Chapter VIII: Part 6: , p. 302 ff., especially p. 314 ff. In the Epistle of Jude, v. 3, (1)

mention is made of the [Greek: hapax paradotheisa tois hagiois pistis], and in v. 20 of "building yourselves up in your most holy faith." See Polycarp, ep. III. 2 (also VII. 2; II. 1). In either case the expressions [Greek: kanôn tês pisteôs, kanôn tês alêtheias], or the like, might stand for [Greek: pistis], for the faith itself is primarily the canon; but it is the canon only in so far as it is comprehensible and plainly defined. Here lies the transition to a new interpretation of the conception of a standard in its relation to the faith. Voigt has published an excellent investigation of the concept [Greek: ho kanôn tês alêtheias] cum synonymis (Eine verschollene Urkunde des antimont. Kampfes, 1891, pp. 184-205).]

[Footnote 24: In Hermas, Mand. I., we find a still shorter formula which only contains the Confession of the monarchy of God, who created the world, that is the formula [Greek: pisteôu eis hena theon pantakratora], which did not originate with the baptismal ceremony. But though at first the monarchy may have been the only dogma in the strict sense, the mission of Jesus Christ beyond doubt occupied a place alongside of it from the beginning; and the new religion was inconceivable without this.]

[Footnote 25: See on this point Justin, index to Otto's edition. It is not surprising that formulæ similar to those used at baptism were employed in the exorcism of demons. However, we cannot immediately infer from the latter what was the wording of the baptismal confession. Though, for example, it is an established fact that in Justin's time demons were exorcised with the words: "In the name of Jesus Christ who was crucified under Pontius Pilate," it does not necessarily follow from this that these words were also found in the baptismal confession. The sign of the cross was made over those possessed by demons; hence nothing was more natural than that these words should be spoken. Hence they are not necessarily borrowed from a baptismal confession.]

[Footnote 26: These facts were known to every Christian. They are probably also alluded to in Luke I. 4.]

[Footnote 27: The most important result of Caspari's extensive and exact studies is the establishment of this fact and the fixing of the wording of the Romish Confession. (Ungedruckte, unbeachtete und wenig beachtete Quellen z. Gesch. des Taufsymbols u d. Glaubensregels. 3 Vols. 1866-1875. Alte u. neue Quellen zur Gesch. des Taufsymbols u. d. Glaubensregel, 1879). After this Hahn, Bibliothek d. Symbole u. Glaubensregeln der alten Kirche. 2 Aufl. 1877; see also my article "Apostol. Symbol" in Herzog's R.E.. 2nd. ed., as well as Book I. of the present work, Chap. III. § 2.]

[Footnote 28: This supposition is based on observation of the fact that particular statements of the Roman Symbol, in exactly the same form or nearly so, are found in many early Christian writings. See Patr. App. Opp. I. 2, ed. 2, pp. 115-42.]

[Footnote 29: The investigations which lead to this result are of a very complicated nature and cannot therefore be given here. We must content ourselves with remarking that all Western baptismal formulæ (creeds) may be traced back to the Roman, and that there was no universal Eastern creed on parallel lines with the latter. There is no mistaking the importance which, in these circumstances, is to be attributed to the Roman symbol and Church as regards the development of Catholicism.]

[Footnote 30: This caused the pronounced tendency of the Church to the formation of dogma, a movement for which Paul had already paved the way. The development of Christianity, as attested, for example, by the [Greek: Didachê], received an additional factor in the dogmatic tradition, which soon gained the upper hand. The great reaction is then found in monasticism. Here again the rules of morality become the prevailing feature, and therefore the old Christian gnomic literature attains in this movement a second period of vigour. In it again dogmatics only form the background for the strict regulation of life. In the instruction given as a preparation for baptism the Christian moral commandments were of course always inculcated, and the obligation to observe these was expressed in the renunciation of Satan and all his works. In consequence of this, there were also fixed formulæ in these cases.]

[Footnote 31: See the Pastoral Epistles, those of John and of Ignatius; also the epistle of Jude, 1 Clem. VII., Polycarp, ad Philipp. VII., II. 1, VI. 3, Justin.]

[Footnote 32: In the apologetic writings of Justin the courts of appeal invariably continue to be the Old Testament, the words of the Lord, and the communications of prophets; hence he has hardly insisted on any other in his anti-heretical work. On the other hand we cannot appeal to the observed fact that Tertullian also, in his apologetic writings, did not reveal his standpoint as a churchman and opponent of heresy; for, with one exception, he did not discuss heretics in these tractates at all. On the contrary Justin discussed their position even in his apologetic writings; but nowhere, for instance, wrote anything similar to Theophilus' remarks in "ad Autol.," II. 14. Justin was acquainted with and frequently alluded to fixed formulæ and perhaps a baptismal symbol related to the Roman, if not essentially identical with it. (See Bornemann. Das Taufsymbol Justins in the Ztschr. f. K. G. Vol. III. p. 1 ff.), but we cannot prove that he utilised these formulæ in the sense of Irenæus and Tertullian. We find him using the expression [Greek: orthognômones] in Dial. 80. The resurrection of the flesh and the thousand years' kingdom (at Jerusalem) are there reckoned among the beliefs held by the [Greek: orthognômones kata panta Christianoi]. But it is very characteristic of the standpoint taken up by Justin that he places between the heretics inspired by demons and the orthodox a class of Christians to whom he gives the general testimony that they are [Greek: tês katharas kai eusebous gnômês], though they are not fully orthodox in so far as they reject one important doctrine. Such an estimate would have been impossible to Irenæus and Tertullian. They have advanced to the principle that he who violates the law of faith in one point is guilty of breaking it all.]

[Footnote 33: Hatch, "Organisation of the Church," p. 96.]

[Footnote 34: We can only conjecture that some teachers in Asia Minor contemporary with Irenæus, or even of older date, and especially Melito, proceeded in like manner, adhering to Polycarp's exclusive attitude. Dionysius of Corinth (Eusebius, H. E. IV. 23. 2, 4) may perhaps be also mentioned.]

[Footnote 35: Irenæus set forth his theory in a great work, adv. hæres., especially in the third book. Unfortunately his treatise, "[Greek: logos eis epideixin tou apostolikou kêrygmatos]", probably the oldest treatise on the rule of faith, has not been preserved (Euseb., H. E. V. 26.)]

[Footnote 36: Irenæus indeed asserts in several passages that all Churches--those in Germany, Iberia, among the Celts, in the East, in Egypt, in Lybia and Italy; see I. 10. 2; III. 3. 1; III. 4. 1 sq.--possess the same apostolic _kerygma_; but "qui nimis probat nihil probat." The extravagance of the expressions shows that a dogmatic theory is here at work. Nevertheless this is based on the correct view that the Gnostic speculations are foreign to Christianity and of later date.]

[Footnote 37: We must further point out here that Irenæus not only knew the tradition of the Churches of Asia Minor and Rome, but that he had sat at the feet of Polycarp and associated in his youth with many of the "elders" in Asia. Of these he knew for certain that they in part did not approve of the Gnostic doctrines and in part would not have done so. The confidence with which he represented his antignostic interpretation of the creed as that of the Church of the Apostles was no doubt owing to this sure historical recollection. See his epistle to Florinus in Euseb., H. E. V. 20 and his numerous references to the "elders" in his great work. (A collection of these may be found in Patr. App. Opp. I. 3, p. 105 sq.)]

[Footnote 38: Caspari's investigations leave no room for doubt as to the relation of the rule of faith to the baptismal confession. The baptismal confession was not a deposit resulting from fluctuating anti-heretical rules of faith; but the latter were the explanations of the baptismal confession. The full authority of the confession itself was transferred to every elucidation that appeared necessary, in so far as the needful explanation was regarded as given with authority. Each momentary formula employed to defend the Church against heresy has therefore the full value of the creed. This explains the fact that, beginning with Irenæus' time, we meet with differently formulated rules of faith, partly in the same writer, and yet each is declared to be _the_ rule of faith. Zahn is virtually right when he says, in his essay quoted above, that the rule of faith is the baptismal confession. But, so far as I can judge, he has not discerned the dilemma in which the Old Catholic Fathers were placed, and which they were not able to conceal. This dilemma arose from the fact that the Church needed an apostolic creed, expressed in fixed formulæ and at the same time definitely interpreted in an anti-heretical sense; whereas she only possessed, and this not in all churches, a baptismal confession, contained in fixed formulæ but not interpreted, along with an ecclesiastical tradition which was not formulated, although it no doubt excluded the most offensive Gnostic doctrines. It was not yet possible for the Old Catholic Fathers to frame and formulate that doctrinal confession, and they did not attempt it. The only course therefore was to assert that an elastic collection of doctrines which were ever being formulated anew, was a fixed standard in so far as it was based on a fixed creed. But this dilemma--we do not know how it was viewed by opponents--proved an advantage in the end, for it enabled churchmen to make continual additions to the rule of faith, whilst at the same time continuing to assert its identity with the baptismal confession. We must make the reservation, however, that not only the baptismal confession, but other fixed propositions as well, formed the basis on which particular rules of faith were formulated.]

[Footnote 39: Besides Irenæus I. 10. 1, 2, cf. 9. 1-5; 22. 1; II. 1. 1; 9. 1; 28. 1; 32. 3, 4; III. 1-4; 11. 1; 12. 9; 15. 1; 16. 5 sq.; 18. 3; 24. 1; IV. 1. 2; 9. 2; 20. 6; 33. 7 sq.; V. Præf. 12. 5; 20. 1.]

[Footnote 40: See Iren. I. 31. 3; II. Præf. 19. 8.]

[Footnote 41: This expression is not found in Irenæus, but is very common in Tertullian.]

[Footnote 42: See de præscr. 13: "Hæc regula a Christo instituta nullas habet apud nos quæstiones."]

[Footnote 43: See I. c. 14: "Ceterum manente forma regulæ in suo ordine quantumlibet quæras et tractes." See de virg. vol. 1.]

[Footnote 44: See 1. c. 14: "Fides in regula posita est, habet legem et salutem de observatione legis," and de vir. vol. 1.]

[Footnote 45: See de præscr. 21: "Si hæc ita sunt, constat perinde omnem doctrinam, quæ cum illis ecclesiis apostolicis matricibus et originalibus fidei conspiret, veritati deputandum ... Superest ergo ut demonstremus an hæc nostra doctrina, cujus regulam supra edidimus, de apostolorum traditione censeatur ... Communicamus cum ecclesiis catholicis, quod nulla doctrina diversa." De præscr. 32: "Ecclesiæ, quæ licet nullum ex apostolis auctorem suum proferant, ut multo posteriores, tamen in eadem fide conspirantes non minus apostolicæ deputantur pro consanguinitate doctrinæ." That Tertullian regards the baptismal confession as identical with the _regula fidei_, just as Irenæus does, is shown by the fact that in de spectac. 4 ("Cum aquam ingressi Christianam fidem in legis suæ verba profitemur, renuntiasse nos diabolo et pompæ et angelis eius ore nostro contestamur.") the baptismal confession is the _lex_. He also calls it "sacramentum" (military oath) in ad mart. 3; de idolol. 6; de corona 11; Scorp. 4. But he likewise gives the same designation to the interpreted baptismal confession (de præscr. 20, 32; adv. Marc. IV. 5); for we must regard the passages cited as referring to this. Adv. Marc. I. 21: "regula sacramenti;" likewise V. 20, a passage specially instructive as to the fact that there can be only one regula. The baptismal confession itself had a fixed and short form (see de spectac. 4; de corona, 3: "amplius aliquid respondentes quam dominus in evangelio determinavit;" de bapt. 2: "homo in aqua demissus et inter pauca verba tinctus;" de bapt. 6, 11; de orat. 2 etc.). We can still prove that, apart from a subsequent alteration, it was the Roman confession that was used in Carthage in the days of Tertullian. In de præscr. 26 Tertullian admits that the Apostles may have spoken some things "inter domesticos," but declares that they could not be communications "quæ aliam regulam fidei superducerent."]

[Footnote 46: De præscr. 13; de virg. vol. 1; adv. Prax. 2. The latter passage is thus worded: "Unicum quidem deum credimus, sub hac tamen dispensatione quam [Greek: oikonomian] dicimus, ut unici del sit et filius sermo ipsius, qui ex ipso processerit, per quern omnia facta sunt et sine quo factum est nihil, hunc missum a patre in virginem et ex ea natum, hominem et deum, filium hominis et filium dei et cognominatum Iesum Christum, hunc passum, hunc mortuum et sepultum secundum scripturas et resuscitatum a patre et in coelo resumptum sedere ad dextram patris, venturum judicare vivos et mortuos; qui exinde miserit secundum promissionem suam a patre spiritum s. paracletum sanctificatorem fidei eorum qui credunt in patrem et filium et spiritum s. Hanc regulam ab initio evangelii decucurrisse."]

[Footnote 47: De præscr. 13.]

[Footnote 48: L.c.]

[Footnote 49: L.c.]

[Footnote 50: L.c.: "id verbum filium eius appellatum, in nomine dei varie visum a patriarchis, in prophetis semper auditum, postremo delatum ex spiritu patris dei et virtute in virginem Mariam, carnem factum," etc.]

[Footnote 51: L.c.]

[Footnote 52: Adv. Prax. 2: "Unicum quidem deum credimus, sub hac tamen dispensatione quam [Greek: oikonomian] dicimus, ut unici dei sit et filius sermo ipsius," etc.]

[Footnote 53: But Tertullian also knows of a "regula disciplinæ" (according to the New Testament) on which he puts great value, and thereby shows that he has by no means forgotten that Christianity is a matter of conduct. We cannot enter more particularly into this rule here.]

[Footnote 54: Note here the use of "contesserare" in Tertullian. See de præscr. 20: "Itaque tot ac tantæ ecclesiæ una est illa ab apostolis prima, ex qua omnes. Sic omnes prima et omnes apostolicæ, dum una omnes. Probant unitatem communicatio pacis et appellatio fraternitatis et _contesseratio_ hospitalitatis, quæ iura non alia ratio regit quam eiusdem sacramenti una traditio." De præscr. 36: "Videamus, quid ecclesia Romanensis cum Africanis ecclesiis contesserarit."]

[Footnote 55: We need not here discuss whether and in what way the model of the philosophic schools was taken as a standard. But we may refer to the fact that from the middle of the second century the Apologists, that is the Christian philosophers, had exercised a very great influence on the Old Catholic Fathers. But we cannot say that 2. John 7-11 and Didache XI. 1 f. attest the practice to be a very old one. These passages only show that it had preparatory stages; the main element, namely, the formulated summary of the faith, is there sought for in vain.]

[Footnote 56: Herein lay the defect, even if the content of the law of faith had coincided completely with the earliest tradition. A man like Tertullian knew how to protect himself in his own way from this defect, but his attitude is not typical.]

[Footnote 57: Hegesippus, who wrote about the time of Eleutherus, and was in Rome about the middle of the second century (probably somewhat earlier than Irenæus), already set up the apostolic rule of faith as a standard. This is clear from the description of his work in Euseb., H. E. IV. 8. 2 ([Greek: en pente sungrammasin tên aplanê paradosin tou apostolikou kêrygmatos hypomnêmatisamenos]) as well as from the fragments of this work (l.c. IV. 22. 2, 3: [Greek: ho orthos logos] and § 5 [Greek: emerisan tên henôsin tês ekklêsias phthorimaiois logois kata tou theou]; see also § 4). Hegesippus already regarded the unity of the Church as dependent on the correct doctrine. Polycrates (Euseb., H. E. V. 24. 6) used the expression [Greek: ho kanôn tês pisteôs] in a very wide sense. But we may beyond doubt attribute to him the same conception with regard to the significance of the rule of faith as was held by his opponent Victor. The Antimontanist (in Euseb. H. E. V. 16. 22.) will only allow that the martyrs who went to death for the [Greek: kata alêtheian pistis] were those belonging to the Church. The _regula fidei_ is not here meant, as in this case it was not a subject of dispute. On the other hand, the anonymous writer in Eusebius, H. E. V. 28. 6, 13 understood by [Greek: to ekklêsiastikon phronêma] or [Greek: ho kanôn tês archaias pisteôs] the interpreted baptismal confession, just as Irenæus and Tertullian did. Hippolytus entirely agrees with these (see Philosoph. Præf., p. 4. v. 50 sq. and X. 32-34). Whether we are to ascribe the theory of Irenæus to Theophilus is uncertain. His idea of the Church is that of Irenæus (ad Autol. II. 14): [Greek: dedôken ho Theos tô kosmô kumainomenô kai cheimazomenô hypo tôn hamartêmatôn tas synagôgas, legomenas de ekklêsias hagias, en ais kathaper limesin euormois en nêsois hai didaskaliai tês alêtheias eisin ... Kai hôsper au nêsoi eisin heterai petrôdeis kai anudroi kai akarpoi kai thêriôdeis kai aoikêtoi epi blabê tôn pleontôn ... houtôs eisin hai didaskaliai tês planês, legô de tôn haireseôn, hai exapolluousin tous prosiontas autais.]]

[Footnote 58: This has been contested by Caspari (Ztschr. f. Kirchl. Wissensch. 1886, Part. 7, p. 352 ff.: "Did the Alexandrian Church in Clement's time possess a baptismal confession or not?"); but his arguments have not convinced me. Caspari correctly shows that in Clement the expression "ecclesiastical canon" denotes the summary of the Catholic faith and of the Catholic rule of conduct; but he goes on to trace the baptismal confession, and that in a fixed form, in the expression [Greek: hê peri tôn megistôn homologia], Strom. VII. 15. 90 (see remarks on this passage below), and is supported in this view by Voigt, l.c. p. 196 ff. I also regard this as a baptismal confession; but it is questionable if it was definitely formulated, and the passage is not conclusive on the point. But, supposing it to be definitely formulated, who can prove that it went further than the formula in Hermas, Mand. I. with the addition of a mere mention of the Son and Holy Spirit. That a free _kerygma_ of Christ and some other matter were added to Hermas, Mand. I. may still be proved by a reference to Orig. Comm. in Joh. XXXII. 9 (see the passage in vol. I. p. 155.).]

[Footnote 59: [Greek: Hê kyriakê didaskalia], e.g., VI. 15. 124; VI. 18. 165; VII. 10. 57; VII. 15. 90; VII. 18. 165, etc.]

[Footnote 60: We do not find in Clement the slightest traces of a baptismal confession related to the Roman, unless we reckon the [Greek: Theos pantokratôr] or [Greek: eis Th. p.] as such. But this designation of God is found everywhere and is not characteristic of the baptismal confession. In the lost treatise on the Passover Clement expounded the "[Greek: paradoseis tôn archaiôn presbyterôn]" which had been transmitted to him.]

[Footnote 61: Considering the importance of the matter it is necessary to quote as copiously as possible from original sources. In Strom. IV. 15. 98, we find the expression [Greek: ho kanôn teê pisteôs]; but the context shows that it is used here in a quite general sense. With regard to the statement of Paul: "whatever you do, do it to the glory of God," Clement remarks [Greek: hosa hypo ton kanona tês pisteôs poiein epitetraptai]. In Strom. I. 19. 96; VI. 15. 125; VI. 18. 165; VII. 7. 41; VII. 15. 90; VII. 16. 105 we find [Greek: ho kanôn tês ekklêsias (ekklêsiastikos)]. In the first passage that canon is the rule for the right observance of the Lord's Supper. In the other passages it describes no doubt the correct doctrine, that is, the rule by which the orthodox Gnostic has to be guided in contrast with the heretics who are guided by their own desires (it is therefore parallel to the [Greek: didaskalia tou kyriou]); but Clement feels absolutely no need to mention wherein this ecclesiastical canon consists. In Strom IV. 1. 3; VI. 15. 124; VI 15. 131; VII. 16. 94, we find the expression [Greek: ho kanôn tês alêtheias]. In the first passage it is said: [Greek: hê goun kata ton tês alêtheias kanona gnôstikês paradoseôs physiologia, mallon de epopteia, ek tou peri kosmogonias êrtêtai logou, enthende anabainousa epi to theologikon eidos]. Here no one can understand by the rule of truth what Tertullian understood by it. Very instructive is the second passage in which Clement is dealing with the right and wrong exposition of Scripture. He says first: [Greek: parakatathêke apodidomenê Theô hê kata tên tou kyriou didaskalian dia tôn apostolôn autou tês theosebous paradoseôs synesis te kai synaskêsis]; then he demands that the Scriptures be interpreted [Greek: kata ton tês alêtheias kanona], or [Greek: t. ekklês. kan.]; and continues (125): [Greek: kanôn de ekklêsiastikos hê synôdia kai hê symphônia nomou te kai prophêtôn tê kata tên tou kyriou parousian paradidomenê diathêkê]. Here then the agreement of the Old Testament with the Testament of Christ is described as the ecclesiastical canon. Apart from the question as to whether Clement is here already referring to a New Testament canon of Scripture, his rule agrees with Tertullian's testimony about the Roman Church: "legem et prophetas cum evangelicis et apostolicis litteris miscet." But at any rate the passage shows the broad sense in which Clement used the term "ecclesiastical canon." The following expressions are also found in Clement: [Greek: hê alêthes tês makarias didaskalias paradosis] (I. 1. 11), [Greek: hai hagiai paradoseis] (VII. 18. 110), [Greek: hê eukleês kai semnos tês paradoseôs kanôn] (all gnosis is to be guided by this, see also [Greek: hê kata tên theian paradosin philosophia], I, 1. 15. I: 11. 52., also the expression [Greek: hê theia paradosis] (VII. 16. 103), [Greek: hê ekklêsiastike paradosis] (VII. 16. 95), [Greek: hai tou Christou paradoseis] (VII. 16. 99), [Greek: hê tou kyriou paradosis] (VII. 17. 106: VII. 16. 104), [Greek: hê theosebês paradosis] (VI. 15. 124)). Its content is not more precisely defined, and, as a rule, nothing more can be gathered from the context than what Clement once calls [Greek: to koinon tês pisteôs] (VII. 16. 97). Where Clement wishes to determine the content more accurately he makes use of supplementary terms. He speaks, e.g., in III. 10. 66 of the [Greek: kata alêtheian euangelikos kanôn], and means by that the tradition contained in the Gospels recognised by the Church in contradistinction to that found in other gospels (IV. 4. 15: [Greek: kata ton kanona tou euangeliou] = [Greek: kata t. euang.]). In none of these formulæ is any notice taken of the Apostles. That Clement (like Justin) traced back the public tradition to the Apostles is a matter of course and manifest from I. 1. 11, where he gives an account of his early teachers ([Greek: hoi men tên alêthê tês makarias sôzontes didaskalias paradosin euthus apo Petrou te kai Iakôbou, Iôannou te kai Paulou tôn hagiôn apostolôn, tais para patros ekdechomenos hêkon dê syn theô kai eis hêmas ta progonika ekeina kai apostolika katathêsomenoi spermata]). Clement does not yet appeal to a hierarchical tradition through the bishops, but adheres to the natural one through the teachers, though he indeed admits an esoteric tradition alongside of it. On one occasion he also says that the true Gnostic keeps the [Greek: apostolikê kai ekklêsiastikê orthotomia tôn dogmatôn] (VII. 16. 104). He has no doubt that: [Greek: mia hê pantôn gegone tôn apostolôn hôsper didaskalia houtôs de kai hê paradosis] (VII. 17. 108). But all that might just as well have been written in the first half of the second century. On the tracing back of the Gnosis, the esoteric tradition, to the Apostles see Hypotyp. in Euseb., H. E. II. 1. 4, Strom. VI. 15. 131: [Greek: autika didaxantos tou sôtêros tous apostolous hê tês engraphou agraphos êdê kai eis hêmas diadidotai paradosis]. VI. 7. 61: [Greek: hê gnôsis de autê hê kata diadochas] (this is the only place where I find this expression) [Greek: eis oligous ek tôn apostolôn agraphôs paradotheisa katelêluthen], ibid [Greek: hê gnôstikê paradosis]; VII. 10. 55: [Greek: hê gnôsis ek paradoseôs diadidomenê tois axious sphas autous tês didaskalias parechomenois oion parakatathêkê egcheirizetai]. In VII. 17. 106 Clement has briefly recorded the theories of the Gnostic heretics with regard to the apostolic origin of their teaching, and expressed his doubts. That the tradition of the "Old Church," for so Clement designates the orthodox Church as distinguished from the "human congregation" of the heretics of his day, is throughout derived from the Apostles, he regards as so certain and self-evident that, as a rule, he never specially mentions it, or gives prominence to any particular article as apostolic. But the conclusion that he had no knowledge of any apostolic or fixed confession might seem to be disproved by one passage. It is said in Strom. VII. 15. 90: [Greek: Mê ti oun, ei kai parabaiê tis synthêkas kai tên homologian parelthoi tên pros hêmas, dia ton pseusamenon tên homologian aphexometha tês alêtheias kai hêmeis, all' hôs apseudein chrê ton epieikê kai mêden hôn hupeschêtai akuroun kan alloi tines parabainôsi synthêkas, outôs kai hêmas kata mêdena tropon ton ekklêsiastikon parabainein prosekei kanona kai malista tên peri tôn megistôn homologian hêmeis men phylattomen, oi de parabainousi]. But in the other passages in Clement where [Greek: homologia] appears it nowhere signifies a fixed formula of confession, but always the confession in general which receives its content according to the situation (see Strom. IV. 4. 15; IV. 9. 71; III. 1. 4: [Greek: egkrateia sômatos hyperopsia kata tên pros theon homologian]). In the passage quoted it means the confession of the main points of the true doctrine. It is possible or probable that Clement was here alluding to a confession at baptism, but that is also not quite certain. At any rate this one passage cannot prove that Clement identified the ecclesiastical canon with a formulated confession similar to or identical with the Roman, or else such identification must have appeared more frequently in his works.]

[Footnote 62: De princip. l. I. præf. § 4-10., IV. 2. 2. Yet we must consider the passage already twice quoted, namely, Com. in John. XXXII. 9, in order to determine the practice of the Alexandrian Church at that time. Was this baptismal confession not perhaps compiled from Herm., Mand. I., and Christological and theological teachings, so that the later confessions of the East with their dogmatic details are already to be found here?]

[Footnote 63: That may be also shown with regard to the New Testament canon. Very important is the declaration of Eusebius (H. E. VI. 14) that Origen, on his own testimony, paid a brief visit to Rome in the time of Zephyrinus, "because he wished to become acquainted with the ancient Church of the Romans." We learn from Jerome (de vir. inl. 61) that Origen there became acquainted with Hippolytus, who even called attention to his presence in the church in a sermon. That Origen kept up a connection with Rome still later and followed the conflicts there with keen interest may be gathered from his works. (See Döllinger, "Hippolytus und Calixtus" p. 254 ff.) On the other hand, Clement was quite unacquainted with that city. Bigg therefore l.c. rightly remarks: "The West is as unknown to Clement as it was to his favourite Homer." That there was a formulated [Greek: pistis kai homologia] in Alexandria about 250 A.D. is shown by the epistle of Dionysius (Euseb., H. E. VII. 8). He says of Novatian, [Greek: anatrepei tên pro loutrou pistin kai homologian]. Dionysius would hardly have reproduced this Roman reproach in that way, if the Alexandrian Church had not possessed a similar [Greek: pistis].]

[Footnote 64: The original of the Apostolic Constitutions has as yet no knowledge of the Apostolic rule of faith in the Western sense.]

[Footnote 65: The close of the first homily of Aphraates shows how simple, antique, and original this confession still was in outlying districts at the beginning of the fourth century. On the other hand, there were oriental communities where it was already heavily weighted with theology.]

[Footnote 66: Cf. the epistles of Cyprian, especially ep. 69. 70. When Cyprian speaks (69. 7) of one and the same law which is held by the whole Catholic Church, and of one _symbol_ with which she administers baptism (this is the first time we meet with this expression), his words mean far more than the assertion of Irenæus that the confession expounded by him is the guiding rule in all Churches; for in Cyprian's time the intercourse of most Catholic communities with each other was so regulated that the state of things in each was to some extent really known. Cf. also Novatian, "de trinitate seu de regula fidei," as well as the circular letter of the Synod of Antioch referring to the Metropolitan Paul (Euseb., H. E. VII. 30. 6 ... [Greek: apostas tou kanonos epi kibdêla kai notha didagmata metelêluthen]), and the homilies of Aphraates. The closer examination of the last phase in the development of the confession of faith during this epoch, when the apostolic confessions received an interpretation in accordance with the theology of Origen, will be more conveniently left over till the close of our description (see chap. 7 fin).]

[Footnote 67: See the histories of the canon by Credner, Reuss, Westcott, Hilgenfeld, Schmiedel, Holtzmann, and Weiss; the latter two, which to some extent supplement each other, are specially instructive. To Weiss belongs the merit of having kept Gospels and Apostles clearly apart in the preliminary history of the canon (see Th. L. Z. 1886. Nr. 24); Zahn, Gesch. des N. Tlichen Kanons, 2 vols, 1888 ff.; Harnack, Das Neue Test. um d. J. 200, 1889; Voigt, Eine verschollene Urkunde des antimontan. Kampfes, 1891, p. 236 ff.; Weizsäcker, Rede bei der akad. Preisvertheilung, 1892. Nov.; Köppel, Stud. u. Krit. 1891, p. 102 ff; Barth, Neue Jahrbb. f. deutsche Theologie, 1893, p. 56 ff. The following account gives only a few aspects of the case, not a history of the genesis of the canon.]

[Footnote 68: "Holy" is not always equivalent to "possessing absolute authority." There are also various stages and degrees of "holy."]

[Footnote 69: I beg here to lay down the following principles as to criticism of the New Testament. (1) It is not individual writings, but the whole book that has been immediately handed down to us. Hence, in the case of difficulties arising, we must first of all enquire, not whether the title and historical setting of a book are genuine or not, but if they are original, or were only given to the work when it became a component part of the collection. This also gives us the right to assume interpolations in the text belonging to the time when it was included in the canon, though this right must be used with caution. (2) Baur's "tendency-criticism" has fallen into disrepute; hence we must also free ourselves from the pedantry and hair-splitting which were its after effects. In consequence of the (erroneous) assumptions of the Tübingen school of critics a suspicious examination of the texts was justifiable and obligatory on their part. (3) Individual difficulties about the date of a document ought not to have the result of casting suspicion on it, when other good grounds speak in its favour; for, in dealing with writings which have no, or almost no accompanying literature, such difficulties cannot fail to arise. (4) The condition of the oldest Christianity up to the beginning of the second century did not favour literary forgeries or interpolations in support of a definite tendency. (5) We must remember that, from the death of Nero till the time of Trajan, very little is known of the history of the Church except the fact that, by the end of this time, Christianity had not only spread to an astonishing extent, but also had become vigorously consolidated.]

[Footnote 70: The novelty lies first in the idea itself, secondly in the form in which it was worked out, inasmuch as Marcion would only admit the authority of one Gospel to the exclusion of all the rest, and added the Pauline epistles which had originally little to do with the conception of the apostolic doctrinal tradition of the Church.]

[Footnote 71: It is easy to understand that, wherever there was criticism of the Old Testament, the Pauline epistles circulating in the Church would be thrust into the foreground. The same thing was done by the Manichæans in the Byzantine age.]

[Footnote 72: Four passages may be chiefly appealed to in support of the opposite view, viz., 2 Peter III. 16; Polycarp ep. 12. 1; Barn. IV. 14; 2 Clem. II. 4. But the first is put out of court, as the second Epistle of Peter is quite a late writing. The second is only known from an unreliable Latin translation (see Zahn on the passage: "verba 'his scripturis' suspecta sunt, cum interpres in c. II. 3 ex suis inseruerit quod dictum est"), and even if the latter were faithful here, the quotation from the Psalms prefixed to the quotation from the Epistle to the Ephesians prevents us from treating the passage as certain evidence. As to the third passage ([Greek: mêpote, hôs gegraptai, polloi klêtoi, oligoi de eklektoi heurethômen]), it should be noted that the author of the Epistle of Barnabas, although he makes abundant use of the evangelic tradition, has nowhere else described evangelic writings as [Greek: graphê], and must have drawn from more sources than the canonic Gospels. Here, therefore, we have an enigma which may be solved in a variety of ways. It seems worth noting that it is a saying of the Lord which is here in question. But from the very beginning words of the Lord were equally reverenced with the Old Testament (see the Pauline Epistles). This may perhaps explain how the author--like 2 Clem. II. 4: [Greek: hetera de graphê legei hoti ouk êlthon kalesai dikaious alla hamartôlous]--has introduced a saying of this kind with the same formula as was used in introducing Old Testament quotations. Passages, such as Clem. XIII. 4: [Greek: legei ho theos: ou charis humin ei agapate k.t.l.] would mark the transition to this mode of expression. The correctness of this explanation is confirmed by observation of the fact that the same formula as was employed in the case of the Old Testament was used in making quotations from early Christian apocalypses, or utterances of early Christian prophets in the earliest period. Thus we already read in Ephesians V. 14: [Greek: dio legei: egeire ho katheudôn kai anasta ek tôn nekrôn kai epiphausei soi ho Christos]. That, certainly, is a saying of a Christian prophet, and yet it is introduced with the usual "[Greek: legei]". We also find a saying of a Christian prophet in Clem. XXIII. (the saying is more complete in 2 Clem. XI.) introduced with the words: [Greek: hê graphê hautê, hopou legei]. These examples may be multiplied still further. From all this we may perhaps assume that the trite formulæ of quotation "[Greek: graphê], [Greek: gegraptai]," etc., were applied wherever reference was made to sayings of the Lord and of prophets that were fixed in writings, even when the documents in question had not yet as a whole obtained canonical authority. Finally, we must also draw attention to the following:--The Epistle of Barnabas belongs to Egypt; and there probably, contrary to my former opinion, we must also look for the author of the second Epistle of Clement. There is much to favour the view that in Egypt _Christian_ writings were treated as sacred texts, without being united into a collection of equal rank with the Old Testament. (See below on this point.)]

[Footnote 73: See on Justin Bousset. Die Evv.-Citate Justins. Gott., 1891. We may also infer from the expression of Hegesippus (Euseb., H. E. IV. 22. 3; Stephanus Gobarus in Photius, Bibl. 232. p. 288) that it was not Christian writings, but the Lord himself, who was placed on an equality with Law and Prophets. Very instructive is the formula: "Libri et epistolæ Pauli viri iusti" ([Greek: hai kath' hêmas bibloi kai hai prosepitoutois epistolai Paulou tou hosiou andros]), which is found in the Acta Mart. Scillit. anno 180 (ed. Robinson, Texts and Studies, 1891, I. 2, p. 114 f.), and tempts us to make certain conclusions. In the later recensions of the Acta the passage, characteristically enough, is worded: "Libri evangeliorum et epistolæ Pauli viri sanctissimi apostoli" or "Quattuor evv. dom. nostri J. Chr. et epp. S. Pauli ap. et omnis divinitus inspirata scriptura."]

[Footnote 74: It is worthy of note that the Gnostics also, though they quote the words of the Apostles (John and Paul) as authoritative, place the utterances of the Lord on an unattainable height. See in support of this the epistle of Ptolemy to Flora.]

[Footnote 75: Rev. I. 3; Herm. Vis. II. 4; Dionys. Cor. in Euseb., IV. 23. 11.]

[Footnote 76: Tertullian, this Christian of the primitive type, still reveals the old conception of things in one passage where, reversing 2 Tim. III. 16, he says (de cultu fem. I. 3) "Legimus omnem scripturam ædificationi habilem divinitus inspirari."]

[Footnote 77: The history of the collection of the Pauline Epistles may be traced back to the first century (1 Clem. XLVII. and like passages). It follows from the Epistle of Polycarp that this native of Asia Minor had in his hands all the Pauline Epistles (quotations are made from nine of the latter; these nine imply the four that are wanting, yet it must remain an open question whether he did not yet possess the Pastoral Epistles in their present form), also 1 Peter, 1 John (though he has not named the authors of these), the first Epistle of Clement and the Gospels. The extent of the writings read in churches which Polycarp is thus seen to have had approaches pretty nearly that of the later recognised canon. Compare, however, the way in which he assumes sayings from those writings to be well known by introducing them with "[Greek: eidotes]" (I. 3; IV. 1; V. 1). Ignatius likewise shows himself to be familiar with the writings which were subsequently united to form the New Testament. We see from the works of Clement, that, at the end of the second century, a great mass of Christian writings were collected in Alexandria and were used and honoured.]

[Footnote 78: It should also be pointed out that Justin most probably used the Gospel of Peter among the [Greek: apomnêmoneumata]; see Texte u. Unters. IX. 2.]

[Footnote 79: See my article in the Zeitschr. f. K. Gesch. Vol. IV. p. 471 ff. Zahn (Tatian's Diatessaron, 1881) takes a different view.]

[Footnote 80: Justin also used the Gospel of John, but it is a disputed matter whether he regarded and used it like the other Gospels.]

[Footnote 81: The Sabellians still used it in the third century, which is a proof of the great authority possessed by this Gospel in Christian antiquity. (Epiph., H. 62. 2.)]

[Footnote 82: Euseb. H. E. IV. 29. 5.]

[Footnote 83: In many regions the Gospel canon alone appeared at first, and in very many others it long occupied a more prominent place than the other canonical writings. Alexander of Alexandria, for instance, still calls God the giver of the Law, the Prophets, and the Gospels (Theodoret, I. 4).]

[Footnote 84: Euseb., H. E. II. 26. 13. As Melito speaks here of the [Greek: akribeia tôn palaiôn bibliôn], and of [Greek: ta biblia tês palaias diathêkês], we may assume that he knows [Greek: ta biblia tês kainês diathêkês].]

[Footnote 85: We may here leave undiscussed the hesitancy with regard to the admissibility of particular books. That the Pastoral Epistles had a fixed place in the canon almost from the very first is of itself a proof that the date of its origin cannot be long before 180. In connection with this, however, it is an important circumstance that Clement makes the general statement that the heretics reject the Epistles to Timothy (Strom. II. 12. 52: [Greek: hoi apo tôn haireseôn tas pros Timotheon athetousin epistolas]). They did not happen to be at the disposal of the Church at all till the middle of the second century.]

[Footnote 86: Yet see the passage from Tertullian quoted, p. 15, note 1; see also the "receptior," de pudic. 20, the cause of the rejection of Hermas in the Muratorian Fragment and Tertull. de bapt. 17: "Quodsi quæ Pauli perperam scripta sunt exemplum Theclæ ad licentiam mulierum docendi tinguendique defendunt, sciant in Asia presbyterum, qui eam scripturam construxit, quasi titulo Pauli de suo cumulans, convictum atque confessum id se amore Pauli fecisse, loco decessisse." The hypothesis that the Apostles themselves (or the apostle John) compiled the New Testament was definitely set up by no one in antiquity and therefore need not be discussed. Augustine (c. Faustum XXII. 79) speaks frankly of "sancti et docti homines" who produced the New Testament. We can prove by a series of testimonies that the idea of the Church having compiled the New Testament writings was in no way offensive to the Old Catholic Fathers. As a rule, indeed, they are silent on the matter. Irenæus and Tertullian already treat the collection as simply existent.]

[Footnote 87: Numerous examples may be found in proof of all these points, especially in the writings of Tertullian, though such are already to be met with in Irenæus also. He is not yet so bold in his allegorical exposition of the Gospels as Ptolemæus whom he finds fault with in this respect; but he already gives an exegesis of the books of the New Testament not essentially different from that of the Valentinians. One should above all read the treatise of Tertullian "de idololatria" to perceive how the authority of the New Testament was even by that time used for solving all questions.]

[Footnote 88: I cannot here enter into the disputed question as to the position that should be assigned to the Muratorian Fragment in the history of the formation of the canon, nor into its interpretation, etc. See my article "Das Muratorische Fragment und die Entstehung einer Sammlung apostolisch-katholischer Schriften" in the Ztschr. f. K. Gesch. III. p. 358 ff. See also Overbeck, Zur Geschichte des Kanons, 1880; Hilgenfeld, in the Zeitschrift f. Wissensch. Theol. 1881, part 2; Schmiedel, Art. "Kanon" in Ersch. u. Gruber's Encykl., 2 Section, Vol. XXXII. p. 309 ff.; Zahn, Kanongeschichte, Vol. II. p. 1 ff. I leave the fragment and the conclusions I have drawn from it almost entirely out of account here. The following sketch will show that the objections of Overbeck have not been without influence on me.]

[Footnote 89: The use of the word "canon" as a designation of the collection is first plainly demonstrable in Athanasius (ep. fest. of the year 365) and in the 59th canon of the synod of Laodicea. It is doubtful whether the term was already used by Origen. Besides, the word "canon" was not applied even to the Old Testament before the fourth century. The name "New Testament" (books of the New Testament) is first found in Melito and Tertullian. For other designations of the latter see Ronsch, Das N. T. Tertullian's p. 47 f. The most common name is "Holy Scriptures." In accordance with its main components the collection is designated as [Greek: to euangelion kai ho apostolos] (evangelicæ et apostolicæ litteræ); see Tertullian, de bapt. 15: "tam ex domini evangelio quam ex apostoli litteris." The name "writings of the Lord" is also found very early. It was already used for the Gospels at a time when there was no such thing as a canon. It was then occasionally transferred to all writings of the collection. Conversely, the entire collection was named, after the authors, a collection of apostolic writings, just as the Old Testament Scriptures were collectively called the writings of the prophets. Prophets and Apostles (= Old and New Testament) were now conceived as the media of God's revelation fixed in writing (see the Muratorian Fragment in its account of Hermas, and the designation of the Gospels as "Apostolic memoirs" already found in Justin.) This grouping became exceedingly important. It occasioned new speculations about the unique dignity of the Apostles and did away with the old collocation of Apostles and Prophets (that is Christian prophets). By this alteration we may measure the revolution of the times. Finally, the new collection was also called "the writings of the Church" as distinguished from the Old Testament and the writings of the heretics. This expression and its amplifications shew that it was the Church which selected these writings.]

[Footnote 90: Here there is a distinction between Irenæus and Tertullian. The former disputed with heretics about the interpretation of the Scriptures, the latter, although he has read Irenæus, forbids such dispute. He cannot therefore have considered Irenæus' efforts as successful.]

[Footnote 91: The reader should remember the different recensions of the Gospels and the complaints made by Dionysius of Corinth (in Euseb., H. E. IV. 23. 12).]

[Footnote 92: That the text of these writings was at the same time revised is more than probable, especially in view of the beginnings and endings of many New Testament writings, as well as, in the case of the Gospels, from a comparison of the canon text with the quotations dating from the time when there was no canon. But much more important still is the perception of the fact that, in the course of the second century, a series of writings which had originally been circulated anonymously or under the name of an unknown author were ascribed to an Apostle and were also slightly altered in accordance with this. In what circumstances or at what time this happened, whether it took place as early as the beginning of the second century or only immediately before the formation of the canon, is in almost every individual case involved in obscurity, but the fact itself, of which unfortunately the Introductions to the New Testament still know so little, is, in my opinion, incontestable. I refer the reader to the following examples, without indeed being able to enter on the proof here (see my edition of the "Teaching of the Apostles" p. 106 ff). (1) The Gospel of Luke seems not to have been known to Marcion under this name, and to have been called so only at a later date. (2) The canonical Gospels of Matthew and Mark do not claim, through their content, to originate with these men; they were regarded as apostolic at a later period. (3) The so-called Epistle of Barnabas was first attributed to the Apostle Barnabas by tradition. (4) The Apocalypse of Hermas was first connected with an apostolic Hermas by tradition (Rom. XVI. 14). (5) The same thing took place with regard to the first Epistle of Clement (Philipp, IV. 3). (6) The Epistle to the Hebrews, originally the writing of an unknown author or of Barnabas, was transformed into a writing of the Apostle Paul (Overbeck zur Gesch. des Kanons, 1880), or given out to be such. (7) The Epistle of James, originally the communication of an early Christian prophet, or a collection of ancient holy addresses, first seems to have received the name of James in tradition. (8) The first Epistle of Peter, which originally appears to have been written by an unknown follower of Paul, first received its present name from tradition. The same thing perhaps holds good of the Epistle of Jude. Tradition was similarly at work, even at a later period, as may for example be recognised by the transformation of the epistle "de virginitate" into two writings by Clement. The critics of early Christian literature have created for themselves insoluble problems by misunderstanding the work of tradition. Instead of asking whether the tradition is reliable, they always wrestle with the dilemma "genuine or spurious", and can prove neither.]

[Footnote 93: As regards its aim and contents, this book is furthest removed from the claim to be a portion of a collection of Holy Scriptures. Accordingly, so far as we know, its reception into the canon has no preliminary history.]