Sidor som bilder

opposition to the blasphemy of Celsus, c. 32, p. 350, mentioned above; comp., however, c. 67, p. 381.1

(6) Against the Docetæ, comp. the Epistles of Ignatius, especially ad Smyrn. 2 and 3, ad Ephes. 7, 18, ad Trall. 9, also the before-cited passage of Irenæus, as well as Tert. Adv. Marc. and De Carne Christi; Novatian, De Trin. c. 10: Neque igitur eum hæreticorum agnoscimus Christum, qui in imagine (ut dicitur) fuit, et non in veritate; nihil verum eorum quæ gessit, fecerit, si ipse phantasma et non veritas fuit. Some have thought that there is a leaning towards Docetism in the Epistle of Barnabas, c. 5. But it is only the same idea of the pups which occurs in later times, e.g. in the (apocryphal) oration of Thaddeus to Abgarus, apud Euseb. 1, 13: 'Eopíκρυνεν αὐτοῦ τὴν θεότητα, and elsewhere.

(7) Tertull. De Carne Christi, c. 2: Odit moras Marcion, qui subito Christum de cœlis deferebat. Adv. Marc. iii. 2: Subito filius, et subito missus, et subito Christus; iv. 11: Subito Christus, subito et Johannes. Sic sunt omnia apud Marcionem, quæ suum et plenum habent ordinem apud creatorem. [On Basilides and Marcion, see Neander, 1.c.]

(8) Καθάπερ ὕδωρ διὰ σωλήνος ὁδεύει, comp. Neander, gnost. Systeme, s. 136 ff. On the Docetism of the Gnostics in general, see Baur, s. 258 ff.: "Basilides is nearest to the orthodox view; Marcion departs farthest from it; and Valentinus, with his psychical Christ, occupies an intermediate position." Comp. also Baur, Dg. s. 610.

§ 66.

Further Development of this Doctrine.

*J. C. L. Gieseler, Commentatio, qua Clementis Alexandrini et Origenis doctrinæ de corpore Christi exponuntur, Götting. 1837, 4to. [Lämmer, Clem. Alex. Doctrina de λoy, 1855.]

1 On the different recensions of what is commonly called the Apostles' Creed, comp. King, p. 145. The phrase: conceptus de Spiritu Sancto, is wanting in the earlier recensions, and one reads: qui natus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria virg. Comp. King, p. 145. [Comp. also Swainson on the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds, Lond. 1875.]

Though the Christian and Catholic doctrine, in opposition to all these heretical theories, rested upon the simple declaration of John: ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, and thus preserved the idea which is peculiar to Christianity, viz. that of a necessary union between the divine and the human (1); yet the doctrine of the God-man was modified by the influence of various modes of thought and speculation. Thus it is not quite clear from the phraseology of the Fathers prior to Origen (2) (with the exception of Irenæus (3) and Tertullian (4)) how far they thought the soul of Jesus to be a part of His humanity. Nor does Clement of Alexandria make a strict distinction between the human and divine in Christ (5). Concerning His body, the theologians of the Alexandrian school adopted views essentially allied to those of the Docetæ, although they opposed the grosser forms of Docetism. Clement maintained that the body of Jesus was not subject to the accidents and influences of the external world with the same physical necessity as other human bodies (6); and Origen went so far as to ascribe to it the property of appearing to different persons under different forms (7). On the other hand, Origen was very definite upon the doctrine of the human soul of Jesus (8), and, generally speaking, endeavoured, more exactly than his predecessors, to define in a dialectic method the relation between the divine and the human in the person of Christ (9). He also first made use of the expression. θεάνθρωπος (10).

(1) Novat. De Trin. c. 10: Non est ergo in unam partem inclinandum et ab alia parte fugiendum, quoniam nec tenebit perfectam veritatem, quisquis aliquam veritatis excluserit. portionem. Tam enim scriptura etiam Deum adnuntiat Christum, quam etiam ipsum hominem adnuntiat Deum, etc.

(2) According to Justin M., Christ had a soul, but not a νους. Its place was supplied by the λóyos. In his view, Christ is composed of λόγος, ψυχή, and σῶμα, Apol. min. c. 10, comp. Semisch, s. 410.

(3) Duncker (p. 207 ff.) endeavours to make it probable,

from passages quoted by him (especially iii. 22, 1, v. 6, 1), that Irenæus taught the perfect humanity of Christ as regards body, soul, and spirit; he also adduces the passage, v. 1, 3, to which others have attached the opposite sense, comp. Gieseler on the passage, Dogmengesch. s. 187. [Gieseler here states that the Fathers of the Church soon came to feel the necessity, in a doctrinal point of view, of maintaining that Christ had a proper human soul, as otherwise He could not be a real man, nor our example, and His sufferings must be wholly denied, or else ascribed to the Logos. Irenæus first refers to it distinctly, v. c. 1; He gave His soul for our souls, His flesh for our flesh; and vxn here cannot mean merely the sensuous soul, for Irenæus does not distinguish between ψυχή and πνεῦμα. Tertullian expressly says that Christ assumed a human soul as well as a human body; De Carne Christi, c. 11, 13; Adv. Prax. c. 16. Origen, De Princip. ii. c. 6, first goes into full investigations on this point, making the rational human soul the necessary medium of the incarnation, since God could not be immediately united with a body, etc. Comp. also Neander, Dg.] According to a fragment in Massuet, p. 347, Irenæus taught a evwois καθ ̓ ὑπόστασιν φυσική—a partial anticipation of that was afterwards called the communicatio idiomatum. See Baur, Dg. s. 627.

(4) Tert. Adv. Prax. c. 30, takes the exclamation of Christ on the cross: My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me! as a vox carnis et animæ; cf. De Carne Christi, c. 11-13: Non poterat Christus inter homines nisi homo videri. Redde igitur Christo fidem suam, ut, qui homo voluerit incedere, animam quoque humanæ conditionis ostenderit, non faciens eam carneam, sed induens eam carne. Comp. De Resurr. Carn. c. 34, and other less definite passages (only in relation to the assuming of the flesh) which are given by Münscher (von Cölln), i. s. 261-263.

(5) He indulges in sharp contrasts, e.g. in Coh. p. 6 and p. 84: Πίστευσον, ἄνθρωπε, ἀνθρώπῳ, καὶ θεῷ· πίστευσον, ἄνθρωπε, τῷ παθόντι καὶ προσκυνουμένῳ θεῷ ζῶντι πιστεύσατε, οἱ δοῦλοι, τῷ νεκρῶ· πάντες ἄνθρωποι, πιστεύσατε μόνῳ τῷ πάντων ἀνθρώπων θεῷ· πιστεύσατε, καὶ μισθὸν λάβετε σωτηρίαν· ἐκζητήσατε τὸν θεὸν, καὶ ζήσεται ἡ ψυχὴ ὑμῶν.

He does not make the distinction drawn by others, according to which the name 'Inooûs is used only of the man: on the contrary, Pæd. i. 7, p. 131, he says: 'O dè μéтepos taidaγωγὸς ἅγιος θεὸς Ἰησοῦς, ὁ πάσης τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος καθη γεμών λόγος. He also applies the subject, ὁ λόγος, to His humanity, Pæd. i. 6, p. 124 : Ὁ λόγος τὸ αὐτοῦ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν étéxeev aiμa; comp. iii. 1, p. 251, and Gieseler, 1.c. On the question whether Clement of Alex. believed that Christ had a human soul, see Gieseler, Dogmengesch. s. 187. [Clement, Strom. vi. p. 775, says that the God-man had no wáłŋ; in Pædag. iii. 250, he distinguishes in the human soul the rational (oyoTIKóv), the principle of resentment (Ovμikóv), and the principle of desire (émiovμηтikóν), and says that the two last were not in Jesus.]

(6) Pæd. ii. 2, p. 186 (Sylb. 158), he most decidedly maintains, in opposition to the Docetæ, that Jesus ate and drank like other men, but very moderately; comp. Strom. vii. 17, p. 900, where he calls the Docetæ heretics; hence the charge which Photius (Bibl. Cod. 109) brought against him, viz. that the doctrine that Christ's body was a phantasm, is propounded in his work entitled the Hypotyposes (un σαρκωθῆναι τὸν λόγον, ἀλλὰ δόξαι), is justly considered as unfounded. But, after all, Clement refines the true human body of Jesus into little more than a kind of phantom, Strom. vi. 9, p. 775 (Sylb. p. 158, given by Gieseler, 1.c. 12), where he speaks of the eating and drinking of our Lord as only an accommodation to human nature, and calls it even ridiculous (yéλws) to think otherwise; for, according to him, the body of Jesus was sustained by a divine power, but not by meats and drinks. Clement admits that His body was bruised and died; but still he maintains that the passion was only apparent, inasmuch as the suffering Redeemer felt no pains; comp. Pæd. i. c. 5, p. 112, and Gieseler on the passage, p. 13. Clement also teaches that His divinity was veiled during His manifestation (pófis) in the flesh, Strom. vii. 2, p. 833, though he does not use these very words. In accordance perhaps with these views, he asserts that Jesus was without comeliness, Pæd. iii. 1, sub finem, p. 252, in deference to the passage, Isa. liii.; yet, on the other hand, he elevates the body of Jesus far above all other human organisms; for the

Saviour did not manifest that beauty of the flesh which strikes the senses, but the beauty of the soul, and the true beauty of the body, viz. immortality. The assumption of the perpetual virginity of Mary (Strom. vii. 16, p. 889, 890, and the (apocryphal) passage there cited: TéтOKEV Kai oỷ tétoKev) may be traced to the same docetic tendency. Different views are entertained by Tertull. De Carne Christi, sub finem (in Potter's edition, on the passage from the Clementines), who nevertheless quotes the same dictum. A real Docetism has been inferred from the Coh. ad Græcos, p. 86, where the assumption of humanity on the part of the Logos is compared to the putting on of a mask, and the taking a part in a drama: at any rate, this is no real becoming man. Comp. Gieseler, Dogmengesch. s. 191.

(7) Gennadius, De Dogm. Eccles. c. 2, incorrectly numbers Origen among those, qui Christum carnem de cœlo secum afferre contenderint (cf. Gieseler, Dogmengesch. s. 191); but his doctrine too is not quite free from Docetism. It is most fully given in the Comment. in Ep. ad Gal., preserved by Pamphilus; in Gieseler, Comm. p. 16, 17, and Contra Cels. i. 69, 70 (Opp. i. p. 383, 384); ibid. iii. 42 (p. 474); De Princip. ii. 6, 6. Hom. in Gen. i. (Opp. ii. p. 55): Non æqualiter omnes, qui vident, illuminantur a Christo, sed singuli secundum eam mensuram illuminantur, qua vim luminis recipere valent. Et sicut non æqualiter oculi corporis nostri illuminantur a sole, sed quanto quis in loca altiora conscenderit, et ortum ejus editioris speculæ intuitione fuerit contemplatus, tanto amplius et splendoris ejus vim percipiet et caloris: ita etiam mens nostra quanto altius et excelsius appropinquaverit Christo, ac se viciniorem splendori lucis ejus objecerit, tanto magnificentius et clarius ejus lumine radiabitur. With this view he connects the transfiguration on the mount, Contra Cels. ii. 64 (Opp. i. p. 435), and Comment. in Matth. (Opp. iii. p. 906); Gieseler, p. 19 ss. Comp. Contra Cels. iv. 16, p. 511: Elol yàp diápopoi oioveì τοῦ λόγου μορφαὶ, καθὼς ἑκάστῳ τῶν εἰς ἐπιστήμην ἀγομένων φαίνεται ὁ λόγος, ἀνάλογον τῇ ἕξει τοῦ εἰσαγομένου, ἢ ἐπ ̓

This is also alleged by Tertullian, De Carne Christi, c. 9: Adeo nec humanæ honestatis corpus fuit, nedum cœlestis claritatis. For had it been otherwise, how could the soldiers have dared to pierce this fair body?

« FöregåendeFortsätt »