was felt against heretics, and the feeling of oneness, strengthened by the idea of a catholic church, led to a closer union, of which the apostolic churches were regarded as the centre, though without the existence of an external subordination among them.

As the heretics appealed to apostolic traditions, and even used pretended apostolic writings in justification of their sentiments, the attention of catholic Christians was by this means directed to the genuine writings of the apostles scattered among

not be confounded with oportet (de); the former expresses a natural necessity, the latter an obligation, duty. Potentior is ἱκανώτερος (cf.

iii. 3, 3 potentissimas literas, ikavwτárny yрapń), principalitas probably πρωτεία (iv. 38, 3: πρωτεύει μὲν ἐν πᾶσιν ὁ θεός, principalitatem quidem habebit in omnibus Deus). Accordingly the Greek text may have been: πρὸς ταύτην γὰρ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν διὰ τὴν ἱκανωτέραν πρωτείαν ἀνάγκη πᾶσαν συμβαίνειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, τουτέστι τοὺς πανταχόθεν πιστούς, ἐν ᾗ ἀεὶ τοῖς πανταχόθεν συντετήρηται ἡ ἀπὸ τῶν ̓Αποστόλων παράδοσις. "For with this church must the whole church, i. e. the believers of every place, agree, of course, on account of its more important pre-eminence." A pre-eminence belonged to all apostolic churches; to the Roman Church a more important pre-eminence, on account of its greatness, and its having been founded by two most distinguished apostles. In the rest of the sentence, I conjecture that the Latin translator was mistaken. Supposing the Greek text to have stood as above the translator took the words τοῖς πανταχόθεν for ὑπὸ τῶν παντ. which was certainly grammatically correct; "in which the apostolic tradition was always preserved by believers from all places," referring to the many foreigners who constantly belonged to the Roman community, and who afforded a warrant for the uninterrupted agreement of the Roman tradition with that of the rest of the church. But Irenaeus meant to say: "in which the apostolic tradition has been always preserved in correspondence with the believers of all places." Hence he adduces, in what follows, Clement's epistle to the Corinthians, and Polycarp's abode at Rome, as proofs of this uninterrupted correspondence. Many other explanations may be seen in Grabe and Massuet on the passage. Paulus in Sophronizon, Heft. 3, 1819, S. 141 ff. On the other side, Th. Katerkamp uber den Primat d. Ápost. Petrus u. s. Nachfolger, Münster 1820, S. 30 ff. Griesbach de potentiore Eccl. Rom. principalitate comm. Jen. 1778, (reprinted in his Opuscula Academ. ed. Gabler, vol. ii. p. 136 ss.) H. W. J. Thiersch in the Theol. Stud. u. Krit., 1842, ii. 525. L. Wolff in Rudelbach's and Guerike's Zeitschrift für d. luther. Kirche, 1842, iv. 7. Thiersch reads #âσav èkk\ŋolav, and refers to it the & in the sense: unaquaeque alia ecclesia idem testabitur de traditione Apostolorum, dummodo in ea a fidelibus, cujusvis sint loci, pure conservata sit tradita ab Apostolis veritas. On the contrary, Neander KG. i. i. 349, says that the expression, qui undique sunt fideles, is not synonymous with omnis ecclesia, if the latter mean "every single church," but only if it mean every church," i. e. all churches: and in the single churches the tradition was not preserved ab iis qui sunt undique.

66

vate use.

them. The apostolic epistles had always been read in the places to which they were addressed, and in the neighbouring congregations; but there was no universally received collection of the evangelical narratives, and the existing ones (comprehending, besides our canonical gospels, also the gospel of the Hebrews, that of the Egyptians, &c.) served in their spheres only for priAfter the churches had now come into closer connection, they communicated to one another, in their common interest against heretics, the genuine apostolic writings; and thus the canon began to be formed, in the first half of the second century, in two parts (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον oι τὸ εὐαγγελικόν, and ὁ ̓Απόστολος Οι Tò 'ATÓσTOXIKÓν), although in the different congregations there continued to be other writings, which were valued almost, if not altogether, as much as those which were universally received (ὁμολογούμενα, ἐνδιάθηκα). 11

Instigated by the bold speculation of the Gnostics, which sought to lay an entirely foreign basis under Christianity, the catholic Christians began to establish as the unalterable regula fidei,12 that complex notion of doctrine which could be shown, as well in the consciousness of all Christian communities, as also in the apostolic writings, to be an essential basis of Christianity, and which must remain untouched by, and be necessarily laid at the foundation of, every speculation. Accordingly, even the originally simple conditions of the baptismal confession (Tloris, ouμpolov) 13 were secured by additions

11 Compare my essay über die Entstehung und die frühesten Schicksale der schriftl. Evangelien. Leipz. 1818, S. 142 ff. 179 ff. 190 ff.

12 ¿ kavшv ékkλnoiaσTikos, Clemens Alex. Strom. vi. p. 803. ὁ κανὼν Tĥs åλnbelas, Iren. i. 1 in fine. This rule of faith, therefore, as it is found, for example, in Irenaeus, i. 10, 1, was not a formula handed down to the apostles (cf. Tertull. de praescr. c. 13: Haec regula a Christo, ut probabitur, instituta, particularly c. 21: omnis doctrina, quam ecclesiae ab Apostolis, Apostoli a Christo, Christus a Deo accepit, c. 37, regula, quam ecclesia ab apostolis, apostoli a Christo, Christus a Deo tradidit), and was not placed above the interpretation of Scripture (for according to Tertullian de corona militis, c. 3, it was a Catholic fundamental principle, etiam in traditionis obtentu exigenda est auctoritas scripta), as was asserted, after Lessing's example, by Delbrück Philip Melancthon der Glaubenslehrer. Bonn 1826, S. 17 ff. 143 ff. Comp. on the Authority of Holy Scripture, and its relation to the rule of faith, three theological epistles to Herr Prof. Delbrück by Sack, Nitzsch, and Lücke. Bonn 1827. 13 Maximus Turinensis (about 430) homil. in Symb. p. 239: Symbolum tessera est et signaculum, quo inter fideles perfidosque secernitur, These additions are referred to by Tertull. de corona mil. c. 3: ter mer

M

against misunderstandings and perversions; but as the different wants of the church required this or the other doctrine to be made more obvious, or to be emphatically exhibited, so the form of the baptismal confession became longer or shorter."

§ 52.

DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINES--SPURIOUS WRITINGS.

A speculative treatment of Christian doctrine was generally indispensable, if Christianity should be accessible to the philosophical culture of the times, and was rendered unavoidable by the measures of the Gnostics. It could only proceed from Platonism, which of all philosophical systems stood the nearest to Christianity. While many Platonic philosophers were brought over to Christianity by this internal relation, they received the latter as the most perfect philosophy, and retained, with their philosophical mantle,3 their philosophical turn of mind also. They set out with this principle, both that the Logos has constantly communicated to men the seeds of truth, and that the

gitamur, amplius aliquid respondentes, quam Dominus in Evangelio de

terminavit.

14 Cf. Ch. G. F. Walchii biblioth. symbolica vetus. Lemgov. 1770, 8. Dr Aug. Hahn Bibliothek d. Symbole u. Glaubensregeln d. apostolischkatholischen Kirche. Breslau 1842, 8. P. Kingii hist. symboli apostolici ex angl. serm. in latinum translata (by Olearius). Basil. 1750, 8. J. R. Kiesling hist. de usu symbolorum. Lips. 1753, 8.

1 (Stäudlin) de philosophiae Platonicae cum doctrina religionis judaica et christiana cognatione (A Göttingen Whitsuntide programm 1819, 4). D. C. Ackermann das Christliche im Plato n. in d. platon. Philosophie, Hamburg 1835. D. F. Chr. Baur das Christliche des Platonismus, od. Sokrates u. Christus, in the Tübinger Zeitschr. f. Theologie, 1837, Heft 3.

2 Comp. the remarkable history of Justin Martyr's conversion in his dial. c. Tryph. c. 3 ss: which he, c. 8, concludes with the words, rauTNY μόνην εύρισκον φιλοσοφίαν ἀσφαλῆ τε καὶ σύμφορον. Οὕτως δὴ καὶ διὰ ταῦτα pixóσopos ¿yw. Thus Christianity is designated by Melito, ap. Euseb. iv. 26, 4, as ή καθ' ἡμᾶς φιλοσοφία. Keilii Opusc. ii. 463.

3 Tpißwr, тpißúnior, pallium. C. G. F. Walchii antiquitates pallii philosophici vett. Christian. Jen. 1746, 8. Semisch Justin d. M. i. 23.

Justin M. apol. ii. c. 13. οὐκ ἀλλότριά ἐστι τὰ Πλάτωνος διδάγματα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἀλλ ̓ οὐκ ἔστι πάντη ὅμοια, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ τὰ τῶν ἄλλων, Στωϊκῶν τε, καὶ ποιητῶν, καὶ συγγραφέων· ἕκαστος γάρ τις ἀπό μέρους τοῦ σπερματι

truth taught by Plato was derived from Moses and the prophets." The arbitrary mode of interpretation then current furnished them with the means of proving their views even from numerous passages of the Old Testament, which they could use, indeed, only in the Septuagint version. Thus, then, they overvalued even the actual agreement of Plato with Christianity, and believed that they found many a platonic idea in the latter, which in reality they themselves had first introduced into it.8 The Christian philosophers of this time with which we are acquainted are Aristides, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Tatian, Pantaenus

κοῦ θείου λόγου τὸ συγγενὲς ὁρῶν καλῶς ἐφθέγξατο.—ὅσα οὖν παρὰ πᾶσι καλῶς εἴρηται, ἡμῶν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἐστί. According to c. 10, Christ was apprehended καὶ ὑπὸ Σωκράτους ἀπὸ μέρους: λόγος γὰρ ἦν καὶ ἔστιν ὁ ἐν

παντὶ ὠν.

5 So the Jews had already asserted, Josephus contra Apion, ii. 8; and Aristobulus apud Clemens Alex. Strom. i. p. 410, according to whom Plato is said to have employed even the Old Testament in an ancient version. The heathen philosopher Numenius (1. c.) goes so far as to say: τί ἐστι Πλάτων, ἢ Μωσῆς ἀττικίζων. The fathers derived all that was true and good in the Greek poets and philosophers from Moses and the prophets, Justin apolog. i. 44, ii. 13. Coh. ad Graecos, c. 14. Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 37: Because they found most truth in Plato, they represented him especially as drawing from this source. Hence he is called in Clemens Alex. paed. ii. p. 224 ò èk Mwoéws pilóσopos, Strom. i. p. 321, ¿¿¿ 'Eßpaiwr pilóσopos. Cf. H. N. Clausen Apologetae Eccl. christ. antetheodosiani Platonis ejusque philosophiae arbitri. Havn. 1817, 8. p. Clausen himself attributes to Plato (p. 196) some knowledge. of the law and of the doctrine of the Hebrews.

187 ss.

6 Comp. Justini coh. ad Graecos, c. 20 ss. According to c. 29, Plato is said to have borrowed his doctrine of ideas from the passages Exod. xxv. 9, 40: xxvi. 30, incorrectly understood; and according to c. 31, to have imitated Ezek. x. 18 in the winged chariot of Zeus, &c. See Clausen, 1. c. p. 191.

7 Justin finds in him the doctrine of the Son and Spirit; Clemens Alex. Strom. v. p. 710, the whole Christian Trinity. Clausen, 1. c. p. 84. 8 The Platonism of the fathers was perceived even by Petavius, dogm. theol. T. ii. lib. i. c. 3. The dogma of the Trinity was derived from it by (Souverain) le Platonisme devoilé, ou Essai touchant le verbe Platonicien. Cologne (Amsterdam) 1700 (translated by Löffler: Versuch über d. Platonismus d. KV. Züllichau 1782, 2te Aufl. 1792, 8.), and Jo. Clericus epist. crit. et eccles. (artis criticae, vol. iii. Amst. 1712), especially ep. vii. and viii. On the other side, the matter was exaggerated by the Jesuit Baltus, défense des saints pères, accusés de Platonisme. Paris 1711, 4. Keil, de doctoribus veteris ecclesiae, culpa corruptae per platonicas sententias theologiae liberandis, comm. xxii. in ej. opusc., T. ii. Lips. 1821, has copiously given the literature of the subject.

(§ 39), and Marimus (about 196). The questions with which they were chiefly occupied were the same as those the Gnostics set out with, respecting the origin of evil, and its overthrow by Christ, but especially regarding the divine in Christ.10 They found the latter designated by John as the Xoyos, and in the development of this idea took Philo for their guide; while, like him, they thought the Logos was met with everywhere in the Old Testament. Most difficult were the questions respecting the essence of the Logos in relation to the Father, and his agency in relation to that of the Holy Spirit. With regard to the former point, there were several who did not assume a personal distinction of the Logos from the Father.12 But the view was more

9 Fragments of his work περὶ τῆς ὕλης are preserved in Euseb. praep.

ev. vii. 22.

10 Ch. D. A. Martini Vers. einer pragm. Gesch. des Dogma v. d. Gottheit Christi in den vier ersten Jahrh. Th. 1. Rostock 1800, 8. Dr F. Chr. Baur's die christl. Lehre v. d. Dreieinigk. u. Menschwerdung Gottes (3 Th. Tübingen 1841-43, 8.) i. 163. G. A. Meier's die Lehre v. d. Trinität in ihrer hist. Entwickelung (Hamburg u. Gotha 1844) i. 53.

11 So particularly Proverbs viii. 22 ss. but also Psal. xxxiii. 6; xlv. 1; civ. 24. The doctrine that God created the world by the Logos was also naturally sought for in the Mosaic account of creation, where it was found. Gen. i. 1 ἐν ἀρχῇ is equivalent to διὰ τῆς ἀρχῆς, and ἀρχή is, according to Proverbs viii. 22, ή σοφία Οι ὁ λόγος. Theophil. ad Autol. ii. 10, 13. Tatian. apol. c. 7. Tertull. adv. Hermog. c. 20. This explanation was repeated in later times by Origen, hom. 1, in Gen., Basilius, hom. 1, in Hexaëmeron, Augustinus, de Genesi, lib. i. Others believed that they should venture to presuppose the existence of that doctrine as still more obviously contained in the Hebrew original, which they did not know. According to the Altercatio Iasonis et Papisci, the original expressed this idea, in filio fecit Deus coelum et terram (see above § 50, note 17); or as others believed (Tertull. adv. Praxeam, c. 5), in principio Deus fecit sibi filium.

12 Justini dial. c. Tryph. c. 128 : γινώσκω τινὰς λέγειν,άτμητον καὶ ἀχώριστον τοῦ πατρὸς ταύτην τὴν δύναμιν [τὸν λόγον] ὑπάρχειν, ὅνπερ τρόπον τὸ τοῦ ἡλίου φασὶ φῶς ἐπὶ γῆς εἶναι ἄτμητον καὶ ἀχώριστον ὄντος τοῦ ἡλίου ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ· καὶ ὅταν δύσῃ, συναποφέρεται τὸ φῶς οὕτως ὁ πατὴρ, ὅταν βούληται, λέγουσι, δύναμιν αὐτοῦ προπηδᾷν πωιεῖ· καὶ ὅταν βούληται, πάλιν ἀναστέλλει εἰς ἑαυτόν. Κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον καὶ τοὺς ἀγγέλους ποιεῖν αὐτὸν διδάσ κουσιν. Athenagoras represents the Logos in the very same way as Philo to be the manifest God, not personally distinct from the concealed deity. Legat. c. 9 : Έστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ λόγος τοῦ πατρὸς ἐν ἰδέᾳ καὶ ἐνεργείᾳ· πρὸς αὐτοῦ [leg. αὐτὸν] γὰρ καὶ δὲ αὐτοῦ πάντα ἐγένετο· ἑνὸς ὄντος τοῦ πα τρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ, ὄντος δὲ τοῦ υἱοῦ ἐν πατρὶ, καὶ πατρὸς ἐν υἱῷ, ἑνότητι καὶ δυνάμει πνεύματος νοῦς καὶ λόγος τοῦ πατρὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ. Εἰ δὲ δι ὑπερβολὴν συνέσεως σκοπεῖν ὑμῖν ἔπεισιν, ὁ παῖς τί βούλεται, ἐρῶ διὰ βραχέων, πρῶτον γέννημα εἶναι τῷ πατρὶ, οὐχ ὡς γενόμενον (ἐξ ἀρχῆς γὰρ ὁ θεὸς, νοῦς