Chapter III (2)

2. When in the "Teaching of the Apostles," which may be regarded here as a classic document, the discipline of life in accordance with the words of the Lord, Baptism, the order of fasting and prayer, especially the regular use of the Lord's prayer, and the Eucharist are reckoned the articles on which the Christian community rests, and when the common Sunday offering of a sacrifice made pure by a brotherly disposition, and the mutual exercise of discipline are represented as decisive for the stability of the individual community,[278] we perceive that the general idea of a pure spiritual worship of God has nevertheless been realised in definite institutions, and that, above all, it has included the traditional sacred ordinances, and adjusted itself to them as far as that was possible.[279] This could only take effect under the idea of the symbolical, and therefore this idea was most firmly attached to these ordinances. But the symbolical of that time is not to be considered as the opposite of the objectively real, but as the mysterious, the God produced ([Greek: mystêrion]) as contrasted with the natural, the profanely clear. As to Baptism, which was administered in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit, though Cyprian, Ep. 73. 16-18, felt compelled to oppose the custom of baptising in the name of Jesus, we noted above (Chap. III. p. 161 f.) that it was regarded as the bath of regeneration, and as renewal of life, inasmuch as it was assumed that by it the sins of the past state of blindness were blotted out.[280] But as faith was looked upon as the necessary condition,[281] and as on the other hand, the forgiveness of the sins of the past was in itself deemed worthy of God,[282] the asserted specific result of baptism remained still very uncertain, and the hard tasks which it imposed, might seem more important than the merely retrospective gifts which it proffered.[283] Under such circumstances the rite could not fail to lead believers about to be baptized, to attribute value here to the mysterious as such.[284] But that always creates a state of things which not only facilitates, but positively prepares for the introduction of new and strange ideas. For neither fancy nor reflection can long continue in the vacuum of mystery. The names [Greek: sphragis] and [Greek: phôtismos], which at that period came into fashion for baptism, are instructive, inasmuch as neither of them is a direct designation of the presupposed effect of baptism, the forgiveness of sin, and as besides, both of them evince a Hellenic conception. Baptism in being called the seal,[285] is regarded as the guarantee of a blessing, not as the blessing itself, at least the relation to it remains obscure; in being called enlightenment,[286] it is placed directly under an aspect that is foreign to it. It would be different if we had to think of [Greek: phôtismos] as a gift of the Holy Spirit, which is given to the baptised as real principle of a new life and miraculous powers. But the idea of a necessary union of baptism with a miraculous communication of the Spirit, seems to have been lost very early, or to have become uncertain, the actual state of things being no longer favourable to it;[287] at any rate, it does not explain the designation of baptism as [Greek: phôtismos].

As regards the Lord's Supper, the most important point is that its celebration became more and more the central point, not only for the worship of the Church, but for its very life as a Church. The form of this celebration, the common meal, made it appear to be a fitting expression of the brotherly unity of the community (on the public confession before the meal, see Didache, 14, and my notes on the passage). The prayers which it included presented themselves as vehicles for bringing before God, in thanksgiving and intercession, every thing that affected the community; and the presentation of the elements for the holy ordinance was naturally extended to the offering of gifts for the poor brethren, who in this way received them from the hand of God himself. In all these respects, however, the holy ordinance appeared as a sacrifice of the community, and indeed, as it was also named, [Greek: eucharistia], sacrifice of thanksgiving.[288] As an act of sacrifice, _termini technici_ which the Old Testament applied to sacrifice could be applied to it, and all the wealth of ideas which the Old Testament connects with sacrifice, could be transferred to it. One cannot say that anything absolutely foreign was therewith introduced into the ordinance, however doubtful it may be whether in the idea of its founder the meal was thought of as a sacrificial meal. But it must have been of the most wide-reaching significance, that a wealth of ideas was in this way connected with the ordinance, which had nothing whatever in common, either with the purpose of the meal as a memorial of Christ's death,[289] or with the mysterious symbols of the body and blood of Christ. The result was that the one transaction obtained a double value. At one time it appeared as the [Greek: prosphora] and [Greek: thusia] of the Church,[290] as the pure sacrifice which is presented to the great king by Christians scattered over the world, as they offer to him their prayers, and place before him again what he has bestowed in order to receive it back with thanks and praise. But there is no reference in this to the mysterious words that the bread and wine are the body of Christ broken, and the blood of Christ shed for the forgiveness of sin. These words, in and of themselves, must have challenged a special consideration. They called forth the recognition in the sacramental action, or rather in the consecrated elements, of a mysterious communication of God, a gift of salvation, and this is the second aspect. But on a purely spiritual conception of the Divine gift of salvation, the blessings mediated through the Holy Supper could only be thought of as spiritual (faith, knowledge, or eternal life), and the consecrated elements could only be recognised as the mysterious vehicles of these blessings. There was yet no reflection on the distinction between symbol and vehicle; the symbol was rather regarded as the vehicle, and vice versa. We shall search in vain for any special relation of the partaking of the consecrated elements to the forgiveness of sin. That was made impossible by the whole current notions of sin and forgiveness. That on which value was put was the strengthening of faith and knowledge, as well as the guarantee of eternal life, and a meal in which there was appropriated not merely common bread and wine, but a [Greek: trophê pneumatikê], seemed to have a bearing upon these. There was as yet little reflection; but there can be no doubt that thought here moved in a region bounded, on the one hand, by the intention of doing justice to the wonderful words of institution which had been handed down, and on the other hand, by the fundamental conviction that spiritual things can only be got by means of the Spirit.[291] There was thus attached to the Supper the idea of sacrifice, and of a sacred gift guaranteed by God. The two things were held apart, for there is as yet no trace of that conception, according to which the body of Christ represented in the bread[292] is the sacrifice offered by the community. But one feels almost called upon here to construe from the premises the later development of the idea, with due regard to the ancient Hellenic ideas of sacrifice.

3. The natural distinctions among men, and the differences of position and vocation which these involve, were not to be abolished in the Church, notwithstanding the independence and equality of every individual Christian, but were to be consecrated: above all, every relation of natural piety was to be respected. Therefore the elders also acquired a special authority, and were to receive the utmost deference and due obedience. But, however important the organisation that was based on the distinction between [Greek: presbuteroi] and [Greek: neoteroi], it ought not to be considered as characteristic of the Churches, not even where there appeared at the head of the community a college of chosen elders, as was the case in the greater communities and perhaps soon everywhere. On the contrary, only an organisation founded on the gifts of the Spirit [Greek: charismata], bestowed on the Church by God,[293] corresponded to the original peculiarity of the Christian community. The Apostolic age therefore transmitted a twofold organisation to the communities. The one was based on the [Greek: diakonia tou logou], and was regarded as established directly by God; the other stood in the closest connection with the economy of the church, above all with the offering of gifts, and so with the sacrificial service. In the first were men speaking the word of God, commissioned and endowed by God, and bestowed on Christendom, not on a particular community, who as [Greek: apostoloi, prophêtai], and [Greek: didaskaloi] had to spread the Gospel, that is to edify the Church of Christ. They were regarded as the real [Greek: hêgoumenoi] in the communities, whose words given them by the Spirit all were to accept in faith. In the second were [Greek: episkopoi], and [Greek: diakonoi], appointed by the individual congregation and endowed with the charisms of leading and helping, who had to receive and administer the gifts, to perform the sacrificial service (if there were no prophets present), and take charge of the affairs of the community.[294] It lay in the nature of the case that as a rule the [Greek: episkopoi], as independent officials, were chosen from among the elders, and might thus coincide with the chosen [Greek: presbyteroi]. But a very important development takes place in the second half of our epoch. The prophets and teachers--as the result of causes which followed the naturalising of the Churches in the world--fell more and more into the background, and their function, the solemn service of the word, began to pass over to the officials of the community, the bishops, who already played a great rôle in the public worship. At the same time, however, it appeared more and more fitting to entrust one official, as chief leader (superintendent of public worship), with the reception of gifts and their administration, together with the care of the unity of public worship, that is, to appoint one bishop instead of a number of bishops, leaving, however, as before, the college of presbyters, as [Greek: proistamenoi tês ekklêsias], a kind of senate of the community.[295] Moreover, the idea of the chosen bishops and deacons as the antitypes of the Priests and Levites, had been formed at an early period in connection with the idea of the new sacrifice. But we find also the idea, which is probably the earlier of the two, that the prophets and teachers, as the commissioned preachers of the word, are the priests. The hesitancy in applying this important allegory must have been brought to an end by the disappearance of the latter view. But it must have been still more important that the bishops, or bishop, in taking over the functions of the old [Greek: lalountes ton logon], who were not Church officials, took over also the profound veneration with which they were regarded as the special organs of the Spirit. But the condition of the organisation in the communities about the year 140, seems to have been a very diverse one. Here and there, no doubt, the convenient arrangement of appointing only one bishop was carried out, while his functions had not perhaps been essentially increased, and the prophets and teachers were still the great spokesmen. Conversely, there may still have been in other communities a number of bishops, while the prophets and teachers no longer played regularly an important rôle. A fixed organisation was reached, and the Apostolic episcopal constitution established, only in consequence of the so-called Gnostic crisis, which was epoch-making in every respect. One of its most important presuppositions, and one that has struck very deep into the development of doctrine must, however, be borne in mind here. As the Churches traced back all the laws according to which they lived, and all the blessings they held sacred, to the tradition of the twelve Apostles, because they regarded them as Christian only on that presupposition, they also in like manner, as far as we can discover, traced back their organisation of presbyters, i.e., of bishops and deacons, to Apostolic appointment. The notion which followed quite naturally, was that the Apostles themselves had appointed the first church officials.[296] That idea may have found support in some actual cases of the kind, but this does not need to be considered here; for these cases would not have led to the setting up of a theory. But the point in question here is a theory, which is nothing else than an integral part of the general theory, that the twelve Apostles were in every respect the middle term between Jesus and the present Churches (see above, p. 158). This conception is earlier than the great Gnostic crisis, for the Gnostics also shared it. But no special qualities of the officials, but only of the Church itself, were derived from it, and it was believed that the independence and sovereignty of the Churches were in no way endangered by it, because an institution by Apostles was considered equivalent to an institution by the Holy Spirit, whom they possessed, and whom they followed. The independence of the Churches rested precisely on the fact that they had the Spirit in their midst. The conception here briefly sketched, was completely transformed in the following period by the addition of another idea--that of Apostolic succession,[297] and then became, together with the idea of the specific priesthood of the leader of the Church, the most important means of exalting the office above the community.[298]

_Supplementary._

This review of the common faith and the beginnings of knowledge, worship and organisation, in the earliest Gentile Christianity, will have shewn that the essential premises for the development of Catholicism were already in existence before the middle of the second century, and before the burning conflict with Gnosticism. We may see this, whether we look at the peculiar form of the _Kerygma_, or at the expression of the idea of tradition, or at the theology with its moral and philosophic attitude. We may therefore conclude that the struggle with Gnosticism hastened the development, but did not give it a new direction. For the Greek spirit, the element which was most operative in Gnosticism, was already concealed in the earliest Gentile Christianity itself: it was the atmosphere which one breathed; but the elements peculiar to Gnosticism were for the most part rejected.[299] We may even go back a step further (see above, pp. 41, 76). The great Apostle to the Gentiles himself, in his epistle to the Romans, and in those to the Corinthians, transplanted the Gospel into Greek modes of thought. He attempted to expound it with Greek ideas, and not only called the Greeks to the Old Testament and the Gospel, but also introduced the Gospel as a leaven into the religious and philosophic world of Greek ideas. Moreover, in his pneumatico-cosmic Christology he gave the Greeks an impulse towards a theologoumenon, at whose service they could place their whole philosophy and mysticism. He preached the foolishness of Christ crucified, and yet in doing so, proclaimed the wisdom of the nature-vanquishing Spirit, the heavenly Christ. From this moment was established a development which might indeed assume very different forms, but in which all the forces and ideas of Hellenism must gradually pass over to the Gospel. But even with this the last word has not been said; on the contrary, we must remember that the Gospel itself belonged to the fulness of the times, which is indicated by the inter-action of the Old Testament and the Hellenic religions (see above, pp. 41, 56).

The documents which have been preserved from the first century of the Gentile Church are, in their relation to the history of Dogma, very diverse. In the Didache we have a Catechism for Christian life, dependent on a Jewish Greek Catechism, and giving expression to what was specifically Christian in the prayers, and in the order of the Church. The Epistle of Barnabas, probably of Alexandrian origin, teaches the correct, Christian, interpretation of the Old Testament, rejects the literal interpretation and Judaism as of the devil, and in Christology essentially follows Paul. The Romish first Epistle of Clement, which also contains other Pauline reminiscences (reconciliation and justification) represents the same Christology, but it set it in a moralistic mode of thought. This is a most typical writing in which the spirit of tradition, order, stability, and the universal ecclesiastical guardianship of Rome is already expressed. The moralistic mode of thought is classically represented by the Shepherd of Hermas, and the second Epistle of Clement, in which, besides, the eschatological element is very prominent. We have in the Shepherd the most important document for the Church Christianity of the age, reflected in the mirror of a prophet who, however, takes into account the concrete relations. The theology of Ignatius is the most advanced, in so far as he, opposing the Gnostics, brings the facts of salvation into the foreground, and directs his Gnosis not so much to the Old Testament as to the history of Christ. He attempts to make Christ [Greek: kata pneuma] and [Greek: kata sarka] the central point of Christianity. In this sense his theology and speech is Christocentric, related to that of Paul and the fourth Evangelist, (specially striking is the relationship with Ephesians), and is strongly contrasted with that of his contemporaries. Of kindred spirit with him are Melito and Irenæus, whose forerunner he is. He is related to them as Methodius at a later period was related to the classical orthodox theology of the fourth and fifth centuries. This parallel is appropriate, not merely in point of form: it is rather one and the same tendency of mind which passes over from Ignatius to Melito, Irenæus, Methodius, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa (here, however, mixed with Origenic elements), and to Cyril of Alexandria. Its characteristic is that not only does the person of Christ as the God-man form the central point and sphere of theology, but also that all the main points of his history are mysteries of the world's redemption. (Ephes. 19). But Ignatius is also distinguished by the fact that behind all that is enthusiastic, pathetic, abrupt, and again all that pertains to liturgical form, we find in his epistles a true devotion to Christ ([Greek: ho theos mou]). He is laid hold of by Christ: Cf. Ad. Rom. 6: [Greek: ekeinon zêtô, ton hyper hêmôn apothanonta, ekeinon thelô ton di' hêmas anastanta]; Rom. 7: [Greek: ho emos erôs estaurôtai kai ouk estin en emoi pur philoulon]. As a sample of his theological speech and his rule of faith, see ad. Smyrn. 1: [Greek: enoêsa humas katêrtismenous en akinêtô pistei, hôsper kathêlômenous en tô staurô tou kuriou Iêsou Christou sarki te kai pneumati kai hêdrasmenous en agapê en tô haimati Christou, peplêrophorêmenous eis ton kuriou hêmôn, alêthôs onta ek genous Dabid kata sarka, huion theou kata thelêma kai dunamin theou, gegenêmenon alêthôs ek parthenou, bebaptismenon hypo Iôannou, hina plêrôthê pasa dikaiosunê hup' autou, alêthôs epi Pontiou Pilatou kai Hêrôdou tetrarchou kathêlômenon huper hêmôn en sarki--aph' hou karpou hêmeis, apo tou theomakaritou autou pathous--hina arê sussêmon eis tous aiônas dia tês anastaseôs eis tous agious kai pistous autou eite en Ioudaious eite en ethnesin en heni sômati tês ekklêsias autou]. The Epistle of Polycarp is characterised by its dependence on earlier Christian writings (Epistles of Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John), consequently, by its conservative attitude with regard to the most valuable traditions of the Apostolic period. The _Kerygma_ of Peter exhibits the transition from the early Christian literature to the apologetic (Christ as [Greek: nomos] and as [Greek: logos]).

It is manifest that the lineage, "Ignatius, Polycarp, Melito, Irenæus", is in characteristic contrast with all others, has deep roots in the Apostolic age, as in Paul and in the Johannine writings, and contains in germ important factors of the future formation of dogma, as it appeared in Methodius, Athanasius, Marcellus, Cyril of Jerusalem. It is very doubtful therefore, whether we are justified in speaking of an Asia Minor theology. (Ignatius does not belong to Asia Minor.) At any rate, the expression, Asia Minor-Romish Theology, has no justification. But it has its truth in the correct observation, that the standards by which Christianity and Church matters were measured and defined, must have been similar in Rome and Asia Minor during the second century. We lack all knowledge of the closer connections. We can only again refer to the journey of Polycarp to Rome, to that of Irenæus by Rome to Gaul, to the journey of Abercius and others (cf. also the application of the Montanist communities in Asia Minor for recognition by the Roman bishop). In all probability, Asia Minor, along with Rome, was the spiritual centre of Christendom from about 60-200: but we have but few means for describing how this centre was brought to bear on the circumference. What we do know belongs more to the history of the Church than to the special history of dogma.

_Literature._--The writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers. See the edition of v. Gebhardt, Harnack, Zahn, 1876. Hilgenfeld, Nov. Test. extra Can. recept. fasc. IV. 2 edit. 1884, has collected further remains of early Christian literature. The Teaching of the twelve Apostles. Fragments of the Gospel and Apocalypse of Peter (my edition, 1893). Also the writings of Justin and other apologists, in so far as they give disclosures about the faith of the communities of his time, as well as statements in Celsus [Greek: Alêthês Logos], in Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian. Even Gnostic fragments may be cautiously turned to profit. Ritschl, Entstehung der altkath. Kirche 2 Aufl. 1857. Pfleiderer, Das Urchristenthum, 1887. Renan, Origins of Christianity, vol. V. V. Engelhardt, Das Christenthum Justin's, d. M. 1878, p. 375 ff. Schenkel, Das Christusbild der Apostel, etc., 1879. Zahn, Gesch. des N.-Tlichen Kanons, 2 Bde. 1888. Behm, Das Christliche Gesetzthum der Apostolischen Väter (Zeitschr. f. kirchl. Wissensch. 1886). Dorner, History of the doctrine of the Person of Christ, 1845. Schultz, Die Lehre von der Gottheit Christi, 1881, p. 22 ff. Höfling. Die Lehre der ältesten Kirche vom Opfer, 1851. Höfling, Das Sacrament d. Taufe, 1848. Kahnis, Die Lehre vom Abendmahl, 1851. Th. Harnack, Der Christliche Gemeindegottedienst im Apost. u. Altkath. Zeitalter, 1854. Hatch, Organisation of the Early Church, 1883. My Prolegomena to the Didache (Texte u. Unters. II. Bd. H. 1, 2). Diestel, Gesch. des A.T. in der Christi. Kirche, 1869. Sohm, Kirchenrecht, 1892, Monographs on the Apostolic Fathers: on 1 Clem.: Lipsius, Lightfoot (most accurate commentary), Wrede; on 2 Clem.: A. Harnack (Ztschr. f. K. Gesch. 1887); on Barnabas: J. Müller; on Hermas: Zahn, Hückstädt, Link; on Papias: Weiffenbach, Leimbach, Zahn, Lightfoot; on Ignatius and Polycarp: Lightfoot (accurate commentary) and Zahn; on the Gospel and Apocalypse of Peter: A. Harnack: on the Kerygma of Peter: von Dobschütz; on Acts of Thecla: Schlau.

[Footnote 162: The statements made in this chapter need special forbearance, especially as the selection from the rich and motley material--cf. only the so-called Apostolic Fathers--the emphasising of this, the throwing into the background of that element, cannot here be vindicated. It is not possible, in the compass of a brief account, to give expression to that elasticity and those oscillations of ideas and thoughts which were peculiar to the Christians of the earliest period. There was indeed, as will be shewn, a complex of tradition in many respects fixed, but this complex was still under the dominance of an enthusiastic fancy, so that what at one moment seemed fixed, in the next had disappeared. Finally, attention must be given to the fact that when we speak of the beginnings of knowledge, the members of the Christian community in their totality are no longer in question, but only individuals who of course were the leaders of the others. If we had no other writings from the times of the Apostolic Fathers than the first Epistle of Clement and the Epistle of Polycarp, it would be comparatively easy to sketch a clear history of the development connecting Paulinism with the old-Catholic Theology as represented by Irenæus, and so to justify the traditional ideas. But besides these two Epistles which are the classic monuments of the mediating tradition, we have a great number of documents which shew us how manifold and complicated the development was. They also teach us how careful we should be in the interpretation of the post-Apostolic documents that immediately followed the Pauline Epistles, and that we must give special heed to the paragraphs and ideas in them, which distinguish them from Paulinism. Besides, it is of the greatest importance that those two Epistles originated in Rome and Asia Minor, as these are the places where we must seek the embryonic stage of old-Catholic doctrine. Numerous fine threads, in the form of fundamental ideas and particular views, pass over from the Asia Minor theology of the post-Apostolic period into the old-Catholic theology.]

[Footnote 163: The Epistle to the Hebrews (X. 25), the Epistle of Barnabas (IV. 10), the Shepherd of Hermas (Sim. IX. 26, 3), but especially the Epistles of Ignatius and still later documents, shew that up to the middle of the second Century, and even later, there were Christians who, for various reasons, stood outside the union of communities, or wished to have only a loose and temporary relation to them. The exhortation: [Greek: epi to auto sunerchomenoi sunzêteite peri tou koinê sumpherontos] (see my note on Didache, XVI. 2, and cf.) for the expression the interesting State Inscription which was found at Magnesia on the Meander. Bull, Corresp. Hellen 1883, p. 506: [Greek: apagoreuo mête sunerchesthai tous artokokous kat' hetairian mête parestêkotas thrasunesthai, peitharchein de pantôs tois huper tou koinê sumpherontos epitattomenois k.t.l.] or the exhortation: [Greek: kollasthe tois hagiois, hoti hoi kollômenoi autois hagiasthêsontai] (1 Clem. 46. 2, introduced as [Greek: graphê]) runs through most of the writings of the post-Apostolic and pre-catholic period. New doctrines were imported by wandering Christians who, in many cases, may not themselves have belonged to a community, and did not respect the arrangements of those they found in existence, but sought to form conventicles. If we remember how the Greeks and Romans were wont to get themselves initiated into a mystery cult, and took part for a long time in the religious exercises, and then, when they thought they had got the good of it, for the most part or wholly to give up attending, we shall not wonder that the demand to become a permanent member of a Christian community was opposed by many. The statements of Hermas are specially instructive here.]

[Footnote 164: "Corpus sumus," says Tertullian at a time when this description had already become an anachronism, "de conscientia religionis et disciplinæ unitate et spei foedere." (Apol. 39: cf. Ep. Petri ad Jacob. I.: [Greek: eis theos, eis nomos, mia elpis]). The description was applicable to the earlier period, when there was no such thing as a federation with political forms, but when the consciousness of belonging to a community and of forming a brotherhood ([Greek: adelphotês]) was all the more deeply felt: See, above all, 1 Clem ad Corinth., the Didache (9-15), Aristides, Apol 15: "and when they have become Christians, they call them (the slaves) brethren without hesitation ... for they do not call them brethren according to the flesh, but according to the spirit and in God;" cf. also the statements on brotherhood in Tertullian and Minucius Felix (also Lucian). We have in 1 Clem. I. 2, the delineation of a perfect Christian Church. The Epistles of Ignatius are specially instructive as to the independence of each individual community: 1 Clem. and Didache, as to the obligation to assist stranger communities by counsel and action, and to support the travelling brethren. As every Christian is a [Greek: paroikos] so every community is a [Greek: paroikousa tên polin] but it is under obligation to give an example to the world, and must watch that "the name be not blasphemed." The importance of the social element in the oldest Christian communities, has been very justly brought into prominence in the latest works on the subject (Renan, Heinrici, Hatch). The historian of dogma must also emphasise it, and put the fluid notions of the faith in contrast with the definite consciousness of moral tasks. See 1 Clem. 47-50; Polyc. Ep. 3; Didache 1 ff.; Ignat. ad Eph. 14, on [Greek: agapê] as the main requirement Love demands that everyone "[Greek: zêtei to koinôpheles pasin kai mê to heautou]" (1 Clem. 48. 6, with parallels; Didache 16. 3; Barn. 4. 10; Ignatius).]

[Footnote 165: 1 Clem. 59. 2. in the Church prayer; [Greek: hopôs ton arithmon ton katêrithmênon tôn eklektôn autou en holô tôi kosmô diaphulaxê athrauston ho dêmiourgos tôn hapantôn dia tou êgapêmenou paidos autou Iêsou Christou].]

[Footnote 166: See 1 Clem., 2 Clem., Ignatius (on the basis of the Pauline view; but see also Rev. II. 9).]

[Footnote 167: See Hermas (the passage is given above, p. 103, note).]

[Footnote 168: See Hermas Vis. I-III. Papias. Fragm. VI. and VII. of my edition. 2 Clem. 14: [Greek: poiountes to thelêma tou patros hêmôn esometha ek tês ekklêsias tês prôtês tês pneumatikês, tês pro hêliou kai selênês ektismenes.... ekklêsia zôsa sôma esti Christou legei gar hê graphê epoiêsen ho theos ton anthrôpon arsen kai thêlu. to arsen estin ho Christos, to thêlu hê ekklêsia].]

[Footnote 169: See Barn. 13 (2 Clem. 2).]

[Footnote 170: See Valentinus in Clem. Strom. VI. 6. 52. "Holy Church", perhaps also in Marcion, if his text (Zahn. Gesch. des N.T.-lichen Kanons, II. p. 502) in Gal. IV. 21, read: [Greek: hêtis estin mêtêr humôn, gennôsa eis hên epengeilametha hagian ekklêsian].]

[Footnote 171: Barn. 3. 6.]

[Footnote 172: We are also reminded here of the "tertium genus." The nickname of the heathen corresponded to the self-consciousness of the Christians (see Aristides, Apol).]

[Footnote 173: See also the letter of Pliny the paragraphs about Christian morality, in the first third part of Justin's apology and especially the apology of Aristides c. 15. Aristides portrays Christianity by portraying Christian morality. The Christians know and believe in God the creator of heaven and of earth, the God by whom all things consist, i.e. in him from whom they have received the commandments which they have written in their hearts commandments, which they observe in faith and in the expectation of the world to come. For this reason they do not commit adultery, nor practise unchastity, nor bear false witness, nor covet that with which they are entrusted or what does not belong to them, etc. Compare how in the Apocalypse of Peter definite penalties in hell are portrayed for the several forms of immorality.]

[Footnote 174: An investigation of the Greco Jewish Christian literature of norms and moral rules commencing with the Old Testament doctrine of wisdom on the one hand and the Stoic collections on the other then passing beyond the Alexandrian and Evangelic norms up to the Didache, the Pauline tables of domestic duties, the Sibylline sayings, Phocylides, the Neopythagorean rules and to the norms of the enigmatic Sextus, is still an unfulfilled task. The moral rules of the Pharisaic Rabbis should also be included.]

[Footnote 175: Herm. Mand. I. has merely fixed the Monotheistic confession [Greek: proton pantôn pisteuson, hoti eis estin ho theos, ho ta panta ktisas kai katartisas k.t.l.] See Praed Petri in Clem Strom VI. 6, 48, VI. 5, 39. Aristides gives in c. 2 of his Apology the preaching of Jesus Christ but where he wishes to give a short expression of Christianity he is satisfied with saying that Christians are those who have found the one true God. See e.g. c. 15.

Christians have found the truth. They know and believe in God the creator of heaven and of earth by whom all things consist and from whom all things come who has no other god beside him and from whom they have received commandments which they have written on their hearts, commandments which they observe in faith and in expectation of the world to come. It is interesting to note how Origen Comm. in Joh. XXXII. 9 has brought the Christological Confession into approximate harmony with that of Hermas. First Mand. I. is verbally repeated and then it is said [Greek: chrê de kai pisteuein, hoti kurios Iêsous Christos kai pase tê peri autou kata tên theotêta kai tên anthropôteta alêtheia dei de kai eis to hagion pisteuein pneuma, kai hoti autexousioi ontes kolazometha men eph' hois hamartanomen timômetha de eph' hois eu prattomen].]

[Footnote 176: Very instructive here is 2 Clem. ad Corinth. 20, 5 [Greek: to monô theo aorato, patri tês alêtheias, tô exatosteilanti hêmin ton sôtêra kai archêgon tês aphtharsias, di' ou kai ephanerôsen hêmin tên alêtheian kai tên epouranion zôên, autô he doxa]. On the Holy Spirit see previous note.]

[Footnote 177: They were quoted as [Greek: hê graphê, ta biblia], or with the formula [Greek: ho theos (kurios) legei, gegraptai]. Also Law and Prophets. Law Prophets and Psalms. See the original of the first six books of the Apostolic Constitutions.]

[Footnote 178: See the collection of passages in Patr. App. Opp. edit. Gebhardt. 1. 2 p. 133, and the formula, Diogn. 11: [Greek: apostolôn genomenos mathêtês ginomai didaskalos ethnôn, ta paradothenta axiôs hupêretôn ginomenois alêtheias mathêtais]. Besides the Old Testament and the traditions about Jesus (Gospels), the Apocalyptic writings of the Jews, which were regarded as writings of the Spirit, were also drawn upon. Moreover, Christian letters and manifestoes proceeding from Apostles, prophets, or teachers, were read. The Epistles of Paul were early collected and obtained wide circulation in the first half of the second century; but they were not Holy Scripture in the specific sense, and therefore their authority was not unqualified.]

[Footnote 179: Barn. 5. 6, [Greek: hoi prophetai, apo tou kuriou echontes tên charin, eis auton eprophêteusan]. Ignat. ad Magn. 8. 2. cf. also Clem. Paedag. I. 7. 59: [Greek: ho gar autos houtos paidagôgos tote men "phobêthêsê kurion ton theon elegen, hêmin de agapêseis kurion ton theon sou" tarênesen. dia touto kai entelletai hêmin "pausasthe apo tôn ergôn humôn" tôn palaiôn hamartiôn, "mathete kalon poiein, ekklinon apo kakou kai poiêson agathon, êgapêsas dikaiosunên, emisêsas anomian" hautê mou hê nea diathêkê palaìoi kecharagmenê grammati].]

[Footnote 180: See above § 5, p. 114 f.]

[Footnote 181: See my edition of the Didache. Prolegg. p. 32 ff.; Rothe, "De disciplina arcani origine," 1841.]

[Footnote 182: The earliest example is 1 Cor. XI. 1 f. It is different in 1 Tim. III. 16, where already the question is about [Greek: to tês eusebeias mystêrion]. See Patr. App. Opp. 1. 2. p. 134.]

[Footnote 183: Father, son, and spirit: Paul; Matt XXVIII. 19; 1 Clem. ad. Cor. 58. 2 (see 2. 1. f.; 42. 3; 46. 6); Didache 7; Ignat. Eph. 9. 1; Magn. 13. 1. 2.; Philad. inscr.; Mart. Polyc. 14. 1. 2; Ascens. Isai. 8 18:9. 27:10. 4:11. 32ff;, Justin _passim_; Montan. ap. Didym. de trinit. 411; Excerpta ex Theodot. 80; Pseudo Clem. de virg. 1 13. Yet the omission of the Holy Spirit is frequent, as in Paul, or the Holy Spirit is identified with the Spirit of Christ. The latter takes place even with such writers as are familiar with the baptismal formula. Ignat. ad Magn. 15; [Greek: kektêmenoi adiakriton pneuma, hos estin Iêsous Christos.].]

[Footnote 184: The formulæ run: "God who has spoken through the Prophets," or the "Prophetic Spirit," etc.]

[Footnote 185: That should be assumed as certain in the case of the Egyptian Church, yet Caspari thinks he can shew that already Clement of Alexandria presupposes a symbol.]

[Footnote 186: Also in the communities of Asia Minor (Smyrna); for a combination of Polyc. Ep. c. 2 with c. 7, proves that in Smyrna the [Greek: paradotheis logos] must have been something like the Roman Symbol, see Lightfoot on the passage; it cannot be proved that it was identical with it. See, further, how in the case of Polycarp the moral element is joined on to the dogmatic. This reminds us of the Didache and has its parallel even in the first homily of Aphraates.]

[Footnote 187: See Caspari, Quellen z. Gesch. des Taufsymbols, III. p. 3 ff. and Patr. App. Opp. 1. 2. p 115-142. The old Roman Symbol reads: [Greek: Pisteuô eis theon patera pantokratora, kai eis Christon Iêsoun (ton) huion autou ton monogenê], (on this word see Westcott's Excursus in his commentary on 1st John) [Greek: ton kurion hêmôn ton gennêthenta ek pneumatos hagiou kai Marias tês parthenou, ton epi Pontiou Pilatou staurôthenta kai taphenta; tê tritê hêmerai anastanta ek nekrôn, anabanta eis tous ouranous, kathêmenon en dexia tou patros, hothen erchetai krinai zôntas kai nekrous. kai eis pneuma hagion, hagian ekklêsian, aphesin hamartiôn sarkos anastasin, amên]. To estimate this very important article aright we must note the following: (1) It is not a formula of doctrine, but of confession. (2) It has a liturgical form which is shewn in the rhythm and in the disconnected succession of its several members, and is free from everything of the nature of polemic. (3) It tapers off into the three blessings, Holy Church, forgiveness of sin, resurrection of the body, and in this as well as in the fact that there is no mention of [Greek: gnôsis (alêtheia) kai zôê aiônos], is revealed an early Christian untheological attitude. (4) It is worthy of note, on the other hand, that the birth from the Virgin occupies the first place, and all reference to the baptism of Jesus, also to the Davidic Sonship, is wanting. (5) It is further worthy of note, that there is no express mention of the death of Jesus, and that the Ascension already forms a special member (that is also found elsewhere, Ascens. Isaiah, c. 3. 13. ed. Dillmann. p. 13. Murator. Fragment, etc.). Finally, we should consider the want of the earthly Kingdom of Christ and the mission of the twelve Apostles, as well as, on the other hand, the purely religious attitude, no notice being taken of the new law. Zahn (Das Apostol. Symbolum, 1893) assumes, "That in all essential respects the identical baptismal confession which Justin learned in Ephesus about 130, and Marcion confessed in Rome about 145, originated at latest somewhere about 120." In some "unpretending notes" (p. 37 ff.) he traces this confession back to a baptismal confession of the Pauline period ("it had already assumed a more or less stereotyped form in the earlier Apostolic period"), which, however, was somewhat revised, so far as it contained, for example, "of the house of David", with reference to Christ. "The original formula, reminding us of the Jewish soil of Christianity, was thus remodelled, perhaps about 70-120, with retention of the fundamental features, so that it might appear to answer better to the need of candidates for baptism, proceeding more and more from the Gentiles.... This changed formula soon spread on all sides. It lies at the basis of all the later baptismal confessions of the Church, even of the East. The first article was slightly changed in Rome about 200-220." While up till then, in Rome as everywhere else, it had read [Greek: pisteuô eis hena theon pantokratora], it was now changed in [Greek: pisteuô eis theon patera pantokratora]. This hypothesis, with regard to the early history of the Roman Symbol, presupposes that the history of the formation of the baptismal confession in the Church, in east and west, was originally a uniform one. This cannot be proved; besides, it is refuted by the facts of the following period. It presupposes secondly, that there was a strictly formulated baptismal confession outside Rome before the middle of the second century, which likewise cannot be proved; (the converse rather is probable, that the fixed formulation proceeded from Rome.) Moreover, Zahn himself retracts everything again by the expression "more or less stereotyped form;" for what is of decisive interest here is the question, when and where the fixed sacred form was produced. Zahn here has set up the radical thesis that it can only have taken place in Rome between 200 and 220. But neither his negative nor his positive proof for a change of the Symbol in Rome at so late a period is sufficient. No sure conclusion as to the Symbol can be drawn from the wavering _regulæ fidei_ of Irenæus and Tertullian which contain the "unum"; further, the "unum" is not found in the western provincial Symbols, which, however, are in part earlier than the year 200. The Romish correction must therefore have been subsequently taken over in the provinces (Africa?). Finally, the formula [Greek: theon patera pantokratora] beside the more frequent [Greek: theon pantokratora] is attested by Irenæus, I. 10. 1, a decisive passage. With our present means we cannot attain to any direct knowledge of Symbol formation before the Romish Symbol. But the following hypotheses, which I am not able to establish here, appear to me to correspond to the facts of the case and to be fruitful: (1) There were, even in the earliest period, separate _Kerygmata_ about God and Christ: see the Apostolic writings, Hermas, Ignatius, etc. (2) The _Kerygma_ about God was the confession of the one God of creation, the almighty God. (3) The _Kerygma_ about Christ had essentially the same historical contents everywhere, but was expressed in diverse forms: (a) in the form of the fulfilment of prophecy, (b) in the form [Greek: kata sarka, kata pneuma], (c) in the form of the first and second advent, (d) in the form, [Greek: katabas-anabas]; these forms were also partly combined. (4) The designations "Christ", "Son of God" and "Lord"; further, the birth from the Holy Spirit, or [Greek: kata pneuma], the sufferings (the practice of exorcism contributed also to the fixing and naturalising of the formula "crucified under Pontius Pilate"), the death, the resurrection, the coming again to judgment, formed the stereotyped content of the _Kerygma_ about Jesus. The mention of the Davidic Sonship, of the Virgin Mary, of the baptism by John, of the third day, of the descent into Hades, of the _demonstratio veræ carnis post resurrectionem_, of the ascension into heaven and the sending out of the disciples, were additional articles which appeared here and there. The [Greek: sarka labon], and the like, were very early developed out of the forms (b) and (d). All this was already in existence at the transition of the first century to the second. (5) The proper contribution of the Roman community consisted in this, that it inserted the _Kerygma_ about God and that about Jesus into the baptismal formula, widened the clause referring to the Holy Spirit, into one embracing Holy Church, forgiveness of sin, resurrection of the body, excluded theological theories in other respects, undertook a reduction all round, and accurately defined everything up to the last world. (6) The western _regulæ fidei_ do not fall back exclusively on the old Roman Symbol, but also on the earlier freer _Kerygmata_ about God and about Jesus which were common to the east and west; not otherwise can the _regulæ fidei_ of Irenæus and Tertullian, for example, be explained. But the symbol became more and more the support of the _regula_. (7) The eastern confessions (baptismal symbols) do not fall back directly on the Roman Symbol, but were probably on the model of this symbol, made up from the provincial _Kerygmata_, rich in contents and growing ever richer, hardly, however, before the third century. (8) It cannot be proved, and it is not probable, that the Roman Symbol was in existence before Hermas, that is, about 135.]

[Footnote 188: See the fragment in Euseb. H. E. III. 39, from the work of Papias.]

[Footnote 189: [Greek: Didachê kurion dia tôn ib' apostolôn] (Did. inscr.) is the most accurate expression (similarly 2 Pet. III. 2). Instead of this might be said simply [Greek: ho kurios] (Hegesipp.). Hegesippus (Euseb. H. E. IV. 22. 3; See also Steph. Gob.) comprehends the ultimate authorities under the formula: [Greek: hôs ho nomos kêrussei kai hoi prophêtai kai ho kurios], just as even Pseudo Clem de Virg. I. 2: "Sicut ex lege ac prophetis et a domino nostro Jesu Christo didicimus." Polycarp (6.3) says: [Greek: kathôs autos eneteilato kaì hoi euangelisamenoi hêmas apostoloi kai hoi prophêtai hoi prokêruxantes tên eleusin tou kuriou hêmôn]. In the second Epistle of Clement (14. 2) we read: [Greek: ta biblia] (O.T.) [Greek: kai hoi apostoloi, to euangelion] may also stand for [Greek: ho kurios]; (Ignat., Didache. 2 Clem. etc.). The Gospel, so far as it is described, is quoted as [Greek: ta apomnêmoneumata t. apostolôn] (Justin, Tatian), or on the other hand, as [Greek: hai kuriakai graphai], (Dionys. Cor. in Euseb. H. E. IV. 23. 12: at a later period in Tertull. and Clem. Alex.). The words of the Lord, in the same way as the words of God, are called simply [Greek: ta logia (kuriaka)]. The declaration of Serapion at the beginning of the third century (Euseb., H. E. VI. 12. 3): [Greek: hêmeis kai Petron kai tous allous apostolous apodechometha hôs Christon], is an innovation in so far as it puts the words of the Apostles fixed in writing and as distinct from the words of the Lord, on a level with the latter. That is, while differentiating the one from the other, Serapion ascribes to the words of the apostles and those of the Lord equal authority. But the development which led to this position, had already begun in the first century. At a very early period there were read in the communities, beside the Old Testament, Gospels, that is collections of words of the Lord, which at the same time contained the main facts of the history of Jesus. Such notes were a necessity (Luke 1.4; [Greek: hina epignôs peri hôn katêchêthês logôn tên asphaleian]), and though still indefinite and in many ways unlike, they formed the germ for the genesis of the New Testament. (See Weiss, Lehrb. d. Einleit in d. N. T. p. 21 ff.). Further there were read Epistles and Manifestoes by apostles, prophets and teachers, but, above all, Epistles of Paul. The Gospels at first stood in no connection with these Epistles, however high they might be prized. But there did exist a connection between the Gospels and the [Greek: ap' archês autoptais kai hupêretais tou logou], so far as these mediated the tradition of the Evangelic material, and on their testimony rests the _Kerygma_ of the Church about the Lord as the Teacher, the crucified and risen One. Here lies the germ for the genesis of a canon which will comprehend the Lord and the Apostles, and will also draw in the Pauline Epistles. Finally, Apocalypses were read as Holy Scriptures.]

[Footnote 190: Read, apart from all others, the canonical Gospels, the remains of the so-called Apocryphal Gospels, and perhaps the Shepherd of Hermas: see also the statements of Papias.]

[Footnote 191: That Peter was in Antioch follows from Gal. II.; that he laboured in Corinth, perhaps before the composition of the first epistle to the Corinthians, is not so improbable as is usually maintained (1 Cor.; Dionys. of Corinth); that he was at Rome even is very credible. The sojourn of John in Asia Minor cannot, I think, be contested.]

[Footnote 192: See how in the three early "writings of Peter" (Gospel, Apocalypse, _Kerygma_) the twelve are embraced in a perfect unity. Peter is the head and spokesman for them all.]

[Footnote 193: See Papias and the Reliq. Presbyter, ap. Iren., collecta in Patr. Opp. I. 2, p. 105: see also Zahn, Forschungen. III., p. 156 f.]