The Hellenistic Christians seem to have been particularly fond of this

use; partly perhaps from linguistic reasons. The Greek for Jehovah is

_kurios_, Lord; but this word had been already taken as the title of

Jesus. Therefore when a Christian-speaking Greek wished to refer to

Jehovah he could not without ambiguity say "The Lord," and he began to

adopt the usage of referring to Jehovah as "the Father." But what

would have been the implication to Greek {82} ears of this usage? Two

lines were possible: it could be interpreted as referring exclusively

to the relation between God and Jesus, or as referring to the relation

between God and men. Paul is evidence that the second, as well as the

first, was accepted. "As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they

are Sons of God." But how would a Greek have understood this verse?

Probably he would have thought that it meant that the gift of the

Spirit changed men's nature; so that, as Irenaeus said, two generations

later, they were no longer mortal men but the children of the immortal

God. To the Greek the gift of the Spirit was the gift of divine

nature, immortal and incorruptible. That is, of course, in nowise

Jewish: even if Paul meant this, which is doubtful, he did so by virtue

of his Greek associations. The question, however, has not been

adequately discussed how far this interpretation is exactly the same as

that of the other cults. It clearly brought the Christian into direct

relation with the Supreme God, through the Lord. Was this so in

Mithraism or in the cult of Isis? In both of them it seems rather that

the initiate was brought rather into relationship with the Lord.[5]

Surely it was a real advantage to Christian {83} propaganda that the

Church offered union with the Supreme God more definitely than did any

rival cult.

Two elements must be distinguished in such teaching. Permanently

important in it is the recognition of the fact that a helping hand of

grace stretches out from the unknown to help man when he cries from the

depths: but it contains also a theory as to the origin and nature of

grace. The fact is indisputable, the theory depends on evidence; and

there is really none to justify confident assertion. No doubt it was

an enormous asset to Christianity to proclaim that the grace found by

its adherents came straight from the cause of all existence. The same

situation was reproduced after the Reformation, and it was an asset to

Protestantism to claim direct access to God, without the mediation of

saints. Nevertheless, it is hard to see that there is any evidence to

favour the theory that grace comes in the one way rather than the

other. The element of truth in the early Christian teaching is not the

side which was most popular, but rather that which, a little later,

partly unconsciously, animated the Church in rejecting Marcionism--the

conviction that there is no essential disharmony or {84} final clash in

history, that the God of creation is not hostile to the God of grace.[6]

Moreover, it was not only--or even chiefly--the helping hand of grace

in the troubles and sorrows of life which Greek Christians especially

hoped for by union with the supreme God or by the power of Jesus. It

was rather the gift of eternal Life after death, which was the special

characteristic of the Gods. The points of importance are the means

whereby they thought that this immortality was obtained, and the nature

which they ascribed to it.

The act by which the faithful acquired immortality was Baptism. The

history of this distinctively Christian rite is obscure. From the

standpoint of the historian of religions it is the combination of a

Jewish ceremony with Graeco-Oriental ideas. The Jews had frequently

practised ceremonial washing with a religious significance--generally

speaking, purification from the guilt of offences against the ritual

law; it was also part of the initiation of proselytes, and had been

largely practised by John the Forerunner. But in no case did any Jew

think that washing could change, sacramentally or magically, the nature

of man. A Greek on the other hand, brought up in the atmosphere of the

mysteries, might well have thought so. The same is true of the other

constituent element in primitive Christian Baptism--the formula "in the

{85} name of the Lord Jesus." There is no reason why Jews should not

have used the name of Jesus for magical purposes--indeed they

undoubtedly did so--for magic was not peculiar to the Greeks. But the

ordinary Jew would never have practised magic to secure immortality or

to become divine. He believed that immortality was the natural lot of

all the chosen people who kept the Law, and would be reached, not

through sacraments or secret knowledge, but through the resurrection at

the last day. Thus it is possible that the first Jewish Christians may

have practised baptism by an extension of the ordinary ritual of

proselyte-making, or as a means of securing remission of sins, in the

spirit of John the Baptist, but it is extremely improbable that it was

for them the sacrament of regeneration to eternal life which it was

held to be by Greek Christians.

Turning from the possibilities and probabilities suggested by the

history of religion to the evidence of the early literature critically

studied, two points stand out as probable. First, Jesus neither

practised nor enjoined baptism of any kind; secondly, the Antiochean

missionaries always practised baptism "in the name of the Lord Jesus."

The second point is so obviously proved both by Acts and the Pauline

epistles that it requires no discussion. The first has the limitations

of the argument from silence, for it rests on the fact that there is no

trace of Baptism by Jesus, either by practice or precept, in the

synoptic gospels, except a single statement in Matt. xxviii. 19, {86}

in which the risen Jesus is represented as commanding the disciples to

undertake the conversion of the Gentiles (_ta ethne_) and their baptism

in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That this verse is

not historical but a late tradition, intended to support ecclesiastical

practice, is shown by the absence of the trine formula of baptism in

Acts and the Epistles, and the extreme reluctance with which the

apostles, who are supposed to have received this revelation, undertook

a mission to the Gentiles. We have to choose between the account in

Matthew, which makes the mission to the Gentiles the result of the

command of the risen Jesus in Galilee, or that in Acts, confirmed by

Paul, which makes it begin much later from the preaching in Antioch of

the scattered adherents of Stephen, and from revelations to Paul and

Peter, on the road to Damascus, and at Joppa. There can be little

doubt that Acts ought to be trusted on this point.

Few problems are more obscure than the question of the growth of

baptism in the Church of this first period. This is due to the fact

that the editor of Acts was convinced that baptism was a primitive

Christian custom even in Jerusalem, though unlike Matthew he does not

attribute it to Jesus. Nevertheless, it is possible to see indications

that his sources did not confirm his opinion. An excellent case can be

made for the view that the source used in Acts i. and ii. originally

regarded the gift of the Spirit at Pentecost as the fulfilment of the

promise attributed to Jesus {87} that his disciples, unlike those of

John, should be baptized in the Holy Spirit not in water. The

exhortation of Peter in Acts ii. that his hearers should repent _and be

baptized_ is so inconsistent with this promise that it seems due to the

redactor. Similarly, too, the baptism of Cornelius seems to contradict

the context of Peter's own explanation in Acts xi., and may well be

redactorial. On the other hand, the later chapters agree with these

redactorial additions in regarding baptism as the source of the gift of

the Spirit, and there can here be no question of editorial additions,

for the references to baptism are clearly part of the fabric of the

narrative. The most illuminating evidence, however, is afforded by the

chapters describing Philip's work: in these baptism in the name of the

Lord Jesus is represented as the custom of Philip, but it does not

confer the gift of the Spirit. This may be the best clue to the

historical development of the rite. The Seven, including Philip, were

probably the first to convert Gentiles, and inasmuch as the complete

breach with Judaism had not yet come, must have regarded their converts

as proselytes, and treated them accordingly. Baptism was part of the

usual treatment of a proselyte, and the formula "in the name of the

Lord Jesus" would merely distinguish these proselytes from others.

A little later the practice would certainly be interpreted by Greeks,

or Graeco-Orientals, in the light of the cults which they knew; baptism

would become the magical or, at least, sacramental means of {88}

salvation, and the Name of Jesus its necessary formula. The

development is exactly similar to that passed through by the word

"Lord,"--though its origin was Jewish its interpretation was Greek.[7]

The expectation of immortality conferred by Baptism and membership in

the Church of the Lord Jesus varied in form. The Greek eschatology was

different from the Jewish, and looked for an immortality for each

individual immediately after death. It was, moreover, an immortality

of the soul, not of the body. Probably there were many variations of

thought on the subject. Some of the most highly educated Greeks may

have understood the arguments for and against immaterial Reality, and

accepted or rejected them. Roughly speaking, Platonists accepted,

Stoics and Epicureans rejected; and it was at least possible for

Platonists, if they identified Mind with immaterial Reality, to believe

in the immortality of the human mind. But did such Platonists actually

exist before Plotinus, or possibly Ammonius Saccus? The fragmentary

evidence which exists seems to show that philosophic Greeks were

interested in other problems--mainly epistemological and psychological.

The belief in the immortality of the soul was preserved by the

tradition of the Mysteries,[8] not by the Academy. Stoics and

Epicureans, far more important for the {89} first century than

Academics, were materialists; but that does not mean that they did not

believe in the existence of a human soul or spirit. Spirit was for

them merely the most attenuated form of matter. The spirit of man

might be dissipated after death, as the grosser material composing his

body would be, or it might survive and retain consciousness and memory

until the cycle came round when all things, including human careers,

would be repeated.

But the first Greek Christians were scarcely influenced by an

intelligent comprehension of Stoic metaphysics, and attempts made to

trace their direct influence in Paul or elsewhere only show that their

vocabulary was more widely used than their problems were understood--a

phenomenon not peculiar to the first century. All that can be said

with any confidence is that the expectation of blessed immortality--not

for all but for the chosen few--fostered by the mysteries was probably

most often conceived as the survival of the soul after death, and the

soul in turn was conceived as "Spirit," a highly attenuated material

existence, which was found until death in the body, and was then

released from it.

In some such way the Greeks in Corinth who were converted to

Christianity expected immortality. So they did also in the other cults

offering salvation. The points of difference in Christianity are in

the kind of life which was demanded from initiates, and in the final

consummation expected.

1 Corinthians shows clearly that some Hellenic {90} Christians held

that having secured immortality they were free to do as they liked with

their bodies. Paul insisted on the observance of that morality which

was central in Judaism. He had rendered his task difficult by his

rejection of the Law, but he won his fight, and the permanent

association of Jewish morality with the Christian Church and its

Hellenic Christology and sacraments was the result.

In the same way Paul contended successfully for the Jewish doctrine of

a resurrection, though with some modifications. This was not the same

thing as the Greek belief in personal immortality. The Sadducees,

indeed, may have Hellenised on this subject, as did some of the

Alexandrian Jews, represented by the Wisdom of Solomon. But the bulk

of the people followed the Pharisees and looked for a resurrection of

the body, at the end of the age.

Paul and the other missionaries continued to teach this Jewish

doctrine, but were not at once able to convince their Greek hearers

that immortality must necessarily be reached through a resurrection of

the body. Presumably the Greeks felt that immortality was sufficient,

and a future reunion between an immortal soul and a resuscitated body

was as undesirable as improbable. Paul in 1 Corinthians insists on the

Jewish doctrine, but he makes the concession to the Greeks that the

resurrection will not be of flesh and blood but of a "spiritual" body,

that is to say, a body consisting of the most attenuated form of {91}

matter. It will be the same body, but it will be changed.

This modified form of Jewish thought was supported by an appeal to the

case of Jesus, who had already risen from the dead. The appeal was

really far more effective than the rest of Paul's argument, which was

not calculated to convince the doubtful, and it has the especial

importance for the historian that it proves that Paul did not think the

risen Jesus had a body of flesh and blood, and believed that in this he

was in agreement with all the early witnesses.

Nevertheless, the belief of the Church soon affirmed what remained its

unchanged faith until the nineteenth century--the resurrection of the

flesh, both of the Lord in the past, and of the Christian in the

future. This was the triumph of Jewish thought, and is an exception to

the general rule that Christianity became steadily more Hellenic.

The reason why Jewish thought triumphed is difficult to ascertain. Few

hypotheses as to a future life have less intrinsic probability than

that ultimately reached, which postulates an immortal soul living

discarnate until the resurrection day, when it will be reunited to its

own resuscitated body, and both will be rewarded or punished by the

final judgement of God. Nevertheless this hypothesis supplanted all

others.

Two causes may be suggested. The pressure of the Docetic controversy,

which insisted that Jesus had never been a real man of flesh and blood,

but a {92} spirit appearing in human form, made the Church attach

greater weight to the reality of his flesh and blood, even after the

resurrection. Hence arose the narratives of the appearances of the

risen Jesus in Luke and John, emphasising this point. That they there

are secondary seems to be proved by the evidence of 1 Cor. xv. Hence,

too, it may be, came the suppression of the missing end of Mark.

Following this tendency it was natural to argue, as Paul had done, that

Christians like Jesus would be raised with the same bodies which they

had had.

A different motive was provided by moral considerations. It is clear

that there was danger, even in the Corinth of Paul's days, of men

arguing that, having obtained the Spirit and consequent immortality,

nothing carnal had any importance: the body had, as it were, but a

short time, and might be allowed to enjoy itself as it chose. To

combat this danger of an absolutely licentious position the Church

maintained that the body was as eternal as the soul, and that its

future happiness depended on its present behaviour.

Both these factors undoubtedly entered into the development of

Christian thought; and they were reinforced by the natural desire of

man to preserve the pleasures of life in a body of flesh and blood.

The whole question of the expectation of immortality is as obscure as

it is interesting. Direct evidence in favour of a survival of

individual consciousness after {93} death is provided in the present by

psychical research, and from the past by narratives of the apparitions

of the dead, among which the story of the appearances of the risen

Jesus must be classed. To most minds the evidence does not justify a

decisive verdict of any nature.

The "moral" argument is equally evasive. To certain minds in certain

moods it seems incredible that extinction can await beings who display

the qualities manifested by men at their best, animated by such high

purposes, so little fulfilled. In Christian circles the argument has

helped to secure the orthodox belief in the resurrection of the body.

But, on the other hand, this belief has received a succession of shocks

from other considerations. The resuscitation of the flesh has become

more and more incredible. Bishop Westcott endeavoured to meet this

feeling by reviving the Pauline notion of a body of "Spirit," and was

followed by Bishop Gore in so doing. The process was helped by the

fact that in the English creed _resurrectio carnis_ is translated

_resurrection of the body_, so that the denial of the Apostles' Creed

involved in the Westcott-Gore interpretation could be softened into an

apparent affirmation.

Even more serious, though less often expressed, is the moral objection

to the judgement, which dooms men to extremes of bliss or misery in

accordance as they fall one side or the other of a certain line. The

conscience of the modern man feels that no one deserves either Heaven

or Hell. Moreover, this same {94} conscience doubts whether any one

really deserves complete perpetuation. All men are of mixed nature;

some elements seem to deserve to be eliminated, and others to survive.

Thus the moral indictment against the old expectation of judgement is

that no one deserves either of its extremes.

A just judgement would be not between man and man, saving one and

condemning the other, but between different parts of each of us. For

in man good and evil are always present: what we ask for is not

complete survival, but the ultimate elimination of some parts and the

constant growth of others; we desire change, not permanence.[9]

Moreover, even in the short space of life which we can observe,

elimination and selection are clearly present. The child and the old

man are one, not by identity but by continuity of life. The main

object of education is to further and confirm this beneficent change.

Once more, this, or something like it, is often put forward as the

meaning of the doctrine of "judgement." But when the creed states that

Jesus will "come again in glory to judge both the quick and dead," it

means the Jewish eschatological expectation, and to use its language to

express modern thought is unfair to both.

All such thoughts are _a priori_, and can never convince the reluctant.

The path of wisdom is not to weigh the merits of various inconclusive

arguments, but to distinguish between Desire and Knowledge.

{95}

Desire for most men is to remain essentially as they are. The healthy

enjoy life, and even the unhealthy cling to it. If we are candid most

of us admit that we should like indefinitely prolonged existence, that

we have an infinite curiosity to know what is going to happen in the

world, and a wish to take part in its development. That is Desire.

Over against Desire is Knowledge. We know that matter is

indestructible, though it changes its form, and that energy is equally

indestructible, but constantly varies its form. If Life be similar to

energy this gives us reason to believe that it is permanent, but that

its form changes. If, however, Life be a form of Energy, not a force

similar to it, there is no reason to expect its permanence. The chief

reason against this view is that whereas we can convert heat into

electricity, or electricity into light, we cannot--as yet--convert

either into Life.

So far Knowledge takes us on the hypothesis that Life is material, for

Energy is not outside of the world of matter. But still within the

field of Knowledge is the old problem of Immaterial Reality and its

relation to Life. To those who are convinced, as I am myself, by the

old arguments in favour of Immaterial Reality, conceivable but not

imaginable, it is certain that intellectual and moral life belongs to

it and shares its attributes of eternity. Metaphysics are more

convincing than psychology. But need this mean that this eternal life

is personal? No one as yet has answered this question.

{96}

And there are further considerations: all that we know of life teaches

us that it is a succession of losses. The passage from youth to middle

life, and the change from middle life to old age are losses, from which

we shrink. No man willingly surrenders the flexibility of youth or the

power of middle life. But the experience--shrunk from and postponed

though it be--teaches that through loss came gain. Yet none of us ever

foresaw the form which the gain would take. After old age comes death:

that too is loss. Is it also gain? If Life continue, and that at

least seems probable, Knowledge teaches us that it will change its form

and that here, too, gain will come through loss. But, it is often

said, this is the denial of the survival of personality, and it is

personality, not life, which we desire. No doubt we do: but we desire

to keep much which we lose, and yet come to see that only thus could we

achieve the greater gain.[10]

After all, Faith is not belief in spite of evidence, but life in scorn

of consequence--a courageous trust in the great purpose of all things

and pressing forward to finish the work which is in sight, whatever the

price may be. Who knows whether the "personality" of which men talk so

much and know so little may not prove to be the temporary limitation

rather than the necessary expression of Life?

There was once an archipelago of islands off a mountainous coast

separated from each other and from the mainland by the sea. But in

course of {97} time the sea dried up, the islands were joined to the

great mountain behind them, and it became clear that they had always

been united by solid ground under a very shallow sea. If those islands

could have thought and spoken what would they have said? Before the

event they would have protested against losing their insularity, but

would they have done so afterwards, when the water which divided them

from each other was gone, and they knew that they were part of the

great mountain which before they had only dimly seen, obscured by the

mists rising from the sea?

[1] See C. Montefiore, _Judaism and St. Paul_.

[2] 1 Cor. viii. 6.

[3] Irenaeus, _Apostolic Preaching_, p. 3.

[4] I would emphasise the word popular. The great missionaries were

doubtless inspired by the desire to save others, by the will to

minister rather than be ministered to, and by a readiness to give their

lives as a ransom for others, but their converts were otherwise minded.

[5] This statement would be required to be modified for detailed

application to various classes both among Christians and among

initiates in the other cults. In all cults there was probably an

uneducated substratum which thought very little about the subject. It

was satisfied with the fact of salvation, and was not specially

interested in its method. On the other hand, the educated with a

metaphysical tendency were interested in the relation of the Lord of

the cult to the Supreme God, and this might, in time, have produced

something similar to the Christological speculations of the fourth

century. Apuleius seems to identify the Supreme God with the Lord in a

manner which at times reminds the reader of Sabellian Christianity. On

the other hand, Heliogabalus seems to have produced a complete amalgam

between Mithras and Helios, and reminds us of the tendency of

uneducated Christianity in all generations to make the gospel become

the preaching of the new God, or the true God, Jesus, of which I heard

a somewhat extreme example from a preacher who maintained fervidly that

Jehovah was the Hebrew of Jesus.

[6] See the last chapter of F. C. Burkitt's _The Gospel History and its

Transmission_. This chapter is a most clear-sighted analysis of one of

the essentials of Catholic truth as opposed to error, and I venture to

say this because its importance seems in general to be overlooked.

[7] See _Prolegomena to Acts_, pp. 332 ff.

[8] From which indeed Plato had probably obtained it. He justified it,

handily enough, from his doctrine of Ideas, but scarcely derived it

thence. The triumph of Aristotle destroyed his justification, but the

parent stream flowed on placidly, undisturbed by thought.

[9] This has much in common with Origen's teaching, but unfortunately

Origen was rejected by the Catholic Church.

[10] See Additional Note on p. 141.

{98}

V

ROME AND EPHESUS

Corinth as portrayed in the Epistles of Paul gives us our simplest and

least contaminated picture of the Hellenic Christianity which regarded

itself as the cult of the Lord Jesus, who offered

salvation--immortality--to those initiated in his mysteries. It had

obvious weaknesses in the eyes of Jewish Christians, even when they

were as Hellenised as Paul, since it offered little reason for a higher

standard of conduct than heathenism, and its personal eschatology left

no real place for the resurrection of the body. The Epistles of Paul

to the Corinthians are in the main protests against this Hellenic

weakness, and the real monument to Paul in the first two, or perhaps

even four, centuries is the success which he had in driving home these

protests. Owing to later controversies we are apt to treat

Justification by Faith as Paul's greatest contribution to the Church.

Possibly that is true, if the whole of Church history be taken into

account, but the attempt to reconstruct "Paulinism" on this principle

produces the result that the effect of Paul's teaching cannot be traced

in any of the {99} Christian writings of the next two centuries. This

is obviously absurd: if Paul's writings were preserved so carefully his

teaching on some great points must have been regarded as central. Nor,

if we succeed in forgetting the emphasis introduced by later

controversies, is it hard to see what these points were. As against

the Jews, Paul, the Greek, insisted on Freedom from the Law. That

stood. As against the Greek, Paul insisted on Jewish morality and on

the Resurrection of the body. These also stood. And these three

points, if we may judge from subapostolic writings, were those which

influenced the Church most. No doubt Paul preached Jesus as the

crucified but risen and glorified Lord, and no doubt regarded Baptism

and the Eucharist as sacraments, but so did all Hellenic Christians.

Probably he would have regarded his doctrine of Faith and Justification

as of primary importance, but all the existing evidence seems to show

that it failed to convince the Jews, or to be remembered by the

Gentiles, until it was rediscovered by Augustine.

Sacramental Christianity with an emphasis on morality was henceforward

the true characteristic of the Church. But it had yet to give a more

detailed account of the Lord, and to attempt to come to terms with

Greek philosophy.

Except with regard to the Second Coming, the Jewish ideas of the

Davidic Messiah and of the Son of Man ceased to have any living

importance. It {100} was not doubted that the Lord was divine, but

there were two ways of considering his divinity. One was to regard

Jesus as a man who had been inspired by the Holy Spirit, and had

himself been taken up into the sphere of divinity after his death, so

that he, as well as the spirit which had been in him, was now divine.

This form of thought is generally known as Adoptionism. The other way

was to think of Jesus as a pre-existent divine being who had become

human.

The difference between the two forms of thought is that whereas

Adoptionism postulates a distinct human personality for the human

Jesus, which had a beginning in time and was promoted to divinity, the

other theory postulates only a divine person who became human. Both

theories, therefore, begin with much the same doctrine of God, as

consisting, if the metaphor may be used, of the two factors of the

Father and the Spirit, who was sometimes called his Son,[1] and was

frequently identified with the Logos of the Greek philosophers. There

is very little evidence in early Christian writings for that

distinction between the Logos and the Spirit which afterward became

orthodox.

The competing existence of Adoptionist and Pre-existent Christology

does much to explain the early development of the doctrine of the

Trinity. Starting with the Father and the Spirit-son, Adoptionism

added {101} a third to the sphere of divinity, namely, the glorified

Jesus. This belief was preserved in the baptismal formula of the

Church of Rome, as found in Justin Martyr, which was "In the name of

the Father of all, and in the name of Jesus Christ who was crucified

under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Spirit," and though

Adoptionism was in the end rejected, it left its permanent mark on

Christian theology in the "threeness"[2] of the doctrine of God. The

doctrines of Pre-existent Christology could scarcely have had this

result,[3] for it is quite clear that the Logos and the Spirit were

distinguished only in language, and the Incarnation was, as it were,

but an incident in the work of the Logos.

Few things are more needed than study of this side of the growth of

Christian doctrine. Harnack's _History of Doctrine_ has indeed done

something, but many of the details of his work require to be worked

out, and some of his statements need revision.[4] Older books, such as

Dorner's _History of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ_, admirable

though they are, have little value for this purpose, for they were

{102} written chiefly with the object of explaining and leading up to

Nicene and Chalcedonian doctrine. All that can be done in these pages

is to indicate certain lines, which might be profitably followed up, as

to the two chief centres of development, Rome and Ephesus, the former

representing in the main Adoptionism and the latter Pre-existent

Christology.

After Antioch Rome seems to have been the most important centre of

Christianity in the first and early second centuries. Certainly it was

more important than Corinth, though in some ways, owing to the

preservation of Paul's correspondence, we know more about Corinth than

Rome. Fortunately there are extant a number of documents which

illustrate its history, though none of them throw any real light on its

foundation, for it is unknown who was the founder of the Church in Rome.

The first of these documents is Paul's Epistle to the Romans, but it is

very strange how little this tells us as to the history or nature of

the Church in that city. Apparently Paul was acquainted with

Christians in Rome before he went there himself, but there is no

suggestion that he regarded the Church there as the foundation of Peter

or of any other of the leading missionaries. It is therefore by no

means impossible that the Church of Rome sprang up by the coming to the

city in increasing numbers of men who had been converted elsewhere.

Whether the Epistle to the Romans was originally intended for that city

or {103} not is an open question,[5] but at least it was sent to Rome

in one of its forms, and that is after all the most important fact.

The most remarkable thing about the revelation which it makes of the

Christianity at Rome is that the problems which seem to have interested

or distracted the Church are so much more Jewish than Hellenic. The

questions of the Law and of the ultimate fate of Israel are so

extensively dealt with as to suggest a strongly Jewish element in the

Church. Jesus is, as in Corinth, a Redeemer, but the problems of life

for those who accepted him suggest Jewish rather than Greek antecedents.

What is the bearing of Romans on the Christology of the Church at Rome?

Not, that is to say, what is its evidence as to the thought of Paul,

but how are certain phrases in it likely to have been interpreted? The

most important passage is Romans i. 1-4: "Paul, a servant of Jesus

Christ, a called apostle, separated to God's gospel which He had

promised beforehand by His prophets in Holy Scriptures concerning His

Son, who became of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was

appointed Son of God miraculously according to the spirit of holiness

by resurrection {104} from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord."[6] What

is this likely to have meant to those who read it in Greek without any

knowledge of a "Pre-existent" Christology? I think that they would

have been impressed by the parallelisms in the sentence: _kata sarka_

is parallel to _kata pneuma hagiosunes_ and _ek spermatos Daveid_ is

parallel to _ex anastaseos nekron_. It would thus mean that Jesus had

been a human being by belonging to the family of David, and had been

ordained, or appointed to be a "Spirit of holiness," by being raised

from the dead: _kata sarka_ explains the result of _genomenon ek

spermatos Daveid_, and _kata pneuma hagiosunes_ explains the result of

_horisthentos uhiou ... ex anastaseos nekron_. That is Adoptionism,

and though the passage has been explained in terms of a Pre-existent

Christology by those who for other reasons are convinced that this was

the real nature of Paul's doctrine, it could be taken quite easily in

this Adoptionist way, for _horisthetos_ could mean "became by means of

appointment" quite as well as _aphorismenos_ could mean the same thing

with regard to Paul's apostleship.[7] The general impression made by

the verse would be, to any one who had Adoptionist views already, that

Jesus, who was born {105} as a human being into the family of David

(which gave him a certain well-understood claim to the title Son of

God), had by the Resurrection been promoted to another kind of sonship,

not as a human being of flesh, but as a spiritual being.

The next document in probable chronological order which seems to belong

to Rome is the Epistle to the Hebrews. It is much disputed by critics

whether it was written in Rome or to Rome, but that it was extant there

can hardly be doubted in view of the extensive quotations from it in

the Epistle of Clement. It reveals a different mind from that of the

Epistle to the Romans, but once more it is Jewish questions which are

uppermost. The main problem is the meaning of the ritual law.

Nevertheless, as in Romans, there are sufficient traces of sacramental

teaching to make it clear that Christianity in Rome as in Corinth meant

the sacramental cult of a saving Lord. This was the basis of

everything, but the problems which arose from the attempt to work out

its implications are as markedly Jewish in Rome as they are Greek in

Corinth. It does not mean, of course, that there were no Greeks in

Rome, any more than that there were no Jews in Corinth, but the

dominating influence was Jewish in one and Greek in the other.

The Epistle to the Hebrews seems at first to be much more obviously

"Pre-existent" in its Christology than the Epistle to the Romans,

indeed it could well be explained on the theory that it was maintaining

a Pre-existent Christology against a {106} rival form of the same

general type which identified the pre-existent Christ with an angel.

But if one ask whether this would have been clear to a reader with

Adoptionist principles, it can be seen that he would very easily have

interpreted it in accordance with his own ideas. The question of what

the Son of God was before the Incarnation is not the centre of the

discussion. What is important is the function of High Priest in Heaven

which he now fulfils, and this function is the consequence of his human

life. It is true that in the first chapter there are phrases which are

most naturally explained by "pre-existent" doctrine, but though the

writer appears to be explaining the essential superiority of the Son to

angels, in chapter ii. this superiority is the result of the Passion

and Resurrection, and in verse 10 the divine being, "through whom and

for whom are all things," is distinguished from the leader of our

salvation, who is, of course, Jesus.[8] It is plain that this verse,

difficult to understand on other lines of thought, is quite

intelligible if it be interpreted in the light of that Adoptionism

which, as we know from Hermas, used "Son of God" for the Holy Spirit

and also for the glorified Jesus.

It is very hard not to discuss this question as though Adoptionism and

Pre-existent Christology {107} were consciously competing systems from

the beginning. That is of course not true: none of these writers was

consciously discussing the question. For this reason elements can be

found in the Epistle to the Romans and in the Epistle to the Hebrews

which are easily susceptible of an Adoptionist interpretation, and

others equally indicative of Pre-existent Christology. This means that

Christians at that moment had not formulated the problem. But _The

Shepherd_ of Hermas shows that in Rome an important body of Christians

did become wholly Adoptionist, and if they used Romans and Hebrews,

they probably interpreted the passages indicated above in agreement

with their own opinions and passed over the rest--in accordance with

the best tradition of Biblical commentators.

A third document is the first Epistle of Peter. If this were really

written by Peter it cannot be much later in date than Romans, and would

probably be earlier than Hebrews, but it seems increasingly clear that

the Epistle refers to a later period, and cannot be the work of the

Apostle. It is concerned in the main with the problem of persecution,

and though the matter is extremely obscure, on the whole a date early

in the second century in the time of Trajan and Pliny seems the most

likely. Whether the indications that it comes from Rome are not part

of the fiction of its authorship is at least open to question, but the

point is not very important. If it be really Roman it shows traces of

a further development of sacramental {108} Christianity, but does not

throw much light on its details. It has some similarity in language to

Romans, but very little in the picture presented of Christianity. The

central point in it is the emphasis on baptismal regeneration, which

gives Christians the certainty of immortality. The eschatological

expectation of the "revelation of Jesus Christ" is strongly marked, but

there is no emphasis on the hope of resurrection. On one point,

however, there is a close resemblance to Paul. Spirit and flesh are

contrasted, and it is clearly implied that after death the Christian,

like the Christ, is spirit and not flesh. It throws little light on

the question of Adoptionism, for though there is nothing in it which

contradicts Pre-existent Christology, there is also nothing in it which

would have startled an Adoptionist.

After this[9] comes the first Epistle of Clement, a letter sent by the

Church of Rome to the Church at Corinth. It is generally dated at the

end of the first century, but there is really very little evidence, and

it is curious that this date should be accepted with so little

hesitation by almost all critics. It is in the main an ethical

treatise, more especially on the importance of good order in the

community. This {109} teaching is based almost exclusively on the Old

Testament.

There is very little in 1 Clement which throws any light on Christology

or on sacraments. For the history of doctrine, in fact, 1 Clement is,

considering its length, a remarkably disappointing document, but two

passages are important. In 1 Clement xlii., "The Apostles received the

Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ, Jesus the Christ was sent

from God," there is a clear statement of the supernatural claims of the

apostles, but made in such a way as to imply a lower view of Christ

than Nicene orthodoxy: he is the middle term between God and the

apostles, and is separated from the one as clearly as from the other.

The "Lord" is more than man, but is not God. The excellence of the

Lord is also expressed in 1 Clement xxxvi., in words reminiscent of

Hebrews. "This is the way" (i.e. the way referred to in Psalms l. 23,

"The sacrifice of praise shall glorify me, and therein is a way in

which I will show him the salvation of God") "beloved, in which we

found our salvation, Jesus Christ, the high priest of our offerings,

the defender and helper of our weakness. Through him we fix our gaze

on the heights of heaven, through him we see the reflection of his

faultless and lofty countenance, through him the eyes of our hearts

were opened, through him our foolish and darkened understanding

blossoms toward the light, through him the Master (_i.e._ God) willed

that we should taste the immortal knowledge, 'who being the brightness

of his majesty is by so much greater {110} than angels, as he hath

inherited a more excellent name.' For it is written that 'Who maketh

his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.' But of his son

the Master said thus, 'Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten thee;

ask of me and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance.'"

The resemblance to Hebrews is obvious, but throws less light than might

be expected on Clement's Christology. What did he think was the

meaning of "To-day have I begotten thee"? The one point which comes

out clearly is that the Church was regarded as an institution for the

securing of the salvation offered by the death of Christ. It has a

divine authority, for just as Christ came from God, so the Apostles

came from Christ. It may almost be said that the Epistle has a high

Ecclesiology but an undeveloped Christology.

Thus the Christianity revealed by 1 Clement suggests a Church which had

accepted Jewish ethics and a Jewish hope for resurrection, and regarded

Jesus as the divine messenger of God, who in turn had appointed the

Apostles as the foundation of the Church. It is a very simple form of

cult, and in the prayer which Clement quotes almost everything is

directed towards the Father. It is Hellenised Judaism without the

ceremonial law, but with a belief in Jesus and the Church.

The next document concerned with the Church of Rome is in many ways the

most important. _The Shepherd_ of Hermas is not an easy book to

appreciate {111} at first. It is a series of interviews between Hermas

and various supernatural beings who give him good advice. It may be as

late as 140, but many think that it is earlier. The book was written

with the practical purpose of guiding rightly the Christians in Rome.

There is nothing in Hermas which really contradicts anything in 1

Clement, but it supplements it in several directions. In the first

place, like Clement, it attaches great importance to the Church. No

salvation is possible except in the Church, and those who are and

remain in it secure eternal life, or, in the phrase of Hermas himself,

"live to God." The only point on which Hermas is really different is

that he seems to have nothing to say about a resurrection, and

apparently was content with immortality. But this may be merely an

accident and cannot be pressed.

The book throws great light on the development of thought and practice

in Rome, and its Christology is the most instructive example which we

possess of early Adoptionism.

The evidence is so important, and Hermas is in general so little

studied, that the main passage (Sim. v. 2. 1 ff.) may be quoted:

"Listen to the Parable which I am going to tell you concerning Fasting.

A certain man had a field, and many servants, and on part of the field

he planted a vineyard. And he chose out a certain servant, who was

faithful, in good esteem and honour with him, and he called him and

said to him: Take this vineyard which I have planted, and fence it

until I come, and do nothing more to the {112} vineyard. And follow

this order of mine and you shall have your freedom from me. And the

master of the servant went abroad. Now when he had gone the servant

took and fenced the vineyard, and when he had finished the fencing of

the vineyard he saw that the vineyard was full of weeds. Therefore he

reasoned in himself, saying: I have finished this order of the Lord; I

will next dig this vineyard, and it will be better when it is dug, and

having no weeds will yield more fruit, not being choked by the weeds.

He took and dug the vineyard, and pulled out all the weeds which were

in the vineyard. And that vineyard became very beautiful and fertile

with no weeds to choke it. After a time the master of the servant and

the field came, and entered into the vineyard, and seeing the vineyard

beautifully fenced, and moreover, dug, and all the weeds pulled up and

vines fertile, he was greatly pleased at the acts of the servant. So

he called his beloved son, whom he had as heir, and his friends whom he

had as counsellors, and told them what he had ordered his servant, and

what he had found accomplished. And they congratulated the servant on

the character which the master gave him. And he said to them: 'I

promised this servant his freedom if he kept the orders which I gave

him. Now he has kept my orders, and has added good work in the

vineyard, and greatly pleased me. So in reward for this work which he

has done I wish to make him joint-heir with my son, because, when he

had a good thought he did not put it on one side, but carried {113} it

out. The son of the master agreed with this plan, that the servant

should be joint-heir with the son. After a few days he made a feast

and sent to him much food from the feast. But the servant took the

food which was sent to him by the master, kept what was sufficient for

himself, and distributed the rest to his fellow-servants. And his

fellow-servants were glad when they received the food, and began to

pray for him, that he might find greater favour with his master,

because he had treated them thus. His master heard of all these

doings, and again rejoiced greatly at his conduct. The master again

assembled his friends and his son, and reported to them what he had

done with the food which he had received, and they were still more

pleased that the servant should be made joint-heir with his son."

A little later on the angel explains this passage. There is first a

confused discussion as to the work of the Son, and it is not easy to be

sure whether the reference is to the Holy Spirit or to Jesus, but

finally the following clear statement is given: "The Holy Spirit which

is pre-existent, which created all creation, did God make to dwell in

the flesh which he willed. Therefore this flesh, in which the Holy

Spirit dwelled, served the Spirit well, walking in holiness and purity,

and did not in any way defile the spirit. When, therefore, it had

lived nobly and purely, and had laboured with the Spirit, and worked

with it in every deed, behaving with power and bravery, he chose it as

companion with the Holy Spirit; for the conduct {114} of this flesh

pleased him, because it was not defiled while it was bearing the Holy

Spirit on earth. Therefore he took the Son[10] and the glorious angels

as counsellors, that this flesh also, having served the Spirit

blamelessly, should have some place of sojourn, and not seem to have

lost the reward of its service. For all flesh in which the Holy Spirit

has dwelt shall receive the reward if it be found undefiled and

spotless. You have the explanation of this parable also."

These passages clearly represent God as having a Son who is the

pre-existent Spirit. This Spirit is sent into human beings but leaves

them if they are guilty of any misconduct. In the case of one man,

however, who is not named but is obviously intended to be Jesus, the

Spirit found complete obedience. The result was that the Father

proposed to the Son, that is the Spirit, and to the counsellors, that

is the angels, that this human being or flesh as Hermas calls it,

should be exalted and glorified and put on an equality with the Son.

This was done, and the implication of the book is that the same

opportunity is offered to all others who are willing to follow their

Lord. It is interesting to notice that, though it would be an abuse of

language, it might be said that Hermas has a doctrine of the Trinity,

but that his Trinity does not consist of Father, Son, and Spirit, {115}

but of Father, pre-existent Son, that is the Spirit, and adopted Son,

that is Jesus. The exact details, however, of the relations subsisting

between those three is a question more easily asked than answered, and

the next investigator of Hermas will have to consider it very

carefully. It is at present only possible to define the problem. As

was said above, Hermas seems to imply that the Spirit existed from the

beginning alongside of the Father, but he also implies the existence of

many other good spirits opposed to the army of demons who people the

world. These good spirits seem at times to be identified with angels,

and the question will have some day to be discussed afresh of the

relation of these spirits to the Spirit who is the Son of God and of

both to the angels. Moreover, the question cannot be solved without

taking into account the composition of Hermas. Closely connected with

this problem is that of the identification of the Son of God with an

angel who is sometimes described as "the most glorious angel" and

sometimes named as Michael. Did Hermas think that the Spirit who was

the Son is identical with Michael, or that Jesus became Michael, or in

what way are the facts to be explained? Finally, did Hermas think that

Christians became angels at their death?[11]

On what book did Hermas base his interpretation of Jesus? There is no

proof that he made use of any of our existing gospels, just as it is

very doubtful whether 1 Clement was acquainted with any of them. {116}

There is, indeed, in 1 Clement one passage referring to the words of

Jesus,[12] but it cannot be said that this is a quotation either from

Matthew or Luke. It has points of similarity to both, but agrees

completely with neither. No theory to explain the facts is convincing,

for three are possible. It may be a confused reminiscence of the

existing Gospels, or it may be the proof that a harmony was already in

existence, or it may be drawn from a document which was used by both

Matthew and Luke--in other words, the Q of the critics. Different

minds will see different grades of probability in these three

hypotheses. But there is no evidence to settle the question.

There is no satisfactory proof that the canonical gospels were known in

the Church of Rome until the time of Justin Martyr. If, however, the

question be discussed not on the basis of what gospel is quoted by

Hermas or Clement, for none of them are by either, but merely on the

ground of their doctrinal affinities, the gospel of Mark has the best

claim to consideration. According to the other gospels Jesus was the

Son of God from his birth, but, though Mark could be otherwise

interpreted, the most obvious meaning of the gospel as it stands is

that Jesus became Son of God at the baptism when the Spirit descended

upon him. {117} It can hardly be merely a coincidence that this gospel

is actually attributed by tradition[13] to a Church which was at first

adoptionist.

Sacramental adoptionist Christianity seems to be the nearest approach

to a complete transformation to a mystery religion with no philosophy,

which is found in the history of Christianity, but even here the basis

is Jewish.

This is plain in its treatment of conduct. It had apparently accepted

the sacramental remission of sins in baptism, and there is no trace in

this of any allusion to original sin; the sins which are remitted had

been committed by the Christian before his baptism, and there is no

suggestion of any inheritance of sin. Hermas never contemplated infant

baptism. The baptized Christian started with a clean slate, but what

would happen to him if he lapsed again into sin? The Epistle to the

Hebrews clearly thought that he had no hope of further forgiveness, and

Hermas refers very plainly, if not to the Epistle to the Hebrews

itself, at least to teaching which it represents. This teaching was,

of course, calculated either to maintain a high standard of conduct or

else to change the definition of sin. Apparently none of the other

mystery religions ever attached this importance to conduct after

initiation, but human nature presented some difficulties in the

enforcement of the Christian theory. It was found that the baptized

frequently, {118} if not always, lapsed into sin, and that the

situation complained of by 4 Ezra was repeating itself.[14] What was

the use of a system which offered men immortality, but only on

conditions which no one could fulfil?

Hermas solved the problem by having recourse to another element in

Jewish thought. He appealed to the possibility of repentance, and put

his solution of the problem into the form of a revelation made to him

by an angel--the Shepherd of the book. The revelation which Hermas

announces is that there is one repentance, but only one, for those who

sin after baptism. If repentance is taken merely as an act of

contrition this obviously does little to solve the problem: it is not

really sufficient to cover the facts of human nature. But for Hermas

repentance is much more than contrition. It consists apparently of

cheerful submission to all the unpleasant {119} happenings of life,

which are regarded as organised by an angel, specially appointed for

the purpose, in order to adapt them to the improvement of sinners.

From the general characteristic of the parables it is clear that Hermas

did not contemplate the immediate restoration of the penitent, or the

immediate elimination of sin. Penitence is for him an unpleasant

process of education, and I think he contemplates the probability that

it is life-long. Like all education it demands that the pupil shall

obey his teacher, and the teacher is in this case the angel of

repentance, who arranges life so as to make it educative. It is the

beginning of the great Catholic system of penance which it is so

difficult to estimate at its full value because of its corruption and

exploitation in the Middle Ages. Whether one believes in the existence

of an angel of repentance or not, the view that life with all its

happenings is an education, which gradually teaches men, if they are

willing to accept it, how to cease to be sinful, was a great lesson for

the second century, and I do not doubt that it had much to do with

producing in the next century a Church which, in spite of persecution,

ultimately won the assent of the best part of the Roman world. Though

the form in which Hermas presented his teaching was mythological and

crude it contained truths which cannot be neglected.

No one can read _The Shepherd of Hermas_ without feeling that it has

not been adequately discussed by modern scholarship. It is the key to

the proper {120} understanding of Roman Christianity at the beginning

of the second century, but to use this key properly it must be

subjected to a process of criticism to determine the relations of its

constituent parts to one another, and to the contemporary or almost

contemporary documents--1 Clement and the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Adoptionist Christianity was not destined to conquer the world, and

though Roman Christianity proved to be the surviving form it had first

to change much of its character in a manner which can with some degree

of picturesque exaggeration be described as conquest by Ephesus.

The early development of Christianity in Ephesus is more obscure than

it is in Rome; it ceased quite soon to flourish in its place of origin,

but lived on elsewhere. The documents which represent the first stages

of its growth are the later Pauline epistles, and the Fourth Gospel.

They are inextricably involved in critical questions which have as yet

received less attention than the synoptic problem.

This is especially true of the later epistles. In them, as distinct

from the earlier epistles, we have a cosmical Christology which regards

Christ as a pre-existent divine person who became a human being. Of

that there is no doubt, nor can it be disputed that there are one or

two passages in the earlier epistles which seem to pave the way for

this kind of thought; but these passages are very few, and as it were

wholly {121} incidental. Thus the critical question arises whether

these later epistles were written by the same person as the author of

the earlier ones. The point has never been discussed fully in England,

and by but a very few scholars on the Continent. The result is that it

is only possible at present to say that three solutions are possible

and are awaiting discussion. The first is that Paul's thought moved

very rapidly in the last years of his life, and that the difference

between the earlier and the later epistles only represents the

development of his thought. This is certainly a possible solution.

There is no literary objection to it which cannot adequately be

answered. The only doubt is the psychological question whether the

development implied is not so great as to be improbable. A second

possibility is that the later epistles are not Pauline but are the work

of some of Paul's followers. This is also possible, and from the

nature of the case scarcely admits of proof or of refutation. The

third possibility was suggested in 1877 by H. J. Holtzmann, who thought

that Ephesians represents the work of the second generation, and that

Colossians was a genuine epistle interpolated by the author of

Ephesians. It is said sometimes that this is an incredibly complicated

hypothesis. Undoubtedly it is complicated, but so are the facts, and

those who regard it as incredible forget that it is merely the

application to the Pauline epistles of exactly the same process as

every one knows to have been suffered by the epistles of Ignatius.

Therefore this theory {122} also is perfectly possible, and ultimately,

unless the interest in critical questions dies out altogether, the

discussion of these three possibilities is certain to receive fresh

attention.[15]

The critical questions concerned with the Fourth Gospel are better

known. But whether it is later than the later epistles of Paul, and

whether it represents the result of their influence or is a parallel

line of thought is another problem which has not yet been fully

discussed: in any case, it is cognate with them. No one knows who

wrote the Fourth Gospel. Tradition ascribes it to John the son of

Zebedee, but all critical probability is against this theory. It seems

tolerably clear that the Fourth Gospel was not written by an

eye-witness, and that it implies not a knowledge of the historic Jesus

so much as an acquaintance with the subapostolic Church. It is

apparently an attempt to rewrite the story of Jesus in the interests of

a "pre-existent" Christology, and of a high form of sacramental

teaching.

Tradition connects both the later Pauline epistles and the Fourth

Gospel with the Province of Asia, and especially with Ephesus. There

is no reason for doubting this tradition, but it is strange how soon

its {123} creative spirit passed to Alexandria, a Church of which the

origin is as obscure as the later history is famous.

Tantalising though many of these problems are, there is no doubt as to

the main characteristics of the Christianity of Ephesus and its

neighbourhood. Its Christology was the reverse of Adoptionist. It did

not think of Jesus as a man who had become divine, but as a God who had

become human. Moreover, an identification of this pre-existent being

with the Logos of the philosopher was gradually approached in the later

Epistles, and finally made in the Prologue to the Fourth Gospel.

The word Logos has an intricate and long history which has often been

treated in books on the New Testament: it is quite unnecessary to

repeat it at length. But it has not usually been sufficiently noted

that the difficulty of the problems raised by it are mainly due to its

use in different ways in different systems of thought. The popular

Stoic philosophy, with its belief in a God immanent in the universe,

could use Logos in the sense of the governing principle of the world,

and as little less than a synonym, or, perhaps one should say,

description of God. On the other hand, a transcendental theology such

as Platonism, believing in a God entirely above all existence in the

universe, needed a connecting link between God and the world, and could

use Logos in this sense. Finally, a mediatising writer such as

Cornutus could explain that the Logos was Hermes, and so triumphantly

{124} reconcile philosophy and myth, by giving a mythological meaning

to a philosophic term.

All this is clear enough; but the difficulty begins when one asks in

which sense the writer of the Fourth Gospel used the phrase. Did he

mean that the Logos was the _anima mundi_? The phrase "the true light

which lighteth every one" is susceptible of such a meaning. But it

seems more probable that his theology was in the main transcendental,

and that the Logos was for him the connecting link between God and the

world. But how far is the Prologue really metaphysical and not

comparable in its identification of Jesus and the Logos to

Cornutus,[16] with his identification of Hermes and the Logos?

Further problems arise if an effort is made to reconstruct fully the

Ephesian Christianity of which the Fourth Gospel is the product. After

the Prologue the Logos does not seem to be mentioned again; Jesus

appears as the supernatural Lord (though this word is not

characteristic of the Gospel) who reveals the Father to men. He offers

them salvation by regeneration in baptism, and by eating his flesh and

blood in the Eucharist. They become supernaturally the children of

God. This is the teaching of the Hellenised Church, not of the

historic Jesus. But running through the Gospel there is also another

line of thought which regards salvation as due to knowledge rather than

sacraments. What is the relation to each other of {125} these two ways

of regarding salvation? The problem has scarcely been formulated by

the students of the Fourth Gospel, much less adequately discussed.

Obviously the tendency of Ephesian Christianity was to minimise the

human characteristics of the historic Jesus, and to merge into

Docetism. This can be seen in the Fourth Gospel, and in the allied

Johannine Epistles. The writer is fully aware of the danger, and

protests against Docetism, but his own writings with very small changes

would have been admirably adapted for Docetic purposes.[17]

If Ephesian Christianity had never come to Rome, and met its complement

in the Adoptionists, it might, in spite of the Fourth Gospel, have

degenerated into thorough-going Docetism, or have been represented only

by Gnostics. It is hard either to prove or to refute the suggestion

that Alexandrian Gnosticism of the Valentinian type came from Ephesus

along the Syrian coast, and that the ultimately successful Catholicism

of Pantaenus and Clement came from the other stream which passed first

northwards and then through Italy to Alexandria. Each of these streams

accumulated new ideas on the way: the stream passing through Syria

found the Eastern Gnostics of whom Simon Magus is alleged to have been

the first. The other stream passed through Rome and found Adoptionism.

The combination with this strengthened the belief in the true humanity

of Jesus, and in his {126} real divinity, thus providing the groundwork

for the Christological development of Irenaeus and his successors in

the fourth century.[18]

The man who seems to have brought Ephesian Christianity to Rome was

Justin Martyr, sometimes called the Philosopher. This title is

somewhat unfair to philosophers, for the only claim which Justin could

make to the name was that he had dabbled with little profit in many

schools before he was converted to Christianity by an old man who gave

him the Christian interpretation of the Old Testament.

Justin is in fact not much more philosophic than Hermas. His

Christology is the incarnation of the Logos; but Logos is for him

merely the name of a second God who is responsible for creation and

redemption. Of the many books which he is said to have written only

his two Apologies and his Dialogue with Trypho are extant. The latter

is a long rambling exposition of the proof from the Old Testament, in

the Septuagint version, that there is a "second God," and that his

incarnation in Jesus was foretold. The Apologies also are full of

proof from the Old Testament, but contain most valuable statements as

to the Christian cult and its sacraments. They are also remarkable for

insisting that the heathen religions are due to the clumsy efforts of

demons to deceive men by false fulfilments of scripture.

{127}

Justin was not a man of commanding intellect, but he seems to have

brought Ephesian Christianity to Rome, and so began in that city the

synthesis with Greek philosophy which the later Pauline epistles and

Fourth Gospel began in Ephesus and Origen completed in Alexandria. He

appears to have been martyred in Rome, perhaps owing to the hostility

of Crescens, a cynic philosopher with whom he had quarrelled. The acts

of his martyrdom are extant; the most significant point in them is his

dissociation from other bodies of Christians in Rome.[19] This is seen

from the following extract from his examination by Rusticus the Prefect:

"Rusticus the prefect said, 'Where do you assemble?' Justin said,

'Where inclination and ability lead each of us. For do you really

think that we all assemble in the same place? That is not the case,

because the God of the Christians is not locally circumscribed, but,

though he cannot be seen, fills heaven and earth and receives worship

and glorification from the faithful in all places.' Rusticus the

prefect said, 'Tell me where you assemble or in what place you collect

your disciples.' Justin said, 'I am staying above the baths of a

certain Martin, the son of Timothinus, and throughout this period (it

is my second visit to Rome) I am unacquainted with any other assembly

except that in this house. And if {128} any one wished to come with

me, I communicated to him the words of truth.'"[20]

It would be possible to fill a volume with the discussion of the

development of the Logos doctrine after the time of Justin Martyr. All

that can here be done is to note how it passed from Rome to

Alexandria--from Justin to Origen--and to compare certain aspects of it

with Adoptionist Christianity, and to consider the position which

either of these Christologies can take in modern theology.

It is very doubtful whether Justin Martyr or the writer of the Fourth

Gospel had any concept of Immaterial Reality. To Justin Martyr, at

least, the Logos appears to have been a second God, and his

identification of Jesus with the Logos is much more like that of

Cornutus--_mutatis mutandis_--than anything else which we possess. But

however this may be, the Logos Christology was invaluable for Origen in

finding room in Christian theology for the identification of God with

Immaterial Reality. We may paraphrase rather than explain his teaching

by saying that he believed in the divinity and unity of Immaterial

{129} Reality, but thought also that diversity as well as unity could

be predicated of it; that man belonged on one side of his nature to

Immaterial Reality, and that, so far as he did so, he shared the

attribute of eternity. Like other thinkers, Origen failed to make

clear exactly what is the relation between the Immaterial Reality which

is eternal and changeless and the Material Reality which is subject to

change and time, and is the basis of phenomena. But in some way, he

believed, the Logos[21] was that power of Immaterial Reality which

stretches out and mingles with the world of matter. It is impossible

and undesirable to expound at length this general theory; it must

suffice to notice its bearings on Christology.

In the first place, it seems to have overcome the tendency of Logos

theology to produce Docetism. The earlier forms of this kind of

teaching which represented the Logos as a spirit who came down to

rescue humanity offered no real reason for maintaining the true

humanity of Jesus. It seems to have been the pressure of recognised

fact, which had not yet been forgotten, which made the writer of the

Fourth Gospel and of the First Epistle of John protest so strongly

against Docetism. The tendency of their teaching by itself was all the

other way, and the Acts of John, with their completely unreal humanity

of Jesus, are the natural, though no doubt unlooked-for, results of the

Ephesian school. But that is not the case with {130} Origen, and

cannot be the case with any Christology or theology which really

understands the doctrine of Immaterial Reality. It is possible to have

a spirit, using the word in the popular and material sense, which looks

like a human being, but is not really one, but that cannot be so with

Immaterial Reality.

Origen achieved a synthesis with Greek philosophy which enabled

Christianity to accept a belief in Immaterial Reality without a Docetic

Christology, but it must be remembered that Origen was able to do this

largely because he stood in the line of succession from the Fourth

Gospel and Justin Martyr. He did not take the word Logos in the same

sense as Justin had done, and he permanently changed, and indeed partly

confused, Christian terminology by giving the meaning of immaterial to

the words spirit and spiritual. They have in the main retained this

meaning ever since, but students of the New Testament will do well to

remember that this is not the meaning of the words in the original, and

that Origen, though neither the first nor the last, is probably the

ablest of the long line of theologians who have introduced metaphysics

into Christian doctrine by a perverse exegesis of the words of

Scripture.

The Catholic Christianity which emerged from the struggle between

Adoptionism and the Logos Christology was a curious combination of

both. In the strict sense of Christology, Adoptionism was completely

abandoned. Jesus was regarded as the eternal Logos who became man, not

as the inspired {131} and perfect man who became God. But in the

sphere of soteriology the legacy of Adoptionism can clearly be seen.

The Christian became the adopted son of God, joint heir with Christ,

and this remained part of Catholic teaching. It is not, however,

really consistent with the Logos doctrine, and is logically part of

Adoptionism. The incoherence introduced at this point was met by the

splendid paradox of Irenaeus and Athanasius that God became man in

order that man might become God. But splendid though this be, it

remains a paradox, and it was diluted very considerably in later

theology, which seems to have felt that the abandonment of Adoptionism

in the sphere of Christology necessitated its abandonment in the

doctrine of salvation. Thus, at least in popular theology, the

grandiose conception of the apotheosis of humanity has passed into the

far more mythological one of becoming an angel after death--a view very

widely held, though perhaps never officially recognised.

What part can either Adoptionism or the Logos Christology play in any

modern form of thought? Adoptionism seems to me to have no part or lot

in any intelligent modern theology, though it is unfortunately often

promulgated, especially in pulpits which are regarded as liberal. We

cannot believe that at any time a human being, in consequence of his

virtue, became God, which he was not before, or that any human being

ever will do so. No doctrine of Christology and no doctrine of

salvation which is {132} Adoptionist in essence can come to terms with

modern thought.

The doctrine of the Logos is on a different plane. In the form in

which it is presented by Justin Martyr it is probably as unacceptable

as Adoptionism, but in the form presented by Origen the modern mind

constantly feels that the writer is struggling to express its own

thoughts, and is attracted to Origen not only by the recognition of a

common purpose, but by a consciousness of a common failure, for, at the

end, reality transcends thought and language, and the philosophy of

Alexandria was no more completely successful than is that of our world.

I have often felt in talking with younger men of the present day how

closely they have approached to the position of Origen and how tar they

are from him in method. If I may put into my own words the form of

thought which seems to animate them, it is something of this kind.

They feel that the world in which we live is the expression of some

great plan or purpose or pattern which is not yet complete, which shows

no sign of finality, but is ever growing in complexity; which resolves

itself again and again into simplicity, and then spreads out again on a

yet wider scale. The plan or purpose is not a dead mechanical thing;

the life which explains it is within and not without it. Men are

partly the result, but partly also the instruments or even agents of

this purpose. Wisdom is the right understanding of its nature; and

righteousness is the attempt to subordinate human purposes {133} to

this great purpose of life. For man is not only an effect, he is a

cause. When he acts, he brings into existence a new cause of which the

results will follow in accordance with the established laws of reality.

But there is a moment of choice, when he has it within his power to

decide whether he will act or not. If he choose right, his actions

will be taken up into the great web of existence, consistently with the

great purpose. If he choose wrongly, the results will in the end be

destroyed, not without suffering to himself and others.

To a more vivid imagination which thinks in pictures rather than in

metaphysical language, life presents itself as a great web which is

slowly coming from the loom, and sometimes there seems to be behind the

loom the figure of the great weaver; at other times the weaving is

being carried on by men and women whose weaving sometimes conforms,

sometimes does not, to an infinitely complicated but symmetrical plan

which, and here is the paradoxical tragedy, they can only see in the

web which has been already woven; but they know that whether what they

weave will remain, or not depends upon its being in accord with the

pattern. And then the picture changes slightly, and it seems as though

the pattern begins to reveal the same features as those dimly discerned

in the weaver behind the loom. And yet again the picture changes, and

it is not merely the great weaver, but the men and women who are

working that reappear with him to live on in the pattern emerging in

the web.

{134}

That is not the same thing as the Logos Christology or doctrine of

salvation as propounded by Origen, but I think that he would have

understood it had he lived now. It is not the same thing as the

teaching of the Kingdom of God preached by Jesus, yet I do not think

that he would have condemned it, for great men understand the thoughts

of lesser ones though they themselves fail to be understood. The

thoughts and words of Jesus, like those of Origen, were borrowed from

his own time and race; they belong to the first century as those of

Origen belong to the third. No historical reconstruction can make them

adequate for our generation, or even intelligible except to those who

have passed through an education in history impossible for most. But

the will of Jesus and the will of Origen, if we can reach them through

the language and thought of their time, have no such limitations. If I

have understood them rightly, both were animated by a desire to

accomplish the purpose of God, the God who is life.[22] And that

purpose did not appeal to them as the achievement for themselves of any

salvation, in this world or in the world to come, beyond the reach of

other men, but rather to show them what is the way of life, the natural

way, consistent with the purpose of God {135} and the pattern of life.

So far as they succeeded, in their teaching they did so because they

devoted themselves to expressing clearly what they wished without

troubling to ask whether it conformed to what other people said, and

they spoke the clearest language which they could find in their own

generation.

To do the same thing is the business of preachers and teachers to-day.

The man who tries merely to repeat the thoughts or the words of past

generations forgets that the call which comes to the teacher is not to

repeat what others have said because they have said it, but to say what

is true because it is true, and to say it in the language of his own

time that it may be intelligible. He will often appear to contradict

the thought or the language of Jesus or of Paul or of Origen, but he

will be loyal to the purpose which was theirs, and yet so much more

than theirs.

[1] This proves that this form of thought is not Semitic; had it been

so, the Spirit would scarcely have been masculine.

[2] It would be unfair and misleading to say the doctrine of the

Trinity. That doctrine is not the statement of the "threeness" of God,

but of the relation which this bears to his unity.

[3] No doubt the "threeness" was emphasised by the habit of three

immersions in baptism, whatever the origin of this practice may be, and

by philosophic reflections as to the properties of triangles such as

are found in Philo.

[4] Illuminating suggestions can be found in F. C. Conybeare's _The Key

of Truth_ and in H. Usener's _Weihnachtsfest_.

[5] In the _Earlier Epistles of St. Paul_, pp. 335 ff. (especially p.

368), I suggested that the shorter recension of the Epistle to the

Romans, the existence of which is proved by the evidence of the Latin

_breves_, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Marcion, and by the textual

confusion surrounding the final doxology, may be the same as that which

omits all mention of Rome, and that, if so, it was probably written

originally for some other destination. This suggestion has met with

little approbation from critics, but with even less discussion. I

still think that it is worth consideration.

[6] _Paulos doulos Iesou Christou kletos apostolos aphorismenos eis eu

aggelion theou o proepeggeilato dia ton propheton autou en graphais

hagiais peri tou uhiou autou tou genomenou ek spermatos Daueid kata

sarka tou hopisthentos uhiou en dunamei kata pneuma hagiosunes ex

anastaseos nekron Iesou Christou tou kuriou hemon._

[7] The justification for assuming that the Church at Rome probably had

Adoptionist proclivities is the undeniable fact that early in the

second century Hermas held this view, and there is no evidence that he

was an innovator.

[8] _Eprepen gar auto di on ta panta kai di ou ta panta pollous vious

eis doxan agagonta ton archegon tes sotepias auton dia pethematon

teleiosai._ The English translators take _agagonta_ as referring to

the same person as _auto_, but it seems grammatically preferable to

construe it as a qualification of _archegon_.

[9] Though, if the late date for 1 Peter be accepted, 1 Clement is the

earlier document. But the chronology of 1 Clement seems to me less

certain than it is usually held to be. It depends on two factors, both

doubtful: (1) the chronology of the list of Roman bishops in Eusebius

and in the _Liber Pontificalis_; (2) the supposed reference in the

epistle to the alleged persecution under Domitian. Against these is

the reference to Clement in _The Shepherd_ of Hermas, and the

apparently clear testimony of the Canon of Muratori that _The Shepherd_

was written about A.D. 140.

[10] Cf. Sim. ix. 1: "For that Spirit is the Son of God," and the Latin

(Vulgate) text of Sim. v. 5. 1, which adds to the explanation of the

Parable the exact statement, "Now the Son is the Holy Spirit." It is

uncertain whether this is the true text or merely correct explanation,

but in general the Latin text is better than that of the Athos

MS.,--the only Greek evidence at this point.

[11] See Appendix on pp. 137 ff.

[12] "Especially remembering the words of the Lord Jesus which he spoke

when he was teaching gentleness and long-suffering. For he spoke thus:

'Be merciful, that ye may obtain mercy. Forgive, that ye may be

forgiven. As ye do, so shall it be done unto you. As ye give, so

shall it be given unto you. As ye judge, so shall ye be judged. As ye

are kind, so shall kindness be shewn you. With what measure ye mete,

it shall be measured to you.'"

[13] There is no entirely convincing evidence in favour of this

tradition. See, however, B. W. Bacon, "The Roman Origin of the Gospel

of Mark," in _Harvard Theological Studies_, vii.

[14] "I answered then and said, This is my first and last saying, that

it had been better not to have given the earth unto Adam: or else when

it was given him, to have restrained him from sinning. For what profit

is it for men now in this present time to live in heaviness, and after

death to look for punishment? O thou Adam, what hast thou done? for

though it was thou that sinned, thou art not fallen alone, but we all

that come of thee. For what profit is it unto us, if there be promised

us an immortal time, whereas we have done the works that bring death?

And that there is promised us an everlasting hope, whereas ourselves

being most wicked are made vain? And that there are laid up for us

dwellings of health and safety, whereas we have lived wickedly? And

that the glory of the Most High is kept to defend them which have led a

wary life, whereas we have walked in the most wicked ways of all? And

that there should be shewed a paradise whose fruit endureth for ever,

wherein is security and medicine, since we shall not enter into it?

For we have walked in unpleasant places. And that the faces of them

which have used abstinence shall shine above the stars, whereas our

faces shall be blacker than darkness? For while we lived and committed

iniquity, we considered not that we should begin to suffer for it after

death" (4 Ezra vii. 46-56).

[15] I have at present no clear opinion on the problem, except that I

am strongly disinclined to accept the rather popular view which

receives Colossians as Pauline and rejects Ephesians. Unless some

theory similar to Holtzmann's be accepted, I think that Colossians and

Ephesians stand or fall together. The popular distinction is partly

due to the fact that Protestant scholarship is more sensitive to the

un-Pauline ecclesiology of Ephesians, which it repudiates, than to the

un-Pauline Christology of Colossians, to which it adheres.

[16] _Tunchanei de Ermes ho logos, on apesteilan pros hemas ex ouranou

oi theoi_. Cornutus, _De Natura Deorum_, xvi.

[17] The Leucian Acts of John and Andrew, which seem to have a real

connection with the Johannine tradition, represent this Docetic

tendency.

[18] I must emphasise the speculative nature of this suggestion. So

far as I know, there is not any evidence that Pantaenus was in Rome, or

that Clement was influenced by Roman thought. But--merely as a

guess--the idea appeals to me as probable in itself.

[19] The address in Rome which Justin gives is obscure, but it is

supposed to be the same as the bath called Novation's on the Via

Viminalis. See Otto's note on the subject.

[20] _Roustikos eparchos eipe; Pou synerchesthe? Iustinos eipen; Entha

hekasto proairesis kai dynamis esti; pantos gar nomixeis epi to auto

synerchesthai hemas pantas? ouch outos de; dioti ho theos ton

Christianon topo ou perigraphetai alla aoratos on ouranon kai ten gen

pleroi kai pantachou hupo ton piston prosuneitai kai doxetai.

Roustikos eparchos eipen; Eipe, pou synerchesthe e eis poion topon

athroixeis tous mathetas sou; Ioustinos eipen; Ego epano meno tinos

Martinou tou Timothinou balaneiou, kai para panta ton chronon touton

(epedemesa de te Romaion polei touto deuteron) kai ou ginosko allen

tina suneleusin ei ne ten ekeiou. kai ei tis ebouleto aphikneisthai

par emoi, ekoinonoun auto ton tes aletheias gogon._

[21] The elements of multiplicity, he thinks, are contained in the

Logos, which is therefore secondary to the Father.

[22] Perhaps the most significant difference between Jesus and Origen

is that Origen was inclined to find the concrete expression of the

Purpose of Life in self-realisation--he was in the best sense a

Gnostic--while Jesus found it in the service of the weak, ignorant, and

sinful, rather than merely in loyal obedience to the strong, wise, and

righteous. The two are complementary, not contradictory--but they are

not identical.

{137}

APPENDIX

THE INTERPRETATION OF _THE SHEPHERD_ OF HERMAS

I am glad to be allowed to quote on this subject from a letter by my

friend and former pupil, Dr. F. S. Mackenzie of Montreal, who has spent

much time on the study of Hermas. He says:

"In several passages Hermas speaks of a small circle of six superior

angels. It is legitimate to look for a reason for his choice of this

particular number, and there can be little doubt that the reason may be

discovered in Sim. ix., where the Son of God, who appears as lord of

the tower, is clearly thought of as the seventh angel, superior to the

six who accompany him and who have charge of the building of the tower,

as they in turn are superior to all lesser angels and men. Thus the

number of the archangels is made complete, according to prevailing

apocalyptic enumeration. The contention of some scholars, among whom

Zahn is the most outstanding, that Hermas makes a fundamental

distinction between the Son of God and all angels, cannot be made good.

The lord of the tower in Sim. ix. is not different in kind from the six

angels who accompany him in his inspection of the tower. While he is,

indeed, much more glorious than the others, nevertheless he and they

alike appear as 'glorious men.' They all are angels (Sim. ix. 12.

7-8). Moreover, this angelic Son of God is called Michael in Sim.

viii., and is obviously identical with the most revered or glorious

angel (_semnotatos aggelos_) referred to in other places. He is

supreme in the angel world. He has all authority over both {138}

angels and men. He is lord of the Church, and judge of its members.

"Why is the Son of God, the Christian archangel, called Michael?

Michael was one of the seven Jewish archangels; and to him, according

to Dan. xii. 1, was to be committed the judgement of the people of God.

There are indications in apocalyptic literature that he was regarded as

supreme in this angelic circle. Hermas apparently has carried over the

name of this Jewish angel, and used it to designate the archangel of

the Christians, who are for him, of course, the true Israel. The

position of supremacy in the angel world, assigned by pre-Christian

righteous men to Michael, is really held by the Son of God. He is in

fact the true Michael; and in him all that is foretold of Michael in

valid prophecy will be fulfilled. If Hermas regarded the prediction of

Dan. xii. 1 as authoritative at all, he must obviously have seen in it

a reference to the Christian judgement to be executed by the Son of

God. And I consider it highly probable that this may explain the

apparent identification of the Son of God with the Jewish angel.

Hermas has simply made use of the name to connect his ideas with the

Danielic prophecy, and to show how, in his opinion, that prophecy is to

be fulfilled. If this be so, then the Son of God is not, strictly

speaking, identified with the Jewish Michael, but he may nevertheless

be given the name on occasion, because of the fact that in him all that

the prophets foretold of the archangel of the people of God will come

to pass.

"The term Son of God is used by Hermas in a double sense. On the one

hand, it is used of the pre-existent counsellor of God, who may also be

called the Holy Spirit, and on the other of the glorified and exalted

Jesus, the elect servant, who _became_ the Son of God (Sim. v. 6), or

in whom, as is said in Sim. ix. 12, the pre-existent Son became

manifest. Because Jesus alone of all men preserved the indwelling

Spirit pure, therefore he is the only perfect manifestation of the

Spirit or Son of God. And he was rewarded for his fidelity by being

adopted into the family of God as joint heir with the Son. {139}

Nevertheless he is not, and never can be, one with the pre-existent Son

or Spirit.

"One is tempted to argue that this distinction is observed in

Similitudes v., viii., and ix., and that the Son of the master of the

vineyard, the great spreading tree, and the ancient rock respectively

represent the pre-existent Son, while the elect servant, the angel

Michael, and the lord of the tower represent the exalted Jesus. Thus

all the angelic representations of the Son of God would refer only to

the latter. Moreover, there are features in the angelology of Hermas

which strengthen such an argument. From Vis. ii. 2. 7, Sim. ix. 24. 4,

25. 2, 27. 3, it seems clear that Christians are believed to become

angels at their death. Their rank, however, in the angel world will

not be uniform, but will vary according to the excellence of their life

on earth. Jesus therefore, because of his unique purity of life, must

necessarily be the most highly exalted of all such angels. And so, in

point of fact, he is. Of all angels, only he has ever been admitted to

a position of co-equality with the pre-existent Son.

"On the other hand, it must be remembered that Hermas at times seems to

think of the pre-existent Son or Spirit as an angel (Mand. vi. 2, xi.

9). Moreover, in his representation as the son of the master in the

parable of Sim. v., he stands in very much the same relation to the

first-created angels as does the lord of the tower in Sim. ix. And

finally, there is an undoubted difficulty in supposing that the six

archangels are thought of as being obliged to wait from the beginning

of time until the exaltation of Jesus for their number to be completed.

It still remains an open question whether the Christian archangel, the

lord and judge of the Church, is the eternal or the adopted Son of God;

and with the uncertainty and obscurity of the data, it may be doubted

whether a final judgement in the matter can be given. Hermas does not,

in fact, preserve any clear distinction between spirits and angels. He

reveals throughout an undoubted fondness for hypostatisation. Even

virtues and vices, emotions and passions, are described as spirits or

demons as the case may be, and spoken of as if they {140} were

possessed of personality. And certainly some allowance ought to be

made for this tendency of the author, in the matter of determining his

conception of spirits in general, and in particular of the Holy Spirit,

who besides having an eternal existence with God, dwells also in every

man."

{141}

ADDITIONAL NOTE TO PAGE 96

After this passage was ready for the press my friend, Mr. Robert P.

Casey, sent me the following criticism: "It can hardly be said that

'we' gain through the loss of our personalities, since 'we' (a personal

pronoun) _are_ our personalities. On the other hand, it is quite

conceivable that that Immaterial Purpose, which works in and through

our personal life, or at least some parts of it, gains by rejecting us

after our usefulness is past, seeking its further completion in those

who come after us, and thus maintaining a unified and eternal Life

through a multiplicity and diversity of lives. That this process is a

gain from the point of view of history is apparent, yet it can hardly

be said to be 'our' gain if 'we' are destroyed in the process.

"Furthermore, is the archipelago a fair analogy? In the sentence 'If

those islands could have thought and spoken...' the fact that they

cannot destroys the analogy at its most important point. The allegory

fits admirably the relation of the individual life and Immaterial

Reality as a whole, but the crux of the problem of immortality from the

point of the individual is the relation between (1) the unity

established between the intellectual and moral elements (but not many

other elements, e.g. evil) of his personal life and the sum total of

Immaterial Reality, and (2) the equally real and more obvious unity

presented by his own personality, including all his conscious

experiences regardless of their value.

"The first unity is, if not everlasting, at least as permanent as

history itself, and is by its nature eternal and immaterial. The

second unity is apparently transitory, being dependent physically on

the brain and nervous system, psychically on the persistence of memory.

Thus, to say a man has eternal life is simply to mean that certain of

his activities or experiences have the attribute of eternal or

immaterial. It, however, leaves untouched the question whether the

'ego' which is conscious of these activities continues after death."

{142}

The point seems to me to be well taken, and to express a widely spread

and possibly correct opinion; yet I cannot but feel that Mr. Casey is a

little too much influenced by the exigencies of language. Of course in

all the ordinary dealings of life that which makes me "me" is a number

of factors, which, taken together, may be called personality, but the

real point at issue is whether in the last analysis these factors are

part of "me," or are instruments which "I" use and circumstances under

which "I" live. For myself I see no reason to doubt that most of them

come to an end with death. But behind all this there seems to me to be

something in "me" which is Immaterial, and therefore eternal, and I

believe that it is this, not that which now makes up my personality,

which really makes me "me."

{143}

INDEX

Abraham, 18, 53

Academics, 88, 89

Achaea, 66

Acts of the Apostles, 36, 38, 48, 61, 64, 66, 85, 86

of John, Leucian. _See_ John

Adoptionism, 100, 101, 102, 104, 106-108, 111, 117, 120, 123,

125, 128, 130-132

Age to Come, 20, 22, 25-27, 48, 49, 67, 76

Akiba, 16, 17

Allen, W. C., 54

Alexandria, 123, 125, 127, 128, 132

Alexandrians, 58

Ambrose, 9

Ammonius Saccus, 88

Animism, 2

Antioch, 38, 57-73, 102

missionaries from, 85

Antiochus Epiphanes, 7

Apocalypses, 14, 50

Apostles' Creed, 93

Apotheosis, 8, 131

Apuleius, 4, 83

Aquinas, St. Thomas, 10-12

Aristotle, 10, 88

Asia, 66, 122

Asians, 58

Astronomy, 11

Athanasius, 131

Augustine, 99

Bacon, B. W., 117

Baptism, 84-86, 88, 99, 117, 124

Barnabas, 61, 62, 64

Bartimaeus, 48

Box, G. H., 20

Burkitt, F. C., 64, 84

Caesar, cult of, 6

Caesarea, 61

Caligula, 7

Canon, Christian, 71

Censors, mediaeval, 15

Charles, R. H., 14

Christ. _See_ Jesus

Christ, pre-existent, 106

Christians, Greek, 84

Hellenistic, 81

Jewish, 98

Christianity, Adoptionist. _See_ Adoptionism

Bible, 72

Catholic, 79, 80, 130

Ephesian, 124-127

Hellenistic, 61

Jewish, 38

Roman, 120

Sabellian, 83

Sacramental, 99

Christology, 55, 90, 111, 120, 130

Docetic, 130

Logos, 130, 131, 134

pre-existent, 100-102, 104-108, 122

Church, the, 40, 91, 110, 111, 139

Cilicians, 58

Clemen, C., 63

Clement, 9, 125, 126

Epistle of, 105, 108-111, 115, 116, 120

Colossians, Epistle to the, 121, 122

Constantinople, 13

Conybeare, F. C., 101

Corinth, 38, 69, 73-97, 103, 105

Corinthians, First Epistle to, 63, 89, 90

Epistles to, 98

Cornelius, 58, 59, 87

Cornutus, 123, 124, 128

Councils, local, 6

Creation, 84

Crescens, 127

Cross, 79

Cults, Graeco-Oriental, 5, 8, 69, 74

sacramental, 4, 12, 105

Cyprian, 103

Cyrenaeans, 58

Cyrus, 53

Damascus, 57-59, 86

Daniel, 20, 50

David, 19, 47, 53, 68, 104, 105

anointed Son of, 21, 25, 27, 48, 67

kingdom of, 22

Davidic king, 21, 52, 54

Desire, 94, 95

Diaspora, Jews of the, 46, 57, 74

Docetic controversy, 91, 125, 129

Domitian, 108

Dorner, J. A., 101

Ecclesiology, 110

Eliezer ben Durdaiya, Rabbi, 28, 29

Emmet, C. W., 63

End of the Age, 22, 67, 90

Energy, 95

Enoch, Book of, 50, 52, 55

Ephesians, Epistle to the, 121, 122

Ephesus, 8, 61, 120-128

Epistles, Johannine, 125

Epistles, Pauline, 38, 85, 120

Eschatology, 23, 76, 77

Eucharist, 99, 124

Eusebius, 10, 108

Experiment, communistic, 46

Ezra, Fourth Book of, 20, 67, 68, 118

Faith, 96

Father, 86, 100, 110, 115

Fatherhood of God. _See_ God

Fourth Philosophy, 14, 29, 31

Galatians, Epistle to the, 62, 65

Galilee, 1-35, 39, 73, 86

Gentiles, 86

Gfroerer, A., 63

Gnosticism, 125

God, Fatherhood of, 81

kingdom of, 23

the Son, 81

sovereignty of, 18, 19

Spirit of, 40

supreme, 75, 80, 82, 83

working of, in the world, 34

Golden Age, the, 18

Gore, C., 93

Gospel, Fourth, 9, 81

Gospels, synoptic, 85

Grace, 83, 84

Gravitation, 80

Harnack, A. von, 64, 101

Heaven, 76, 93

Hebrews, Epistle to the, 105, 107, 117, 120

Heitmuller, W., 63

Heliogabalus, 83

Helios, 83

Hell, 76, 93

Hellenism, 46, 73

Hermas, 104, 107, 108, 110, 111, 114-119, 126, 137

Hermes, 123, 124

Herod the Great, 14

Herods, the, 13

High-priests, 12, 19, 106

Hilgenfeld, A., 63

Holtzmann, H. J., 121, 122

Ignatius, 121

Incarnation, 101, 106

_Imitatio Christi_, 80

Immortality, 84, 85, 88, 92, 108, 118

personal, 90

Irenaeus, 76, 82, 126, 131

Isaiah liii., 52, 53

Isis, 4, 82

Israel, 18, 53, 103

Italy, 125

James, the brother of the Lord, 60

Jehovah, 81, 83

Jehudah I., Rabbi, 29

Jerusalem, 7, 32, 36-56, 57, 58, 60, 61-66, 73, 74

Jesus, authority of, 41

death of, 36, 39

ethics of, 35

glorified, 91, 101, 139

as judge, 67, 70, 79, 94

life of, 37

as Lord, 68-70, 73, 75, 78, 81-86, 103, 106, 110

name of, 88

as pre-existent, 101, 104, 105, 116, 122-126

teaching of, 10, 17-35, 45, 48, 134

Jews, 12-17, 90

John, the Baptist, 84, 85

son of Zebedee, 122

Acts of, 129

First Epistle of, 129

Gospel of, 92, 120, 122, 124, 125, 129, 130

Joppa, 59, 86

Josephus, 14

Judaea, 13

Judaism, 40, 80, 87, 90

Judaistic controversy, 60

Judas of Galilee, 14, 31

Judgement, the, 76, 94

Julian, 78

Justification by Faith, 98

Justin Martyr, 116, 126-128, 130, 132

Juengst, J., 63

King, Davidic. _See_ Davidic King

Kingdom of God, 24-26, 29, 48, 68, 69, 79, 134

of Heaven. _See_ Kingdom of God

Klausner, J., 20

Koenigsmann, B. L., 63

Law, the, 15, 16, 29, 46, 90, 99, 103

Life, 95, 96

eternal, 26

Logos, 9, 54, 100, 101, 123, 124, 126, 128, 130, 132

Lord, 9, 47, 68, 69, 74, 81, 82, 100, 109, 112

spirit of the, 42

Luke, Gospel of, 27, 36, 37, 48, 54, 92, 116

Maccabees, 7

Mackenzie, F. S., 137

Magic, 85

Marcion, 83, 103

Marius the Epicurean, 2

Mark, Gospel of, 27, 36-38, 40, 48, 49, 51, 52, 54, 116

end of Gospel of, 39, 92

Martin, son of Timothinus, 127

Matthew, Gospel of, 27, 36, 37, 48, 52, 54, 81, 86, 116

Messiah, 19, 22, 27, 40, 46, 47-49, 50, 67, 73

Davidic, 55, 79, 99

days of the, 26

Messianic Age, 19

Metaphysics, 95

Greek, 12

Platonic, 9

Stoic, 89

Michael, 115, 137-139

Middle Ages, 10, 119

Mind, 88

Mishna, the, 47

Mithraism, 75, 82

Mithras, 75, 83

Montefioro, C. G., 28

Moore, G. F., 48

Muratori, Canon of, 108

Mysteries, 4, 38, 88, 89

Mythology, Greek, 2, 3, 5

Nazarenes, synagogue of the, 40, 46

Non-resistance, 33

Norden, E., 64

Origen, 9, 94, 127-130, 132, 134, 135

Pacifism, 33

Palestine, 57

Panaetius, 9

Pantaenus, 125, 126

Paradise, 76

Parousia, 79

Pater, Walter, 2

Patriots, 13

Paul, 36, 57-60, 62, 65, 68, 82, 86, 90, 91, 98, 99, 121, 135

Pentecost, 41, 86

Personality, 96

Peter, 26, 46, 59-61, 86, 87, 107, 108

Pharisees, 13, 15, 16, 29, 32, 90

Philip, 58, 87

Philo, 6, 57

Philosophy, Greek, 3, 5, 6, 9, 99

Platonism, 88, 123

Pliny, 107

Plotinus, 88

Plutarch, 4, 5

Pontius Pilate, 101

Posidonius, 9

Priests, 32

Prophecy, 42

Prophets, 44

Proselytes, 84, 85, 87

Protestantism, 83

Psychical research, 93

Purgatory, 76

Q, 36, 37, 49, 51, 52, 70, 116

Reality, 133

immaterial, 88, 95, 129, 130

material, 129

Redeemer, 103

Redemption, 80

Reformation, the, 11, 83

Regeneration, sacramental, 77, 108

Religion, mystery, 74

Oriental, 3

Remission of sins, 117

Repentance, 27, 79, 118

Resurrection, 22, 76, 79, 85, 90, 105, 108

of the body, 90, 93, 99

Roman Empire, 79

religion in the, 2

Romans, Epistle to the, 102, 107

shorter recension of Epistle to the, 103

Rome, 12, 61, 98-120, 126, 128

cult of, 6

Rufus, 17

Rusticus, 127

Sacraments, 4, 8, 85, 90

Sadduceea, 15, 32, 90

Saints, 83

Salvation, 4, 8, 75, 77, 78, 88

Samaria, 61

Sanhedrim of the Jews, 7

Satan, 41

Saul, 47

Schleiermacher, F., 63

School, Ephesian, 129

Schwanbeck, E. A., 63

Schwartz, E., 64, 66

Schweitzer, A., 23, 24

Scribes, 13, 16, 29

Sects, Jewish, 12

Sermon on the Mount, 79

Servant, 47, 52-53

Seven, the, 59, 87

Shaoshyant, 20

Shema, 16, 17

Sheol, 21

Simon Magus, 125

Sin, 119

Solomon, Psalms of, 52, 54

Son, 86, 100, 112-114

of David, 67

of God, 47, 53, 81, 105, 106, 116, 137-139

of Man, 27, 30, 40, 47, 49-52, 55, 67, 68, 79, 99

pre-existent, 139

Sorof, M., 63

Soteriology, 131

Soul, immortality of the, 21

Spirit, the Holy, 40, 41, 43, 82, 86, 87, 89, 92, 100, 101, 113-116,

138, 140

pre-existence of, 114, 139

Spitta, F., 63

Stephen, 46, 57, 58, 61

Stoics, 9, 88, 123

Subliminal consciousness, 43

Sun, 75

Supreme God. _See_ God

Synagogue, 7, 8, 39

Syncretism, 6

Synedria, 6

Syria, 125

Talmud, 15, 32

Jerusalem, 17

Tarsus, 58, 61, 62

Tatian, 78

Temple, 32, 33

Tertullian, 10, 103

Testament, New, 71

Old, 35, 70, 71, 78, 126

Tinnius, 17

Torrey, C. C., 64

Tradition, Aramaic, 37

Trajan, 107

Trinity, doctrine of, 114

Trypho,126

Turnus, 17

Twelve, the, 89

Tyrrell, George, 12

Usener, H., 101

Valentinus, 125

Violet, B., 20

Weiss, B., 63

Weiss, J., 23, 63

Wendt, H., 63

Westcott, B. F., 93

Wisdom of Solomon, 55, 90

Literature, 6, 21, 54

Zahn, Th., 137

Zealots, 14

THE END

_Printed by_ R. & R. CLARK, LIMITED, _Edinburgh_.

THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY

A Series of Works by Various Authors

EDITED BY

F. J. FOAKES JACKSON, D.D.

AND

KIRSOPP LAKE, D.D.

8vo.

Part I. THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 3 Vols.

Vol. I. Prolegomena. I. The Jewish, Gentile and Christian

Backgrounds. 18s. net.

Vol. II. Prolegomena. II. Criticism. _In the Press_.

Vol. III. Text and Commentary. _In the Press_.

LONDON: MACMILLAN AND CO., LTD.

MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED

LONDON -- BOMBAY -- CALCUTTA -- MADRAS

MELBOURNE

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY

NEW YORK -- BOSTON -- CHICAGO

DALLAS -- SAN FRANCISCO

THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, LTD.

TORONTO