where he entirely rejects the practice of addressing 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 (άтоπάтатоv); to pray to both is impossible, because we should have to use the plural number: παρασχέσθε, εὐεργετήσατε, ἐπιχορηγήσατε, σώσατε, which is contrary to Scripture, and to the doctrine of one God. And 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. 580): Iâσav μèv yàp dénow 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 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. s. 303. Neander, Dg. 161. On the subordinationist doctrine of the Trinity in Hippolytus, see ibid. s. 172, Jacobi's Note [and Bunsen's Hippolytus].

§ 47.

Doctrine of the Creation.

C. F. Rössler, Philosophia veteris ecclesiæ de mundo, Tubingæ 1783, 4to. [Weisse, Philosophische Dogmatik, 1855, s. 670-712. H. Ritter, Die christliche Philosophie, i. s. 266 sq.] Möller, Geschichte der Kosmologie in der griech. Kirche bis auf Origenes, Halle 1860. J. W. Haune, die Idee der absoluten Persönlichkeit, oder Gott und sein Verhältniss zur Welt, 1861, 2 vols. (2 Aufl. 1865).

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 (1). Even the definition è our ovтov, which was introduced late into the Jewish theology (2 Macc. vii. 28),

The

found sympathy in the primitive Christianity (2). 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 (3), and rejected the notion of the eternity of matter (4), 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 (5) Christian teachers, and of Hermogenes (6), 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) (7); and, after the example of Clement (8) (who, however, is doubtful, or at least hesitating), he propounded more definitely the doctrine of an eternal creation, yet not maintaining the eternity of matter as an independent power (9). 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 (10).

(1) Theophilus (ad Autol. ii. 10 sq.) first gives a fuller exposition of the Mosaic narrative of the creation. The Alexandrian school, on the other hand, deviated from his literal interpretation; comp. notes 7-9.

(2) Comp. Heb. xi. 3, and the commentaries upon that passage. Accordingly, the Shepherd of Hermas teaches, lib. ii. mand. 1: Πρώτον πάντων πίστευσον, ὅτι εἷς ἐστιν ὁ θεὸς, ὁ τὰ πάντα κτίσας καὶ καταρτίσας, καὶ ποιήσας ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος εἰς τὸ εἶναι τὰ πάντα. Conf. Εuseb. 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, s. 19. He uses the expression Enμovno a è àμóppov üλns, Apol. i. 10. Yet God produced the material itself, and from this shaped the world; Coh. ad Græc. c. 22.

(3) The popular view was always, that the Father is the

'Ev

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 (Snμiovрyós, oints). Thus Justin M. says (δημιουργός, ποιητής). (Dial. c. Tryph. c. 16): 'O TOINTYS Tŵv öλwv Ocós, comp. Apol. i. 61 : Τοῦ πατρὸς τῶν ὅλων καὶ δεσπότου θεοῦ. On the other hand, Coh. ad Græc. c. 15: Tòv Toû beοû Xóyov, di οὗ οὐρανὸς καὶ γῆ καὶ πᾶσα ἐγένετο κτίσις, comp. Apol. i. 64. Likewise Theophilus, ad Autol. ii. 10: "Oтe Ev Tậ Xóyw αὐτοῦ ὁ θεὸς πεποίηκε τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς, ἔφη· Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν. The phrase ἐν ἀρχῇ was understood in the same sense as διὰ τῆς ἀρχῆς, and ἀρχή explained to denote the Logos, see Semisch, s. 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 annunciantia 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 autum est Dominus noster, qui in novissimis 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, s. 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 Lecture, note 21, p. 320, note 50, p. 410.]

(4) Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 4, says against the followers of Plato: Εἰ δὲ θεὸς ἀγέννητος καὶ ὕλη ἀγέννητος, οὐκ ἔτι· ὁ θεὸς TOINTÈS TŵV Öλwv éσrí. 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. Justin M. and Athenagoras, on the contrary, fall in more with the Platonic view; not, indeed, as agreeing with Philo (De mundi opif. 2) in putting God and Hyle

expressly opposite to each other as δραστήριον and παθητικὸν altiov, or as regarding matter generally as coeternal with God; but they do not set forth with sufficient clearness the thought that the λn itself is created by God; it seems to them sufficient to say that God created the world from the formless. matter which lay before Him. Justin, Apol. i. 10: Пávra τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀγαθὸν ὄντα δημιουργῆσαι αὐτὸν θεὸν ἐξ ἀμόρφου ὕλης . . . δεδιδάγμεθα, cf. c. 59. Athenag. (Legat. 15) compares the creative activity of God to the art of the potter, who forms a vessel of clay. Without the forming hand of the artist the matter would not have become kooμos, it would have lacked organization and form (διάκρισις, σχῆμα). Cf. c. 19, and Möller, 1.c. s. 146 ff. In the Cohortatio ad Græcos (c. 22) it is different; there we find the most precise distinction between δημιουργός and ποιητής: ὁ μὲν γὰρ ποιητὴς οὐδενὸς ἑτέρου προσδεόμενος ἐκ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ δυνάμεως καὶ ἐξουσίας ποιεῖ τὸ ποιούμενον· ὁ δὲ δημιουργός, τὴν τῆς δημιουργίας δύναμιν ἐκ τῆς ὕλης εἰλήφως, κατασκεύαζει τὸ yivóμevov. So Tatian most decidedly rejects the notion of pre-existing matter. Orat. 3 (5). Möller, s. 156 f.

(5) On the dualistic and emanatistic theories of creation of Cerinthus, Basilides, Valentinus, and the other Gnostics, as well as of the pseudo-Clementines, see Baur, Dg. 520 ff., and Möller, s. 189 ff.

(6) Hermogenes, a painter, lived towards 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 then 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 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. He compared the relation of God to the world, to that of the magnet to iron; so that God operates upon matter not by the act of His will, but by the proximity of His essence. Comp. Guil. Böhmer, de Hermogene Africano, Sundiæ 1832. Neander, Kg. i. 3, s. 974 ff.; Antignosticus, s. 236 ff. Leopold, Hermogenis de origine mundi sententia, Budissæ 1844. Baur, Dg. s. 524.

(7) De Princip. iv. 16 (Opp. i. p. 174, 175): Tís yàp voûv ἔχων οἰήσεται πρώτην καὶ δευτέραν καὶ τρίτην ἡμέραν, ἑσπέραν τε καὶ πρωΐαν χωρὶς ἡλίου γεγονέναι καὶ σελήνης καὶ ἄστρων K.T.. Comp. § 33, note 4.

κ.τ.λ.

(8) According to Photius, Bibl. Cod. c. 9, p. 89, Clement of Alex. is said to have taught that matter had no beginning (üλnv äxpovov); with this statement comp. Strom. vi. 16, p. 812, 813: Οὐ τοίνυν, ὥσπερ τινὲς ὑπολαμβάνουσι τὴν ἀνάπαυσιν τοῦ θεοῦ, πέπαυται ποιῶν ὁ θεός· ἀγαθὸς γὰρ ὤν, εἰ παύσεταί ποτε ἀγαθοεργῶν, καὶ τοῦ θεὸς εἶναι παύσεται ; and p. 813: Πῶς δ ̓ ἂν ἐν χρόνῳ γένοιτο κτίσις συγγενομένου τοῖς οὖσι καὶ τοῦ χρόνου. This is certainly against a creation in time. 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.

(9) Origen, indeed, opposes the eternity of matter (in the heathen and heretical sense), De Princip. ii. 4 (Redep. 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 could, as little as Clement, conceive of God as unoccupied (otiosam enim et immobilem dicere naturam Dei, impium enim simul et absurdum), De Princip.