CHAPTER 5
CHAPTER 5
The Theologians
IRENAEUS OF LYONS
We have already met Irenaeus in the context of the incident of the martyrs of Lyons and Viennes. Born in the 120s in Asia Minor, he probably came from Smyrna. He was a student of Polycarp, and possibly also of Justin Martyr, which makes him a third-generation bishop, only two steps away from the apostles themselves. Polycarp sent him to Gaul to be a priest under Bishop Pothinus. He probably only escaped martyrdom because he had gone to Rome to speak to the bishop there on behalf of the Montanists, the charismatic group also from his home region of Asia Minor. As we have seen, when Irenaeus returned from Rome in 177, he found his bishop dead, and he had already been elected the successor.
As bishop, Irenaeus wrote several works, of which only two are extant; however, they mark a turning point in the history of the Church. Before Irenaeus, the writers were catechists, ethicists, apologists, and philosophers. Although his work is heavily influenced by Justin Martyr and to some extent by Theophilus of Antioch, he surpasses them in the explanation of Christology and in theology in general. Irenaeus was the first real theologian since the apostles, because he is intentional about supporting every argument from scripture rather than philosophy. He believed that reliance on human reason (philosophy) results in heresy, so for him the Christian faith must be founded on divine revelation as opposed to human reason. With the transition from apology to theology, the primary audience for the documents in question is now Christian, so the goal of writing is no longer simply apology or even conversion but orthodoxy.' Correct belief matters, since to believe in the wrong Christ is to believe in no Christ at all.
The Theologians Most of Irenaeus's quotations and references to scripture are from the Old Testament, for two reasons. First, Irenaeus was arguing primarily against gnosticism, which rejected the Old Testament and its connection to Jesus Christ. Therefore, Irenaeus meant to show how the Old Testament pointed to Christ and how the two testaments were connected. Second, the New Testament was still in its early stages of development, a development to which Irenaeus himself will contribute, as we will see in the next chapter.
According to tradition, Irenaeus died a martyr in the year 202 CE.
He leaves us two of the most important early Church documents.
Against Heresies Written about 185 CE, the actual title of this document is The Detection and Refutation of Knowledge Falsely So-Called. The "socalled knowledge" is a reference to gnosticism, named from the Greek word gnosis, which means "knowledge." As indicated above, gnosticism was actually a vast array of philosophical systems, based on an extreme docetism but only loosely connected to each other by a similarity of concepts. While there were many different gnostic teachers on the fringes of the Church in the second century,
Irenaeus attempts to explain and refute them all one by one, often going into great detail about the gnostic systems, which (while it can be tedious for the reader) is invaluable for the historian.'
The various forms of gnosticism incorporated complicated and elaborate cosmological myths, which Irenaeus attacks and sometimes mocks. The most important problem with gnosticism, however, was that it tended to deny, or at least diminish, the real humanity of Christ.
For the Gnostics, Christ was either a phantom who only appeared to be human, or a spirit who "possessed," or temporarily indwelt, a semitangible Jesus. For them, Christ had no connection to the Old Testament and his Father was not the God of the Hebrews. In fact, as we have seen, some taught that the creation of the material world was a cosmic blunder, and Christ came to save humanity from the inept (or evil) Creator God of the Old
Testament. He would do this by bringing secret knowledge (gvosis), which would allow the enlightened to ascend to the highest levels of heaven at the point of death.
Reading the Early Church Fathers Irenaeus countered the Gnostics' claim to secret knowledge with the concept of apostolic succession. He reasoned that if Jesus had indeed brought secret knowledge, he would have told the apostles, who would in turn have told their successors, the bishops.'
Since Irenaeus himself was a bishop, he argued that if any secret knowledge had been handed on by Jesus, he would know it. He further criticized the Gnostics for claiming to know the secrets of God while ignoring divine revelation.' To counteract the gnostic rejection of the Old Testament, Irenaeus showed the continuity between the Old and New Testaments. Creation was not a mistake, and in fact Christ was the agent of creation. The God of the Old
Testament is the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, and creation is good. Irenaeus connected the Old Testament to the New by the use of typology. Old Testament types foreshadow parallel events in the life and ministry of Jesus and the early Church. For example, Adam was created from the virgin earth and was the first man; Christ was born of the Virgin and was the second Adam (1
Cor 15:44-47). Eve disobeyed God and brought death into the world; Mary obeyed God and brought life by becoming the mother of Christ.' The tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden was the occasion for sin; the tree of Golgotha, the cross, was the remedy for sin. Thus Christ can be seen in the Old
Testament, which prepared the world for his arrival. In his zeal to defend the Old Testament from a Christian perspective, Irenaeus went even further and attempted to show the continuity between the Old and New 'Testaments with an early form of dispensationalism that followed Papias's interpretation of the Book of Revelation.'
The Ebionites had reasoned that since Christ suffered, he could not be divine. The Docetics and Gnostics said that since he was divine, he could not have suffered. Ironically, both extremes were trying to safeguard the impassibility and immutability of divinity. The Docetics and Gnostics went so far as to reject the Old
'Testament because its anthropomorphisms seemed to describe a God who changes. Irenaeus, as a proponent of Logos Christology, affirmed both the human and divine natures of Christ against these two extremes. For Irenaeus, the key is the incarnation. The divine
Logos became human, so the impassible became passible, by becoming human. 'Technically, the divine nature of Christ remains
The Theologians impassible, while the human nature can suffer and die for the sake of humanity's reconciliation with God. This does not imply that Jesus is the name for the human nature and Christ is the name for the divine nature (as some had speculated), but that Jesus Christ is one person who has both a human and a divine nature. For Irenaeus and the other writers of the late second through the early third centuries, the humanity of Christ is the Son of Man, or Son of David; the divinity of Christ is the Son of God. The Son of Man can suffer his passion, while the Son of God remains impassible.
Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching Also called Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, this much shorter document is a good recommendation for the student of early
Christianity who wants a firsthand introduction to Irenaeus. It was probably written in the late 180s, after Against Heresies. It is addressed to a priest named Marcianus, who may have been Irenaeus's brother, and it amounts to a combination of internal apology and catechesis, written for a Christian audience. The literary form is that of a public letter, which means it was probably meant to be read to an assembly.
Irenaeus's Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching is in many ways a summary of orthodox Christian theology up to the end of the second century. Thus it is very valuable for the study of the early Church, in spite of the fact that Irenaeus gets some of his history wrong and even confuses the sequence of emperors in the first century. The document represents Logos Christology, in which the preexistent Word of God can be seen in the theophanies of the Old
Testament. This is because God the Father cannot be localized in time and space (or circumscribed), so any appearance of God in the days before Jesus must be an appearance of the preincarnate
Christ.' Therefore, it was God the Son, the preincarnate Logos, who walked in the Garden of Eden and talked with Adam, not God the Father.* It was also the Son, rather than the Father or the Holy
Spirit, who inspired and spoke through the prophets.' Typical of Logos Christology, there is no clear distinction made between the preincarnate (or for that matter, postascension) Christ and the oD)
Reading the Early Church F athers Holy Spirit, so that there is some confusion of God's Word and God's wisdom."
A milestone of early Christian doctrine is apparent in this document, where Irenaeus becomes the first to say explicitly that the Father and Son are one and the same essence.'' The principle behind this assertion is that the one who is begotten (or generated) from God must also be God (that is, divine). In other words, the Father and the Son share the same divine essence, or the same divinity. Therefore, because of the generation of the Son from the Father, the Father and Son are one in power and one in being (or consubstantial). Yet there is a distinction between the Father and Son, and an order, or hierarchy, within the Trinity.' The distinction between the Father and Son is described in terms of relative approachability. The Father is utterly transcendent and invisible, and therefore is not directly approachable. The Son, on the other hand, can be visible and circumscribed, and therefore can appear in time and space, primarily in his incarnation but also in the preincarnation theophanies. This implies that the Son is somehow less transcendent, or more immanent, than the Father and consequently he is approachable. So one cannot approach the Father directly, but only through the Son (John 14:6). Put another way, the Spirit brings us to the Son, and the Son brings us to the Father."
Furthermore, there is a hierarchy of authority in the Trinity, in which the Son obeys the Father.''* The Son is the Father's messenger, the agent of the Father who comes with the Father's authority but who nevertheless does the Father's will, not his own
(John 6:38). This means that as the Sender, the Father has a level of authority above that of the Son, the Messenger." In describing the 'Trinity, Irenaeus used an analogy of anointing. The Father is the one who anoints, the Son is the anointed one, and the Holy
Spirit is the ointment. Thus Irenaeus has set the stage for the thirdand fourth-century descriptions of the Trinity.
For Irenaeus, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the "three articles of our seal," a reference to baptism in the triune name.' A correct understanding of the Trinity is important because it has implications for the sacraments, especially for baptism, which makes one a Christian. Baptism was seen as spiritual rebirth, "the seal of eternal life." It was analogous to Jewish circumcision,
The Theologians which was also understood as a seal or mark of membership in the community."* In baptism one received the Holy Spirit, but for Irenaeus it was correct belief and morality that kept the Holy Spirit from leaving the individual after baptism.'? So baptism is one's entrance into the family of God, but orthodoxy was required to maintain that membership. In other words, baptism may be a rebirth and a sealing for eternal life, but one could lose one's salvation if one accepted a heretical view of Christ.
'TERTULLIAN
Septimius Tertullianus was born about 145-50 CE in North Africa, probably in Carthage." As far as we can tell, he lived into the 220s. Since his writings come from at or after the turn of the century, he is considered the first theologian of the third century.
He was also the first Christian theologian to write in Latin, and he coined the Latin term Trinitas for the Trinity. For these reasons, he is called the father of Latin theology.
Tertullian was raised in a pagan home and given the standard classical education."' It has traditionally been assumed that he was a lawyer or at least had studied law, though this is far from certain.
Eusebius tells us that Tertullian was "skilled in Roman law."" It is true that he is famous for having used Roman legal terminology to describe the Trinity, and his apologetics do contain some legal argumentation, but it is probably the case that any educated Roman would have known enough legal jargon and rhetoric to apply them to theology as he did." Tertullian's genius was not in the world of law, but his talent emerged when he became a Christian in about 185 CE. Apparently Tertullian got married shortly after his baptism, so his wife may have had something to do with his conversion.
In any case, he took to the Church and became one of its most important proponents, even helping to define Christianity itself by way of its doctrines.
It is not clear whether 'Tertullian was ever ordained. There is a tradition that he was a priest in Rome around the turn of the century; however, in some of his writings he seems to consider himself a layperson." On the other hand, the documents in question were oi
Reading the Early Church Fathers probably written after he left Rome, and other documents appear to be homilies. If he was a priest, he was never a bishop. Around the turn of the third century, he apparently had a falling out with the leadership in Rome, probably over their rejection of the Montanists, whom Irenaeus had supported and with whom Tertullian had begun to associate." It is possible that Tertullian had been a priest in Rome but left the priesthood when he left Rome and afterward considered himself a lay teacher.* This would be consistent with the Montanist movement, since they operated outside the developing hierarchy.
Tertullian was apparently drawn to the Montanists for their stricter morality, their emphasis on continuing charismatic inspiration, and their millennialism. Their belief in ongoing prophecy combined with a conviction of the immanent return of Christ led to their ethical rigorism and dispensational interpretation of the Book of Revelation. For Tertullian, who was both a strict moralist and a devoted student of the writings of Irenaeus, the Montanists had it right, and they made the mainstream Church and its Roman leadership look morally lax. Tertullian criticized the Roman bishops for allowing second marriages, which he said was the same as forgiving the sin of adultery (Matt 19:9).""7 The Montanists, on the other hand, did not want to allow second marriages.* Because
Tertullian came to disagree with the Roman bishops over matters of discipline, he concluded that authority was not necessarily in the bishops but wherever the Holy Spirit is." Thus in practice he allowed that charismatic authority might trump apostolic authority.
It is usually stated that Tertullian "became" a Montanist in the first decade of the third century. Although he did return to Carthage and did associate with the Montanists there, it is not accurate to describe this move as in any way leaving the Church or converting to something new. The Montanists did not consider themselves a separate movement, and while there was some debate within the mainstream Church over whether Montanists should be considered heretics, the Montanist movement did not (yet) constitute a schism." 'Tertullian never thought of himself as leaving the Church; rather, he saw himself as joining a charismatic reform movement that would critique the Church from within.?!
Nevertheless, Tertullian is usually considered a Montanist
The Theologians after about 207-08, though we cannot precisely date his move away from Rome (both literally and figuratively)." His ethical treatises reflect a stricter (Montanist) morality, sometimes critical of the bishops who were more lenient than Tertullian would like when it came to the forgiveness of sins and the reconciliation of sinners."
But his theological writings were thoroughly orthodox, and in fact they helped define orthodoxy, both for Tertullian's time and for the future.* Tertullian takes the theology of Irenaeus to the next level by building on the concept of the one essence of divinity and describing the Trinity in terms that would become standard for the Western, Latin-speaking Church. In fact, it may have been the Montanist influence that brought 'Tertullian to clarify the full divine personhood of the Holy Spirit, in addition to the Father and Son.** Although Tertullian supported the idea of ongoing prophecy and charismatic authority, his writings are at every turn grounded in scripture and prior tradition. For him, scripture was still the primary authority, and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit would help interpret scripture and tradition but would never contradict it.'
Unlike the apologists, Tertullian was a true theologian, making a distinction between theology and philosophy. He was outwardly very critical of philosophy, though he could not help but be influenced by it, as anyone who had received a classical education would have been." But as a Christian he came to believe (like
Irenaeus) that heresy comes from a misuse of philosophy. He famously said, "What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem?
What concord is there between the Academy and the Church?"* For 'Tertullian, philosophy leads to paganism (that is, polytheism), or in the context of the Church, docetism and gnosticism. In fact, he criticized polytheism as illogical, saying that the existence of multiple gods necessarily implies that those gods cannot be omnipotent or omnipresent if they have to make room for one another and leave certain spheres of influence to other gods. Thus the very definition of divinity (assuming omnipotence and omnipresence) requires monotheism.
Tertullian was a prolific writer, and it would be impossible within the scope of this book to cover all of his writings; however, there are three that are most important for the understanding of the development of the Church and its doctrine.
Reading the Early Church Fathers The Prescription Against the Heretics Possibly written while still at Rome, this is a standard internal apology. It is interesting for our purposes, however, because of what Tertullian says about heresy in general, and how this illuminates the way the early Christians of the mainstream Church saw their counterparts on the fringes." According to Tertullian, heresy is the minority, while orthodoxy is the majority." Just as there were followers of Jesus who left him (John 6), heresy is the innovation that deviates from the established tradition.*' While orthodoxy is based on a solid foundation of apostolic succession, heresy seeks but never finds." While orthodoxy interprets scripture correctly, heresy takes scripture out of context and uses it to "prooftext" its own philosophical assumptions or speculations." Yet heresy is necessary, because it becomes the occasion for orthodoxy to be clarified.** Still, this does not mean that heresy precedes orthodoxy; on the contrary, heresy is new (and therefore not trustworthy).* In the end, heresy is dangerous because it is divisive, and maintaining orthodoxy is an urgent necessity for the sake of the unity of the Church." In contrast to heresy, Tertullian included a version of an early creed to clarify the "rule of faith," the definition of orthodoxy such as it was at the turn of the third century."
Apology Following in the footsteps of Justin Martyr and Athenagoras, 'Tertullian wrote an apology for the faith. The occasion of its writing may have been the edict of Septimius Severus in 202 CE, which, according to tradition, was the year in which Tertullian's hero Irenaeus was martyred.* In addition to demonstrating that the Christian faith was not a threat to the empire, Tertullian also argued that there were now so many Christians in the empire that it would actually be bad for the empire to get rid of the Church."
Tertullian's Apology contains many of the same elements and arguments as the second-century apologies. Belief in the Christian
God is older, and therefore more reliable, than philosophy or paganism." Pagan idols are inanimate objects made by humans, and in fact the ones made of precious metals need to be guarded.*! In the old myths the gods behaved badly, and so even the philosophers
The Theologians criticized the myths." By contrast, Christians are held to a higher moral standard. They don't share their wives, seek revenge, or kill other humans (including abortion, exposure of infants, and capital punishment)." According to Tertullian, Christians don't even cheat on their taxes!** Other than that, he says, We are just like you.' The implication is that, far from being a threat, the Church is good for the empire.
In addition to the standard defense, Tertullian advanced the cause with some new points. He argued that polytheism is not logical since if there are many gods, one cannot know about them all, let alone worship them all, and yet any gods not worshiped will be offended. If one is not afraid of the consequences of offending countless unknown gods, then those gods must have no real power."
In truth, the gods of the pagan pantheon are not gods, but rather demons." Tertullian complained that the live-and-let-live attitude of pagan cults toward one another was not extended to the Church.
Everyone else in the empire enjoyed religious freedom; why not the Christians?* Instead, he said, the Christians were being condemned without investigation. This is because if they were investigated, no crime would be found, and those who did the investigation would convert." Are Christians accused of cannibalism? They don't even shed blood, let alone eat human flesh. Why not test them by offering them some human flesh to eat, rather than by trying to force them to make pagan sacrifices?" Are Christians accused of incest?
There is more of a chance that those who expose their children will unknowingly marry a relative." And why are Christians tortured in an attempt to get them to deny their "crime," when at any other time, one tortures suspects to get them to confess?"
Tertullian further argued that it would be detrimental to the imperial economy to persecute Christians." While it is true that they do not buy frankincense to be used as incense for pagan sacrifices, they do buy it for their funerals, And while it is true that they don't support the temple treasuries, they do give to the poor."
Finally, although it is true that Christians don't support the theaters, circuses, or athletic games in the arenas, they do wrestle with God in prayer for the peace of the empire.® In fact, Tertullian argued that in spite of the growing trend of blaming natural disasters on the presence of the Church, there were actually fewer dis-
Reading the Early Church Fathers asters since the Christians started praying for the empire."
Therefore, it is not in the empire's best interest to kill Christians.
Tertullian made a point to refer to the emperor Trajan's letter to Pliny, which forbade seeking out Christians." He also quoted a story that the emperor Tiberius wanted to put a statue of Jesus
Christ up in the Pantheon in Rome.* The point he was trying to make was that good emperors (like Tiberius) do not persecute the Church, but bad emperors (like the universally hated Nero) do persecute the Church."
Against Praxeas Tertullian's most important theological work is the treatise Against Praxeas. No one knows who Praxeas was, and in fact it might be a pseudonym. He was apparently a confessor who was critical of the Montanists and, according to Tertullian, was at least partially responsible for the Roman church's rejection of Montanism as an acceptable expression of Christianity." He is also said to be an adherent of modalism, a heresy that diminished the distinction between the persons of the Trinity in an attempt to protect monotheism by emphasizing the oneness of God (see chapter 7 below). While Praxeas may have been an early teacher of modalism, it is equally possible that he was just a bit behind the times with regard to trinitarian theology, maintaining a Logos Christology that blurred the distinction between Son and Spirit. This may have been the case with the bishops of Rome whom Hippolytus criticized (see below), and in fact some have suggested that Praxeas might be a pseudonym for one of the bishops of Rome. In any case, we know that Tertullian opposed the bishops of Rome on disciplinary grounds, so it is not inconceivable that he opposed them on theological grounds as well. But the bishops of Rome were not really heretics, and in the end the person of Praxeas is probably more of a straw man than a real man, 'Tertullian taking the opportunity of using an enemy of Montanism as his foil to explain his understanding of the Trinity.
In Against Praxeas Tertullian introduced two Latin terms, apparently from Roman legal usage, that would become the very definition of orthodoxy for describing the Trinity. The word sub-
The Theologians stantia describes a property, and is the Latin version of Irenaeus's concept of a shared essence." The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one substantia." This can be translated into English as "substance," as long as one keeps in mind that it does not refer to material substance. The substance of the Trinity is divinity itself. The other word is persona, meaning an individual entity." This is translated as "person," and it refers to each of the three manifestations or persons of the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Note that the word persons is not the equivalent of "people," and we would not speak of three "people" of the Trinity. As it is used here, the word persons is a technical term that indicates the distinction between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, while also maintaining the unity of the one God.
Therefore, God exists as one divine substance shared by three divine persons."* The term substance describes the oneness of God, and the term person describes the fact that God is also three, providing a way of clarifying the distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit against modalism."
As Irenaeus had indicated, the generation of the Son from the Father (that the Son is "begotten" from the Father) necessitates that the Son also be the same divine essence, or substance, as the Father.' The oneness of God requires it. The fact that the Trinity is one substance is called consubstantiality. However, the immutability of the divine also requires that the Father cannot become incarnate, let alone suffer and die. Therefore, some distinction of persons is necessary, even while maintaining the oneness. For Tertullian, the Father alone is the First Cause of all existence and is ultimate transcendence and uncircumscribable. By the same token, only the Son became incarnate, and only his human nature suffered. Tertullian followed Irenaeus in describing the hierarchy of the Trinity as one of Sender and Messenger. The Father is the Sender and the Son is his Messenger. This implies that in some way the Holy Spirit is also the Messenger of the Father and/or the Son.
The hierarchy of the Trinity, then, is one of authority, specifically in terms of the internal relationships between the persons, while the oneness of God is maintained by the single substance. Thus
Tertullian wrote, "These three (persons) are one, but not one and the same, so that when (Jesus) said, 'I and the Father are one,' he meant a unity of substance, not a numerical singularity.""
Reading the Early Church Fathers Tertullian criticized modalism for having a Trinity with too much "monarchy" (unity) and too little "economy" (distinction)."
Ultimately, this is not really a Trinity at all, but a monad with three names. For the Modalists, the only allowable distinction between the persons of the Trinity was a label that described what God was doing at any given time. When God was the Creator, he was the Father. When God was the Savior, he was the Son, and when God was sustaining the Church, he was the Spirit. To put it another way,
God was the Father in the Old Testament, the Son in the gospels, and the Spirit in the Church. Among the many problems with this conception of the Trinity, it gives the appearance that the three persons only exist one at a time. It also gives the impression that the distinction of persons is only by task, or mode of operation (hence the name "modalism"; see chapter 7 for more detail). In fact, the mainstream Church would come to the conclusion that any operation of God is the activity of all three persons of the Trinity, a doctrine called inseparable operation." Therefore, popular reformulations of the triune name into formulas such as "Creator, Redeemer,
Sustainer" are actually expressions of the heresy of modalism, because they contradict the doctrine of inseparable operation and imply a Trinity in which the Father does not save and the Son does not create (cf. John 1:3).
Tertullian also followed Irenaeus in emphasizing that Christ must have both a human and a divine nature in order to be the Savior. Against Marcionite docetism he argued that "what is not assumed is not redeemed," and therefore if Christ did not have a real humanity, he could not be the Savior of humanity. For Tertullian, the birth of Christ demonstrated the two natures. That he had a birth at all proves his humanity against the Docetics and Gnostics who claimed Jesus had no birth or childhood. That his birth was miraculous in nature proves his divinity against the Ebionites. In fact, Tertullian anticipated the conclusion of the fifthcentury Theotokos controversy when he said that the divine Logos was circumscribed in Mary's womb, so that she was the Mother of the divine nature of Christ, not the human nature only. As the Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (431 CE) would later clarify, it is therefore appropriate to call Mary "Mother of God."
'Tertullian also anticipated the definition of the Fourth Ecumenical
The Theologians Council of Chalcedon (451 CE) when he said that the two natures are "united but not confused, in one person, Jesus, God and human...the property of each (nature) is preserved."*°
HIPPOLYTUS
Like Tertullian, Hippolytus was a disciple of Irenaeus, at least as evidenced in his writings. But also like that of Tertullian,
Hippolytus's status in the Church is unclear. In fact, the person of Hippolytus is as much of an enigma as the Church has ever produced, to the point that some speculate there were two or even three "Hippolyti" responsible for the writings attributed to him."
Acknowledging the debate and the problems associated with ascribing the Hippolytan documents to one person, we will nevertheless treat them as a unit. If they are not from the same pen, they are at least from the same school of thought and represent the next stage in the development of doctrine, bridging the gap from Tertullian to Novatian.
Born around 170 CE, Hippolytus was from the East, and therefore he wrote in Greek. At some point he came to Rome and was an influential presence during the time when Zephyrinus (199217), Callistus (217-22), and their successors were bishops there.
Eusebius says that Hippolytus was also a bishop, but does not know of what city." Hippolytus seems to refer to himself as a bishop in the preface to his Refutation of All Heresies. In the year 1551 a statue was found near the church of San Lorenzo, just outside the walls of Rome. The statue appeared to be of a figure seated on a bishop's throne. It had an inscription cataloguing the writings of Hippolytus, along with a list of the dates of Easter attributed to Hippolytus.
Many have argued that this was in fact a statue of Hippolytus as a bishop. Pope Pius IV (reigned 1559-65) said that Hippolytus was bishop of the coastal town of Portus, but there is no early evidence for this.® Thus Hippolytus may have been bishop of a smaller town near Rome. On the other hand, he may have been the leader of the Eastern (Greek-speaking) Christians in Rome, functioning as their bishop and even possibly leading a separate catechetical school dis-
Reading the Early Church Fathers tinct from the Latin-speaking one headed by the official bishops of Rome.* If this was the case, Hippolytus represented a group whose standards of morality and expectations for reconciliation were stricter than the majority, and, like Tertullian, Hippolytus criticized the bishops of Rome, especially for forgiving the sin of "adultery."
This probably meant that they allowed second marriages and/or blessed the cohabitation of mixed-class couples who could not be married legally. The bishops of Rome also apparently allowed priests to marry and permitted divorced and remarried men to remain in the priesthood.** Hippolytus would complain that they even reconciled some who had been excommunicated by others, possibly even by Hippolytus himself.*° Hippolytus also clashed with the bishops of Rome over theology. During the time when Zephyrinus was bishop and Callistus was his deacon (in charge of the catacombs that would later bear his name), a certain Noetus came to Rome from Smyrna. According to Hippolytus, Noetus was so influenced by Eastern monism, he embraced a modalist version of Christianity and came to Rome to teach it." At first, Zephyrinus was tolerant of Noetus teaching in Rome. Even though a modalist faction was developing in the church of Rome, Zephyrinus was apparently advised by Callistus to try to keep the peace with both factions. Hippolytus confronted the bishop and his deacon, and after some debate, Noetus was called before the council of priests.** Although at this point he denied that he was teaching modalism, it soon became clear that he was, and so he was summoned before the council a second time. This time he had more support and held his ground. He was excommunicated but continued teaching as the leader of a modalist school.
Callistus became the next bishop of Rome in 217 CE."
Hippolytus had not forgotten that Callistus had been conciliatory toward Noetus, and eventually he accused the bishop himself of being a Modalist." For his part, Hippolytus may have overreacted against modalism to the extent that he emphasized the distinction between the Father and Son to the point where Callistus accused him of worshiping two gods." In reality both Callistus and Hippolytus were probably within the realm of orthodoxy. As was the case with earlier bishops of Rome whom Tertullian criticized,
Callistus may have retained an aspect of Logos Christology that did
The Theologians not have a clearly defined distinction between the persons of the Trinity, especially the Son and Spirit. This may have looked like modalism to Hippolytus. In addition, Tertullian's concept of consubstantiality, which Hippolytus had not picked up, might also have looked to him like a form of modalism." While Hippolytus appears to accept the idea of a single essence from Irenaeus, he was apparently not comfortable with the way Callistus was expressing it."
Callistus also appears to have taught early versions of circumincessio (also known as perichoresis, or "reciprocity," the mutual interactivity of the three persons of the Trinity) as well as communicatio idiomatum (the sharing of properties between the two natures of Christ).
Hippolytus rejected the latter because he thought it compromised the immutability of the divine nature." In the end, it is clear that Callistus was not a Modalist, because he excommunicated the modalist teacher Sabellius." Callistus and Hippolytus both agreed that there was a distinction between the Father and Son, in that only the Son was begotten and only the Son suffered and died.
Eventually Hippolytus would inadvertently admit that Callistus represented the middle way between the Ebionites (Theodosius) and the Modalists (Sabellius)."
Hippolytus continued to be a thorn in the side of two more bishops of Rome, until persecution returned to the city. In the year
235 CE, two prominent leaders of the church in Rome were sent to the mines of Sardinia: the bishop Pontian and Hippolytus.
Hippolytus died a martyr in 235 or 236." According to one tradition he was drowned, although he may have died in the mines. He has left a valuable, if confusing, literary legacy. There are several important documents, most of which are the subject of intense debate as to their authenticity and authorship. The most important for the student of the early Church are Against Noetus and the Refutation of All Heresies.
Against Noetus Hippolytus admitted that Noetus was motivated by a desire to preserve the oneness of God." Noetus had reasoned that if Christ was God, but not the Father, then that would imply two Gods and compromise the monotheistic basis of Christianity." If extreme
Reading the Early Church Fathers dualism (as in docetism) led one to a strict dichotomy between spirit and matter, Noetus's monism led him to the opposite conclusion: that there was no distinction at all between spirit and matter.
And if there is no distinction between spirit and matter, then there is no distinction between the divine and human in Christ, and ultimately no distinction among the persons of the Trinity. Thus monism applied to Christianity leads to modalism. Therefore,
Noetus taught that the Father became the Son in the incarnation.™ In other words, the Son is the Father come to earth. He is appropriately called the Father only before the incarnation and the Son only after the incarnation." This is a distinction of mode (time and activity), not a real distinction. Hippolytus responded by labeling
Noetus's teaching Patripassionism, "the suffering of the Father." In other words, Hippolytus reasoned that if Noetus was right, then the Father died on the cross.'" Noetus answered the charge by taking a docetic view of the passion: Christ only appeared to suffer because God is immutable.'"
Hippolytus began Against Noetus with a creedal statement of faith." He then went on to defend his understanding of orthodoxy by emphasizing the real distinction between the Father and the Son, against modalist monism.' For Hippolytus this distinction did not compromise the oneness of God because God is still one, even though a Trinity (in Greek, Triados, a Triad).'° Following
Irenaeus, Hippolytus described the Trinity as one God and one divine power, but with a hierarchy ("economy") of "threefold manifestation."'" The Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are all equally worshiped, because together the three are the one God.'®
Hippolytus also defended the real humanity of Christ against the Modalists' diminished humanity and docetic passion. While
Hippolytus made a point of saying that Christ had his own human rational soul, emphasizing his full humanity,'" his Christology was still partly in the second century. He does not distinguish clearly between the preincarnate Logos and the Holy Spirit.'° He also follows Theophilus a bit too closely, saying that before the Word was begotten, the Father was alone—though he does try to correct (or redeem) Theophilus by saying that although God was alone, he existed in plurality.''' The Word was God's reason, wisdom, and counsel, but the Word was not the Son before the incarnation.!" In
The Theologians fact, Hippolytus understood two processions of the Word.' The first procession of the Word was the generation, when the Word was "begotten." At this point, the Word of God was "uttered," or spoken forth to be the agent of creation. When the Word was begotten, he became distinct from the Father, moving from the reason/wisdom im God to the Word with God.'" Like all the theologians up to this point, Hippolytus held that the generation of the Word was an event that created the distinction between Father and Son. Before the generation there was no distinction and no distinct personal existence of the Son. At the generation, the Word is extended out from the Father, God from God, power from power, like rays from the sun or water from a spring.'' The second procession is the incarnation, when the Word becomes the Son because he becomes human.
In addition to clarifying the distinction between the Father and the Son, the distinction between the divine and human natures in the Son was also important. Unlike Tertullian, Hippolytus did not believe that the divine nature could be circumscribed, so for Hippolytus, only the human nature was finite and localized in time and space.'''® The divine nature remained infinite and omnipresent, since (he reasoned) to lack omnipresence is to have a need for movement, and movement is a kind of change, which would seem to compromise divine immutability. Hippolytus would not have agreed with Tertullian on the circumscription of the divine nature in the womb of Mary.
Refutation of All Heresies Sometimes referred to as Elenchus or Philosophumena, this document was probably written in the last decade or so of Hippolytus's life, in the late 220s. It is in many ways a less clear version of Irenaeus's Against Heresies. Most of the Refutation is a catalogue of gnostic beliefs, much of which is taken from Irenaeus and other sources. What is interesting is that by this time the Gnostics seem to have answered Irenaeus's charge that if there was secret knowledge the bishops would know about it. Some apparently responded by saying that the secret knowledge was not given to the apostles but to Jesus' blood relatives, and was handed down through his half
Reading the Early Church Fathers brother James.""" For Hippolytus the danger of gnosticism was that it is a docetic syncretism that ultimately left Christ less than human, and that called the crucifixion and resurrection into question and thereby threatened salvation itself.'"*
Like the other theologians, Hippolytus also criticized philosophy, saying that heresy comes from a syncretism of Christianity with philosophy and/or astrology. Even so, Hippolytus pointed out that while the pagans hold on to the old mythologies, even the philosophers were coming around to various forms of monotheism." He claims that it started with Pythagoras, who got a version of monotheism from the Egyptians." But philosophy could not lead to salvation, since many of the philosophers taught versions of reincarnation, and some even believed in the transmigration of souls across species.'*! Others taught a version of evolution that assumed that matter was eternal and uncreated.''" This, along with Plato's understanding that the material world was, at best, less real than the spiritual realm, seemed to contradict Genesis on the goodness of God's creation.'"
The philosophers may have talked about a Jogos, but they often equated this logos with one of the gods of the Greco-Roman pantheon, such as Mercury. They saw the logos as an astrological figure, just one more player in the cosmic drama.'* Even when the logos of the philosophers was understood as the rational principle behind creation, or a quasi-divine figure who would be judge over the living and the dead, for Hippolytus this was still an inadequate understanding of the Christian Logos as preincarnate Christ.
Nevertheless, it is clear from the Refutation that there were certain philosophical concepts that Hippolytus (and the Church) accepted. Christians and pagan philosophers alike shared the definition of deity as that which is eternal and immortal, with no beginning or end." A strict distinction was made between that which is created (and is also therefore finite, corruptible, and perishable) and that which is uncreated (infinite, incorruptible, and imperishable).'"" Deity is assumed to be immutable, since change of any kind compromises perfection and leads to corruptibility. Deity is benevolent; therefore, God is not the creator of evil, but evil comes from the misuse of free will.'"" Finally, deity is simplex, or indivisible.'"
Of course, all of this created a problem for Christians who wanted
The Theologians to maintain both the divinity and the humanity of Christ, since the obvious mutability of the man Jesus seemed to contradict the assumption that divinity must be immutable. The difficulty of interpretation of this paradox led to groups on the extremes rejecting one of the natures in favor of the other. The Ebionites, and later the Adoptionists, denied the divinity in favor of the humanity.
The Docetics, Gnostics, and then the Modalists denied the full humanity in favor of the divinity. The mainstream Church had to make a distinction between the divine and human natures in Christ, such that only the divine nature was immutable, and ultimately only God the Father was the First Cause and ultimate Source of all existence."
ORIGEN Origen Adamantius was born about the year 186 CE in Alexandria, of Christian parents. He was a student of Clement of Alexandria and the philosopher Ammonius Saccas (the founder of neo-Platonism).'° When he was fifteen or sixteen years old, persecution came to Alexandria and his father was arrested and imprisoned.
According to tradition, Origen would have followed his father and confessed his faith to the authorities, but his mother hid his clothes.
Choosing modesty over martyrdom, Origen instead wrote a letter to his father in prison encouraging him not to deny the faith on account of his family. His father was eventually beheaded, probably in the year 202 CE. Origen went from riches to rags when the family property was confiscated after the execution of his father. He was supported by a wealthy woman who was a patron of Christian philosophers; however, she also supported a theologian from Antioch named Paul, whom Origen considered a heretic. Origen and Paul debated the faith, but Origen refused to pray with him.
At the age of eighteen, in the year 204, Origen succeeded his teacher Clement as the head of the catechetical school in Alexandria, in part because the persecution left no one else for the job. Since the school itself was a target, Origen only escaped arrest because he moved around from house to house. Eventually he sold all of his secular books for money to support himself, gave up
Reading the Early C hurch Fathers teaching pagan literature, and devoted himself to the school.
Origen lived an ascetic lifestyle, sleeping on the floor, refusing to drink wine, w earing no shoes, and limiting his possessions. He fasted to the point of damaging his health. 'Tt is said that he also took Matthew 19:12 literally and castrated himself, presumably to avoid scandal if he were to teach women or have female patrons.
While some scholars have questioned whether this story is true, Origen's enemies would later use his self-mutilation as a reason to question the validity of his ordination.
Since Christianity was treated as a philosophy in Alexandria, it is possible that students came to the school as an "inquiry," not necessarily intending to be baptized. Many would probably have left before making a commitment to the moral standards of the Church.
Still, the school attracted so many students that Origen himself attracted attention. During renewed persecution in Alexandria in the years 215-16 CE, Origen fled to Jerusalem, and then to Caesarea. The bishops of Palestine invited him to teach; however, this got him into trouble with his own bishop, who said that a layperson should not be teaching in the presence of bishops. He was eventually ordained a priest, but in Caesarea, not Alexandria, which only widened the rift between him and his bishop back in Alexandria. But he became so famous as a Christian philosopher that around 225 CE he was summoned by Julia Mamaea, the mother of the emperor Severus Alexander. She sent a military escort to bring Origen to Antioch, where she was staying, so that he could explain Christianity to her. There is also a story that Origen corresponded with the emperor Philip (emperor 24+-49),
Origen would eventually be excommunicated by a synod in Alexandria in 231 CE. The synod interpreted Deuteronomy 23:1 as a prohibition against the ordination of anyone who was castrated.
But Origen would never return to Alexandria since the persecution caused him constantly to be on the run between Palestine and Asia
Minor. He was finally arrested and imprisoned during the Decian persecution (see chapter 7), in about 250. He was tortured and eventually released, but his health was broken and he died soon after his release, probably between 253 and 255.
Origen was a prolific writer, but unfortunately many of his writings are lost or exist only in imperfect forms and fragments. He
The Theologians learned Hebrew so that he could translate and interpret the original language of the Old Testament. He created a parallel text called the Hexapla, which included six different versions of the Old
'Testament: the Hebrew text, the Hebrew transliterated into Greek characters, the Septuagint (the Old Testament translated into Greek), and three other translations, including one used by the Ebionites. At first he limited his text of the Old Testament to the twenty-two books originally written in Hebrew, but later he added the deuterocanonical books. He also participated in a debate about the authenticity of the story of Susannah in the Book of Daniel.
Always the philosopher, Origen wore the philosopher's pallium and interacted with pagan philosophy. As a student of Ammonius, he had known Ammonius's other famous students, Porphyry and Plotinus. He wrote a response to one of the most famous critiques of Christianity in his Against Celsus.'*' However, his interaction with philosophy led him into a speculative theology that would later get him into trouble and bring accusations of heresy.
On First Principles Origen wrote his most famous work while he was still in Alexandria.' Unfortunately, most of it only exists in a fourth-century
Latin translation by Rufinus, who admitted that he had made changes to Origen's text, especially where Origen seemed heterodox by fourth-century (post-Nicene) standards. In truth, there is still plenty in the text that could be considered heretical, so one wonders what Rufinus took out. Ultimately, On First Principles as we have it is an unreliable source for discovering Origen's thought, except where fragments of the original Greek exist. In fact, the elements of the document that are most likely to have come from Origen are those which are the most speculative or heretical. The parts that are sometimes taken as a contribution to Christian theology were most likely edited or inserted after the Council of Nicaea, influenced by Rufinus's own theology, which comes from sources such as Novatian and Athanasius.'
In truth, Origen's genius and legacy is not as a theologian so much as a biblical exegete. He wrote many commentaries on scripture, some of which still exist for sections of the Bible, including ils
Reading the Early Church Fathers parts of the gospels of Matthew and John. The commentaries were dictated; Origen composed as he spoke out loud, quoting scripture from memory. The texts were taken down in shorthand, later to be written out by "girls skilled in penmanship" and then duplicated by copyists."* Origen is known as the most famous proponent of the allegorical method of interpretation. According to Eusebius, he was not satisfied with the literal meaning, and always looked for a deeper, more spiritual meaning in. the text.'* The philosopher
Porphyry, in his Third Treatise Against the Christians, gave Origen credit for applying the allegorical method of interpretation to the Old Testament. Porphyry wrote, "While his manner of life was
Christian...in his opinions about material things and the Deity, he played the Greek, and introduced Greek ideas into foreign fables.""° In other words, he applied Greek allegorical interpretation to Jewish writings. His attention to the spiritual meaning often led him to overallegorize, however, and he would be criticized for finding meaning in the text that was never meant to be there.
Problematic Elements in Origen Origen was condemned as a heretic several times after his death, including at the Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople II in $553 CE. Origen's theology was so intertwined with philosophy and so speculative that it is hard to distinguish what he really believed from what he was only proposing for further thought and debate. He seems to have been the kind of person who "thinks out loud," except that his thoughts were recorded and held against him later. This is especially true of On First Principles, which was written while he was still relatively young. In the end, there are several points at which Origen is at odds with the orthodoxy of his own time, not to mention later orthodoxy.
Origen accepted a philosophical understanding of the human soul that assumed that souls preexisted their current bodies, and he probably believed in reincarnation and merit from prelife existence.'" This was seen as inconsistent with the Christian understanding of the soul as created for one life, after which there was death and resurrection, not reincarnation (Heb 9:27). As applied to the human soul of Christ, Origen implied that his human nature
Li4
The Theologians was also preexistent and that the incarnation was simply the coming together of two eternal souls, the Logos and the human soul of Jesus. Although he is sometimes given credit for a doctrine of eternal generation, his concept of eternal generation applies not only to the divine nature of Christ in the Logos, but to all human souls.'*
This effectively negates the uniqueness of Christ among humanity.
In fact, Origen seems to be saying that both the Logos and the Holy Spirit are created beings." For Origen, the Father and Son are not consubstantial, and he questioned whether Christ should even be worshiped, saying "We may not pray to him who himself prays."!*° Finally, Origen accepted elements from philosophy that had been rejected by most Christians. He seems to have accepted the possibility of the existence of other gods and speculated that John the Baptist was an angel incarnate.'*' He also believed in a Stoic understanding of the end of the universe as a conflagration, only to be followed by a rebirth in which the universe would start all over again. There were other accusations against Origen, some probably untrue or exaggerated, many leveled at him after his death when he could not defend himself. Nevertheless, it is clear that he may have been too smart for his own good, leaving a legacy tarnished by heresy. Whatever good Origen did would be overshadowed by the ways in which he went to extremes.
NOVATIAN Born around the turn of the third century, Novatian became a priest in Rome under Bishop Fabian (bishop 236-50 CE).'" He probably wrote his most important work, On the Trinity, during this time. When Fabian was martyred in January of 250, the Roman church was not able to elect a successor, so Novatian's reputation as a theologian earned him the position of acting bishop of Rome. In this role he corresponded with Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, on behalf of the church at Rome. Three of his letters are preserved in the correspondence of Cyprian.
Like Tertullian and Hippolytus before him, Novatian was a moral rigorist, stricter than the majority of the Church, demanding
115:
Reading the Early Church Fathers a level of purity that was inevitably unrealistic. When persecution subsided briefly, and those who had denied the faith to save their lives wanted to return to the Church, Novatian recommended excommunication. He became the leader of a rigorist faction that opposed the majority who wanted to allow for the reconciliation of the apostates. When the election for bishop of Rome was finally held in 251, Novatian lost to Cornelius, who represented a middle position between the rigorists and a faction of "laxists" who advocated easy access back into the Church for the fallen. Novatian was subsequently consecrated as a rival bishop of Rome by fellow rigorists, creating a schism that lasted for centuries. Taking the position of a bishop over a scattered flock, Novatian wrote two moral treatises (On the Benefit of Purity and On the Spectacles) as well as an allegorical treatment of Old Testament dietary laws (On Jewish
Foods). More will be said about persecution and the schism in chapter 7 below, but for now it is enough to say that while Novatian's ecclesiology would not ultimately be acceptable to the mainstream
Church, his theology not only was acceptable to the Church of the mid-third century, but it also took 'Tertullian's thought to its logical conclusions and helped define orthodoxy for the third century and beyond. This in spite of the fact that Cyprian would write that whatever he taught was irrelevant as long as he was outside the Church.'® On the Trinity Novatian wrote this document as a commentary on the "rule of truth," the Church's definition of trinitarian doctrine. It is an excellent summary of the state of Christian theology up to the midthird century, and it even anticipates later standards of orthodoxy.
Novatian is intentional about charting a course midway between the extremes of modalism on one side and adoptionism (the legacy of the Ebionites) on the other. In fact, he said that Christ was being crucified again "between two thieves," the true Christ in the middle between the extremes. Following Irenaeus and Tertullian, he said that both natures of Christ must be maintained, united in the person of Jesus yet without any confusion that would blur the distinction between them. In his explanation of Christ, Novatian
The Theologians finally took the Church beyond the earlier Logos Christology to a Christology of kenosis. The term kenosis comes from the phrase
"he emptied himself" in Philippians 2:7. The incarnation is thus described as a descent, in which Novatian said the Logos emptied himself of divine power/authority in order to become human.™
This does not mean, however, that the Son is any less divine during the time of the incarnation, since Novatian made a distinction between divine power, or attributes, and divine substance, or divinity itself. In other words, in the incarnation the Logos maintains full divinity, but he must set aside such divine powers as omnipresence and omnipotence in order to be fully human and truly experience the human condition.
Novatian also follows Irenaeus and Tertullian in the consubstantiality of the persons of the Trinity, balanced with the hierarchy of authority in which the Father and Son are described as being in a relationship of Sender and Messenger. Taking these concepts to their logical conclusions, Novatian clarified that while there is a unity of substance (which was needed to maintain the oneness of the Trinity against adoptionism), there is also a subordination of authority
(which was needed to maintain the distinction of persons against modalism). Thus Novatian's Christology is properly expressed as a dynamic subordination, in which the subordination of the Son to the Father is not ontological, but is rather a subordination of power that is both relational and voluntary.'* Therefore, Novatian had clarified the balance of unity and distinction in the Trinity.
Novatian also moves beyond the understanding of the generation of the Word as an event to a true doctrine of eternal generation. Unlike previous writers, who conceived of the generation as an event, the point at which the Son becomes distinct from the Father,
Novatian knew that there must be an eternal distinction in order to maintain the eternal personhood of the Son and the immutability of the Father. Therefore, the generation of the Son is described as an eternal state of being in which both consubstantiality and distinction of persons is unchanging. In other words, the Son does not go from being zm the Father to being with the Father. The Son is eternally in the Father and eternally with the Father.
Finally, Novatian also advanced the concept of communicatio idiomatum, which Callistus may have approached, by describing the lay
Reading the Early Church Fathers ways in which the two natures in Christ were united. In the union the two natures retain their individual integrity, and yet each one
"borrows" something from the other. The divine nature received the frailty of humanity, allowing it to experience the human condition, while the human nature received the immortality of divinity, which makes salvation available to the rest of humanity. Therefore,
Novatian was the first successfully to strike the balance of unity and distinction, both in the persons of the Trinity and in the two natures of Christ. In this way, he brought theology to a plateau and set the stage for the ecumenical councils and creeds of the fourth century.'*