ympathy for the fate of the heathen. The question was forced upon them, what lot awaited those heathens who lived before the advent of Christ? The prevalent view was that of an unconditional condemnation of the heathen, in accordance with the stern opposition to paganism, and the literal exposition and isolation of the passages respecting the condemnation of unbelievers. Marcion belonged to the few who came to a different conclusion, since he regarded the descensus ad inferos as intended to benefit the heathen who were in need of redemption. Perhaps in the legend of the descent of the Apostles to Hades, there might be a vague notion of the restoration of those who had not arrived at the knowledge of Christ in the present life. The Alexandrian Church Teachers expressed this opinion very distinctly. According to them discipline and reformation were the only ends of punishment, so that it could not be eternal; the final end is άæonaráoraois, the entire freedom from evil. Hence Clement says: "If in this life there are so many ways for purification and repentance, how much more should there be after death! The purification of souls, when separated from the body, will be easier. We can set no limits to the agency of the Redeemer; to redeem, to rescue, to discipline, is his work; and so will he continue to operate after this life."+ Clement did not deem it proper to express himself more fully respecting this doctrine, because he considered that it formed a part of the Gnosis. Hence he says: "As to the rest I am silent, and praise the Lord."+ Origen infers from the variety of ways and methods by which men are led to the faith in this life, that there will be a diversity in the divine modes of discipline after death; notwithstanding this, however, he considers it extremely important that every one should in this life become a believer. Whoever neglects the Gospel, or after baptism commits grievous sins, will suffer so much heavier punishments after death.§ The doctrine of a general restoration he found explicitly in 1 Cor. xv. 28. Yet he reckons this among the Gnostic (or esoteric) * J. F. Cotta, Historia Succincta Dogmatis de Pœnalium Infernalium Duratione Tüb. 1774. J. A. Dietelmaier, Commenti Fanatici άπок“TaoTάσews Távтwv Historia Antiquior: Altorf, 1769. Strom. vi. p. 638. Ibid. vii. p. 706. In Joann vi. § 37, p. 267. Lomm doctrines, for he says, "It would not be useful for all if they had this knowledge; but it is well, if at least fear of a material hell keep them back from sin."* The doctrine of the Resurrection and continued personal existence,† is not an isolated truth in Christianity, but has a close connexion with the whole Christian scheme. The human personality in its whole extent is destined to be resuscitated in a higher form. Christianity, which will not annihilate but transform, refers this transformation to all the parts in which the human personality presents itself, and therefore to the body; the process of transformation begins in this earthly existence, and will be completed at the resurrection. The form in which the doctrine of immortality was conceived, according to which it was extended to the earthly body, was important at this time, in order to maintain the reality of immortality in opposition to an over-refined spiritualism. This controversy had been carried on with the Gnostics, but it had become more intricate, and the opposition of the Gnostics was roused afresh by the crude sensuous form in which the identity of the body had been asserted, while its advocates were not led to more spiritual conceptions by 1 Cor. xv. This is proved by the writings of JUSTIN, ATHANASIUS and TERTULLIAN. The latter was deeply penetrated with the importance of this doctrine in the scheme of Christianity; in his treatise, De Resurrectione Carnis, he defends it against the Gnostics, and makes many excellent hermeneutical observations on the Gnostic perversions of the Scripture. But his Realism obtrudes itself in his sensuous modes of representation. Origen has the merit of greater spirituality of conception, and he endeavoured to find a medium between the views of a heretical gnosis and the sensuous contractedness of the common Church mode of contemplation. Hence he distinguishes between the essence and the special form belonging to the earthly existence-between the material substance as it presents itself in this world and that which constitutes the essence of the body as the organ of the soul. He says:‡ In Jerem. Hom. xix. + Ch. W. Flügge, Geschichte d. Lehre v. Zustande des Menschen. nach d. Tode, 1799, 1800. Selecta in Psalmos, P. xi. p. 388. Lomm.-OВ какç Tотaμiç ὠνόμασται τὸ σῶμα, διότι ὡς πρὸς τὸ ἀκριβὲς τάχα οὐδὲ δύο ἡμερῶν τὸ "Even in this life the body, in a material respect, is not always the same, but what constitutes its peculiar essence as an organ of the soul is an εἶδος χαρακτηρίζον, in which the peculiar character of the soul is presented, so that such a body should correspond to such a soul; therefore only this peculiar impress and essence of the organ need be restored, though in a higher form, suited to the higher standpoint to which the soul's existence has advanced. The doctrine stands in connexion with his opinion, that the λn is nothing definite, but may be presented in various forms, either higher or lower, according to the different rank of the rational nature. We have already remarked, that at a council in Arabia, he refuted the opinion that the soul dies with the body. Thus in these regions a revolution on this subject was effected by him, though his views of the resurrection soon called forth fresh opponents of a sensuous mode of thinking, such as METHODIUS. πρῶτον ὑποκείμενον ταὐτόν ἐστιν ἐν τῷ σώματι ἡμῶν.—Όπερ ἐχαρακ τηρίζετο ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ, τοῦτο χαρακτήρισθήσεται ἐν τῇ πνευματικῷ σώματι. THE SECOND PERIOD, FROM CONSTANTINE THE GREAT TO GREGORY THE GREAT. (FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE FOURTH TO THE END OF THE SIXTH CENTURY.) THE DOGMATIC POLEMIC, AND SYSTEMATIZING PERIOD. GENERAL HISTORY OF DOGMAS. THIS period, taken in conjunction with the former, constitutes the foundation of the entire subsequent development of Christian Dogmas. Both together include the development in the Roman and Grecian nationalities. But the first was apologetic, and served chiefly to exhibit the peculiar character of Christianity in its general outlines and in special doctrines, as it stood opposed to the religions of Antiquity. In the conflict against Judaism and Paganism, and the heresies in which Jewish and Pagan elements were mingled, the leading doctrines became more sharply defined; at the same time various modifications of them sprang up. Divergent tendencies were formed, which though they were unanimous in opposing what was antichristian, gave a peculiar prominence to one or the other specific phase of doctrine. From these different tendencies-though all assuming the same foundation of the general Christian consciousness the further development of the Christian doctrines necessarily proceeded. As from the fourth century the Church was relieved from its conflict with the heathen power of the state, obtained political ascendancy, and was left to itself, these doctrinal differences, which were no longer connected with the general question of Christianity, came into collision with one another. From the conflict of these contrarieties it was needful that a higher unity should be formed; there was consequently a striving after reconciling them, and after the construction of a dogmatic foundation. It was, therefore, the characteristic of the age to be dogmatically polemic and systematizing. ORIGEN, who marks the closing point of the apologetic period, with the spirit of which he was strongly imbued, forms, at the same time, the transition to the systematizing age. The contrarieties of this period affected not merely the Christian consciousness in general, but had a more distinct reference to particular doctrines. As, therefore, the former period was most important for the development of what was distinctively Christian, so was the latter for laying a systematic foundation. It was unavoidable, and not in itself injurious, that dogmatic contrarieties should be made the subjects of debate. It was impossible to remain stationary in the original apostolic simplicity; nothing living and peculiar could have unfolded itself; the process of historical development would have been checked, and nothing left but a lifeless tradition. The most hurtful thing was, that dogmatic onesidedness and narrow-mindedness which denied the unity of the consciousness that lay at the basis of these contrarieties, and carried on controversy without tending towards the common ground of unity. The consequence was, that in proportion as men disputed, they stood at a greater distance from each other. It was injurious, moreover, that the points of controversy were not estimated in relation to the essential nature of Christianity, but whatever was the subject in dispute, equal importance was attached to it. Another evil was, that no sufficient distinction was made between Dogma and Faith, between the diversities of dogmatic conception and the Christian life, especially in the Oriental Church; and hence the one-sided dogmatic tendency which was so destructive to the Christian life. Here and there individuals appeared, who at least strove against the excesses of this dogmatism, although even they had not found the right standard for estimating the points of controversy. In the fourth and fifth centuries we find the germ of another extreme in a party which valued too little the importance of dogmatic questions in relation to the Christian life; it evinced a one-sided practical tendency which led into error respecting the real nature of what was practical in Christianity. To persons of this class Dogma was of no importance; the essence of Christianity consisted in Morality, as if this did not derive its value from Dogma. They availed themselves of a passage in the Epistle to the Philippians, that it mattered not if only Christ were preached. This party was |