γὰρ ὤν, φησί, τὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ πάθος ἐθελήσας ὑπέμεινε· τοῦτον καὶ υἱὸν ὀνομάζουσι καὶ πατέρα, πρὸς τὰς χρείας τοῦτο κἀκεῖνο καλούμενον. Comp. Epiph. Hær. vii. 1. [Burton, Bampton Lect., note 103, p. 589, 590.] Dorner, p. 532: "It is worthy of recognition, that Noëtus already completes patripassianism, and takes away from it the pagan illusion, whereby the divine nature is made directly finite, which we find in the system of Praxeas." Beryllus endeavored to evade the inferences which may be drawn alike from Patripassianism and from Pantheism, by admitting a difference after the as sumption of humanity, Euseb. vi. 33 : Βήρυλλος ὁ μικρῷ πρόσθεν δεδηλω μένος Βοστρῶν τῆς ̓Αραβίας ἐπίσκοπος, τὸν ἐκκλησιαστικὸν παρεκτρέπων κανόνα, ξένα τινὰ τῆς πίστεως παρεισφέρειν ἐπειρᾶτο, τὸν σωτῆρα καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν λέγειν τολμῶν μὴ προϋφεστάναι κατ ̓ ἰδίαν οὐσίας περιγραφὴν πρὸ τῆς εἰς ἀνθρώπους ἐπιδημίας μηδὲ μὴν θεότητα ἰδίαν ἔχειν, ἀλλ ̓ ἐμπολιτευομένην αὐτῷ μόνην τὴν πατρικήν. Comp. Ullmann, in the Dissert. quoted § 24, note 4, and Fork, Diss. Christ. Beryll. Bostr. According to Baur (Dreieinigkeitslehre, p. 289), Beryllus ought to be classed with Artemon and Theodotus; Meier (p. 114), however, supposes a certain distinction between them. Comp. Dorner, p. 545, and Neander, Hist. Dogm.: "The most natural conclusion is, that Beryl. did not wholly belong to either of the two classes (of Monarchians), but held an intermediate view, which agrees with his historical position." To those who adopted the tendency of Noetus belong Beron and his followers, who were combated by Hippolytus; comp. Dorner, p. 536, ss.

• On the one hand, Origen asserts that the Son is equal to the Father, Hom. VIII. in Jerem. ii., Opp. iii. p. 171 : Πάντα γὰρ ὅσα τοῦ θεοῦ, τοιαῦτα ἐν αὐτῷ (νἱώ) ἐστίν. He also speaks of the three persons in the Trinity as the three sources of salvation, so that he who does not thirst after all three can not find God, ibid. Hom. XVIII. 9, Opp. iii. p. 251, 252. Nevertheless the subordination of the Son is prominently brought forward, and forms, together with the strict hypostatic distinction, the characteristic feature of Origen's doctrine. The Son is called δεύτερος θεός, Contra Cels. v. 608 ; comp. vii. 735 : Αξιος τῆς δευτερευούσης μετὰ τὸν θεὸν τῶν ὅλων τιμῆς. De Orat. i. p. 222: Ἕτερος κατ' οὐσίαν καὶ ὑποκείμενός ἐστι ὁ ὑιὸς τοῦ πατρός. The kingdom of the Father extends to the whole universe, that of the Son to rational creatures, that of the Holy Spirit to the holy (Christians), De Princ. I., 3, 5 : Ὅτι ὁ μὲν θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ συνέχων τὰ πάντα φθάνει εἰσ ἕκαστον τῶν ὄντων, μεταδιδοὺς ἑκάστῳ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἰδίου τὸ εἶναι· ὧν γὰρ ἔστιν. ̔Ελάττων δὲ πρὸς τὸν πατέρα ὁ υἱὸς φθάνων ἐπὶ μόνα τὰ λογικά· δεύτερος γάρ ἐστι τοῦ πατρός. ̓́Ετι δὲ ἧττον τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἐπὶ μόνους τοὺς ἁγίους διικνούμενος: Ὥστε κατὰ τοῦτο μείζων ἡ δύναμις τοῦ πατρὸς παρὰ τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, πλείων δὲ ἡ τοῦ υἱοῦ παρὰ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον καὶ πάλιν διαφέρουσα μᾶλλον τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἡ δύναμις παρὰ τὰ ἄλλα ayia. Comp. also, In Joh. Tom. ii. 2, Opp. T. iv. p. 50, where stress is laid upon the distinction made by Philo between θεός and ὁ θεός. How far this system of subordination was sometimes carried, may be seen from Origen de Orat. c. 15, Opp. T. i. 222, where he entirely rejects the practice of address ing prayer to Christ (the Son) ; for, he argues, since the Son is a particular

hypostasis, we must pray either to the Son only, or to the Father only, or to both. To pray to the Son, and not to the Father, would be most improper (άтояúтатоν); to pray to both is impossible, because we should have to use the plural number: παρασχέσθε, εὐεργετήσατε, ἐπιχορηγήσατε, σώσατε, which is contrary to Seripture, and the doctrine of One God; thus nothing remains but to pray to the Father alone. To pray to the Father through the Son, a prayer in an improper sense (invocatio?) is quite a different thing; Contra Cels. v. 4, Opp. i. p. 579 : Πᾶσαν μὲν γὰρ δέησιν καὶ προσευχὴν καὶ ἔντευξιν καὶ εὐχαριστίαν ἀναπεμπτέον τῷ ἐπὶ πᾶσι θεῷ διὰ τοῦ ἐπὶ πάντων ἀγγέλων ἀρχιερέως, ἐμψύχου λόγου καὶ θεοῦ. Δεησόμεθα δὲ καὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ dè λόγου, καὶ ἐντευξόμεθα αὐτῷ, καὶ εὐχαριστήσομεν καὶ προσευξόμεθα δὲ, ἐὰν δυνώμεθα κατακούειν τῆς περὶ προσευχῆς κυριολεξίας καὶ καταχρήσεως (si modo propriam precationis possimus ab impropria secernere notionem). Comp. however, § 43. Redepenning Origenes, ii., p., 303. Neander, Hist. Dogm. 149. On the subordination doctrine of the Trinity in Hippolytus, see ibid., p. 157, Jacobi's Note [and Bunsen's Hippolytus.]

§ 47.

DOCTRINE OF THE CREATION.

C. F. Rössler, Philosophia veteris ecclesiæ de mundo, Tubingæ, 1783, 4. [Weisse, Philosophische Dogmatik, 1855, pp. 670-712. H. Ritter, Die christliche Philosophie, i. p. 266 sq.]

Concerning the doctrine of creation, as well as the doctrine of God in general, the early Christians adopted the monotheistic views of the Jews, and, in simple faith, unhesitatingly received the Mosaic account of the creation (Gen. i.) as a revelation.' Even the definition é ou ovTwv, which was introduced late into the Jewish theology (2 Macc. vii. 28), found sympathy in the primitive Christianity. The orthodox firmly adhered to the doctrine that God, the almighty Father, who is also the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, is at the same time the creator of heaven and of earth,' and rejected the notion of the eternity of matter, in opposition to the Gnostics, according to whom the creator of the world is distinct from the Supreme God, as well as to the opinion of some Christian teachers, and of Hermogenes, that matter is eternal. But the speculative tendency of the Alexandrian school could not be satisfied with the empirical notion of a creation in time. Accordingly Origen resorted to an allegorical interpretation of the work of the six days (Hexaëmeron), and, after the example of Clement (who, however, is doubtful, at least, hesitating), he propounded more definitely the doctrine of an eternal creation, yet not maintaining the eternity of matter as an independent power." On the contrary, Irenæus, from his practical position, reckoned all

questions about what God had done before the creation among the improper questions of human inquisitiveness."

1 Theophilus (Ad Autol. ii, 10, sq.) first gives a fuller exposition of the Mosaic narration of the creation. The Alexandrian school, on the other hand, deviated from his literal interpretation; comp. Notes 6 and 8.

Comp. Hebr. xi. 3, and the commentaries upon that passage. Accordingly the Shepherd of Hermas teaches, lib. ii. mand. 1: Ip@rоV пáνтWV πίστευσον, ὅτι εἰς ἐστιν ὁ θεὸς, ὁ τὰ πάντα κτίσας καὶ καταρτίσας, καὶ ποιήσας ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος εἰς τὸ εἶναι τὰ πάντα. Conf. Euseb. v. 8. But the idea of creation does not come out as distinctly in all the fathers. Thus "in Justin the Christian belief in the creation from nothing is never definitely brought forward against the opposing views of emanation and of dualism;" Duncker, Zur christl. Logoslehre, p. 19. He uses the expression, Snovруñoa ȧμóppov vλns, Apol. i. 10. Yet God produced the material itself, and from this shaped the world; Coh. ad Græc. c. 22.

The popular view was always, that the Father is the creator, though the creation through the Son also formed a part of the orthodox faith. Accordingly, we find that sometimes the Father, sometimes the Logos, is called the creator of the world (dnшovpyós, raints.) Thus Justin M. says, Dial. c. Tryph. c. 16: 'O πоintǹs tŵv öλwv Oɛós, comp. Apol. i. 61: Τοῦ πατρὸς τῶν ὅλων καὶ δεσπότου θεοῦ. On the other hand, Coh. ad Græc. c. 15 : Τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγον, δι' οὗ οὐρανὸς καὶ γῆ καὶ πᾶσα ἐγένετο Kτío, comp. Apol. i. 64. Likewise Theophilus ad Autol. ii. 10: "OTε Ev τῷ λόγῳ αὐτοῦ ὁ θεὸς πεποίηκε τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς, ἔφη· Εν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν. The phrase ἐν ἀρχῆ was understood in the same sense as dià Tñs άpxñs, and ȧpxʼn explained to denote the Logos, see Semisch, p. 335. Thus Irenæus also taught, iii. 11: Et hæc quidem sunt principia Evangelii, unum Deum fabricatorem hujus universitatis, eum qui et per prophetas sit annunciatus et qui per Moysem legis dispositionem fecerit, Patrem Domini nostri Jesu Christi annunciantis et præter hunc alterum Deum nescientia, neque alterum patrem. On the other hand, he says, v. 18, 3: Mundi enim factor vere verbum Dei est; hic autem est Dominus noster, qui in novissimus temporibus homo factus est, in hoc mundo existens et secundum invisibilitatem continet quæ facta sunt omnia, et in universa conditione infixus, quoniam verbum Dei gubernans et disponens omnia et propter hoc in sua venit. Irenæus often speaks of the Son and Spirit as the hands of God, by which he created all things; on this, see Duncker, p. 68 against Baur. That Clement of Alexandria called the Logos, as such, the creator of the world (with Philo), has already been remarked, § 42, note 8. For the various appellations ποιητής, κτιστής, δημιουργός, see Suicer under the latter word. [Burton, Bampton Lect., note 21, p. 320; note 50, p. 410.] Theoph. ad. Autol. ii. 4, says against the followers of Plato: El de Oɛd5 ἀγέννητος καὶ ὕλη ἀγέννητος, οὐκ ἔτι ὁ θεὸς ποιητὴς τῶν ὅλων ἐστί. Comp. iii. 19, sq. and Iren. fragm. sermonis ad Demetr. p. 348 (p. 467 in Grabe). [Comp. Burton, 1. c. note 18.] Tert. adv. Hermogenem, see the following note.

4

Hermogenes, a painter, lived toward the end of the second century, probably at Carthage. According to Tertullian (Adv. Hermog.), he maintained that God must have created the world either out of himself, or out of nothing, or out of something. But he could not create the world out of himself, for he is indivisible; nor out of nothing, for as he himself is the supreme good, he would have created a perfectly good world; nothing, therefore, remains but that he created the world out of matter already in existence. This matter (~λn) is consequently eternal like God himself; both principles stood over against each other from the beginning, God as the creating and working, matter as the receptive principle. Whatever in the matter resists the creating principle, constitutes the evil in the world. In proof of the eternity of matter, Hermogenes alleges that God was Lord from eternity, and must, therefore, from eternity have an object for the exercise of his lordship. To this Tertullian replies (Adv. Hermog. c. 3), God is certainly God from eternity, but not Lord; the one is the name of his essence, the other of power (a relation). Only the essence is to be viewed as eternal. But it was only on this point of the eternity of matter that Hermogenes agreed with the Gnostics; in other respects, and especially in reference to the doctrine of emanation, he joined the orthodox in opposing them. Comp. Böhmer (Guil.) de Hermogene Africano, Sundiæ, 1832, and Neander (Torrey's), i. 565-8. Antignosticus, p. 350-355; 424-442. Leopold, Hermogenis de origine mundi sententia, Budissæ, 1844.

7

De Principiis iv. 16, Opp. i. p. 174, 175: Tís yàp vovv exwv oinoɛtai πρώτην καὶ δευτέραν καὶ τρίτην ἡμέραν, ἑσπέραν τε καὶ πρωΐαν χωρὶς ἡλίου γεγονέναι καὶ σελήνης καὶ ἄστρων, κ. τ. λ. Comp. § 33, note 4. According to Photius Bibl. Cod. c. 9, p. 89, Clement of Alex. is said to have taught that matter had no beginning (vλm äxpovov); with this statement comp. Strom. vi. 16, p. 812, 813: Οὐ τοίνυν, ὥσπερ τινὲς ὑπολαμβά νουσι τὴν ἀνάπαυσιν τοῦ θεοῦ, πέπαυται ποιῶν ὁ θεός· ἀγαθὸς γὰρ ὤν, εἰ παύσεταί ποτε ἀγαθοεργῶν, καὶ τοῦ θεὸς εἶναι παύσεται. But in other passages Clement most distinctly acknowledges that the world is a work of God; e. g., Coh. p. 54, 55 : Μόνος γὰρ ὁ θεὸς ἐποίησεν, ἐπεὶ καὶ μόνος ὄντως ἐστὶ θεός· ψιλῷ τῷ βούλεσθαι δημιουργεῖ, καὶ τῷ μόνον ἐθελῆσαι αὐτὸν ἕπεται τὸ γεγενῆσθαι.

Origen, indeed, opposes the eternity of matter (in the heathen and heretical sense), De Princ. ii. 4 (Redepenning, 164), and in other places, e. g., Comment. in Joh. xxxii. 9, Opp. T. iv. p. 429; but, though from his idealistic position he denied eternity to matter, which he held to be the root of evil, he nevertheless assumed the eternal creation of innumerable ideal worlds, solely because he, as little as Clement, could not conceive of God as unoccupied (otiosam enim et immobilem dicere naturam Dei, impium enim simul et absurdum), De Princ. iii. 5, Opp. T. i. p. 149 (Redep. 309): Nos vero consequentur respondebimus, observantes regulam pietatis et dicentes: Quoniam non tunc primum, cum visibilem istum mundum fecit Deus, cœpit operari, sed sicut post corruptionem hujus erit alius mundus, ita et antequam his esset, fuisse alios credimus. It might be questioned whether Origen, in the use of the pronoun "nos" in the subsequent part of the passage, intended to enforce his own belief as that of the church, or whether he employed the

plural number merely in his character as author; comp. Rössler, Bibliothek der Kirchenväter, i. p. 177, and Schnitzer, 1. c. Comp. also Thomasius, p. 153, ss., 169, ss., Redepenning, ii. 292 sq.

Iren. ii. 28, p. 157 (ii. 47, p. 175, Grabe): Ut puta si quis interroget: Antequam mundum faceret Deus, quid agebat? dicimus: Quoniam ista responsio subjacet Deo. Quoniam autem mundus hic factus est apotelestos a Deo, temporale initium accipiens, Scripturæ nos docent; quid autem ante hoc Deus sit operatus, nulla scriptura manifestat. Subjacet ergo hæc responsio Deo. Respecting the important position which the doctrine of Irenæus concerning the creation of the world occupies in his theological system (in opposition to the Gnostics), see Duncker, p. 8.

§ 48.

PROVIDENCE AND GOVERNMENT OF THE WORLD.

Though the doctrine that the world exists for the sake of the human race, may degenerate into a selfish happiness scheme, yet it has a deeper ground in the consciousness of a specific distinction between man and all other creatures, at least on this earth, and is justified by hints in the Sacred Scriptures. Accordingly, the primitive Christians considered creation as a voluntary act of divine love, inasmuch as God does not stand in need of his creatures for his own glory.' But man, as the end of creation,' is also preeminently the subject of divine providence, and the whole vast economy of creation, with its laws and also its miracles, is made subservient to the higher purpose of the education of mankind. The Christian doctrine of providence, as held by the fathers of the church in opposition to the objections of ancient philosophy, is remote, on the one hand, from Stoicism and the rigid dogma of a eiμaquévn held by the Gnostics, and on the other from the system of Epicurus, according to which it is unworthy of the Deity to concern himself about the affairs of man. Yet here, again, the teachers of the Alexandrian school in particular endeavored to avoid as much as possible the use of anthropomorphism," in connection with the idea that God takes care even of individuals, and to uphold in their theodicy the liberty of man, as well as the love and justice of God."

8

Matth. vi. 26; 1 Cor. ix. 9, 10.

4

E. g. Clement of Alex. Pæd. iii. 1, 250: 'Avevdens dè póvos ó leÒÇ KAI χαίρει μάλιστα μὲν καθαρεύοντας ἡμᾶς ὁρῶν τῷ τῆς διανοίας κοσμῷ.

• Justin M. Apol. i. 10 : Καὶ πάντα τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀγαθὸν ὄντα δημιουργῆσαι αὐτὸν ἐξ ἀμόρφου ὕλης δι' ἀνθρώπους δεδιδάγμεθα. Comp. Athen. De Resurr. c. 12. Iren. v. 29, 1; iv. 5, 1; iv. 7, 4 (Comp. Duncker, p. 78, 79). Tert. Advers. Marc. i. 13: Ergo nec mundus Deo indignus, nihil etenim Deus