THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
but the man begotten of the Holy Spirit. Since the Logos is essentially perfect, what is read in Scripture (Luke ii. 52) of a development in the Savior can only relate to his humanity. The mystery of the Incarnation consists in the assumption of a perfect man by the Logos, and the relation of the two natures is that of the indwelling of the Logos in the man Jesus as in a temple. In consequence of this connection, the son of David may be called the Son of God, but only in a derived sense; adoration is due to the humanity of Christ, but only so long as the distinction of nature is borne in mind. The spirit of God dwelt also in the prophets, but only temporarily and in a smaller measure; in Christ he dwelt permanently and without measure. This ethic-dynamic view, based on the teaching of Paul of Samosata and Lucian, did not, of course, content Greek piety and orthodoxy. When partizan zeal drove out Nestorianism as heresy the blow could not but react on the Christology of the older Antiochian theologians. Thus Cyril of Alexandria in several treatises demanded the condemnation of Diodorus and Theodore of Mopsuestia; but the whole Syrian Church rose up to vindicate its revered teacher, and an imperial edict put an end to the dangerous business.
It was not till 499 that Bishop Flavian of Antioch, hard pressed by the Monophysites, ventured to pronounce an anathema on the writings of Diodorus and Theodore. No such condemnation, however, is found in the acts of the fifth general council (Second Constantinople, 553). But the suspicion of heresy clung to Diodorus, and most of his works perished. The Nestorians alone kept alive the memory of the man and the theologian as long as their own existence lasted. He must have been of considerable force in exegesis, following out the grammatico-historical principles of his school in a commentary covering nearly the whole Bible, which was marked by philological learning, independence of dogmatic prejudice, careful distinction of the Old and New Testament stages of revelation, clearness, and sobriety. Only a few fragments are scattered through the catenae; most of what remains is in MPG, xxxiii., but needs sifting. Diodorus's mind was not creative, but one that combined extensive learning with strongly marked dialectic individuality. Even his opponents respected his zeal for the truth, and his life was without reproach. He has a special historical importance from the fact that he trained for the Church more than one of its prominent teachers. In his school were matured the two great Greek Fathers Theodore of Mopsuestia, in whom the theology of Antioch reached its completest form, and John Chrysostom. (A. Haenack.)
Bibliography: Sources are Jerome, De vir. ill., chap, cxix.; Chrysostom, Laus Diodori; Socrates, Hist, eccl., vi. 3; Sozomen, Hist, eccl., viii. 2 (the two last-named in NPNF, 2d series, vol. ii.); and Theodoret, Hist, eccl., iv. 22-24 (in NPNF, vol. iii.). Consult: KL, iii. 1765-68; DCB, i. 836-840.
DIOGNETUS, EPISTLE TO : An early Christian work, formerly preserved in a manuscript in the Strasburg Library, where it was included in a collection of the writings of Justin Martyr, with the heading
" His [Epistle] to Diognetus." The manuscript perished in the siege of Strasburg in 1870. A late copy of it still exists at Leyden, from which Stephanus published it in 1592, and Sylburg in 1593. According to Otto, the manuscript belonged to the thirteenth or fourteenth century, and had a good original, though the copy was somewhat carelessly made. What seems to be a considerable hiatus is observed in the seventh chapter, and the present conclusion is probably not the original one.
The letter is addressed to one Diognetus, in answer to his question how Christianity may be distinguished from paganism and Judaism, why it came so late into the world, and whence its disciples draw their courage and contempt of the world. In answer to the first question, the author considers paganism as mere crude idolatry, admitting that the Jews have the advantage of a pure knowledge of God, though their material sacrifices and trivial ceremonial law are as foolish as the heathen system. In the second part he describes the Christian worship and ethics, and in the third explains the late arrival of this revelation by God's will, to let the world see how helpless mere human powers were to win the heavenly crown. When the measure of their sins was full he revealed himself by the Incarnation of his son, who, though sinless, paid the penalty of sin, so that men, now justified, might trust in the fatherly goodness of God. Hence springs the love which raises Christians so far above worldly rewards or penalties, and the fraternal devotion which makes their life on earth a foretaste of heaven.
There is no mention of the letter in any ancient writer, though here and there, as in TertuUian's Apologeticus, some scholars have thought they saw allusions to passages of it. No one seems to have known of it until the edition of Stephanus, nor does the epistle contain any indications from which a satisfactory conjecture as to its date or authorship can be made. Its attribution to Justin was originally accepted, but Semisch has demonstrated that it can not be his. The language and literary style are too correct; the attitude of the letter toward both Judaism and paganism is not at all Justin's; and in its cosmology there is no trace of his favorite thought of the operation of the " spermatic logos " in the non-Christian world.
There is less certainty, however, about the date of composition. While Semisch, Bunsen, and others adhered to Justin's period, attempts were made to throw it still farther back, with Ewald into the reign of Hadrian, or with Hefele into that of Trajan, or even into the first century. Hilgenfeld and Keim assign it to the second, and Zahn puts it between 250 and 310. A new stage of the investigation opened with the discovery of the " Apology " of Aristides, to which the letter stands in a secondary or derived relation, though not close enough for Aristides to have been the author, as Krilger thought. This relation helps to clear the ground for a decision as to the date, placing it between that of the " Apology " (from 138 to 161, probably 147) and that of Constantine. Seel^erg is probably right when he supposes some time to have elapsed between the two works ; and, on the other hand, the author of the Epistle does not seem to