History of Dogma Volume II Part 19

[Footnote 480: The supreme G.o.d is the Holy and Redeeming One. Hence the ident.i.ty of the creator of the world and the supreme G.o.d also denotes the unity of nature, morality, and revelation.]

[Footnote 481: What success the early-Christian writings of the second century had is almost completely unknown to us; but we are justified in saying that the five books "adv. haereses" of Irenaeus were successful, for we can prove the favourable reception of this work and the effects it had in the 3rd and 4th centuries (for instance, on Hippolytus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Victorinus, Marcellus of Ancyra, Epiphanius, and perhaps Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius). As is well known, we no longer possess a Greek ma.n.u.script, although it can be proved that the work was preserved down to middle Byzantine times, and was quoted with respect. The insufficient Christological and especially the eschatological disquisitions spoiled the enjoyment of the work in later times (on the Latin Irenaeus cf. the exhaustive examination of Loof: "The Ma.n.u.scripts of the Latin translation of Irenaeus", in the "Studies of Church History" dedicated to Reuter, 1887). The old Catholic works written against heretics by Rhodon, Melito, Miltiades, Proculus, Modestus, Musa.n.u.s, Theophilus, Philip of Gortyna, Hippolytus, and others have all been just as little preserved to us as the oldest book of this kind, the Syntagma of Justin against heresies, and the Memorabilia of Hegesippus. If we consider the criticism to which Tatian's Christology was subjected by Arethas in the 10th century (Oratio 5; see my Texte und Untersuchungen I. 1, 2 p. 95 ff.), and the depreciatory judgment pa.s.sed on Chiliasm from the 3rd century downwards, and if we moreover reflect that the older polemical works directed against heretics were supplanted by later detailed ones, we have a summary of the reasons for the loss of that oldest Catholic literature. This loss indeed makes it impossible for us to form an exact estimate of the extent and intensity of the effect produced by any individual writing, even including the great work of Irenaeus.]

[Footnote 482: People are fond of speaking of the "Asia Minor" theology of Irenaeus, ascribe it already to his teachers, Polycarp and the presbyters, then ascend from these to the Apostle John, and complete, though not without hesitation, the equation: John--Irenaeus. By this speculation they win simply everything, in so far as the Catholic doctrine now appears as the property of an "apostolic" circle, and Gnosticism and Antignosticism are thus eliminated. But the following arguments may be urged against this theory: (1) What we know of Polycarp by no means gives countenance to the supposition that Irenaeus learned more from him and his fellows than a pious regard for the Church tradition and a collection of historical traditions and principles. (2) The doctrine of Irenaeus cannot be separated from the received _canon_ of New Testament writings; but in the generation before him there was as yet no such compilation. (3) The presbyter from whom Irenaeus adopted important lines of thought in the 4th book did not write till after the middle of the second century. (4) Tertullian owes his Christocentric theology, so far as he has such a thing, to Irenaeus (and Melito?).]

[Footnote 483: Marcion, as is well known, went still further in his depreciatory judgment of the world, and therefore recognised in the redemption through Christ a pure act of grace.]

[Footnote 484: See Molwitz, De [Greek: Anakephalaioseos] in Irenaei theologia potestate, Dresden, 1874.]

[Footnote 485: See, e.g., the Epistle to the Ephesians and also the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians.]

[Footnote 486: But see the remark made above, p. 220, note 1. We might without loss give up the half of the Apologies in return for the preservation of Justin's chief Antignostic work.]

[Footnote 487: According to the Gnostic Christology Christ merely restores the _status quo ante_, according to that of Irenaeus he first and alone realises the hitherto unaccomplished destination of humanity.]

[Footnote 488: According to the Gnostic conception the incarnation of the divine, i.e., the fall of _Sophia_, contains, paradoxically expressed, the element of sin; according to Irenaeus' idea the element of redemption. Hence we must compare not only the Gnostic Christ, but the Gnostic Sophia, with the Christ of the Church. Irenaeus himself did so in II. 20. 3.]

[Footnote 489: After tracing in II. 14 the origin of the Gnostic theologoumena to the Greek philosophers Irenaeus continues -- 7: "Dicemus autem adversus eos: utramne hi omnes qui praedicti sunt, c.u.m quibus eadem dicentes arguimini (Scil. "ye Gnostics with the philosophers"), cognoverunt veritatem aut non cognoverunt? Et si quidem cognoverunt, superflua est salvatoris in hunc mundum descensio. Ut (lege "ad") quid enim descendebat?" It is characteristic of Irenaeus not to ask what is new in the revelations of G.o.d (through the prophets and the Logos), but quite definitely: "Cur descendit salvator in hunc mundum?" See also lib.

III. praef.: "veritas, hoc est dei filii doctrina", III. 10. 3: "Haec est salutis agnitio quae deerat eis, quae est filii del agnitio ... agnitio salutis erat agnitio filii dei, qui et salus et salvator et salutare vere et dicitur et est." III. 11. 3: III. 12. 7: IV. 24.]

[Footnote 490: See II. 24. 3, 4: "Non enim ex n.o.bis neque ex nostra natura vita est; sed secundum gratiam dei datur." Cf. what follows.

Irenaeus has in various places argued that human nature inclusive of the flesh is _capax incorruptibilitatis_, and likewise that immortality is at once a free gift and the realisation of man's destiny.]

[Footnote 491: Book V. pref.: "Iesus Christus propter immensam suam dilectionem factus est quod sumus nos, uti nos perficeret esse quod et ipse": III. 6. I: "Deus stet.i.t in synagoga deorum ... de patre et filio et de his, qui adoptionem perceperunt, dicit: hi autem sunt ecclesia.

Haec enim est synagoga dei," etc.; see also what follows III. 16. 3: "Filius dei hominis filius factus, ut per eum adoptionem percipiamus portante homine et capiente et compleciente filium dei." III. 16. 6: "Dei verb.u.m unigenitus, qui semper humano generi adest, unitus et consparsus suo plasmati secundum placitum patris et caro factus, ipse est Iesus Christus dominus noster ... unus Iesus Christus, veniens per universam dispositionem et omnia in semetipsum recapitulans. In omnibus autem est et h.o.m.o plasmatio dei, et hominem ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis factus comprehensibilis, et impa.s.sibilis pa.s.sibilis, et verb.u.m h.o.m.o, universa in semetipsum recapitulans ... in semetipsum primatum a.s.sumens,.. universa attrahat ad semetipsum apto in tempore." III. 18.

1: "Quando incarnatus est filius h.o.m.o et h.o.m.o factus longam hominum expositionem in se ipso recapitulavit, in compendio n.o.bis salutem praestans, ut quod perdideramus in Adam id est secundum imaginem et similitudinem esse dei, hoc in Christo Iesu reciperemus." Cf. the whole 18th chapter where the deepest thoughts of the Pauline Gnosis of the death on the cross are amalgamated with the Gnosis of the incarnation; see especially 18. 6, 7: "[Greek: enosen oun ton anthropon to Theo. Ei gar me anthropos enikesen ten antipalon tou anthropou, ouk an dikaios enikethe ho echthros. Palin te, ei me ho Theos edoresato ten soterian, ouk an bebaios eschomen auten. Kai ei me sunenothe ho anthropos to Theo, ouk an edunethe metaschein tes aphtharsias. Edei gar ton mesiten Theou te kai anthropon dia tes idias pros hekaterous oikeiotetos eis philian kai h.o.m.onoian tous amphoterous sunagogein; kai Theo men parastesai ton antropon anthropois de gnorisai ton Theon.] Qua enim ratione filiorum adoptionis eius participes esse possemus, nisi per filium eam quae est ad ipsura recep.i.s.semus ab eo communionem, nisi verb.u.m eius communica.s.set n.o.bis caro factum? Quapropter et per omnem venit aetatem, omnibus rest.i.tuens eam quae est ad deum communionem." The Pauline ideas about sin, law, and bondage are incorporated by Irenaeus in what follows. The disquisitions in capp. 19-23 are dominated by the same fundamental idea.

In cap. 19 Irenaeus turns to those who hold Jesus to be a mere man, "perseverantes in servitute pristinae in.o.bedientiae moriuntur, nondum commixti verbo dei patris neque per filium percipientes libertatem ...

privantur munere eius, quod est vita aesterna: non recipientes autem verb.u.m incorruptionis perseverant in carne mortali, et sunt debitores mortis, antidotum vitae non accipientes. Ad quos verb.u.m ait, suum munus gratiae? narrans: [Greek: Ego eipa, huioi hupsistou este pantes kai theoi; humeis de hos anthropoi apothneskete. Tauta legei pros tous me dexamenous ten dorean tes huiothesias, all' atimazontas ten sarkosin tes katharas genneseos tou logou tou Theou ... Eis touto gar ho logos anthropos] et qui filius dei est filius hominis factus est, [Greek: hina ho anthropos ton logon ch.o.r.esas kai ten huiothesian labon huios genetai Theou]. Non enim poteramus aliter incorruptelam et immortalitatem percipere, nisi adunati fuissemus incorruptelae et immortalitati.

Quemadmodum autem adunari possumus incorruptelae et immortalitati, nisi prius incorruptela et immortalitas facta fuisset id quod et nos, ut absorbet*etur quod erat corruptibile ab incorruptela et quod erat mortale ab immortalitate, ut filiorum adoptionem perciperemus?" III. 21.

10: [Greek: Ei toinun ho protos Adam esche patera anthropon kai ek spermatos egennethe, eikos en kai deuteron Adam legein ex Ioseph gegennesthai. Ei de ekeinos ek ges elephthe, plastes de autou ho Theos, edei kai ton anakephalaioumenon eis auton hupo tou Theou peplasmenon anthropon ten auten ekeino tes genneseos echein h.o.m.oioteta. Eis ti oun palin ouk elabe choun ho Theos, all' ek Marias energese ten plasin genesthai. Hina me alle plasis genetai mede allo to sozomenon e, all'

autos ekeinos anakephalaiothe teroumenes tes h.o.m.oiotetos]; III. 23. 1: IV. 38: V. 36: IV. 20: V. 16, 19-21, 22. In working out this thought Irenaeus verges here and there on soteriological naturalism (see especially the disquisitions regarding the salvation of Adam, opposed to Tatian's views, in III. 23). But he does not fall into this for two reasons. In the first place, as regards the history, of Jesus, he has been taught by Paul not to stop at the incarnation, but to view the work of salvation as only completed by the sufferings and death of Christ (See II. 20. 3: "dominus per pa.s.sionem mortem destruxit et solvit errorem corruptionemque exterminavit, et ignorantiam destruxit, vitam autem manifestavit et ostendit veritatem et incorruptionem donavit"; III. 16. 9: III. 18. 1-7 and many other pa.s.sages), that is, to regard Christ as having performed a _work_. Secondly, alongside of the deification of Adam's children, viewed as a mechanical result of the incarnation, he placed the other (apologetic) thought, viz., that Christ, as the teacher, imparts complete knowledge, that he has restored, i.e., strengthened the freedom of man, and that redemption (by which he means fellows.h.i.+p with G.o.d) therefore takes place only in the case of those children of Adam that acknowledge the truth proclaimed by Christ and imitate the Redeemer in a holy life (V. 1. 1.: "Non enim aliter nos discere poteramus quae sunt dei, nisi magister noster, verb.u.m exsistens, h.o.m.o factus fuisset. Neque enim alias poterat enarrare n.o.bis, quae sunt patris, nisi proprium ipsius verb.u.m ... Neque rursus nos aliter discere poteramus, nisi magistrum nostrum videntes et per auditum nostrum vocem eius percipientes, ut imitatores quidem operum, factores autem sermonum eius facti, communionem habeamus c.u.m ipso", and many other pa.s.sages). We find a combined formula in III. 5. 3: "Christus libertatem hominibus restauravit et attribuit incorruptelae haereditatem."]

[Footnote 492: Theophilus also did not see further, see Wendt, l.c., 17 ff.]

[Footnote 493: Melito's teaching must have been similar. In a fragment attributed to him (see my Texte und Untersuchungen I. 1, 2 p. 255 ff.) we even find the expression "[Greek: hai duo ousiai Christou]". The genuineness of the fragment is indeed disputed, but, as I think, without grounds. It is certainly remarkable that the formula is not found in Irenaeus (see details below). The first Syriac fragment (Otto IX. p. 419) shows that Melito also views redemption as reunion through Christ.]

[Footnote 494: The conception of the stage by stage development of the economy of G.o.d and the corresponding idea of "several covenants" (I. 10.

3: III. 11-15 and elsewhere) denote a very considerable advance, which the Church teachers owe to the controversy with Gnosticism, or to the example of the Gnostics. In this case the origin of the idea is quite plain. For details see below.]

[Footnote 495: It would seem from some pa.s.sages as if faith and theological knowledge were according to Irenaeus simply related as the "is" and the "why." As a matter of fact, he did express himself so without being really able to maintain the relations.h.i.+p thus fixed; for faith itself must also to some extent include a knowledge of the reason and aim of G.o.d's ways of salvation. Faith and theological knowledge are therefore, after all, closely interwoven with each other. Irenaeus merely sought for a clear distinction, but it was impossible for him to find it in his way. The truth rather is that the same man, who, in opposition to heresy, condemned an exaggerated estimate of theoretical knowledge, contributed a great deal to the transformation of that faith into a monistic speculation.]

[Footnote 496: See 1. 10. 2: [Greek: Kai oute ho panu dunatos en logo ton en tais ekklesiais proestoton touton] (scil. than the regula sidei) [Greek: epei oudeis gar uper ton didaskalon oute ho asthenes en to logo elattosei ten paradosin. Mias gar kai tes autes pisteos ouses oute ho polu peri autes dunamenos eipein epleonasen, oute ho to oligon elattonese].]

[Footnote 497: See Bohringer's careful reviews of the theology of Irenaeus and Tertullian (Kirchengeschichte in Biographien, Vol. I. 1st section, 1st half (2nd ed.), pp. 378-612, 2nd half, pp. 484-739).]

[Footnote 498: To the proof from prescription belong the arguments derived from the novelty and contradictory multiplicity of the Gnostic doctrines as well as the proofs that Greek philosophy is the original source of heresy. See Iren. II. 14. 1-6; Tertull. de praescr. 7; Apolog.

47 and other places; the Philosophoumena of Hippolytus. On Irenaeus'

criticism of Gnostic theology see Kunze, Gotteslehre des Irenaus, Leipzig, 1891. p. 8 ff.]

[Footnote 499: See Irenaeus II. 1. 2-4: II. 31. 1. Tertull., adv. Marc.

I. 2-7. Tertullian proves that there can be neither two morally similar, nor two morally dissimilar Deities; see also I. 15.]

[Footnote 500: See Irenaeus II. 13. Tertullian (ad Valent. 4) very appropriately defined the aeons of Ptolemy as "personales substantias extra deum determinatas, quas Valentinus in ipsa summa divinitatis ut sensus et affectus motus incluserat."]

[Footnote 501: See Irenaeus, l.c., and elsewhere in the 2nd Book, Tertull. adv. Valent. in several pa.s.sages. Moreover, Irenaeus still treated the first 8 Ptolemaic aeons with more respect than the 22 following, because here at least there was some appearance of a Biblical foundation. In confuting the doctrine of aeons he incidentally raised several questions (II. 17. 2), which Church theologians discussed in later times, with reference to the Son and Spirit. "Quaeritur quemadmodum emissi sunt reliqui aeones? Utrum uniti ei qui emiserit, quemadmodum a sole radii, an efficabiliter et partiliter, uti sit unusquisque eorum separatim et suam figurationem habens, quemadmodum ab homine h.o.m.o ...

Aut secundum germinationem, quemabmodum ab arbore rami? Et utrum eiusdem substantiae exsistebant his qui se emiserunt, an ex altera quadam substantia substantiam habentes? Et utrum in eodem emissi sunt, ut eiusdem temporis essent sibi?... Et utrum simplices quidam et uniformes et undique sibi aequales et similes, quemadmodum spiritus et lumina emissa sunt, an compositi et differentes"? See also II. 17. 4: "Si autem velut a lumine lumina accensa sunt... velut verbi gratia a facula faculae, generatione quidem et magnitudine forta.s.se distabunt ab invicem; eiusdem autem substantive c.u.m sint c.u.m principe emissionis ipsorum, aut omnes impa.s.sibiles perseverant aut et pater ipsorum partic.i.p.abit pa.s.siones. Neque enim quae postea accensa est facula, alterum lumen habebit quam illud quod ante eam fuit." Here we have already a statement of the logical reasons, which in later times were urged against the Arian doctrine.]

[Footnote 502: See Iren. II. 17. 5 and II. 18.]

[Footnote 503: See Iren. II. 4. 2.]

[Footnote 504: Tertullian in particular argued in great detail (adv.

Marc. I. 9-19) that every G.o.d must, above all, have revealed himself as a creator. In opposition to Marcion's rejection of all natural theology, he represents this science as the foundation of all religious belief. In this connection he eulogised the created world (I. 13) and at the same time (see also the 2nd Book) argued in favour of the Demiurge, i.e., of the one true G.o.d. Irenaeus urged a series of acute and weighty objections to the cosmogony of the Valentinians (see II. 1-5), and showed how untenable was the idea of the Demiurge as an intermediate being. The doctrines that the Supreme Being is unknown (II. 6), that the Demiurge is the blind instrument of higher aeons, that the world was created against the will of the Supreme G.o.d, and, lastly, that our world is the imperfect copy of a higher one were also opposed by him with rational arguments. His refutation of the last conception is specially remarkable (II. 7). On the idea that G.o.d did not create the world from eternal matter see Tertull., adv. Hermog.]

[Footnote 505: But this very method of argument was without doubt specially impressive in the case of the educated, and it is these alone of whom we are here speaking. On the decay of Gnosticism after the end of the 2nd century, see Renan, Origines, Vol. VII., p. 113 ff.]

[Footnote 506: See his arguments that the Gnostics merely _a.s.sert_ that they have only one Christ, whereas they actually possess several, III.

16. 1, 8 and elsewhere.]

[Footnote 507: See Iren., I. 9 and elsewhere; Tertull., de praescr. 39, adv. Valent. pa.s.sim.]

[Footnote 508: See Tertull., adv. Marc. II. 19, 21, 22: III. 5, 6, 14, 19: V. 1.; Orig. Comm. in Matth., T. XV. 3, Opp. III., p. 655: Comm. in ep. ad Rom., T. II. 12. Opp. IV., p. 494 sq.; Pseudo-Orig. Adamantius, De recta in deum fide; Orig. I. pp. 808, 817.]

[Footnote 509: For this reason Tertullian altogether forbade exegetic disputes with the Gnostics, see de praescr. 16-19: "Ego non ad scripturas provocandum est nec in his const.i.tuendum certamen, in quibus aut milla aut incerta victoria est aut parum certa."]

[Footnote 510: See Iren., III. 5. 1: III. 12. 6.]

[Footnote 511: See Iren., III. 14. 2: III. 15. 1; Tertull., de praescr.

25: "Scripturae quidem perfectae sunt, quippe a verbo dei et spiritu eius dictae, nos autem secundum quod minores sumus et novissimi a verbo dei et spiritu eius, secundum hoc et scientia niysteriorum eius indigenus."]

[Footnote 512: See Iren. II. 35. 2: IV. 34, 35 and elsewhere. Irenaeus also a.s.serted that the translation of the Septuagint (III. 21. 4) was inspired. The repudiation of different kinds of inspiration in the Scriptures likewise involved the rejection of all the critical views of the Gnostics that were concealed behind that a.s.sumption. The Alexandrians were the first who again to some extent adopted these critical principles.]

[Footnote 513: See Iren. II. 10. 1: II. 27. 1, 2.]

[Footnote 514: See Iren. II. 25. I.]

[Footnote 515: Irenaeus appropriates the words of an Asia Minor presbyter when he says (IV. 31. 1): "De his quidem delictis, de quibus ipsae scripturae increpant patriarchas et prophetas, nos non oportere exprobare eis ... de quibus autem scripturae non inciepant (scil. delictis), sed simpliciter sunt positae, nos non debere fieri accusatores, sed typum quaerere."]

[Footnote 516: See, e.g., IV. 20. 12 where he declares the three spies whom Rahab entertained to be Father, Son. and Spirit.]

[Footnote 517: See Iren. IV. 22. 1.]

[Footnote 518: See Iren. III. 17. 3.]

[Footnote 519: Justin had already noted certain peculiarities of the Holy Scriptures as distinguished from profane writings. Tertullian speaks of two _proprietates iudaicae literaturae_ in adv. Marc. III. 5. 6.

But the Alexandrians were the first to propound any kind of complete theories of inspiration.]

[Footnote 520: See above p. 233, note 2, Kunze, l.c.]