Page images
PDF
EPUB

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. 1631; 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.

dogmas, into a Symbol of its ideas. But by degrees the Aristotelian Element made itself felt against the Platonic; we have already noticed its peculiar influence among the Artemonites. Platonism favoured a tendency for deeper Christian contemplativeness, the rights of faith were respected, and that Dogmatism was discountenanced which would bring all things within the limits of the Understanding. But at this period, a confined tendency of the Understanding was developed which was hostile to the intuitive Element in Theology. In ARIUS we find an antagonism to the prevalent Dogma, not merely in his doctrine respecting Christ, but in a more general reference, which is palpably evident in his attempt to bring the doctrine of the Trinity within the comprehension of the Understanding. But the most eminent representative of this mental tendency is his follower EUNOMIUS,* a man of more logical mind than himself. An opponent of whatever was inconceivable and transcendental, he pursued knowledge in a one-sided direction, not deeply speculative, but proceeding from an empirical understanding to make everything clear, which was his principal aim. In short, he advocated an intelligent Supranaturalism in which a rationalistic tendency was concealed, similar to what we find in Socinus. This tendency of an external Dogmatism was strenuously opposed by Gregory of Nyssa. Even Heathens, he says, can dispute about dogmas; but correctness in dogmas does not make a Christian. Christianity is rather grounded in the religious life. Here we have that which constitutes the radical difference between heathens and Christians. By him and the other great Cappadocian teachers, and by CHRYSOSTOM,§ the distinction between believing and knowing was maintained against Eunomius, also the rights of independent faith, the Inconceivability of God; the relation of faith and intuition, and the practical foundations of religious knowledge.

* ἔκθεσις τῆς πίστεως, in Socrates, v. 10, ed. Valesius. ἀπολογητικός, ed. Fabricius, Biblioth. Græc. viii. 262. Fragments from the book Tερi Tou vioũ, in Maji Collect vii. 1, 202.

+ Philostorg. H. E. lib. vi. Epiph. h. 76. The replies of Gregory of Nyssa and Basil. C. R. W. Klose, Geschichte u. Lehre des Eunomius. Greg. Naz. Orat. 33. De Theologia, i. 34. Initium Greg. Nyssa.

De Animâ et Resurrectione, t. iii. p. 238, ed. Mor. 1638.

§ Homilies on the Inconceivability of God. Opp. i. p. 544, ed. Montf. in 1 Cor. Homil. 34, 1, 2; vol. x. p. 310, &c.

THE ANTIOCHIAN SCHOOL.

265

Although the influence of ORIGEN was extended over the whole Oriental Church, yet his school at Alexandria did not retain its original character.* Its last representative, in the fourth century, was Didymus, † who, though blind from childhood, was the most learned man of his age. Afterwards the school was removed to Sida in Pamphylia, and became extinct. In the Alexandrian Church only one element of Origen's spirit was retained, the speculative mystical, as exhibited by Athanasius in opposition to Arianism; but the other side, the historically literal tendency of Origen, met with no encourage. ment in Alexandria. Gradually an opposition was formed against the Alexandrian tendency: it proceeded from a new dogmatic school, the Antiochian, which in its fundamental elements may likewise be traced back to Origen, for the impulse he had given to learned pursuits in general, and his zeal for sound biblical study were transferred to Antioch. The first foundation of this school was exegetical, and was laid by DOROTHEUS § and LUCIAN, || in the fourth century by EUSEBIUS of Emesa, and especially by DIODORUS of Tarsus, ** and THEODORUS†† of Mopsuestia. The Exegetical direction of this

* On the characteristics of the various theological schools at this period, see Niedner, Kirchengeschichte, p. 317, &c.

De Spiritu S. in Jerome's Latin vers. De Trinitate, libb. iii. ed. Mingarelli: Bonon. 1769, fol. Adv. Manichæus in Combefisii Auctuar. Gr. P. ii. Expositio vii. Canonic. Epistolar., the fragments in Lücke, Quæstiones ac Vindicia Didymiana: Göttg. 1829-32, 4 t. Cölln. Hall. Encyclop. xxiv. art. Didymus.

See

On the Antiochian school, see Neander's Der Heilige Chrysostomus u. die Kirche, besonders des Orients in dessen Zeitalter. 2 Th. 1821, 1832. Neander's Ch. H. iii. 212.

§ Euseb. H. E. vii. 32.

Euseb. H. E. viii. 13; ix. 6. Hieronym. Catal. Script. Illustr. c. 77. Hieronym. Catal. 91, 119. Socrates, H. E. ii. 9. Sozom. iii. 6, Thilo üb. d. Schriften des Eusebius von Alexandriæ u. Eusebius v. Emesa: Halle, 1832.

**

Hieronym. Cat. 119. Socrates, vi. 3. Suidas, s. v. Aiódwpos. Assemanni, Biblioth. Oriental. iii. 1, 28. In the Spicileg. Solesm. p. 269, fragments are given of a work by Victor of Capua, which must have been taken from a Commentary of Diodorus on the second book of Moses. In the fragments themselves there is no reason to the contrary. Other fragments are Marcus Mercator and Photius, cod. 122.[JACOBI.]

++ Comment. in Proph. xii. Minores in Theod. Mops. quæ supersunt, ed. Wegnern. t. i. A. Magi, vi. 1. Commentar. in Epist. ad Roman. in A. Magi, Spicel. iv This large fragment, with smaller ones from

school continued to be its prominent characteristic, according to which Dogma, independently of Tradition, was to be derived from Holy Writ. Allegory was the medium for bringing the Bible into harmony with every tradition; but here the Exposition of Scripture was formed from its own contents by an unprejudiced, grammatical, and logical method. The Antiochian method of Exposition formed the right medium between the allegorizing method, and that grossly literal style of interpretation by which alone it had hitherto been opposed. With this was connected a more liberal method in the criti cism of the Canon, and in the consideration of the historical relation of the Old and New Testament; there was also an endeavour to contemplate Christ in his earthly appearance, not according to a preconceived dogmatic scheme, but as he is represented in the Gospels. Altogether, there was a striving after clearness and rational development; after a knowledge of the divine in connexion with the natural. In the opposition between this and the Alexandrian School, we notice the most divergent tendencies of the theological spirit; the supranatural and the rational element, only that neither were of an exclusive character. In Alexandria the greatest stress was laid on the supernatural in dogma; those formula were preferred in which this was most strongly expressed, and all attempts at explanation were rejected. The Antiochians did not deny the supernatural; there were among them men of the deepest

the Commentaries on the other epistles of Paul, is in Th. Episc. Mops. in N. T. Commentaria quæ reperiri potuer. colleg. O. F. Fritzsche: Turic. 1847. In the Spic. Solesmens. i. 49, Latin Commentaries are to be found on the Epistles to the Galatians, &c., as far as Philemon; those on the Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, and Philemon, are complete. Pitra, the Editor of the Spicileg., ascribes this work to Hilary of Poictiers. But there is no doubt that they are translations of the Commentaries of Theodorus. See Jacobi's Deutsche Zeitschr., 1854, and his Programs, Hal. 1855, 1856, for the Commentaries on the Epistles to the Philippians and the Colossians. Other fragments are in Facund. Hermian. Pro Defens. Trium Capitul. libb. xii. in Bibl. Patr. Lugduni xii. Galland xi. For Catalogue of his writings, see J. A. Assemanni Bibl. Orien. iii. 1, 30. Ernesti Opusc. Theolog. p. 502. Miniter, Ständlin and Tzschirner, Archiv. f. Kirchengesch. i. 1. R. E. Klener, Symbole Litter. ad Theod. Mops. Episc. Pertinentes: Gött. 1836. O. F. Fritzsche, De Theod. Mops. Vita et Scptis.: Hal. 1836. T. L. Sieffert, Theod. Mops. vet. Tti. sobr. Interpretandi Vindex: Regiom. 1827.-[JACOBI.]

THE WESTERN CHURCH.

267

Christian spirit, such as Chrysostom* and Theodoret;† but they aimed at making their views of divine things as perspicuous as possible and in unison with reason. Between these tendencies there was necessarily a complete antagonism; this might be seen in their anthropology; but in accordance with the character of the Greek Church, it was most strikingly apparent in their speculative Christology.

THE WESTERN CHURCH. After the first period of scientific dependence on the Eastern Church, HILARY of Poictiers ‡ was the first who appeared in the West as a professed Dogmatic writer. Before he became involved in the Controversies of the East, he had arrived, in his own way, at his dogma respecting the Trinity. JEROME, § who long resided at Bethlehem, occupied an important position as mediator between the Eastern and the Western Church, which latter he had enriched with the learning of the East. He is distinguished as a learned collector, and for certain ingenious ideas, but had little talent for the formation of a dogmatic system. AMBROSE of Milan, || also, whose peculiar excellence lay in the direction of practical ethics, was largely indebted to the Greeks.

In the preceding period, the African Church had already begun to develope the Western mind in a scientific manner. And in this age also, North Africa had manifested scientific productiveness. AUGUSTIN formed a new system within the * Opp ed. Montfaucon: Par. 1718—38, 13 t. fol.; Par. 1834—39, 13 t.

ἑλληνικῶν θεραπευτικῆ comp. libb. v. Opp. ed. Garnier: Par. 1684; ed.

† ἐρανιστὴς ἤτοι πολύμορφος, libb. iv. Tаonμáτwv, Disputatt. xii. Hæretic. Fabular., Sirmond: Par. 1649, 4 t. fol. t. 5; add. Jo. Schulze et Noesselt: Hal. 1769-74, 5 t. 8. J. F. Richter, De Theodoreto Epist. Paulin. Interpret. Lips. 1822.

‡ De Trinitate, libb. xii. De Synodis. De Synodis Arimin. et Seleuceus. Commt. in Psalm. Matth. Opp. ed. Bened. (Constant): Par. 1693; Maffei, Veron. 1730, 2 t. fol.; Oberthür. Wirceb. 1785, seq. 4 t.

§ Opp. ed. Erasmus: Bas. 1516; ed. Bened. (Martianay): Par. 1693 -1706, 5 t. fol.; Vallarsi Veron. 1734-42, 11 t. f; Venet. 1766-72, 4 t.

Hexameron de Incarnationis Dominicæ Sacramento de Fide, libb. v. De Spiritu S. libb. iii. ed. Bened.: Par. 1686-10, 2 t. f. Böhringer, Die Kirche u. ihre Zeugen. 1 Abth. 3.

Opp. ed. Erasmus: Bas. 1529; Bened.: Par. 1659-1701, xi. t.; Antwp. 1700-1703. xi. t., with Appendix by Le Clerc, 1703. Brude mann, d h. Augustin, Th 1: Berl. 1841. Poujoulat, Geschichte d. h.

« PreviousContinue »