[Footnote 199: The prophet and teacher express what the Spirit of God

suggests to them. Their word is therefore God's word, and their

writings, in so far as they apply to the whole of Christendom, are

inspired, holy writings. Further, not only does Acts XV. 22 f. exhibit

the formula [Greek: edoxen tôi pneumati tôi hagiôi kai hêmin] (see

similar passages in the Acts), but the Roman writings also appeal to the

Holy Spirit (1 Clem. 63. 2): likewise Barnabas, Ignatius, etc. Even in

the controversy about the baptism of heretics a Bishop gave his vote

with the formula: "secundum motum animi mei et spiritus sancti" (Cypr.

Opp. ed. Hartel, I. p. 457).]

[Footnote 200: The so-called Chiliasm--the designation is unsuitable and

misleading--is found wherever the Gospel is not yet Hellenised (see, for

example, Barn. 4. 15; Hermas; 2 Clem.; Papias [Euseb. III. 39]; [Greek:

Didachê], 10. 16; Apoc. Petri; Justin. Dial. 32, 51, 80, 82, 110, 139;

Cerinthus), and must be regarded as a main element of the Christian

preaching (see my article "Millenium" in the Encycl. Brit.) In it lay

not the least of the power of Christianity in the first century, and the

means whereby it entered the Jewish propaganda in the Empire and

surpassed it. The hopes springing out of Judaism were at first but

little modified, that is, only so far as the substitution of the

Christian communities for the nation of Israel made modification

necessary. In all else even the details of the Jewish hopes of the

future were retained, and the extra-canonical Jewish Apocalypses (Esra,

Enoch, Baruch, Moses, etc.) were diligently read alongside of Daniel.

Their contents were in part joined on to sayings of Jesus and they

served as models for similar productions (here therefore an enduring

connection with the Jewish religion is very plain). In the Christian

hopes of the future as in the Jewish eschatology may be distinguished

essential and accidental fixed and fluid elements. To the former belong:

(1) the notion of a final fearful conflict with the powers of the world

which is just about to break out [Greek: to teleion skandalon engiken],

(2) belief in the speedy return of Christ, (3) the conviction that after

conquering the secular power (this was variously conceived as God's

Ministers as that which restrains--2 Thess. II. 6, as a pure kingdom of

Satan see the various estimates in Justin, Melito, Irenæus and

Hippolytus) Christ will establish a glorious kingdom on the earth and

will raise the saints to share in that kingdom, and (4) that he will

finally judge all men. To the fluid elements belong the notions of the

Antichrist or of the secular power culminating in the Antichrist as well

as notions about the place, the extent, and the duration of Christ's

glorious kingdom. But it is worthy of special note that Justin regarded

the belief that Christ will set up his kingdom in Jerusalem, and that it

will endure for 1000 years, as a necessary element of orthodoxy, though

he confesses he knew Christians who did not share this belief, while

they did not like the pseudo Christians reject also the resurrection of

the body (the promise of Montanus that Christ's kingdom would be let

down at Pepuza and Tymion is a thing by itself and answers to the other

promises and pretensions of Montanus). The resurrection of the body is

expressed in the Roman Symbol while very notably the hope of Christ's

earthly kingdom is not there mentioned (see above p. 157). The great

inheritance which the Gentile Christian communities received from

Judaism is the eschatological hopes along with the Monotheism assured by

revelation and belief in providence. The law as a national law was

abolished. The Old Testament became a new book in the hands of the

Gentile Christians. On the contrary the eschatological hopes in all

their details and with all the deep shadows which they threw on the

state and public life were at first received and maintained themselves

in wide circles pretty much unchanged and only succumbed in some of

their details--just as in Judaism--to the changes which resulted from

the constant change of the political situation. But these hopes were

also destined in great measure to pass away after the settlement of

Christianity on Græco-Roman soil. We may set aside the fact that they

did not occupy the foreground in Paul, for we do not know whether this

was of importance for the period that followed. But that Christ would

set up the kingdom in Jerusalem, and that it would be an earthly kingdom

with sensuous enjoyments--these and other notions contend on the one

hand with the vigorous antijudaism of the communities, and on the other

with the moralistic spiritualism, in the pure carrying out of which the

Gentile Christians in the East at least increasingly recognised the

essence of Christianity. Only the vigorous world renouncing enthusiasm

which did not permit the rise of moralistic spiritualism and mysticism,

and the longing for a time of joy and dominion that was born of it,

protected for a long time a series of ideas which corresponded to the

spiritual disposition of the great multitude of converts only at times

of special oppression. Moreover the Christians in opposition to Judaism

were, as a rule, instructed to obey magistrates whose establishment

directly contradicted the judgment of the state contained in the

Apocalypses. In such a conflict however that judgment necessarily

conquers at last which makes as little change as possible in the

existing forms of life. A history of the gradual attenuation and

subsidence of eschatologlcal hopes in the II.-IV. centuries can only be

written in fragments. They have rarely--at best by fits and

starts--marked out the course. On the contrary if I may say so they only

gave the smoke, for the course was pointed out by the abiding elements

of the Gospel, trust in God and the Lord Christ, the resolution to a

holy life, and a firm bond of brotherhood. The quiet gradual change, in

which the eschatologlcal hopes passed away fell into the background or

lost important parts, was on the other hand a result of deep reaching

changes in the faith and life of Christendom. Chiliasm as a power was

broken up by speculative mysticism and on that account very much later

in the West than in the East. But speculative mysticism has its centre

in christology. In the earliest period this as a theory belonged more to

the defence of religion than to religion itself. Ignatius alone was able

to reflect on that transference of power from Christ which Paul had

experienced. The disguises in which the apocalyptic eschatologlcal

prophecies were set forth belonged in part to the form of this

literature (in so far as one could easily be given the lie if he became

too plain or in so far as the prophet really saw the future only in

large outline) partly it had to be chosen in order not to give political

offence. See Hippol. comm. in Daniel (Georgiades, p. 49, 51. [Greek:

noein opheilomen ta kata kairon sumbainonta kai eidotas siôpan]), but

above all Constantine orat. ad s. coetum 19, on some verses of Virgil

which are interpreted in a Christian sense but that none of the rulers

in the capital might be able to accuse their author of violating the

laws of the state with his poetry or of destroying the traditional ideas

of the procedure about the gods he concealed the truth under a veil.

That holds good also of the Apocalyptists and the poets of the Christian

Sibylline sayings.]

[Footnote 201: The hope of the resurrection of the body (1 Clem. 26. 3

[Greek: anasteseis ten sarka mou tauten], Herm. Sim. V. 7. 2 [Greek:

blepe mêtote anabê epi tên kardian sou tên sarka sou tautên phthartên

einai]. Barn. 5. 6 f., 21. 1, 2 Clem. 9. 1 [Greek: kai mê legetô tis

humôn oti hautê hê sarx ou krinetai oude anistatai]. Polyc. Ep. 7. 2,

Justin Dial. 80, etc.) finds its place originally in the hope of a share

in the glorious kingdom of Christ. It therefore disappears or is

modified wherever that hope itself falls into the background. But it

finally asserted itself through out and became of independent importance

in a new structure of eschatologlcal expectations in which it attained

the significance of becoming the specific conviction of Christian faith.

With the hope of the resurrection of the body was originally connected

the hope of a happy life in easy blessedness under green trees in

magnificent fields with joyous feeding flocks and flying angels clothed

in white. One must read the Revelation of Peter the Shepherd or the Acts

of Perpetua and Felicitas in order to see how entirely the fancy of many

Christians and not merely of those who were uncultured dwelt in a

fairyland in which they caught sight now of the Ancient of days and now

of the Youthful Shepherd Christ. The most fearful delineations of the

torments of Hell formed the reverse side to this. We now know through

the Apocalypse of Peter, how old these delineations are.]

[Footnote 202: The perfect knowledge of the truth and eternal life are

connected in the closest way (see p. 144, note 1) because the Father of

truth is also Prince of life (see Diognet. 12: [Greek: oude gar zôê aneu

gnôseôs oude gnôsis asphalês aneu zôês alêthous dio plêsion ekateron

pephyteutai], see also what follows). The classification is a Hellenic

one, which has certainly penetrated also into Palestinian Jewish

theology. It may be reckoned among the great intuitions, which in the

fulness of the times, united the religious and reflective minds of all

nations. The Pauline formula, "Where there is forgiveness of sin, there

also is life and salvation", had for centuries no distinct history. But

the formula, "Where there is truth, perfect knowledge, there also is

eternal life", has had the richest history in Christendom from the

beginning. Quite apart from John, it is older than the theology of the

Apologists (see, for example, the Supper prayer in the Didache, 9. 10,

where there is no mention of the forgiveness of sin, but thanks are

given, [Greek: huper tês gnôseôs kai pisteôs kai athanasias hês

egnôrisen hêmin ho theos dia Iêsou], or [Greek: huper tês zôês kai

gnôseôs], and 1 Clem. 36. 2: [Greek: dia touto êthelêsen ho despotes tês

athanatou gnôseôs hêmas geusasthai]). It is capable of a very manifold

content, and has never made its way in the Church without reservations,

but so far as it has we may speak of a hellenising of Christianity. This

is shewn most clearly in the fact that the [Greek: athanasia], identical

with [Greek: aphtharsia] and [Greek: zôê aiônios], as is proved by their

being often interchanged, gradually supplanted the [Greek: basileia tou

theou] ([Greek: christou]) and thrust it out of the sphere of religious

intuition and hope into that of religious speech. It should also be

noted, at the same time, that in the hope of eternal life which is

bestowed with the knowledge of the truth, the resurrection of the body

is by no means with certainty included. It is rather added to it (see

above) from another series of ideas. Conversely, the words [Greek: zôên

aiônion] were first added to the words [Greek: sarkos anastasin] in the

western Symbols at a comparatively late period, while in the prayers

they are certainly very old.]

[Footnote 203: Even the assumption of such a remission is fundamentally

in contradiction with moralism; but that solitary remission of sin was

not called in question, was rather regarded as distinctive of the new

religion, and was established by an appeal to the omnipotence and

special goodness of God, which appears just in the calling of sinners.

In this calling, grace as grace is exhausted (Barn. 5. 9; 2 Clem. 2.

4-7). But this grace itself seems to be annulled, inasmuch as the sins

committed before baptism were regarded as having been committed in a

state of ignorance (Tertull. de bapt. I.: delicta pristinæ cæcitatis),

on account of which it seemed worthy of God to forgive them, that is, to

accept the repentance which followed on the ground of the new knowledge.

So considered, everything, in point of fact, amounts to the gracious

gift of knowledge, and the memory of the saying, "Jesus receiveth

sinners", is completely obscured. But the tradition of this saying and

many like it, and above all, the religious instinct, where it was more

powerfully stirred, did not permit a consistent development of that

moralistic conception. See for this, Hermas, Sim. V. 7. 3: [Greek: perì

tôn proterôn agnoêmatôn tôi theôi monôi dunaton iasin dounai; autou gar

esti pasa exousia]. Præd. Petri ap. Clem. Strom. VI. 6. 48: [Greek: hosa

en agnoia tis humôn epoiêsen mê eidôs saphôs ton theon, ean epignous

metanoêsêi, panta autôi aphethêsetai ta hamartêmata]. Aristides, Apol.

17: "The Christians offer prayers (for the unconverted Greeks) that they

may be converted from their error. But when one of them is converted he

is ashamed before the Christians of the works which he has done. And he

confesses to God, saying: 'I have done these things in ignorance.' And

he cleanses his heart, and his sins are forgiven him, because he had

done them in ignorance, in the earlier period when he mocked and jeered

at the true knowledge of the Christians." Exactly the same in Tertull.

de pudic. so. init. The statement of this same writer (1. c. fin),

"Cessatio delicti radix est veniæ, ut venia sit pænitentiæ fructus", is

a pregnant expression of the conviction of the earliest Gentile

Christians.]

[Footnote 204: This idea appears with special prominence in the Epistle

of Barnabas (see 6. 11. 14); the new formation ([Greek: anaplassein])

results through the forgiveness of sin. In the moralistic view the

forgiveness of sin is the result of the renewal that is spontaneously

brought about on the ground of knowledge shewing itself in penitent

feeling.]

[Footnote 205: Barn. 2. 6, and my notes on the passage.]

[Footnote 206: James I. 25.]

[Footnote 207: Hermas. Sim. VIII. 3. 2; Justin Dial. II. 43; Præd. Petri

in Clem., Strom. I. 29. 182; II. 15. 68.]

[Footnote 208: Didache, c. 1., and my notes on the passage (Prolegg. p.

45 f.).]

[Footnote 209: The concepts, [Greek: epangelia, gnôsis, nomos], form the

Triad on which the later catholic conception of Christianity is based,

though it can be proved to have been in existence at an earlier period.

That [Greek: pistis] must everywhere take the lead was undoubted, though

we must not think of the Pauline idea of [Greek: pistis]. When the

Apostolic Fathers reflect upon faith, which, however, happens only

incidentally, they mean a holding for true of a sum of holy traditions,

and obedience to them, along with the hope that their consoling contents

will yet be fully revealed. But Ignatius speaks like a Christian who

knows what he possesses in faith in Christ, that is, in confidence in

him. In Barn. 1, Polyc. Ep. 2, we find "faith, hope, love"; in Ignatius,

"faith and love." Tertullian, in an excellent exposition, has shewn how

far patience is a temper corresponding to Christian faith (see besides

the Epistle of James).]

[Footnote 210: See Lipsius De Clementis R. ep. ad. Cor. priore disquis.

1855. It would be in point of method inadmissible to conclude from the

fact that in 1 Clem. Pauline formulæ are relatively most faithfully

produced, that Gentile Christianity generally understood Pauline

theology at first, but gradually lost this understanding in the course

of two generations.]

[Footnote 211: Formally: [Greek: têrêsate tên sarka agnên kai tên

sphragida aspilon] (2 Clem. 8. 6).]

[Footnote 212: Hermas (Mand. IV. 3) and Justin presuppose it. Hermas of

course sought and found a way of meeting the results of that idea which

were threatening the Church with decimation; but he did not question the

idea itself. Because Christendom is a community of saints which has in

its midst the sure salvation, all its members--this is the necessary

inference--must lead a sinless life.]

[Footnote 213: The formula, "righteousness by faith alone", was really

repressed in the second century; but it could not be entirely destroyed:

see my Essay, "Gesch. d. Seligkeit allein durch den Glauben in der alten

K." Ztsch. f. Theol. u Kirche. I. pp. 82-105.]

[Footnote 214: The only thorough discussion of the use of the Old

Testament by an Apostolic Father, and of its authority, that we possess,

is Wrede's "Untersuchungen zum 1 Clemensbrief" (1891). Excellent

preliminary investigations, which, however, are not everywhere quite

reliable, may be found in Hatch's Essays in Biblical Greek, 1889. Hatch

has taken up again the hypothesis of earlier scholars, that there were

very probably in the first and second centuries systematised extracts

from the Old Testament (see p. 203-214). The hypothesis is not yet quite

established (see Wrede, above work, p. 65), but yet it is hardly to be

rejected. The Jewish catechetical and missionary instruction in the

Diaspora needed such collections, and their existence seem to be proved

by the Christian Apologies and the Sybilline books.]

[Footnote 215: It is an extremely important fact that the words of the

Lord were quoted and applied in their literal sense (that is chiefly for

the statement of Christian morality) by Ecclesiastical authors, almost

without exception, up to and inclusive of Justin. It was different with

the theologians of the age, that is the Gnostics, and the Fathers from

Irenæus.]

[Footnote 216: Justin was not the first to do so, for it had already

been done by the so-called Barnabas (see especially c. 13) and others.

On the proofs from prophecy see my Texte und Unters. Bd. I. 3. pp.

56-74. The passage in the Praed. Petri (Clem. Strom. VI. 15. 128) is

very complete: [Greek: Hêmis anaptixantes tas biblous tas eichomen tôn

prophêtôn, ha men dia parabolôn ha de dia ainigmatôn, ha de authentikôs

kai autolexei ton Christon Iêsoun onomazontôn, euromen kai tên parousian

autou kai ton thanaton kai ton stauron kai tas loipas kolaseis pasas,

hosas epoiêsan autô hoi Ioudaioi, kai tên egersin kai tên eis ouranous

analêpsin pro tou Hiersoluma krithênai, kathôs egegrapto tauta panta ha

edei auton pathein kai met' auton ha estai; tauta oun epignontes

episteusamen tô theô dia tôn gegrammennôn eis auton.] With the help of

the Old Testament the teachers dated back the Christian religion to the

beginning of the human race, and joined the preparations for the

founding of the Christian community with the creation of the world. The

Apologists were not the first to do so, for Barnabas and Hermas, and

before these, Paul, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and others

had already done the same. This was undoubtedly to the cultured classes

one of the most impressive articles in the missionary preaching. The

Christian religion in this way got a hold which the others--with the

exception of the Jewish--lacked. But for that very reason, we must guard

against turning it into a formula, that the Gentile Christians had

comprehended the Old Testament essentially through the scheme of

prediction and fulfilment. The Old Testament is certainly the book of

predictions, but for that very reason the complete revelation of God

which needs no additions and excludes subsequent changes. The historical

fulfilment only proves to the world the truth of those revelations. Even

the scheme of shadow and reality is yet entirely out of sight. In such

circumstances the question necessarily arises, as to what independent

meaning and significance Christ's appearance could have, apart from that

confirmation of the Old Testament. But, apart from the Gnostics, a

surprisingly long time passed before this question was raised, that is

to say, it was not raised till the time of Irenæus.]

[Footnote 217: See [Greek: Didachê], 8.]

[Footnote 218: See the Revelation of John II. 9; III. 9; but see also

the "Jews" in the Gospels of John and of Peter. The latter exonerates

Pilate almost completely, and makes the Jews and Herod responsible for

the crucifixion.]

[Footnote 219: See Barn. 9. 4. In the second epistle of Clement the Jews

are called: [Greek: hoi dokiountes echein theon], cf. Præd. Petri in

Clem., Strom. VI. 5. 41: [Greek: mêde kata Ioudaious sebesthe, kai gar

ekeinoi monoi oiomenoi ton theon gignôskein ouk epistantai, latreuontes

angelois kai archangelois, mênì kai selênê, kaì ean mê selênê phanêi,

sabbaton ouk agousi to legomenon prôton, oude neomênian agousin, oude

azuma, oude heortên, oude megalên hêmera]. (Cf. Diognet. 34.) Even

Justin does not judge the Jews more favourably than the Gentiles, but

less favourably; see Apol I. 37, 39, 43, 34, 47, 53, 60. On the other

hand, Aristides (Apol. c. 14, especially in the Syrian text) is much

more friendly disposed to the Jews and recognises them more. The words

of Pionius against and about the Jews, in the "Acta Pionii," c. 4, are

very instructive.]

[Footnote 220: Barn. 4. 6. f.; 14. 1 f. The author of Præd. Petri must

have had a similar view of the matter.]

[Footnote 221: Justin in the Dialogue with Trypho.]

[Footnote 222: Barn. 9 f. It is a thorough misunderstanding of Barnabas'

position towards the Old Testament to suppose it possible to pass over

his expositions, c. 6-10, as oddities and caprices, and put them aside

as indifferent or unmethodical. There is nothing here unmethodical, and

therefore nothing arbitrary. Barnabas' strictly spiritual idea of God,

and the conviction that all (Jewish) ceremonies are of the devil, compel

his explanations. These are so little ingenious conceits to Barnabas

that, but for them, he would have been forced to give up the Old

Testament altogether. The account, for example, of Abraham having

circumcised his slaves would have forced Barnabas to annul the whole

authority of the Old Testament if he had not succeeded in giving it a

particular interpretation. He does this by combining other passages of

Genesis with the narrative, and then finding in it no longer

circumcision, but a prediction of the crucified Christ.]

[Footnote 223: Barn. 9. 6: [Greek: all' ereis, kai mên peritetmêtai ho

laos eis sphragida].]

[Footnote 224: See the expositions of Justin in the Dial. (especially,

16, 18, 20, 30, 40-46); Von Engelhardt, "Christenthum Justin's", p. 429,

ff. Justin has the three estimates side by side. (1) That the ceremonial

law was a pædagogic measure of God with reference to a stiff-necked

people, prone to idolatry. (2) That it--like circumcision--was to make

the people conspicuous for the execution of judgment, according to the

Divine appointment. (3) That in the ceremonial legal worship of the Jews

is exhibited the special depravity and wickedness of the nation. But

Justin conceived the Decalogue as the natural law of reason, and

therefore definitely distinguished it from the ceremonial law.]

[Footnote 225: See Ztschr fur K.G. I., p. 330 f.]

[Footnote 226: This is the unanimous opinion of all writers of the

post-Apostolic age. Christians are the true Israel; and therefore all

Israel's predicates of honour belong to them. They are the twelve

tribes, and therefore Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, are the Fathers of the

Christians. This idea, about which there was no wavering, cannot

everywhere be traced back to the Apostle Paul. The Old Testament men of

God were in a certain measure Christians. See Ignat. Magn. 8. 2: [Greek:

hoi prophêtai kata Christon Iêsoun ezêsan].]

[Footnote 227: God was naturally conceived and represented as corporeal

by uncultured Christians, though not by these alone, as the later

controversies prove (e.g., Orig. contra Melito; see also Tertull. De

anima). In the case of the cultured, the idea of a corporeality of God

may be traced back to Stoic influences; in the case of the uncultured,

popular ideas co-operated with the sayings of the Old Testament

literally understood, and the impression of the Apocalyptic images.]

[Footnote 228: See Joh. IV. 22, [Greek: hêmeis proskunoumen ho oidamen].

1 Clem. 59. 3, 4, Herm. Mand. I., Præd Petri in Clem., Strom. VI. 5. 9

[Greek: ginôskete hoti eis theos estin, hos archên pantôn epoiêsen, kai

telous exousian echôn]. Aristides Apol. 15 (Syr) "The Christians know

and believe in God, the creator of heaven and of earth." Chap. 16

"Christians as men who know God pray to him for things which it becomes

him to give and them to receive." Similarly Justin: "From very many old

Gentile Christian writings we hear it as a cry of joy 'We know God the

Almighty, the night of blindness is past'" (see, e.g., 2 Clem. c. 1).

God is [Greek: despotês], a designation which is very frequently used

(it is rare in the New Testament). Still more frequently do we find

[Greek: kurios]. As the Lord and Creator God is also called the Father

(of the world) so 1 Clem. 19. 2 [Greek: ho patêr kai ktistês tou

sumpantos kosmou]; 35. 3 [Greek: dêmiourgos kai patêr tôn aiônôn]. This

use of the name Father for the supreme God was as is well known familiar

to the Greeks, but the Christians alone were in earnest with the name.

The creation out of nothing was made decidedly prominent by Hermas, see

Vis. I. 1. 6 and my notes on the passage. In the Christian Apocrypha, in

spite of the vividness of the idea of God, the angels play the same rôle

as in the Jewish, and as in the current Jewish speculations. According

to Hermas, e.g., all God's actions are mediated by special angels, nay

the Son of God himself is represented by a special angel, viz. Michael,

and works by him. But outside the Apocalypses there seems to have been

little interest in the good angels.]

[Footnote 229: See, for example 1 Clem. 20.]

[Footnote 230: This is frequent in the Apologists, see also Diogn. 10.

2; but Hermas, Vis. II. 4. 1 (see also Cels. ap Orig. IV. 23) says

[Greek: dia tên ekklêsian ho kosmos katêrtisthê] (cf. I. 1. 6 and my

notes on the passage). Aristides (Apol. 16) declares it as his

conviction that "the beautiful things, that is, the world are maintained

only for the sake of Christians," see besides the words (I. c.), "I have

no doubt that the earth continues to exist (only) on account of the

prayers of the Christians." Even the Jewish Apocalyptists wavered

between the formulæ, that the world was created for the sake of man and

for the sake of the Jewish nation. The two are not mutually exclusive.

The statement in the Eucharistic prayer of Didache, 9. 3 [Greek: ektisas

ta panta heneken tou onomatos sou] is singular.]

[Footnote 231: God is named the Father, (1) in relation to the Son (very

frequent) (2) as Father of the world (see above) (3) as the merciful one

who has proved his goodness, declared his will and called Christians to

be his sons (1 Clem. 23. 1, 29. 1, 2 Clem. 1. 4, 8. 4, 10. 1, 14. 1, see

the index to Zahn's edition of the Ignatian Epistles, Didache, 1. 5, 9.

2, 3, 10. 2). The latter usage is not very common, it is entirely

wanting for example in the Epistle of Barnabas. Moreover God is also

called [Greek: patêr tês alêtheias] as the source of all truth (2 Clem.

3. 1, 20. 5 [Greek: theos to alêtheias]). The identity of the Almighty

God of creation with the merciful God of redemption is the tacit

presupposition of all declarations about God in the case of both the

cultured and the uncultured. It is also frequently expressed (see above

all the Pastoral Epistles), most frequently by Hermas (Vis. 1. 3. 4) so

far as the declaration about the creation of the world is there united

in the closest way with that about the creation of the Holy Church. As

to the designation of God in the Roman Symbol as the "Father Almighty,"

that threefold exposition just given, may perhaps allow it.]

[Footnote 232: The present dominion of evil demons or of one evil demon,

was just as generally presupposed as man's need of redemption, which was

regarded as a result of that dominion. The conviction that the world's

course (the [Greek: politeia en tô kosmô], the Latins afterwards used

the word Sæculum) is determined by the devil, and that the dark one

(Barnabas) has dominion, comes out most prominently where eschatological

hopes obtain expression. But where salvation is thought of as knowledge

and immortality, it is ignorance and frailty from which men are to be

delivered. We may here also assume with certainty that these, in the

last instance, were traced back by the writers to the action of demons.

But it makes a very great difference whether the judgment was ruled by

fancy which saw a real devil everywhere active, or whether, in

consequence of theoretic reflection, it based the impression of

universal ignorance and mortality on the assumption of demons who have

produced them. Here again we must note the two series of ideas which

intertwine and struggle with each other in the creeds of the earliest

period, the traditional religious series resting on a fanciful view of

history--it is essentially identical with the Jewish Apocalyptic, see,

for example Barn 4--and the empiric moralistic, (see 2 Clem. 1. 2-7, as

a specially valuable discussion, or Praed. Petri in Clem, Strom. VI. 5,

39, 40), which abides by the fact that men have fallen into ignorance,

weakness and death (2 Clem. 1. 6 [Greek: ho bios hêmôn holos allo ouden

ên ei mê thanatos]). But perhaps, in no other point, with the exception

of the [Greek: anastasis sarkos] has the religious conception remained

so tenacious as in this and it decidedly prevailed, especially in the

epoch with which we are now dealing. Its tenacity may be explained,

among other things, by the living impression of the polytheism that

surrounded the communities on every side. Even where the national gods

were looked upon as dead idols--and that was perhaps the rule, see

Praed. Petri. I. c, 2 Clem. 3. 1, Didache, 6--one could not help

assuming that there were mighty demons operative behind them, as

otherwise the frightful power of idolatry could not be explained. But on

the other hand, even a calm reflection and a temper unfriendly to all

religious excess must have welcomed the assumption of demons who sought

to rule the world and man. For by means of this assumption which was

wide-spread even among the Greeks, humanity seemed to be unburdened, and

the presupposed capacity for redemption could therefore be justified in

its widest range. From the assumption that the need of redemption was

altogether due to ignorance and mortality there was but one step, or

little more than one step, to the assumption that the need of redemption

was grounded in a condition of man for which he was not responsible,

that is, in the flesh. But this step which would have led either to

dualism (heretical Gnosis) or to the abolition of the distinction

between natural and moral, was not taken within the main body of the

Church. The eschatological series of ideas with its thesis that death

evil and sin entered into humanity at a definite historical moment when

the demons took possession of the world drew a limit which was indeed

overstepped at particular points but was in the end respected. We have

therefore the remarkable fact that, on the one hand, early Christian

(Jewish) eschatology called forth and maintained a disposition in which

the Kingdom of God, and that of the world, (Kingdom of the devil) were

felt to be absolutely opposed (practical dualism), while, on the other

hand, it rejected theoretic dualism. Redemption through Christ, however,

was conceived in the eschatological Apocalyptic series of ideas as

essentially something entirely in the future, for the power of the devil

was not broken, but rather increased (or it was virtually broken in

believers and increased in unbelievers), by the first advent of Christ,

and therefore the period between the first and second advent of Christ

belongs to [Greek: houtos ho aiôn] (see Barn. 2. 4; Herm. Sim 1; 2 Clem.

6. 3: [Greek: estin de houtos ho aiôn kai ho mellôn duo echthroi; houtos

legei moicheian kai phthoran kai philargourian kai apatên, ekeinos de

toutois apostassetai], Ignat. Magn. 5. 2). For that very reason, the

second coming of Christ must, as a matter of course, be at hand, for

only through it could the first advent get its full value. The painful

impression that nothing had been outwardly changed by Christ's first

advent (the heathen, moreover, pointed this out in mockery to the

suffering Christians), must be destroyed by the hope of his speedy

coming again. But the first advent had its independent significance in

the series of ideas which regarded Christ as redeeming man from

ignorance and mortality; for the knowledge was already given, and the

gift of immortality could only of course be dispensed after this life

was ended, but then immediately. The hope of Christ's return was

therefore a superfluity, but was not felt or set aside as such, because

there was still a lively expectation of Christ's earthly Kingdom.]

[Footnote 233: No other name adhered to Christ so firmly as that of

[Greek: kurios]; see a specially clear evidence of this, Novatian de

trinit. 30, who argues against the Adoptian and Modalistic heretics

thus: "Et in primis illud retorquendum in istos, qui duorum nobis deorum

controversiam facere præsumunt. Scriptum est, quod negare non possunt:

'Quoniam unus est dominus.' De Christo ergo quid sentiunt? Dominum esse,

aut illum omnino non esse? Sed dominum illum omnino non dubitant. Ergo

si vera est illorum ratiocinatio, jam duo sunt domini." On [Greek:

kurios--despotês], see above, p. 119, note.]

[Footnote 234: Specially instructive examples of this are found in the

Epistle of Barnabas and the second Epistle of Clement. Clement (Ep. 1)

speaks only of faith in God.]

[Footnote 235: See 1 Clem. 59-61. [Greek: Didachê], c. 9. 10. Yet

Novatian (de trinit. 14) exactly reproduces the old idea, "Si homo

tantummodo Christus, cur homo in orationibus mediator invocatur, cum

invocatio hominis ad præstandam salutem inefficax judicetur." As the

Mediator, High Priest, etc., Christ is of course always and everywhere

invoked by the Christians, but such invocations are one thing and formal

prayer another. The idea of the congruence of God's will of salvation

with the revelation of salvation which took place through Christ, was

further continued in the idea of the congruence of this revelation of

salvation with the universal preaching of the twelve chosen Apostles

(see above, p. 162 ff.), the root of the Catholic principle of

tradition. But the Apostles never became "[Greek: hoi kurioi]" though

the concepts [Greek: didachê (logos) kuriou, didachê (kêrugma) tôn

apostolôn] were just as interchangeable as [Greek: logos theou] and

[Greek: logos christou]. The full formula would be [Greek: logos theou

dia Iêsou Christou dia tôn apostolôn]. But as the subjects introduced by

[Greek: dia] are chosen and perfect media, religious usage permitted the

abbreviation.]

[Footnote 236: In the epistle of Barnabas "Jesus Christ" and "Christ"

appear each once, but "Jesus" twelve times: in the Didache "Jesus

Christ" once, "Jesus" three times. Only in the second half of the second

century, if I am not mistaken, did the designation "Jesus Christ", or

"Christ", become the current one, more and more crowding out the simple

"Jesus." Yet the latter designation--and this is not surprising--appears

to have continued longest in the regular prayers. It is worthy of note

that in the Shepherd there is no mention either of the name Jesus or of

Christ. The Gospel of Peter also says [Greek: ho kurios] where the other

Gospels use these names.]

[Footnote 237: See 1 Clem. 64: [Greek: ho theos, ho eklexamenos ton

kurion Iêsoun Christon kai hêmas di' autou eis laon periousion dôê,

k.t.l.] (It is instructive to note that wherever the idea of election is

expressed, the community is immediately thought of, for in point of fact

the election of the Messiah has no other aim than to elect or call the

community; Barn. 3. 6: [Greek: ho laos hon hêtoimasen en tô êgapêmenôi

autou]). Herm. Sim. V. 2: [Greek: eklexamenos doulon tina piston kai

euareston] V. 6. 5. Justin, Dial. 48: [Greek: mê arneisthai hoti houtos

estin ho Christos, ean phainêtai hôs anthrôpos ex anthrôpon gennêtheis

kai eklogê genomenos eis to Christon einai apodeiknuêtai].]

[Footnote 238: See Barn. 14. 5: [Greek: Iêsous eis touto hêtoimasthê,

hina ... hêmas lutrôsamenos ek tou skotous diathêtai en hêmin diathêkên

logôi]. The same word concerning the Church, I. c. 3. 6. and 5. 7:

[Greek: autos eautô ton laon ton kainon etoimazôn] 14 6.]

[Footnote 239: "Angel" is a very old designation for Christ (see

Justin's Dial.) which maintained itself up to the Nicean controversy,

and is expressly claimed for him in Novatian's treatise "de trinit." 11.

25 ff. (the word was taken from Old Testament passages which were

applied to Christ). As a rule, however, it is not to be understood as a

designation of the nature, but of the office of Christ as such, though

the matter was never very clear. There were Christians who used it as a

designation of the nature, and from the earliest times we find this idea

contradicted (see the Apoc. Sophoniæ, ed. Stern, 1886, IV. fragment, p

10: "He appointed no Angel to come to us, nor Archangel, nor any power,

but he transformed himself into a man that he might come to us for our

deliverance." Cf. the remarkable parallel, ep. ad. Diagn. 7. 2: ...

[Greek: ou, kathaper an tis eikaseien anthrôpos, hypêretên tina pempsas

ê angelon ê archonta ê tina tôn diepontôn ta epigeia hê tina tôn

pepisteumenôn tas en ouranois dioikêseis, all' auton ton technitên kai

dêmiourgon tôn holôn. k.t.l.]). Yet it never got the length of a great

controversy and as the Logos doctrine gradually made way, the

designation "Angel" became harmless and then vanished.]

[Footnote 240: [Greek: Pais] (after Isaiah): this designation,

frequently united with [Greek: Iêsous] and with the adjectives [Greek:

hagios] and [Greek: êgapêmenos] (see Barn. 3, 6; 4, 3; 4, 8; Valent. ap.

Clem. Alex., Strom. VI. 6. 52, and the Ascensio Isaiae), seems to have

been at the beginning a usual one. It sprang undoubtedly from the

Messianic circle of ideas, and at its basis lies the idea of election.

It is very interesting to observe how it was gradually put into the

background and finally abolished. It was kept longest in the liturgical

prayers: see 1 Clem. 59. 2; Barn. 61. 9. 2; Acts iii. 13, 26; iv. 27,

30; Didache, 9. 2. 3; Mart. Polyc. 14. 20; Act. Pauli et Theclæ, 17, 24;

Sibyl. I. v. 324, 331, 364; Diogn. 8, 9, 10: [Greek: ho hagapêtos pais]

9; also Ep. Orig. ad Afric. init; Clem. Strom. VII. 1. 4: [Greek: ho

monogenês pais], and my note on Barn 6. 1. In the Didache (9. 2) Jesus

as well as David is in one statement called "Servant of God." Barnabas,

who calls Christ the "Beloved", uses the same expression for the Church

(4. 1. 9); see also Ignat ad Smyrn. inscr.]

[Footnote 241: See the old Roman Symbol and Acts X. 42; 2 Tim. IV. 1;

Barn. 7. 2; Polyc. Ep. 2. 1; 2 Clem. 2. 1; Hegesipp. in Euseb. H. E.

III. 20, 6: Justin Dial. 118]

[Footnote 242: There could of course be no doubt that Christ meant the

"anointed" (even Aristides Apol. 2 fin., if Nestle's correction is

right, Justin's Apol. 1. 4 and similar passages do not justify doubt on

that point). But the meaning and the effect of this anointing was very

obscure. Justin says (Apol. II. 6) [Greek: Christos men kata to

kechristhai kai kosmêsai ta panta di autou ton theon legetai] and

therefore (see Dial. 76 fin.) finds in this designation an expression of

the cosmic significance of Christ.]

[Footnote 243: See the Apologists: Apost. K.O. (Texte. v. Unters. II. 5,

p. 25) [Greek: proorôntas tous logous tou didaskalou hêmôn], ibid, p. 28

[Greek: ote êtêsen ho didaskalos ton arton], ibid. p. 30 [Greek:

proelegen ote edidasken], Apost. Constit. (original writing) III. 6

[Greek: autos ho didaskalos hêmôn kai kurios], III. 7 [Greek: ho kurios

kai didaskalos hêmôn eipen], III. 19, III. 20, V. 12, 1 Clem. 13. 1

[Greek: tôn logôn tou kuriou Iêsou hous elalêsen didaskôn], Polyc. Ep. 2

[Greek: mnêmoneuontes hôn eipen ho kurios didaskôn], Ptolem. ad Floram 5

[Greek: hê didaskalia tou sôtêros].]

[Footnote 244: The baptismal formula which had been naturalised

everywhere in the communities at this period preserved it above all. The

addition of [Greek: idios prôtotokos] is worthy of notice. [Greek:

Monogenês] (= the only begotten and also the beloved) is not common, it

is found only in John, in Justin, in the Symbol of the Romish Church and

in Mart. Polyc. (Diogn. 10. 3).]

[Footnote 245: The so-called second Epistle of Clement begins with the

words [Greek: Adelphoi outôs dei hêmas phronein peri Iêsou hôs peri

theou, hôs peri kritou zôntôn kai nekrôn] (this order in which the Judge

appears as the higher is also found in Barn. 7. 2), [Greek: kai ou dei

hêmas mikra phronein peri tês sôtêrias hêmôn; en tô gar phronein hêmas

mikra peri autou mikra kai elpizomen labein]. This argumentation (see

also the following verses up to II. 7) is very instructive, for it shews

the grounds on which the [Greek: phronein peri autou ôs peri theou] was

based H. Schultz (L. v. d. Gottheit Christi, p. 25 f.) very correctly

remarks. In the second Epistle of Clement and in the Shepherd the

Christological interest of the writer ends in obtaining the assurance,

through faith in Christ as the world ruling King and Judge that the

community of Christ will receive a glory corresponding to its moral and

ascetic works.]

[Footnote 246: Pliny in his celebrated letter (96) speaks of a "Carmen

dicere Christo quasi deo" on the part of the Christians. Hermas has no

doubt that the Chosen Servant, after finishing his work, will be adopted

as God's Son, and therefore has been destined from the beginning,

[Greek: eis exousian megalên kai kuriotêta], Sim. V. 6. 1. But that

simply means that he is now in a Divine sphere and that one must think

of him as of God. But there was no unanimity beyond that. The formula

says nothing about the nature or constitution of Jesus. It might indeed

appear from Justin's dialogue that the direct designation of Jesus as

[Greek: theos] (not as [Greek: o theos]) was common in the communities,

but not only are there some passages in Justin himself to be urged

against this but also the testimony of other writers. [Greek: Theos],

even without the article, was in no case a usual designation for Jesus.

On the contrary, it was always quite definite occasions which led them

to speak of Christ as of a God or as God. In the first place there were

Old Testament passages such as Ps. XLV. 8, CX. 1 f. etc. which as soon

as they were interpreted in relation to Christ led to his getting the

predicate [Greek: theos]. These passages, with many others taken from

the Old Testament, were used in this way by Justin. Yet it is very well

worth noting that the author of the Epistle of Barnabas avoided this

expression in a passage which must have suggested it (12, 10, 11 on Ps.

CX. 4) The author of the Didache calls him "[Greek: o theos Dabid]" on

the basis of the above psalm. It is manifestly therefore in liturgical

formulæ of exalted paradox or living utterances of religious feeling

that Christ is called God. See Ignat. ad Rom. 6. 3, [Greek: epitrepsate

moi mimêtên einai tou pathous tou theou mou] (the [Greek: mou] here

should be observed), ad Eph. 1. 1 [Greek: anazôpurêsantes en aimati

theou], Tatian Orat. 13 [Greek: diakonos tou peponthotos theou]. As to

the celebrated passage 1 Clem. ad Cor. 2. 10 [Greek: ta pathêmata autou]

(the [Greek: autou] refers to [Greek: theos]) we may perhaps observe

that that [Greek: o theos] stands far apart. However, such a

consideration is hardly in place. The passages just adduced shew that

precisely the union of suffering (blood, death) with the concept

"God"--and only this union--must have been in Christendom from a very

early period, see Acts XX. 28 [Greek: tên ekklæsian tou theou hên

periepoiêsato dia tou haimatos tou idiou], and from a later period

Melito, Fragm (in Routh Rel Sacra I. 122), [Greek: ho theos peponthen

hupo dexias Israêlitidos], Anonym ap Euseb H. E. V. 28 11, [Greek: ho

eusplanchnos theos kai kurios hêmôn Iêsous Christos ouk ebouleto

apolesthai martura tôn idiôn pathêmatôn], Test XII. Patriarch. (Levi. 4)

[Greek: epi tô pathei tou hupsistou]; Tertull. de carne 5, "passiones

dei," ad Uxor. II. 3: "sanguine dei." Tertullian also speaks frequently

of the crucifying of God, the flesh of God, the death of God. (see

Lightfoot, Clem. of Rome, p. 400, sq.). These formulæ were first

subjected to examination in the Patripassian controversy. They were

rejected by Athanasius for example in the fourth century (cf. Apollin.

II. 13, 14, Opp. I. p. 758) [Greek: pôs oun gegraphate hoti theos ho dia

sarkos pathôn kai anastas, ... oudamou de haima theou dicha sarkos

paradedôkasin hai graphai ê theon dia sarkos pathonta kai anastanta].

They continued in use in the west and became of the utmost significance

in the christological controversies of the fifth century. It is not

quite certain whether there is a theologia Christi in such passages as

Tit. II. 13, 2 Pet. I. 1 (see the controversies on Rom. IX. 5). Finally

[Greek: theos] and Christus were often interchanged in religious

discourse (see above). In the so called second Epistle of Clement (c. 1.

4) the dispensing of right knowledge is traced back to Christ. It is

said of him that like a Father, he has called us children, he has

delivered us, he has called us into existence out of non-existence and

in this God himself is not thought of. Indeed he is called (2. 2. 3) the

hearer of prayer and the controller of history, but immediately thereon

a saying of the Lord is introduced as a saying of God (Matt. IX. 13). On

the contrary Isaiah XXIX. 13 is quoted (3. 5) as a declaration of Jesus,

and again (13. 4) a saying of the Lord with the formula [Greek: legei o

theos]. It is Christ who pitied us (3. 1, 16. 2), he is described simply

as the Lord who hath called and redeemed us (5. 1, 8. 2, 9. 5 etc). Not

only is there frequent mention of the [Greek: entolai] ([Greek:

entalmata]) of Christ, but 6. 7 (see 14. 1) speak directly of a [Greek:

poiein to thelêma tou Christou]. Above all, in the entire first division

(up to 9. 5) the religious situation is for the most part treated as if

it were something essentially between the believer and Christ. On the

other hand, (10. 1), the Father is he who calls (see also 16. 1), who

brings salvation (9. 7), who accepts us as Sons (9. 10; 16. 1); he has

given us promises (11. 1, 6. 7.); we expect his kingdom, nay, the day of

his appearing (12. 1 f.; 6. 9; 9. 6; 11. 7; 12. 1). He will judge the

world, etc.; while in 17. 4. we read of the day of Christ's appearing,

of his kingdom and of his function of Judge, etc. Where the preacher

treats of the relation of the community to God, where he describes the

religious situation according to its establishment or its consummation,

where he desires to rule the religious and moral conduct, he introduces,

without any apparent distinction, now God himself, and now Christ. But

this religious view, in which acts of God coincide with acts of Christ,

did not, as will be shewn later on, influence the theological

speculations of the preacher. We have also to observe that the

interchanging of God and Christ is not always an expression of the high

dignity of Christ, but, on the contrary, frequently proves that the

personal significance of Christ is misunderstood, and that he is

regarded only as the dependent revealer of God. All this shews that

there cannot have been many passages in the earliest literature where

Christ was roundly designated [Greek: theos]. It is one thing to speak

of the blood (death, suffering) of God, and to describe the gifts of

salvation brought by Christ as gifts of God, and another thing to set up

the proposition that Christ is a God (or God). When, from the end of the

second century, one began to look about in the earlier writings for

passages [Greek: en hois theologeitai ho christos], because the matter

had become a subject of controversy, one could, besides the Old

Testament, point only to the writings of authors from the time of Justin

(to apologists and controversialists) as well as to Psalms and odes (see

the Anonym. in Euseb. H. E. V. 28. 4-6). In the following passages of

the Ignatian Epistles "[Greek: theos]" appears as a designation of

Christ; he is called [Greek: ho theos hæmôn] in Ephes. inscript.; Rom.

inscr. bis 3. 2; Polyc. 8. 3; Eph. 1. 1, [Greek: haima theou]; Rom. 6.

3, [Greek: to pathos tou theou mou]; Eph. 7. 2, [Greek: en sarki

genomenos theos], in another reading, [Greek: en anthrôpô theos], Smyrn.

I. 1, I. Chr. [Greek: ho theos ho outôs humas sophisas]. The latter

passage, in which the relative clause must he closely united with

"[Greek: ho theos]", seems to form the transition to the three passages

(Trall. 7. 1; Smyrn. 6. 1; 10. 1), in which Jesus is called [Greek:

theos] without addition. But these passages are critically suspicious,

see Lightfoot _in loco_. In the same way the "deus Jesus Christus" in

Polyc. Ep. 12. 2, is suspicious, and indeed in both parts of the verse.

In the first, all Latin codd. have "dei filius," and in the Greek codd.

of the Epistle, Christ is nowhere called [Greek: theos]. We have a keen

polemic against the designation of Christ as [Greek: theos] in Clem.

Rom. Homil. XVI. 15 sq.; [Greek: Ho Petros apekrithæ ho kurios hæmôn

oute theous einai ephthenxato para ton ktisanta ta panta oute heauton

theon einai anægoreusen, huion de theou tou ta panta diakosmæsantos ton

eiponta auton eulogôs emakarisen, kai o Simôn apekrinato; ou dokei soi

oun ton apo theou theon einai, kai ho Petros ephæ: pôs touto einai

dunatai, phrason hæmin, touto gar hæmeis eipein soi ou dunametha, hoti

mæ hækousamen par' autou.]]

[Footnote 247: On the further use of the word [Greek: theos] in

antiquity, see above, § 8, p. 120 f.; the formula "[Greek: theos ek

theou]" for Augustus, even 24 years before Christ's birth; on the

formula "dominus ac deus", see John XX. 28; the interchange of these

concepts in many passages beside one another in the anonymous writer

(Euseb. H. E. V. 28. 11). Domitian first allowed himself to be called

"dominus ac deus." Tertullian, Apol. 10. 11, is very instructive as to

the general situation in the second century. Here are brought forward

the different causes which then moved men, the cultured and the

uncultured, to give to this or that personality the predicate of

Divinity. In the third century the designation of "dominus ac deus

noster" for Christ, was very common, especially in the west (see

Cyprian, Pseudo-Cyprian, Novatian; in the Latin Martyrology a Greek

[Greek: ho kurios] is also frequently so translated). But only at this

time had the designation come to be in actual use even for the Emperor.

It seems at first sight to follow from the statements of Celsus (in

Orig. c. Cels. III. 22-43) that this Greek had and required a very

strict conception of the Godhead; but his whole work shews how little

that was really the case. The reference to these facts of the history of

the time is not made with the view of discovering the "theologia

Christi" itself in its ultimate roots--these roots lie elsewhere, in the

person of Christ and Christian experience; but that this experience,

before any technical reflection, had so easily and so surely substituted

the new formula instead of the idea of Messiah, can hardly be explained

without reference to the general religious ideas of the time.]

[Footnote 248: The combination of [Greek: theos] and [Greek: sôtêr] in

the Pastoral Epistles is very important. The two passages in the New

Testament in which perhaps a direct "theologia Christi" may be

recognised, contain likewise the concept [Greek: sôtêr]; see Tit. II.

13; [Greek: prosdechomenoi tên makarian elpida kai epiphaneian tês doxês

tou megalou theou kai sôtêros hêmôn Christou Iêsou] (cf. Abbot, Journal

of the Society of Bibl. Lit., and Exeg. 1881. June. p. 3 sq.): 2 Pet. I.

1: [Greek: en dikaiosunêi tou theou hêmôn kai sôtêros 'I. Chr.]. In both

cases the [Greek: hêmôn] should be specially noted. Besides, [Greek:

theos sôtêr] is also an ancient formula.]

[Footnote 249: A very ancient formula ran "[Greek: theos kai theos

huios]" see Cels. ap. Orig II. 30; Justin, frequently: Alterc. Sim. et

Theoph. 4, etc. The formula is equivalent to [Greek: theos monogenês]

(see Joh. I. 18).]

[Footnote 250: Such conceptions are found side by side in the same

writer. See, for example, the second Epistle of Clement, and even the

first.]

[Footnote 251: See § 6, p. 120. The idea of a [Greek: theopoiêsis] was

as common as that of the appearances of the gods. In wide circles,

however, philosophy had long ago naturalised the idea of the [Greek:

logos tou theou]. But now there is no mistaking a new element

everywhere. In the case of the Christologies which include a kind of

[Greek: theopoiêsis], it is found in the fact that the deified Jesus was

to be recognised not as a Demigod or Hero, but as Lord of the world,

equal in power and honour to the Deity. In the case of those

Christologies which start with Christ as the heavenly spiritual being,

it is found in the belief in an actual incarnation. These two articles,

as was to be expected, presented difficulties to the Gentile Christians,

and the latter more than the former.]

[Footnote 252: This is usually overlooked. Christological doctrinal

conceptions are frequently constructed by a combination of particular

passages, the nature of which does not permit of combination. But the

fact that there was no universally recognised theory about the nature of

Jesus till beyond the middle of the second century, should not lead us

to suppose that the different theories were anywhere declared to be of

equal value, etc., therefore more or less equally valid; on the

contrary, everyone, so far as he had a theory at all, included his own

in the revealed truth. That they had not yet come into conflict is

accounted for, on the one hand, by the fact that the different theories

ran up into like formulæ, and could even frequently be directly carried

over into one another, and on the other hand, by the fact that their

representatives appealed to the same authorities. But we must, above

all, remember that conflict could only arise after the enthusiastic

element, which also had a share in the formation of Christology, had

been suppressed, and problems were felt to be such, that is, after the

struggle with Gnosticism, or even during that struggle.]

[Footnote 253: Both were clearly in existence in the Apostolic age.]

[Footnote 254: Only one work has been preserved entire which gives clear

expression to the Adoptian Christology, viz., the Shepherd of Hermas

(see Sim. V. and IX. 1. 12). According to it, the Holy Spirit--it is not

certain whether he is identified with the chief Archangel--is regarded

as the pre-existent Son of God, who is older than creation, nay, was

God's counsellor at creation. The Redeemer is the virtuous man [Greek:

sarx] chosen by God, with whom that Spirit of God was united. As he did

not defile the Spirit, but kept him constantly as his companion, and

carried out the work to which the Deity had called him, nay, did more

than he was commanded, he was in virtue of a Divine decree adopted as a

son and exalted to [Greek: megalê exousia kai kuriotês]. That this

Christology is set forth in a book which enjoyed the highest honour and

sprang from the Romish community, is of great significance. The

representatives of this Christology, who in the third century were

declared to be heretics, expressly maintained that it was at one time

the ruling Christology at Rome and had been handed down by the Apostles.

(Anonym, in Euseb. H. E. V. 28. 3, concerning the Artemonites: [Greek:

phasi tous men proterous hapantas kai autous tous apostolous

pareilêphenai te kaì dedidachenai tauta, ha nun houtoi legousi, kai

tetêrêsthai tên alêtheian tou kêrygmatos mechri tôn chronôn tou Biktoros

... apo tou diadochon auto Zephurinou parakecharachthai tên alêtheian]).

This assertion, though exaggerated, is not incredible after what we find

in Hermas. It cannot, certainly, be verified by a superficial

examination of the literary monuments preserved to us, but a closer

investigation shews that the Adoptian Christology must at one time have

been very widespread, that it continued here and there undisturbed up to

the middle of the third century (see the Christology in the Acta

Archelai. 49, 50), and that it continued to exercise great influence

even in the fourth and fifth centuries (see Book II. c. 7). Something

similar is found even in some Gnostics, e.g., Valentinus himself (see

Iren. I. 11. 1: [Greek: kai ton Christon de ouk apo tôn en tôi plêrômati

aiônôn probeblêsthai, alla hupo tês mêtros, éxô de genomenês, kata tên

gnômên tôn kreittonôn apokekuêsthai meta skias tinos. Kai touton men,

hate arrena huparchontaf, apokopsanta huph' heautou tên skian,

anadramein eis to plêroma]. The same in the Exc. ex Theodot §§ 22, 23,

32, 33), and the Christology of Basilides presupposes that of the

Adoptians. Here also belongs the conception which traces back the

genealogy of Jesus to Joseph. The way in which Justin (Dialog. 48, 49,

87 ff.) treats the history of the baptism of Jesus, against the

objection of Trypho that a pre-existent Christ would not have needed to

be filled with the Spirit of God, is instructive. It is here evident

that Justin deals with objections which were raised within the

communities themselves to the pre-existence of Christ, on the ground of

the account of the baptism. In point of fact, this account (it had,

according to very old witnesses, see Resch, Agrapha Christi, p. 307,

according to Justin, for example, Dial. 88. 103, the wording: [Greek:

hama tôi anabênai auton apo tou potamou tou Iordanou, tês phônês autou

lechtheisês huios mou ei ss, egô sêmeron gegennêka se]; see the Cod. D.

of Luke. Clem. Alex, etc.) forms the strongest foundation of the

Adoptian Christology, and hence it is exceedingly interesting to see how

one compounds with it from the second to the fifth century, an

investigation which deserves a special monograph. But, of course, the

edge was taken off the report by the assumption of the miraculous birth

of Jesus from the Holy Spirit, so that the Adoptians in recognising

this, already stood with one foot in the camp of their opponents. It is

now instructive to see here how the history of the baptism, which

originally formed the beginning of the proclamation of Jesus' history,

is suppressed in the earliest formulæ, and therefore also in the Romish

Symbol, while the birth from the Holy Spirit is expressly stated. Only

in Ignatius (ad Smyrn. I; cf. ad Eph. 18. 2) is the baptism taken into

account in the confession; but even he has given the event a turn by

which it has no longer any significance for Jesus himself (just as in

the case of Justin, who concludes from the _resting_ of the Spirit in

his fulness upon Jesus, that there will be no more prophets among the

Jews, spiritual gifts being rather communicated to Christians; compare

also the way in which the baptism of Jesus is treated in Joh. I.).

Finally, we must point out that in the Adoptian Christology, the

parallel between Jesus and all believers who have the Spirit and are

Sons of God, stands out very clearly (Cf. Herm. Sim. V. with Mand. III.

V. 1; X. 2; most important is Sim. V. 6. 7). But this was the very thing

that endangered the whole view. Celsus, I. 57, addressing Jesus, asks;

"If thou sayest that every man whom Divine Providence allows to be born

(this is of course a formulation for which Celsus alone is responsible),

is a son of God, what advantage hast thou then over others?" We can see

already in the Dialogue of Justin, the approach of the later great

controversy, whether Christ is Son of God [Greek: kata gnômên], or

[Greek: kata phusin], that is, had a pre-existence: "[Greek: kai gar

eisi tines], he says, [Greek: apo tou humeterou genous homologountes

auton Christon einai, anthrôpon de ex anthrôpôn genomenon

apophainomenoi, hois ou suntithemai]" (c. 48).]

[Footnote 255: This Christology which may be traced back to the Pauline,

but which can hardly have its point of departure in Paul alone, is found

also in the Epistle to the Hebrews and in the writings of John,

including the Apocalypse, and is represented by Barnabas, 1 and 2 Clem.,

Ignatius, Polycarp, the author of the Pastoral Epistles, the Authors of

Praed. Petri, and the Altercatio Jasonis et Papisci, etc. The Classic

formulation is in 2 Clem. 9. 5: [Greek: Christos ho kurios ho sôsas

hêmas ôn men to prôton pneuma egeneto sarx kai houtôs hêmas ekalesen].

According to Barnabas (5. 3), the pre-existent Christ is [Greek: pantos

tou kosmou kurios]: to him God said, [Greek: apo katabolês kosmou], "Let

us make man, etc." He is (5. 6) the subject and goal of all Old

Testament revelation. He is [Greek: ouxi huios anthrôpou all: huios tou

theou, tupôi de en sarki phanerôtheís] (12. 10); the flesh is merely the

veil of the Godhead, without which man could not have endured the light

(5. 10). According to 1 Clement, Christ is [Greek: to skêptron tês

melagosunês tou theou] (16. 2), who if he had wished could have appeared

on earth [Greek: en kompôi alazoneias], he is exalted far above the

angels (32), as he is the Son of God ([Greek: pathêmata tou theou], 2.

1); he hath spoken through the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament (22. 1).

It is not certain whether Clement understood Christ under the [Greek:

logos megalosunês tou theou] (27. 4). According to 2 Clem., Christ and

the church are heavenly spiritual existences which have appeared in the

last times. Gen. I. 27 refers to their creation (c. 14; see my note on

the passage: We learn from Origen that a very old Theologoumenon

identified Jesus with the ideal of Adam, the church with that of Eve).

Similar ideas about Christ are found in Gnostic Jewish Christians); one

must think about Christ as about God (I. 1). Ignatius writes (Eph. 7-2):

[Greek: Eis, iatros estin sarkikos te kai pneumatikos, gennêtos kai

agennêtos, en sarki genomenos theos, en thanatôi zôê alêthinê, kai ek

Marias kai ek theou, prôton pathaetos kai tote apathês Iêsous Christos

ho kurios hêmôn]. As the human predicates stand here first, it might

appear as though, according to Ignatius, the man Jesus first became God

([Greek: ho theos hêmôn], Cf. Eph. inscr.: 18. 2). In point of fact, he

regards Jesus as Son of God only by his birth from the Spirit; but on

the other hand, Jesus is [Greek: aph' henos patros proelthôn] (Magn. 7.

2), is [Greek: lógos theoû] (Magn. 8. 2,) and when Ignatius so often

emphasises the truth of Jesus' history against Docetism (Trall. 9. for

example), we must assume that he shares the thesis with the Gnostics

that Jesus is by nature a spiritual being. But it is well worthy of

notice that Ignatius, as distinguished from Barnabas and Clement, really

gives the central place to the historical Jesus Christ, the Son of God

and the Son of Mary, and his work. The like is found only in Irenæus.

The pre-existence of Christ is presupposed by Polycarp. (Ep 7. 1); but,

like Paul, he strongly emphasises a real exaltation of Christ (2. 1).

The author of Præd. Petri calls Christ the [Greek: logos] (Clem. Strom.

I. 29, 182). As Ignatius calls him this also, as the same designation is

found in the Gospel, Epistles, and Apocalypse of John (the latter a

Christian adaptation of a Jewish writing), in the Act. Joh. (see Zahn,

Acta Joh. p. 220), finally, as Celsus (II. 31) says quite generally,

"The Christians maintain that the Son of God is at the same time his

incarnate Word", we plainly perceive that this designation for Christ

was not first started by professional philosophers (see the Apologists,

for example, Tatian, Orat. 5, and Melito Apolog. fragm. in the Chron.

pasch. p. 483, ed. Dindorf: [Greek: Christos ôn theou logos pro aiônôn].

We do not find in the Johannine writings such a Logos speculation as in

the Apologists, but the current expression is taken up in order to shew

that it has its truth in the appearing of Jesus Christ. The ideas about

the existence of a Divine Logos were very widely spread; they were

driven out of philosophy into wide circles. The author of the Alterc.

Jas. et Papisci conceived the phrase in Gen I. 1, [Greek: en archê], as

equivalent to [Greek: en huiôi (Christôi)] Jerome. Quæst. hebr. in Gen.

p. 3; see Tatian Orat. 5: [Greek: theos ên en archêi tên de archên logou

dunamin pareilêphamen]. Ignatius (Eph. 3) also called Christ [Greek: hê

gnómê tou patros] (Eph. 17: [Greek: hê gnôsis tou theou]); that is a

more fitting expression than [Greek: logos]. The subordination of Christ

as a heavenly being to the Godhead, is seldom or never carefully

emphasised, though it frequently comes plainly into prominence. Yet the

author of the second Epistle of Clement does not hesitate to place the

pre-existent Christ and the pre-existent church on one level, and to

declare of both that God created them (c. 14). The formulæ [Greek:

phanerousthai en sarki], or, [Greek: gignesthai sarx], are

characteristic of this Christology. It is worthy of special notice that

the latter is found in all those New Testament writers, who have put

Christianity in contrast with the Old Testament religions, and

proclaimed the conquest of that religion by the Christian, viz., Paul,

John, and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews.]

[Footnote 256: Hermas, for example, does this (therefore Link;

Christologie des Hermas, and Weizsäcker, Gott Gel. Anz. 1886, p. 830,

declare his Christology to be directly pneumatic): Christ is then

identified with this Holy Spirit (see Acta. Archel. 50), similarly

Ignatius (ad. Magn. 15): [Greek: kektêmenoi adiakriton pneuma, hos estin

Iêsous Christos.] This formed the transition to Gnostic conceptions on

the one hand, to pneumatic Christology on the other. But in Hermas the

real substantial thing in Jesus Christ is the [Greek: sarx].]

[Footnote 257: Passages may indeed be found in the earliest Gentile

Christian literature, in which Jesus is designated Son of God,

independently of his human birth and before it (so in Barnabas, against

Zahn), but they are not numerous. Ignatius very clearly deduces the

predicate "Son" from the birth in the flesh. Zahn, Marcellus, p. 216

ff.]

[Footnote 258: The distinct designation "[Greek: theopoiêsis]" is not

found, though that may be an accident. Hermas has the thing itself quite

distinctly (See Epiph. c. Alog. H. 51. 18: [Greek: nomizontes apo Marias

kai deuro Christon auton kaleisthai kai huion theou, kai einai men

proteron psilon anthrôpon, kata prokopên de eilêphenai tên tou huiou tou

theou prosêgorian]). The stages of the [Greek: prokopê] were undoubtedly

the birth, baptism and resurrection. Even the adherents of the pneumatic

Christology, could not at first help recognising that Jesus, through his

exaltation, got more than he originally possessed. Yet in their case,

this conception was bound to become rudimentary, and it really did so.]

[Footnote 259: The settlement with Gnosticism prepared a still always

uncertain end for this naive Docetism. Apart from Barn. 5. 12, where it

plainly appears, we have to collect laboriously the evidences of it

which have not accidentally either perished or been concealed. In the

communities of the second century there was frequently no offence taken

at Gnostic docetism (see the Gospel of Peter. Clem. Alex., Adumbrat in

Joh. Ep. I. c. 1, [Zahn, Forsch. z. Gesch. des N. T.-lichen Kanons, III.

p. 871]; "Fertur ergo in traditionibus, quoniam Johannes ipsum corpus,

quod erat extrinsecus, tangens manum suam in profunda misisse et

duritiam carnis nullo modo reluctatam esse, sed locum manui præbuisse

discipuli." Also Acta Joh. p. 219, ed. Zahn). In spite of all his

polemic against "[Greek: dokêsis]" proper, one can still perceive a

"moderate docetism" in Clem. Alex., to which indeed certain narratives

in the Canonical Gospels could not but lead. The so-called Apocryphal

literature (Apocryphal Gospels and Acts of Apostles), lying on the

boundary between heretical and common Christianity, and preserved only

in scanty fragments and extensive alterations, was, it appears,

throughout favourable to Docetism. But the later recensions attest that

it was read in wide circles.]

[Footnote 260: Even such a formulation as we find in Paul (e.g., Rom. I.

3 f. [Greek: kata sarka--kata pneuma]), does not seem to have been often

repeated (yet see 1 Clem. 32. 21). It is of value to Ignatius only, who

has before his mind the full Gnostic contrast. But even to him we cannot

ascribe any doctrine of two natures: for this requires as its

presupposition, the perception that the divinity and humanity are

equally essential and important for the personality of the Redeemer

Christ. Such insight, however, presupposes a measure and a direction of

reflection which the earliest period did not possess. The expression

"[Greek: duo ousiai Christou]" first appears in a fragment of Melito,

whose genuineness is not, however, generally recognised (see my Texte u.

Unters. I. 1. 2. p. 257). Even the definite expression for Christ

[Greek: theos ôn homou te kai anthrôpos] was fixed only in consequence

of the Gnostic controversy.]

[Footnote 261: Hermas (Sim. V. 6. 7) describes the exaltation of Jesus,

thus: [Greek: hina kai hê sarx hautê, douleusasa tôi pneumati amemptôs,

schaêi topon tina kataskênôseôs, kai mê doxêi ton misthon tês douleias

autês apolôlekenai]. The point in question is a reward of grace which

consists in a position of rank (see Sim. V. 6. 1). The same thing is

manifest from the statements of the later Adoptians. (Cf. the teaching

of Paul Samosata).]

[Footnote 262: Barnabas, e. g., conceives it as a veil (5. 10: [Greek:

ei gar mê êlthen en sarki, oud' an pôs hoi anthrôpoi esôthêsan blepontes

auton, hote ton mellonta mê einai hêlion emblepontes ouk ischusousin eis

tas aktinas autou antophthalmêsai]). The formulation of the Christian

idea in Celsus is instructive (c. Cels VI. 69): "Since God is great and

not easily accessible to the view, he put his spirit in a body which is

like our own, and sent it down in order that we might be instructed by

it." To this conception corresponds the formula: [Greek: erchesthai

(phanerousthai) en sarki] (Barnabas, frequently; Polyc. Ep. 7. 1). But

some kind of transformation must also have been thought of (See 2 Clem.

9. 5. and Celsus IV. 18: "Either God, as these suppose, is really

transformed into a mortal body...." Apoc. Sophon. ed. Stern. 4 fragm. p.

10; "He has transformed himself into a man who comes to us to redeem

us"). This conception might grow out of the formula [Greek: sarx

egeneto] (Ignat. ad. Eph. 7, 2 is of special importance here). One is

almost throughout here satisfied with the [Greek: sarx] of Christ, that

is the [Greek: alêtheía tês sarkos], against the Heretics (so Ignatius,

who was already anti-gnostic in his attitude). There is very seldom any

mention of the humanity of Jesus. Barnabas (12). the author of the

Didache (c. 10. 6. See my note on the passage), and Tatian questioned

the Davidic Sonship of Jesus, which was strongly emphasised by Ignatius;

nay, Barnabas even expressly rejects the designation "Son of Man" (12.

10; [Greek: ide palin Iêsous, ouchì huios anthrôpou alla huios tou

theou, tupo de en sarki phanerôtheis]). A docetic thought, however, lies

in the assertion that the spiritual being Christ only assumed human

flesh, however much the reality of the flesh may be emphasised. The

passage 1 Clem. 49. 6, is quite unique: [Greek: to haima autou edôken

huper hêmôn Iêsous Christos ... kai tên sarka huper tês sarkos hêmôn kai

tên psuchên huper tôn psuchôn humôn]. One would fain believe this an

interpolation; the same idea is first found in Irenæus. (V. 1. 1).]

[Footnote 263: Even Hermas docs not speak of Jesus as [Greek: anthrôpos]

(see Link). This designation was used by the representatives of the

Adoptian Christology only after they had expressed their doctrine

antithetically and developed it to a theory, and always with a certain

reservation. The "[Greek: anthrôpos Christos Iêsous]" in 1 Tim. II. 5 is

used in a special sense. The expression [Greek: anthrôpos] for Christ

appears twice in the Ignatian Epistles (the third passage Smyrn. 4. 2:

[Greek: autou me endunamountos tou teleiou anthrôpou genomenou], apart

from the [Greek: genoménou], is critically suspicious, as well as the

fourth, Eph. 7. 2; see above), in both passages, however, in connections

which seem to modify the humanity; see Eph. 20. 1: [Greek: oikonomia eis

ton kainon anthrôpon Iêsoun Christon], Eph. 20. 2: [Greek: tôi huiôi

anthrôpou kai huiôi theou].]

[Footnote 264: See above p. 185, note; p. 189, note. We have no sure

evidence that the later so-called Modalism (Monarchianism) had

representatives before the last third of the second century; yet the

polemic of Justin, Dial. 128, seems to favour the idea, (the passage

already presupposes controversies about the personal independence of the

pre-existent pneumatic being of Christ beside God; but one need not

necessarily think of such controversies within the communities; Jewish

notions might be meant, and this, according to Apol. I. 63, is the more

probable). The judgment is therefore so difficult, because there were

numerous formulæ in practical use which could be so understood, as if

Christ was to be completely identified with the Godhead itself (see

Ignat. ad Eph. 7. 2, besides Melito in Otto Corp. Apol. IX. p. 419. and

Noëtus in the Philos. IX. 10, p. 448). These formulæ may, in point of

fact, have been so understood, here and there, by the rude and

uncultivated. The strongest again is presented in writings whose

authority was always doubtful: see the Gospel of the Egyptians (Epiph.

H. 62. 2), in which must have stood a statement somewhat to this effect:

[Greek: ton auton einai patera, ton auton einai huion, ton auton einai

hagion pneuma], and the Acta Joh. (ed. Zahn, p. 220 f., 240 f.: [Greek:

ho agathos hêmôn theos ho eusplanchnos, ho eleêmôn, ho hagios, ho

katharos, ho amiantos, ho monos, ho heis, ho ametablêtos, ho eilikrinês,

ho adolos, ho mê orgizomenos, ho pasês hêmin legomenês ê nooumenês

prosêgorias anôteros kai hupsêloteros hêmôn theos Iêsous]). In the Act.

Joh. are found also prayers with the address [Greek: thee Iêsou Christe]

(pp. 242. 247). Even Marcion and a part the Montanists--both bear

witness to old traditions--put no value on the distinction between God

and Christ; cf. the Apoc. Sophon. A witness to a naive Modalism is found

also in the Acta Pionii 9: "Quem deum colis? Respondit: Christum Polemon

(judex): Quid ergo? iste alter est? [the co-defendant Christians had

immediately before confessed God the Creator] Respondit: Non; sed ipse

quem et ipsi paullo ante confessi sunt;" cf. c. 16. Yet a reasoned

Modalism may perhaps be assumed here. See also the Martyr Acts; e.g.,

Acta Petri, Andræ, Pauli et Dionysiæ I (Ruinart, p. 205): [Greek: hêmeis

oi Christon ton basilea echomen, hoti alêthinos theos estin kai poiêtês

ouranou kai gês kai thalassês]. "Oportet me magis deo vivo et vero. regi

sæculorum omnium Christo, sacrificium offerre." Act. Nicephor. 3 (p.

285). I take no note of the Testament of the twelve Patriarchs, out of

which one can, of course, beautifully verify the strict Modalistic, and

even the Adoptian Christology. But the Testamenta are not a primitive or

Jewish Christian writing which Gentile Christians have revised, but a

Jewish writing christianised at the end of the second century by a

Catholic of Modalistic views. But he has given us a very imperfect work,

the Christology of which exhibits many contradictions. It is instructive

to find Modalism in the theology of the Simonians, which was partly

formed according to Christian ideas; see Irenæus I. 23. I. "hic igitur a

multis quasi deus glorificatus est, et docuit semetipsum esse qui inter

Judæos quidem quasi filius apparuerit, in Samaria autem quasi pater

descenderit, in reliquis vero gentibus quasi Spiritus Sanctus

adventaverit."]

[Footnote 265: That is a very important fact which clearly follows from

the Shepherd. Even the later school of the Adoptians in Rome, and the

later Adoptians in general, were forced to assume a divine hypostasis

beside the Godhead, which of course sensibly threatened their

Christology. The adherents of the pneumatic Christology partly made a

definite distinction between the pre-existent Christ and the Holy Spirit

(see, e.g., 1 Clem. 22. 1), and partly made use of formulæ from which

one could infer an identity of the two. The conceptions about the Holy

Spirit were still quite fluctuating; whether he is a power of God, or

personal, whether he is identical with the pre-existent Christ, or is to

be distinguished from him, whether he is the servant of Christ (Tatian

Orat. 13), whether he is only a gift of God to believers, or the eternal

Son of God, was quite uncertain. Hermas assumed the latter, and even

Origen (de princip. præf. c. 4) acknowledges that it is not yet decided

whether or not the Holy Spirit is likewise to be regarded as God's Son.

The baptismal formula prevented the identification of the Holy Spirit

with the pre-existent Christ, which so readily suggested itself. But so

far as Christ was regarded as a [Greek: pneuma], his further demarcation

from the angel powers was quite uncertain, as the Shepherd of Hermas

proves (though see 1 Clem. 36). For even Justin, in a passage, no doubt,

in which his sole purpose was to shew that the Christians were not

[Greek: atheoi], could venture to thrust in between God, the Son and the

Spirit, the good angels as beings who were worshipped and adored by the

Christians (Apol. 1. 6 [if the text be genuine and not an

interpolation]; see also the Suppl. of Athanagoras). Justin, and

certainly most of those who accepted a pre-existence of Christ,

conceived of it as a real pre-existence. Justin was quite well

acquainted with the controversy about the independent quality of the

power which proceeded from God. To him it is not merely, "Sensus, motus,

affectus dei", but a "personalis substantia" (Dial. 128).]

[Footnote 266: See the remarkable narrative about the cross in the

fragment of the Gospel of Peter, and in Justin, Apol. 1. 55.]

[Footnote 267: We must, above all things, be on our guard here against

attributing dogmas to the churches, that is to say, to the writers of

this period. The difference in the answers to the question, How far and

by what means, Jesus procured salvation? was very great, and the

majority undoubtedly never at all raised the question, being satisfied

with recognising Jesus as the revealer of God's saving will (Didache,

10. 2: [Greek: eucharistoi men soi, pater hagie, huper tou agiou

onomatos sou, ou kateskênôsas en tais kardiais hêmôn kai huper tês

gnôseôs kai pisteôs kai athanasias, hês egnôrisas hêmin dia Iêsou tou

paidos sou]), without reflecting on the fact that this saving will was

already revealed in the Old Testament. There is nowhere any mention of a

saving work of Christ in the whole Didache, nay, even the _Kerygma_

about him is not taken notice of. The extensive writing of Hermas shews

that this is not an accident. There is absolutely no mention here of the

birth, death, resurrection, etc., of Jesus, although the author in Sim.

V had an occasion for mentioning them. He describes the work of Jesus as

(1) preserving the people whom God had chosen. (2) purifying the people

from sin, (3) pointing out the path of life and promulgating the Divine

law (c. c. 5. 6). This work however, seems to have been performed by the

whole life and activity of Jesus; even to the purifying of sin the

author has only added the words: [Greek: (kai autos tas hamartias autôn

ekatharise) polla kopiasas kai pollous kopous êntlêkôs] (Sim. V. 6. 2).

But we must further note that Hermas held the proper and obligatory work

of Jesus to be only the preservation of the chosen people (from demons

in the last days, and at the end), while in the other two articles he

saw a performance in excess of his duty, and wished undoubtedly to

declare therewith, that the purifying from sin and the giving of the law

are not, strictly speaking, integral parts of the Divine plan of

salvation, but are due to the special goodness of Jesus (this idea is

explained by Moralism). Now, as Hermas, and others, saw the saving

activity of Jesus in his whole labours, others saw salvation given and

assured in the moment of Jesus' entrance into the world, and in his

personality as a spiritual being become flesh. This mystic conception,

which attained such wide-spread recognition later on, has a

representative in Ignatius, if one can at all attribute clearly

conceived doctrines to this emotional confessor. That something can be

declared of Jesus, [Greek: kata pneuma] and [Greek: kata sarka]--this is

the mystery on which the significance of Jesus seems to Ignatius

essentially to rest, but how far is not made clear. But the [Greek:

pathos (haima, stauros)] and [Greek: anastasis] of Jesus are to the same

writer of great significance, and by forming paradoxical formulæ of

worship, and turning to account reminiscences of Apostolic sayings, he

seems to wish to base the whole salvation brought by Christ on his

suffering and resurrection (see Lightfoot on Eph. inscr. Vol. II. p.

25). In this connection also, he here and there regards all articles of

the _Kerygma_ as of fundamental significance. At all events, we have in

the Ignatian Epistles the first attempt in the post-Apostolic

literature, to connect all the theses of the _Kerygma_ about Jesus as

closely as possible with the benefits which he brought. But only the

will of the writer is plain here, all else is confused, and what is

mainly felt is that the attempt to conceive the blessings of salvation

as the fruit of the sufferings and resurrection, has deprived them of

their definiteness and clearness. In proof we may adduce the following:

If we leave out of account the passages in which Ignatius speaks of the

necessity of repentance for the Heretics, or the Heathen, and the

possibility that their sins may be forgiven (Philad. 3. 2:8. 1; Smyrn.

4. 1: 5-3; Eph. 10. 1), there remains only one passage in which the

forgiveness of sin is mentioned, and that only contains a traditional

formula (Smyrn 7. 1: [Greek: sarx Iêsou Christou, hê huper tôn hamartiôn

hêmôn pathousa]). The same writer, who is constantly speaking of the

[Greek: pathos] and [Greek: anastasis] of Christ, has nothing to say, to

the communities to which he writes, about the forgiveness of sin. Even

the concept "sin", apart from the passages just quoted, appears only

once, viz., Eph 14. 2: [Greek: oudeis pistin epangellomenos hamartanei].

Ignatius has only once spoken to a community about repentance (Smyrn. 9.

1). It is characteristic that the summons to repentance runs exactly as

in Hermas and 2 Clem., the conclusion only being peculiarly Ignatian. It

is different with Barnabas, Clement and Polycarp. They (see 1 Clem. 7.

4:12, 7:21, 6:49 6; Barn. 5. 1 ff.) place the forgiveness of sin

procured by Jesus in the foreground, connect it most definitely with the

death of Christ, and in some passages seem to have a conception of that

connection, which reminds us of Paul. But this just shews that they are

dependent here on Paul (or on 1st Peter), and on a closer examination we

perceive that they very imperfectly understand Paul, and have no

independent insight into the series of ideas which they reproduce. That

is specially plain in Clement. For in the first place, he everywhere

passes over the resurrection (he mentions it only twice, once as a

guarantee of our own resurrection, along with the Phoenix and other

guarantees, 24. 1, and then as a means whereby the Apostles were

convinced that the kingdom of God will come, 42. 3). In the second

place, he in one passage declares that the [Greek: charis metanoias] was

communicated to the world through the shedding of Christ's blood (7. 4.)

But this transformation of the [Greek: aphesis hamartiôn] into [Greek:

charis metanoias] plainly shews that Clement had merely taken over from

tradition the special estimate of the death of Christ as procuring

salvation; for it is meaningless to deduce the [Greek: charis metanoias]

from the blood of Christ. Barnabas testifies more plainly that Christ

behoved to offer the vessel of his spirit as a sacrifice for our sins

(4. 3; 5. 1), nay, the chief aim of his letter is to harmonise the

correct understanding of the cross, the blood, and death of Christ in

connection with baptism, the forgiveness of sin, and sanctification

(application of the idea of sacrifice). He also unites the death and

resurrection of Jesus (5. 6: [Greek: autos de hina kataergêsêi ton

thanaton kai tên ek nekrôn anastasin deixêi, hoti en sarki edei auton

phanerôthênai, hupemeinen, hina kai tois patrasin tên epangellian apodôi

kai autos heautôi ton laon ton kainon hetoimazôn epideixêi, epi tês gês

ôn. hoti tên anastasin autos poiêsas krinei]): but the significance of

the death of Christ is for him at bottom, the fact that it is the

fulfilment of prophecy. But the prophecy is related, above all, to the

significance of the tree, and so Barnabas on one occasion says with

admirable clearness (5. 13); [Greek: autos de êthelêsen houtô pathein;

edei gar hina epi xulou pathêi]. The notion which Barnabas entertains of

the [Greek: sarx] of Christ suggests the supposition that he could have

given up all reference to the death of Christ, if it had not been

transmitted as a fact and predicted in the Old Testament. Justin shews

still less certainty. To him also, as to Ignatius, the cross (the death)

of Christ is a great, nay, the greatest mystery, and he sees all things

possible in it (see Apol. 1. 35, 55). He knows, further, as a man

acquainted with the Old Testament, how to borrow from it very many

points of view for the significance of Christ's death, (Christ the

sacrifice, the Paschal lamb; the death of Christ the means of redeeming

men; death as the enduring of the curse for us; death as the victory

over the devil; see Dial 44. 90, 91, 111, 134). But in the discussions

which set forth in a more intelligible way the significance of Christ,

definite facts from the history have no place at all, and Justin nowhere

gives any indication of seeing in the death of Christ more than the

mystery of the Old Testament, and the confirmation of its

trustworthiness. On the other hand, it cannot be mistaken that the idea

of an individual righteous man being able effectively to sacrifice

himself for the whole, in order through his voluntary death to deliver

them from evil, was not unknown to antiquity. Origen (c. Celsum 1. 31)

has expressed himself on this point in a very instructive way. The

purity and voluntariness of him who sacrifices himself are here the main

things. Finally, we must be on our guard against supposing that the

expressions [Greek: sôrtia, apolutrôsis] and the like, were as a rule

related to the deliverance from sin. In the superscription of the

Epistle from Lyons, for example, (Euseb. H. E V. 1. 3: [Greek: hoi autên

tês apolutrôseôs hêmin pistin kai elpida echontes]) the future

redemption is manifestly to be understood by [Greek: apolutrôsis].]

[Footnote 268: On the Ascension, see my edition of the Apost. Fathers I.

2, p. 138. Paul knows nothing of an Ascension, nor is it mentioned by

Clement, Ignatius, Hermas, or Polycarp. In no case did it belong to the

earliest preaching. Resurrection and sitting at the right hand of God

are frequently united in the formulæ (Eph. I. 20; Acts. II. 32 ff.)

According to Luke XXIV. 51, and Barn. 15. 9, the ascension into heaven

took place on the day of the resurrection (probably also according to

Joh. XX. 17; see also the fragment of the Gosp. of Peter), and is hardly

to be thought of as happening but once (Joh. III. 13; VI 62; see also

Rom. X. 6 f.; Eph. IV. 9 f; 1 Pet. III. 19 f.; very instructive for the

origin of the notion). According to the Valentinians and Ophites, Christ

ascended into heaven 18 months after the resurrection (Iren. I. 3. 2;

30. 14); according to the Ascension of Isaiah, 545 days (ed. Dillmann,

pp. 43. 57 etc.); according to Pistis Sophia 11 years after the

resurrection. The statement that the Ascension took place 40 days after

the resurrection is first found in the Acts of the Apostles. The

position of the [Greek: anelêmphthê en doxêi], in the fragment of an old

Hymn, 1 Tim. III. 16, is worthy of note, in so far as it follows the

[Greek: ôphthê angelois, ekêruchthê en ethnesin, episteuthê en kosmôi].

Justin speaks very frequently of the Ascension into heaven (see also

Aristides). It is to him a necessary part of the preaching about Christ.

On the descent into hell, see the collection of passages in my edition

of the Apost. Fathers, III. p. 232. It is important to note that it is

found already in the Gospel of Peter ([Greek: ekêruxas tois koimômenois,

nai]), and that even Marcion recognised it (in Iren. I. 27. 31), as well

as the Presbyter of Irenæus (IV. 27. 2), and Ignatius (ad Magn. 9. 3),

see also Celsus in Orig. II. 43. The witnesses to it are very numerous,

see Huidekoper, "The belief of the first three centuries concerning

Christ's Mission to the under-world." New York, 1876.]

[Footnote 269: See the Pastoral Epistles, and the Epistles of Ignatius

and Polycarp.]

[Footnote 270: The "facts" of the history of Jesus were handed down to

the following period as mysteries predicted in the Old Testament, but

the idea of sacrifice was specially attached to the death of Christ,

certainly without any closer definition. It is very noteworthy that in

the Romish baptismal confession, the Davidic Sonship of Jesus, the

baptism, the descent into the under-world, and the setting up of a

glorious Kingdom on the earth, are not mentioned. These articles do not

appear even in the parallel confessions which began to be formed. The

hesitancy that yet prevailed here with regard to details, is manifest

from the fact, for example, that instead of the formula, "Jesus was born

of ([Greek: ek]) Mary," is found the other, "He was born through

([Greek: dia]) Mary" (see Justin, Apol. I. 22. 31-33, 54, 63; Dial. 23.

43, 45. 48, 57. 54, 63, 66, 75, 85, 87, 100, 105, 120, 127), Iren. (I.

7. 2) and Tertull. (de carne 20) first contested the [Greek: dia]

against the Valentinians.]

[Footnote 271: This was strongly emphasised see my remarks on Barn. 2.

3. The Jewish cultus is often brought very close to the heathen by

Gentile Christian writers: Praed. Petri (Clem. Strom. VI. 5. 41) [Greek:

kainôs ton theon dia tou Christou sebometha]. The statement in Joh. IV.

24, [Greek: pneuma ho theos kai tous proskunountas auton en pneumati kai

alêtheias dei proskunein], was for long the guiding principle for the

Christian worship of God.]

[Footnote 272: Ps. LI. 19 is thus opposed to the ceremonial system

(Barn. 2. 10). Polycarp consumed by fire is (Mart. 14. 1) compared to a

[Greek: krios episêmos ek megalou poimniou eis prosphoran olokautôma

dekton tôi theôi hêtoimasmenon].]

[Footnote 273: See Barn. 6. 15, 16, 7-9, Tatian Orat. 15, Ignat. ad.

Eph. 9. 15, Herm Mand. V. etc. The designation of Christians as priests

is not often found.]

[Footnote 274: Justin, Apol. I. 9. Dial. 117 [Greek: hoti men oun kai

euchai ka eucharistiai, hupo tôn axiôn ginomenai teleiai monai kai

euarestoi eisi tôi theôi thusiai kai autos phêmi], see also still the

later Fathers: Clem. Strom. VII. 6. 31: [Greek: hêmeis di euchês timômen

ton theon kai tautên tên thusian aristên kai hagiôtatên meta dikaiosunês

anapempomen tôi dikaiôi logôi], Iren. III. 18. 3, Ptolem ad. Floram. 3:

[Greek: prosphoras prospherein prosetaxen hêmin ho sôtêr alla ouchi tas

di alogôn zôôn hê toutôn tôn dômiamatôn alla dia pneumatikôn ainôn kai

doxôn kai eucharistias kaì dia tês eis tous plêsion koinônias kai

eupoiias].]

[Footnote 275: The Jewish regulations about fastings together with the

Jewish system of sacrifice were rejected, but on the other hand, in

virtue of words of the Lord, fasts were looked upon as a necessary

accompaniment of prayer and definite arrangements were already made for

them (see Barn. 3, Didache 8, Herm. Sim. V. 1. ff). The fast is to have

a special value from the fact that whatever one saved by means of it is

to be given to the poor (see Hermas and Aristides, Apol. 15, "And if any

one among the Christians is poor and in want, and they have not overmuch

of the means of life, they fast two or three days in order that they may

provide those in need with the food they require"). The statement of

James I. 27 [Greek: thrêskeia kathara kai amiantos para tô theô kai

patri hautê estin episkeptesthai orphanous kai chêras en tê thlipsei

autôn], was again and again inculcated in diverse phraseology (Polycarp

Ep. 4, called the Widows [Greek: thusiastêrion] of the community). Where

moralistic views preponderated as in Hermas and 2 Clement good works

were already valued in detail, prayers, fasts, alms appeared separately,

and there was already introduced especially under the influence of the

so-called deutero-canonical writings of the Old Testament the idea of a

special meritoriousness of certain performances in fasts and alms (see 2

Clem. 16. 4). Still the idea of the Christian moral life as a whole

occupied the foreground (see Didache cc. 1-5) and the exhortations to

love God and one's neighbour, which as exhortations to a moral life were

brought forward in every conceivable relation, supplemented the general

summons to renounce the world just as the official diaconate of the

churches originating in the cultus, prevented the decomposition of them

into a society of ascetics.]

[Footnote 276: For details, see below in the case of the Lord's Supper.

It is specially important that even charity, through its union with the

cultus, appeared as sacrificial worship (see e.g. Polyc. Ep. 4. 3).]

[Footnote 277: The idea of sacrifice adopted by the Gentile Christian

communities, was that which was expressed in individual prophetic

sayings and in the Psalms, a spiritualising of the Semitic Jewish

sacrificial ritual which, however, had not altogether lost its original

features. The entrance of Greek ideas of sacrifice cannot be traced

before Justin. Neither was there as yet any reflection as to the

connection of the sacrifice of the Church with the sacrifice of Christ

upon the cross.]

[Footnote 278: See my Texte und Unters. z Gesch. d. Altchristl. Lit. II.

1. 2, p. 88 ff., p. 137 ff.]

[Footnote 279: There neither was a "doctrine" of Baptism and the Lord's

Supper, nor was there any inner connection presupposed between these

holy actions. They were here and there placed together as actions by the

Lord.]

[Footnote 280: Melito, Fragm. XII. (Otto. Corp. Apol. IX. p. 418).

[Greek: Duo sunestê ta aphesin hamartêmatôn parechomena, pathos dia

Xriston kai baptisma].]

[Footnote 281: There is no sure trace of infant baptism in this epoch;

personal faith is a necessary condition (see Hermas, Vis. III. 7. 3;

Justin, Apol. 1. 61). "Prius est prædicare posterius tinguere" (Tertull.

"de bapt." 14).]

[Footnote 282: On the basis of repentance. See Praed. Petri in Clem.

Strom. VI. 5. 43, 48.]

[Footnote 283: See especially the second Epistle of Clement; Tertull.

"de bapt." 15: "Felix aqua quæ semel abluit, quas ludibrio peccatoribus

non est."]

[Footnote 284: The sinking and rising in baptism, and the immersion,

were regarded as significant, but not indispensable symbols (see

Didache. 7). The most important passages for baptism are Didache 7;

Barn. 6. 11; 11. 1. 11 (the connection in which the cross of Christ is

here placed to the water is important; the tertium comp. is that

forgiveness of sin is the result of both); Herm. Vis. III. 3, Sim. IX 16.

Mand. IV. 3 ([Greek: hetera metanoia ouk estin ei mê ekeinê, hote eis

hudôr katebêmen kai elabomen aphesin hamartiôn hêmôn tôn proteron]); 2

Clem. 6. 9; 7. 6; 8. 6. Peculiar is Ignat. ad. Polyc. 6. 2: [Greek: to

baptisma humôn menetô hôs hopla]. Specially important is Justin, Apol.

I. 61. 65. To this also belong many passages from Tertullian's treatise

"de bapt."; a Gnostic baptismal hymn in the third pseudo-Solomonic ode

in the Pistis Sophia, p. 131, ed. Schwartze; Marcion's baptismal formula

in Irenæus 1. 21. 3. It clearly follows from the seventh chapter of the

Didache, that its author held that the pronouncing of the sacred names

over the baptised, and over the water, was essential, but that immersion

was not; see the thorough examination of this passage by Schaff, "The

oldest church manual called the teaching of the twelve Apostles" pp.

29-57. The controversy about the nature of John's baptism in its

relation to Christian baptism, is very old in Christendom; see also

Tertull. "de bapt." 10. Tertullian sees in John's baptism only a baptism

to repentance, not to forgiveness.]

[Footnote 285: In Hermas and 2 Clement. The expression probably arose

from the language of the mysteries: see Appuleius, "de Magia", 55:

"Sacrorum pleraque initia in Græcia participavi. Eorum quædam signa et

monumenta tradita mihi a sacerdotibus sedulo conservo." Ever since the

Gentile Christians conceived baptism (and the Lord's Supper) according

to the mysteries, they were of course always surprised by the parallel

with the mysteries themselves. That begins with Justin. Tertullian, "de

bapt." 5, says: "Sed enim nationes extraneæ, ab omni intellectu

spiritalium potestatum eadem efficacia idolis suis subministrant. Sed

viduis aquis sibi mentiuntur. Nam et sacris quibusdam per lavacrum

initiantur, Isidis alicujus aut Mithræ; ipsos etiam deos suos

lavationibus efferunt. Ceterum villas, domos, templa totasque urbes

aspergine circumlatæ aquæ; expiant passim. Certe ludis Apollinaribus et

Eleusiniis tinguuntur, idque se in regenerationem et impunitatem

periuriorum suorum agere præsumunt. Item penes veteres, quisquis se

homicidio infecerat, purgatrices aquas explorabat." De praescr. 40:

"Diabolus ipsas quoque res sacramentorum divinorum idolorum mysteriis

æmulatur. Tingit et ipse quosdam, utique credentes et fideles suos;

expositionem delictorum de lavacro repromittit. et si adhuc memini,

Mithras signat illic in frontibus milites suos, celebrat et panis

oblationem et imaginem resurrectionis inducit ... summum pontificem in

unius nuptiis statuit, habet et virgines, habet et continentes." The

ancient notion that matter has a mysterious influence on spirit, came

very early into vogue in connection with baptism. We see that from

Tertullian's treatise on baptism and his speculations about the power of

the water (c. 1 ff.). The water must, of course, have been first

consecrated for this purpose (that is, the demons must be driven out of

it). But then it is holy water with which the Holy Spirit is united, and

which is able really to cleanse the soul. See Hatch, "The influence of

Greek ideas, etc.," p. 19. The consecration of the water is certainly

very old: though we have no definite witnesses from the earliest period.

Even for the exorcism of the baptised before baptism I know of no

earlier witness than the Sentent. LXXXVII. episcoporum (Hartel. Opp.

Cypr. I. p. 450, No. 37: "primo per manus impositionem in exorcismo,

secundo per baptismi regenerationem").]

[Footnote 286: Justin is the first who does so (I. 61). The word comes

from the Greek mysteries. On Justin's theory of baptism, see also I. 62.

and Von Engelhardt, "Christenthum Justin's," p. 102 f.]

[Footnote 287: Paul unites baptism and the communication of the Spirit;

but they were very soon represented apart, see the accounts in the Acts

of the Apostles, which are certainly very obscure, because the author

has evidently never himself observed the descent of the Spirit, or

anything like it. The ceasing of special manifestations of the Spirit in

and after baptism, and the enforced renunciation of seeing baptism

accompanied by special shocks, must be regarded as the first stage in

the sobering of the churches.]

[Footnote 288: The idea of the whole transaction of the Supper as a

sacrifice, is plainly found in the Didache, (c. 14), in Ignatius, and,

above all, in Justin (I. 65 f.) But even Clement of Rome presupposes it,

when in (cc. 40-44) he draws a parallel between bishops and deacons and

the Priests and Levites of the Old Testament, describing as the chief

function of the former (44. 4) [Greek: prospherein ta dôra]. This is not

the place to enquire whether the first celebration had, in the mind of

its founder, the character of a sacrificial meal; but, certainly, the

idea, as it was already developed at the time of Justin, had been

created by the churches. Various reasons tended towards seeing in the

Supper a sacrifice. In the first place, Malachi I. 11, demanded a solemn

Christian sacrifice: see my notes on Didache, 14. 3. In the second

place, all prayers were regarded as sacrifice, and therefore the solemn

prayers at the Supper must be specially considered as such. In the third

place, the words of institution [Greek: touto poieite], contained a

command with regard to a definite religious action. Such an action,

however, could only be represented as a sacrifice, and this the more

that the Gentile Christians might suppose that they had to understand

[Greek: poiein] in the sense of [Greek: thuein]. In the fourth place,

payments in kind were necessary for the "agapæ" connected with the

Supper, out of which were taken the bread and wine for the Holy

celebration; in what other aspect could these offerings in the worship

be regarded than as [Greek: prosphorai] for the purpose of a sacrifice?

Yet the spiritual idea so prevailed that only the prayers were regarded

as the [Greek: thusia] proper, even in the case of Justin (Dial. 117).

The elements are only [Greek: dôra, prosphorai] which obtain their value

from the prayers, in which thanks are given for the gifts of creation

and redemption, as well as for the holy meal, and entreaty is made for

the introduction of the community into the Kingdom of God (see Didache,

9. 10). Therefore, even the sacred meal itself is called [Greek:

eucharistia] (Justin, Apol. I. 66: [Greek: hê trophê hautê chaleitai

par' hêmin eucharistia]). Didache, 9. 1; Ignat., because it is [Greek:

trophê eucharistêtheisa]. It is a mistake to suppose that Justin already

understood the body of Christ to be the object of [Greek: poiein], and

therefore thought of a sacrifice of this body (I. 66). The real

sacrificial act in the Supper consists rather, according to Justin, only

in the [Greek: eucharistian poiein], whereby the [Greek: koinos artos]

becomes the [Greek: artos tês eucharistias]. The sacrifice of the Supper

in its essence, apart from the offering of alms, which in the practice

of the Church was closely united with it, is nothing but a sacrifice of

prayer: the sacrificial act of the Christian here also is nothing else

than an act of prayer (see Apol. I. 13, 65-67; Dial. 28, 29, 41, 70,

116-118).]

[Footnote 289: Justin lays special stress on this purpose. On the other

hand, it is wanting in the Supper prayers of the Didache, unless c. 9. 2

be regarded as an allusion to it.]

[Footnote 290: The designation [Greek: thusia] is first found in the

Didache, c. 14.]

[Footnote 291: The Supper was regarded as a "Sacrament" in so far as a

blessing was represented in its holy food. The conception of the nature

of this blessing as set forth in John VI. 27-58, appears to have been

the most common. It may be traced back to Ignatius, ad Eph. 20.2:

[Greek: hena arton klôntes hos estin pharmakon athanasias, antidotos tou

mê apothanein alla zên en Iêsou Christou dia pantos]. Cf Didache, 10.3:

[Greek: hêmin echarisô pneumatikên trophên kai poton kai zôên aiônion],

also 10.21: [Greek: eucharistoumen soi huper tês gnôseôs kai pisteos kai

athanasias]. Justin Apol. 1. 66: [Greek: ek tês trophês tautês haima kai

sarkes kata metabolên trephontai hêmôn kata metabolên] that is, the

holy food, like all nourishment, is completely transformed into our

flesh; but what Justin has in view here is most probably the body of the

resurrection. The expression, as the context shews, is chosen for the

sake of the parallel to the incarnation). Iren. IV. 18. 5; V. 2. 2 f. As

to how the elements are related to the body and blood of Christ,

Ignatius seems to have expressed himself in a strictly realistic way in

several passages, especially ad. Smyr. 7-1: [Greek: eucharistias kai

proseuchês apechontai dia to mê homologein, tên eucharistian sarka einai

tou sôtêros hêmôn Iêsou Christou, tên huper tôn hamartion hêmôn

pathousan]. But many passages shew that Ignatius was far from such a

conception, and rather thought as John did. In Trall. 8, faith is

described as the flesh, and love as the blood of Christ; in Rom. 7, in

one breath the flesh of Christ is called the bread of God, and the blood

[Greek: agapê aphthartos]. In Philad. 1, we read: [Greek: haima I. Chr.

hêtis estin chara aiônios kai paramonos]. In Philad. 5, the Gospel is

called the flesh of Christ, etc. Höfling is therefore right in saying

(Lehre v. Opfer, p. 39): "The Eucharist is to Ignatius [Greek: sarx] of

Christ, as a visible Gospel, a kind of Divine institution attesting the

content of [Greek: pistis], viz., belief in the [Greek: sarx pathousa],

an institution which is at the same time, to the community, a means of

representing and preserving its unity in this belief." On the other

hand, it cannot be mistaken that Justin (Apol. I. 66) presupposed the

identity, miraculously produced by the Logos, of the consecrated bread

and the body he had assumed. In this we have probably to recognise an

influence on the conception of the Supper, of the miracle represented in

the Greek Mysteries: [Greek: Ouch hôs koinon arton oude koinon poma

tauta lambanomen, all' hon tropon dia logou theou sarkopoiêtheis Iêsous

Christos ho sôtêr hêmôn kai sarka kaì haima huper sôtêrias hêmôn eschen,

houtôs kai tên di' euchês logou tou par' autou eucharistêtheisan

trophên, ex ês haima ka sarkes kata metabolen trephontai hemôn, ekeinou

tou sarkopoiethentos Iêsou kai sarka kai haima edidachthêmen einai] (See

Von Otto on the passage). In the Texte u. Unters. VII. 2. p. 117 ff., I

have shewn that in the different Christian circles of the second

century, water and only water was often used in the Supper instead of

wine, and that in many regions this custom was maintained up to the

middle of the third century (see Cypr. Ep. 63). I have endeavoured to

make it further probable, that even Justin in his Apology describes a

celebration of the Lord's Supper with bread and water. The latter has

been contested by Zahn, "Bread and wine in the Lord's Supper, in the

early Church," 1892, and Jülicher, Zur Gesch. der Abendmahlsfeier in der

aeltesten Kirche (Abhandl. f Weiszacker, 1892, p. 217 ff.]

[Footnote 292: Ignatius calls the thank-offering the flesh of Christ,

but the concept "flesh of Christ" is for him itself a spiritual one. On

the contrary, Justin sees in the bread the actual flesh of Christ, but

does not connect it with the idea of sacrifice. They are thus both as

yet far from the later conception. The numerous allegories which are

already attached to the Supper (one bread equivalent to one community;

many scattered grains bound up in the one bread, equivalent to the

Christians scattered abroad in the world, who are to be gathered

together into the Kingdom of God; one altar, equivalent to one assembly

of the community, excluding private worship, etc.), cannot as a group be

adduced here.]

[Footnote 293: Cf. for the following my arguments in the larger edition

of the "Teaching of the Apostles" Chap 5, (Texte u. Unters II. 1. 2).

The numerous recent enquiries (Loening, Loofs, Réville etc.) will be

found referred to in Sohm's Kirchenrecht. Vol. I. 1892, where the most

exhaustive discussions are given.]

[Footnote 294: That the bishops and deacons were, primarily, officials

connected with the cultus, is most clearly seen from 1 Clem. 40-44, but

also from the connection in which the 14th Chap. of the Didache stands

with the 15th (see the [Greek: oun], 15. 1) to which Hatch in

conversation called my attention. The [Greek: philoxenia], and the

intercourse with other communities (the fostering of the "unitas")

belonged, above all, to the affairs of the church. Here, undoubtedly,

from the beginning lay an important part of the bishop's duties. Ramsay

("The Church in the Roman Empire," p. 361 ff.) has emphasised this point

exclusively, and therefore one-sidedly. According to him, the

monarchical Episcopate sprang from the officials who were appointed _ad

hoc_ and for a time, for the purpose of promoting intercourse with other

churches.]

[Footnote 295: Sohm (in the work mentioned above) seeks to prove that

the monarchical Episcopate originated in Rome and is already presupposed

by Hermas. I hold that the proof for this has not been adduced, and I

must also in great part reject the bold statements which are fastened on

to the first Epistle of Clement. They may be comprehended in the

proposition which Sohm, p. 158, has placed at the head of his discussion

of the Epistle. "The first Epistle of Clement makes an epoch in the

history of the organisation of the Church. It was destined to put an end

to the early Christian constitution of the Church." According to Sohm

(p. 165), another immediate result of the Epistle was a change of

constitution in the Romish Church, the introduction of the monarchical

Episcopate. That, however, can only be asserted, not proved; for the

proof which Sohm has endeavoured to bring from Ignatius' Epistle to the

Romans and the Shepherd of Hermas, is not convincing.]

[Footnote 296: See, above all, 1 Clem. 42, 44, Acts of the Apostles,

Pastoral Epistles, etc.]

[Footnote 297: This idea is Romish. See Book II. chap, 11 C.]

[Footnote 298: We must remember here, that besides the teachers, elders,

and deacons, the ascetics (virgins, widows, celibates, abstinentes) and

the martyrs (confessors) enjoyed a special respect in the Churches, and

frequently laid hold of the government and leading of them. Hermas

enjoins plainly enough the duty of esteeming the confessors higher than

the presbyters (Vis. III. 1. 2). The widows were soon entrusted with

diaconal tasks connected with the worship, and received a corresponding

respect. As to the limits of this there was, as we can gather from

different passages, much disagreement. One statement in Tertullian shews

that the confessors had special claims to be considered in the choice of

a bishop (adv. Valent. 4: "Speraverat Episcopatum Valentinus, quia et

ingenio poterat et eloquio. Sed alium ex martyrii praerogativa loci

potitum indignatus de ecclesia authenticae regulæ abrupit"). This

statement is strengthened by other passages; see Tertull. de fuga; 11.

"Hoc sentire et facere omnem servum dei oportet, etiam minoris loci, ut

maioris fieri possit, si quem gradum in persecutionis tolerantia

ascenderit"; see Hippol in the Arab. canons, and also Achelis, Texte u.

Unters VI. 4. pp. 67, 220; Cypr. Epp. 38. 39. The way in which

confessors and ascetics, from the end of the second century, attempted

to have their say in the leading of the Churches, and the respectful way

in which it was sought to set their claims aside, shew that a special

relation to the Lord, and therefore a special right with regard to the

community, was early acknowledged to these people, on account of their

achievements. On the transition of the old prophets and teachers into

wandering ascetics, later into monks, see the Syriac Pseudo-Clementine

Epistles, "de virginitate," and my Abhandl i d. Sitzungsberichten d. K.

Pr. Akad. d. Wissensch. 1891, p. 361 ff.]

[Footnote 299: See Weizsäcker, Gött Gel. Anz. 1886, No. 21, whose

statements I can almost entirely make my own.]