Chapter III (4)

[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).]