Footnote 530:
1 Cor. viii. 6 δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς δι’ αὐτοῦ. The expression δι’
οὗ implies the conception of the Logos, even where the term itself is
not used. See the dissertation on the doctrine of the Logos in the
Apostolic writers.
[Sidenote: 2. The Christology of other Apostolic writings.]
[Sidenote: Their fundamental identity.]
2. And when we turn from St Paul to the other Apostolic writings which
dwell on the Person of Christ from a doctrinal point of view, we find
them enunciating it in language which implies the same fundamental
conception, though they may not always present it in exactly the same
aspect. More especially in the Epistle to the Hebrews first, and in the
Gospel of St John afterwards, the form of expression is identical with
the statement of St Paul. In both these writings the universe is said to
have been created or to exist _by_ or _through_ Him. This is the crucial
expression, which involves in itself all the higher conceptions of the
Person of Christ[531]. The Epistle to the Hebrews seems to have been
written by a disciple of St Paul immediately after the Apostle’s death,
and therefore within some five or six years from the date which has been
assigned to the Colossian letter. The Gospel of St John, if the
traditional report may be accepted, dates about a quarter of a century
later; but it is linked with our epistle by the fact that the readers
for whom it was primarily intended belonged to the neighbouring
districts of Proconsular Asia. Thus it illustrates, and is illustrated
by, the teaching of St Paul in this letter. More especially by the
emphatic use of the term _Logos_, which St Paul for some reason has
suppressed, it supplies the centre round which the ideas gather, and
thus gives unity and directness to the conception.
Footnote 531:
Joh. i. 3 πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο κ.τ.λ., Heb. i. 2 δι’ οὗ καὶ
ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας.
[Sidenote: Firmness of the apostolic idea.]
In the Christology of these Apostolic writings there is a firmness and
precision which leaves no doubt about the main conception present to the
mind of the writers. The idea of Christ as an intermediate being,
neither God nor man, is absolutely and expressly excluded. On the one
hand His humanity is distinctly emphasized. On the other He is
represented as existing from eternity, as the perfect manifestation of
the Father, as the absolute mediator in the creation and government of
the world.
[Sidenote: 3. The Christology of the succeeding ages.]
3. But, when we turn from these Apostolic statements to the writings of
succeeding generations, we are struck with the contrast[532]. A
vagueness, a flaccidity, of conception betrays itself in their language.
Footnote 532:
The remarks on the theology of the Apostolic Fathers, as compared with
the Apostles, in Dorner’s _Lehre von der Person Christi_ I. p. 130 sq.
seem to me perfectly just and highly significant. See also de
Pressensé _Trois Premiers Siècles_ II. p. 406 sq. on the unsystematic
spirit of the Apostolic Fathers.
[Sidenote: Its looseness of conception.]
In the Apostolic Fathers and in the earlier Apologists we find indeed
for the most part a _practical_ appreciation of the Person of Christ,
which leaves nothing to be desired; but as soon as they venture upon any
directly dogmatic statement, we miss at once the firmness of grasp and
clearness of conception which mark the writings of the Apostles. If they
desire to emphasize the majesty of His Person, they not unfrequently
fall into language which savours of patripassianism[533]. If on the
other hand they wish to present Him in His mediatorial capacity, they
use words which seem to imply some divine being, who is God and yet not
quite God, neither Creator nor creature[534].
Footnote 533:
See for instance the passages quoted in the note on Clem. Rom. 2 τὰ
παθήματα αὐτοῦ.
Footnote 534:
The unguarded language of Justin for instance illustrates the
statement in the text. On the one hand Petavius, _Theol. Dogm._ de
Trin. ii. 3. 2, distinctly accuses him of Arianism: on the other Bull,
_Def. Fid. Nic._ ii. 4. 1 sq., indignantly repudiates the charge and
claims him as strictly orthodox. Petavius indeed approaches the
subject from the point of view of later Western theology and, unable
to appreciate Justin’s doctrine of the Logos, does less than justice
to this father; but nevertheless Justin’s language is occasionally
such as no Athanasian could have used. The treatment of this father by
Dorner (_Lehre_ I. p. 414 sq.) is just and avoids both extremes.
[Sidenote: The Apostolic idea applied in later ages.]
The Church needed a long education, before she was fitted to be the
expositor of the true Apostolic doctrine. A conflict of more than two
centuries with Gnostics, Ebionites, Sabellians, Arians, supplied the
necessary discipline. The true successors of the Apostles in this
respect are not the fathers of the second century, but the fathers of
the third and fourth centuries. In the expositors of the Nicene age we
find indeed technical terms and systematic definitions, which we do not
find in the Apostles themselves; but, unless I have wholly misconceived
the nature of the heretical teaching at Colossæ and the purport of St
Paul’s reply, the main idea of Christ’s Person, with which he here
confronts this Gnostic Judaism, is essentially the same as that which
the fathers of these later centuries opposed to the Sabellianism and the
Arianism of their own age. If I mistake not, the more distinctly we
realise the nature of the heresy, the more evident will it become that
any conception short of the perfect deity and perfect humanity of Christ
would not have furnished a satisfactory answer; and this is the reason
why I have dwelt at such length on the character of the Colossian false
teaching, and why I venture to call especial attention to this part of
my subject.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: Style of this epistle.]
Of the style of the letter to the Colossians I shall have occasion to
speak hereafter, when I come to discuss its genuineness. It is
sufficient to say here, that while the hand of St Paul is unmistakable
throughout this epistle, we miss the flow and the versatility of the
Apostle’s earlier letters.
[Sidenote: Its ruggedness and compression,]
A comparison with the Epistles to the Corinthians and to the Philippians
will show the difference. It is distinguished from them by a certain
ruggedness of expression, a ‘want of finish’ often bordering on
obscurity. What account should be given of this characteristic, it is
impossible to say. The divergence of style is not greater than will
appear in the letters of any active-minded man, written at different
times and under different circumstances. The epistles which I have
selected for contrast suggest that the absence of all personal connexion
with the Colossian Church will partially, if not wholly, explain the
diminished fluency of this letter. [Sidenote: but essential vigour.]At
the same time no epistle of St Paul is more vigorous in conception or
more instinct with meaning. It is the very compression of the thoughts
which creates the difficulty. If there is a want of fluency, there is no
want of force. Feebleness is the last charge which can be brought
against this epistle.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: Analysis.]
The following is an analysis of the epistle: