count, Mansi ix. 223. But Chrysostom, and also Jerome, admitted human peculiarities, the one in reference to the gospels (Hom. i. in Matth.), the other with respect to the apostle Paul (on Gal. v. 12.); comp. Neander, Kirchengesch. ii. 2, p. 751. Basil the Great says respecting the prophets (in the commentary on Isaiah commonly ascribed to him, Opp. T. i. p. 379, ed. Ben.): "As it is not every substance which is fitted to reflect images, but only such as possess a certain smoothness and transparency, so the effective power of the Spirit is not visible in all souls, but only in such as are neither perverse nor distorted;" (Rudelbach,) p. 28. Augustine (do consensu evang. ii. 12.) asserts, that the evangelists had written ut quisque meminerat, ut cuique cordi erat, vel brevius vel prolixius but he is careful not to be misunderstood, lib. i. c. 2: Quamvis singuli suum quendam narrandi ordinem tenuisse videantur, non tamen unusquisque eorum velut alterius ignarus voluisse scribere reperitur, vel ignorata prætermisisse, quæ scripsisse alius invenitur: sed sicut unicuique inspiratum est, non superfluam cooperationem sui laboris adjunxit.—Concerning Gregory of Nazianzum, comp. Orat. ii. 105, p. 60. See Ullmann, p. 305, note.-Epiphanius opposed very decidedly the notions derived from the old uavrix (comp. § 32.) according to which the inspired writers were entirely passive, and supposed that the prophets enjoyed a clear perception of the Divine, a calm disposition of mind, etc. Comp. hær. 48, c. 3, and Jerome Proom. in Nahum, in Habacuc et in Jesaiam: Neque vero, ut Montanus cum insanis feminis somniat, Prophetæ in exstasi sunt locuti, ut nescirent, quid loquerentur, et quum alios erudirent, ipsi ignorarent, quod dicerent. Though Jerome allows that human (e. g. grammatical) faults might have occurred, yet he guards himself against any dangerous inferences which might be drawn from his premises (Comment. in ep. ad Ephes. lib. ii. ad cap. iii. 1): Nos, quotiescunque solecismos aut tale quid annotamus, non Apostolum pulsamus, ut malevoli criminantur, sed magis Apostoli assertores sumus, etc. According to him the Divine power of the word itself destroyed these apparent blemishes, or caused believers to overlook them. "The opinion of these theologians manifestly was, that the external phenomena do not preclude the reality of the highest effects of Divine grace.” Rudelbach, p. 42. Theodoret, who may be considered as the representative of this tendency, rejects both the false allegorical, and the merely historical systems of interpretation, Protheoria in Psalmos (ed Schulze) T. i. p. 603, in Rudelbach, p. 36. (He calls the latter a Jewish rather than Christian interpretation.) Comp. Münter, über die antiochen. Schule, I. c. and Neander, Kirchengesch. ii. 2, p. 748, ss. (5) It is remarkable that Augustine, on the one hand, understands all biblical narratives in their strictly historical, literal sense; and, on the other, leaves ample scope for allegorical interpretation. Thus he takes much pains, de civ. Dei xv. 27, to defend the narrative of the ark of Noah against mathematical and physical objections (he even supposes a miracle by which carnivorous animals were changed into herbivorous), nevertheless he thinks that all this had happened only ad præfigurandam ecclesiam, and represents the clean and unclean animals as types of Judaism and Paganism, etc. [Comp. also Davidson, 1. c. p. 138, where another specimen is given] The passage de genes. ad litter. ab. init. In libris autem omnibus sanctis intueri oportet, quæ ibi æterna intimentur, quæ facta narrentur, quæ futura prænuntientur, quæ agenda præcipiantur, has given rise to the doctrine of a fourfold sense of Scripture; comp. with it de util. cred. 3: omnis igitur scriptura, quæ testamentum vetus vocatur, diligenter eam nosse cupientibus quadrifariam traditur, secundum historiam, secundum ætiologiam, secundum analogiam, secundum allegoriam; the further exposition of his views is given ibid. [Davidson, 1. c. p. 137.] According to Augustine seven things are necessary to the right interpretation of Scripture, doctr. christ. ii. 7: timor, pietas, scientia, fortitudo, consilium, purgatio cordis, sapientia. But he who will perfectly interpret an author, must be animated by love to him, de util. cred. 6: Agendum enim tecum prius est, ut auctores ipsos non oderis, deinde ut ames, et hoc agendum quovis alio modo potius, quam exponendis eorum sententiis et literis. Propterea quia si Virgilium odissemus, imo si non eum, priusquam intellectus esset, majorum nostrum commendatione diligeremus, nunquam nobis satisfieret de illis ejus quæstionibus innumerabilibus, quibus grammatici agitari et perturbari solent, nec audiremus libenter, qui cum ejus laude illas expediret, sed ei faveremus, qui per cas illum errasse ac delirasse conaretur ostendere. Nunc vero cum eas multi ac varie pro suo quisque captu aperire con entur, his potissimum plauditur, per quorum expositionem melior invenitur poëta, qui non solum nihil peccasse, sed nihil non laudabiliter cecinisse ab eis etiam qui illum non intelligunt, creditur......Quantum erat, ut similem benevolentiam præberemus eis, per quos locutum esse spiritum sanctum tam diuturna vetustate firmatum est ? § 122. TRADITION AND THE CONTINUANCE OF INSPIRATION. The belief in the inspiration of the Scriptures neither excluded faith in existing tradition, nor in a continuance of inspiration. Not only passing visions, by which pious individuals received Divine instructions and disclosures,(1) were compared to the revelations recorded in Scripture, but still more the continued inspiration which the Fathers enjoyed when assembled in council.(2) In course of time it became necessary to lay down certain rules by which to judge of ecclesiastical tradition developing itself on its own historical foundation in order to prevent possible abuses. Such rules were drawn up by Vincentius Lerinensis, who laid down the three criteria of antiquitas (vetustas), universitas, and consensio, as marks of true ecclesiastical tradition.(3) (1) Comp. Münscher, Handbuch. iii. p. 100: "Such exalted views on inspiration cannot appear strange to us, since they existed in an age when Christians believed and recorded numerous Divine revelations and inspirations still granted to holy men, and especially to monks." Such revelations of course were supposed not to be contradictory either to Scripture, or to the tradition of the church. Thus the voice from heaven, which said to Augustine: "Ego sum, qui sum," and "tolle lege," directed sum,”—and him to the Scriptures. Conf. viii. 12. (2) The decisions of the councils were represented as decisions of the Holy Spirit (placuit Spiritui Sancto et nobis.) Comp. the letter of Constantine to the church of Alexandria, Socrat. i. 9 : "Ο γὰρ τοῖς τριακοσίοις ἤρεσεν ἐπισκόποις, οὐδέν ἐστιν ἕτερον, ἢ τοῦ Θεοῦ γνώμη, μάλιστά γε ὅπου τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα τοιούτων καὶ τηλικούτων ἀνδρῶν διανοίαις ἐγκείμενον τὴν θείαν βούλησιν ἐξερώτισεν. The emperor, indeed, spoke thus as a layman. But Pope Leo the Great expressed himself in the same way, and claimed inspiration not only for councils, ep. 114. 2. 145. 1, but also for emperors and imperial decretals, ep. 162. 3. ep. 148. 84. 1, even for himself, ep. 16, and serm. 25. Comp. Griesbach, Opusc. i. p. 21. Concerning the somewhat different opinions of Gregory of Nazianzum, (ep. ad Procop. 55,) on the one hand, and of Augustine (de bapt. contra Don. ii. c. 3,) and Facundus of Hermiane (defensio trium capitul. c. 7,) on the other, see Neander, Kirchengesch. ii. 1. p. 374-79. In accordance with his views on the relation of the Septuagint to the original Hebrew (§ 121), Augustine supposes that the decisions of earlier councils were completed by those of later ones, without denying the inspiration of the former, since" the decision of councils only gives public sanction to that result which the developement of the church had reached." Inspiration accommodates itself to the wants of the time. Respecting this" economy," and its abuses, see Münscher, 1. c. p. 156, SS. (3) Commonitorium, or Tractatus pro catholicæ fidei antiquitate et universitate (composed in the year 433.) Vincentius assumes a twofold source of knowledge, 1. divinæ legis auctoritas, 2. ecclesiæ catholicæ traditio. The latter is necessary on account of the different interpretations given to Scripture. The sensus ecclesiasticus is the only right one. Vincentius, like Augustine, also supposes that tradition may in a certain sense advance, so that any opinion, respecting which the church has not as yet pronounced a decision, is not to be considered heretical, but may be condemned as such, if it be contrary to the more fully developed faith of the church. Thus many of the opinions of the earlier Fathers might be reconciled with the decisions of later councils. 2. The Doctrine Concerning God. THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. The prevailing tendency to didactic demonstration induced men to attempt the establishment of a philosophi cal proof of the existence of God, in which Christians had hitherto believed as an axiom.(1) In the writings of some of the Fathers, both of the preceding and present periods, e. g. Athanasius and Gregory of Nazanzium, we meet with what might be called the physico-theological argument, if we understand by it an argument drawn from the beauty and wisdom displayed in nature, which is always calculated to promote practical piety. But both the writers before mentioned mistrusted a merely objective proof, and showed that a pure and pious mind would best find and know God.(2) The cosmological proof propounded by Diodorus of Tarsus, (3) and the ontological argument of Augustine and Boethius,(4) lay claim to a higher degree of logical precision and philosophical certainty. The former argument was based upon the principle that there must be a sufficient ground for every thing. Augustine and Boëthius inferred the existence of God from the existence of general ideas— a proof which was more fully developed in the next period by Anselm, and still later by Cartesius, on which account it has often been named after either of them. (1) Even Arnobius considered this belief to be an axiom, and thought it quite as dangerous to attempt to prove the existence of God, as to deny it; adv. gent. i. c. 33: Quisquamne est hominum, qui non cum principis notione diem nativitatis intraverit? cui non sit ingenitum, non affixum, imo ipsis pæne in genitalibus matris non impressum, non insitum, esse regem ac dominum, cunctorum quæcunque sunt moderatorem ? (2) Athan. adv. gent. i. p. 3, ss. (like Theophilus of Antioch, comp. § 35. note 1.) starts with the idea, that none but a pure and sinless soul can see God (Matth. v. 8.) He too compares the heart of man to a mirror. But as it became sullied by sin, God revealed himself by means of his creation, and when this proved no longer sufficient, by the prophets, and, lastly, by the Logos. Gregory of Nazianzum argues in a similar way; he infers the existence of the Creator from his works, as the sight of a lyre. reminds us both of him who made it, and of him who plays it, |