syn. 41 fin.), the Begetting and the Begotten; but
they are again, by virtue of this same relationship, one
a divine Being: The Father is Father and not himself
Son, and the Son is Son and not himself Father, but the
nature () is one. For that which is begotten is not
unlike him who begets, for it is his likeness ()
therefore the Son is not another God . For if, indeed,
the Son as a begotten being is another, yet as God he is
the same, and he and the Father are one in the
peculiarity and structure of their nature and in the
identity of the one divinity (ib. iii. 4). But this
relationship of the Begetting and the Begotten is an
eternal one: The Father was always by nature
generating () (iii. 66). It is evident that
the Logos is both of himself and always existent with the
Father (1:27).
c) Methodology
(1) Athanasius starts with the conception of the One divine
Being, but this one God leads a double life. As Begotten and
Begetting. Son and Father stand opposed to one another as two
persons, but not as two Gods. They are one nature ( )
of the same nature ().
(2) In these declarations is really expressed all that the church
had believed and taught concerning Christ since the days of the
240
Page 407 of 524
apostles: the one Godhead and the divine I of the Son. The
elements of truth in Monarchianism and in the popular
Christology, with their conceptions of the second God, the
divine part, and the Logos of the Father, are all here combined
and the errors of thought and expression carefully avoided: The
ancient formulas can never recur in the church in the same shape.
(3) Athanasius really furnished something new. He reduced the
manifold representations of Christ to a simple formula, and he
established the necessity of this formula firmly by displaying its
relation to the doctrine of redemption. Imperfections, of course,
still remain. The theologian of to-day will find fault, in addition
to the defectiveness of the scriptural proof, chiefly with the
indefiniteness of the term ; he will not fail to observe that
the one personal God of Athanasius is, after all, to a certain
degree, only the Father (and thus there will be proclaimed in
the church one God, the Father of the Logos, ad Epict. 9 fin.;
the Father as the source () and fountain () ad Serap.
ep. i. 28); and he will demand a more distinct recognition of the
divine personality, as well as a proper application of the
principle of historical revelation in connection with the life of
Christ.
(4) The problem which Athanasius endeavored to solve thus
becomes more complicated. But it will not be denied that
Athanasius made the best possible use of the materials then at
hand. And we can in our day, with the New Testament in hand,
scarcely do otherwise than acknowledge the problem of
Athanasius as one well worthy of our study, andperhaps from
other points of view, in other terms, and with other methods of
proofhold fast to the .
d) Objective
(1) It was not the demands of logical consistency, forced upon
him alike by the assaults of his opponents and by the
requirements of his own position, which inspired Athanasius.
The arguments, both positive and negative, by which he justifies
his discussions are primarily of a religious nature (see p. 207),
and it is precisely this fact which constitutes the novelty and
importance of his view. Only if Christ is God, in the full sense of
the word and without qualification, has God entered humanity,
and only then have fellowship with God, the forgiveness of sins,
the truth of God, and immortality been certainly brought to men.
(2) This will become clear, if we consider the soteriological
ideas of Athanasius.
241
Page 408 of 524
(a) The Logos assumed human flesh () and

became man. He was true God and true man (ib. ii.
70; iii. 32, 41, 30; iv. 35, 36).He became man, and
did not enter into man, as, for example, he visited
the Old Testament believers (iii. 30; ad Epict. 11).
He who was God by nature was born a man, in
order that both might be one (c. Apollin. i. 7). But
the union () between the flesh (), i.e.,
the entire human nature (ad Epict. 8; c. Ar. iii. 30)
and the divinity () exists from the womb
(c. Apol. i. 4), and the union is indissoluble, but
without leading to any mixture (c. Apol. 1:6: In
order that the body might be according to its
nature, and again, without division, might be
according to the nature of the divinity of its Logos.
He ascended in the body, c. Ar. i. 45; i. 10: Shall it
not suffice thee that the body in the undivided
physical union with the Logos has been made his
own?).
(b) The Logos was not therefore in some way
transformed into the flesh (ad Epict. 8), but he is so
related to human nature as to use the latter as his
instrument. Hence, the works of the divine nature
are accomplished through the flesh. But, on the
other hand, inasmuch as this impassible flesh
belongs to the Logos, we may attribute to it that
which, strictly speaking, applies only to the human
nature, since the divine nature is not capable of
suffering. Being God, he had a body of his own,
and, using this as an organ, he became man for our
sakes; and, therefore, the things properly spoken of
[the body] are said of him, when he was in it, such
as hunger, thirst, suffering, of which things the
flesh is susceptible; but the works peculiar to the
Logos himself, such as raising the dead and making
the blind to see, he did through his own body,
and the Logos bore the infirmities of the flesh as
though they were his own, for it was his flesh, and
the flesh assisted in the works of the divine nature,
because it was in the latter; for it was the body of
God (c. Ar. or. iii. 31, 32, 35, 41; ad Epict. 5, 10,
11). We may therefore, in a certain sense, speak of
the sufferings of the Logos. For the things which
the human body of the Logos suffered, the Logos,
being one with it, transferred to himself, in order
242
Page 409 of 524
that we might be enabled to become partakers of the

divine nature of the Logos. And it was a paradox,
that he was a sufferer and not a sufferera
sufferer, because his own body suffered and he was
in it as it suffered; and not a sufferer, because the
Logos, being by nature God, cannot suffer (ad
Epict. 6; c. Ar. iii. 37, 35).
(3) Hence Athanasius designates even the human acts of
Christ as good deeds () of God (c. Ar. or. iii.
41; cf. ad Serap. ep. iv. 14: All things were connectedly,
, done for he spat like men, and his spittle
was full of God), and he could speak of the crucified
God (ad Epict. 10; cf. c. Ar. iii. 34), of worshiping the
man Jesus (c. Apol. i. 6), and of Mary as the Mother of God
().
(4) The object of this whole method of regarding the subject is
to establish a firm foundation for the salvation () of
men.
(a) Inasmuch as Christ was really God, he could deify
the flesh which he assumed; and inasmuch as this was
really human flesh (c. Epict. 7), human nature has
thereby been deified. Man could not have been deified,
unless he who became flesh had been by nature of the
Father and his true and peculiar Logos. Therefore such
a conjunction was effected, in order that to that which
was according to the nature of the divinity he might join
that which was by nature man, and the salvation and
deification of the latter might be secure (c. Ar. ii. 70).
For as the Lord, having assumed the body, became
man, so we men are by the Logos deified, having been
taken into partnership through his flesh, and,
furthermore, we inherit eternal life (ib. iii. 34).
(b) Accordingly, since Christ assumed flesh, he assumed
human nature, and thereby deified and immortalized it:
From the holy and God-bearing Virgin he raised up the
new form and creation of Adam, making it his own by
union ( = ), and thus appeared the man Christ,
God from eternity, and we are members of Christ. 1
Cor. 6:15 (c. Apol. i. 13, cf. c. Ar. i. 43; ii. 61; iii. 33; iv.
36). He is thus the second Adam (c. Ar. i. 44; ii. 65). The
life of the Lord is to be interpreted in the light of this
purpose. He was, according to the flesh, without
knowledge, in order that to his flesh, and thus to
243
Page 410 of 524
humanity, might be given power to know the Father (c.

Ar. or. iii. 38; ad Serap. ii. 9).
(c) He feared death, in order that we might become free
from the fear of death and partakers of immortality (ib.
iii. 54ff.; cf. ii. 70). He was baptized, anointed with the
Spirit of God, received grace, and ascended to heaven,
in order that we through his flesh might secure the
Spirit, grace, and immortality (ib. i. 4348). To all
assertions of this kind must be added, to insure a proper
understanding, the words: And all such things in the
flesh wholly for our sakes (ib. iii. 34, 38ff.; cf. iv. 6:
for on this account he became incarnate, that the things
thus given to him might pass over to us). But this all
happens to the flesh of Christ, and thus to the human
race, because that flesh is joined with true divinity (ib. ii.
70, 67; iv. 36). Thus sin is destroyed () and
humanity becomes free from sin and immortal (ib. iii.
32; 2:56).
(d) Thus, too, we become a temple and sons of God (i.
43; ii. 59), the Spirit of Christ dwells in us and we are
thereby made one with the Father (ii. 25). We must in all
these discussions avoid the erroneous idea that in this
deification of man Athanasius sees a magical process by
which the seeds of immortality are physically implanted
in man. The deification embraces, on the contrary, all
the spiritual and mystical processes in which Christ
operates by his word and his example upon the hearts of
men (ib. iii. 19ff.). What Athanasius means to assert is
that Christ dwells in us, and, by the power of his Spirit,
gives us a new, eternal life. But now, since God was in
Christ, and from him a divine life flowed out upon men,
the man Jesus has become in all things the
representative of the race, or the second Adam. His
death is, therefore, the death of all, or he has given his
body to death for all, and thereby fulfilled the divine
sentence against sin (ii. 69).
(e) This guiltless self-surrender to death is designated
as a ransom of the sin of men and an abolition of
death (i. 45). He presented this ransom, or sacrifice, to
God the Father, and by his blood cleansed us all from
sin (ii. 7). Athanasius here adopts traditional ideas. His
own thought remains clear. Since we have become one
body with Christ, his death is our death, and his victory
over death is ours: All men being ruined in accordance
with the transgression of Adam, the flesh of this one was
first of all saved and set free, as being the body of the
Logos itself, and thereupon we, as being of one body
244
Page 411 of 524
() with him, are saved . Having endured

death for us and abolished it, he was the first man to
arise, having raised up his own body for us.
Furthermore, he having arisen, we also in our order
arise from the dead on account of and through him (ib.
ii. 61).
(f) As in all these positions we can trace the influence
of the general point of view above noted, so too in the
passages in which Christ is represented as the only
mediator of the knowledge of the Father (i. 12, 16; ii.
81), as the pattern of unvarying righteousness (i. 51), as
the dispenser of the forgiveness of sins (ii. 67), and as
the bestower of the Holy Spirit (iii. 2325, 33; de decr.
14). But it still remains the matter of chief importance
that, through the incarnation of the Logos, God himself
has entered into the human race for abiding fellowship,
and the latter have thereby secured grace and
righteousness, the Holy Spirit, a new life, and with it
immortality: Therefore the perfect Logos of God
assumes the immortal body in order that, having paid
the debt for us ( = ), the
things yet lacking to man might be perfected by him; but
there was yet lacking immortality and the way to
paradise (ii. 66).
4. Conclusion
a) That these are really Christian ideas cannot be
doubted.
b) They follow the Johannine type of doctrine, and, at
the same time, one of the lines of Pauline teaching (cf.
Ignatius, Irenus, Methodius).
c) That the apostolic conception of the gospel is here
reproduced, however, in a one-sided way, can as little
be questioned. Yet it remains true, that it is a religious
and Christian foundation from which the views of
Athanasius are logically developed. Christ is God, or we
cannot have God dwelling and operating in us and be
sure of our salvation, i.e., of the new eternal life and the
forgiveness of our sins.
d) We mention here by anticipation that Athanasius at a
later period employed the same means to prove the
245
Page 412 of 524
Homousia of the Holy Spirit (vid. ep. iv. ad Serap. and cf.
tomi ad Antiochenos).
e) As against the opinion that the Holy Spirit is a
creature () or an angelic being (ad Serap. i.
10:12), it must be remembered that something of
different nature (a ) would thus be
introduced into the Trinity, and the latter thereby be
destroyed, or transformed into a Diad (, i. 29).
f) Whatever is true of the Son must therefore be true
also of the Holy Spirit (i. 9, 20, 21). He is of like nature
(, i. 27), immutuble (, i. 26), and
, ib.). And, as in the case of the Son, this is
manifest also from the nature of his work as attested by
our experience. He sanctifies us, and enables us to
participate in the divine nature (, i, 23). When
now we are called partakers of Christ and partakers of
God, the anointing within us bears witness and the seal,
which is not of the nature of things made, but of the
nature of the Son through the Spirit who in him unites
us to the Father (cf. 1 Jn. 4:13) But if in the fellowship
of the Spirit we become partakers of the divine nature,
he would be mad who should say that the Spirit is of
created nature and not of the nature of God. Therefore,
indeed, they into whom he enters are deified; and if he
deifies, it is not doubtful that his nature is that of God
(i. 24).
g) Such is the doctrine of Athanasius. It, in his
judgment, faithfully reproduces the teachings of the
Scriptures, as well as of the Fathers (e.g., Ignat. Ephes.
7, cited in de syn. 47), the great councils, the
baptismal command, and the baptismal confession (ad
Serap. ep. i. 28, 30, 33; ii. 8; iii. 6; c. Apol. i. 2; ad Epict. i.
3). Its profound religious basis, as well as its simplicity
and consistency, must be evident to all.
C. Further Development Until the Council of Constantinople, A. D.
381.
1. Introduction
246
Page 413 of 524
a) The strife and contentions of this period belong in

their details to the sphere of Church History and
Patristics. We must, therefore, be content with a brief
general view of them.
b) The Nicene Creed was really, after all, but the
confession of a minority. The letter of Eusebius to his
congregation at Caesarea (in Theod. h. e. i. 11) indicates
what skill was required to make it appear acceptable.
According to this explanation, the means no
more than that the Son is of the Father, and that the
Son of God bears nc likeness to begotten creatures, but
is to be likened in every way alone to the Father who
begat him, and that he is not from any other
or , but from that of the Father. The rejection of
the Arian formulas was interpreted to mean that he was
the Son of God also before his birth according to the
flesh, he was dynamically in the Father before he was
actually born.
c) It may be easily understood from this why the
adoption of the Nicene Creed did not bring peace, but
became the signal for a violent renewal of the conflict.
The inner dialectics of the conflicts of the ensuing years
were as follows:
d) The decision of the matter lay in the hands of the
Origenists, i.e., of the larger middle party.
e) Upon these the Arians at first depended in their effort
to secure the revocation of the Nicene Creed, and thus
restore the status quo ante. To this end the Origenists
cast their influence with the Arians.
f) When the Nicene Creed had been set aside, the
Arians began to push their own positive dogmatic views
to the front.
g) The Origenists now parted company with them, and
the elements attached to the homousios were more
strongly emphasized in their opposition to the Arians.
h) The middle party now joined Athanasius.
247
Page 414 of 524
i) It may be said that, in the development of the

movement, the same inner legalism proved influential
which had produced the result attained at Nicaea itself.
j) Since now, instead of the anticipated peace, the
Nicene Creed but provoked further controversy, it is not
to be wondered at that Constantine himself undertook to
change the aspect of affairs.
k) Eusebius of Nicomedia was permittee to return;
l) Arius defended himself to the satisfaction of the
emperor (Socr. i. 26);
m) The leaders of the Nicene party, Eustathius of
Antioch and Athanasius (who had been since A. D. 328
bishop of Alexandria) were removed from office and
banished upon the ground of slanderous treatment of
their opponents (the former A. D. 330; the latter by the
Council of Tyre, 335, being sent to Treves in 336).
n) Constantine died A. D. 337, shortly after the death of
Arius had prevented the solemn restoration of the latter
to the fellowship of the church.
o) After the death of Constantine, Athanasius was
permitted to return; but Constantius carried out in the
East the ecclesiastical policy of the last years of his
fathers life. Athanasius was again, in A. D. 339,
compelled to flee, and proceeded to Rome. The
Eusebians (Eus. of Nic. had meanwhile become bishop
of Constantinople) were now in control in the East. It
was necessary to find a form of doctrinal statement
which would at the same time establish firmly their own
view, and, out of regard for the Western theologians,
avoid extreme Arianism. This was secured by the
Council held at Antioch A. D. 341 in connection with the
dedication of the church, and that held in the same city
A. D. 344, at which the formula macrostichos was
prepared. The formulas of these two councils (see
Athan. de syn. 22ff.) approach the Athanasian view as
closely as possible (complete God of complete God,
begotten of the Father before the ages), and reject the
statement that the Son had a temporal beginning, or is
from any other hypostasis; but the is avoided.
Athanasius is not indeed directly assailed, but in the
248
Page 415 of 524
person of the like-minded Marcellus of Ancyra (see the

three formulas of the former of these councils and the
formula macrostichos of the latter). In the West, on the
contrary, the doctrine of Athanasius, as also that of
Marcellus, was unconditionally endorsed at the councils
at Rome, A. D. 341 (see the letter of Julius in Ath. Apol.
c. Ar. 2035), and Sardica, A. D. 343 (ib. 3650).
2. The Marcellus
a) This brings us to the peculiar teaching of one of the
most zealous of the Nicene party, Marcellus, bishop of
Ancyra (s. Eus. c. Marcel). This man is professedly a
scriptural theologian. Not the dogmas (for the name,
dogma, has something of human counsel and
knowledge, p. 21 A), nor the authority of the Fathers (p.
21), but the Scriptures are decisive.
b) In the Arian doctrine, like Athanasius, he sees
disguised polytheism (p. 25 D; 26 A; 27 C, D; 28 A; 29 C).
From this it appears that he is interested, no less than
Athanasius, in preserving the unity of God. If we insist
upon investigating the eternal nature of Christ and his
relation to the Father, we should take for the basis of
our study such terms as: Christ, Jesus, Life, Way, Day
(cf. Just. Dial. 150), Resurrection, Door, Breadfor this
starts with that which is new in him and with his new
relationship according to the flesh (p. 92). The same
may be said of the names Son of God (p. 54 B),
image of God (p. 47 D). His eternal nature finds
expression only in the term Logos (in John 1:1ff.). As
the Word of God, he is eternal (p. 35 D). This term
expresses his entire pretemporal experience (p. 35 B; 40
C).
c) To speak of the generation of the Logos is not
scriptural (p. 37 B), but conception applies to him as
incarnated. John furnishes us three items of knowledge:
Where he says, in the first place: In the beginning was
the Word, he shows that the Word is in power ()
in the Father, for in the beginning of all things created
[is] God, of whom are all things; and in the second
place: and the Word was with God, that the Word is in
energy () with God, for all things were made by
him ; and, in the third place: the Word is God, he tells
249
Page 416 of 524
us not to divide the divine Being, since the Word is in

him and he in the Word; for the Father, says he, is in me
and I in the Father (p. 37 A.).
d) The terms and are here used to
designate the Logos as power reposing in God and
power in action, the (p. 41 D). The
Logos is, therefore, on the one hand, a personal power
immanent in God, and, on the other hand, in the interest
of his historical work, he proceeds (,
, p. 167f.) from the Father, but without
thereby changing in any way the first relationship. We
dare not start with three hypostases and then combine
them into a divine unity: For it is impossible that three,
being hypostases, be united in a monad, unless the triad
has first originated from a monad (p. 167 D). How is it
to be accounted for, upon the Arian theory of two
separated persons (), that the Holy Spirit
proceeds from the Father and yet is bestowed by the
Son? (ib.). We have not to do with three different beings,
but the inexpressible relationship is to be regarded
somewhat as an extension of the one God: Not
distinctly and evidently then, but in a mystic sense, the
monad appears extended to a triad, but, continuing to
exist, is in no way divided (ib. cf. Dionys. of Rome in
Ath. sent. Dion. 17 and Tert. Apol. 21).
e) These are Nicene ideas: the one God leads a threefold life; only that Marcellus, with greater exegetical
prudence, refrains from applying directly to the
prehistoric life of the divine nature the knowledge of
God which we have historically gained. This is evident
also from the following statements: When God proposed
to establish the church and set apart the human race for
sonship (p. 12 D), the Logos proceeded from the Father
as actively engaged in the creation, preservation, and
redemption of the world. Less than 400 years ago he
became the Son of God, Christ and King (p. 50 D). At
the end of the days, since his kingdom shall become the
kingdom of God, he will return into God (p. 41 C; 42 A;
52 C), ruling with the Father. What will then become of
his body, Marcellus confesses that he does not know (p.
53 A).
250
Page 417 of 524
f) The significance of this theology lies in the fact that

it gave the Eusebians the opportunity of continually
bringing the charge of Sabellianism against their
opponents; but, on the other hand, the fact that it was
recognized by the Homousians as orthodox (in Athan.
Apol. 32, 47) indicates how sincere they were in their
devotion to the strictly monotheistic conception of God,
and that their controlling interest centered in the threefold historical self-revelation of God. But this theory
itself made no impression historically. It was too original
and archaistic to secure wide acceptance (cf. Iren., p.
124f.).
g) Athanasius (or. c. Ar. iv.) also attacked the views of
Marcellus without naming him, and, after reviewing
them, had only ridicule for the oddities of the old man
(Epiph. h. 72:4).
3. Photinus
a) It was further disastrous for them that they were
interpreted even by contemporaries in the sense of
Photinus of Sirmium (Epiph. h. 71), according to whom
Christ was only a supernaturally (per contra, Marius
Mercator, opp. ed. Baluz., p. 164) begotten man, in
whom the Logos dwelt. This was really the doctrine of
Paul of Samosata. The Eusebians as well as the Nicene
theologians rejected it.
b) Photinus fell under condemnation (Council at Milan,
A. D. 345 (?) and 347). In other points the Western
theologians, with Athanasius, adhered to their views.
Constantius, held in check by the Persians, was driven
to the determination to recall Athanasius (A. D. 346), and
two prominent Eusebians, Ursacius and Valens, deemed
it prudent to make peace with Rome and Athanasius
(see Athan. Apol. 5158).
c) On the other hand, the (first) Sirmian Council in A. D.
347 (?) condemned Photinus, indicating Marcellus as
the source of his heresy (Hilar. frg. 2:2123). The death
of Constans (A. D. 350), who had inclined to the Nicene
orthodoxy, changed the situation. Constantine at once
applied himself with energy to the suppression of the
Nicene faith. The Orientals had already, at the (second)
Council at Sirmium (A. D. 351), again made themselves
251
Page 418 of 524
felt. The Sirmian formula here adopted is in the positive

portion identical with the Fourth Antiochian formula (p.
219), but a large number of Athanasianisms (see Ath. de
syn. 27; Socr. h. e. ii. 30; Hilar. de syn. 38.; cf. Hefele
CG., i. 642ff.) are appended. The latter are in the line
followed hitherto by the Eusebians. The favorite phrases
of the Arians were rejected (n. 1:24), and also the views
of Photinus and Marcellus. Subordinationism appears in
n. 18: For we do not co-ordinate the Son with the
Father, but he is subordinate () to the
Father. At Arles, A. D. 353, at Milan, 355 (at Biterrae,
356), the Western men were compelled to recognize the
condemnation of the sacrilegious Athanasius (Mansi,
iii. p. 236). It was politically prudent to demand no more
than this. Those who resisted this (Eusebius of Vercelli,
Dionysius of Milan, Lucifer of Calaris, the deacon
Hilarius of Poitiers, Hosius of Cordova, Liberius of
Rome) were banished. Athanasius, deposed, fled into
the wilderness, A. D. 356. In response to protests, the
emperor asserted: But what I desire, that is canon
(Athan. hist. Arian. ad mon. 33 fin.). The orthodox now
regarded him as the Antichrist and a monstrous wild
beast (e.g., Ath. l. c. 67, 64; Lucif. Bibl. max. iv. p. 247,
244, 246).
d) But victory is a most dangerous thing for a bad
cause; and this victory led to the downfall of Arianism.
Who then were these victors and what would they do?
Now that their common opponent no longer compelled
them to harmony of action, it at once became evident
how uncertain and how various were their positive
ideas. One party spoke of the pretemporal and eternal
birth of the Son, and asserted that he is like the Father
in all things. This was the royal path between Arius
and Sabellius (thus Cyrill of Jer. Catech. iv. 7; xi. 4, 7, 10,
14, 17). They, therefore, strenuously advocated the
Antioch formulas, except that they could not reconcile
themselves to the . They thought to substitute
for it (Sozom. h. e. iii. 18).
e) In other words: they were willing to agree with
Athanasius in the result attained by him, but they
reached it by a different path. Instead of starting as he
did from the one divine nature, they, dreading
Sabellianism, followed Origen in beginning with two
252
Page 419 of 524
divine persons. But the result itself might thus be

brought into question, as these formulas could be
approved also by elements more in sympathy with the
left wing, i.e., Origenistic and Arianizing tendencies.
These formed the party of the Semiarians or
Homoiusians. But the consistent Arians now came out
in opposition to this party, as well as to the
Homousians, under the leadership of Aetius of Antioch
(vid. discussion by him, concerning the unbegotten
and the begotten God, in Epiph. h. 76:11), and
Eunomius of Cyzicus (a confession of faith and an
apolegetic discourse in Fabricius, Bibl. graec. viii., and
in Thilo, Bibl. patr. gr. ii. pp. 580-629; cf. Philostorg. h. e.
iii. 15ff.; iv. 12; v. 2; ix. 6; x. 6; v. 1, etc.).
f) Of Eunomius, Theodoret says: He presented
theology as technology (haer. fab. iv. 3); and this is a
just comment. Although it was, indeed, deemed proper
to appeal to the authority of the Scriptures and the
ancients (Eunom. Ap. 4, 12, 15; see the citations in Greg.
Naz. or. 29, 18 and the discussion, or, 30), yet the
thinking of these men was dominated by the profane
logic which Athanasius had rebuked in Arius (cf. Greg.
Naz. or. 27:2). God is the unbegotten (). If this
is his nature, then the view that we may fully know God
(Socr. h. e. iv. 7; Theod. haer. fab. iv. 3; Basil, ep. 235) is
quite intelligible. If now it be proper to designate the Son
as begotten (, Eunom. Ap. 11, 12), then it
necessarily follows that he is not God as is the Father,
not derived from the substance of the Father, but as his
creature, from his will (ib. 12, 15, 28). But if the Son is
the first creature of the Father, then it follows: that he
is neither nor , since the one
indicates a beginning and a division of the nature, and
the other an identity (Eunom. l. c. 26; cf. At. l. c. 4).
Even a similarity () is, in regard to the nature,
impossible between the Begotten and the Unbegotten
(Eunom. 11:26), although we may speak of an imitative
moral similarity (Eunom. ib. 24 and conf. fid. 3: This
only one like, , to the Begetter is not an
unbegotten like to the Unbegotten, for the Creator of all
things is alone unbegotten but as Son to the Father,
as the image and seal [i.e., impression made by seal] of
the whole energy and power of the Creator of all things,
he is the seal of the Fathers works and words and
253
Page 420 of 524
councils; cf. Philostorg. vi. 1 and iv. 12). This is all

merely consistent Arianism, and when Euzoius of
Antioch (A. D. 361) proposes the formula: In all things
the Son is unlike the Father, he is also but consistent
(see similar utterances at the Council of Seleucia, in
Hilar. c. Const, imp. 12). Thus had Arius himself taught.
g) Yet the Nicene Creed still remained the doctrinal
basis, and it was necessary to secure its abrogation.
This was accomplished by the Third Council of Sirmium,
under Ursacius and Valens, who had long before again
become Arians, in the Second Sirmian formula (A. D.
357): But as to that which some or many thought
concerning the substance, which is called usia in Greek,
i.e., that it be understood very expressly as homousion,
or what is called homoeusion, it is proper that no
mention at all be made and that no one teach it, for this
reason that it is not contained in the divine
Scriptures, and that it is beyond the knowledge of man
(Isa. 53:8). Furthermore, according to Jn. 14:28, There
is no doubt that the Father is greater (Hilar. de Syn. 11).
Western men, among them Hosius, now almost a
hundred years old, accepted this formula, and it was
approved by a council at Antioch, A. D. 358 (Sozom. iv.
12). Thus the Nicene Creed, and the terms
and as well, appeared to be banished from
the world. But the development of ideas cannot be
forced backward by decrees.
D. Council of ConstantinopleA. D. 381Philip Schaff
1. Julian the Apostate tolerated all Christian parties, in the hope
that they would destroy one another. With this view he recalled the
orthodox bishops from exile. Even Athanasius returned, but was
soon banished again as an enemy of the gods, and recalled by
Jovian. Now for a time the strife of the Christians among
themselves was silenced in their common warfare against
paganism revived. The Arian controversy took its own natural
course. The truth regained free play, and the Nicene spirit was
permitted to assert its intrinsic power. It gradually achieved the
victory; first in the Latin church, which held several orthodox synods
in Rome, Milan, and Gaul; then in Egypt and the East, through the
wise and energetic administration of Athanasius, and through the
eloquence and the writings of the three great Cappadocian bishops
Basil, Gregory of Nazianzum, and Gregory of Nyssa.
254
Page 421 of 524
2. After the death of Athanasius in 373, Arianism regained

dominion for a time in Alexandria, and practised all kinds of
violence upon the orthodox.
3. In Constantinople Gregory Nazianzen labored, from 379, with
great success in a small congregation, which alone remained true
to the orthodox faith during the Arian rule; and he delivered in a
domestic chapel, which he significantly named Anastasia (the
church of the Resurrection), those renowned discourses on the
deity of Christ which won him the title of the Divine, and with it
many persecutions.
4. The raging fanaticism of the Arian emperor Valens (364-378)
against both Semi-Arians and Athanasians wrought an approach of
the former party to the latter. His successor, Gratian, was orthodox,
and recalled the banished bishops.
5. Thus the heretical party was already in reality intellectually and
morally broken, when the emperor Theodosius I., or the Great, a
Spaniard by birth, and educated in the Nicene faith, ascended the
throne, and in his long and powerful reign (379-395) externally
completed the triumph of orthodoxy in the Roman empire. Soon
after his accession he issued, in 380, the celebrated edict, in which
he required all his subjects to confess the orthodox faith, and
threatened the heretics with punishment. After his entrance into
Constantinople he raised Gregory Nazianzen to the patriarchal
chair in place of Demophilus (who honestly refused to renounce his
heretical conviction), and drove the Arians, after their forty years
reign, out of all the churches of the capital.
6. To give these forcible measures the sanction of law, and to
restore unity in the church of the whole empire, Theodosius called
the second ecumenical council at Constantinople in May, 381. This
council, after the exit of the thirty-six Semi-Arian Macedonians or
Pneumatomachi, consisted of only a hundred and fifty bishops. The
Latin church was not represented at all. Meletius (who died soon
after the opening), Gregory Nazianzen, and after his resignation
Nectarius of Constantinople, successively presided. This
preferment of the patriarch of Constantinople before the patriarch of
Alexandria is explained by the third canon of the council, which
assigns to the bishop of new Rome the first rank after the bishop of
old Rome. The emperor attended the opening of the sessions, and
showed the bishops all honor.
7. At this council no new symbol was framed, but the Nicene
Creed, with some unessential changes and an important addition
255
Page 422 of 524
respecting the deity of the Holy Ghost against Macedonianism or

Pneumatoinachism, was adopted. In this improved form the Nicene
Creed has been received, though in the Greek church without the
later Latin addition: filioque.
8. In the seven genuine canons of this council the heresies of the
Eunomians or Anomoeans, of the Arians or Eudoxians, of the
Semi-Arians or Pneumatomachi, of the Sabellians, Marcellians, and
Apollinarians, were condemned, and questions of discipline
adjusted.
9. The emperor ratified the decrees of the council, and as early as
July, 381, enacted the law that all churches should be given up to
bishops who believed in the equal divinity of the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Ghost, and who stood in church fellowship with certain
designated orthodox bishops. The public worship of heretics was
forbidden.
10. Thus Arianism and the kindred errors were forever destroyed in
the Roman empire, though kindred opinions continually reappear
as isolated cases and in other connections.
11. But among the different barbarian peoples of the West,
especially in Gaul and Spain, who had received Christianity from
the Roman empire during the ascendency of Arianism, this doctrine
was perpetuated two centuries longer: among the Goths till 587;
among the Suevi in Spain till 560; among the Vandals who
conquered North Africa in 429 and cruelly persecuted the Catholics,
till their expulsion by Belisarius in 530; among the Burgundians till
their incorporation in the Frank empire in 534, and among the
Longobards till the close of the sixth century. These barbarians,
however, held Arianism rather through accident than from
conviction, and scarcely knew the difference between it and the
orthodox doctrine. Alaric, the first conqueror of Rome; Genseric, the
conqueror of North Africa; Theodoric the Great, king of Italy and
hero of the Niebelungen Lied, were Arians. The first Teutonic
translation of the Bible came from the Arian missionary Ulfilas.
E. Nicene Doctrine of the Trinitythe Trinitarian Terminology (Philip
Schaff)
1. The doctrine of the essential deity and the personality of the Holy
Ghost completed the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity; and of this doctrine
as a whole we can now take a closer view.
256
Page 423 of 524
2. This fundamental and comprehensive dogma secured both the unity

and the full life of the Christian conception of God; and in this respect it
represents, as no other dogma does, the whole of Christianity. It forms a
bulwark against heathen polytheism on the one hand, and Jewish deism
and abstract monotheism on the other. It avoids the errors and combines
the truth of these two opposite conceptions. Against the pagans, says
Gregory of Nyssa, we hold the unity of essence; against the Jews, the
distinction of hypostases. We do not reject all multiplicity, but only such
as destroys the unity of the being, like the pagan polytheism; no more do
we reject all unity, but only such unity as denies diversity and full vital
action. The orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, furthermore, formed the true
mean between Sabellianism and tritheism, both of which taught a divine
triad, but at the expense, in the one case, of the personal distinctions, in
the other, of the essential unity. It exerted a wholesome regulative
influence on the other dogmas. It overcame all theories of emanation,
established the Christian conception of creation by a strict distinction of
that which proceeds from the essence of God, and is one with him, like the
Son and the Spirit, from that which arises out of nothing by the free will of
God, and is of different substance. It provided for an activity and motion
of knowledge and love in the divine essence, without the Origenistic
hypothesis of an eternal creation. And by the assertion of the true deity of
the Redeemer and the Sanctifier, it secured the divine character of the
work of redemption and sanctification.
3. The Nicene fathers did not pretend to have exhausted the mystery of
the Trinity, and very well understood that all human knowledge,
especially in this deepest, central dogma, proves itself but fragmentary.
All speculation on divine things ends in a mystery, and reaches an
inexplicable residue, before which the thinking mind must bow in humble
devotion. Man, says Athanasius, can perceive only the hem of the
garment of the triune God; the cherubim cover the rest with their wings.
In his letter to the Monks, written about 358, he confesses that the further
he examines, the more the mystery eludes his understanding, and he
exclaims with the Psalmist: Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is
high, I cannot attain unto it. Augustine says in one place: If we be asked
to define the Trinity, we can only say, it is not this or that. But though we
cannot explain the how or why of our faith, still the Christian may know,
and should know, what he believes, and what he does not believe, and
should be persuaded of the facts and truths which form the matter of his
faith.
4. The essential points of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity are these:
a) 1. There is only one divine essence or substance.
Father, Son, and Spirit are one in essence, or
consubstantial.
(1) They are in one another, inseparable, and cannot be
conceived without each other. In this point the Nicene
doctrine is thoroughly monotheistic or monarchian, in
257
Page 424 of 524
distinction from tritheism, which is but a new form of the

polytheism of the pagans.
(2) The terms essence ( ) and nature (), in the
philosophical sense, denote not an individual, a
personality, but the genus or species; not unum in numero,
but ens unum in multis. All men are of the same substance,
partake of the same human nature, though as persons and
individuals they are very different. The term homoousion,
in its strict grammatical sense, differs from monoousion or
toutoosion, as well as from heteroousion, and signifies not
numerical identity, but equality of essence or community
of nature among several beings. It is clearly used thus in
the Chalcedonian symbol, where it is said that Christ is
consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father as touching
the Godhead, and consubstantial with us [and yet
individually, distinct from us] as touching the manhood.
The Nicene Creed does not expressly assert the singleness
or numerical unity of the divine essence (unless it be in the
first article: We believe in one God); and the main point
with the Nicene fathers was to urge against Arianism the
strict divinity and essential equality of the Son and Holy
Ghost with the Father. If we press the difference of
homoousion from monoousion, and overlook the many
passages in which they assert with equal emphasis the
monarchia or numerical unity of the Godhead, we must
charge them with tritheism.
(3) But in the divine Trinity consubstantiality denotes not
only sameness of kind, but at the same time numerical
unity; not merely the unum in specie, but also the unum in
numero. The three persons are related to the divine
substance not as three individuals to their species, as
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, or Peter, John, and Paul, to
human nature; they are only one God. The divine
substance is absolutely indivisible by reason of its
simplicity, and absolutely inextensible and untransferable
by reason of its infinity; whereas a corporeal substance can
be divided, and the human nature can be multiplied by
generation. Three divine substances would limit and
exclude each other, and therefore could not be infinite or
absolute. The whole fulness of the one undivided essence of
God, with all its attributes, is in all the persons of the
Trinity, though in each in his own way: in the Father as
original principle, in the Son by eternal generation, in the
Spirit by, eternal procession. The church teaches not one
divine essence and three persons, but one essence in three
persons. Father, Son, and Spirit cannot be conceived as
three separate individuals, but are in one another, and
form a solidaric unity.
258
Page 425 of 524
(4) Many passages of the Nicene fathers have

unquestionably a tritheistic sound, but are neutralized by
others which by themselves may bear a Sabellian
construction so that their position must be regarded as
midway between these two extremes. Subsequently John
Philoponus, an Aristotelian and Monophysite in
Alexandria about the middle of the sixth century, was
charged with tritheism, because he made no distinction
between and , and reckoned in the Trinity
three natures, substances, and deities, according to the
number of persons.
b) In this one divine essence there are three persons or,
to use a better term, hypostases, that is, three different
modes of subsistence of the one same undivided and
indivisible whole, which in the Scriptures are called the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
(1) These distinctions are not merely different attributes,
powers, or activities of the Godhead, still less merely
subjective aspects under which it presents itself to the
human mind; but each person expresses the whole fulness
of the divine being with all its attributes, and the three
persons stand in a relation of mutual knowledge and love.
The Father communicates his very life to the Son, and the
Spirit is the bond of union and communion between the
two. The Son speaks, and as the God-Man, even prays, to
the Father, thus standing over against him as a first person
towards a second; and calls the Holy Ghost another
Comforter whom he will send from the Father, thus
speaking of him as of a third person.
(2) Here the orthodox doctrine forsook Sabellianism or
modalism, which, it is true, made Father, Son, and Spirit
strictly coordinate, but only as different denominations
and forms of manifestation of the one God.
(3) But, on the other hand, as we have already intimated,
the term person must not be taken here in the sense
current among men, as if the three persons were three
different individuals, or three self-conscious and separately
acting beings. The trinitarian idea of personality lies
midway between that of a mere form of manifestation, or a
personation, which would lead to Sabellianism, and the
idea of an independent, limited human personality, which
would result in tritheism. In other words, it avoids the
monoousian or unitarian trinity of a threefold conception
and aspect of one and the same being, and the triousian or
tritheistic trinity of three distinct and separate beings. In
each person there is the same inseparable divine
259
Page 426 of 524
substance, united with the individual property and relation

which distinguishes that person from the others. The word
person is in reality only a make-shift, in the absence of a
more adequate term. Our idea of God is more true and
deep than our terminology, and the essence and character
of God far transcends our highest ideas.
(4) The Nicene fathers and Augustine endeavored, as
Tertullian and Dionysius of Alexandria had already done,
to illustrate the Trinity by analogies from created existence.
Their figures were sun, ray, and light; fountain, stream,
and flow; root, stem, and fruit; the colors of the rainbow;
soul, thought, and spirit; memory, intelligence, and will;
and the idea of love, which affords the best illustration, for
God is love. Such figures are indeed confessedly
insufficient as proofs, and, if pressed, might easily lead to
utterly erroneous conceptions. For example: sun, ray, and
light are not co-ordinate, but the two latter are merely
qualities or emanations of the first. Omne simile
claudicat. Analogies, however, here do the negative
service of repelling the charge of unreasonableness from a
doctrine which is in fact the highest reason, and which has
been acknowledged in various forms by the greatest
philosophers, from Plato to Schelling and Hegel, though
often in an entirely unscriptural sense. A certain trinity
undeniably runs through all created life, and is especially
reflected in manifold ways in man, who is created after the
image of God; in the relation of body, soul, and spirit; in
the faculties of thought, feeling, and will; in the nature of
self-consciousness; and in the nature of love.
c) Each divine person has his property, as it were a
characteristic individuality, expressed by the Greek word
,
and the Latin proprietas.
(1) This is not to be confounded with attribute; for the
divine attributes, eternity, omnipresence, omnipotence,
wisdom, holiness, love, etc., are inherent in the divine
essence, and are the common possession of all the divine
hypostases. The idiotes, on the contrary, is a peculiarity of
the hypostasis, and therefore cannot be communicated or
transferred from one to another.
(2) To the first person fatherhood, or the being
unbegotten, is ascribed as his property; to the second,
sonship, or the being begotten; to the Holy Ghost,
procession. In other words: The Father is unbegotten, but
begetting; the Son is uncreated, but begotten; the Holy
Ghost proceeds from the Father (and, according to the
Latin doctrine, also from the Son). But these distinctions
260
Page 427 of 524
relate, as we have said, only to the hypostases, and have no

force with respect to the divine essence which is the same
in all, and neither begets nor is begotten, nor proceeds, nor
is sent.
d) The divine persons are in one another, mutually

interpenetrate, and form a perpetual intercommunication
and motion within the divine essence; as the Lord says:
I am in the Father, and the Father in me; and the
Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. This
perfect indwelling and vital communion was afterwards
designated (by John of Damascus and the scholastics)
by such terms as ,
, ,
inexistentia,
immanentia, inhabitatio, circulatio, permeatio,
intercommunio, circumincessio.
e) The Nicene doctrine already contains, in substance, a
distinction between two trinities: an immanent trinity of
constitution, which existed from eternity, and an
economic trinity of manifestation; though this
distinction did not receive formal expression till a much
later period.
(1) For the generation of the Son and the procession of the
Spirit are, according to the doctrine, an eternal process.
The perceptions and practical wants of the Christian mind
start, strictly speaking, with the trinity of revelation in the
threefold progressive work of the creation, the redemption,
and the preservation of the world, but reason back thence
to a trinity of being; for God has revealed himself as he is,
and there can be no contradiction between his nature and
his works.
(2) The eternal pre-existence of the Son and the Spirit is
the background of the historical revelation by which they
work our salvation. The Scriptures deal mainly with the
trinity of revelation, and only hint at the trinity of essence,
as in the prologue of the Gospel of John which asserts an
eternal distinction between God and the Logos.
(3) The Nicene divines, however, agreeably to the
metaphysical bent of the Greek mind, move somewhat too
exclusively in the field of speculation and in the dark
regions of the intrinsic and ante-mundane relations of the
Godhead, and too little upon the practical ground of the
facts of salvation.
261
Page 428 of 524
f) The Nicene fathers still teach, like their predecessors,

a certain subordinationism, which seems to conflict with
the doctrine of consubstantiality.
(1) But we must distinguish between a subordinatianism of
essence ( ) and a subordinatianism of hypostasis, of
order and dignity. The former was denied, the latter
affirmed. The essence of the Godhead being but one, and
being absolutely perfect, can admit of no degrees. Father,
Son, and Spirit all have the same divine essence, yet not in
a co-ordinate way, but in an order of subordination. The
Father has the essence originally and of himself, from no
other; he is the primal divine subject, to whom alone
absoluteness belongs, and he is therefore called
preeminently God, or the principle, the fountain, and the
root of Godhead. The Son, on the contrary, has his essence
by communication from the Father, therefore, in a
secondary, derivative way. The Father is greater than the
Son. The one is unbegotten, the other begotten; the Son is
from the Father, but the Father is not from the Son;
fatherhood is in the nature of the case primary, sonship
secondary. The same subordination is still more applicable
to the Holy Ghost. The Nicene fathers thought the idea of
the divine unity best preserved by making the Father,
notwithstanding the triad of persons, the monad from
which Son and Spirit spring, and to which they return.
(2) This subordination is most plainly expressed by Hilary
of Poictiers, the champion of the Nicene doctrine in the
West. The familiar comparisons of fountain and stream,
sun and light, which Athanasius, like Tertullian, so often
uses, likewise lead to a dependence of the Son upon the
Father Even the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed favors
it, in calling the Son God of God, Light of Light, very God of
very God. For if a person has anything, or is anything, of
another, he has not that, or is not that, of himself. Yet this
expression may be more correctly understood, and is in
fact sometimes used by the later Nicene fathers, as giving
the Son and Spirit only their hypostases from the Father,
while the essence of deity is common to all three persons,
and is co-eternal in all.
(3) Scriptural argument for this theory of subordination
was found abundant in such passages as these: As the
Father hath life in himself ( ), so hath he
given ( ) to the Son to have life in himself; and hath
given him authority to execute judgment also; (Joh_5:26,
Joh_5:27) All things are delivered unto me (
262
Page 429 of 524
) of my Father; (Mat_11:27; Comp. Mat_28:18)

My father is greater than I. But these and similar
passages refer to the historical relation of the Father to the
incarnate Logos in his estate of humiliation, or to the
elevation of human nature to participation in the glory and
power of the divine, (Joh_17:5; Phi_2:9-11) not to the
eternal metaphysical relation of the Father to the Son.
(4) In this point, as in the doctrine of the Holy Ghost, the Nicene
system yet needed further development. The logical consistency
of the doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Son, upon which
the Nicene fathers laid chief stress, must in time overcome this
decaying remnant of the ante-Nicene subordinationism.
263
Page 430 of 524
IX.
The Doctrine of One Person and Two Natures in Christ.

A. Origin of the Controversies Upon the Two Natures of Christ
1. Introduction
a) Two things had been transmitted by tradition as
fixed; the reality of the humanity of Christ, with his
human activity and sufferings (recognized in conflict
with Docetism in the second century), and the reality
and Homousia of his divinity. Divinity and humanity are
now combined in one person; there is a synthesis
(, Origen), but as to the question how this
union was conceivable, especially how two personal
natures can constitute one person, there was no further
investigation, despite the propositions put forth by the
Dynamistic Monarchians. Only the West possessed, in
Tertullians view of one person in two substances, a
formula which appeared to adequately meet the
situation, and which had been confirmed by the fuller
development of the doctrine of the Trinity.
b) Western theologians, with this theory in hand, felt
themselves relieved from the necessity of further
investigation, and in the conflicts of the succeeding era
they presented it as an adequate solution of all the
questions raised in the Orient.
B. Apollinaris
1. This was the situation when Apolinaris of Laodicea (born about
A. D. 310) carefully stated the Christological problem and, at the
same time, presented a clear and challenging attempt at its
solution. The learned bishop was prominent as a humorist as well
as noted for his acquaintance with the Scriptures and his
intellectual acuteness.
2. Of his writings, the following are here of interest: The treatise
attributed to Gregory Thaum., ; de divina
incarnatione, frg.; die pseudo-Athanasian,
, and a number of fragments. Further, in opposition:
Athan. c. Apol. (genuineness questioned); cf. in Epiphan. h. 77;
Greg. Naz. ep. ad Nectarium, epistolae ad Cledonium; Greg. Nyss.
264
Page 431 of 524
Antirreheticus c. Apol.; Theodoret Eranistes dial. 5; haeret. fab. iv.

8. Theodore of Mopsuestia, frg. from his c. Apol. et de Apollinari.
3. The Christology of this enthusiastic champion of the
took its form in opposition, both to the Arian doctrine of the
mutability of the Logos and that of the external juxtaposition of the
two natures of Christ, as taught by the Antiochian Paulinizing
(Paul of Samosata) theologians, who say that the man that is from
heaven is one, confessing him to be God, and the man from earth
is another, saying that the one is uncreated, the other created (ad
Dionys. ep. p. 348; cf. ep. ad Jov. p. 342; cf. p. 381). The idea of
the God, Christ, held his thought in positive thralldom. On the one
hand, it was his aim to so construct Christology that no shadow of
mutability might fall upon Christ. But this appeared to be possible
only if this man was really Godif there was in him no free human
will (de incarn. pp. 383, 387, 388). Otherwise, he would be subject
to sin (fid. conf. p. 393 and Athan. c. Apol. i. 2; ii. 6, 8; Greg. Nyss.
Antirrh. 40:51; Greg. Naz. ad Cled. i. 10) and the redeeming death
of Christ would be only the death of a man (de inc. p. 391; in inc.
adversar. p. 395). On the other hand, the outward juxtaposition of
the two natures does not help to overcome the difficulties. It is
impossible to make the divinity and the humanity combine in their
entirety into one person (de inc. pp. 384, 388, 389, 400). Two
persons () would be the necessary result (ib. 387, 392).
That two complete things should become one is not possible
(Athan. c. Apol. i. 2). We would thus be led to a fabulous being like
the Minotaurs or Tragelaphs, or we would be compelled to
introduce a quaternity instead of the trinity (Greg. Nyss. antirrh. 42).
Only because the flesh () of Christ is one person ()
with his divinity is it possible to worship Jesus without, at the same
time, worshiping a man. Only thus is redemption a work of God.
4. From this it follows that the immutable divinity of Christ and the
unity of the Redeemers person can be preserved only by yielding
the integrity of his human nature. Arius and his followers had, with a
purpose diametrically opposite to that of Apollinaris, maintained the
same position (in order to make all evidences of mutability or
infirmity in Jesus applicable to the Logos), i.e., that Christ was not
made man, but only became incarnate, and therefore assumed only
a human body and not also a human soul (see Confes. of
Eudoxius; Athan. c. Apol. ii. 4; Greg. Naz. ad Cled. ep. ii. 7; Epiph.
ancor. 33; cf. supra, p. 203). This same inference Apollinaris now
drew with a different purpose and in a different sense. He regarded
the trichotomy of mans nature as established by 1 Thes. 5:23 (de
inc. pp. 382, 388, 390). The Logos assumed the body and soul of a
265
Page 432 of 524
man, but the divine Logos itself took the place of the spirit () or
intellectual soul ( ). Christ, having, besides soul and
body, a divine spirit, i.e., mind, is with reason called the man from
heaven (de inc. pp. 382, 401). Hence it may be said: Thus the one
living being consists of a moved and a mover, and is not two, nor
composed of two, complete and self-moving beings (de inc. p.
384); and thus Christ is one person with one personal life in mind
and will and energy, i.e., the purely divine (pp. 349, 399, 400, 401).
For, saying that the Logos became flesh, he does not add, and
soul; for it is impossible that two souls, a thinking and a willing,
should dwell together in the same person, and the one not contend
against the other by reason of its own will and energy. Therefore
the Logos assumed not a human soul, but only the seed of
Abraham (de unione, frg. p. 401; cf. 396). The difficulties are thus
overcome: For God, having become incarnate, has in the human
flesh simply his own energy, his mind being unsubject to sensual
and carnal passions, and divinely and sinlessly guiding the flesh
and controlling the fleshly emotions, and not alone unconquerable
by death, but also destroying death. And he is true God, the
unfleshly appearing in the flesh, the perfect one in genuine and
divine perfection, not two persons (), nor two natures
(). There is one Son; both before the incarnation and after
the incarnation the same, man and God, each as one. And the
divine Logos is not one person and the man Jesus another (
. . pp. 377, 378).
5. But since Apollinaris in this way found in Christ one person, one
harmonious being, he could also speak of his one nature ()
and one substance () (e.g., 341, 348, 349, 352, 363), the
Logos being unseparated and undivided ( )
from his flesh (pp. 395, 396) and yet also distinguish two natures
(de trin. pp. 358, 360): For as man is one, but has in himself two
different natures so the Son, being one, has also two natures
(p. 358). Since this illustration from the nature of man is a proper
one, it follows also that the relation of the two natures (,
pp. 344, 346, 351, 367) is not to be conceived as a change
() nor as a mixing () and confounding
() (c. Diodor. p. 366 sq.), for the Deity remains immutable
(pp. 347, 393).
6. Apollinaris drew yet another notable inference from his
premises, teaching, in a certain sense, a pre-existence of the
of Christ, appealing to Jn. 3:13 and 1 Cor. 15:47not as though
266
Page 433 of 524
the Logos had the flesh already while in heaven and brought it with
him to the earth (e.g., Ath. c. Ap. i. 7; ii. 10; Greg. Naz. ep. ad Nect.
3, ad Cled. i. 6; Greg. Nyss. antirrh. 13f.), for this Apollinaris
expressly denied (ep. ad Dionys. pp. 348, 349). [Epiphanius,
indeed, heard this view expressed by pupils of Apollinaris (h. 77:2,
14)]. But he wrote: The man Christ pre-exists, not as though the
spirit, i.e., the divine Spirit, were that of another than himself, but in
such a way that the divine Spirit in the nature of the divine man was
the Lord (de inc. p. 382f.). Although this is obscure in some points,
the meaning can scarcely be other than that the Logos was from all
eternity predestined to become man, and was, in this sense, the
pre-existent heavenly man.
7. Such was the teaching of this great bishop, which he, as an
earnest exegete, endeavored to establish upon biblical authority.
This man is certainly also God. If Christ had been only man, he
could not have saved the world; and if only God, he could not have
saved it through suffering . If Christ had been only man, or if only
God, he could not have been a middle one between men and God.
The flesh is, therefore, an organ of life adapted to sufferings
according to the divine counsels, and neither are the words of the
flesh its own nor its deeds, and, having been made subject to
sufferings as is suitable for flesh, it prevailed over the sufferings
through its being the flesh of God. He believed that he was not in
reality in conflict with the dogmas of the church in his day, but in
this he was self-deceived.
C. Opposition
1. From the decade A. D. 370380, the Cappadocians assailed his
views (see already Ath. c. Apol. and, perhaps, the Alexandrine
Council of A. D. 362; tom, ad Antioch. 7). They were moved to
opposition chiefly by their general sense of the integrity of the
human nature of Jesus, as he is depicted in the Gospel narratives,
and of its significance in the work of redemption. Only if Christ had
a human mind (), could he redeem also the human mindan
idea which, from the standpoint of the deification theory of the
Greek Soteriology, was not a mere phrase.
2. On the contrary, the Athanasian Christology was against
Apollinarianism: If anyone imagines a man without a mind, such a
one is really inconceivable and altogether not worthy to be saved.
For that which cannot be added to cannot be cured; but that which
is united to God is already saved. If the half of Adam fell, it was the
half also which was added to and saved; but if the whole [Adam]
fell, the addition was made to the whole that was born, and he was
267
Page 434 of 524
wholly saved (Greg. Naz. ep. ad Cled. i. 7. Greg. Nyss. antirrh.

17). Apollinarianism was condemned at the councils of Rome, A. D.
374 and 376 (If therefore the whole man was lost, it was necessary
that that which was lost should be saved), and also at
Constantinople, A. D. 381.
D. Antiochians
1. Introduction
a) But this did not answer the question raised by
Apollinaris. It failed to explain how two personal natures
could exist in one person.
b) Apollinaris had stated the Christological problem for
the ancient church. Its solution was attempted from two
directions.
c) We must first note the view of the Antiochians, which
had stirred Apollinaris to opposition. It was they who for
some years manifested the deepest interest in the
question (see Diodor. of Tarsus, bef. 394, frg. in Marius
Mercator in Gallandi Bibl. viii. 705. Theod. of
Mopsuestia, 428, dogmat. frgg. esp. from de incarn.
and c. Apol. in Swete, Theod. comm. on ep. Pauli ii. 289
339; also Theodoret, see excerpts in Mar. Merc.).
2. Doctrine
a) A settled point is here the Homousia of the Logos.
The Logos, by his birth from Mary, assumed a complete
man as to nature, consisting of soul and mind and
flesh (. . Theod. expos, fid. p. 328). We
are, therefore, to acknowledge in Christ two complete
entities (). This applies to the nature () as
well as to the person (): When we attempt to
distinguish the natures, we say that the person of the
man is complete and also the person of the deity
(Theod. de incarn. viii., p. 300). We can speak of the
deity as becoming man, only in appearance: For when
he says he took (Phil. 2:7) he speaks according to
the reality; but when he says he became (Jn. 1:14), he
speaks according to appearance; for he was not
transformed into flesh (ib. ix., p. 300).
268
Page 435 of 524
b) Since, therefore, the integrity of the two natures,

especially that of the actual and developing human
nature, must be preserved (Diod. p. 705), the conclusion
was reached that the Son of God dwelt within the son of
David. This was illustrated by examples. The Logos
dwells in Jesus, somewhat as God dwells in a temple, or
as he dwelt within the Old Testament prophets, or even,
as in all Christian believers, but it is emphasized that
this occurs in another but a uniquely complete and
permanent way in the case of Jesus (Diod. p. 705.
Theod. de inc. xii. c. Apol. iii., pp. 303, 313). The Logos
dwelt in the man Jesus from his very first formation
on throughout his whole life, conducting him to
perfection (Theod. c. Ap. iii. 2, p. 314). It is hence, not a
natural, but a moral union which exists between the
twonot according to essence (), but
according to good pleasure (). The man Jesus
desires what God desires. Through him the Deity
becomes efficient. There is one willing () and
one energy (Theod. ep. ad Domn. p. 339). But the unity
of the person is to be seen in this, that he does all
things through himself, which unity has been effected
by inhabitation, which is according to good pleasure
(Theod. de incarn. vii., p. 297). This unity has become an
indissoluble one, and has attained its completion
through the ascension of Jesus (making him
immutable in the thoughts of his mind, but also in the
flesh incorruptible and indissoluble, Theod. p. 326; de
incarn. xiv., p. 308).
c) In view of this connection () of the two
personal natures through their unity of will, we may
speak of the one person: For the natures are
discriminated, but the person made complete in the
union is one (Theod. de inc. viii., p. 300). The manner
of this union, according to good pleasure, preserving
the natures unmingled, shows also that the nature of the
two is inseparably one, and the will one, and the energy
one, in consequence of the abiding of one control and
sway in them (Theod. ad Domn., p. 339). Thus there are
seen to be two different natures (each of the natures
remaining indissolubly by itselfthe natures being
discriminatedde inc. viii., p. 299), but in their
combination they are one person (the natures
combined into one person according to the completed
269
Page 436 of 524
unionib.; difference of natures and unity of person,

ib., p. 302; the reason of the natures unconfused, the
person undivided, ib. p. 292). But, in further
explanation, the union of man and wife as one flesh is
cited (ib. and p. 324); or, it is even said: The one
receives blessing, the other gives it! (de inc. xi., p. 302).
d) Upon this basis, the personal unity is little more than
an assertion. According to it, in the sufferings of Christ
the deity was indeed separated from him who suffered
(according to Hebr. 2:9, citra deum== ), yet
it was not absent according to love from him who
suffered (Theod. pp. 325, 310). The worship of Jesus is,
therefore, possible only in so far as the worshiper
combines in his thought his humanity and his divinity.
We adore the purple for the sake of him who wears it,
and the temple for the sake of him who dwells within it
the form of a servant for the sake of the form of God
(Diodor. l. c.; Theod. pp. 308, 309, 316, 329). Thus also
Mary, the mother of the man, can only in this
metaphorical sense be called the mother of God (Diod.
ib.; Theod. de inc. xv., p. 310: for she was mother of
man by nature, since he who was in the womb of Mary
was man, but mother of God, since God was in the
man who was being born; not in him as circumscribed
after the manner of nature, but in him after the manner
of the understanding, ). In
view of these statements, we can understand the
vigorous opposition of Apollinaris. The unity of the
person is endangered. The divine cannot be said to have
really become man, as there remains only the moral
relative union ( ) between two persons.
The religious significance of this union is that Christ, in
prototype and example, represented the union of man
with Godin obedient will. As did the man Jesus, so
may we also attain sonship to God by grace, not
naturally. His purpose was to lead all to imitation of
himself (Theod. de inc. xii. 7, p. 306; xiv. 2, p. 308; cat.
8, p. 331).
e) The church is indebted to this school of theologians
for the preservation of a precious treasurethe reality
of the human and personal career of Jesus. To what
extreme the ideas of Apollinaris lead may be seen in the
later Monophysites. But it cannot be maintained that the
270
Page 437 of 524
historical Jesus would ever have received justice at

the hands of those who were content with this theory.
The abstract conception of God which lay at its basis
prevented any real and historical understanding of the
nature of the God-man. Two difficulties were felt: (1) The
unity of the personal life of Jesus remained
problematical, although this problem was perhaps
soluble. (2) The tendency of Greek Soteriology toward a
mystical deification of the humanity through the medium
of the God-man did not appear to harmonize with the
theory as proposed by the Antiochians. The only
significance remaining to the work of redemption
appeared to be instruction and imitation. This explains
the often unjustifiable opposition to this Christology.
The theology of the Antiochians at least prevented the
acceptance of Apollinarianism as a solution of the
problem of Apollinaris.
E. Other Greek Theologians
1. General Note
a) The other Greek theologians attempted to solve the
problem in a different way.
b) Following upon the track of Athanasius: the Godman is a concrete unit, in whom, however, we
discriminate in the abstract two natures.
2. Cappadocians
a) The Cappadocians maintained essentially the same
position. But, in facing the problem of Apollinaris, they,
like the Antiochians, could not get beyond mere
allegations.
b) They spoke of two natures (), but did not infer
from this that there were two Sons, although the two
natures were to be conceived as each complete (Greg.
Naz. ep. ad Cled. i. 7, 8).
c) It was thought that the two natures coalesced in one.
There is a miraculous commingling, the one deifying
and the other being deified: For both the taking and the
taken are God, the two natures concurring in one; not
271
Page 438 of 524
two Sons (Greg. Naz. or. 37:2); and being that which
deified and that which was deified. O, the new mixture
(); O, the strange compound ()! (or. 38:13).
It is, says Gregory of Nyssa, a relation like that between
a drop of vinegar mingled with the sea and the sea itself.
This simile indicates how utterly unlimited was the
range of thought which these men allowed themselves.
Since the Logos becomes flesh, the human is
transformed into the divine (changed, a mixing up,
, with the divine, a transformation,
, of the man into the Christ).
d) Thus the infirmity, mutability, and mortality of the
human nature are consumed by the deity: He mixed his
life-giving power with the mortal and perishable
nature . The Immutable appears in the mutable, in
order that, having changed and transformed from the
worse into the better the evil commingled with the
mutable subject, he might, having expended the evil in
himself, cause it to disappear from the nature. For our
God is a consuming fire, in which all wood of evil is
thoroughly burnt up (Greg. Nyss. c. Eunom. v., Mi. 45,
pp. 700, 693, 697, 705, 708, also Antirrh. 42).
e) It is also held, indeed, that the beholding of the
attributes of the flesh and of the deity remains
unconfused, so long as each of these is regarded by
itself (ib. p. 706). Thus the humanity weeps at the grave
of Lazarus, but the deity calls him to life. But viewed
concretely, the deity, by virtue of the union, affects the
human just as well as the humanity the divine: thus
through the connection and union the (properties) of
both become common to each, the Lord taking upon
himself the stripes of the servant, and the servant being
glorified with the honor belonging to the Lord (ib. 705,
697). T
f) he relation of the two natures is thus a different one
from that existing between the persons of the Trinity:
God and man are, it is true, two natures but there are
not two Sons nor two Gods . And if it is necessary to
speak concisely: other and other ( ) are the
entities of which ( ) the Saviour not another
and another, . God forbid. For both are
272
Page 439 of 524
one in the compound, God being humanized and man

being deified but I say other and other in a contrary
sense from that in which it may be said of the Trinity; for
there it is another and another, in order that we may
not commingle the hypostases, and not other and
other, for the three are one and the same in their
divinity (Greg. Naz. ep. ad Cled. i. 4).
g) Unfinished as is all this, we may yet clearly see the
aim of these writers. The historical character of Christ
compels them to maintain the two complete natures as
well as the intimate union of these two natures. But their
conception of redemption leads them to think of this
union as a commingling of the natures, as a
transformation of the human into the divine. They
maintained in their relation to the Antiochians a
religious position, and in opposition to Apollinaris a
historical standpoint. In view of this tendencythough
by no means in the importance or clearness of their
ideasthey are superior to both.
3. Cyril of Alexanderia (bishop from A. D. 412, A. D. 444).
a) Cyril starts with the person of the Logos.
(1) This person assumed complete human nature for our
salvation. His formula is: one nature of the divine Logos, made
flesh. He does not speak of the one nature of the incarnated
Logos, or Christ, but habitually of the one incarnated nature of
the Logos. The Logos, as the subject contemplated, has thus the
one incarnated nature. It may, however, also be said of the Logos
that he was made man and incarnated (e.g., c. Nest. v. 4, 7; ii. 10;
ad regin. ii. 4, 33).
(2) In detail, Cyril teaches: Two natures are to be acknowledged,
the divine and the human, both of them complete, so that the
latter includes the reasoning soul ( ) (ad reg. i. 13,
Mi. 76:1221; ii. 55; inc. unig., Mi. 75:1208f., 1220).
(3) Thus Christ is of like nature () with his mother
as with his Father (dial. c. Nest., Mi. 76:252; ep. 40, Mi.
77:192). In consequence of his becoming man, there is a
concurrence () and union () of these two
natures. How is this to be understood? Not as a conversion or
change, since the nature of the Logos is immutable and
absolutely unchangeable (ad reg. ii. 2, 22; inc. unig., Mi. 75.
1192ff., 1200, 1253).
273
Page 440 of 524
(4) Neither as a mixture nor compound (, ,

); quod unus, Mi. 75. 1292; c. Nest. ii. 11; ep. 4, Mi.
77:45); yet not as a mere connection () or indwelling
() (e.g., c. Nest. ii. proem, quod b. virgo 8). On the
contrary, both natures retain their own characteristics unmingled.
The deity throughout all the changes of its earthly lot remains in
its full glory what it was before (c. Nest. ii. 1; ad reg. i. 4; ii. 9,
16, 27, 33, 37; inc. unig., Mi. 75. 1216, 1220, 1221, 1229), and
the humanity retains its complete Homousia with us (ep. 40, Mi.
77:192; inc. unig., Mi. 75:1216: Christs body mortal). Cyril can,
therefore, speak of two natures (vid. esp. quod unus, Mi.
75:1292), and he can compare the relation of the two to that
between an emperor in his proper character, and as appearing in
the garb of a consul (quod b. virg. 14); or to that of body and
soul in man, which yet together compose one man (c. Nest. ii.
12; inc. unig., Mi. 75:1224; ep. 17, Mi. 77:116; ep. 45, p. 233,
quod unus, Mi. 75:1292). This illustration affords us a key to the
interpretation of the above-cited formula of Cyril. The two
natures are, indeed, after their union the same as they were
before, but they are combined in indissoluble unity by means of
the unity of the personthe Logos, as also by means of the
consequent mutual communication of their respective attributes.
Thus the two natures are kept distinct in abstract thought,
although the concrete object of contemplation is the one
incarnate nature, which has the Logos as its controlling factor.
The unity in this sense is, therefore, one of hypostases (
C ), as Cyril often describes it in his later writings,
i.e., it is the Logos-person which establishes the unity. Cyril, in
opposing Theodoret, confesses the novelty of this formula, but
maintains its importance in the combating of heresy. It asserts no
more, in his view, than simply that the nature () or
hypostasis of the Logos, i.e., the Logos itself, is truly united
() with the human nature (Apol. c. Theodoret, Mi.
76:400). Inasmuch as the Logos-person of the God-man is for
Cyril the self-evident postulate, he was not called upon to face
the problem of Apollinaris, and hence, of course, furnished no
solution of it.
b) But Cyrils ideas lead us also upon a different path.

(1) We are to acknowledge one Son, one Lord, one Christ, and
him as of two perfects: the two natures proceed together in
unbroken union, unconfusedly and unchangeably we do not at
all detract from the concurrent unity when we say that it is
(derived) from two natures. From two and different natures is the
one and only Christ (ep. 45, p. 232f.). For, just as the Logos
was God before his sojourn on earth, so also, having become
man he is again one. Therefore he has called himself a
274
Page 441 of 524
mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5), as being one from
both natures (quod b. virgo 12; cf. c. Nest. ii. 12; ep. 17, Mi. 77,
116; inc. unig., Mi. 75. 1220, 1221, 1233, 1253, 1208: We are
accustomed to guard absolutely the unbroken unity, believing
him to be the Only-begotten and the First-born; the Onlybegotten, as the Logos of God the Father the First-born
moreover in that he became man). He is, therefore, one and the
same before and after the incarnation: for the Son according to
nature from the Father, having taken to himself a physical and
rational body, was carnally born and, not turning into flesh,
but rather taking it to himself, and ever mindful of his being
God (ad reg. ii. 2). Being man, viewed outwardly; but
inwardly true God (quod b. virgo 4). Cyril denies the charge
that in his conception Christ is two-personed () (inc.
unig., Mi. 75. 1221; inc. dom. 31; ep. 46, Mi. 77:241); but
without fully recognizing its force.
(2) But all these speculations assume a practical shape when
Cyril comes to speak of the concrete form of the God-man. Here
he becomes really great. His conception of the historical Christ
dominates his thought and lifts his ideas above their normal
plane. It is evident, therefore, that the mind beholds a certain
difference of the natures (inc. unig., Mi. 75:1221), but: the fact
is, that the Logos, not dividing but combining both into one, and,
as it were, commingling with one another the attributes
() of the natures, escapes us through whatever the
multitude of our words (ib. 1244, 1249), i.e., bestowing upon
the proper flesh the glory of the divine energy; but, on the other
hand, appropriating the things of the flesh and, as though in
someway according to the economic union, also conferring these
upon its own proper nature (ib. 1241). Accordingly, the
expressions of the Evangelists, applicable now to the divinity
and again to the humanity, are not to be referred to two
hypostases or prosopa: for the one and only Christ is not
double, as though he were to be regarded as derived from two
and different things (ep. 17, Mi. 77:116). Since there is here but
one person, all the attributes may be ascribed to the one Christ.
The Logos is visible and tangible. His sufferings are the
sufferings of God. Hunger and thirst, learning and praying, were
parts of his experience; while, on the other hand, the body of
Christ was a divine body, and the Son of man comes from
heaven, returns to it, is worshiped, etc. (e.g., inc. unig., Mi. 75.
1224, 1244, 1249, 1228, 1233f.; ad regin. ii. 16, 36f.; c. Nest. i.
6; ii. 3; iv. 6; quod unus 75. 1309; inc. dom. 75. 1469; ep. 45,
Mi. 77:234; 46, p. 245). Hence, also, the designation of Mary as
the mother of God is dogmatically correct. But this
communicatio idiomatum at once finds its limitation in the
inflexible immutability and impassibility of the Logos:
suffering excepted, in so far as he is thought of as divine (quod
unus, Mi. 75. 1337, 1357; c. Nestor, v. 4). Suffering could as
275
Page 442 of 524
little affect him as strokes falling upon a piece of glowing iron

permeated by fire affect the fire (quod unus, Mi. 75. 1357). It
was, therefore, an impassive passion ( ).
(3) It is very difficult to give a correct summary of Cyrils view.
If we begin with his fundamental formula, one nature of the
divine Logos, made flesh, and keep in mind his own
explanations, we reach the result: The Logos-person assumed the
(impersonal) human nature, uniting it with the divine nature. The
Logos is now no longer fleshless (), but is not on that
account a duplex personality, but has remained one (ep. 46,
Mi. 77:241). If, on the other hand, we start with the community
of attributes, we come to the formula: from two natures the one
Christ, and to the conception of a divine-human Christ-person.
Our faith in Christ reposes not upon the man, but upon the God
by nature and truly in the person () of Christ (inc.
unig., Mi. 75. 1233). In the first case, Cyril starts with the one
Logos-person, who has a divine human nature; in the second, we
have the two natures, constituting one divine human person.
Cyril did not realize the dissonance of these ideas, as his views
were developed in contrast with those of Nestorius and not of
Apollinaris. But a sound historic and religious instinct led him to
emphasize, as against the unhistoric tearing asunder of Christ,
the unity of his person and of his manifestation. In this lies the
significance of his teaching.
(4) Cyrils view, like that of Athanasius, grew upon religious
soil. Since the Logos assumed the entire human nature, the latter
becomes partaker of God and immortality: For Christ the first
man the root, as it were, and the appointed first-fruit of those
transformed by the Spirit into newness of life, was to effect the
immortality of the body, and to make the human race already,
both by grace and in its entirety, secure and safe, as in
participation of the divine nature (inc. unig., Mi. 75. 1213,
1216; also 1241f.; c. Nestor, iv. 6; ad reg. ii. 55). Other ideas
connected with the Soteriology of Cyril demanded the same
basis, e.g., the conception of Christ as the mediator between God
and man (c. Nest. v. 1; inc. unig., Mi. 75. 1245; quod b. virgo,
12), of redemption through his blood and the overcoming of the
devil (ad reg. 7:31, 36), of his life as an example (ib. ii. 41f.).
276
Page 443 of 524
F. Western Theologians
1. Introduction
a) We must notice, finally, the Christology of the
contemporaneous Western theologians. It is to be said
in general that the leaders in the Western church did not
look upon the great question of the age as a problem.
b) Since they firmly maintained the formulas of
Tertullian, they no more questioned the unity of the
person than the duplicity of the natures, only giving to
the latter more prominence than did Cyril. As their
formula gave some recognition to the ideas of both
parties in the East, it was the formula of the future.
2. Hilary of Poitiers ( A. D. 366)
a) His chief work was De trinitate.
b) Christ is God and man (trin. ix. 19). As One, he is God
just as he is man: the whole in him is God the Word;
the whole in him is the man Christretaining this one
thing in the sacrament of his confession, neither to
believe that Christ is other than Jesus, nor to preach
that Jesus is other than Christ (x. 5271). Compare: in
him is the nature of man, just as the nature of God (in
ps. 68:25, or person of both natures, trin. ix. 14). His
strongly emphasized evacuation of the Son of God in
the interest of the incarnation arrests our attention:
For, remaining in the form of God, he assumed the
form of a servant, not being changed, but emptying
(exinaniens) himself and hiding within himself, and he
himself being emptied within his power, while he adapts
himself even to the form of human condition (xi. 48).
But this asserts no more than that the Logos undertook
a change of his condition. The emptying (evacuatio) of
form is not an abolition of nature (ix. 14). The power of
omnipotence remains to him (xi. 48 fin.; xii. 6; x. 15; ix.
51f.). The divine nature did not and could not feel the
sufferings (x. 23, 48, 24: that which is customary to a
body was endured in order to prove the reality of the
body). Hence, the form of a servant implies a latency of
the form of God.
3. Ambrose ( A. D. 397)
277
Page 444 of 524
a) Works presented the genuine Western Christology of

Tertullian: the Son of God is said to be one in both
natures, because both natures are in the same (de fid.
ii. 9:77): a two-fold substance (substantia) both of
divinity and of flesh (ib. iii. 10:65).
b) The distinctio of the two natures or substances is to
be sharply preserved (ib. ii. 9:77; inc. 4:23). The
immutability and immunity from death of the divine
nature (inc. 5:37ff.; 6:55; fid. ii. 7:57; 8:60), as well as the
completeness of the human nature, with the rational
soul (inc. 7:64ff., 76), are guarded.
c) Around the immutable wisdom has been thrown
the mantle of flesh (ib. 5:41). He, too, speaks of an
emptying (exinanire) and a hiding (celare) of the divinity
(inc. 5:41, de spir, s. i. 9:107), without thereby attaining
any greater lucidity, inasmuch as the form of God and
the form of a servant are, nevertheless, alike regarded
as belonging to the incarnate Being (ep. 46:6ff.; cf.
REUTER, p. 210ff.). But the two natures are now
combined in one person: The One is of two-formed and
two-fold (biformis et geminaeque) nature, partaking of
divinity and of the body . Not divided, but one;
because one and the other are both in each, i.e., either
in the divinity or in the body (inc. 5:35; fid. v. 8:107; iii.
2:8). The Lord of majesty is said to have been crucified,
because, partaking of both natures, i.e., the human and
the divine, he endured the sufferings in the nature of
man (fid. ii. 7:58). This is the ancient theory of the
Western church, which knew nothing of the problem of
the age.
4. Augustine
a) It is not our task to present the Christology of
Augustine in process of formation. Our interest lies in
its final form.
b) Yet a few remarks are necessary to a correct
understanding of its appearance. Augustine had, as a
Manichan, denied the true humanity of Christ. When
he found his way back to the church, the authority of the
Scriptures led him first to recognize this (cf.
Confessions, vii. 19:25). The authority of the churchs
teaching then led him to accept also the divinity of
278
Page 445 of 524
Christ. But since his speculative spirit was controlled by

Neo-platonic conceptions, and had from his early days
been familiar with trinitarian ideas, his conception of the
divinity of Christ was moulded by the Neo-platonic ideas
of the divine and the. .
c) The eternal Word is conceived primarily in his
relation to the world, and not in a purely religious way,
in his relation to salvation and to human history. As,
e.g., all things are but copies of eternal ideas, and these
ideas are in God (de oct. quaestionibus, q. 46:2), so all
things exist only in so far as God gives to them a
continuing and unchangeable form (de lib. arb. ii.
17:45). But the eternal ideas (rationes) of all temporal
things are present in the Logos (de genes, ad litt. iv.
24:41), and the Logos is the form of all real things,
the unfashioned form (forma infabricata), without
time and without local dimensions. Of him it is said:
For he is a certain form, an unfashioned (non formata)
form, but the form of all fashioned forms, an
unchangeable (incommutabilis) form controlling
(superans) all things, existing in all things and a kind of
foundation in which they exist, and a roof under which
they exist . Therefore all things are in him, and yet,
because he is God, all things are under him (serm.
117:2, 3).
d) These are clearly conceptions derived from Greek
philosophy, regarding the Logos as the cosmic principle
of idea and form. But, if we would rightly understand
Augustine, we must also bear in mind that he always
thinks of this Logos as the second person in the Trinity,
as the Son of God immutably present with the Father,
who in time became man. All ideas of Subordinationism
are utterly remote from his thought, however strongly
the Greek conception of the Logos might impel in that
direction, as we have seen in the Apologists and in
Origen.
e) We now address ourselves to the examination of the
doctrine of Augustine in detail. It is for him an
absolutely fixed fact that in Christ two complete natures
or substances (inclusive of the rational human soul; see
in Joh. tr. 23:6; 47:9; conf. vii. 19; de agone christ. 19:21)
constitute one person: Christ is one person of two-fold
substance, because he is both God and man (c.
279
Page 446 of 524
Maximin. Arian. ii. 10:2).Now truly has thus appeared

the mediator between God and man, in order that,
combining both natures in the unity of person, he might
both exalt the ordinary by means of the extraordinary,
and temper the extraordinary by means of the ordinary
(ep. 137:3, 9, 12). He assumed the man, and from
himself and the latter made the one Jesus Christ, the
mediator between God and men, equal to the Father
according to his divinity, but less than the Father
according to the flesh, i.e., according to the man. But
this unification in the man-God (homo-deus, enchir.
25:108) is different in kind from the indwelling of God in
the saints, in whom the Word does not become flesh: it
is evident that, by a certain unique assumption, the
person of this man has become one with the Word (ep.
137:12, 40; in Joh. tr. 72:1; de agone chr. 20:22). The
idea is thus that the two natures are combined in the
unity of one person (cf. enchir. 10:35; 12:40, 41; in Joh.
tr. 27:4). But this is evidently the person of the Logos.
The rational soul and the flesh entered into unity of
person with the Word. The Logos, who is the sole Son
of God, and that not by grace but by nature, was made
also Son of man, and this same, the One Christ, was
both and from both. He remained that which he was.
He assumed the form of a servant, not abandoning nor
diminishing the form of God (enchir. 10:35). There can
here be no thought of any merit of the human nature of
Christ as leading to the union. On the contrary, it is an
exhibition of the same grace which justifies sinful men,
that makes it impossible for the man Jesus to sin, viz.,
inasmuch as his nature was taken up in a unique way
into the unity of the person of the unique (unici) Son of
God (ib. ii. 36). The only-begotten Son of God out of
grace so united himself with his human nature, that he
became man. The only-begotten Son of God, not by
grace by nature, by nature uniting himself in such unity
of person, that he, the same, was also man. This same
Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, i.e., the
unique One, our Lord, was born of the Holy Spirit and
the Virgin Mary (ib. ii. 36, 37). But in all of this the
Logos remains unchangeable (de agon. chr. i. 1; x.
11:23, 25). But Augustine can also speak of the
combination of the natures as a mixture: the man is
joined to, and in some way mingled (commixtus) with,
the Word into a unity of person (trin. iv. 20:30). It is
such a mixture as is found in every human person: In
280
Page 447 of 524
that person there is a mixture of soul and body; in this

person is a mixture of God and man (ep. 137:3, 11;
serm. 174:2). But at the same time the immutability of
the divine nature is still carefully guarded, and We
accordingly read also: the same who is man is God,
and the same who is God is man, not in confusion of
nature, but in unity of person (sermo 186:1). The idea of
a change of the divine nature, or a denuding it of power
in the interest of redemption, is entirely foreign to
Augustine. The divine nature remains as it was, except
that the flesh is added to it, and becomes with it the
same person. The Word does not come into the flesh in
order to perish, but the flesh comes to the Word in order
that it may not perish (sermo 186:1; 121:5; 264:4; ep.
137:7, 10; trin. i. 8:15).
(1) Augustine has also the following modification (afterward
employed by Abelard): "the Word of God having the man"
(habens hominem, in Joh. tr. 19:15), but also: "he assumed the
man" (de agon. chr. 11:12; 18:20; 19:21; 20:22; cf. Hilar. de trin.
x. 22). He also teaches a predestination of the man Jesus (de
praedest. 15:30, 31).
(2) These terms of expression are, indeed, of value in aiding to a
proper understanding of Augustine, since they show to what an
extent he was able to grasp independently the idea of the
humanity of Christ (cf. also such expressions as: "The Son of
God assumed man, and in that man (in illo homine) suffered," de
agon. chr. ii. 12; ib.: "in which [i.e., that man] the Son of God
offered himself to us as an example;" ib. 23:25: "Thus we say
that the Son of God suffered and died in the man whom he
carried, without any change or destruction of his divinity").
(3) But when SCHEEL (p. 216) infers from the predestination of
Jesus a fundamental departure from the doctrine of the two
natures, since only a person and not a substance can be
predestinated (HARNACK similarly speaks of a "profound
relationship with the Christology of Paul of Samosata, and
Photinus," p. 121), he is in so far correct, that the ideas and
formulas cited testify that Augustine could conceive of the
human life of Jesus as relatively independent and like our own
(vid. with reference to the childhood of Jesus, Scheel, p. 230).
Yet in this Augustine by no means abandons his controlling
scheme of thought, for the predestinating of the man Jesus means
exactly that that the Logos should absorb him "in order through
him as the mediator to bring grace to the predestinated." At all
events, there are here points of view at variance with Greek
conceptions, which became significant in the theology of the
West.
281
Page 448 of 524
f) But the religious interest of Augustine does not

center entirely in the divinity of Christ, rather in this no
less than in his humanity. In Christ the divine nature
reveals itself. Its wisdom is thus offered to us as milk to
babes (sermo 117:10:16; 126:4. 5; conf. vii. 18). The love
of God manifest in him awakens us to a responsive love.
His humility overcomes our pride (de catechiz. rudibus
4:7, 8; conf. vii. 18). His whole life and conduct, in both
its human and its divine aspects, serves as an example
for believers (enchir. 14:53; 25:108). As man, he is the
mediator between us and God (conf. x. 43: For in so far
as he is man, in so far is he a mediator); but only in so
far as he is also God. As man he is the mediator (as
Augustine always states with emphasis), for thereby he
stands near to men; but the nearness is the nearness of
God. The man becomes the mediator, because he has
God within him (enchir. 25:108; conf. x. 42). Compare
also in Joh. tr. 42:8: His divinity whither we journey, his
humanity where we journey, similarly tr. 13:5; civ. dei
xi. 2.
g) The West had, thereforein independence of the
Eastits own Christological theory. It was more nearly
in accord with the Christology of Alexandria than with
that of Antioch, although not without points of
agreement with the latter.
G. Nestorius and Cyril. The Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus.
1. Nestorius
a) Upon Nestorius, see Socr. h. e. vii. 29ff., the letters of
Coelestine; his orations in Marius Mercator in Gallandi,
bibl. viii. 629ff., in Mi. lat. 48.
b) The great controversy arose from the discussion of a
liturgical formula. Nestorius, who was called in A. D. 428
from Antioch to Constantinople, desired to controvert
the heretics. He vigorously assailed the Arians, the
Novatians, and the Macedonians, but joined hands with
the western Pelagians. The designation of Mary as the
mother of God, which was becoming current, aroused
his polemics. He held the genuine Antiochian view: The
Logos, being as divine absolutely immutable, was not
born. This can be said only of his garment, or temple,
i.e., his human nature (or. 1:2; 3:2). Hence Mary was not
282
Page 449 of 524
to be called really the mother of God (), Godbearing, but God-receiving (), and man-bearing
(), or Christ-bearing () (or. 2:8;
5:2; ep. 1 ad Coelest. 3). It is only to the man Christ,
therefore, that birth, suffering, and death can be
ascribed (or. 2:2; 3:1). The man Jesus was the organ of
the divinity. Hence the Logos as God is strictly
discriminated from the man, but without making two
Sons or Christs: We call our Lord Christ in view of his
nature two-fold, in view of his sonship one (or. 3:2); for
to both natures belong, in consequence of their union,
the same dignity and a common reverence: for there are
two, if you regard the nature; one, if you consider the
dignity. I divide the natures, but I combine the
reverence (or. 1:2; 2:6, 8). And, above all, the Logos,
after the incarnation, does not act except in union with
the man Jesus (Cyril c. Nest. ii. 7).
c) Of the worship of the human nature, he says: I
adore it as the animated mantle of the King (2:6). When
vigorous opposition was at once manifested, Nestorius
conceded the possibility of the : the genetrix
of God on account of the Word united with its
temple, but he still thought that the term was calculated
to give aid to the Arians and Apollinarians (or. 4:3; 5:2,
cf. ep. 1 ad Coelest. 3; ep. 2:2). In his Christology there
is evidently nothing heterodox. It was only the usual
doctrine of the Antioch school. Nothing was further from
his thought than a denial of the divinity of Christ, or of
the doctrine of the two natures.
d) He taught the true divinity and humanity of Jesus, as
well as the union of the two in one person, but did not
draw the inference of the communicatio idiomatum. But
it was chiefly love of conflict and of debate which
produced the controversy.
2. Cyril
a) The controversy assumed larger proportions only
when Cyril of Alexanderia entered the lists. Without
Cyril there would have been no Nestorian controversy,
Loofs. A passionate correspondence arose between the
two patriarchs. Cyril then thought it proper to inform
Theodosius himself, as well as his wife and sister, of the
283
Page 450 of 524
existing doctrinal divergence. But the letters were very

unfavorably received at the court. He held firmly to the
incarnated nature of the Logos, as well as to the term
. He adduced an exhaustive array of
testimonies for his view from the Scriptures and
tradition. But he was, at this time and afterward, chiefly
concerned in pointing out the irreligious consequences
to which the doctrine of Nestorius would lead.
b) According to Nestorius, we would be redeemed by
the sufferings of a mere man (c. Nestor, iii. 2; iv. 4; v. 1);
a man would have become to us the way, the truth, and
the life (c. Nest. v. 1); we would worship a God-carrying
() man (ib. i. 2; ii. 10, cf. inc. unig., Mi. 75, 1232);
when we are baptized into Christ and by him, we would
be baptized into a man (ad reg. ii. 52; c. Nestor, iii. 2; inc.
unig., Mi. 75, 1240); we would in the Lords Supper
partake of the flesh and blood of a man (c. Nestor, iv. 5;
inc. unig., Mi. 75, 1241). Thus the Christian world would
be robbed by Nestorius of all the treasures which it
possesses in the historical Christ. All these things have
now only a human valuation; and we no longer have in
Christ God himself. The whole religious energy of Cyrils
views is here revealed. The real point of controversy is,
whether it was the man Jesus controlled by the Logos,
or whether it was God himself, who was born, lived,
taught, labored, and died among us.
3. Political Maneuvering
a) The positive teachings of Cyril have been already
outlined. These writings of Cyril, viewed from the
standpoint of church politics, are the works of a master
hand. Theologically and morally, they make a different
impression, giving evidence of a lack of capacity to
understand and appreciate a theological opponent.
b) Rome was very soon drawn into the controversy.
Nestorius wrote to Pope Coelestine as his colleague,
and Cyril sought direction and instruction from the
same source. Nestorius expressed his view in the
charge which he brings against his opponents: They
confound, in the mutability of modification, both natures
which, through the supreme and unconfused union, are
adored in the one person of the only-begotten (ep. 2 ad
284
Page 451 of 524
Coel. c. 2)i.e., he expressed himselfin wordin

harmony with Western ideas.
c) Nevertheless Rome, after some delay, decided
against him at a synod, according to her traditional
policy making common cause with Alexandria (A. D.
430). Coelestine could find nothing to say to Nestorius
except that he was a ravening wolf and a hireling, and
that he must within ten days subscribe to the teaching
of the Romish and Alexandrine church, or, failing to do
so, be excluded from the church (see Coelestine, ep. 11
14).
d) Cyril now drew the lines of opposition most sharply
at the Council of Alexandria, A. D. 430. He addressed a
communication to Nestorius, containing an exposition
of his teaching, and closing with twelve anathemas (ep.
17): Mary is the mother of God (1). The one Christ dare
not be divided in accordance with the hypostases, and
the latter are not bound together only by their
conjunction in accordance with their dignity, i.e., their
sphere of dominion or power, but through a physical
union ( ) (3). The expressions of the
Scriptures are not to be divided between the two
persons, i.e., hypostases (4). Christ is not a Godcarrying () man (5). The man assumed is not to
be called God and, as such, to be worshiped as one in
another (8). The flesh of the Lord is life-giving (11). The
Logos of God suffered in the flesh, was crucified in the
flesh, and tasted death in the flesh (12).
e) Nestorius at once replied with twelve counteranathemas (in Marius Merc, Mi. 48:909): Christ is
Emmanuel, God with us; Mary is the mother, not of the
Word of God, but of Emmanuel (1). If anyone should say
that flesh is capable of (containing) the divine nature
and call the very same nature God and man, let him be
anathema (2). Christ is one according to union, not
according to nature (3). The words of Scripture are not
to be referred to one nature, nor are sufferings to be
attributed to the Logos (4). If anyone dare to say that,
after the assumption of man, the Son of God is one in
nature, since he is Emmanuel, let him be anathema (5).
He who was made of the Virgin is not the Only-begotten,
but has only through his union with the Only-begotten
received a share in his name (7). The form of a servant is
285
Page 452 of 524
not to be worshiped on account of this union (8). The

flesh united with the Logos is not through the
passibility of the nature the giver of life (11). The
sufferings of Christ are not to be attributed to the Logos
without discrimination of the dignity of the natures
(12).
f) The Antiochians now declared themselves (see the
letter of John of Antioch in M. v. 756) for Nestorius,
charging Cyril with Apollinarianism. The emperor, in a
very harsh letter, accused Cyril of pride, love of strife
and intrigue (on account of his letter to the women of
the imperial household) (M. iv. 1109).
4. Council of Ephesus
a) A general council was called at EPHESUS on
Whitsunday, A. D. 431, in the interest of the salutary
union between civil welfare and religious harmony (M.
iv. 1111). The invitation found Augustine ( Aug. 28, 430)
no longer among the living. Nestorius and Cyril
appeared before the appointed time. Coelestine was
represented by three legates, who were instructed to act
in all things with Cyril, and, beyond this, not to dispute
but pass judgment (M. iv. 556).
b) The arrival of John of Antioch was unduly delayed
(M. iv. 1121, 1229, 1329f.; cf. 1225). Despite the protests
of Nestorius, 68 Asiatic bishops and the imperial
commissary (M. iv. 1129ff.; v. 765f., 770f.), Cyril and
Memnon of Ephesus opened the council.
c) 159 bishops (M. iv. 1123ff., 1170ff.) participated,
sanctioned the teaching of Cyril as in accordance with
Nicene doctrine, and condemned the godless
Nestorius. Many patristic citations were then read, and
passages from Nestorius. With many tears he was
then declared to be deprived of episcopal rank and of
priestly fellowship (M. iv. 1212).
d) The decision was reported to the new Judas, the
city illuminated, and the decision announced to the
populace by posters upon the walls, and to the church
at large by letters. Nestorius protested. John of Antioch
arrived at this juncture. He at once, in the presence of
the imperial commissioner, opened the properly
286
Page 453 of 524
authorized council, which must be so called,although it

numbered but 43 members. Cyril and Memnon were
deposed because they had illegally opened the council,
and their followers excommunicated until they should
be converted to the Nicene faith. Nothing was said of
Nestorius, nor of his doctrine (M. iv. 1260ff.).
e) The Romish legates now, for the first time, came to
the front. Since Peter is the head of the entire faith,
they requested the decrees for confirmation (M. iv.
1289). John was three times summoned, but declared
that he would have no intercourse with deposed and
excommunicated persons. The papal decision in regard
to the Pelagians was approved (M. iv. 1337).
f) It was then resolved to report the action of the
council to the emperor and the pope (M. iv. 1325,
1329ff.). Such was the course of the third ecumenical
council. One of the participants (Theodoret, opp. iv.
1335) declares: No writer of comedies ever composed
such a ridiculous farce, no tragic author such a
mournful tragedy. The only positive result was that it
was known that Cyril had been able to win the majority
of those who participated in the proceedings.
g) Both parties now addressed themselves to the
emperor. The followers of Cyril were able to cultivate a
sentiment in their favor (Dalmatius). Opinion was
divided in Constantinople. The emperor, weakling that
he was, approved the action of both parties, and the
depositions on both sides were confirmed (M. iv. 1396).
Both parties now turned to him again. Nestorius
voluntarily entered a cloister. The emperor received
deputations from both sides. He inclined to the
Alexandrines.
h) Cyril and Memnon received their bishoprics again,
and the council was adjourned (M. iv. 1465).
5. Aftermath of Council
a) But peace was not yet restored. Efforts were,
therefore, made to effect a union. They proved
successful, as the Antiochians surrendered Nestorius,
who was now abused as a heretic, the assemblages of
Cyrils followers being recognized as the legal council
287
Page 454 of 524
(see John of Antioch in M. v. 285, 289), and as Cyril was

willing to subscribe to a union-symbol, prepared
apparently by Theodoret of Cyros (A. D. 433), without,
indeed, retracting any of his former utterances.
b) The Creed of Antioch reads (HAHN, ed. 3. p. 215):
We, therefore, acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ, the
Son of God, the Only-begotten, complete God and
complete man, of a rational soul and a body; begotten of
the Father before the ages according to (his) divinity,
but in the last days of Mary the Virgin according to
(his) humanity; that he is of the same nature with the
Father according to (his) divinity, and of the same
nature with us according to (his) humanity. For a union
of the two natures has taken place; wherefore, we
confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. In accordance
with this conception of the unconfounded union, we
acknowledge the holy Virgin to be the mother of God,
because the divine Logos was made flesh and became
man, and from her conception united with himself the
temple received from her. We recognize the evangelical
and apostolic utterances concerning the Lord, making
the characters of the divine Logos and the man common
as being in one person, but distinguishing them as in
two natures, and teaching that the godlike traits are
according to the divinity of Christ, and the humble traits
according to his humanity.
c) The Antiochians had in this the rejection of
Apollinarianism and the recognition of the two natures;
Cyril, the one person,the union of the two natures, and
the . Each party could read its own Christology
into the symbol, and Cyril did this in a liberal way. But
inasmuch as the formula, which excluded both
extremes, had been accepted, the submerging of the
matter in the drawing of inferences was prevented.
There was not lacking opposition upon both sides, but it
was in part quelled by force. The Nestorians were
persecuted, and were able to maintain themselves only
in the Persian Empire.
H. Eutychian Controversy and Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon.
1. At a council at Constantinople, A. D. 448, after various refusals,
he finally appeared before the council and declared: I confess that
our Lord was of two natures before the union, but after the union I
288
Page 455 of 524
confess one nature, and until to-day I said that the body of our
Lord and God was of the same nature with us (M. vi. 744, 742).
2. Eutyches can scarcely be said to have possessed a theory of
his own upon the subject. He was deposed and excommunicated
as a reviler of Christ, with the proper accompaniment of tears (M.
vi. 748).
3. But Eutyches did not rest quietly under condemnation. By the
use of placards, he aroused the interest of the populace, and also
of the emperor, in his cause and appealed to Pope Leo of Rome
(Leo ep. 21). But bishop Flavian of Constantinople also laid his
burden of grief and multitude of tears at the feet of Leo (Leo ep.
22), declaring that Eutyches had revived the teachings of Valentine
and Apollinaris, and demanding that the pope inform his bishops of
the heresies of Eutyches.
4. The pope had meanwhile, of his own accord, requested an
accurate account of the affair, in order that he might pass judgment
upon it (ep. 23, 14). Flavian complied with the request, and
implored the popes approval of the faith of the God-fearing and
Christ-loving emperor (ep. 26).
5. The pope now sent to Flavian his doctrinal letter (ep. 28). He
had thus definitely fixed the attitude of Rome, which is historically a
fact of the greatest importance, for it established a positive and
powerful opposition to the Alexandrine doctrine. But, meanwhile,
Dioscurus of Alexandria had entered the lists and secured the
summoning of a general council at Ephesus. Theodoret was
excluded from participation in the proceedings, and Dioscurus
presided. Everything seemed to assure a Monophysite victory.
6. This resulted in the Robber Synod of Ephesus.
7. The pope was here represented by three legates (ep. 31:4),
who were informed that the Catholic doctrine was contained in the
doctrinal letter (ep. 29). But Dioscurus dominated the council by
brutal terrorism and nearly all yielded to intimidation. Discussion
was not desired, but the faith of the Fathers (i.e., of the councils of
Nice and Ephesus) was to be acknowledged (M. vi. 625).
8. Eutyches defended himself, and 114 of the 135 participants
were of opinion that he was orthodox. Anathema to everyone who
speaks of two natures still after the incarnation (M. vi. 737, 832ff.).
Leos letter was not even read.
289
Page 456 of 524
9. Eutyches was restored. Flavian, Eusebius of Dorylum,

together with Theodoret, Domnus of Antioch, and others, were
deposed (M. vi. 908ff. Theodoret ep. 113, 147).
10. The victory was thus with Dioscurus. Measured by the standard
of his age, and compared with the people who followed his
leadership, we can scarcely pass a severe judgment upon him. He
had the courage to discard the traditional policy of the Alexandrine
church in its compact with Rome. He had vanquished the New
Rome without the aid of the Old Romehad even most seriously
disabled the latter. For one moment the Bishop of Alexandria was
lord of the church. An Alexandrine priest under his control became
bishop of Rome (Leo ep. 53), and Leo was excommunicated by
Dioscurus (M. vi. 1009). But Leo was shrewd enough to be true to
Flavian, himself, and his dogmatic epistle (ep. 50, 51, 67, 68:1, cf.
69:1), since the latter was in harmony with Cyril and the first council
of Ephesus. He became the refuge of the humble and small, i.e.,
the opposite party, who sought help at the apostolic throne
(Theodoret ep. 113).
11. His constant desire was to secure the annulling of the decrees
of the Robber Synod and the summoning of a new council to be
held in Italy under his leadership (ep. 44, 54:70, cf. 5558). Thus,
and only thus, could he recover from the defeat experienced at the
hands of the Alexandrine bishop who usurps all things to himself
(ep. 45:2). But Theodosius held fast to the confession of the second
council of Ephesus as the faith of the Fathers (Leo ep. 6264).
Yet the popes waiting was not in vain. Theodosius died (A. D. 450).
12. The contents of Leos letter (ep. 28) may be thus summarized:
Christ is God and man, born of Mary, her virginity being presented
(c. 1, cf. c. 4). The two substances remain what they were, but
combine in one person: The peculiarity of each nature and
substance being therefore preserved and entering into the one
person, humility is received by majesty, etc. This is necessary in
the interest of redemption: One and the same mediator of God and
men, the man Jesus Christ, should from the one be able to die, and
from the other be unable to die. But, inasmuch as each nature
retains its own peculiarity, the emptying (exinanitio) by which the
invisible makes itself visible is not a loss of power (3). There is,
therefore, after the incarnation only one person, but the natures of
this one person act in alternating fellowship: For each form
performs what is peculiar to it in fellowship with the other, i.e., the
Word doing that which is peculiar to the Word, and the flesh
accomplishing that which is peculiar to the flesh. The one of these
shines forth in miracles, the other succumbs to injuries. The one
290
Page 457 of 524
nature bewails the death of Lazarus; the other wakes him from the
dead (4). In consequence of the unity of person (on account of this
unity of person in each nature), it may be said that the Son of man
came down from heaven (Jn. 3:13), and that the Son of God was
crucified and buried (1 Cor. 2:8), etc. (5). The confession of
Eutyches, before the incarnation two natures, after it one nature,
is in both its parts equally profane. He who regards the death of
Christ as a real death cannot deny that the man whom he sees to
have been passible was of our body (6). This much-lauded
document is nothing more than a reproduction of the Western
Christology (Tertullian, Ambrose; cf. Augustine). It does not enter at
all upon the consideration of the problem which perplexed the
Greeks, and the dogmatic simplicity of the pope is most strikingly
revealed in his opinion, that the twelve propositions of the Apostles
in the Creed sufficed for the refutation of this and other heresies
(vid. ep. 31:4; 45:2; 28:1). As to the Christology of Leo, see also ep.
35:2; 59:35; 88:1; 114:1; 119:1.
13. The Council of Chalcedon
a) The council itself (21 sessions in 14 days, attended
by about 600 bishopsall Greeksmakes an
exceedingly unfavorable impression. Not only was it as
boisterous as the Robber Synod; but worse than this
was the cowardly and senseless abandonment of
Dioscurus and of the position taken two years before
(we have all been wrong; we all beg for pardon, vid. M.
vi. 637ff., 674ff., 690, 827ff., cf. 973f., 1005).
b) At the very first session, as Theodoret appeared:
"Cast out the Jew, the adversary of God, and do not call
him bishop;" to which the opposing party responded:
"Cast out the murderer Dioscurus. Who does not know
the crimes of Dioscurus? "M. vi. 589, cf. also the cry:
"We shout for piety and orthodoxy."
c) Dioscurus was self-consistent. With Athanasius,
Gregory, and Cyril he professed to agree in the one
incarnated nature of the Logos. He did not question the
of two ( ), but the two ( ), I do not receive
(M. vi. 684, 689). He was deserted by all, as his
deposition had been a settled matter already at the first
session. At the later sessions he did not appearnot
even when summoned at the third session. A number of
accusers of this heretic and Origenist now cried out
that Dioscurus was a reviler of the Trinity, a desecrator
291
Page 458 of 524
of relics, a thief, an incendiary, a murderer, a licentious

fellow, a traitor (M. vi. 1005ff., 1012ff., 1021ff., 1029ff.).
But he was at length deposed for contempt of the
divine canons and for disobedience toward the
council (M. vi. 1093).
d) As to the matters in dispute, the doctrine of the
papal letter was approved: This is the faith of the
Fathers, this the faith of the Apostles. Thus we all
believe. Anathema to him who does not so believe!
Through Leo, Peter has spoken exactly thus taught
Cyril! Why was this not read at Ephesus? Dioscurus
kept it hidden (M. vi. 971). It was thought that the
harmony of Leos teaching with the confessions of Nice,
Constantinople, and the First Council of Ephesus could
be clearly established. Only the 13 Egyptian bishops
refused to subscribe to it, and they were in earnest in
their refusal: We will be killed, we will be killed if we do
it. We would rather be slain here by you than there (in
Egypt). Have mercy on us; we would rather die at your
hands and the emperors than at home (M. vii. 53ff., cf.
the 30th canon of the council).
e) Despite the opposition of the Roman legates, the
letter of Leo was not given dogmatic authority, but the
council at its fifth session adopted a new formula (M. vii.
112ff.). The synodical letters of Cyril against Nestorius
were adopted in refutation of Nestorianism, the letter of
Leo to Flavian in refutation of Eutychianism. Those are
condemned who teach a dyad of sons, as well as
those who dream of two natures before the union, but
one after the union.
f) On the contrary: We confess one and the same Son,
our Lord Jesus Christ the same perfect in divinity and
the same perfect in humanity of a rational soul and a
body, of the same nature with the Father according to
(his) divinity, and of the same nature with us according
to (his) humanity, and we recognize the same one
Christ, Son, Lord, and Only-begotten, in two natures
(not, as the Greek text reads: of, , two natures,
unmingled, immutable, indivisible, inseparable; the
difference of the natures being by no means obliterated
by the union, but, on the contrary, the peculiarity of
each nature being preserved and entering into one
292
Page 459 of 524
person and one hypostasis, not divided nor separated

into two persons.
g) It will be observed that these definitions do not go
beyond the statements of Leos letter. The Western
Christology was forced upon the Greeks, for the decree
of the council marks a breach, not only with Dioscurus
and Eutyches, but also with the much-lauded Cyril. The
formula preserving the peculiarity () of the two
natures was contrary to Cyrils view, as also the terms,
unmingled, immutable. The Christological
contradictions of the Orient found no solution, to say
nothing of a solution of the general Christological
problem. But in the course of the development an
element was fortunatelywe cannot regard it
otherwiseintroduced, which, in the form now assumed
by the contest and the terminology of the day, fixed a
barrier against extreme views in either direction. It must
be remembered, too, that it is not the office of symbols
to establish dogmatic theories. They merely give
expression to the religious convictions of their age.
Such convictions found expression in the Chalcedon
creedessentially, in consequence of the peculiar
circumstances of the period, in a negative form. As the
formula of the one person and the two natures wag
adopted as a fixed dogma, the historical Christ was
gained, although only in faintest outline, as the norm
and corrective for the ideas of the dogmaticians.
I. Movements Growing Out of the Christological Conflict:
Monophysite, Monothelete, and Iconoclast Controversies
1. The Monophysite Controversies
a) Introduction
(1) The council of Chalcedon did not accomplish the intended
pacification of the church, and in Palestine and Egypt it met with
passionate opposition.
(2) Like the council of Nicaea, it must pass a fiery trial of
conflict before it could be universally acknowledged in the
church.
(3) Its opponents rejected the Eutychian theory of an absorption
of the human nature into the divine, but nevertheless held firmly
293
Page 460 of 524
to the doctrine of one nature in Christ; and on this account, from

the time of the Chalcedonian council they were called
Monophysites, while they in return stigmatized the adherents of
the council as Dyophysites and Nestorians.
(4) They conceded, indeed, a composite nature (
or ), but not two natures. They assumed
a diversity of qualities without corresponding substances, and
made the humanity in Christ a mere accident of the immutable
divine substance.
(5) Their main argument against Chalcedon was, that the
doctrine of two natures necessarily led to that of two persons, or
subjects, and thereby severed the one Christ into two Sons of
God. They were entirely at one with the Nestorians in their use
of the terms nature and person, and in rejecting the orthodox
distinction between the two. They could not conceive of human
nature without personality. From this the Nestorians reasoned
that, because in Christ there are two natures, there must be also
two independent hypostases; the Monophysites, that, because
there is but one person in Christ, there can be only one nature.
They regarded the nature as something common to all
individuals of a species (), yet as never existing simply as
such, but only in individuals. According to them, therefore,
or is in fact always an individual existence.
b) The liturgical watchword of the Monophysites was:

God has been crucified.
(1) This they introduced into their public worship as an addition
to the Trisagion: Holy, God, holy Mighty, holy Immortal, who
hast been crucified for us, have mercy upon us. From this they
were also called Theopaschites.
(2) This formula is in itself orthodox, and forms the requisite
counterpart to , provided we understand by God the
Logos, and in thought supply: according to the flesh or
according to the human nature.
(3) In this qualified sense it was afterwards in fact not only
sanctioned by Justinian in a dogmatical decree, but also by the
fifth ecumenical council, though not as an addition to the
Trisagion.
(4) For the theanthropic person of Christ is the subject, as of the
nativity, so also of the passion; his human nature is the seat and
the organ (sensorium) of the passion.
294
Page 461 of 524
(5) But as an addition to the Trisagion, which refers to the

Godhead generally, and therefore to the Father, and the Holy
Ghost, as well as the Son, the formula is at all events
incongruous and equivocal. Theopaschitism is akin to the earlier
Patripassianism, in subjecting the impassible divine essence,
common to the Father and the Son, to the passion of the GodMan on the cross; yet not, like that, by confounding the Son with
the Father, but by confounding person with nature in the Son.
(6) Thus from the council of Chalcedon started those violent and
complicated Monophysite controversies which convulsed the
Oriental church, from patriarchs and emperors down to monks
and peasants, for more than a hundred years, and which have left
their mark even to our day. They brought theology little
appreciable gain, and piety much harm; and they present a
gloomy picture of the corruption of the church. The intense
concern for practical religion, which animated Athanasius and
the Nicene fathers, abated or went astray; theological speculation
sank towards barren metaphysical refinements; and party
watchwords and empty formulas were valued more than real
truth.
c) External History
(1) The external history of the controversy is a history of
outrages and intrigues, depositions and banishments,
commotions, divisions, and attempted reunions. Immediately
after the council of Chalcedon bloody fights of the monks and
the rabble broke out, and Monophysite factions went off in
schismatic churches.
(2) After thirty years confusion the Monophysites gained a
temporary victory under the protection of the rude pretender to
the empire, Basiliscus (475-477), who in an encyclical letter,
enjoined on all bishops to condemn the council of Chalcedon
(476).
(3) After his fall, Zeno (474-475 and 477-491), by advice of the
patriarch Acacius of Constantinople, issued the famous formula
of concord, the Henoticon, which proposed, by avoiding
disputed expressions, and condemning both Eutychianism and
Nestorianism alike, to reconcile the Monophysite and dyophysite
views, and tacitly set aside the Chalcedonian formula (482).
(4) But this was soon followed by two more schisms, one
among the Monophysites themselves, and one between the East
and the West. Felix II., bishop of Rome, immediately rejected
the Henoticon, and renounced communion with the East (484519). The strict Monophysites were as ill content with the
Henoticon, as the adherents of the council of Chalcedon; and
295
Page 462 of 524
while the former revolted from their patriarchs, the latter

attached themselves to Rome. It was not till the reign of the
emperor Justin I. (518-527), that the authority of the council of
Chalcedon was established under stress of a popular tumult, and
peace with Rome was restored. The Monophysite bishops were
now deposed, and fled for the most part to Alexandria, where
their party was too powerful to be attacked.
d) Henoticon
(1) The definitions of the councils of Nicaea, Constantinople,
and Ephesus, as well as the twelve anathemas of Cyril, were here
recognized, and Nestorius and Eutyches condemned.
(2) Christ the true God and the true man is confessed to be of the
same nature with the Father according to his divinity, and of the
same nature with us according to his humanity, but to be one
and not two. For we say that the miracles and whatever
sufferings he endured in the flesh are (those) of one. Whoever
adopts another teaching () than this, whether taught now
or heretofore, at Chalcedon or elsewhere, is anathematized.
(3) Nothing is plain except the authority of Cyril and the
rejection of Nestorianism and Eutychianism. Beyond this, the
disputed formulas are carefully avoided; the rejection of the
Chalcedon confession is implied but not distinctly expressed.
The agitation was not allayed by this formula.
(4) Neither the strict Monophysites nor the orthodox were
satisfied. The former missed in the Henoticon the express
condemnation of the Chalcedon Creed and of the letter of Pope
Leo. The latter, as in the days of Chalcedon, took refuge in
Rome. Pope Felix III turned to the emperor in defense of the
endangered Chalcedon creed and excommunicated Acacius, the
bishop of Constantinople, A. D. 484 (ep. 14, 6). The latter, in
turn, struck the name of Felix from the Diptychs.
(5) The breach with Rome had become complete. It was a
necessity, as an agreement was not possible between the ancient
Latin Christology and the Greek doctrine, which inclined more
and more toward Monophysitism. But even in the East there
were still elements which withstood the advance of the
Monophysite views.
(6) The emperor, Anastasius (from A. D. 491), permitted the
Henoticon to stand, but favored the Monophysite interpretation
of it. Nevertheless, there were bitter controversies during the
entire reign of Anastasius. In Antioch, Severus, one of the
Monophysite leaders, became bishop, but the emperor yet
296
Page 463 of 524
labored to secure peace with the adherents of Chalcedon and the

authorities of Rome. But it was now evident that the situation
had only become the more complicated, and that the Roman
bishops were contending, not in the interest of pure doctrine, but
to secure the dominion of the entire church. Hence the
transactions with Pope Hormisdas were without result.
e) Internal Divisions
(1) Introduction
(a) The internal divisions of the Monophysites turned
especially on the degree of essential difference between
the humanity of Christ and ordinary human nature, and
the degree, therefore, of their deviation from the
orthodox doctrine of the full consubstantiality of the
humanity of Christ with ours.
(b) The most important of these parties were the
Severians (from Severus, the patriarch of Antioch) or
Phthartolaters (adorers of the corruptible), who taught
that the body of Christ before the resurrection was
mortal and corruptible; and the Julianists (from bishop
Julian of Halicarnassus, and his contemporary Xenajas
of Hierapolis) or Aphthartodocetae, who affirmed the
body of Christ to have been originally incorruptible, and
who bordered on docetism.
(2) Serverians
(a) The former conceded to the Catholics, that Christ as
to the flesh was consubstantial with us. The latter argued
from the commingling () of the two natures, that
the corporeality of Christ became from the very
beginning partaker of the incorruptibleness of the Logos,
and was subject to corruptibleness. They appealed in
particular to Jesus walking on the sea. Both parties
were agreed as to the incorruptibleness of the body of
Christ after the resurrection.
(b) The solution of this not wholly idle question would
seem to be, that the body of Christ before the
resurrection was similar to that of Adam before the fall;
that is, it contained the germ of immortality and
incorruptibleness; but before its glorification it was
subject to the influence of the elements, was destructible,
and was actually put to death by external violence, but,
through the indwelling power of the sinless spirit, was
preserved from corruption, and raised again to
297
Page 464 of 524
imperishable life. A relative immortality thus became

absolute. So far we may without self-contradiction affirm
both the identity of the body of Christ before and after
his resurrection, and its glorification after resurrection.
(c) The Severians were subdivided again, in respect to
the question of Christs omniscience, into Theodosians,
and Themistians, or Agnoetae. The Julianists were
subdivided into Ktistolatae, and Aktistetae according as
they asserted or denied that the body of Christ was a
created body. The most consistent Monophysite was the
rhetorician Stephanus Niobes (about 550), who declared
every attempt to distinguish between the divine and the
human in Christ inadmissible, since they had become
absolutely one in him. An abbot of Edessa, Bar Sudaili,
extended this principle even to the creation, which be
maintained would at last be wholly absorbed in God.
John Philoponus (about 530) increased the confusion;
starting with Monophysite principles, taking in a
concrete instead of an abstract sense, and identifying it
with , he distinguished in God three
individuals, and so became involved in tritheism. This
view he sought to justify by the Aristotelian categories of
genus, species, and individuum.
(d) Severus taught essentially the Christology of Cyril:
Of two natures one Christ. He expressly recognizes
the reality of the two natures after the union, in which he
accords with Nestorius. But there is an unmixed
union, in which, as Cyril says, the distinction can be
noted at a single glance. He appropriates the
Areopagite formula of a new theandric energy
() of Christ. He is unable to accept the
Chalcedon creed, because it leads to two persons, and
even to a duad of wills. This is all in the spirit of
Cyril. It makes no real difference, that Cyril starts with
the Logos without flesh () and Severus with the
Logos in the flesh (), as the latter conception
occurs also frequently in Cyril.
(e) The inference from this view is that the body of
Christ was, according to its nature, capable of suffering
and corruptible. Hence its opponents spoke of it as
Pathartolatry. Its advocates did not even shrink from the
inference that the human soul of Christ was not
omniscient (AGNOETAE).
(3) Julianists
298
Page 465 of 524
(a) The Julianists, on the contrary, taught that Christ

assumed our flesh in order that he might deliver it at
once from corruption and from sin. His human nature,
being sinless, is therefore not corruptible (Julian Anath.
6, 7, in GIESELER, comment, de Monoph., etc., ii. 6).
On the contrary, the body of Christ is, from the moment
of the union, glorified, incorruptible, and of the same
character as after the resurrection.
(b) Hence, Christs capability of suffering is not natural
to him, but rests upon his free-will (octo quaesit. 4).
Julian did not in this way by any means wish to deny the
Homousia of Christs human nature with our humanity.
(c) By the incorruptibility he understood, not a
Docetic character, but the freedom of Christs nature
from all the human infirmities which have resulted from
the entrance of sin. Christ assumed such a body and soul
as Adam possessed before the fall.
(d) In the face of this position, the task of the Severians

was a difficult one; for, in the denial of the Aphtharsia of
the human nature of Christ, his divine unity, which they
asserted, appeared to be lost. Hence the Julianists
accused them of Aphthartolatry. Yet the Severians
maintained that there was a Docetic element in the
theory of Julian, charged him with holding the doctrine
of Eutyches, and reviled his followers as
Aphthartodocetes or Phantasiasts.
(4) Others
(a) Other Monophysites (the GAIANITES) carried out
their ideas to the absurdity, that the body of Christ, from
the time of the union, was uncreated.
(b) They were called ACTISTETES.
(c) Stephen Niobes held that all distinction of the divine
and human in Christ must be totally denied
(ADIAPHORITES).
(d) We have here the germ of the later Syrian
Monophysite pantheism. If the unity of the divine and
human in Christ was granted as a natural characteristic,
the inference might easily be drawn that the two natures
are essentially one. Thus this form of Greek Christian
philosophy reverts to the pantheism of Greek philosophy.
299
Page 466 of 524
f) The Three Chapters

(1) The further fortunes of Monophysitism are connected with
the emperor Justinian I. (527-565). This learned and unweariedly
active ruler, ecclesiastically devout, but vain and ostentatious,
aspired, during his long and in some respects brilliant reign of
nearly thirty years, to the united renown of a lawgiver and
theologian, a conqueror and a champion of the true faith. He
used to spend whole nights in prayer and fasting, and in
theological studies and discussions; he placed his throne under
the special protection of the Blessed Virgin and the archangel
Michael; in his famous Code, and especially in the Novelles, he
confirmed and enlarged the privileges of the clergy; he adorned
the capital and the provinces with costly temples and institutions
of charity; and he regarded it as his especial mission to reconcile
heretics, to unite all parties of the church, and to establish the
genuine orthodoxy for all time to come. In all these undertakings
he fancied himself the chief actor, though very commonly he
was but the instrument of the empress, or of the court
theologians and eunuchs; and his efforts to compel a general
uniformity only increased the divisions in church and state.
(2) Justinian was a great admirer of the decrees of Chalcedon,
and ratified the four ecumenical councils in his Code of Roman
law. But his famous wife Theodora, a beautiful, crafty, and
unscrupulous woman, whom he if we are to believe the report
of Procopius raised from low rank, and even from a dissolute
life, to the partnership of his throne, and who, as empress,
displayed the greatest zeal for the church and for ascetic piety,
was secretly devoted to the Monophysite view, and frustrated all
his plans. She brought him to favor the liturgical formula of the
Monophysites: God was crucified for us, so that he sanctioned
it in an ecclesiastical decree (533).
(3) Through her influence the Monophysite Anthimus was made
patriarch of Constantinople (535), and the characterless Vigilius
bishop of Rome (538), under the secret stipulation that he should
favour the Monophysite doctrine. The former, however, was
soon deposed as a Monophysite (536), and the latter did not keep
his promise. Meanwhile the Origenistic controversies were
renewed. The emperor was persuaded, on the one hand, to
condemn the Origenistic errors in a letter to Mennas of
Constantinople; on the other hand, to condemn by an edict the
Antiochian teachers most odious to the Monophysites: Theodore
of Mopsuestia (the teacher of Nestorius), Theodoret of Cyros,
and Ibas of Edessa (friends of Nestorius); though the last two
had been expressly declared orthodox by the council of
Chalcedon. Theodore he condemned absolutely, but Theodoret
only as respected his writings against Cyril and the third
ecumenical council at Ephesus, and Ibas as respected his letter to
300
Page 467 of 524
the Persian bishop Maris, in which he complains of the outrages

of Cyrils party in Edessa, and denies the communicatio
idiomatum. These are the so-called Three Chapters, or formulas
of condemnation, or rather the persons and writings designated
and condemned therein.
(4) Thus was kindled the violent controversy of the Three
Chapters, of which it has been said that it has filled more
volumes than it was worth lines. The East yielded easily to craft
and force; the West resisted. Pontianus of Carthage declared that
neither the emperor nor any other man had a right to sit in
judgment upon the dead. Vigilius of Rome, however, favored
either party according to circumstances, and was
excommunicated for awhile by the dyophysite Africans, under
the lead of Facundus of Hermiane. He subscribed the
condemnation of the Three Chapters in Constantinople, a.d. 548,
but refused to subscribe the second edict of the emperor against
the Three Chapters (551), and afterwards defended them.
(5) To put an end to this controversy, Justinian, without the
concurrence of the pope, convoked at Constantinople, a.d. 553,
the Fifth Ecumenical Council, which consisted of a hundred and
sixty-four bishops, and held eight sessions, from the 5th of May
to the 2d of June, under the presidency of the patriarch Eutychius
of Constantinople. It anathematized the Three Chapters; that is,
the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia, the anti-Cyrillian writings
of Theodoret, and the letter of Ibas, and sanctioned the formula
God was crucified, or One of the Trinity has suffered, yet
not as an addition to the Trisagion. The dogmatic decrees of
Justinian were thus sanctioned by the church. But no further
mention appears to have been made of Origenism; and in truth
none was necessary, since a local synod of 544 had already
condemned it. Perhaps also Theodore Askidas, a friend of the
Origenists, and one of the leaders of the council, prevented the
ecumenical condemnation of Origen. But this is a disputed point,
and is connected with the difficult question of the genuineness
and completeness of the Acts of the council.
(6) Vigilius at first protested against the Council, which, in spite
of repeated invitations, he had not attended, and by which he was
suspended; but he afterwards signified his adherence, and was
permitted, after seven years absence, to return to Rome, but died
on the journey, at Syracuse, in 555. His fourfold change of
opinion does poor service to the claim of papal infallibility. His
successor, Pelagius I., immediately acknowledged the council.
But upon this the churches in Northern Italy, Africa, and Illyria
separated themselves from the Roman see, and remained in
schism till Pope Gregory I. induced most of the Italian bishops to
acknowledge the council.
301
Page 468 of 524
(7) The result of this controversy, therefore, was the

condemnation of the Antiochian theology, and the partial victory
of the Alexandrian monophysite doctrine, so far as it could be
reconciled with the definitions of Chalcedon. But the
Chalcedonian dyophysitism afterwards reacted, in the form of
dyothelitism, and at the sixth ecumenical council, at
Constantinople, a.d. 680 (called also Concilium Trullanum I.),
under the influence of a letter of pope Agatho, which reminds us
of the Epistola Dogmatica of Leo, it gained the victory over the
Monothelite view, which so far involves the Monophysite, as the
ethical conception of one will depends upon the physical
conception of one nature.
(8) But notwithstanding the concessions of the fifth ecumenical
council, the Monophysites remained separated from the orthodox
church, refusing to acknowledge in any manner the dyophysite
council of Chalcedon. Another effort of Justinian to gain them,
by sanctioning the Aphthartodocetic doctrine of the
incorruptibleness of Christs body (564), threatened to involve
the church in fresh troubles; but his death soon afterwards, in
565, put an end to these fruitless and despotic plans of union. His
successor Justin II. in 565 issued an edict of toleration, which
exhorted all Christians to glorify the Lord, without contending
about persons and syllables. Since that time the history of the
Monophysites has been distinct from that of the catholic church.
g) The FIFTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, A. D. 553

(1) The council was called primarily to sanction the
condemnation of the Three Chapters. The bishop of
Constantinople presided.
(2) About 150 bishops participated. Pope Vigilius, who was
present, protested against the condemnation. He was in
consequence denounced as a liar in view of some of his earlier
utterances, and the council resolved to strike his name from the
Dyptichs.
(3) The Three Chapters were condemned: A Theodore, a
Judas. His defenders are Jews; his adherents heathen. Many
years to the Emperor! (cf. can. 1214). The council of
Chalcedon was recognized, Origen condemned (can. 11), the
doctrine of the Theopaschite supplement adopted (can. 10).
(4) Pope Vigilius subsequently acquiesced in the decisions of
the council (HEFELEU. 905ff.), as also the African bishops (ib.
913). The ecclesiastical politics of the emperor had proved
successful.
302
Page 469 of 524
(5) But the emperor had not yet accomplished what he desired.
The situation was made more hopeless by the dissensions which
arose among the Monophysites themselves. Monophysitism was
primarily but an opposition to the Chalcedonian and Cyrillian
theology. Its adherents spoke of the heresy of the Dyophysites
in opposition to the doctrine of believers, who hold to the one
nature ( ).
(6) It was acknowledged in theory that Christ is with
the Father as well as with man.
(7) Apollinaris and Eutyches were rejected (Timoth. Ael. in
Zachar. h.e. iv. 12; v. 7).
(8) Dioscurus was the apostolic man who would not worship
the idol image with two faces that was set up by Leo and the
assembly at Chalcedon (ib. iii. 1).
(9) But their temper became more pronounced, and the views of
the Monophysites themselves became more and more divergent.
(10)
There was also, from the beginning, a group of more
strict partisans, who held about the position of Eutyches (vid.
e.g., Zachar. h. e. iii. 9:10). The two chief parties were known as
Sererians and Julianists, so named from their later leaders,
Severus and Julian of Halicarnassus.
(11)
Justinian tolerated the Monophysites (Joh. v. Eph. h. e. i.
4f.). Even in the capital they had honored representatives
(Theodosius, John of Ephesus); and the restlessly wandering
Jacob el Baradai was able to accomplish much for the unification
and strengthening of the party. The emperor has held the church
under his control, but he has not achieved his purpose. We can
easily understand from this situation how he, at the close of his
career, should conceive the idea of unifying at least the church of
the Orient by the adoption of Aphthartodocetism. Death
prevented the execution of the edict, which he fully purposed to
enforce (Evagr. h. e. iv. 39). That which he failed to accomplish,
his successors (Justin II., Tiberius, Mauricius) were equally
unable to attain, although they spared neither the arts of
persuasion nor force. Monophysitism steadily advanced to a
permanent position in church life among the Syrian Jacobites
and in the Coptic, Abyssinian, and Armenian churches.
2. Monothelete Controversies
a) The patriarch Sergius of Constantinople advised
Heraclius (A. D. 610641) to employ for this purpose the
303
Page 470 of 524
formula, that the one Christ performs divine and human

acts by one theandric energy (thus already Dionys.
Areop. ep. 4 and Severus).
b) Whether there is one energy or two, is not a proper
matter for investigation, thought Sergius. One will (
) was, however, postulated of Christ as selfevident.
c) In this spirit Sergius wrote to Honorius of Rome (M.
xi. 529ff.),
(1) The Pope responded approvingly, that the question,
whether there be one energy or two, is not biblical, and belongs
only to the sphere of the grammarians. Among the uninstructed
populace, one energy might be interpreted as having a Eutychian
sound and two as savoring of Nestorianism.
(2) It follows, on the contrary, from the fact of the incarnation:
Wherefore also we confess one will of the Lord Jesus Christ
(M. xi. 537ff.).
d) In a second letter, the pope again rejected the

question concerning the energies, and employed Leos
formula, that each of the two natures works in
fellowship with the other (M. xi. 580).
(1) Sergius, therefore, secured the publication of his CF
, A. D. 638): Two natures with their peculiarities, but
one hypostasis and one person of the divine Logos, together with
rationally-animated flesh; we ascribe all divine and human
energy to one and the same incarnated Logos and do not by
any means permit anyone to maintain or teach either one or two
energies of the incarnate Lord.
(2) The two energies would work confusion, as they would give
occasion for the inference: And there preside two wills of those
who are in opposition to one another, which even the impious
Nestorius would not have dared to assert. It is thus impossible to
accept two, and these opposing, wills in the same (person).
(3) Following the Fathers in all things, it is to be said: We
confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ (M. x. 992ff.). The
Roman legates of Severinus, the successor of Honorius, declared
themselves ready to adopt the Ecthesis; but as early as A. D. 641,
John IV. of Rome condemned Monotheletism (M. x. 607),
while, at the same time, he endeavored to defend Pope Honorius
304
Page 471 of 524
from the suspicion of a Monothelete type of doctrine,

maintaining that the latter had in mind only the human will of
Christ, and denied that there were two contrary wills in Christ
(vid. his Apol. pro papa Honor., M. x. 682ff.).
(4) His successor, Theodore I., desired the rejection of the
Ecthesis (M. x. 702, 705f.). The Africans assumed the same
attitude (Hefele iii. 205ff.). The emperor, Constans II., yielded in
the of A. D. 648. The problem is to be banished from the
world forever, as had been attempted in the Ecthesis. The latter
is surrendered, and questions are to be decided in accordance
with the five ecumenical councils, the utterances of the Fathers,
and the doctrinal positions held before the controversy, just as it
would have been if no such controversy had ever arisen. We
decree that our subjects abiding in orthodoxy shall, from the
present time, not have permission to carry on any controversy
whatsoever among themselves concerning one will or energy, or
two energies and two wills, etc. Any who may disregard this
decree are threatened with severe punishments (M. x. 1029f.). It
may be seen from this brutal composition to what tyranny the
secularized church was compelled to submit.
e) But at Rome there were hopes of accomplishing

something more.
(1) The monk, MAXIMUS, proved in writings and disputations
that Dyotheletism is a necessary inference from the two natures
of the Chalcedon creed. Reversing the process, the Monotheletes
from the one person inferred one will, e.g., M. x. 709.
(2) We must devote some attention to the Christology of
Maximus. He was inspired by a keen interest in the reality of the
humanity of Christ. Without a human will, he maintained, Christ
would not have been a man (opp. ii. 105108).
(3) On the other hand, the doctrine of the Trinity demands
Dyotheletism; for since, according to the Fathers, the Trinity has
a will, the theandric will of Christ must also be the will of the
Trinity (ii. 163). This is impossible.
(4) The real human nature of Christ requires a human will, and
with this the divine will united itself. The unity of the two is
effected through the one hypostasis which is common to both (ii.
164).
(5) Christ lived as God and man (ii. 165). Since the Logos
assumed human nature, he received also a human will, which
acts in a way corresponding with its natural psychological
character. But this will was not compelled, as is ours, to decide
305
Page 472 of 524
between opposites, but, by virtue of its union with the Logos, it

received a permanent, fixed moral inclination.
(6) In this way the true doctrine is distinguished from that of
Nestorius (ii. 13, 14). The celebrated formula of the Areopagite
( ) itself proves the presence of two
energies, but is merely the expression of the empirical
relationship (ii. 51).
(7) The opinion of Maximus is therefore: that the Logos
appropriates to himself the human will of Christ, since he by this
union with it gives to it a fixed inclination, which, however,
exerts itself in many separate free human choices. The theology
of Maximus rightly defined the nature of the man Jesus, positing
it in the spiritual will, and it exerted itself with energy to
maintain this nature intact within the lines of the two-nature
theory. This gives to it its historical significance. It is remarkable
to observe how, toward the end of the great controversies, ideas
again came to the front which had at the beginning been
advanced by the Antiochians.
f) We return to the contemplation of the course of

external events.
(1) Pope Martin I, without waiting for the imperial approval,
conducted a large synod (105 bishops) at Rome, A. D. 649.
(2) He here declared himself opposed to the Ecthesis, as
contradicting the two natures, and also opposed to the Typos,
which he dismissed with the perfidious charge, that it denies to
Christ will and energy, and thus every kind of nature.
(3) The synod decided in accordance with his wishes, adding to
the Chalcedon creed: two natural wills, divine and human, and
two natural operations (M. x. 1150).
(4) With great energy the pope now sought to interest the
Frankish church and the two kings in his cause, and endeavored
to gain influence in the Oriental churches among the Saracens. It
was even charged that he gave money to the Saracens in Sicily.
The emperor treated both the pope and Maximus as traitors.
They died in exile, A. D. 655 and 662.
(5) Eugene I and Vitalian of Rome adapted themselves to the
situation, their scruples apparently met by the reflection that the
two natural wills unite in one hypostatic will. We may, therefore,
speak of one will as well as of two, accordingly as we use the
term. Rome, on the other hand, would know nothing of this, as
the doctrine of Maximus had there full sway.
306
Page 473 of 524
g) Council of Constantinople
(1) Constans was murdered A. D. 668 and succeeded by
Constantine Pogonatus (A. D. 668685). The constantly
obtruding antagonism between Rome and Constantinople
induced the emperor to call a council and to yield, as far as
possible, to the demands of Romethe greater part of the
Monophysites being in any event lost to the Byzantine empire.
(2) This resulted in the Sixth Ecumenical Council, held at
Constantinople, A. D. 680. There were about 170 participants
(proceedings in M. xi).
(3) The letter of Pope Agatho here played an important part. It is
presented as the doctrine of the Romish church, which has never
departed from the way of truth, or the apostolic tradition, that
as an inference from the doctrine of two naturesthe will of
Christ is two-fold, having in it two natural wills and energies
just as two natures (M. xi. 239). Accordingly, the council
decided, after the reading of volumes of patristic excerptsnot,
indeed, without opposition (Polychronius, a Monophysite,
seeking by his formula to call a dead issue to life)in
accordance with the wishes of the emperor (Thou hast
established the completeness of the two natures of our God, M.
xi. 656) and the pope.
(4) Honorius of Rome was anathematized as well as the
Monothelete patriarch of Constantinople.
(5) The doctrinal decree recognizes the letter of Agatho and the
five ecumenical councils. After citing the formulas of
Chalcedon, it proceeds: Two natural willings () or
wills () in Christ and two natural energies,
inseparably, immutably, indivisibly, without mixture, according
to the teaching of the holy Fathers . It follows that his human
will is not in opposition or conflict with, but, on the contrary, is
subject to his divine and almighty will . For just as his flesh is
called and is the flesh of the divine Logos, so also his proper
human will is called and is the will of the divine Logos . His
flesh deified is not divided so also his human will deified is
not divided for each form performs what is peculiar to it with
the fellowship of the other form (M. xi. 637).
307
Page 474 of 524
h) The revival of Monotheletism at a later date (A. D.

711713) by the emperor, Philippicus Bardanes, and the
Monotheletic church of the Maronites, which persisted
in Lebanon until the Crusades, are of no dogmatic
significance.
3. Iconoclastic Controversies. Final Dogma of the Greek Church.
a) The 36th canon of the synod of Elvira (A. D. 306, or,
perhaps, as early as A. D. 300) reads: It seems good to
us that there ought not to be pictures in the church, nor
should that which is worshiped and adored be painted
upon the walls. This principle was carried out also in
decisions and in action (Eus. ep. ad Constantiam, Mi.
20:1545, cf. h. e. vii. 18. Epiph. opp. ed. Dindorf iv. 2, p.
85).
b) But it was not the view of the theologians which
influenced public conviction in the matter, but the latter
compelled the acquiescence of the teachers (e.g., in
Joh. Dam. or. i. 27; 2:23; 3:42). It was an outgrowth of
the exaggerated culture of mysteries.
c) That an assault upon images should cause a
profound excitement, may be readily understood. It is
not so easy to discern the motive that prompted it. The
Emperor Leo the Isaurian appears to have received the
suggestion from Phrygia (Bishop Constantine of
Nicolaea).
d) To a man holding a biblical conception of the Old
Testament, the idea seemed self-evident (the imperial
edict based its argument upon the Old Testament
prohibition of images, Ex. 20:4; 2 Ki. 18:4; cf. Joh. Dam.
or. 1:4ff., and the first letter of Pope Gregory to the
emperor); and it was as natural for the emperor to
command the church in the matter as the limitation of
the latters power was desirable.
e) In A. D. 726 the emperor forbade the worship of
images, on the ground that they take the place of the
idols of the heathen, and that the worship of them is
forbidden in the Scriptures. We dare not worship
stones, walls, and boards. With the approval of the
patriarch Anastasius, the agitation was renewed in A. D.
730.
308
Page 475 of 524
f) Energetic opposition was at once aroused upon the

part of the people as well as among the theologians,
e.g., Germanus of Constantinople (in M. xiii. 100ff.),
Gregory II of Rome (M. xii. 959ff.), and John of
Damascus (Mi. 94:1227ff.). Appeal was made to tradition
and custom, to the miracles wrought through the
images, to which at any rate only veneration
() and not worship () was rendered,
to the cherubim, etc.
g) The Roman bishop also reflected that the dogmas of
the church are not an affair of the emperor, but of the
bishops, and pointed to the position of Peter whom
the kingdoms of the West regard as the earthly God, at
the same time, in the most offensive manner, charging
the emperor with outrageous folly.
h) John of Damascus publish a comprehensive defense
of the images. The images of Christ and the saints may
and must be honored, not, indeed, by divine worship (or.
3:29ff.), but by veneration. God himself is the originator
of the use of images, having sanctioned it by the
method of Old Testament revelation, the forms of Old
Testament worship, and his own visible appearance in
Christ (or. 3:12, 18, 21ff., 26; 1:14, 20ff.). Everything on
earth is a picture of God (1:11). ]
i) The spiritual, and, therefore, the revelation of God,
can be revealed to us only through matter (). We
honor the images just as we honor the gospels, the
eucharist, the cross, the spear and sponge, or Golgotha
(1:16; 2:14, 19)not the materials composing them as
such (2:19), but as being bearers of the divine. The
controlling idea of the age here finds expression:
Things made by our hands are. holy, leading us
through matter to the immaterial God (2:23), through
bodily vision to spiritual vision (3:12, 25). We must
either surrender our veneration for the parchments of
the gospels written with ink, and for the elements of the
eucharist, or acknowledge the veneration of images of
God and of the precious things consecrated to the name
of God, and thus overshadowed by the grace of the
divine Spirit (2:14). Images are, therefore, means of
grace, since the material copy brings to us God himself
(therefore I revere, , and through the unseen draw
near and venerate, the material object through which
309
Page 476 of 524
salvation comes to me. But I revere it not as divine, but

as filled with divine energy and grace, 2:14). Such
character is possessed by them not only as the books
of the unlearned (3:9). Hence, to deny them veneration
is Manichaeism (1:16; 2:13). Not only does God himself,
with his whole revelation to man, thus defend the
veneration of images, but it is just as fully supported by
the tradition of the church (1:27, 23; 2:23; 3:42). To
abandon the veneration of images is a worse offense
than fornication (3:13). At any rate, the emperor has
nothing to do with the inner life of the church: The
emperors sphere is the right conduct of political affairs;
the management of ecclesiastical affairs is the province
of pastors and teachers (2:12).
j) To the punctiliousness and Csaropapy of the
emperor is here opposed the historically well-defined
Greek Christianity, not without suggesting the ideain
spite of recent eventsof the independence of the
church. In so far the worshipers of images were right.
k) But it is Christianity as represented in the lower form
which magically sinks the spiritual in the material (e.g.,
power of images against demons, 1:27, p. 231; miracles
performed by them, 1:22; 3:41hence religious
veneration). In thisimpartially consideredlies the
error of the image worshipers, and of the piety of the
church that they represented.
l) The first representations of Christ are of heretical
and pagan origin.
(1) The Gnostic sect of the Carpocratians worshipped crowned
pictures of Christ, together with images of Pythagoras, Plato,
Aristotle, and other sages, and asserted that Pilate had caused a
portrait of Christ to be made. In the same spirit of pantheistic
hero-worship the emperor Alexander Severus (A.D. 222-235) set
up in his domestic chapel for his adoration the images of
Abraham, Orpheus, Apollonius, and Christ.
(2) After Constantine, the first step towards images in the
orthodox church was a change in the conception of the outward
form of Christ. The persecuted church had filled its eye with the
humble and suffering servant-form of Jesus, and found therein
consolation and strength in her tribulation. The victorious church
saw the same Lord in heavenly glory on the right hand of the
Father, ruling over his enemies. The one conceived Christ in his
310
Page 477 of 524
state of humiliation (but not in his state of exaltation), as even

repulsive, or at least having no form nor comeliness; taking
too literally the description of the suffering servant of God in Isa.
52:14 and Isa. 53:2, Isa. 53:3. The other beheld in him the ideal
of human beauty, fairer than the children of men, with grace
poured into his lips; after the Messianic interpretation of
Psa_65:3.
(3) This alone, however, did not warrant images of Christ. For,
in the first place, authentic accounts of the personal appearance
of Jesus were lacking; and furthermore it seemed incompetent to
human art duly to set forth Him in Whom the whole fulness of
the Godhead and of perfect sinless humanity dwelt in unity.
(4) On this point two opposite tendencies developed themselves,
giving occasion in time to the violent and protracted image
controversies, until, at the seventh ecumenical council at Nice in
787, the use and adoration of images carried the day in the
church.
(a) On the one side, the prejudices of the ante-Nicene
period against images in painting or sculpture continued
alive, through fear of approach to pagan idolatry, or of
lowering Christianity into the province of sense. But
generally the hostility was directed only against images
of Christ; and from it, as Neander justly observes, we
are by no means to infer the rejection of all
representations of religious subjects; for images of
Christ encounter objections peculiar to themselves.
(b) The church historian Eusebius declared himself in
the strongest manner against images of Christ in a letter
to the empress Constantia (the widow of Licinius and
sister of Constantine), who had asked him for such an
image. Christ, says he, has laid aside His earthly
servant-form, and Paul exhorts us to cleave no longer to
the sensible; (Comp. 2Co_5:16) and the transcendent
glory of His heavenly body cannot be conceived nor
represented by man; besides, the second commandment
forbids the making to ourselves any likeness of anything
in heaven or in earth. He had taken away from a lady an
image of Christ and of Paul, lest it should seem as if
Christians, like the idolaters, carried their God about in
images. Believers ought rather to fix their mental eye,
above all, upon the divinity of Christ, and, for this
purpose, to purify their hearts; since only the pure in
heart shall see God. The same Eusebius, however,
relates of Constantine, without the slightest disapproval,
that, in his Christian zeal, he caused the public
monuments in the forum of the new imperial city to be
311
Page 478 of 524
adorned with symbolical representations of Christ, to

wit, with figures of the good Shepherd and of Daniel in
the lions den. He likewise tells us, that the woman of the
issue of blood, after her miraculous cure (Mat_9:20),
and out of gratitude for it, erected before her dwelling in
Caesarea Philippi (Paneas) two brazen statues, the
figure of a kneeling woman, and of a venerable man
(Christ) extending his hand to help her, and that he had
seen these statues with his own eyes at Paneas. In the
same place he speaks also of pictures (probably
Carpocratian) of Christ and the apostles Peter and Paul,
which he had seen, and observes that these cannot be
wondered at in those who were formerly heathen, and
who had been accustomed to testify their gratitude
towards their benefactors in this way.
(c) The narrow fanatic Epiphanius of Cyprus ( 403)
also seems to have been an opponent of images. For
when he saw the picture of Christ or a saint on the altarcurtain in Anablatha, a village of Palestine, he tore
away the curtain, because it was contrary to the
Scriptures to hang up the picture of a man in the church,
and he advised the officers to use the cloth for winding
the corpse of some poor person. This arbitrary conduct,
however, excited great indignation, and Epiphanius
found himself obliged to restore the injury to the village
church by another curtain.
312
Page 479 of 524
X.
Pelagianism
A. Introduction to Pelagianism
1. The starting-point of Pelagians exhortations was the natural
moral ability of man.
2. When confronted, as he speedily was, with the Augustinian:
Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou wilt
(Aug. don. pers. 20), it but confirmed him in his theory and led him
to express himself the more positively.
3. Two fundamentally different conceptions of Christianity were
here brought into contact. The hitherto unharmonized doctrines of
mans free will and the influence of divine grace presented a
serious problem
B. Figures of Pelagianism
1. Pelagius
a) Of his early life, we know almost nothing at all.
b) Even his native land is uncertain
(1) Generally he is regarded as a Briton
(2) According to Augustine he had the surname of Brito (Epistle
to Paulinus, 186, Opp. II, 663)
(a) This would mean that he was from Britany
(b) Little Briton
(3) Called the same in Prosper's Chronicon (Jerome's Works,
VIII, 835).
(a) (However, he states that the heresy came from
Britian (Contra Collatorem, c.21).
(b) (Hence, a Briton may have included more than just
Britany.
313
Page 480 of 524
(4) Vossius states that he was a Scotsman, as does Jerome, who

ridicules him as a Scotsman (Praef. In Jerem. Lib. I and III)-"being stuffed with Scottish porridge"
(5) H. Zimmer states that the Scots at this time were really the
Irish (Pelagius in Ireland, 20).
c) Pelagius was a monk; and therefore a layman

(Orossius and Zosimus).
d) He did not, however, belong to a monastic
community (Augustine, De. Gest. Pel. c. 35).
e) Pelagius was tall in stature and portly in appearance
(Jerome, Loc. Cit.)
f) Around the beginning of the 5th Century, he came to
Rome.
g) His character seemed to be good
(1) (1) Augustine writes to Paulinus, pastor of Nola in 417,
"That you regard Pelagius as a beloved servant of God, I know"
(Ep. 185).
(2) (2) "I have read some writings of Pelagius, a holy man, as I
hear, and a Christian on no small progress," says Augustine (De
Pec Mer. III.1).
h) Around 405, Chrysostom said in the fourth letter to

Olympia, "I have been sorely troubled respecting the
monk Pelagius."
i) At Rome, Pelagius wrote his commentary on the
epistles of Paul (before the destruction of Rome in 410).
(1) This epistle maintains the fundamental doctrines of the
heresy of Pelagianism
(2) Augustine came into contact with him.
(3) May have learned his doctrines from Rufinus.
(a) In the Synod of Carthage, Caelestius said this in his
own defense (Aug. de Pec. Orig. 3).
314
Page 481 of 524
(b) Eastern fathers prior to Augustine held to no

original sin (see Wiggers, 43).
315
Page 482 of 524
2. Caelestius
a) A monk
b) Some have called him an Irishman, Scotsman, and a
Campanian
c) He was a lawyer and of rich family
d) Younger than Pelagius
e) While Pelagius sought to avoid trouble, the younger
Caelestius zealously defended Pelagius's teaching
f) Jerome says, "Although a scholar of Pelagius, he is
yet the master and the leader of the whole host" (Letter
to Clesiphon, 415).
g) First to attack the notion of a propagated sin in his
book "Contra Traducem Peccati."
h) Augustine states, "What is the difference between
Pelagius and Caelestius, but that the latter was the more
open, the former more concealed, this the more wilfull,
that the more deceitful, or at least this the more frank,
that the more cunning" (Original Sin, c. 12).
3. Julian
a) One of the most famous of Pelagius' disciples and
keen opponent of Augustine
b) Married early, was a reader within the church, and
then a minister soon rose to be a deacon and then an
episcopal (Cf. Jul. III.21).
c) Was at Rome and was orthodox until Innocent died
d) By 418, he was a decided Pelagian
C. Sources of Pelagianism
1. Writings of Pelagius
a) Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul
316
Page 483 of 524
(1) Before 410.

(2) Commentary on Romans was mistakenly identified with
Jerome for some time.
b) Letter or book to the nun Demetrias, De Virginitate

(1) Written around 413
(2) Was also attributed to Jerome
(3) However, Augustine presserves a copy under Pelagius' name
(De Gratia Christi c. 37).
c) A Confession of Faith
(1) Sent to Innocent, pastor at Rome, in 417.
(2) Often cited by Augustine
d) Epistle to Celantiam Matronam de Rationone

(1) Found among Jerome's works (Ep. 148)
(2) Contains rules of living for Celantia, a wife of a rich man.
317
Page 484 of 524
2. Augustine's Works against the Pelagians

a) 412: De Peccatorum Meretis et Remissione (Of Sin,
Merit, and Forgiveness); de Baptismo Parvulorum, ad
Marcellinum, De Spiritu et Litera, ad Marcellinum Liber
Unus.
b) 415: De Natura et Gratia (Of Nature and Grace),
against the Definitions of Caelestius
c) 417: De Gestis Pelagii ad Aurelium Episcopium
d) 418: De Gratia Christi, De Peccato Originali contra
Pelagium et Caelestium Libri du.
e) 419: First book of Nuptiis et Concupiscentia; De
Animia et ejus Origine
f) 420: four books answering epistles of Pelagius
g) 421: Six books against Julian
h) 426 and 427: De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio, De
Correptione et Gratia [Rebuke and Grace]
i) 428 and 429: De Praedestinatione Sanctorum
j) Various letters
3. Public Documents
a) Acts of Councils
b) Civil Ordinances
D. Theology of Pelagianism
1. Introduction
a) Adam was created mortal, and would have died,
whether he had sinned or not.
b) Infants are born in the same state in which Adam was
before the Fall
318
Page 485 of 524
c) Men neither die in consequence of Adam's death or

fall, nor rise again in consequence of Christ's
resurrection
d) Infants, though not baptized, have eternal life
e) The law is good as a means of salvation as the
gospel
f) Even before the advent of Christ, there were men
who lived without sin
2. Original Sin
a) A propagation of sin by generation, is by no means
to admitted. The physical propagation of sin, can be
admitted only when we grant the propagation of the soul
by generation. But this is a heretical error. Consequently
there is no original sin; and nothing in the moral nature
of man has been corrupted by Adam's sin.
(1) "They are insane who teach, that the sin of Adam comes on
us by propagation (per traducem)" (Commntary on Romans 7:8).
(2) "The soul does not come by propagation, but only the flesh,
and so this only has the propagated sin (traduem peccati), and
this only deserves punishment. But it is unjust, that the soul born
today, that has not come from the substance of Adam, should
bear so old and extrinsic a sin" (De Pec. Mer. III.3).
(3) "All good and evil, by which we are praise or blameworthy,
do not originate together with us, but are done by us. We are
born capable of each, but not filled with either. And as we are
produced without virtue, so are we also without virtue; and
before the action of his own free will, there is in many only what
God made" (De Pec. Orig. 13).
b) Adam's transgression was imputed to himself, but

not to his posterity. A reckoning of Adam's sin as that of
his posterity, would conflict with the divine rectitude.
Hence bodily death is no punishment of Adam's imputed
sin, but a necessity of nature.
(1) It can in no way be conceded that God, who pardons a man's
own sins, may impute to him the sins of another" (De Pec. Mer.
III.3).
319
Page 486 of 524
(2) "How can the sin be imputed by God to the man, which he
has not know as his own" (De Nat. et Gr. 30).
(3) "Children, so long as they are children, that is, before they
do anything by their own will, cannot be punishable" (Julian, Op.
Imp. II.42).
(4) "According to the Apostle, by one man, sin entered into the
world, and death by sin: because the world has regarded him as a
criminal and as one condemned to perpetual death. But death has
come up on all men, because the same sentence reaches all
transgressors of the succeeding period; yet, neither holy men nor
the innocent have had to endure this death, but only such as have
imitated him by transgression" (Julian, Ibid., II. 66).
(5) "The words--till thou return to earth from which thou wast
taken, for earth thou art and to earth shalt thou returnbelong
not to the curse, but are rather words of consolation to the man.
The sufferings, toils, and griefs shall not endure forever, but
shall one day end. If the dissolution of the body was part of the
punishment of sin, it would not have been said-- thou shalt return
to the earth, for earth thou art; but, thou shalt return to the earth,
because thou hast sinned and broken by commandment" (Julian,
Ibid., VI. 27).
c) Now, as sin itself has no more passed over to

Adam's posterity, than has the punishment of sin, so
every man, in respect to his moral nature, is born in just
the same state in which Adam was first created.
(1) "Not only are Adam' descendants not weaker than he, but
they are even filled more commands, since he neglected to fulfill
so much as one" (De Nat. et Gr. 21).
(2) "Human nature is adorned in infants with the dowry of
innocence" (Jul. III.4).
(3) "Freewill is as yet in its original uncorrupted state, and
nature is to be regarded as innocent in every one, before his own
will can show itself" (Julian, Op. Imp. II.20).
(4) "While nature was yet new, and a long continued habit of
sinning had not spread as it were a mist over human reasons,
nature was left without a law, to which the Lord, when it was
oppressed by too many vices and stained the mist of ignorance,
applied the file of the law, in order that, by its frequent
admonitions, nature might be cleansed again and return to its
lustre. And there is no difficulty of doing well, but the long
continued habit of vice, which has contaminated us from youth
320
Page 487 of 524
up, and corrupted us from many years, and holds us afterwards

so bound and subjugated to herself, that she seems, in a measure,
to have the force of nature" (Eighth Chapter of letter to
Demestrias).
d) From this position we can understand the doctrinal

teaching concerning sin.
(1) This consists, as a matter of course, only in the separate
acts of the will. There is no such thing as a sinful character
or a sinful nature.
(2) Otherwise, sin would not be sinnot something which
can be avoided; and God could not charge sin to our
account as guilt and punish it (Caelest. in Aug. perf. grat.
2:1; 6:15).
(3) Since sin cannot have been created by God, it is not a
thing (res), but an act (actus) (ib. 2:4). It is a fault, not of
nature, but of the will (in Aug. de pecc. orig. 6:6; op. imp. i.
48).
(4) Mans peculiar nature, the justice of God, and the
reality of sin, alike forbid us to speak of an original sin. If
such were the nature of sin, a deliverance from it would be
impossible: Even if we should wish not to be able not to
sin, we are not able not to be able not to sin, because no
will is able to free itself from that which is proved to be
inseparably implanted in (its) nature (Pel. in Aug. nat. et
grat. 49, 50, 57, 58).
(5) If original sin be contracted by the generation of
original nativity it cannot be taken away from infants,
since that which is innate continues to the very end of him
to whom it has adhered from the occasion of his ancestors
(Jul. op. imp. i. 61).
(6) Inasmuch as sin consists only in separate acts of the
will, the idea of its propagation by the act of generation is
absurd. Adam was certainly the first sinner, but such a
connection between his sin and ours cannot be established.
The sins and guilt of parents no more pass over to their
children than do those of children to their parents (op. imp.
iii. 14, 19f.). If their own sins do not harm parents after
their conversion, much more can they not through the
parents injure their children (Pel. in Marius Com. 2:10).
321
Page 488 of 524
(7) The view of Augustine is habitually referred to by

Julian as Manichaeism (e.g., op. imp. vi. 10: Your
doctrine differs in nothing from the Manichans). In
contravention of Gods Word, it pronounces marriage and
the desire for carnal intercourse sinful (de nupt. et concup.
i. 1, 2; ii. 1:2). Julian refuses to recognize Augustines
distinction between marriage (nuptiae) and concupiscence:
Natural sin within cannot be asserted without defamation
of sexual intercourse (op. imp. v. 5).
(8) Adams little, childish sin (op. imp. vi. 21) is an act of
disobedience which has only a temporary significance for
him, i.e., until his conversion (op. imp. vi. 11f.), and none
at all for us. Adams death was not a punishment for sin,
but only conformity to a law of nature (Aug. de gestis Pel.
11:23f.; op. imp. ii. 64, 93f., but also vi. 30). Accordingly,
new-born children are sinless, and baptism cannot in their
case have any sin-remitting effect (vid. Caelest. in Aug.
pecc. orig. 6:6; Marius Lib. subnot. praef. v.; also Jul. op.
imp. i. 53: He bestows his gifts according to the capacity
of the recipients).
(a) . It is of historical and theological interest to
observe that the Pelagians were, on the one hand,
charged with undermining infant baptism (Council
of Carthage, vid. Aug. ep. 157:3.22. Innocent in
Aug. c. duas epp. Pel. ii. 4:7: "They seem to me to
wish to annihilate baptism itself")
(b) And that they were, on the other hand, very
anxious to free themselves from the charge (Aug.
pecc. orig. 19:21; c. duas epp. Pel. iv. 2:2); the
confession of faith of Pelagius and Julian,
Caelestus, op. imp. iii. 146; i. 53; HAHN, Bibl. ed 3,
294, in reference to which Augustine indeed says:
"You fear to say, Let them not be baptized, lest not
only your faces be defiled by the spittle of men, but
your heads softened by the sandals of women" (c.
Jul. iii. 5:11).
(9) The passage, Romans 5:12, merely asserts that sin has
passed from the first man upon other men, not by

propagation, but by imitation (Aug. de peccator. mentis et
remiss, i. 9:9); or the term does not mean
absolutely all (Aug. de nat. et grat. 41:48).
322
Page 489 of 524
(10)
This brings us to the Pelagian explanation of the
universality of sin, which all experience testifies. It is attributed
to imitation, the long practice (longus usus) of sinning and the
long habit (longa consuetudo) of vices (Pelag. ad Demetr. 8).
For no other cause occasions for us the difficulty of doing good
than the long custom of vices, which has infected us from
childhood, and gradually, through many years, corrupted us, and
thus holds us afterward bound and addicted to itself, so that it
seems in some way to have the force of nature (ib. cf. 17 fin.).
To this must be added the natural sensuous and worldly character
of man (Pel. in Aug. de gr. Chr. 10:11).
(11)
This line of thought reveals the final conclusion reached
by the naive Pelagianism of the Greeks: There are really no
sinners, but only separate wicked acts. A religious conception of
sin is hereby excluded, and nothing more is needed than the
effort to perform separate good deeds. But just as truly is a
religious conception of the history of the race impossible, since
there are no sinful men, but only wicked acts of individual men.
3. Freedom of the Will

a) God has commanded man to do that which is good;
he must, therefore, have the ability, to do it.
(1) That is to say, man is free, i.e., it is possible for him to
decide for or against that which is good: But we say that man is
(always) able both to sin and not to sin, so that we confess
ourselves to have always a free will (Pel. in his confession).
(2) Freedom of the will consists in the possibility of
committing sin or of abstaining from sin (Jul. in Aug. op. imp,
i. 78). This possibility has distinguished man ever since the
creation: For God, wishing to endow (his) rational creature with
the gift of voluntary good and with the power of free will, by
implanting in man the possibility of either part, made that to be
his own which he may choose, in order that, being by nature
capable of good and evil, he might choose either and bend his
will to either the one or the other (Pel. ad Dem. 3, cf. de lib. arb.
i., ii., in Aug. de gr. Chr. 18:19; 4:5). It, therefore, constitutes his
essential nature, and is accordingly inamissible.
(3) Whether I will do good or do evil is a matter of my free will,
but the freedom, the possibility of this free will and of works,
is from God: By no means can I be without the possibility of
good (Pel. lib. arb. iii. in Aug. de gr. Chr. 4:5).
(4) The ideas of Pelagius move within the limits of this scheme
of freedom of the will, a scheme alike insufficient as seen from
323
Page 490 of 524
the religious or the moral point of view. It follows from it, that
there is no such thing as a moral development of the individual.
Good and evil are located in the separate acts of men. The
separate works finally decide whether a man is good or evil. But
it is possible for one, by a free use of the possibility of welldoing, to lead a holy life. This natural goodness (bonum
naturae), historically regarded, made very many heathen
philosophers capable of the most lofty virtues; how much more,
then, may Christians expect from it? (Pel. ad Dem. 3:7).
(5) There is no shrinking back from the inference, that an
entirely sinless life is possible: I say that man is able to be
without sin, but I do not say that man is without sin (Pel. in
Aug. nat. et grat. 78; de gr. Chr. 4:5). Despite the cautious
statement of the passage cited, this declaration was very
sincerely interpreted by the Pelagians; see Aug. de gest. Pel.
6:16; ep. 156 (letter of Hilary from Syracuse to Augustine).
Caelest. definitiones in Aug. de perfect, justit., and the Pelagian
in Caspari, pp. 5:114ff. (ep. de possibilitate non peccandi).
324
Page 491 of 524
b) "In the freedom to good and evil, consists the

superiority of the rational soul" in this honor, the dignity
of our nature. Hence the best obtain praise and reward;
and there would be no virtue in him that preserves, if he
had not the power of changing evil" (Letter to Demetrias,
c. 2).
c) "God has endowed man with power of being what he
will, so that he might be naturally capable of good and
evil, and turn his will to either of them. He has imparted
to us the capacity of doing evil, merely that we may
perform his will by our own will. The very ability to do
evil, is therefore good. It makes good to be performed,
not by constraint, but voluntarily" (Ibid. c. 3).
d) "We say that man always is able to as well to sin as
not to sin, by which we always confess, that we have a
free will" (Confession of Faith).
e) "When the Lord says, If the Son shall make you free,
ye shall be free indeed, he promises pardon to the guilty
who, by sinning, have lost not the freedom of will, but
the consciousness of rectitude. But freewill is as much
freewill after sins, as it was before sins. For by its
operation, it comes to pass, that the most men abandon
the hidden things of disgrace, and the filth of vices
being cast away, they are adorned with the insignia of
virtues" (Julian, Op. Im. I. 91).
4. Grace
a) The religious and moral superficiality of this way of
regarding the subject is very plainly manifest in the
doctrine of grace.
(1) The necessity of grace for the attainment of salvation is
not denied.
(2) On the contrary, Pelagius has declared that grace is
needed not only for every hour or for every moment, but
even for every separate act of ours (Aug. de gr. Chr. 2:2;
7:8; 32:36; de gest. Pel. 14:31; Pel. ep. ad Dem. 3 fin.; Jul.
in op. imp. iii. 106; i. 52).
b) Over against this affirmation of the help of grace,
or divine assistance, Caelestius, indeed, declares in
325
Page 492 of 524
his fashion, that the will is not free if it needs the aid of
God, and that our victory is not from the assistance of
God, but from (our) free will (Aug. de gest. Pel. 18:42).
(1) This is but a blunt statement of the logical inference
from the position of Pelagius. The latter wrote: grace is
given in order that what is commanded by God may be
more easily fulfilled (Aug. de gr. Chr. 26:27), from which
Augustine rightly infers: that even without this, that which
is divinely commanded can be done, although less easily.
(2) What do the Pelagians then understand by grace?
Really nothing more than the good of nature, or the
endowment with free will, i.e., the possibility of doing
good or evil. So Pelagius distinctly expressed himself at the
council at Diospolis: this he calls the grace of God, that
our nature, when it was created, received the possibility of
not sinning, since it was created with a free will (in Aug.
de gest. Pel. 10:22).
(3) The endowment with reason (Pel. ad Dem. 2) and free
will is primarily grace. This was sufficient in the primitive
age of the race (ib. 4ff. 8). But when ignorance and the
habit of sinning gained the upper hand among men, God
gave the law (Pel. ad Dem. 8), and again, when the law
proved too weak to break the power of evil habit, he gave
the teachings and example of Christ (Aug. pecc. orig.
26:30).
(4) Pelagius, indeed, writes: We, who have been
instructed through the grace of Christ and born again to
better manhood, who have been expiated and purified by
his blood, and incited by his example to perfect
righteousness, ought to be better than those who were
before the law, and better also than those who were under
the law (ad Dem. 8); but the whole argument of this letter,
where the topic is simply the knowledge of the law as a
means for the promotion of virtue (9, 10, 13, 16, 20, 23), as
well as the declaration, that God opens our eyes and reveals
the future when he illuminates us with the multiform and
ineffable gift of celestial grace (Aug. de gr. Chr. 7:8),
proves that for him that the assistance of God consists,
after all, only in instruction.
(5) Augustine is correct in maintaining that, in addition to
nature and the law, it is only the teaching and example of
326
Page 493 of 524
Christ which are thought of by Pelagius as embraced in the

term, grace (de gr. Chr. 41:45; c. duas epp. Pel. iv. 5:11).
Briefly and summarily I reply to thee: He is a Christian in
whom are to be found those three things which ought to be
in all Christians: knowledge, faith, and obedience
knowledge, by which God is known; faith, by which (our)
acceptance is believed; obedience, by which the
compliance of servitude is rendered to the one believed
(ep. de possibil. non peccandi, 5:1. Casp., p. 119).
(a) For the Pelagian idea of following Christ (also
de vita christ. 6, 14; Jul. in op. imp. ii. 146; ii. 223;
Aug. de gr. Chr. 2:2), vid. Caspari, pp. 5, 20, 40,
121. Julian emphasized the truth that we are by
Christ incited to a responsive love toward God:
"God, as is well known, did whatever he did toward
us with inestimable love, in order that we might,
though late, love him in return" (op. imp. i. 94).
(b) Pelagius could not clearly explain wherein
consisted the unutterable impartation of grace
which he maintained. He mentions, indeed, in
reference to Rom. 4:7, the forgiveness of sins ("in
addition, faith is first imputed for righteousness in
order that he may be absolved from the past and
justified in the present, and prepared for future
works of faith," Mi. 30:688).
(c) But, under the Pelagian theory of sin, the
significance of forgiveness is very slight, the more
so since such forgiveness applies only to the sins
committed before the renewal wrought in baptism
(Aug. c. duas ep. Pel. iii. 8:24; iv. 7:17; de gr. Chr.
34:39).
(6) Christianity is law, and, as compared with the Old
Testament, an enlarged law (ib. p. 71). It is, therefore, good
works which decide whether anyone is good: For the wicked
are so called from their wicked works; thus, on the contrary, the
good are so named from their good works (de vit. chr. 10). The
Christian reads the word of God as a law, which requires to be
not only known, but also fulfilled (Pel. ad Dem. 23). He acts,
therefore, in accordance with it, and seeks to extinguish habit
by habit, since it is habit which nourishes either vices or
virtues (ib. 17:13). He abandons the imitation of Adam, and
lays hold upon the imitation of the holiness of Christ (op. imp.
ii. 146). This doctrine of grace is in entire harmony with the
327
Page 494 of 524
theory of sin. Sin is overcome through free will enlightened by

the reason, or by the giving of the law. This, properly speaking,
is grace. That which is occasionally said of atonement through
the blood of Christ, of the forgiveness of sins, and renewal
through baptism, is inconsistent, and beyond the range of
Pelagian ideas.
5. Summary
a) Instead of attempting a summary, I cite in conclusion
the six propositions into which the first antagonist of
Pelagianism, Paulinus of Milan, compressed the
Pelagian doctrine.
b) Adam was born mortal, and would have died,
whether he had sinned or not sinned. The sin of Adam
injured only himself, and not the human race. Children
who are now born are in the state in which Adam was
before the fall. Neither does the whole human race die
through the death or fall of Adam, nor does the whole
human race arise from the dead through the
resurrection of Christ. The law sends into the kingdom
of heaven in the same way as does the gospel. Men
were impeccable, i.e., without sin, even before the
coming of the Lord (in Marius Common. 1:1; cf. 1
subnot. praef. 5).
E. Condemnation of Pelagianism
1. Condemned at Carthage, 416
a) Second Carthaginian Council on Pelagianism
b) Sixty-eight bishops
c) It was resolves to put under anathema Pelagius and
Caelestius
d) Two doctrines condemned
(1) Man is in a state, by his own power, to live right and keep
the commandments of God, showing themselves the opponents
of divine grace
(2) Children are free from corruption so they need not be
baptized.
328
Page 495 of 524
2. Condemned at Synod of Mila, 416

a) Accepted the condemnation of Carthage
b) Errors opposed, but names not mentioned
3. 3. Condemned at Rome
a) Innocent condemned
b) But later justified by Zosimus
4. Condemned at General Council of Africa-- Carthage, 418
F. Augustines Doctrine of Sin and Grace
1. The first utterances of Augustine upon this subject remind us of
the view of Ambrose. Indeed, they are even more moderate than
the latter.
a) The human race is a mass of sin (l. de 83 quaest.
68:3, 4). No one, not even new-born children, is free
from original sin (peccatum originale, conf. i. 7; v. 9; ix.
6).
b) Concupiscence or lust, ignorance, and death, reign
in the human race (qu. 66:1; lib. arb. i. 4:9ff.; iii. 20:55:
lust comes from a perverse will; conf. viii. 5:10),
because it was just, that after our nature had sinned
we should be born animal and carnal (qu. 66:3). But our
nature sinned in Adam (66:35; lib. arb. iii. 20:56). Yet
Adam sinned as a free man. Evil in the world is a result
of freedom, as Augustine very frequently reminds the
Manichans (vid. esp. de. lib. arb.).
c) The law can accomplish nothing toward releasing
from the state of sin, since it can only convince of sin
(66:1, 3). There is need of grace. And since no one is
able to will unless admonished and called, either
internally where no man may see, or externally through
the spoken sermon or some other visible signs, it
comes to pass that God works in us even to will itself
(68:5). But, although grace here produces the will (to do
good), yet Augustine thinks: But God would not have
mercy unless the will had preceded, and says the
reason why God has mercy upon some and rejects
329
Page 496 of 524
others lies in the most hidden merits of the former,

since God is not unrighteous (ib. 68:5, 4).
d) Of fallen man, it is said: It was fitting that God
should not only not hinder, but should even assist him
in willing (lib. arb. iii. 20:55). The capacity for striving
after salvation remained to his will (ib. iii. 22:65). He is
able of himself to believe and to will, but God must give
him the power to do good (exposit. quarundam proposit.
ex ep. ad Rom. 61; cf. retract, i. 23:3; de praedest. 3:7).
The form of doctrinal conception may here be
summarized as follows: Man has, through the fall of
Adam, become subject to ignorance, lust, and death. In
response to the call (vocatio) of God, he is indeed able
to believe and to will that which is good, but it is only
grace that works in him the power to perform it.
2. But, under renewed study of the Epistle to the Romans (vid.
quaest. ad Simplician. i. quaest 2), Augustine revised this theory
(vid. remarks, praed. sanct. 3:8).
a) The subject there under discussion is the election of
Jacob, according to Rom. 9. Works can in this instance
not be the ground of the election, nor can the divine
prescience of the merits of the faith of Jacob (1. c. qu.
2:2.ff.).
b) According to Rom. 9:16 and Phil. 2:13, the resolution
to save lies solely in the mercy and good pleasure of
God. Hence salvation must be attributed solely to grace.
It has its beginning in man in faith. Even this faith is a
work wrought by gracenamely, through the divine call
(10). But to this it might be objected, that grace of itself
is not sufficient, but that the human will must be
combined with it. To this Augustine replies: But this is
manifest, that we will in vain, unless God have mercy;
but I do not know how it can be said, that God has
mercy in vain unless we will. For if God has mercy, we
also will; our willing belongs to the same mercy (12).
c) Therefore, it depends solely upon the omnipotent will
of God, whether anyone shall will or not will. When this
idea is combined with that of the divine call, it results in
the discrimination of two classes: the elect (electi) who
are suitably (congruenter) called, whom God calls in
whatever way was suitable for them; and the called
330
Page 497 of 524
(vocati), to whom the call indeed came, but because it

was of such a character that they could not be moved by
it and were not suitable (apti!) to accept it, they could be
said to be called indeed, but not chosen (electi) (13).
That Esau was not chosen is, therefore, because God
did not have mercy upon him, and did not effectually
call him (14). There can be no thought here of any
unrighteousness in God, since no one has a right to be
delivered from the mass of sin. But the judgments and
ways of God are inscrutable (Rom. 11:23).
d) God therefore laments with justice and mercy (16).
It is, hence, not the willing and the conduct of man
which lead to salvation, but solely the grace of God,
which has mercy upon some and effectually calls them,
but leaves others to their merited fate. It is interesting to
observe here that the peculiar effect of grace is held to
be, not the awakening of faith, but an upright life: But
grace justifies, in order that the justified man may be
able to live justly (righteously): the first thing, therefore,
is grace; the second, good works (3, cf. 12: the will of
man alone does not suffice, that we may live righteously
and rightly). This may be understood in the light of
Augustines personal Christian experience. He learned
to lay hold upon the grace of God, not because it
awakened in him, as in Luther, the assurance of faith,
but because it overcame his unwillingness to lead a
Christian life. He apprehended it as he read the
exhortation to moral conduct in Rom. 13:13f.: Neither
did I wish to read any further, nor was there any need;
for immediately with the end of this sentence, the light
of assurance being, as it were, poured into my heart, all
the shades of doubt were dissipated (conf. viii. 12:29,
cf. 30: Thou didst convert me to Thyself, that I might
desire neither wife nor any other hope of this world;
also the prayer x. 1).
3. These principles remained as normative for the exhaustive
treatment given to the subject by Augustine in opposition to
Pelagianism.
a) God created man good and upright. He knew nothing
of concupiscence. His will was positively good. Being
thus good, he was in consequence truly free. God
made (man) therefore, as it is written, upright, and hence
of a good will . Therefore the decision of the will is
331
Page 498 of 524
truly free whenever it does not serve vices and sins

(civ. dei, xiv. 11:1; 10; op. imp. v. 61). In this condition
man served God, and found supreme satisfaction in
doing so. The body meanwhile, with all its impulses,
served the soul, and reason reigned in man (civ. dei, xiv.
24:1; 26 init.; nupt. et conc. ii. 15:30; pecc. merit. ii.
22:36). But this condition was one of freedom: It should
be within his choice, either that he should always wish
to be in this (good will) or that he should not always
thus wish, but should change from it to an evil will
without compulsion from any source (op. imp. v. 61).
The divine assistance (adjutorium) was within his reach,
by means of which he was able, but not compelled, to
persevere in the good. This was the first grace
(corrept. et grat. 11:31). There was a posse non peccare,
but not a non posse peccare, and, in connection with
this, a posse non mori, but not a non posse mori (ib.
12:33; op. imp. vi. 16), and hence: He had a possibility,
but not a necessity, of sinning (op. imp. vi. 5). Man was,
therefore, created with an inclination of the will toward
the good and was by God preserved in it, but in such a
way that, through his freedom, it was possible for his
inclination to be turned in another direction.
b) All of this Adam lost in the fall. Since he
transgressed the commandment of God, which he might
so easily have fulfilled, his will became evil. Pride was
the cause of it. Man was not willing to obey God, but
wished to be his own master. But, since man refuses
obedience to God, God assigns it as his punishment,
that his flesh shall cease to serve the spirit, that
ignorance shall take possession of his soul, and the
potential mortality of body and soul shall become a
reality. An evil will preceded, by which credence was
given to the wile of the serpent, and evil concupiscence
followed, by which he stood gaping before the forbidden
food (op. imp. i. 71; vid. also civ. dei, xiv. 11ff.; xiii.
3:13; nat. et grat. 25:28). Adam has not merely done a
single act, but has become a sinner.
4. This character of Adam has now passed over to his posterity.
a) Through the punitive decree of God, Adam has
become a different man, and human nature has thereby
been changed: Nature (was) vitiated by sin: our nature,
there transformed for the worse, not only became a
332
Page 499 of 524
sinner, but also begets sinners; and yet that languor in

which the power of living aright has been lost is
certainly not nature, but defect (nupt. et conc. ii. 34:57;
8:20; c. Jul. iii. 24:53; op. imp. iii. 11; ii. 163; civ. dei, xiii.
3; cf. in Joh. tr. 44:1: defect grew, inolevit, instead of
nature). But now all men were in Adam: All men were
that one man (pecc. mer. et rem. i. 10:11); hence,
according to Rom. 5:12 ( J == in quo): in Adam all
then sinned (ib. iii. 17:4; nupt. et conc. ii. 5:15; op. imp.
ii. 176). They were all, indeed, contained in him. From
this it follows:
(1) That his moral character becomes theirs.
(2) That the penalty pronounced upon him (of being subject to
concupiscence and death) passes over also upon them. We have
his sin, and are burdened with his guilt. Wherefore
condemnation in view of the magnitude of that sin has changed
nature for the worse, so that what preceded penally in the first
sinning men, follows naturally in other men in birth . But what
the parent man is, that is also the offspring man . To such an
extent was human nature vitiated and changed in him that it
should have to endure the disobedience of concupiscence
warring in its members, and be subject to the necessity of death,
and thus that which sprung from fault became penalty, i.e., he
should generate those subject to sin and death (civ. dei, xiii. 3,
13, 14; op. imp. iv. 104; vi. 22; i. 47). Thus, in Adam the whole
human race has become a mass of perdition and is condemned
in him. For all men were thus seminally in the loins of Adam
when he was condemned, and, therefore, he was not condemned
without them (op. imp. v. 12). From this no one is exempt, not
even new-born children (c. Jul. i. 6:22; op. imp. i. 56; iii. 154; cf.
the scriptural proof in pecc. mer. et rem. 1:27:40ff.). This is
attested by the sufferings which the righteous God appoints for
men, and especially by the sufferings of children (pecc. mer. et
rem. iii. 10:18) and by exorcism at baptism (c. Jul. vi. 5:11). As
original sin simply as such brings condemnation, it must have
this effect even in the case of children, although there is meted
out to them the lightest condemnation of all (pecc. mer. et rem.
i. 12:15; 16:21).
(3) From all the above it follows, that there is in us a necessity
of sinning (op. imp. i. 106; v. 61; perf. just. 4:9). Of this life, it
is said: whether mortal life or vital death, I know not (conf. i.
67; cf. civ. dei, xiii. 10 init.). But, above all else, the absolute
unfitness of man for salvation must be emphasized. It is the
energy with which Augustine maintains this idea, embracing all
human activity under sin and guilt (the virtues of the heathen
being but splendid vices; cf. civ. dei, v. 12ff.; xix. 25) which
333
Page 500 of 524
marks his advance beyond Ambrose, and constitutes the

religious significance of his theory. That nothing good and no
salvation can be found except in Christ was the thought
impressed upon the church by these discussions.
5. Original sin is regarded in the light of real sin, as well as of guilt.

a) It is sin, and is a divine penalty. It is propagated
among men, not in the way of imitation (c. Jul. vi. 24:75),
but by generation. Through one man it entered the
world, and it passes through all men (pecc. mer. et rem.
i. 12:33). Although marriage is a moral good (pecc. orig.
37:42; 33:38; though celibacy is to be preferred, vid. op.
imp. v. 17), yet generation never occurs without sinful
concupiscence, as is proved clearly enough by the
sense of shame associated with the act (nupt. etconc. ii.
5:14), and the concupiscence passes over upon the
children. This is the case even when the parents are
regenerate, as from the seed of an olive springs
nothing but a wild olive (ib. ii. 34:58).
b) Yet, when it shall come to the act of generation, it is
not possible that allowable and honorable intercourse
should occur without the burning of lust, so that what
springs from reason might be transmitted, and not what
springs from lust . Of this concupiscence of the flesh,
which I grant is in the regenerate not imputed as sin
(previously described as venial sins), but which is not
found in nature except from sinof this concupiscence
of the flesh, I say whatever offspring is born is by
virtue of its origin (originaliter) bound to sin (nupt. et
conc. 1:24:27). There is a defect (vitium) of the seed
(ib. ii. 8:20). In the question of Traducianism or
Creationism, Augustine could reach no conclusion (de
anima et ejus origine, ii. 14:20; 15:21; retract, i. 1:3).
6. In harmony with what we have before observed, the words of
Augustine just cited indicate clearly that, in his view, righteousness
is a living well and rightly.
a) This gives us a clue to his conception of the nature
of original sin. It cannot be, as in Luther, unbelief.
According to Augustine, it is above all, evil or carnal
concupiscence, which finds its subject, indeed, in the
soul: for the flesh does not lust (concupiscit) without
the soul, although the flesh is said to lust, because the
334
Page 501 of 524
soul lusts carnally (perf. just. 8:19). In this dominion of

sensuality over the spirit we are to recognize the penal
consequence of the first sin, but not its cause.
b) The corruption of the body which oppresses the
soul is not the cause, but the penalty, of the first sin;
neither does the corruptible flesh make the soul a
sinner, but the sinful soul makes the flesh corrupt (civ.
dei, xiv. 3; cf., as to the term, flesh, ib. c. 2). With this
degradation of the spirit is intimately connected the
horrifying depth of ignorance. This enables us to
understand why man surrenders himself to his passions
and to vain things. But these are all characteristics of
wicked men, yet they come from that root of error and
perverted affection with which every son of Adam is
born (civ. dei, xxii. 22:1).
7. In harmony with his doctrine of sin, Augustine attributes the
salvation of men to grace alone.
a) Grace begins the good in man, and it remains
actively influential in him after it has liberated his will. It
goes before him when unwilling, that he may will; it
follows him when willing, that he may not will in vain
(enchir. 9:32). God prepares the will, and by
cooperating completes what he begins by operating.
Since he, in beginning, operates that we may will, who,
in perfecting, co-operates with us when we will (grat. et
lib. arb. 17:33). It is thus only under the gracious
influence of God that man comes to the good and
remains in it. We have already observed (p. 341) that
Augustine conceives of grace as divine creative power
in action. We understand, therefore, how it can be
described as a wonderful and ineffable power which
effects in man not alone true revelations, but also good
wills (grat. Chr. 24:25), and how its influence can be
pronounced necessary even in the state of integrity in
paradise (ep. 186. n. 37; enchir. 25:106). Grace is simply
the resistless creative power of God, which exerts its
influence in the hearts of men as the power of the good.
This must be kept in view when we follow Augustines
delineation of the work of grace. Not man himself, not
doctrine, not example, not the law, can help. The bare
commandment is powerless against concupiscence.
Only through grace and faith can salvation be attained:
what the law of works demands with threatening, that
335
Page 502 of 524
the law of faith secures by believing. Here the motto is:

Grant what Thou commandest; there, Do what I
command (sp. et lit. 13:22). The first blessing is the
forgiveness of sins, which man receives through
baptism. With it begins renewal (renovatio), which finds
here its basis (pecc. mer. et rem. ii. 7:9; 27:43; conf. i.
11). Sin is, therefore, forgiven through baptism.
Concupiscence, however, yet remains even in the
baptized; but it is no longer sin, because God no longer
so accounts it (nupt. et conc. i. 25:28; 31:36; pecc. mer.
et rem. i. 37:70). It is to be noted, however, that the
forgiveness of sins is not brought into such unvarying
connection with faith as in Paul. The Christian life
begins with faith, which is wrought by God (supra, p.
339) as the beginning of our religion and life. Faith is
described as to agree that what is said is true (sp. et
lit. 31:54) or to meditate upon with assent (praedest.
sanct. 2:5). Faith is, therefore, the assensio to the
preached truth (cf. enchir. 7:20; conf. vi. 5; in Joh. tr.
40:9; 79:1). This explains why a higher stage is
supposed to be reached in knowledge (cognitio),
according to Isa. 7:9: unless you had believed, you
would not know (e.g., sermo 43; in Joh. tr. 27:7; 22:5;
29:6; 48:1; 112:1: he can believe before he can know;
ep. 114:7; 120:3). We meet, indeed, statements which
appear to lead us beyond this definition, as, for
example, when the idea of justification through faith is
occasionally reproduced (vid. sub), or when it is said
that men would not be free from sin, unless united and
joined by faith to his body (i.e., Christs, sermo 143:1),
or when a distinction is drawn between believing
Christ and believing in Christ, and the latter is
described as constituting Christian faith (sermo 144:2).
But just here the thought becomes clear, as Augustine
explains: For he believes in Christ who both hopes in
Christ and loves Christ to him Christ comes, and in
some way is united to him and is made a member in his
body; which cannot occur unless both hope and love
are added (cf. in Joh. tr. 29:6). Here, again, faith points
beyond itself to a higher stage. Instead of knowledge,
this is now love.
8. Grace, as being irresistible, is characterized by Augustine as
predestinating grace.
336
Page 503 of 524
(1) Many lines of thought are concentrated in this term: the

Platonic tincture of Augustines doctrine of God, his personal
religious experience, his recognition of the sole agency of grace,
and exegetical considerations (p. 340). If grace lays hold of man,
there can be no resistance, for God carries out his will in the
human heart no less than in nature. It cannot, therefore, be
doubted that human wills are not able to resist the will of God, so
that he may not do what he will, who has done all things which
he has willed in heaven and in earth, and has done even those
things which shall be, since, even with respect to the wills of
men themselves, he does what he will when he will who
nevertheless does not do so except through the wills of men
themselves; having beyond doubt omnipotent power of inclining
hearts whithersoever it may please him (corr. et grat. 14:45, 43;
enchir. 21:95).
(2) The difference between grace and the primary grace, or
assistance, granted to Adam lies in the fact that the latter could
be voluntarily relinquished, whereas the former produces the will
(corr. et grat. 11:31, 38). To the question, whether the freedom of
mans will is hereby destroyed, Augustine replies in the
negative. On the contrary, grace heals and restores the free will,
so that it is able to freely choose the good (sp. et lit. 30:52;
enchir. 25:105).
(3) Man does not, as the Pelagians would have us believe, attain
grace by freedom, but freedom by grace (corr. et grat. 8:17). But
when we remember that a new will is in an irresistible way
implanted in man, and this will then indeclinably and
insuperably controlled by the divine power (virtus, corr. et grat.
12:38), it cannot be open to question that the claim of freedom is
here meant to be taken in a very peculiar sense. It can be
understood only in the sense that God deals with man in a way
consonant with his endowment with a will, so that man survives
the transformation of his will as a creature still (formally)
possessing the power of willing (see above citation). In this way
man becomes free, i.e., from the power of concupiscence.
(4) The state of spiritual subjection to God divinely wrought in
him, by virtue of which he withdraws himself from the control of
sensuous motives, is his freedom. The same result is reached if
we consider the doctrine of perseverance in grace. This is a work
of grace, the donum perseverantiae (don. pers. 1:1). Here also
applies the rule: God effects that they may will (corr. et grat. 1.
c.). A real freedom, in the metaphysical sense of the term, is thus
excluded. This, again, is a consequence of Augustines
conception of grace as a creative energy (virtus) and not as a
personal, spiritual relation.
337
Page 504 of 524
(5) But it is necessary to face the fact, that not all who are
called (vocati) are subdued by grace. Augustine explains
this on the ground of predestination. Before the creation of
the world, God formed the resolution to redeem certain
men in Christ and to apply to them his grace. The
predestination of God, which is in the good man, is a
preparation for grace, but grace is the effect of this
predestination (praedest. 10:19; don. persev. 9:21). There is
a good-pleasure of his (Gods) will, which has nothing to
do with human merits, not even with such as were foreseen
by God. On the contrary, the determination (propositum) of
God is the ground upon which the good will is imparted to
this or that one (praed. 18:37). There is a strictly definite
number (as maintained already in de bapt. v. 27:38) whom
God has thus foreordained to grace: There is a number so
fixed, that neither can anyone be added to them nor taken
from them (corr. et grat. 13:39). Predestination is the cause
of salvation. All saving ordinances are means for realizing
it, and therefore really serve and benefit only the
predestinated. Only to the elect comes the effectual
peculiar calling of the elect (praed. 18:37), so that he may
follow him who calls: others are not so (non ita) called
(don. pers. 9:21). The elect alone has the gift of
perseverance, whereas the foreknown (praesciti) may still
fall away even in the last hour (corr. et grat. 9:22; don. pers.
8:19). All, therefore, rests in the hands of God, depends
upon his choice: Therefore whoever have in the most
provident ordering of God been foreknown, predestinated,
called, justified, and glorified, although yet, I will not say
unregenerated but even yet unborn, are now the sons of
God and can by no means perish (corr. et grat. 9:23). The
predestinated is saved, commonly becoming a called and
justified member of the church. But it must be held as
possible that such an one may not come into contact in any
way with historical Christianity, and yet be savedbecause
he is predestinated (ep. 102 quaest. 2, 12, 14, 15; cf.
with praedest. 9, 1719). The unpredestinated, or
foreknown, on the other hand, under all circumstances, fall
into ruin, as parts of the massa perditionis. Even if they
appear to be true Christians, called, justified, regenerated
through baptism, renewedthey will not be saved, because
they have not been elected (don. pers. 9:21). No blame
attaches to God; they are alone to blame, as they simply
remain given over to their just fate: He who falls, falls by
his own will; and he who stands, stands by the will of God
(don. pers. 8:19). In such God reveals his justice, as in the
338
Page 505 of 524
elect his mercy (ib. 8:16). To the question, Why he chooses

some and leaves others to their fate, the only answer is: I
so will, at which the creature must humbly bow before his
Creator (ib. 17).
339
Page 506 of 524
G. Evaluation of Pelagianism
1. As a result of Adam's transgression, men are born in sin and by
nature are spiritually dead; therefore, if they are to become God's
children and enter into the kingdom of God, they must be born
anew of the Spirit
a) When Adam was placed in the Garden of Eden, he
was warned not to eat of the fruit of the tree of
knowledge of good and evil on the threat of immediate
spiritual death (Gen. 2:16, 17).
b) Adam disobeyed and ate of the forbidden fruit (Gen.
3:1-7); consequently, he brought spiritual death upon
himself and upon the race (Rom. 5:12; Eph. 2:1-3; Col.
2:13).
c) David confessed that he, as well as all other men,
was born in sin (Psa. 51:5; 58:3)
d) Because men are born in sin and are by natural
spiritually dead, Jesus taught that men must be born
anew if they are to enter God's kingdom (John 3:5-7;
John 1:12-13).
2. As the result of the fall, men are blind and deaf to spiritual
truth.Their minds are darkened by sin; their hearts are corrupt and
evil (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Eccl. 9:3; Jer. 17:9; Mark 7:21-23; John 3:19;
Rom. 8:7, 8; 1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 4:17-19; 5:8; Tit. 1:15
3. Before sinners are born into God's kingdom through the
regenerating power of the Spirit, they are children of the devil and
under his control; they are slaves to sin (John 8:34, 44; Eph. 2:2; 2
Tim. 2:26; 1 John 3:10; 5:19; Rom. 6:20; Tit. 3:3 .
4. The reign of sin is universal; all men are under its power;
consequently, none is righteous-- not even one (2 Chr. 6:36; Job
15:14-16; Psa. 130:3; 142:2; Prov. 20:9; Eccl. 7:20, 29; Isa. 53:6;
Isa. 64:6; Rom. 3:9-12; James 3:2, 8; 1 John 1:8,10
5. Men left in their dead state are unable of themselves to repent,
to believe the gospel, or to come to Christ. They have no power
within themselves to change their nature or to prepare themselves
for salvation (Job 14:4; Jer. 13:23;Matt. 7:16-18; 12:33; John 6:44,
65; Rom. 11:35, 36; 1 Cor. 2:14; 1 Cor. 4:7; 2 Cor. 3:5 .
340
Page 507 of 524
XI.
Semi-Pelagianism
A. Introduction
1. Church councils condemned Pelagianism in 418 and again in
431, but this rejection did not mean the acceptance of everything in
the Augustinian system.
a) Augustine's teaching on grace may be summarized
as follows: Humanity shared in Adam's sin and therefore
has become a massa damnationis from which no one
can be extricated save by a special gift of divine grace
that cannot be merited; yet God in his inscrutable
wisdom chooses some to be saved and grants graces
that will infallibly but freely lead them to salvation. The
number of the elect is set and can be neither increased
nor decreased.
b) Nevertheless, Vitalis of Carthage and a community of
monks at Hadrumetum, Africa (c. 427), contested these
principles, asserting that they destroyed freedom of the
will and all moral responsibility.
c) They, in turn, affirmed that the unaided will
performed the initial act of faith. In response Augustine
produced Grace and Free Will and Rebuke and Grace,
which contain a resume of his arguments against the
Semi - Pelagians, and stress the necessary preparation
of the will by prevenient grace.
2. Thus, Augustine won the day in the conflict with Pelagianism,
but his views were not by any means generally accepted in all their
details.
a) Offense was taken, especially at his doctrines of
mans absolute inability to do good and of
predestination, however for the time being his illustrious
name and the charm of his writings may have
smothered opposition.
b) But, even before his death, doubts were openly
expressed upon these points. In the cloister at
Hadrumetum there were some, he reports, who
preached grace in such a way that they deny that the
will of man is free, and all discipline and works were
thus abolished (Aug. ep. 214:1; cf. corr. et gr. 5:8); while
341
Page 508 of 524
others held that the free will is assisted by the grace of

God, in order that we may know and do what is right
(ib.).
c) Augustine agrees with the latter, for he was
concerned above all else to counteract the ethically
perilous consequences to which the view of the former
group would lead. He thus formulates his position:
Both the will of man and the grace of God, without
whose assistance it cannot be converted to God nor
advance in God, are free (ib. 7). This he sought to
establish in his publications, De gratia et libero arbitrio
and De correption et gratia (cf. p. 350f.).
3. The issue became heated in the fifth century when some monks
in southern Gaul, led by John Cassian, Hilary of Arles, Vincent of
Lerins, and Faustus of Riez, joined in the controversy.
a) These men objected to a number of points in the
Augustinian doctrine of sin and grace, namely, the
assertion of the total bondage of the will, of the priority
and irresistibility of grace, and of rigid predestination.
b) They agreed with Augustine as to the seriousness of
sin, yet they regarded his doctrine of predestination as
new, therefore in conflict with tradition and dangerous
because it makes all human efforts superfluous.
c) In opposition to Augustinianism, Cassian taught that
though a sickness is inherited through Adam's sin,
human free will has not been entirely obliterated. Divine
grace is indispensable for salvation, but it does not
necessarily need to precede a free human choice,
because, despite the weakness of human volition, the
will takes the initiative toward God. In other words,
divine grace and human free will must work together in
salvation. In opposition to the stark predestinarianism of
Augustine, Cassian held to the doctrine of God's
universal will to save, and that predestination is simply
divine foreknowledge.
d) After Augustine's death, the controversy became
more heated; and Prosper of Aquitaine became his
champion, replying to the Gallic monks, including
Vincent of Lerins. Vincent incorrectly understood
Augustine's doctrines of perseverance and
342
Page 509 of 524
predestination to mean that God's elect cannot sin.

Nevertheless, he was not entirely wrong in recognizing
the practical dangers inherent in Augustine's teaching
on grace, and that this teaching deviated from Catholic
tradition.
e) Prosper appealed to Rome on behalf of his master,
and though Celestine I praised Augustine, he gave no
specific approval to the bishop's teachings on grace and
predestination. Hence, Semi - Pelagian beliefs continued
to circulate in Gaul with Faustus of Riez as the
outstanding spokesman. He condemned the heresy of
Pelagianism, teaching instead that natural powers were
not sufficient to attain salvation. The free will, while not
extinct, was weak and could not be exercised for
salvation without the aid of grace. Faustus, however,
rejected the predestinarian conception of a divine
monergism and taught that human will, by virtue of the
freedom left in it, takes the beginning step toward God.
Salvation, therefore, is accomplished by the cooperation
of human and divine factors, and predestination is
merely God's foreknowledge of what a person has freely
decided. Grace, to Faustus, meant the divine
illumination of human will, and not, as it did to
Augustine, the regenerative power of grace in the heart.
f) The debate about Semi - Pelagianism continued well
into the sixth century, when Caesarius of Arles
convened the Synod of Orange (529). Here Caesarius
succeeded in dogmatizing a number of principles
against the Semi - Pelagians. In doing so, however, the
synod did not accept Augustine's full doctrine of grace,
especially not his concept of divine grace that works
irresistibly in the predestinated. In 531, Boniface II
approved the acts of this council, thus giving it
ecumenical authority.
g) Semi - Pelagianism, as a historical movement,
subsequently declined, but the pivotal issue of Semi Pelagianism, the priority of the human will over the
grace of God in the initial work of salvation, did not die
out.
4. Thus semi-Pelagianism speaks of the doctrines, upheld during
the period from 427 to 529, that rejected the so-called "extreme"
343
Page 510 of 524
views both of Pelagius and of Augustine in regards to the priority of

divine grace and human will in the initial work of salvation.
a) On the other hand, violent opposition arose in South
Gaul, especially in Massilia. Prosper of Aquitania and a
layman named Hilary reported (Aug. ep. 225, 226) to
Augustine that men in high positions and of lofty
character, who were in other points great admirers of
Augustine (ep. 226:9) were most strenuously opposing
his doctrine of predestination, and, in doing so, reciting
the latter against himself (ib. 3). That doctrineit was
claimed in the land of Irenusis new and of no value;
it collides with the intuitions of the church
(ecclesiasticus sensus), with antiquity, and the opinion
of the Fathers (226:2; 225:2, 3); it is dangerous, because
it cripples the force of preaching, reproof, and moral
energy (226:2, 5; 225:3), and plunges men into despair
(226:6); finally, under this name, predestination, there
is introduced a certain fatal necessity, or the Lord the
Creator is said to be of diverse natures (225:3).
b) Pelagius may be refuted without resort to this theory
(226:8). All have sinned in Adam (225:3), and no one can
free himself by his own will (226:2); but everyone who
is sick desires to be made well. Hence man wishes to
have the Physician, i.e., he believes on him (226:2.4).
This believing (credulitas) is a deed of man, his merit
(225:6, 4). Grace now interests itself in behalf of the man
through the sacrament of regeneration (225:4). God
assists the human will to do that which is good; but
man, and not God, makes the beginning. In order that
he who has begun to will may be assisted, not that the
power to will be also given (226:2), they wish grace to be
regarded as concomitant, and not prevenient to human
merits (225:5). God wishes to save all (indifferenter
universos) and the propitiatio of the blood of Christ
avails for all (225:4, 3). Predestination is therefore based
upon foreknowledge.
c) The latter extends to the case of children dying in
infancy, and to the historical diffusion of the gospel
(226:4; 225:5). Accordingly, there is not a definite
number of persons to be elected or rejected, since he
wishes all men to be saved, and yet not all men are
saved (226:7). Hence, only the will of man is to blame.
The motives, as well as the tendencies, of these Semi-
344
Page 511 of 524
augustinians are here plainly revealed. Augustine

replied in the publications, De praedestinatione
sanctorum and De dono per-severantiae, in which he
maintained his position without modification.
5. The term Semi-Pelagianism
a) The label "Semi -Pelagian," however, is a relatively
modern expression, which apparently appeared first in
the Lutheran Formula of Concord (1577), and became
associated with the theology of the Jesuit Luis Molina
(1535 - 1600). The term, nevertheless, was not a happy
choice, because the so-called Semi-Pelagians wanted to
be anything but half - Pelagians.
b) Thus name Semi-Pelagians is not very appropriate;
for the majority of that party might be more accurately
described as Semiaugustinians, inasmuch as the
influence of Augustine upon them was very marked, and
they really found their starting-point in his teachings. It
would be more correct to call them Semi - Augustinians
who, while rejecting the doctrines of Pelagius and
respecting Augustine, were not willing to follow the
ultimate consequences of his theology.
B. People (427-529)
1. Johannes Cassianus (Cassian)
a) The views of this Semiaugustinian circle are clearly
seen in his writings (de coenobiorum institutis ll. 12.
Collationum ll., 24 ed. Petschenig in Corp. scr. eccl. lat.
13, 17, and in Migne lat. 49).
b) In the background is the monastic temper. The ideal
of evangelical perfection, as the fulfilling of the
evangelical commandments and counsels, is to be
attained by the most severe ascetic discipline (coll. iii. 7;
xi. 8, 10; xvi. 22; xix. 9; xxi. 5, 7ff.). The most painstaking
carefulness is made a duty. Accordingly, human
sinfulness, and that in its sensuous aspects, is strongly
emphasized, and, on the other hand, mans moral
activity is made equally prominent. The sin of Adam is a
hereditary disease (inst. xii. 5); since the fall, there has
been an infirmitas liberi arbitrii (coll. iii. 12 fin.). The
345
Page 512 of 524
Pelagian theory is very positively rejected (coll. xiii. 16;

cf. de incarn. 1:3; v. 1).
c) Two principles concerning divine grace are firmly
held by Cassian: that we are unable to do anything good
without the help of God (coll. xiii. 6), and that the
freedom of the will must be preserved: For through
these things which we have presented we have not
wished to remove the free will of man, but to prove that
the assistance and grace of God are necessary for it
every day and moment (coll. iii. 22).
d) From this it follows that grace and free will cooperate: And thus the grace of God always cooperates
for that which is good with our will and in all things
assists, protects, and defends it (coll. xiii. 13; iii. 12, cf.
inst. xii. 14).
e) By grace Cassian understands illumination and
instruction through the law, as well as the illuminatio of
the spirit for the spiritual understanding of the law, and
divina inspiratio: To breathe into anyone the principles
of salvation and to implant the fervor of a good will
(vid. inst. xii. 18; coll. iii. 10, 14, 15; xiii. 6, 18). Together
with the imparting of the law, there is hence also an
infusion (infundere) of grace (inst. xii. 16 fin.; cf. coll. vii.
1: The gift of chastity infused by a peculiar blessing).
f) Cassian occasionally attributes the willing, as well as
the doing, of good to the working of grace (the
beginning of our conversion and faith, coll. iii. 15): Man
cannot even preserve his own faith intact by the power
of his will (ib. 16). Yet it is meant by this only that he is
not able to perform anything without the assistance of
God, which produces industry, and that no one may
think that his work is the cause of the divine bounty
(coll. xiii. 3).
g) Conversion is effected in this wise: Who, when he
has observed in us a certain beginning of a good will,
immediately illuminates this and comforts and incites it
toward salvation, bestowing an increase upon that
which either he himself has implanted or which he has
seen to arise from our own effort (coll. xiii. 8, 7), and
the beginnings of good wills sometimes precede,
which, nevertheless, unless they are directed by the
346
Page 513 of 524
Lord, cannot proceed to the attainment of virtues (ib. 9,

cf. inst. xii. 14).
h) Man may, like Zacchus, make the beginning; or
God, as in the cases of Paul and Matthew (coll. xiii. 11,
12, 17, 18). The chief thing is the cooperation (ib. 13),
and that the consummation of our salvation be
attributed, not to the merit of our works, but to celestial
grace (ib. 18); but, at the same time, the freedom of
man must be preserved both at the beginning and
through the various stages of the process (ib.). At this
point, as in its assertion that God really desires to save
all (ib. 7), this theory opposes Augustine. The idea of
Cassian is, that the human will has indeed been crippled
by sin, but that a certain freedom has yet remained to it.
By virtue of this, it is able to turn to God, and, just as
though God had first turned to it, it is able, with the
assistance of divine grace, setting before it the law and
infusing the needed power, to will and to do that which
is good. Hence the sinner is not dead, but wounded.
Grace comes to view, not as operans, but as cooperans;
to it is to be attributed not alone-activity, but synergy.
i) This doctrine is theoretically as well as practically
untenable, but its appearance is a very severe
arraignment of Augustinianism, as it proves that the
doctrine of infused grace, which Cassian had adopted
from Augustine, was tolerable to the Christian
consciousness only in combination with the conception
of God as the Lawgiver and with mans relative freedom
to obey the divine commandments. It was an instructive
attempt to preserve the personal and spiritual
relationship of man to God. But the attempt of necessity
surrendered that which was the best in Augustinethe
sola gratia. For this it is to be under graceto perform
the things which grace commands (coll. xxi. 34).
j) "God's grace is the foundation of our salvation; every
beginning is to be traced to it, in so far as it brings the
chance of salvation and the possibility of being saved.
But that is external grace; inner grace is that which lays
hold of a man, enlightens, chastens, and sanctifies him,
and penetrates his will as well as his intelligence.
Human virtue can neither grow nor be perfected without
this grace-- therefore the virtues of the heathens are
very small. But the beginnings of the good resolve,
347
Page 514 of 524
good thougths, and faith-- understood as the

preparation for grace-- can be due to ourselves. Hence
grace is absolutely necessary in order to reach final
salvation (perfection), but not so much in order to make
a start. It accompanies us at all stages of our inner
growth, and our exertions are of no avail without it
(libero arbitrio semper co-operatur); but it only supports
and accompanies him who really strives even this
action of grace is not irresistible" (Harnack, History of
Dogma, Book 2, part 2, p. 247).
k) The idea of Cassian is, that the human will has
indeed been crippled by sin, but that a certain freedom
has yet remained to it. By virtue of this, it is able to turn
to God, and, just as though God had first turned to it, it
is able, with the assistance of divine grace, setting
before it the law and infusing the needed power, to will
and to do that which is good. Hence the sinner is not
dead, but wounded. Grace comes to view, not as operans,
but as cooperans; to it is to be attributed not aloneactivity, but synergy. It was an instructive attempt to
preserve the personal and spiritual relationship of man
to God. But the attempt of necessity surrendered that
which was the best in Augustinethe sola gratia"
(Reinhold Seeberg, History of Doctrines, 1:371- 372).
l) "In opposition to both systems he [Cassian] taught
that the divine image and human freedom wre not
annihilated, but only weakened, by the fall; in other
words, that man is sick, but not dead, that he cannot
indeed help himself, but that he can desire the help of a
physician, and either accept or refuse it when offered,
and that he must cooperate with the grace of God in his
salvation. This question, which of the two factors has
the initiative, he answers, altogether empirically, to this
effect: that sometimes, and indeed usually, the human
will, as in the case of the Prodical Son, Zacchaeus, the
Penitent Thief, and Cornelius, determines itself to
conversion; sometimes grace anticipates it, and, as with
Matthew and Paul, draws the resisting will-- yet, even in
this case, without constraint -- to God. Here, therefore,
the gratia praeveniens is manifestly overlooked" (Philip
Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 3:861).
2. Vincent of Lerinum
348
Page 515 of 524
3. Faustus of Riji 9( ab. A. D. 495, vid. his writings in the corp.

scr. eccl. lat. xxi. ed. Engelbrecht).
a) He Teaches
(1) Faustus contended (vid. esp. Degratia) sharply against
Pelagius and his denial of original sin, and of the necessity

of grace (i. 1). He himself represented the Semipelagian
view.
(2) All men have original sin, and that from the carnal
delight of their progenitor (i. 2, p. 12), and are, in
consequence, subject to death (i. 1, p. 11). But man has not
lost his freedom through sin. There is no necessity of an
ordained and imposed perdition, but a power of
choosing. The free will has, indeed, been weakened, and
freedom has lost the bloom and vigor of its grace (i. 8, p.
24f.).
(3) The power of choice of the human will has been
attenuated . . . not abrogated (i. 16, p. 50; ii. 10, p. 88).

We are to speak, not of impossibility, but of infirmity and
difficulty (ii. 8, p. 76). We see, therefore, that the consent
of the human mind may pass over to the good or to the
contrary side (i. 12, p. 41; i. 10, p. 32). Hence, even fallen
man possesses the possibility of striving for salvation
(ep. 1, p. 163). The appropriation of salvation by man is
effected in such a way that grace and the human will
cooperate: we always associate grace with work (i. 16, p.
51; cf. 1:6, p. 21f.; ep. 1, p. 163). And thus these two are
combined, the power to draw near, and the impulse to obey,
just as if a sick man should attempt to rise and his faculty
should not obey the mandate of his spirit, and he should,
therefore, beg that a right hand be extended to him (i. 16,
p. 52).
(4) From this it follows, that man makes the beginning. He
believes in God, and God increases in him this faith and
helps him to good works (i. 6, p. 22). The word
assistance implies equally two (persons), one working
and the other co-working, one seeking and the other
promising, one knocking and the other opening, one asking
and the other rewarding (ii. 12, p. 91).
(5) Thus also in baptism, the desire of the will comes
first: The will of the applicant is first required in order that
349
Page 516 of 524
the grace of the regenerator may follow (ii. 10, p. 84). It

appears sometimes as though faith itself were regarded by
Faustus as a gift of grace (ii. 5, p. 67f.), but in such cases
the meaning is only that the author regards the will itself as
a gift of creative grace (that I am indebted to God for the
will itself, ii. 10; cf. ii. 12). The matter can also be conceived
in this way: That God, as in the case of the prodigal son, by
his providential guidance gives to man the stimulus to
serious reflection (i. 11, p. 38).
(6) But to comprehend fully the variance from the
Augustinian position, it is necessary to consider, further,

that Faustus understands by grace, not an inwardly
illuminating and renewing power, but, after the manner of
Pelagius (p. 336), the preaching, the comfort, the
threatenings, and the promises of the Scriptures. Thus is the
drawing of the Father (Jn. 6:44) explained (i. 16, p. 52),
and the divine assistance is more closely defined as the
law and the prophets, the evangelical oracles and divine
laws (i. 10, p. 33). If this representation of the view of
Faustus be correct, he is yet further removed from
Augustine than Cassian (p. 371f.) and nearer to Pelagius
(cf. WIGGERS, ii. 264ff.).
b) In harmony with the general character of this theory,
predestination and foreknowledge merge into one.

Foreknowledge foresees the things that will come to pass;
predestination afterward defines the retributions to be meted out.
The former foresees merits; the latter foreordains rewards. And
thus, until foreknowledge shall have explored, predestination
decrees nothing (ii. 3, p. 63). From this viewpoint, the problem,
why not all men are saved, may, so far as human freedom is
concerned, be easily solved (i. 16, p. 50f.). The question as to
children dying unbaptized, man is not able to answer (i. 13, p.
45f.). Thus, the Semipelagian doctrine, as related to Cassian, had
been further developed, i.e., had approached nearer to Pelagianism.
c) He Rejects (Fausti ep. 165f.):
(1) Those who say that after the fall of the first man, the choice
of the free will is totally extinct
(2) That Christ did not undergo death for the salvation of all
men
350
Page 517 of 524
(3) That the foreknowledge of God violently compels men to

death
(4) That whoever sins after baptism, legitimately received dies
in Adam
(5) That from Adam to Christ none of the Gentiles were saved
through the primary grace of God (i.e., the law of nature because
they had lost their free will entirely in our first parents).
351
Page 518 of 524
C. Problems
1. Augustine's views are new and represent a departure from the
teachings of the church fathers, especially Tertullian, Ambrose, and
Jerome
2. Augustine's teaching of predestination "cripples the force of
preaching, reproof, and moral energy plunges men into despair,"
and introduces "a certain fatal necessity."
3. Augustine's strong views are unnessary to refute and escape
the heresies of Pelagius
D. Principles
1. In distinguishing between the beginning of faith (initium fidei)
and the increase of faith (augmentum fidei), one may refer the
former to the power of the free will, while the faith itself and its
increase is absolutely dependent upon God;
2. The gratuity of grace is to be maintained against Pelagius in so
far as every strictly natural merit is excluded; this, however, does
not prevent nature and its works from having a certain claim to
grace;
3. As regards final perseverance in particular, it must not be
regarded as a special gift of grace, since the justified man may of
his own strength persevere to the end;
4. The granting or withholding of baptismal grace in the case of
children depends on the Divine prescience of their future
conditioned merits or misdeeds.
5. God desires to save all people, and the propitiation of Christ's
atonement is available to all.
6. Predestination is based on divine fore-knowledge
7. There is not "a definite number of persons to be elected or
rejected," since God "wishes all men to be saved, and yet not all
men are saved."
E. Opposition
352
Page 519 of 524
1. On the other hand, Prosper, in the writings (Pro Aug.

responsiones ad capitula calumniantium Gallorum and Resp. ad
objectiones Vincentianas, Migne 51:155ff.; also, Aug. opp. xvii.
2887ff.) and in his Liber contra collatorem (Cassian, cf. his poem,
De in gratis) defended the Augustinian position and made fierce
assaults upon his opponents.
2. But he not infrequently ascribed to them Pelagian conclusions
which they themselves did not draw, and in his positive statements
he did not advance beyond a repetition of the ideas of Augustine
(cf. WIGGERS, Augustinianism and Pelagianism, ii. 136ff., 183ff.).
The ideas of Augustine are here reproduced, though in a diluted
form.
3. By the fall of Adam, it is said, human nature has been depraved
(vitiata, i. 6f.): the choice (judicium)) of the will has been depraved
(depravatum), not abrograted. Therefore, what has not been slain
by the wounder is not annihilated by the healer. He who is endowed
with the power of willing is cured; his nature is not removed. But
that in the nature which has perished is not restored except by the
author of the nature (i. 8). Accordingly, it is not the human will by
its merits that makes the beginning toward salvation (ii. 7), but the
elective will of God (i. 18), who works everything good in us and
upholds us in it (i. 23). There is given to everyone without merit
that by virtue of which he tends toward merit (ii. 8).
4. Christ died for all (ii. 16). Yet it is a fact, that not all are saved,
as especially children dying unbaptized (1:16, 22; ii. 20, 22) and the
heathen world. This leads to the insoluble problem, Why he who
wishes all men to be saved does not save all men? (ii. 1). Though
utterly unable to solve this fundamental question, the author labors
earnestly to make the course of God comprehensible.
a) In the first place, he emphasizes the fact that the
gracious working of God does not exclude the free
exercise of the human will: but the will of man is also
subjoined to and conjoined with (subjungitur et
conjungitur) it . . . so that it cooperates with the divine
work within itself and begins to exercise for merit what it
received for the awakening of energy (ii. 26) from the
seed implanted from above, and also, it does not take
away from those who will persevere the mutability which
can refuse to will (ii. 28).
b) He then presents the thought peculiar to himself, that
God proclaims his desire that all men be saved, not in
353
Page 520 of 524
the first instance through grace, or a special call

(vocatio specialis), but from the very beginning through
general grace (generalis gratia) as a revelation made in
nature (ii. 25:4). The latter has always existed; the
former is now announced to the whole world (no part of
the world is now excluded from the gospel of Christ, ii.
33).
c) But since this general assistance (auxilium generale)
does not suffice for salvation, and since, on the other
hand, from ancient times some, although indeed very
few, from the heathen world, have been separated by
the Spirit to the grace of God (ii. 5, 15 fin.), it is evident
that this whole scheme does not solve the problem, but
only complicates it. The author finds only the precarious
ground of consolation, the more difficult this is to
understand, the more laudable is the faith that believes
it. For he has great fortitude of faith (consensionis) for
whom authority suffices to lead to acceptance of the
truth, although reason remains dormant (ii. 2).
F. Proclamations
1. Romes Position until Trent
a) Leo opposed Pelagianism, appealing to the doctrinal
instructions of Rome (vid. ep. 1, 2 of A. D. 442; so also
GELASIUS I.; vid. ep. 4:2, 3; 6:1, 4, 5f., 7, 8f.).
(1) This pope from Africa expressed himself with
exceptional thoroughness upon the subjects of original sin
and grace (vid. also his Tractatus adv. Pelagian, haeresim,
Thiel, epp. pontif., p. 571ff.).
(2) The Romish position appears most fully in a
dissertation upon grace preserved as a supplement to the
21st letter of Coelestine: In Adam all lost their natural
power and innocence (5). Hence, no one, without the help
of God, can, of himself be good (6); even those who have
been renewed through baptism attain steadfastness in the
good only by the daily help of God (7). All merits are gifts
received from God (9). God works the free will in man by
giving him holy thoughts and the good will (10). This is
also the end had in view in sacerdotal prayers (12). Hence:
By these ecclesiastical rules [utterances of Innocent, and
Zosimus, and the African decrees], and by the documents
354
Page 521 of 524
received by divine authority . . . we are assured that we

should acknowledge God as the author of all good
emotions and works, and of all efforts and all virtues . . .
and that we should not doubt that all the merits of man are
preceded by the grace of him through whom it comes to
pass that we begin to will and to do anything goodby
which assistance and gift of God free will is not abolished,
but liberated, so that instead of darkened it becomes light;
instead of evil, right; instead of sick, well; instead of
imprudent, provident. For such is the goodness of God
toward all men that he wishes those things which are his
gifts to be our merits. . . . Wherefore he effects in us that
we will and do what he wills . . . so that we are also cooperators with the grace of God (14). Finally, it is said:
We hold that as we dare not despise, so it is not necessary
for us to affirm, the more profound and difficult parts of the
questions before us, which those who opposed the heretics
have fully treated, because we believe that, for confessing
the grace of God, whatever, according to the proclaimed
canons of the apostolic chair, the Scriptures have taught us,
is sufficient, so that we simply do not regard as Catholic
that which has appeared to be contrary to the universally
accepted opinions (15).
(3) Thus the non-Augustinian doctrine of grace is rejected
as un-catholic, while predestination is, not indeed
discountenanced, but yet not designated as an absolutely
necessary element in the churchs doctrine of grace. This
important document plainly indicates the attitude of the
Roman chair toward the doctrine of grace during the fifth
and the early part of the sixth century.
(4) It is Augustinian, but avoids committing itself to the
extreme positions of Augustinianism.
b) Hormisdas
(1) Pope Hormisdas also, in his decision called forth by the
assaults of the Scythian monks upon the orthodoxy of Faustus,
pursues the same line. He goes even further, as he describes the
Catholic doctrine as being simply the Augustinian (it may be
seen in the various books of the blessed Augustine, and chiefly
in those addressed to Hilary and Prosper, ep. 124:5).
(2) He, in a number of other writings, championed the strict
Augustinian doctrine of grace, including the double
predestination, the one of the good to glory, the other of the
355
Page 522 of 524
wicked to punishment (vid. ad Monimum, ll. 3, and especially

vol. i. de veritate praedestinationis; also ep. 15 in Mi. 65; cf.
WIGGERS, ii. 370ff., 419ff.)
c) Pope Boniface II. (in Mansi viii. 735ff.) confirmed the

decrees of the council of Orange, A. D. 530 or 531
(Hefele ii. 737f.).
d) The Change at Trent
(1) "If anyone says that man's free will moved and aroused by
God, by assenting to God's call and action, in no way cooperates
toward disposing and preparing itself to obtain the grace of
justification, and that is it cannot refuse its assent if it wishes, but
that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is
merely passive, let him be anathema" (The Decrees and Canons
of the Council of Trent, Session 6, Canon 4).
(a) "The Tridentine Council says that free will freely
assents and cooperates with the inciting and assisting
grace of God. For they are of the opinion that in the
mind and will of the unregenerate man there are still
from the moment of his birth in this corruption some
naturally implanted powers, or some kind of faculties,
for divine things or spiritual actions, but that the
movement and the use of these faculties and powers is
repressed and retarded through sin in the unregenerate.
So they are of the opinion that the grace of God and the
working of Spirit do not simply effect and work in those
who are born again some new power, strength, faculty,
or ability of beginning and performing spiritual impulses
and action which before conversion and renewal they
did not have from the powers of nature, but that they
only break the fetters and are set free from the snares so
that the natural faculty, previously bound, restrained,
and hindered, can now, incited through grace, exercise
its power in spiritual matters (Chemnitz, Examination of
the Council of the Trent, 1:428-29).
(b) "We certainly obey God with our will, but it is with a
will which he as formed in us Those, therefore, who
ascribe any proper moment to free-will, apart from the
grace of God, do nothing else than rend the Holy Spirit.
Paul declares, not that the faculty of willing is given to
us, but that the will itself is formed in us (Phil. 2:13), so
that from none else but God is the assent or obedience
or a right will. He acts within, holds our hearts, moves
our hearts, and draws us by the inclinations which he
has produced in us. So says Augustine What
356
Page 523 of 524
preparations can there be in a heart of iron, until by a

wondrous change it begins to be a heart of flesh?"
(Calvin, Acts of the Council of Trent: With the Antidote,
3:147, 148).
(c) In essence, the Council of Trent adopted the semiPelagian view of the will and original sin.
(2) "If anyone says that after the sin of Adam's free will was lost
and destroyed, or that it is a thing only in name, indeed a name
without any reality, a fiction introduced into the Church by
Satan, let him be anathema" (Decrees and Canons of the Council
of Trent, Session 6, Canon
(a) Let us not raise a quarrel about a word. But as by
free will they understand a faculty of choice perfectly
free and unbiassed to either side, those who affirm that
this is entirely to use a name without substance, have the
authority of Christ when he says, that they are free
whom the Son makes free, and that all others are the
slaves of sin. Freedom and slavery are certainly
contrary to each other. As to the term itself, let them
hear Augustine, who maintains that the human will is not
free so long as it is subject to which vanquish and
enthrall it. Elsewhere he says, 'The will being
vanquished by the depravity into which it has fallen,
nature is without freedom.' And, 'Man, making a bad use
of freewill, lost both himself and it'" (Calvin, Ibid.,
3:148).
(b) To Calvin, Trent departed from an Augustinian view
of the bondage of the will
357
Page 524 of 524
2. Council of Arles
3. Synod of Orange
a) The sin of Adam has not injured the body only, but
also the soul of man
b) The sin of Adam has brought sin and death upon all
mankind
c) Grace is not merely bestowed when prayed for it, but
grace itself causes us to pray for it.
d) Even the beginning of faith, the disposition to
believe, is effected by grace
e) All good thoughts and works are God's gift
f) Even regeneration and the saints need continually
the divine help.
g) What God loves in us, is not our merit, but his own
gift
h) The free will weakened in Adam, can only be restored
through the grace of baptism
i) All good that we possess is God's gift, and therefore
no one should boast.
j) When man sins, he does his own will; when he does
good, he executes the will of God, yet voluntarily
k) Through the fall free will ahs been so weakened, that
without prevenient grace no one can love God, believe
on Him, or do good for God's sake.
l) In every good work the beginning proceeds not from
us, but God inspires in us faith and love to Him without
merit precedent on our part, so that we desire baptism,
and after baptism can, with His help, fulfill His will
(Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 3:867, 869).
358

Early Church Motanismul

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Early Church Motanismul

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Early Church

1. The Bible does not teach us everything about the outworking

1. In order to understand where were going, we need to

b) It surpasses in interest secular history. Both deal with

d) NOTE: The demonstration is equally complete for the

8. It relieves from the fear that modern heresies and systems of

The discipline of church history cannot by itself

If a contemporary believer wants to know the will

b) From our historical vantage we can see that

1. Church history is not simply the story of what happened to

2. Christian teaching is always in some sense culturally limited

D. Roman Catholicism and the Authority of the Fathers (Schmid, Manual of

1. General Statement on Authority

c) But the agreement of all the Fathers of the Church

f) Supernatural basis. The Fathers give their testimony

g) As regards the relation of the writings of the holy

1. The reformers had no place in their theology for unwritten

3. To demonstrate their theological continuity with ancient

1. Humility: as much as anything church history is a record of

READING FOR NEXT WEEKS DISCUSSION:

THE FIRST CENTURY

1. Christianity differs from other religions

Most religions have been local and national. The ancient

Having no idea of the unity of the race, they could not

b) In its proselytizing character -- aiming to become universal.

Every Christian is under obligation to extend his religion, because Christ

NOTE. The proselyting spirit of Christianity was a prominent

c) In resting on an historical basis.

Buddhism and Confucianism are purely ethical, and disclaim

Brahminism, Parseeism, and Mohammedanism are both doctrinal

Christianity rests absolutely on the life, death, and work of Jesus

NOTES: In other religions, philosophy and religion might be

d) In its redemptive character

It alone provides a divine method of pardon for the guilty, and a

Notes: No religion but the Christian assures men of pardon.

Any attempt to magnify the ethical element of Christianity,

e) In making God's love the corner-stone of theology, and man's

NOTE: The classic religions have little to say of divine love.

Socrates and Plato conceive of God as a spiritual and perfect

Socrates makes virtue identical with knowledge. If one knows the

2. Christianity is the absolute and final religion.

a) Though recent in historic origin, it is the oldest of religions in

The Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world.

It is the divine plan to gather together in Christ all things in

b) It is complete in its truths and methods, and admits of no

Note: As an historic fact, no truth relating to God or to man,

There has been a vast advance in insight into the Bible.

c) It includes all that is valuable in other religions, and

In a broad sense, all religions and philosophies may be

NOTE: It is no objection to Christianity that the golden rule, in a

All the old religions have in them elements of truth, and

Jewish history belongs to the revealed plan for introducing

a.) Note: The Ebionites wished to absorb Christianity into

The Greeks furnished for the new religion a language

a.) The Platonic and Stoic philosophies stirred lofty spiritual

C.) NOTE: The Greeks had no profound sense of sin or of alienation of

The Romans furnished a common government for the

B. The Historical Context of the Early Church

1. Second Temple Judaism: This phrase describes the society and

Culture. More than doctrine, Jewish culture bound the Jews

Identity as Gods chosen people. Exile showed the Jews how

The land. God placed them in a particular place and

The Temple, priesthood, and festivals. To speak against the

Synagogue. This was especially so for Diaspora Jews (the