ἦμεν θεοῦ δι' ἁμαρτίας, καὶ ὥρισεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν ἁμαρτάνοντα ἀποθνήσκειν· ἔδει οὖν ἓν ἐκ τῶν δύο γενέσθαι, ἢ ἀληθεύοντα θεὸν πάντας ἀνελεῖν ἢ φιλανθρωπευόμενον παραλῦσαι τὴν ἀπόφασιν. ̓Αλλὰ βλέπε θεοῦ σοφίαν· ἐτήρησεν καὶ τῇ ἀποφάσει τὴν ἀλήθειαν, καὶ τῇ φιλανθρωπίᾳ τὴν ἐνέργειαν, κ. τ. λ. Eus. dem. ev. x. 1. Cyr. Alex. de recta fide ad Regin. Opp. T. v. P. ii. p. 132, in ev. Joh. Opp. T. iv. p. 114. [Comp. Hilary in Ps. liii. 12 Passio suscepta voluntarie est, officio ipsa satisfactura pœnali: Ambrose de fuga Sæc. c. 7: (Christus) suscepit mortem ut impleretur sententia, satisfieret indicato per maledictum carnis peccatricis usque ad mortem.]

(*) Cyr. Hier. 1. c.: Οὐ τοσοῦτον ἡμάρτομεν, ὅσον ἐδικαιοπράγησεν ὁ τὴν Tuxǹv Uπig nμãν TEDEIXWS. Chrys. in Ep. ad Rom. hom. x. 17: *Ωσπερ εἴ τις ὀβολοὺς δέκα ὀφείλοντά τινα εἰς δεσμωτήριον ἐμβάλοι, οὐκ αὐτὸν δὲ μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ γυναῖκα καὶ παιδία, καὶ οἰκέτας δι' αὐτόν· ἐλθὼν δὲ ἕτερος μὴ τοὺς δέκα ὀβολοὺς καταβάλοι μόνον, ἀλλὰ μύρια χρυσοῦ τάλαντα χαρίσαιτο, καὶ εἰς βασιλικὰς εἰσαγάγοι τὸν δεσμώτην......... οὕτω καὶ ἐφ' ἡμῶν γέγονε πολλῷ γὰρ πλείονα ὧν ὀφείλομεν κατέβαλεν ὁ Χριστὸς, καὶ τοσούτῳ πλείονα, ὅσῳ πρὸς ξανίδα μικρὰν πέλαγος ἄπειρον. On similar ideas of Leo the Great, as well as concerning his entire theory of redemption, see Griesbach, Opuscula, p. 98, ss.

(5) Thus Gregory of Nazianzum says, Orat. xxiv. 4, p. 439: He has ascended the cross, and taken me with him, to nail my sin on it, to triumph over the serpent, to sanctify the tree, to overcome lust, to lead Adam to salvation, and to restore the fallen image of God."......Orat. xlv. 28, p. 867. "God became man, and died, that we might live: we have died with him, to be purified; we are raised from the dead with him, since we have died with him; we are glorified with him, because we have risen with him from the grave." Ullmann, p. 450. Comp. Orat. xxxvi. p. 580, quoted by Münscher ed. by von Cölln, i. p. 435, and the passages cited there from Hilary, de Trin. ii. 24, and Augustine de Trinitate iv. 12, [Athan. de Incarn. c. 44. Greg. Nyss. Orat. cat. c. 16, 32.]

6) It is worthy of notice, that especially Augustine on practical grounds, brought this ethical import of the death of Christ very prominently forward (to counterbalance, as it were, the theory of salvation which is so easily misunderstood :) Tota itaque vita ejus disciplina morum fuit (de vera rel. c. 16.) Christ died, in order that no one might be afraid of death, nor even of the most cruel manner of putting persons to death, de fide et symb. c. 6. de divers. quæst. qu. 25. (Opp. T. vi. p. 7.) The

love of Christ displayed in his death shall constrain us to love him in return, de catech. rud. c. 4: Christus pro nobis mortuus est. Hoc autem ideo, quia finis præcepti et plenitudo legis charitas est, ut et nos invicem diligamus, et quemadmodum ille pro nobis animam suam posuit, sic et nos pro fratribus animam ponamus.......................Nulla est enim major ad amorem invitatio, quam prævenire amando, et nimis durus est animus, qui dilectionem si nolebat impendere, nolit rependere. Comp. Lact. Inst. div. iv. 23, ss. Bas. M. de Spir. S. c. 15.

(7) Comp. the passage quoted from Athanasius in note 3. Gregory of Nyssa also says, (Orat. catech. c. 27), that not only the death of Christ had effected the redemption of man, but also the circumstance that he preserved a pure disposition in all the moments of his life:...μολυνθείσης τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης ζωῆς, (τὸν Χριστὸν ἐν ἀρχῇ τε καὶ τελευτῇ καὶ τοῖς διὰ μέσου πᾶσιν ἔδει διὰ πάντων γενέσθαι τὴν ἐκπλύνουσαν δύναμιν, καὶ μὴ τῷ μέν τι θεραπεῦσαι τῷ κατ θα σίῳ, τὸ δὲ περιϊδεῖν αθεράπευτον. Augustine de vera rel. c. 26, represents Christ as the second Adam, and contrasts him as the homo justitia with the homo peccati; as sin and ruin are the effects of our connection with Adam, so redemption is the effect of a living union with Christ. Comp. de libero arbitrio iii. 10, de consensu evang. i. c. 35, where he places the real nature of redemption in the manifestation of the Godman. The design of Christ's incarnation is briefly but concisely stated by Gregory the Great, Mor. xxi. 6: Ad hoc Dominus apparuit in carne, ut humanum vitam admonendo excitaret, exemplo præbendo accenderet, moriendo redimeret, resurgendo repararet, comp. Lau, p. 435. Hence Baur says, 1. c. p. 109, 10: "The reconciliation of man to God, the incarnation of God in Christ, and the union of the Divine with the human, which is realized by it, were laid down as the general principle, including all particular definitions, which was ever and anon adopted by the theologians of that age ....Thus a view was formed of the atonement, which we may term the mystical, inasmuch as it is founded on a general comprehensive view of the subject, rather than on philosophical definitions.

(8) Thus Gregory of Nazianzum Orat. xxxiii. p. 536, numbered speculations on the death of Christ among those things, on which it is useful to have correct ideas, but not dangerous to be mistaken, and placed them on the same level with questions concerning the creation of the world, the nature of matter and of the soul, the resurrection, general judgment, etc. Comp. Baur,

p. 109.-Eusebius of Cæsarea (demonstr. evang. iv. 12,) merely enumerates various reasons for the death of Christ, without bringing them into connection. Christ died, 1. In order to prove, that he is Lord both over the quick and the dead; 2 To redeem from sin; 3. To atone for sin; 4. To destroy the power of Satan; 5. To give his disciples a visible evidence of the reality of the life to come (by his resurrection); and, 6. To abrogate the sacrifices of the Old Test. dispensation.

The more anxious theologians were to adduce the reasons which induced Christ to lay down his life, the more natural was it, to ask whether God could have accomplished the work of redemption in any other way? Augustine rejects such idle questions in the manner of Irenæus, de agone Christi, c 10: Sunt autem stulti, qui dicunt: Non poterat aliter sapientia Dei homines liberare, nisi susciperet hominem, et nasceretur ex femina, et a peccatoribus omnia pateretur. Quibus dicimus: poterat omnino, sed si aliter faceret, similiter vestræ stultitiæ displiceret. [Aug. de trin. xiii. 10. Greg. Nuz. Orat. ix. p. 157. Greg. Nyssa, Orat. cat. c. Basil the Great (hom. in Ps. xlviii. § 3.) and Greg. the Great (Moral. Lib. xvii. 46.) maintained that the death of the Godman was necessary to accomplish the salvation of mankind.] Further particulars may be found in Münscher, Handbuch. iv. p. 292, ss. Baur, p. 85. Rufinus gives a mystical interpretation of the various separate sufferings of Christ, expos. symb. ap. p. 22, ss.

Concerning the extent of the atonement, it may be observed, that Didymus of Alexandria (on 1 Peter, iii. 22, in Gallandii Bibl. PP. T. iv. p. 325: Pacificavit enim Jesus per sanguinem crucis suæ quæ in cœlis et quæ in terra sunt, omne bellum destruens et tumultum), and Gregory of Nyssa in some sense (Orat. catech. c. 25, where he speaks of zãra xríos) revived the idea of Origen, that the effects of Christ's death were not limited to this world, but extended over the whole universe; Gregory also asserted, that the work of redemption would not have been necessary, if all men had been as holy as Moses, Paul, Ezekiel, Elijah, and Isaiah, (contra Apollin. iii. p. 263.) The opposite view was taken by Augustine who, in accordance with his theory, thought that all men stood in need of redemption, but limited the extent of the atonement; comp. the former sections on the doctrine of original sin, and on predestination, and contra Julian vi. c. 24. Leo the Great, on the contrary, enlarged the extent of the atonement, Ep. 134, c. 14: Effusio sanguinis Christi pro injustis tam fuit dives ad pretium, ut si universitas captivorum in redemptorem suum crederet, nullum diaboli vincula retinerent.—

A dramatic representation of the descensus ad inferos in imitation of the Evang. Nicodemi is given in the discourse: de adventu et annunciatione Joannis (Baptistæ) apud inferos, commonly ascribed to Eusebius of Emisa ; comp. also Epiphanius in sepulcr. Christi, Opp. ii. p. 270. Augustï's edition of Euseb. of Emisa, p. 1, ss. On the question whether the system of Apollinaris caused the introduction of the said doctrine into the

Apostles' Creed? as well as concerning the relation in which they stood to each other, see Neander, Kirchengesch. ii. p. 923.

Lastly, the appropriation of the merits of Christ on the part of the individual Christian is connected with what has been said before, and with the anthropological definitions (§ 107-114.) Comp. Münscher, Handbuch, iv. p. 295, 319.

4. The Church and Her Means of Grace.

§ 135.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH.

Two causes contributed to determine the doctrine of the church: 1. The external history of the church itself, its victory over paganism, and its rising power under the protection of the state. 2. The victory of Augustinism over the doctrines of the Pelagians,(1) Manichæans, (2) and Donatists,(3) which in different ways threatened to destroy ecclesiastical unity. The last mentioned resembled the followers of Novatian in the preceding period, by maintaining that the church was composed only of saints. In opposition to them Optatus of Mileve,(4) as well as Augustine,(5) asserted that the church consists of the sum total of all who are baptized, and, spiritualizing that which existed in reality, they advanced the idea of a universal Christian church. The bishops of Rome applied this idea to the papal system,(6) and thus prepared the way for the hierarchy of the middle ages. But however different the opinions of the men of those times were respecting the place and nature of the true church, the proposition laid down by former theologians: that there is no salvation out of the church, was firmly adhered to, and carried out in all its consequences.(7)

(1) The Pelagians were in so far opposed to the church, as they considered only the individual Christian as such, and overlooked the mysterious connection between the individual and the totality. Their strict notions of morality led necessarily to Puritanism; hence the synod of Diospolis (A. D. 415) blamed

them for having said: ecclesiam hic esse sine macula et ruga, Aug. de gestis Pelagii, c. 12. Before this time some Christians in Sicily who, generally speaking, agreed with the Pelagians, had asserted: Ecclesiam hanc esse, quæ nunc frequentatur populis et sine peccato esse posse, August. Ep. clvi.

(2) The Manichæans, by separating the Electi from the rest (Auditores), gave countenance to the principle of an ecclesiola in ecclesia; besides the great body of the Manichæan church itself formed, as the one elect world of light, a contrast with the vast mass of darkness. "The Manichæan church is in relation to the world what the limited circle of the Electi is in relation to the larger assembly of the Auditores; that which is yet variously divided and separated in the latter, has its centralpoint of union in the former." Baur, Manich. Religionssystem p. 282.

(3) On the external history of the Donatists comp. the works on ecclesiastical history. Sources: Optatus Milevitanus (about the year 368) de schismate Donatistarum, together with Monumenta vett. ad Donatist. hist. pertinentia ed. L. E. du Pin, Par. 1700, ss. (Opp. Aug. T. ix.) Valesius, de schism. Donat. in an Appendix to Eusebius. Norisius (edited by Ballerini brothers) Ven. 1729, iv. fol. Walch Ketzergeschichte, vol. iv. Concerning the derivation of the name (whether from Donatus a casis nigris, or from Donat. M. ?) see Neander, Kirchengesch. ii. 1, p. 407. The question at issue, viz. whether Cæcilian could be invested with the episcopal office, having been ordained by a Traditor, and the election of another bishop in the person of Majorinus, led to further dogmatic discussions on the purity of the church. In the opinion of the Donatists, the church ought to be pure (sine macula et ruga.) It must, therefore, exercise no forbearance towards any unworthy members (1 Cor. v. and especially many passages from the Old Test.) When the opponents of the Donatists appealed to the parable of the tares and the wheat (Matth. xiii.) the latter applied it (according to our Saviour's own interpretation) to the world, and not to the church. Augustine, however, asserted, mundum ipsum appellatum esse pro ecclesiæ nomine.

Concerning the opinions of Optatus (which are stated in the second book of his treatise: de schismate Donatistarum) see Rothe, Anfänge der Christlichen Kirche, p. 677, ss. He developed the views of Cyprian. There is but one church. It