UNION OF THE CHURCH AND STATE.

259

at first known under the name of Rhetorians ;* and afterwards under that of Gnosimachians.†

Thus a

The greatest injury, however, did not arise from the inner relation of the controversies, but from a foreign influence, namely, the union of the State and its politics with the Church. The free internal development of the latter was endangered. Disputes were to be settled by imperial decrees. variety of passions intermingled with and troubled the dogmatic interest. Hence results followed dogmatic controversies which could not be derived from the development of contrarieties. Before the contrarieties had been fully expressed, one or the other party was put down by external influence. The point in dispute perhaps depended on a single word, which had been introduced under peculiar circumstances, and before the consequences were expressed, the question was decided. But it would be overshooting the mark, if we concluded from these premises, that all these controversies depended not on dogmatic interests, but on the influence of court-parties and foreign influences, and that only the power of the State had introduced certain dogmas. When a dispute arose about words, it was not mere logomachy; if a religious interest had not been involved, the verbal dispute would not have excited so much sympathy. Worldly passions at a later period. were intermingled, but even these were not sufficient to account for the universal interest. The verbal dispute was only a signal which set in a more conspicuous light, dogmatic differences that had existed long before. The genetic development of these controversies enables us rightly to understand them, and teaches us that important differences in theological tendencies were then made apparent which are repeated even in our own times. Moreover, by the caprice of a court, one dogmatical tendency might for a certain time gain the victory, yet it could not be supposed that external despotism could control the minds of men for ever. The spirit of the Church re-acted in energetic movements against arbitrary impositions.

* Athan. c. Apollin. § 6. Philastrius Hær. 91. Hær. 72.

Prædestinatus

+ Joh. Damasc. Hær. 88. Οἱ πάση γνώσει τοῦ χριστιανισμοῦ ἀντιπίπτοντες, ἐν τῷ λέγειν αὐτοὺς, ὅτι περισσόν τι ποιοῦσιν οἱ γνώσεις τινας ἐκζητοῦντες ἐν ταῖς θείαις γραφαῖς. Οὐδὲν γὰρ ἄλλο ζητεῖ ὁ θεὸς παρὰ χριστιανοῦ, εἰ μὴ πράξεις καλάς.

It belongs to the history of Dogmas to represent everything in connexion with the natural development of dogmatic tendencies; but, on the other hand, it must not be overlooked that since dogmatic schools were hindered by outward force from expressing themselves freely, the true reconciliation of these differences could not be effected. And for this reason we must endeavour to discover the difference that often exists unconsciously in the germ. This applies especially to the Eastern Churches; for the Western Churches were more independent, and acted more as a counterpoise to the power of the State, and hence the conflicts and the subject-matter of dogmatic development among them were less exposed to corrupt influences.

The principal dogmatic differences of this period were determined by the influence of nationalities which was mixed up with the development of Christianity. We have noticed the difference of the Greek and Roman mind, which had been conspicuous from the beginning; among the Greeks there was a more versatile and excitable disposition, a scientific productiveness; among the Romans we find a rigidity, a practical tendency, to which the scientific element was originally foreign. It resembled the relation of the Roman mind to Philosophy, which came to them from the Greeks. The advantage on the side of the Greek Church was scientific reflection and progressive development; the disadvantage was the preponderance of the dialectic and the speculative to the neglect of the practical. Hence they were disposed, amidst dogmatical differences, to forget the interests of the essential truths of Christianity and their practical bearing. An unbridled love of novelty exposed them to the danger of involving the Christian faith in a web of dialectic sophistry. In the Roman Church, the mobility, the progressiveness, and the scientific spirit were wanting; a one-sided adherence to the letter led them to reject novelties, and to charge more liberal views with heresy. Thus the scientific development of theology was received from the Greek Church, till Augustin's great creative mind gave a peculiar, new scientific form to the doctrines of Christianity. But the advantage was a faithful adherence to Tradition, simplicity in the conception of Christian Truth, and a more practical character in opposition to the dogmatical wilfulness of the Greeks. And thus

DIFFERENCE OF THE EASTERN AND WESTERN CHURCHES. 261

the remarkable phenomenon is presented, that while the Greek Church, distracted by controversies, set up one confession of faith after another, the Western Church, on the other hand, held fast to the form once delivered to it, and had already attained a certain Unity. The Church teachers belonging to the latter had attained to a conception of the Truth which the Greek Fathers only reached after a prolonged conflict. And so it happened, that the champions of orthodoxy in the Greek Church found a support in the Western. That dogmatic unity afterwards won the victory among the Orientals, and then enjoyed the results of doctrinal disputes in a definite representation of Unity. The character of the two Churches may be recognised even in the subjects of their Controversies. In the Greek Church men's minds were more occupied with questions which related especially to speculative points, such as the Trinity and the two natures in Christ; on the other hand, the great importance attached to practical questions in the Western Church gave rise to controversies that proceeded from the central point of the Christian consciousness, from the Christian anthropology in connexion with the doctrine of redemption. This tendency was important in its results in reference to Dogma and the Life of the later Western Church, as it was the means of preserving in it the peculiarly practical spirit of Christianity, and the consciousness of the connexion between the Dogmatic and the Ethical. From this peculiar dogmatic tendency, which appeared with great force at the beginning of the fifth century, proceeded the reaction at the Reformation against the foreign elements of the Catholic doctrine. We will now contemplate each of the Churches in their pecuculiar development.

THE ORIENTAL CHURCH. In the fourth century ATHANASIUS,* bishop of Alexandria, was conspicuous,—a man of Christian energy and depth, superior to Origen in dialectic acuteness and systematic talent, but not his equal in free historical development. His influence over the Oriental

*

Opp. ed. Bened. (Montfaucon): 1689-98, 2 t. fol. 1777. Opp. Dogmatica Selecta, ed. Thilo: 1852. The Letters of Athanasius, published in Syriac by Cureton, in German by Larsow. See Jacobi, Deutsche Zeitschr.: 1852, No. 40. Tellemont, Mémoires, &c. t. viii. Möhler, Athanasius d. Gr. u. d. Kirche sr. Zeit: 1827, 2 vols. 1844.

Church was very powerful, and it was owing especially to his exertions, that in the Arian controversy, the victory was won for deeper Christian views and dialectic consistency. This conflict contributed very much to the further preponderance of the dogmatic and the dialectic. In Athanasius, as well as in his opponent Arius,* we may discern the influence of Origen: Arius took up one element from Origen; Athanasius also wished to follow Origen, and was anxious to show that the latter was not to be regarded as the forerunner of Arius. Those eminent Cappadocian Fathers of the Church, BASIL of Cæsarea, his brother GREGORY of NYSSA, and GREGORY NAZIANZEN, § were all trained under the influence of Origen. He prompted them to the study of classical antiquity, to make use of their classical culture for the development of Christian doctrine, and led them to greater freedom of thought and moderation in controversies. Gregory of Nyssa, the deepest thinker of these three Fathers, developed the ideas of Origen in a peculiar manner. The intermediate position which EUSEBIUS of CESAREA || took in the controversy is also to be traced to Origen. He was inferior as a Dogmatist, but agreed for the most part with Origen in his apologetic tendency. Almost the only decided opponents of Origen during this period were those who were the enemies of free scientific development, or of spiritual views. They held fast to the

* Fragments from the writings of Arius are to be found in Athanasius, especially from the Oaλeía, in the Oratt. contra Arian., and De Synodis Arimin. et Seleuceus. c. 16, his letter to Alexander of Alexandria. See his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, in Epiphanius, H. E. 69, 7. Theodoret. H. E. i. 4.

+ Opp. ed. Fronto Ducæus et Morellius: Par. 1618-38, 3 t. fol.; ed. Bened. 1688. 3 t. fol.; Garnier, 1721-30, 3 t.; De Sinner: Par. 1839, 3 t. J. E. Feisser, De Vita Basilii Dissert. Hist. Theol.: Gron. 1828. L. R. W. Klosse, Basilius d. Gr. nach s. Leb. u. s. Lehre, 1835. A. Jahnius, Basilius M. Platonizans: Bern. 1838, 4. Animadverss. in Basil. Opp.: Bern. 1842, fasc. 1.

Opp. ed. Morellius: Par. 1615, 2 t. fol. Appdx. by Gretser, 1618, ed. Bened., the first vol. 1780. A. Maji, Scptor. vet. nov. Collectio : Rom. 1834, t. viii. J. Rupp, Greg. v. Nyssa Leb. u. Meinungen, 1834. § Opp. ed. Morellius: Par. 1630 (Lips. 1690), 2 t. fol. ed. Caittau : Par. 1840, 2 t. Ullmann Greg. v. Naz. der Theologe, 1825

πрожараσкενǹ evayyeλiký, 1. xv. ed. Heinichen, 1842, 2. t. Gais ford, 1843, 4 t. Απόδειξις εὐαγγ. 1. xx. πρὸς Μαρκέλλον, libb. 2. TEρi TйS EKKλnoiaσrikйs deoλoyías, libb. 3, ed. R. Montacutius: Par. 1628, fol. 1688.

FATHERS OF THE EASTERN CHURCHES.

263

letter of tradition, like EPIPHANIUS of Salamis,* in Cyprus, or were the advocates of a coarse Anthropomorphism, which still had its friends among the monks. A more cultivated opponent of Origen was MARCELLUS, bishop of Ancyra,† in Galatia, a man who adhered to the Scriptures as the standard of his religious belief, and was indisposed to the mingling of philosophy and theology practised by Origen. The Platonic philosophy, the influence of which on the Church, was chiefly owing to the instrumentality of Origen, was still predominant among the philosophically trained teachers of the Church. And ever since the Christian principle has subordinated more completely the Platonic element; even where the forms have been Platonic, the material influence of Christianity has preponderated; only, now and then, certain mixtures of Platonic and Christian elements have appeared in a kind of religious Idealism, which served for many as a transition to Christianity. This was the case with SYNESIUS, to whom Christianity first presented itself as a symbol for the ideas of his Platonic standpoint. In the spurious writings of DIONYSIUS the Areopagite, § we find a mystical Theology resulting from a mixture of the Platonic and Christian mind, which turned the whole constitution of the Church, its external rites and its

*

Opp. ed. Dion. Petavius: Par. 1622; Lpz. 1682, 2 t. fol.

† περὶ τῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ ὑποταγῆς. Fragments in Eusebius of Caesarea. Replies πρ. Μαρκέλλον and περὶ τῆς ἐκκλ. θεολογ. See Marcelliana, ed. H. G. Rettberg: Göttg. 1794. Athanasius De Synodis, § 26. Apolog. contr. Arian. § 24-35. Cyrill. Hieros. Catech. xv. 27–33. Epiphan. Hær. 72. L. R. W. Klose, Gesch. u. Lehre des Marcellus u. Photinus: 1837. Baur, Gesch. d. Lehre v. d. Dreieinigkeit, i. 525.

Opp. ed. Petavius, 1612, 1640. C. Thilo, Commentatio in Synesii Hymn. ii. Hal. 1842, 4to. Oratt. et Homill. Frgmt. ed. Krabinger : Landish. 1851. A. Th. Clausen, De Synesio Philosopho : Havn. 1831. B. Kolbe, Synesius v. Cyrene: Berl. 1850.

§ περὶ τῆς οὐρανίας ἱεραρχίας. περὶ τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱεραρχίας. περὶ μυστικῆς Θεολογίας. περὶ θείων ὀνομάτων, ἐπιστολαί. Opp. ed. Corderius: Antv. 1634; Par. 1644, 2 t. fol.; ed. Venet. 1755, 2 t. fol.; translated by Engelhardt: Sulz. 1823. J. Dallæus, De Scriptis quæ sub Ignat. et Dionysii Nominib. circumferuntur: Genev. 1666. Engelhardt, De Dionysio Plotinizante: Erl. 1820. De Origin. Scriptor. Areopag. 1822. Baumgarten-Crusius, Opp. Theol.: Jen. 1836, p. 265. Ritter Gesch. d. Christl. Philosophie, ii. 519. According to Niedner (Kirchengesch. p. 330), there is in the Pseudo-Dionysian writings the exhibition of a pretended Athenian Gnosis, but rather Antiochian, which reconciles the pure Hellenic Neo-Platonism and the Church doctrine more faithfully than the older Gnosis.