na 1827, vol. vii. parts 1 and 2; Gieseler, in the Studien and Kritiken, 629, ii. 1, and Neander, Church History (Torrey), iii. 246-267. SOURCES: Petri Siculi (who lived about the year 876) Historia Manichæorum, Gr. et Lat. ed. M. Raderus, Ingolst. 1604, 4, newly edited, with a Latin translation, by J. C. L. Gieseler, Gott. 1846, 4. Photius adv. Paulianistas, s. rec. Manichæorum libr. iv. in Gallandii Bibl. PP. T. xiii. p. 603, ss.

On all these heresies, which have a peculiar bearing upon the development of doctrines during this period, comp. the special History of Doctrines. Concerning the external history of the controversies themselves, see the works on ecclesiastical history.

§ 86.

DIVISION OF THE MATERIAL.

Respecting the dogmatic material of this period, we have to distinguish between :-1. Those doctrines, which were shaped by the controversy with the last-named heresies; and, 2. Those which were developed in a more quiet and gradual manner.

To the former class belong Theology proper (the doctrine of the Trinity), Christology, and Anthropology; to the latter, those parts of theology which treat of the nature of God, creation, providence, etc., as well as the doctrine of the sacraments, and eschatology; though it must be admitted that they exerted an influence upon each other. We think it best to begin with the nistory of the first class of doctrines, as there was here a strictly polemic movement, and then to treat of the more esoteric (acroämatic) doctrines. The first class may be subdivided into two divisions, viz.: the TheologicoChristological on the one hand, and the Anthropological on the other. The controversies respecting the doctrines belonging to the former of these two divisions were carried on principally in the East, those concerning the latter, in the West.

B. SPECIAL HISTORY OF DOCTRINES

DURING THE SECOND PERIOD.

FIRST CLASS.

DOCTRINAL DEFINITIONS OF THE CHURCH IN THE CONTEST WITH HERESIES.

(POLEMICAL PART.)

FIRST DIVISION.

DOCTRINES RESPECTING THEOLOGY AND CHRISTOLOGY.

a. THEOLOGY PROPER.

§ 87.

THE HYPOSTASIS AND SUBORDINATION OF THE SON.

Lactantius. Dionysius of Alexandria, and the Origenists.

1

THE term Logos, respecting which the earlier Fathers so little agreed, that some understood by it the Word, others the Wisdom (reason, spirit), was so indefinite that even Lactantius, who lived towards the commencement of the present period, made no distinction between the λóyos and the vεμa. From the time of Origen it fell increasingly into disuse, and in its place the other term, Son, which is used in the New Testament in direct reference to the human personality of Christ, was transferred to the second person of the Godhead (previous to his incarnation). The disciples of Origen,' in accordance with the opinions of their master, understood by this second person a distinct hypostasis subordinate to the Father. Such is the view of Dionysius of Alexandria, though he endeavored to clear himself from the charges brought against him by Dionysius of Rome, by putting forth the doctrine in a less offensive form. The doctrine of Origen now met with a peculiar fate. It consisted, as we have seen, of two elements, viz., the hypostasis

of the Son, and his subordination to the Father. The former was maintained in opposition to Sabellianism, and received as orthodox ; the latter, on the contrary, was condemned in the Arian controversy. Thus Origenism gained the victory on the one hand, but was defeated on the other; but it was thus proved to be a necessary link in the chain, and became an element by which the transition was made.

'The theology of Lactantius was an isolated phenomenon in the present period, and has always been regarded as heterodox. (Concerning his prevailing moral tendency, see Dorner, p. 777.) Lactantius, after having opposed the gross and sensuous interpretation of the birth of Christ: ex connubio ac permistione feminæ alicujus, Instit. Div. iv. c. 8, returns to the meaning which the term Word (sermo) has in common life: Sermo est spiritus cum voce aliquid significante prolatus. The Son is distinguished from the angels, in that he is not only spiritus (breath, wind), but also the (spiritual) Word. The angels proceed from God only as taciti spiritus, as the breath comes out of the nose of man, while the Son is the breath which comes out of God's mouth, and forms articulate sounds; hence he identifies Sermo with the Verbum Dei, quia Deus procedentem de ore suo vocalem spiritum, quem non utero, sed mente conceperat, inexcogitabili quadam majestatis suæ virtute ac potentia in effigiem, quæ proprio sensu ac sapientia vigeat, comprehendit. There is, however, a distinction between the word (Son) of God and our words. Our words being mingled with the air, soon perish; yet even we may perpetuate them by committing them to writingquanto magis Dei vocem credendum est et manere in æternum et sensu ac virtute comitari, quam de Deo Patre tanquam rivus de fonte traduxerit. Lactantius is so far from the doctrine of the Trinity, that he finds it neces sary to defend himself against the charge of believing not so much in three as in two Gods. To justify this dual unity (or belief in two divine persons), he makes use of the same expressions which orthodox writers employed in earlier and later times for the defense of the doctrine of the Trinity: Cum dicimus Deum Patrem et Deum Filium, non diversum dicimus, nec utrumque secernimus: quod nec Pater a Filio potest, nec Filius a Patre secerni, siquidem nec Pater sine Filio potest nuncupari, nec Filius potest sine Patre generari. Cum igitur et Pater Filium faciat et Filius Patrem, una utrique mens, unus spiritus, una substantia est. He then comes back to the illustrations previously used, e. g., those drawn from the river and its source, the sun and its beams; and more boldly (wholly in the Arian sense) he compares the Son of God with an earthly son, who, dwelling in the house of his father, has all things in common with him, so that the house is named after the son, as well as after the father.

2

Thus Pierius, the master of Pamphilus of Cæsarea, was charged by Photius (Cod. 119) with having maintained that the Father and the Son are two οὐσίαι καὶ φύσεις. Nevertheless, he is said to have taught εὐσεβῶς, by employing those terms in the sense of ὑποστάσεις; but, δυσσεβῶς, he made the TVεμa inferior to both the Father and the Son. In like manner Theognostus (about 280) was accused of making the Son a Kríoμa; but this is not In accordance with the other (more orthodox) teachings of that theologian

(Phot. Cod. 106); comp. Dorner, p. 733, ss. Some disciples of Origen, e. g., Gregory Thaumaturgus, even manifested a leaning towards Sabellianism; according to Basil, Ep. 210, 5, Gregory taught Tarépa kuì viòv ¿пivoia, μèv εivaι dúо, úпоотáσε dè ev; comp., however, Gieseler, Dogmengesch. 147. Methodius of Patara avoided the use of the term ouoovotos in reference to the preexistence of the Son, yet he seems to have admitted his eternal preëxistence, though not in the sense of Origen; comp. Opp. edit. Combefis. Par. 1644, p. 283-474, and Dorner, 1. c.

'This is obvious, especially in the opposition of Dionysius to Sabellianism (see the next section). Of his work addressed to the bishop of Rome, and entitled : Ελεγχος καὶ ̓Απολογία, Lib. iv., fragments are preserved in the writings of Athanasius (Tepi Aiovvoίov тov π. 'A2. liber.: Opp. i. p. 243), and Basil; they were collected by Constant in his Epistt. Rom. Pontt. in Gallandi T. iv. p. 495. See Gieseler, i. § 64; Neander, i. p. 599; Münscher (von Cölln), p. 197-200. Schleiermacher (see the next §) p. 402, ss. According to Athanasius, p. 246, Dionysius was charged with having compared (in a letter to Euphranor and Ammonius) the relation between the Father and Son to that in which the husbandman stands to the vine, the shipbuilder to the ship, etc. The Arians even asserted (see Athanasius, p. 253) that he taught like themselves: Οὐκ ἀεὶ ἦν ὁ Θεὸς πατὴρ, οὐκ ἀεὶ ἦν ὁ υἱός· ἀλλ' ὁ μὲν θεὸς ἦν χωρὶς τοῦ λόγου· αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ υἱὸς οὐκ ἦν πρὶν γεννηθῇ· ἀλλ ̓ ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, οὐ γὰρ ἀἰδιός ἐστιν, ἀλλ ̓ ὕστερον ἐπιγέγονεν. He also called the Son ξένος κατ' οὐσίαν τοῦ πατρός. Comp. however, the expressions quoted by Athanasius, p. 254, which go to prove the contrary. But the bishop of Rome (not without a Sabellian leaning, see Dorner, 754) insisted that Dionysius should adopt the phrase ouoovoía (Homousia), to which the latter at last consented, though he did not think that it was founded either upon the language of Scripture, or upon the terminology till then current in the church.* Orthodox theologians of later times (e. g., Athanasius), endeavoring to do more justice to Dionysius of Alexandria, maintained that he had used the aforesaid offensive illustrations only Kar' oikovouíav, and that they might be easily explained from the stand he took against Sabellianism; Athanasius, p. 246, ss.: see on the other side, Löffler, Kleine Schriften, vol. i. p. 114, ss. (quoted by Heinichen on Euseb. vol. i. p. 306). It can also be justly alleged that Dionysius had a practical rather than a speculative mind, and that his main bias and intention was different from that of Arius. The thesis of subordination, which was the centre of the Arian system, was to him only a "suspicious and hasty inference from the distinction between the Father and the Son;" see Dorner, p. 743, sq. [Förster, De Doctrina Dionys. M. Berl. 1865.]

* An intermediate position was taken by Zeno of Verona (a contemporary of Origen and Cyprian), who, in Hom. i. ad Genes. in Bibl. Max. PP. iii. p. 356, ss., compared the Father and the Son to two seas which are joined by straits; comp. Dorner, p. 754, 88.

§ 88.

THE CONSUBSTANTIALITY OF THE SON WITH THE FATHER, WITH THE DENIAL OF THE HYPOSTATIC DISTINCTIONS.

Sabellianism, and Paul of Samosata.

Ch. Wormius, Historia Sabelliana. Francof. et Lips. 1696, 8. Schleiermacher, über den Gegensatz zwischen der sabellianischen und athanasianischen Vorstellung von der Trinität (Berlin. Theol. Zeitschr. 1822, Part 3). Lange, der Sabellianismus in seiner ursprünglichen Bedeutung (Illgens Zeitschr. für historische Theol. iii. 2. 3).—Feuerlin, J. G., de Hæresi Pauli Samos. 1741, 4. Ehrlich, J. G., de Erroribus Pauli Samos. Lips. 1745, 4. Schwab, de Pauli Sam. vita atque doctrina. Diss. inaug. 1839. [Schleiermacher's Essay on the Discrepancy between the Sabellian and Athanasian Representation of the Trinity, trans., with notes, by Moses Stuart, in Bib. Repos., first series, vol. v. Comp. Dorner, i. 127, sq., on Sabellius; and on Paul of Samosata, i. 510, sq. Neander, Hist. Dog. (Ryland), i. 164. L. Lange, Antitrin. vor d. Nic. Syn. 1851. Waterland's Works, i. 517, sq., ii. 703, sq.]

Sabellius, a presbyter of Ptolemais, who lived about the middle of the third century, adopted the notions of the earlier Monarchians, such as Praxeas, Noëtus, and Beryllus; and maintained, in opposition to the doctrine propounded by Origen and his followers, that the appellations Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, were only so many different manifestations and names of one and the same divine being. He thus converted the objective and real distinction of persons (a Trinity of essence) into a merely subjective and modalistic view (the Trinity of manifestation). In illustration of his views, he made use not only of various images which his opponents sometimes misinterpreted, but also of such expressions as were afterwards transferred to the terminology of the orthodox church.' Thus while he avoided, on the one hand, the subordination of the Son to the Father, and recognized the divinity manifested in Christ as the absolute deity; yet, on the other hand, by annulling the personality of the Son, he gave the appearance of pantheism to this immediate revelation of God in Christ; since with the cessation of the manifestation of Christ in time, the Son also ceased to be Son. The doctrine of Paul of Samosata is not, as was formerly the case, to be confounded with the notions of Sabellius; it rather approached the earlier (Alogistic) opinions of Artemon and Theodotus, which, as regards the nature of Christ, were not so much pantheistic as deistic."

'Eus. vii. 6. Epiph. Hær. 62. Athan Contra Arian. iv. 2. and other passages. Basil, Ep. 210, 214, 235. Theodoret Fab. Hær. ii. 9. According to Epiphanius, Sabellius taught that there were: ἐν μιᾷ ὑποστάσει τρεῖς Ενέργειαι (ὀνομασίαι, ὀνόματα), and illustrated his views by adducing the human trias of body, soul, and spirit, and the three properties of the sun, viz,