{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_19612/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_19612","id":"gutenberg_19612","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/19612","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Theology, Doctrinal -- History"],"text":"Produced by Dave Maddock, David King, and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\n\n\nTHEOLOGICAL TRANSLATION LIBRARY\n\nEDITED BY THE REV. T. K. CHEYNE MA DD, ORIET PROFESSOR OF INTERPRETATION\nOXFORD AND THE REV. A. B. BRUCE, DD PROFESSOR OF APOLOGETICS AND NEW\nTESTAMENT: EXEGESIS, FREE CHURCH COLLEGE GLASGOW\n\n\nVOL II\nHARNACKS HISTORY OF DOGMA. VOL. I\n\n[Greek: To dogmatos onoma tes anthropines echetai boules te kai gnomes.\nHoti de touth' houtos echei, marturei men hikanos he dogmatike ton\niatron techne, martyrei de kai ta ton philosophon kaloumena dogmata.\nHoti de kai ta synkleto doxanta eti kai nun dogmata synkletou legetai,\noudena agnoein oimai.]\n\nMARCELLUS OF ANCYRA.\n\n\nDie Christliche Religion hat nichts in der Philosophie zu thun, Sie ist\nein machtiges Wesen fuer sich, woran die gesunkene und leidende\nMenschheit von Zeit zu Zeit sich immer wieder emporgearbeitet hat, und\nindem man ihr diese Wirkung zugesteht, ist sie ueber aller Philosophie\nerhaben und bedarf von ihr keine Stuetze.\n\nGesprache mit GOETHE von ECKERMANN,\n2 Th p 39.\n\n\n\n\nHISTORY OF DOGMA\n\nBY\n\nDR. ADOLPH HARNACK\n\nORDINARY PROF. OF CHURCH HISTORY IN THE UNIVERSITY, AND FELLOW OF THE\nROYAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE, BERLIN\n\n_TRANSLATED FROM THE THIRD GERMAN EDITION_\n\nBY\n\nNEIL BUCHANAN\n\nVOL. I.\n\n\nBOSTON\nLITTLE, BROWN, AND COMPANY\n1901\n\n\n\n\nVORWORT ZUR ENGLISCHEN AUSGABE.\n\nEin theologisches Buch erhaelt erst dadurch einen Platz in der\nWeltlitteratur, dass es Deutsch und Englisch gelesen werden kann. Diese\nbeiden Sprachen zusammen haben auf dem Gebiete der Wissenschaft vom\nChristenthum das Lateinische abgeloest. Es ist mir daher eine grosse\nFreude, dass mein Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte in das Englische\nuebersetzt worden ist, und ich sage dem Uebersetzer sowie den Verlegern\nmeinen besten Dank.\n\nDer schwierigste Theil der Dogmengeschichte ist ihr Anfang, nicht nur\nweil in dem Anfang die Keime fuer alle spaeteren Entwickelungen liegen,\nund daher ein Beobachtungsfehler beim Beginn die Richtigkeit der ganzen\nfolgenden Darstellung bedroht, sondern auch desshalb, weil die Auswahl\ndes wichtigsten Stoffs aus der Geschichte des Urchristenthums und der\nbiblischen Theologie ein schweres Problem ist. Der Eine wird finden,\ndass ich zu viel in das Buch aufgenommen habe, und der Andere zu\nwenig--vielleicht haben Beide recht; ich kann dagegen nur anfuehren, dass\nsich mir die getroffene Auswahl nach wiederholtem Nachdenken und\nExperimentiren auf's Neue erprobt hat.\n\nWer ein theologisches Buch aufschlaegt, fragt gewoehnlich zuerst nach dem\n\"Standpunkt\" des Verfassers. Bei geschichtlichen Darstellungen sollte\nman so nicht fragen. Hier handelt es sich darum, ob der Verfasser einen\nSinn hat fuer den Gegenstand den er darstellt, ob er Originales und\nAbgeleitetes zu unterscheiden versteht, ob er seinen Stoff volkommen\nkennt, ob er sich der Grenzen des geschichtlichen Wissens bewusst ist,\nund ob er wahrhaftig ist. Diese Forderungen enthalten den kategorischen\nImperativ fuer den Historiker; aber nur indem man rastlos an sich selber\narbeitet, sind sie zu erfullen,--so ist jede geschichtliche Darstellung\neine ethische Aufgabe. Der Historiker soll in jedem Sinn _treu_ sein: ob\ner das gewesen ist, darnach soll mann fragen.\n\n_Berlin_, am 1. Mai, 1894.\n\nADOLF HARNACK.\n\n\n\n\nTHE AUTHOR'S PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION.\n\n\nNo theological book can obtain a place in the literature of the world\nunless it can be read both in German and in English. These two languages\ncombined have taken the place of Latin in the sphere of Christian\nScience. I am therefore greatly pleased to learn that my \"History of\nDogma\" has been translated into English, and I offer my warmest thanks\nboth to the translator and to the publishers.\n\nThe most difficult part of the history of dogma is the beginning, not\nonly because it contains the germs of all later developments, and\ntherefore an error in observation here endangers the correctness of the\nwhole following account, but also because the selection of the most\nimportant material from the history of primitive Christianity and\nbiblical theology is a hard problem. Some will think that I have\nadmitted too much into the book, others too little. Perhaps both are\nright. I can only reply that after repeated consideration and experiment\nI continue to be satisfied with my selection.\n\nIn taking up a theological book we are in the habit of enquiring first\nof all as to the \"stand-point\" of the Author. In a historical work there\nis no room for such enquiry. The question here is, whether the Author is\nin sympathy with the subject about which he writes, whether he can\ndistinguish original elements from those that are derived, whether he\nhas a thorough acquaintance with his material, whether he is conscious\nof the limits of historical knowledge, and whether he is truthful. These\nrequirements constitute the categorical imperative for the historian:\nbut they can only be fulfilled by an unwearied self-discipline. Hence\nevery historical study is an ethical task. The historian ought to be\nfaithful in every sense of the word; whether he has been so or not is\nthe question on which his readers have to decide.\n\n_Berlin_, 1st May, 1894.\n\nADOLF HARNACK.\n\n\n\n\nFROM THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.\n\n\nThe task of describing the genesis of ecclesiastical dogma which I have\nattempted to perform in the following pages, has hitherto been proposed\nby very few scholars, and, properly speaking, undertaken by one only. I\nmust therefore crave the indulgence of those acquainted with the subject\nfor an attempt which no future historian of dogma can avoid.\n\nAt first I meant to confine myself to narrower limits, but I was unable\nto carry out that intention, because the new arrangement of the material\nrequired a more detailed justification. Yet no one will find in the\nbook, which presupposes the knowledge of Church history so far as it is\ngiven in the ordinary manuals, any repertory of the theological thought\nof Christian antiquity. The diversity of Christian ideas, or of ideas\nclosely related to Christianity, was very great in the first centuries.\nFor that very reason a selection was necessary; but it was required,\nabove all, by the aim of the work. The history of dogma has to give an\naccount, only of those doctrines of Christian writers which were\nauthoritative in wide circles, or which furthered the advance of the\ndevelopment; otherwise it would become a collection of monographs, and\nthereby lose its proper value. I have endeavoured to subordinate\neverything to the aim of exhibiting the development which led to the\necclesiastical dogmas, and therefore have neither, for example,\ncommunicated the details of the gnostic systems, nor brought forward in\ndetail the theological ideas of Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, etc. Even a\nhistory of Paulinism will be sought for in the book in vain. It is a\ntask by itself, to trace the aftereffects of the theology of Paul in the\npost-Apostolic age. The History of Dogma can only furnish fragments\nhere; for it is not consistent with its task to give an accurate account\nof the history of a theology the effects of which were at first very\nlimited. It is certainly no easy matter to determine what was\nauthoritative in wide circles at the time when dogma was first being\ndeveloped, and I may confess that I have found the working out of the\nthird chapter of the first book very difficult. But I hope that the\nsevere limitation in the material will be of service to the subject. If\nthe result of this limitation should be to lead students to read\nconnectedly the manual which has grown out of my lectures, my highest\nwish will be gratified.\n\nThere can be no great objection to the appearance of a text-book on the\nhistory of dogma at the present time. We now know in what direction we\nhave to work; but we still want a history of Christian theological ideas\nin their relation to contemporary philosophy. Above all, we have not got\nan exact knowledge of the Hellenistic philosophical terminologies in\ntheir development up to the fourth century. I have keenly felt this\nwant, which can only be remedied by well-directed common labour. I have\nmade a plentiful use of the controversial treatise of Celsus against\nChristianity, of which little use has hitherto been made for the history\nof dogma. On the other hand, except in a few cases, I have deemed it\ninadmissible to adduce parallel passages, easy to be got, from Philo,\nSeneca, Plutarch, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Porphyry, etc.; for only a\ncomparison strictly carried out would have been of value here. I have\nbeen able neither to borrow such from others, nor to furnish it myself.\nYet I have ventured to submit my work, because, in my opinion, it is\npossible to prove the dependence of dogma on the Greek spirit, without\nbeing compelled to enter into a discussion of all the details.\n\nThe Publishers of the Encyclopaedia Britannica have allowed me to print\nhere, in a form but slightly altered, the articles on Neoplatonism and\nManichaeism which I wrote for their work, and for this I beg to thank\nthem.\n\nIt is now eighty-three years since my grandfather, Gustav Ewers, edited\nin German the excellent manual on the earliest history of dogma by\nMuenter, and thereby got his name associated with the history of the\nfounding of the new study. May the work of the grandson be found not\nunworthy of the clear and disciplined mind which presided over the\nbeginnings of the young science.\n\n_Giessen_, 1st August, 1885.\n\n\n\n\nAUTHOR'S PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.\n\n\nIn the two years that have passed since the appearance of the first\nedition I have steadily kept in view the improvement of this work, and\nhave endeavoured to learn from the reviews of it that have appeared. I\nowe most to the study of Weizsaecker's work, on the Apostolic Age, and\nhis notice of the first edition of this volume in the Goettinger gelehrte\nAnzeigen, 1886, No. 21. The latter, in several decisive passages\nconcerning the general conception, drew my attention to the fact that I\nhad emphasised certain points too strongly, but had not given due\nprominence to others of equal importance, while not entirely overlooking\nthem. I have convinced myself that these hints were, almost throughout,\nwell founded, and have taken pains to meet them in the new edition. I\nhave also learned from Heinrici's commentary on the Second Epistle to\nthe Corinthians, and from Bigg's \"Lectures on the Christian Platonists\nof Alexandria.\" Apart from these works there has appeared very little\nthat could be of significance for my historical account; but I have once\nmore independently considered the main problems, and in some cases,\nafter repeated reading of the sources, checked my statements, removed\nmistakes and explained what had been too briefly stated. Thus, in\nparticular, Chapter II. Sec.Sec. 1-3 of the \"Presuppositions\", also the Third\nChapter of the First Book (especially Section 6), also in the Second\nBook, Chapter I. and Chapter II. (under B), the Third Chapter\n(Supplement 3 and excursus on \"Catholic and Romish\"), the Fifth Chapter\n(under 1 and 3) and the Sixth Chapter (under 2) have been subjected to\nchanges and greater additions. Finally, a new excursus has been added on\nthe various modes of conceiving pre-existence, and in other respects\nmany things have been improved in detail. The size of the book has\nthereby been increased by about fifty pages. As I have been\nmisrepresented by some as one who knew not how to appreciate the\nuniqueness of the Gospel history and the evangelic faith, while others\nhave conversely reproached me with making the history of dogma proceed\nfrom an \"apostasy\" from the Gospel to Hellenism, I have taken pains to\nstate my opinions on both these points as clearly as possible. In doing\nso I have only wrought out the hints which were given in the first\nedition, and which, as I supposed, were sufficient for readers. But it\nis surely a reasonable desire when I request the critics in reading the\nparagraphs which treat of the \"Presuppositions\", not to forget how\ndifficult the questions there dealt with are, both in themselves and\nfrom the nature of the sources, and how exposed to criticism the\nhistorian is who attempts to unfold his position towards them in a few\npages. As is self-evident, the centre of gravity of the book lies in\nthat which forms its subject proper, in the account of the origin of\ndogma within the Graeco-Roman empire. But one should not on that account,\nas many have done, pass over the beginning which lies before the\nbeginning, or arbitrarily adopt a starting-point of his own; for\neverything here depends on where and how one begins. I have not\ntherefore been able to follow the well-meant counsel to simply strike\nout the \"Presuppositions.\"\n\nI would gladly have responded to another advice to work up the notes\ninto the text; but I would then have been compelled to double the size\nof some chapters. The form of this book, in many respects awkward, may\ncontinue as it is so long as it represents the difficulties by which the\nsubject is still pressed. When they have been removed--and the smallest\nnumber of them lie in the subject matter--I will gladly break up this\nform of the book and try to give it another shape. For the friendly\nreception given to it I have to offer my heartiest thanks. But against\nthose who, believing themselves in possession of a richer view of the\nhistory here related, have called my conception meagre, I appeal to the\nbeautiful words of Tertullian; \"Malumus in scripturis minus, si forte,\nsapere quam contra.\"\n\n_Marburg_, 24th December, 1887.\n\n\n\n\nAUTHOR'S PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION.\n\n\nIn the six years that have passed since the appearance of the second\nedition I have continued to work at the book, and have made use of the\nnew sources and investigations that have appeared during this period, as\nwell as corrected and extended my account in many passages. Yet I have\nnot found it necessary to make many changes in the second half of the\nwork. The increase of about sixty pages is almost entirely in the first\nhalf.\n\n_Berlin_, 31st December, 1893\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nINTRODUCTORY DIVISION.\n\nCHAPTER I.--PROLEGOMENA TO THE STUDY OF THE HISTORY OF DOGMA\n\nSec. 1. The Idea and Task of the History of Dogma\n\nDefinition\n\nLimits and Divisions\n\nDogma and Theology\n\nFactors in the formation of Dogma\n\nExplanation as to the conception and task of the History of Dogma\n\nSec. 2. History of the History of Dogma\n\nThe Early, the Mediaeval, and the Roman Catholic Church\n\nThe Reformers and the 17th Century\n\nMosheim, Walch, Ernesti\n\nLessing, Semler, Lange, Muenscher, Baumgarten-Crusius, Meier Baur,\nNeander, Kliefoth, Thomasius,\n\nNitzsch, Ritschl, Renan, Loofs\n\nCHAPTER II.--THE PRESUPPOSITIONS OF THE HISTORY OF DOGMA\n\nSec. 1. Introductory\n\nThe Gospel and the Old Testament\n\nThe Detachment of the Christians from the Jewish Church\n\nThe Church and the Graeco-Roman World\n\nThe Greek spirit an element of the Ecclesiastical Doctrine of Faith\n\nThe Elements connecting Primitive Christianity and the growing Catholic\nChurch\n\nThe Presuppositions of the origin of the Apostolic Catholic Doctrine of\nFaith\n\nSec. 2. The Gospel of Jesus Christ according to His own Testimony\nconcerning Himself\n\nFundamental Features\n\nDetails\n\nSupplements\n\nLiterature\n\nSec. 3. The Common Preaching concerning Jesus Christ in the first\ngeneration of believers.\n\nGeneral Outline\n\nThe faith of the first Disciples\n\nThe beginnings of Christology\n\nConceptions of the Work of Jesus\n\nBelief in the Resurrection\n\nRighteousness and the Law\n\nPaul\n\nThe Self-consciousness of being the Church of God\n\nSupplement 1. Universalism\n\nSupplement 2. Questions as to the value of the Law; the four main\ntendencies at the close of the Apostolic Age\n\nSupplement 3. The Pauline Theology.\n\nSupplement 4. The Johannine Writings\n\nSupplement 5. The Authorities in the Church\n\nSec. 4. The current Exposition of the Old Testament and the Jewish hopes of\nthe future in their significance for the Earliest types of Christian\npreaching\n\nThe Rabbinical and Exegetical Methods\n\nThe Jewish Apocalyptic literature\n\nMythologies and poetical ideas, notions of pre-existence and their\napplication to Messiah\n\nThe limits of the explicable Literature\n\nSec. 5. The Religious Conceptions and the Religious Philosophy of the\nHellenistic Jews in their significance for the later formulation of the\nGospel\n\nSpiritualising and Moralising of the Jewish Religion\n\nPhilo\n\nThe Hermeneutic principles of Philo\n\nSec. 6. The religious dispositions of the Greeks and Romans in the first\ntwo centuries, and the current Graeco-Roman philosophy of religion\n\nThe new religious needs and the old worship (Excursus on [Greek: theos])\n\nThe System of associations, and the Empire\n\nPhilosophy and its acquisitions\n\nPlatonic and Stoic Elements in the philosophy of religion\n\nGreek culture and Roman ideas in the Church\n\nThe Empire and philosophic schools (the Cynics)\n\nLiterature\n\nSUPPLEMENTARY.\n\n(1) The twofold conception of the blessing of Salvation in its\nsignificance for the following period\n\n(2) Obscurity in the origin of the most important Christian ideas and\nEcclesiastical forms\n\n(3) Significance of the Pauline theology for the legitimising and\nreformation of the doctrine of the Church in the following period\n\nDIVISION I.--THE GENESIS OF ECCLESIASTICAL DOGMA, OR THE GENESIS OF THE\nCATHOLIC APOSTOLIC DOGMATIC THEOLOGY, AND THE FIRST SCIENTIFIC\nECCLESIASTICAL SYSTEM OF DOCTRINE.\n\nBOOK I.\n\nTHE PREPARATION.\n\nCHAPTER I. HISTORICAL SURVEY\n\nCHAPTER II.--THE ELEMENT COMMON TO ALL CHRISTIANS AND THE BREACH WITH\nJUDAISM\n\nCHAPTER III. THE COMMON FAITH AND THE BEGINNINGS OF KNOWLEDGE IN GENTILE\nCHRISTIANITY AS IT WAS BEING DEVELOPED INTO CATHOLICISM\n\n(1) The Communities and the Church\n\n(2) The Foundations of the Faith; the Old Testament, and the traditions\nabout Jesus (sayings of Jesus, the _Kerygma_ about Jesus), the\nsignificance of the \"Apostolic\"\n\n(3) The main articles of Christianity and the conceptions of salvation.\nThe new law. Eschatology.\n\n(4) The Old Testament as source of the knowledge of faith\n\n(5) The knowledge of God and of the world, estimate of the world\n(Demons)\n\n(6) Faith in Jesus Christ\n\nJesus the Lord.\n\nJesus the Christ\n\nJesus the Son of God, the _Theologia Christi_\n\nThe Adoptian and the Pneumatic Christology\n\nIdeas of Christ's work\n\n(7) The Worship, the sacred actions, and the organisation of the\nChurches\n\nThe Worship and Sacrifice\n\nBaptism and the Lord's Supper\n\nThe organisation\n\nSUPPLEMENTARY.\n\nThe premises of Catholicism\n\nDoctrinal diversities of the Apostolical Fathers\n\nCHAPTER IV.--THE ATTEMPTS OF THE GNOSTICS TO CREATE AN APOSTOLIC\nDOGMATIC, AND A CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY; OR THE ACUTE SECULARISING OF\nCHRISTIANITY\n\n(1) The conditions for the rise of Gnosticism.\n\n(2) The nature of Gnosticism\n\n(3) History of Gnosticism and the forms in which it appeared\n\n(4) The most important Gnostic doctrines\n\nCHAPTER V.--THE ATTEMPT OF MARCION TO SET ASIDE THE OLD TESTAMENT\nFOUNDATION OF CHRISTIANITY, TO PURIFY THE TRADITION AND REFORM\nCHRISTENDOM ON THE BASIS OF THE PAULINE GOSPEL\n\nCharacterisation of Marcion's attempt\n\n(1) His estimate of the Old Testament and the god of the Jews\n\n(2) The God of the Gospel\n\n(3) The relation of the two Gods according to Marcion. The Gnostic woof\nin Marcion's Christianity\n\n(4)  The Christology\n\n(5) Eschatology and Ethics\n\n(6) Criticism of the Christian tradition, the Marcionite Church\n\nRemarks\n\nCHAPTER VI.--THE CHRISTIANITY OF JEWISH CHRISTIANS, DEFINITION OF THE\nNOTION JEWISH CHRISTIANITY\n\n(1) General conditions for the development of Jewish Christianity\n\n(2) Jewish Christianity and the Catholic Church, insignificance of\nJewish Christianity, \"Judaising\" in Catholicism\n\nAlleged documents of Jewish Christianity (Apocalypse of John, Acts of\nthe Apostles, Epistle to the Hebrews, Hegesippus)\n\nHistory of Jewish Christianity\n\nThe witness of Justin\n\nThe witness of Celsus\n\nThe witness of Irenaeus and Origen\n\nThe witness of Eusebius and Jerome\n\nThe Gnostic Jewish Christianity\n\nThe Elkesaites and Ebionites of Epiphanius\n\nEstimate of the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions and Homilies, their want\nof significance for the question as to the genesis of Catholicism and\nits doctrine\n\nAPPENDICES.\n\nI. On the different notions of Pre-existence.\n\nII. On Liturgies and the genesis of Dogma.\n\nIII. On Neoplatonism Literature\n\n\n\n\nI\n\nPROLEGOMENA TO THE DISCIPLINE OF THE HISTORY OF DOGMA.\n\nII\n\nTHE PRESUPPOSITIONS OF THE HISTORY OF DOGMA.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nPROLEGOMENA TO THE DISCIPLINE OF THE HISTORY OF DOGMA.\n\nSec. 1. _The Idea and Task of the History of Dogma_.\n\n\n1. The History of Dogma is a discipline of general Church History, which\nhas for its object the dogmas of the Church. These dogmas are the\ndoctrines of the Christian faith logically formulated and expressed for\nscientific and apologetic purposes, the contents of which are a\nknowledge of God, of the world, and of the provisions made by God for\nman's salvation. The Christian Churches teach them as the truths\nrevealed in Holy Scripture, the acknowledgment of which is the condition\nof the salvation which religion promises. But as the adherents of the\nChristian religion had not these dogmas from the beginning, so far, at\nleast, as they form a connected system, the business of the history of\ndogma is, in the first place, to ascertain the origin of Dogmas (of\nDogma), and then secondly, to describe their development (their\nvariations).\n\n2. We cannot draw any hard and fast line between the time of the origin\nand that of the development of dogma; they rather shade off into one\nanother. But we shall have to look for the final point of division at\nthe time when an article of faith logically formulated and\nscientifically expressed, was first raised to the _articulus\nconstitutivus ecclesiae_, and as such was universally enforced by the\nChurch. Now that first happened when the doctrine of Christ, as the\npre-existent and personal Logos of God, had obtained acceptance\neverywhere in the confederated Churches as the revealed and fundamental\ndoctrine of faith, that is, about the end of the third century or the\nbeginning of the fourth. We must therefore, in our account, take this as\nthe final point of division.[1] As to the development of dogma, it seems\nto have closed in the Eastern Church with the seventh Oecumenical\nCouncil (787). After that time no further dogmas were set up in the East\nas revealed truths. As to the Western Catholic, that is, the Romish\nChurch, a new dogma was promulgated as late as the year 1870, which\nclaims to be, and in point of form really is, equal in dignity to the\nold dogmas. Here, therefore, the History of Dogma must extend to the\npresent time. Finally, as regards the Protestant Churches, they are a\nsubject of special difficulty in the sphere of the history of dogma; for\nat the present moment there is no agreement within these Churches as to\nwhether, and in what sense, dogmas (as the word was used in the ancient\nChurch) are valid. But even if we leave the present out of account and\nfix our attention on the Protestant Churches of the 16th century, the\ndecision is difficult. For, on the one hand, the Protestant faith, the\nLutheran as well as the Reformed (and that of Luther no less), presents\nitself as a doctrine of faith which, resting on the Catholic canon of\nscripture, is, in point of form, quite analogous to the Catholic\ndoctrine of faith, has a series of dogmas in common with it, and only\ndiffers in a few. On the other hand, Protestantism has taken its stand\nin principle on the Gospel exclusively, and declared its readiness at\nall times to test all doctrines afresh by a true understanding of the\nGospel. The Reformers, however, in addition to this, began to unfold a\nconception of Christianity which might be described, in contrast with\nthe Catholic type of religion, as a new conception, and which indeed\ndraws support from the old dogmas, but changes their original\nsignificance materially and formally. What this conception was may still\nbe ascertained from those writings received by the Church, the\nProtestant symbols of the 16th century, in which the larger part of the\ntraditionary dogmas are recognised as the appropriate expression of the\nChristian religion, nay, as the Christian religion itself.[2]\nAccordingly, it can neither be maintained that the expression of the\nChristian faith in the form of dogmas is abolished in the Protestant\nChurches--the very acceptance of the Catholic canon as the revealed\nrecord of faith is opposed to that view--nor that its meaning has\nremained absolutely unchanged.[3] The history of dogma has simply to\nrecognise this state of things, and to represent it exactly as it lies\nbefore us in the documents.\n\nBut the point to which the historian should advance here still remains\nan open question. If we adhere strictly to the definition of the idea of\ndogma given above, this much is certain, that dogmas were no longer set\nup after the Formula of Concord, or in the case of the Reformed Church,\nafter the decrees of the Synod of Dort. It cannot, however, be\nmaintained that they have been set aside in the centuries that have\npassed since then; for apart from some Protestant National and\nindependent Churches, which are too insignificant and whose future is\ntoo uncertain to be taken into account here, the ecclesiastical\ntradition of the 16th century, and along with it the tradition of the\nearly Church, have not been abrogated in authoritative form. Of course,\nchanges of the greatest importance with regard to doctrine have appeared\neverywhere in Protestantism from the 17th century to the present day.\nBut these changes cannot in any sense be taken into account in a history\nof dogma, because they have not as yet attained a form valid for the\nChurch. However we may judge of these changes, whether we regard them as\ncorruptions or improvements, or explain the want of fixity in which the\nProtestant Churches find themselves, as a situation that is forced on\nthem, or the situation that is agreeable to them and for which they are\nadapted, in no sense is there here a development which could be\ndescribed as history of dogma.\n\nThese facts would seem to justify those who, like Thomasius and Schmid,\ncarry the history of dogma in Protestantism to the Formula of Concord,\nor, in the case of the Reformed Church, to the decrees of the Synod of\nDort. But it may be objected to this boundary line; (1) That those\nsymbols have at all times attained only a partial authority in\nProtestantism; (2) That as noted above, the dogmas, that is, the\nformulated doctrines of faith have different meanings on different\nmatters in the Protestant and in the Catholic Churches. Accordingly, it\nseems advisable within the frame-work of the history of dogma, to\nexamine Protestantism only so far as this is necessary for obtaining a\nknowledge of its deviations from the Catholic dogma materially and\nformally, that is, to ascertain the original position of the Reformers\nwith regard to the doctrine of the Church, a position which is beset\nwith contradictions. The more accurately we determine the relation of\nthe Reformers to Catholicism, the more intelligible will be the\ndevelopments which Protestantism has passed through in the course of its\nhistory. But these developments themselves (retrocession and advance) do\nnot belong to the sphere of the history of dogma, because they stand in\nno comparable relation to the course of the history of dogma within the\nCatholic Church. As history of Protestant doctrines they form a peculiar\nindependent province of Church history.\n\nAs to the division of the history of dogma, it consists of two main\nparts. The first has to describe the origin of dogma, that is, of the\nApostolic Catholic system of doctrine based on the foundation of the\ntradition authoritatively embodied in the creeds and Holy scripture, and\nextends to the beginning of the fourth century. This may be conveniently\ndivided into two parts, the first of which will treat of the\npreparation, the second of the establishment of the ecclesiastical\ndoctrine of faith. The second main part, which has to portray the\ndevelopment of dogma, comprehends three stages. In the first stage the\ndoctrine of faith appears as Theology and Christology. The Eastern\nChurch has never got beyond this stage, although it has to a large\nextent enriched dogma ritually and mystically (see the decrees of the\nseventh council). We will have to shew how the doctrines of faith formed\nin this stage have remained for all time in the Church dogmas [Greek:\nkat' exochen]. The second stage was initiated by Augustine. The doctrine\nof faith appears here on the one side completed, and on the other\nre-expressed by new dogmas, which treat of the relation of sin and\ngrace, freedom and grace, grace and the means of grace. The number and\nimportance of the dogmas that were, in the middle ages, really fixed\nafter Augustine's time, had no relation to the range and importance of\nthe questions which they raised, and which emerged in the course of\ncenturies in consequence of advancing knowledge, and not less in\nconsequence of the growing power of the Church. Accordingly, in this\nsecond stage which comprehends the whole of the middle ages, the Church\nas an institution kept believers together in a larger measure than was\npossible to dogmas. These in their accepted form were too poor to enable\nthem to be the expression of religious conviction and the regulator of\nChurch life. On the other hand, the new decisions of Theologians,\nCouncils and Popes, did not yet possess the authority which could have\nmade them incontestable truths of faith. The third stage begins with the\nReformation, which compelled the Church to fix its faith on the basis of\nthe theological work of the middle ages. Thus arose the Roman Catholic\ndogma which has found in the Vatican decrees its provisional settlement.\nThis Roman Catholic dogma, as it was formulated at Trent, was moulded in\nexpress opposition to the Theses of the Reformers. But these Theses\nthemselves represent a peculiar conception of Christianity, which has\nits root in the theology of Paul and Augustine, and includes either\nexplicitly or implicitly a revision of the whole ecclesiastical\ntradition, and therefore of dogma also. The History of Dogma in this\nlast stage, therefore, has a twofold task. It has, on the one hand, to\npresent the Romish dogma as a product of the ecclesiastical development\nof the middle ages under the influence of the Reformation faith which\nwas to be rejected, and on the other hand, to portray the conservative\nnew formation which we have in original Protestantism, and determine its\nrelation to dogma. A closer examination, however, shews that in none of\nthe great confessions does religion live in dogma, as of old. Dogma\neverywhere has fallen into the background; in the Eastern Church it has\ngiven place to ritual, in the Roman Church to ecclesiastical\ninstructions, in the Protestant Churches, so far as they are mindful of\ntheir origin, to the Gospel. At the same time, however, the paradoxical\nfact is unmistakable that dogma as such is nowhere at this moment so\npowerful as in the Protestant Churches, though by their history they are\nfurthest removed from it. Here, however, it comes into consideration as\nan object of immediate religious interest, which, strictly speaking, in\nthe Catholic Church is not the case.[4] The Council of Trent was simply\nwrung from the Romish Church, and she has made the dogmas of that\ncouncil in a certain sense innocuous by the Vatican decrees.[5] In this\nsense, it may be said that the period of development of dogma is\naltogether closed, and that therefore our discipline requires a\nstatement such as belongs to a series of historical phenomena that has\nbeen completed.\n\n3. The church has recognised her faith, that is religion itself, in her\ndogmas. Accordingly, one very important business of the History of Dogma\nis to exhibit the unity that exists in the dogmas of a definite period,\nand to shew how the several dogmas are connected with one another and\nwhat leading ideas they express. But, as a matter of course, this\nundertaking has its limits in the degree of unanimity which actually\nexisted in the dogmas of the particular period. It may be shewn without\nmuch difficulty, that a strict though by no means absolute unanimity is\nexpressed only in the dogmas of the Greek Church. The peculiar character\nof the western post-Augustinian ecclesiastical conception of\nChristianity, no longer finds a clear expression in dogma, and still\nless is this the case with the conception of the Reformers. The reason\nof this is that Augustine, as well as Luther, disclosed a new conception\nof Christianity, but at the same time appropriated the old dogmas.[6]\nBut neither Baur's nor Kliefoth's method of writing the history of dogma\nhas done justice to this fact. Not Baur's, because, notwithstanding the\ndivision into six periods, it sees a uniform process in the development\nof dogma, a process which begins with the origin of Christianity and has\nrun its course, as is alleged, in a strictly logical way. Not\nKliefoth's, because, in the dogmas of the Catholic Church which the East\nhas never got beyond, it only ascertains the establishment of one\nportion of the Christian faith, to which the parts still wanting have\nbeen successively added in later times.[7] In contrast with this, we may\nrefer to the fact that we can clearly distinguish three styles of\nbuilding in the history of dogma, but only three; the style of Origen,\nthat of Augustine, and that of the Reformers. But the dogma of the\npost-Augustinian Church, as well as that of Luther, does not in any way\nrepresent itself as a new building, not even as the mere extension of an\nold building, but as a complicated rebuilding, and by no means in\nharmony with former styles, because neither Augustine nor Luther ever\ndreamed of building independently.[8] This perception leads us to the\nmost peculiar phenomenon which meets the historian of dogma, and which\nmust determine his method.\n\nDogmas arise, develop themselves and are made serviceable to new aims;\nthis in all cases takes place through Theology. But Theology is\ndependent on innumerable factors, above all, on the spirit of the time;\nfor it lies in the nature of theology that it desires to make its object\nintelligible. Dogmas are the product of theology, not inversely; of a\ntheology of course which, as a rule, was in correspondence with the\nfaith of the time. The critical view of history teaches this: first we\nhave the Apologists and Origen, then the councils of Nice and Chalcedon;\nfirst the Scholastics, then the Council of Trent. In consequence of\nthis, dogma bears the mark of all, the factors on which the theology was\ndependent. That is one point. But the moment in which the product of\ntheology became dogma, the way which led to it must be obscured; for,\naccording to the conception of the Church, dogma can be nothing else\nthan the revealed faith itself. Dogma is regarded not as the exponent,\nbut as the basis of theology, and therefore the product of theology\nhaving passed into dogma limits, and criticises the work of theology\nboth past and future.[9] That is the second point. It follows from this\nthat the history of the Christian religion embraces a very complicated\nrelation of ecclesiastical dogma and theology, and that the\necclesiastical conception of the significance of theology cannot at all\ndo justice to this significance. The ecclesiastical scheme which is here\nformed and which denotes the utmost concession that can be made to\nhistory, is to the effect that theology gives expression only to the\nform of dogma, while so far as it is ecclesiastical theology, it\npresupposes the unchanging dogma, i.e., the substance of dogma. But this\nscheme, which must always leave uncertain what the form really is, and\nwhat the substance, is in no way applicable to the actual circumstances.\nSo far, however, as it is itself an article of faith it is an object of\nthe history of dogma. Ecclesiastical dogma when put on its defence must\nat all times take up an ambiguous position towards theology, and\necclesiastical theology a corresponding position towards dogma; for they\nare condemned to perpetual uncertainty as to what they owe each other,\nand what they have to fear from each other. The theological Fathers of\ndogma have almost without exception failed to escape being condemned by\ndogma, either because it went beyond them, or lagged behind their\ntheology. The Apologists, Origen and Augustine may be cited in support\nof this; and even in Protestantism, _mutatis mutandis_, the same thing\nhas been repeated, as is proved by the fate of Melanchthon and\nSchleiermacher. On the other hand, there have been few theologians who\nhave not shaken some article of the traditional dogma. We are wont to\nget rid of these fundamental facts by hypostatising the ecclesiastical\nprinciple or the common ecclesiastical spirit, and by this normal\nhypostasis, measuring, approving or condemning the doctrines of the\ntheologians, unconcerned about the actual conditions and frequently\nfollowing a hysteron-proteron. But this is a view of history which\nshould in justice be left to the Catholic Church, which indeed cannot\ndispense with it. The critical history of dogma has, on the contrary, to\nshew above all how an ecclesiastical theology has arisen; for it can\nonly give account of the origin of dogma in connection with this main\nquestion. The horizon must be taken here as wide as possible; for the\nquestion as to the origin of theology can only be answered by surveying\nall the relations into which the Christian religion has entered in\nnaturalising itself in the world and subduing it. When ecclesiastical\ndogma has once been created and recognised as an immediate expression of\nthe Christian religion, the history of dogma has only to take the\nhistory of theology into account so far as it has been active in the\nformation of dogma. Yet it must always keep in view the peculiar claim\nof dogma to be a criterion and not a product of theology. But it will\nalso be able to shew how, partly by means of theology and partly by\nother means--for dogma is also dependent on ritual, constitution, and\nthe practical ideals of life, as well as on the letter, whether of\nScripture, or of tradition no longer understood--dogma in its\ndevelopment and re-expression has continually changed, according to the\nconditions under which the Church was placed. If dogma is originally the\nformulation of Christian faith as Greek culture understood it and\njustified it to itself, then dogma has never indeed lost this character,\nthough it has been radically modified in later times. It is quite as\nimportant to keep in view the tenacity of dogma as its changes, and in\nthis respect the Protestant way of writing history, which, here as\nelsewhere in the history of the Church, is more disposed to attend to\ndifferences than to what is permanent, has much to learn from the\nCatholic. But as the Protestant historian, as far possible, judges of\nthe progress of development in so far as it agrees with the Gospel in\nits documentary form, he is still able to shew, with all deference to\nthat tenacity, that dogma has been so modified and used to the best\nadvantage by Augustine and Luther, that its Christian character has in\nmany respects gained, though in other respects it has become further and\nfurther alienated from that character. In proportion as the traditional\nsystem of dogmas lost its stringency it became richer. In proportion as\nit was stripped by Augustine and Luther of its apologetic philosophic\ntendency, it was more and more filled with Biblical ideas, though, on\nthe other hand, it became more full of contradictions and less\nimpressive.\n\nThis outlook, however, has already gone beyond the limits fixed for\nthese introductory paragraphs and must not be pursued further. To treat\n_in abstracto_ of the method of the history of dogma in relation to the\ndiscovery, grouping and interpretation of the material is not to be\nrecommended; for general rules to preserve the ignorant and half\ninstructed from overlooking the important, and laying hold of what is\nnot important, cannot be laid down. Certainly everything depends on the\narrangement of the material; for the understanding of history is to find\nthe rules according to which the phenomena should be grouped, and every\nadvance in the knowledge of history is inseparable from an accurate\nobservance of these rules. We must, above all, be on our guard against\npreferring one principle at the expense of another in the interpretation\nof the origin and aim of particular dogmas. The most diverse factors\nhave at all times been at work in the formation of dogmas. Next to the\neffort to determine the doctrine of religion according to the _finis\nreligionis_, the blessing of salvation, the following may have been the\nmost important. (1) The conceptions and sayings contained in the\ncanonical scriptures. (2) The doctrinal tradition originating in earlier\nepochs of the church, and no longer understood. (3) The needs of worship\nand organisation. (4) The effort to adjust the doctrine of religion to\nthe prevailing doctrinal opinions. (5) Political and social\ncircumstances. (6) The changing moral ideals of life. (7) The so-called\nlogical consistency, that is the abstract analogical treatment of one\ndogma according to the form of another. (8) The effort to adjust\ndifferent tendencies and contradictions in the church. (9) The endeavour\nto reject once for all a doctrine regarded as erroneous. (10) The\nsanctifying power of blind custom. The method of explaining everything\nwherever possible by \"the impulse of dogma to unfold itself,\" must be\ngiven up as unscientific, just as all empty abstractions whatsoever must\nbe given up as scholastic and mythological. Dogma has had its history in\nthe individual living man and nowhere else. As soon as one adopts this\nstatement in real earnest, that mediaeval realism must vanish to which a\nman so often thinks himself superior while imbedded in it all the time.\nInstead of investigating the actual conditions in which believing and\nintelligent men have been placed, a system of Christianity has been\nconstructed from which, as from a Pandora's box, all doctrines which in\ncourse of time have been formed, are extracted, and in this way\nlegitimised as Christian. The simple fundamental proposition that that\nonly is Christian which can be established authoritatively by the\nGospel, has never yet received justice in the history of dogma. Even the\nfollowing account will in all probability come short in this point; for\nin face of a prevailing false tradition the application of a simple\nprinciple to every detail can hardly succeed at the first attempt.\n\n\n_Explanation as to the Conception and Task of the History of Dogma_.\n\nNo agreement as yet prevails with regard to the conception of the\nhistory of dogma. Muenscher (Handbuch der Christl. D.G. 3rd ed. I. p. 3\nf.) declared that the business of the history of dogma is \"To represent\nall the changes which the theoretic part of the Christian doctrine of\nreligion has gone through from its origin up to the present, both in\nform and substance,\" and this definition held sway for a long time. Then\nit came to be noted that the question was not about changes that were\naccidental, but about those that were historically necessary, that dogma\nhas a relation to the church, and that it represents a rational\nexpression of the faith. Emphasis was put sometimes on one of these\nelements and sometimes on the other. Baur, in particular, insisted on\nthe first; V. Hofmann, after the example of Schleiermacher, on the\nsecond, and indeed exclusively (Encyklop. der theol. p. 257 f.: \"The\nhistory of dogma is the history of the Church confessing the faith in\nwords\"). Nitzsch (Grundriss der Christl. D.G. I. p. 1) insisted on the\nthird: \"The history of dogma is the scientific account of the origin and\ndevelopment of the Christian system of doctrine, or that part of\nhistorical theology which presents the history of the expression of the\nChristian faith in notions, doctrines and doctrinal systems.\" Thomasius\nhas combined the second and third by conceiving the history of dogma as\nthe history of the development of the ecclesiastical system of doctrine.\nBut even this conception is not sufficiently definite, inasmuch as it\nfails to do complete justice to the special peculiarity of the subject.\n\nAncient and modern usage does certainly seem to allow the word dogma to\nbe applied to particular doctrines, or to a uniform system of doctrine,\nto fundamental truths, or to opinions, to theoretical propositions or\npractical rules, to statements of belief that have not been reached by a\nprocess of reasoning, as well as to those that bear the marks of such a\nprocess. But this uncertainty vanishes on closer examination. We then\nsee that there is always an authority at the basis of dogma, which gives\nit to those who recognise that authority the signification of a\nfundamental truth \"_quae sine scelere prodi non poterit_\" (Cicero Quaest.\nAcad. IV. 9). But therewith at the same time is introduced into the idea\nof dogma a social element (see Biedermann, Christl. Dogmatik. 2. Edit.\nI. p. 2 f.); the confessors of one and the same dogma form a community.\n\nThere can be no doubt that these two elements are also demonstrable in\nChristian dogma, and therefore we must reject all definitions of the\nhistory of dogma which do not take them into account. If we define it as\nthe history of the understanding of Christianity by itself, or as the\nhistory of the changes of the theoretic part of the doctrine of religion\nor the like, we shall fail to do justice to the idea of dogma in its\nmost general acceptation. We cannot describe as dogmas, doctrines such\nas the Apokatastasis, or the Kenosis of the Son of God, without coming\ninto conflict with the ordinary usage of language and with\necclesiastical law.\n\nIf we start, therefore, from the supposition that Christian dogma is an\necclesiastical doctrine which presupposes revelation as its authority,\nand therefore claims to be strictly binding, we shall fail to bring out\nits real nature with anything like completeness. That which Protestants\nand Catholics call dogmas, are not only ecclesiastical doctrines, but\nthey are also: (1) theses expressed in abstract terms, forming together\na unity, and fixing the contents of the Christian religion as a\nknowledge of God, of the world, and of the sacred history under the\naspect of a proof of the truth. But (2) they have also emerged at a\ndefinite stage of the history of the Christian religion; they show in\ntheir conception as such, and in many details, the influence of that\nstage, viz., the Greek period, and they have preserved this character in\nspite of all their reconstructions and additions in after periods. This\nview of dogma cannot be shaken by the fact that particular historical\nfacts, miraculous or not miraculous are described as dogmas; for here\nthey are regarded as such, only in so far as they have got the value of\ndoctrines which have been inserted in the complete structure of\ndoctrines and are, on the other hand, members of a chain of proofs,\nviz., proofs from prophecy.\n\nBut as soon as we perceive this, the parallel between the ecclesiastical\ndogmas and those of ancient schools of philosophy appears to be in point\nof form complete. The only difference is that revelation is here put as\nauthority in the place of human knowledge, although the later\nphilosophic schools appealed to revelation also. The theoretical as well\nas the practical doctrines which embraced the peculiar conception of the\nworld and the ethics of the school, together with their rationale, were\ndescribed in these schools as dogmas. Now, in so far as the adherents of\nthe Christian religion possess dogmas in this sense, and form a\ncommunity which has gained an understanding of its religious faith by\nanalysis and by scientific definition and grounding, they appear as a\ngreat philosophic school in the ancient sense of the word. But they\ndiffer from such a school in so far as they have always eliminated the\nprocess of thought which has led to the dogma, looking upon the whole\nsystem of dogma as a revelation and therefore, even in respect of the\nreception of the dogma, at least at first, they have taken account not\nof the powers of human understanding, but of the Divine enlightenment\nwhich is bestowed on all the willing and the virtuous. In later times,\nindeed, the analogy was far more complete, in so far as the Church\nreserved the full possession of dogma to a circle of consecrated and\ninitiated individuals. Dogmatic Christianity is therefore a definite\nstage in the history of the development of Christianity. It corresponds\nto the antique mode of thought, but has nevertheless continued to a very\ngreat extent in the following epochs, though subject to great\ntransformations. Dogmatic Christianity stands between Christianity as\nthe religion of the Gospel, presupposing a personal experience and\ndealing with disposition and conduct, and Christianity as a religion of\ncultus, sacraments, ceremonial and obedience, in short of superstition,\nand it can be united with either the one or the other. In itself and in\nspite of all its mysteries it is always intellectual Christianity, and\ntherefore there is always the danger here that as knowledge it may\nsupplant religious faith, or connect it with a doctrine of religion,\ninstead of with God and a living experience.\n\nIf then the discipline of the history of dogma is to be what its name\npurports, its object is the very dogma which is so formed, and its\nfundamental problem will be to discover how it has arisen. In the\nhistory of the canon our method of procedure has for long been to ask\nfirst of all, how the canon originated, and then to examine the changes\nthrough which it has passed. We must proceed in the same way with the\nhistory of dogma, of which the history of the canon is simply a part.\nTwo objections will be raised against this. In the first place, it will\nbe said that from the very first the Christian religion has included a\ndefinite religious faith as well as a definite ethic, and that therefore\nChristian dogma is as original as Christianity itself, so that there can\nbe no question about a genesis, but only as to a development or\nalteration of dogma within the Church. Again it will be said, in the\nsecond place, that dogma as defined above, has validity only for a\ndefinite epoch in the history of the Church, and that it is therefore\nquite impossible to write a comprehensive history of dogma in the sense\nwe have indicated.\n\nAs to the first objection, there can of course be no doubt that the\nChristian religion is founded on a message, the contents of which are a\ndefinite belief in God and in Jesus Christ whom he has sent, and that\nthe promise of salvation is attached to this belief. But faith in the\nGospel and the later dogmas of the Church are not related to each other\nas theme and the way in which it is worked out, any more than the dogma\nof the New Testament canon is only the explication of the original\nreliance of Christians on the word of their Lord and the continuous\nworking of the Spirit; but in these later dogmas an entirely new element\nhas entered into the conception of religion. The message of religion\nappears here clothed in a knowledge of the world and of the ground of\nthe world which had already been obtained without any reference to it,\nand therefore religion itself has here become a doctrine which has,\nindeed, its certainty in the Gospel, but only in part derives its\ncontents from it, and which can also be appropriated by such as are\nneither poor in spirit nor weary and heavy laden. Now, it may of course\nbe shewn that a philosophic conception of the Christian religion is\npossible, and began to make its appearance from the very first, as in\nthe case of Paul. But the Pauline gnosis has neither been simply\nidentified with the Gospel by Paul himself (1 Cor. III. 2 f.; XII. 3;\nPhil. I. 18) nor is it analogous to the later dogma, not to speak of\nbeing identical with it. The characteristic of this dogma is that it\nrepresents itself in no sense as foolishness, but as wisdom, and at the\nsame time desires to be regarded as the contents of revelation itself.\nDogma in its conception and development is a work of the Greek spirit on\nthe soil of the Gospel. By comprehending in itself and giving excellent\nexpression to the religious conceptions contained in Greek philosophy\nand the Gospel, together with its Old Testament basis; by meeting the\nsearch for a revelation as well as the desire for a universal knowledge;\nby subordinating itself to the aim of the Christian religion to bring a\nDivine life to humanity as well as to the aim of philosophy to know the\nworld: it became the instrument by which the Church conquered the\nancient world and educated the modern nations. But this dogma--one\ncannot but admire its formation or fail to regard it as a great\nachievement of the spirit, which never again in the history of\nChristianity has made itself at home with such freedom and boldness in\nreligion--is the product of a comparatively long history which needs to\nbe deciphered; for it is obscured by the completed dogma. The Gospel\nitself is not dogma, for belief in the Gospel provides room for\nknowledge only so far as it is a state of feeling and course of action,\nthat is a definite form of life. Between practical faith in the Gospel\nand the historico-critical account of the Christian religion and its\nhistory, a third element can no longer be thrust in without its coming\ninto conflict with faith, or with the historical data--the only thing\nleft is the practical task of defending the faith. But a third element\nhas been thrust into the history of this religion, viz., dogma, that is,\nthe philosophical means which were used in early times for the purpose\nof making the Gospel intelligible have been fused with the contents of\nthe Gospel and raised to dogma. This dogma, next to the Church, has\nbecome a real world power, the pivot in the history of the Christian\nreligion. The transformation of the Christian faith into dogma is indeed\nno accident, but has its reason in the spiritual character of the\nChristian religion, which at all times will feel the need of a\nscientific apologetic.[10] But the question here is not as to something\nindefinite and general, but as to the definite dogma formed in the first\ncenturies, and binding even yet.\n\nThis already touches on the second objection which was raised above,\nthat dogma, in the given sense of the word, was too narrowly conceived,\nand could not in this conception be applied throughout the whole history\nof the Church. This objection would only be justified, if our task were\nto carry the history of the development of dogma through the whole\nhistory of the Church. But the question is just whether we are right in\nproposing such a task. The Greek Church has no history of dogma after\nthe seven great Councils, and it is incomparably more important to\nrecognise this fact than to register the theologoumena which were later\non introduced by individual Bishops and scholars in the East, who were\npartly influenced by the West. Roman Catholicism in its dogmas, though,\nas noted above, these at present do not very clearly characterise it, is\nto-day essentially--that is, so far as it is religion--what it was 1500\nyears ago, viz., Christianity as understood by the ancient world. The\nchanges which dogma has experienced in the course of its development in\nwestern Catholicism are certainly deep and radical: they have, in point\nof fact, as has been indicated in the text above, modified the position\nof the Church towards Christianity as dogma. But as the Catholic Church\nherself maintains that she adheres to Christianity in the old dogmatic\nsense, this claim of hers cannot be contested. She has embraced new\nthings and changed her relations to the old, but still preserved the\nold. But she has further developed new dogmas according to the scheme of\nthe old. The decrees of Trent and of the Vatican are formally analogous\nto the old dogmas. Here, then, a history of dogma may really be carried\nforward to the present day without thereby shewing that the definition\nof dogma given above is too narrow to embrace the new doctrines.\nFinally, as to Protestantism, it has been briefly explained above why\nthe changes in Protestant systems of doctrine are not to be taken up\ninto the history of dogma. Strictly speaking, dogma, as dogma, has had\nno development in Protestantism, inasmuch as a secret note of\ninterrogation has been here associated with it from the very beginning.\nBut the old dogma has continued to be a power in it, because of its\ntendency to look back and to seek for authorities in the past, and\npartly in the original unmodified form. The dogmas of the fourth and\nfifth centuries have more influence to-day in wide circles of Protestant\nChurches than all the doctrines which are concentrated around\njustification by faith. Deviations from the latter are borne\ncomparatively easy, while as a rule, deviations from the former are\nfollowed by notice to quit the Christian communion, that is, by\nexcommunication. The historian of to-day would have no difficulty in\nanswering the question whether the power of Protestantism as a Church\nlies at present in the elements which it has in common with the old\ndogmatic Christianity, or in that by which it is distinguished from it.\nDogma, that is to say, that type of Christianity which was formed in\necclesiastical antiquity, has not been suppressed even in Protestant\nChurches, has really not been modified or replaced by a new conception\nof the Gospel. But, on the other hand, who could deny that the\nReformation began to disclose such a conception, and that this new\nconception was related in a very different way to the traditional dogma\nfrom that of the new propositions of Augustine to the dogmas handed down\nto him? Who could further call in question that, in consequence of the\nreforming impulse in Protestantism, the way was opened up for a\nconception which does not identify Gospel and dogma, which does not\ndisfigure the latter by changing or paring down its meaning while\nfailing to come up to the former? But the historian who has to describe\nthe formation and changes of dogma can take no part in these\ndevelopments. It is a task by itself more rich and comprehensive than\nthat of the historian of dogma, to portray the diverse conceptions that\nhave been formed of the Christian religion, to portray how strong men\nand weak men, great and little minds have explained the Gospel outside\nand inside the frame-work of dogma, and how under the cloak, or in the\nprovince of dogma, the Gospel has had its own peculiar history. But the\nmore limited theme must not be put aside. For it can in no way be\nconducive to historical knowledge to regard as indifferent the peculiar\ncharacter of the expression of Christian faith as dogma, and allow the\nhistory of dogma to be absorbed in a general history of the various\nconceptions of Christianity. Such a \"liberal\" view would not agree\neither with the teaching of history or with the actual situation of the\nProtestant Churches of the present day: for it is, above all, of crucial\nimportance to perceive that it is a peculiar stage in the development of\nthe human spirit which is described by dogma. On this stage, parallel\nwith dogma and inwardly united with it, stands a definite psychology,\nmetaphysic and natural philosophy, as well as a view of history of a\ndefinite type. This is the conception of the world obtained by antiquity\nafter almost a thousand years' labour, and it is the same connection of\ntheoretic perceptions and practical ideals which it accomplished. This\nstage on which the Christian religion has also entered we have in no way\nas yet transcended, though science has raised itself above it.[11] But\nthe Christian religion, as it was not born of the culture of the ancient\nworld, is not for ever chained to it. The form and the new contents\nwhich the Gospel received when it entered into that world have only the\nsame guarantee of endurance as that world itself. And that endurance is\nlimited. We must indeed be on our guard against taking episodes for\ndecisive crises. But every episode carries us forward, and\nretrogressions are unable to undo that progress. The Gospel since the\nReformation, in spite of retrograde movements which have not been\nwanting, is working itself out of the forms which it was once compelled\nto assume, and a true comprehension of its history will also contribute\nto hasten this process.\n\n1. The definition given above, p. 17: \"Dogma in its conception and\ndevelopment is a work of the Greek spirit on the soil of the Gospel,\"\nhas frequently been distorted by my critics, as they have suppressed the\nwords \"on the soil of the Gospel.\" But these words are decisive. The\nfoolishness of identifying dogma and Greek philosophy never entered my\nmind; on the contrary, the peculiarity of ecclesiastical dogma seemed to\nme to lie in the very fact that, on the one hand, it gave expression to\nChristian Monotheism and the central significance of the person of\nChrist, and, on the other hand, comprehended this religious faith and\nthe historical knowledge connected with it in a philosophic system. I\nhave given quite as little ground for the accusation that I look upon\nthe whole development of the history of dogma as a pathological process\nwithin the history of the Gospel. I do not even look upon the history of\nthe origin of the Papacy as such a process, not to speak of the history\nof dogma. But the perception that \"everything must happen as it has\nhappened\" does not absolve the historian from the task of ascertaining\nthe powers which have formed the history, and distinguishing between\noriginal and later, permanent and transitory, nor from the duty of\nstating his own opinion.\n\n2. Sabatier has published a thoughtful treatise on \"Christian Dogma: its\nNature and its Development.\" I agree with the author in this, that in\ndogma--rightly understood--two elements are to be distinguished, the\nreligious proceeding from the experience of the individual or from the\nreligious spirit of the Church, and the intellectual or theoretic. But I\nregard as false the statement which he makes, that the intellectual\nelement in dogma is only the symbolical expression of religious\nexperience. The intellectual element is itself again to be\ndifferentiated. On the one hand, it certainly is the attempt to give\nexpression to religious feeling, and so far is symbolical; but, on the\nother hand, within the Christian religion it belongs to the essence of\nthe thing itself, inasmuch as this not only awakens feeling, but has a\nquite definite content which determines and should determine the\nfeeling. In this sense Christianity without dogma, that is, without a\nclear expression of its content, is inconceivable. But that does not\njustify the unchangeable permanent significance of that dogma which has\nonce been formed under definite historical conditions.\n\n3. The word \"dogmas\" (Christian dogmas) is, if I see correctly, used\namong us in three different senses, and hence spring all manner of\nmisconceptions and errors. By dogmas are denoted: (1) The historical\ndoctrines of the Church. (2) The historical facts on which the Christian\nreligion is reputedly or actually founded. (3) Every definite exposition\nof the contents of Christianity is described as dogmatic. In contrast\nwith this the attempt has been made in the following presentation to use\ndogma only in the sense first stated. When I speak, therefore, of the\ndecomposition of dogma, I mean by that, neither the historical facts\nwhich really establish the Christian religion, nor do I call in question\nthe necessity for the Christian and the Church to have a creed. My\ncriticism refers not to the general genus dogma, but to the species,\nviz., the defined dogma, as it was formed on the soil of the ancient\nworld, and is still a power, though under modifications.\n\n\n2. _History of the History of Dogma._\n\nThe history of dogma as a historical and critical discipline had its\norigin in the last century through the works of Mosheim, C. W. F. Walch,\nErnesti, Lessing and Semler. Lange gave to the world in 1796 the first\nattempt at a history of dogma as a special branch of theological study.\nThe theologians of the Early and Mediaeval Churches have only transmitted\nhistories of Heretics and of Literature, regarding dogma as\nunchangeable.[12] This presupposition is so much a part of the nature of\nCatholicism that it has been maintained till the present day. It is\ntherefore impossible for a Catholic to make a free, impartial and\nscientific investigation of the history of dogma.[13] There have,\nindeed, at almost all times before the Reformation, been critical\nefforts in the domain of Christianity, especially of western\nChristianity, efforts which in some cases have led to the proof of the\nnovelty and inadmissibility of particular dogmas. But, as a rule, these\nefforts were of the nature of a polemic against the dominant Church.\nThey scarcely prepared the way for, far less produced a historical view\nof, dogmatic tradition.[14] The progress of the sciences[15] and the\nconflict with Protestantism could here, for the Catholic Church, have no\nother effect than that of leading to the collecting, with great\nlearning, of material for the history of dogma, the establishing of the\n_consensus patrum et doctorum_, the exhibition of the necessity of a\ncontinuous explication of dogma, and the description of the history of\nheresies pressing in from without, regarded now as unheard-of novelties,\nand again as old enemies in new masks. The modern Jesuit-Catholic\nhistorian indeed exhibits, in certain circumstances, a manifest\nindifference to the task of establishing the _semper idem_ in the faith\nof the Church, but this indifference is at present regarded with\ndisfavour, and, besides, is only an apparent one, as the continuous\nthough inscrutable guidance of the Church by the infallible teaching of\nthe Pope is the more emphatically maintained.[16]\n\nIt may be maintained that the Reformation opened the way for a critical\ntreatment of the history of dogma.[17] But even in Protestant Churches,\nat first, historical investigations remained under the ban of the\nconfessional system of doctrine and were used only for polemics.[18]\nChurch history itself up to the 18th century was not regarded as a\ntheological discipline in the strict sense of the word, and the history\nof dogma existed only within the sphere of dogmatics as a collection of\ntestimonies to the truth, _theologia patristica_. It was only after the\nmaterial had been prepared in the course of the 16th and 17th centuries\nby scholars of the various Church parties, and, above all, by excellent\neditions of the Fathers,[19] and after Pietism had exhibited the\ndifference between Christianity and Ecclesiasticism, and had begun to\ntreat the traditional confessional structure of doctrine with\nindifference,[20] that a critical investigation was entered on.\n\nThe man who was the Erasmus of the 18th century, neither orthodox nor\npietistic, nor rationalistic, but capable of appreciating all these\ntendencies, familiar with English, French and Italian literature,\ninfluenced by the spirit of the new English Science,[21] while avoiding\nall statements of it that would endanger positive Christianity. John\nLorenz Mosheim, treated Church history in the spirit of his great\nteacher Leibnitz,[22] and by impartial analysis, living reproduction,\nand methodical artistic form raised it for the first time to the rank of\na science. In his monographic works also, he endeavours to examine\nimpartially the history of dogma, and to acquire the historic\nstand-point between the estimate of the orthodox dogmatists and that of\nGottfried Arnold Mosheim, averse to all fault-finding and polemic, and\nabhorring theological crudity as much as pietistic narrowness and\nundevout Illuminism, aimed at an actual correct knowledge of history, in\naccordance with the principle of Leibnitz, that the valuable elements\nwhich are everywhere to be found in history must be sought out and\nrecognised. And the richness and many-sidedness of his mind qualified\nhim for gaining such a knowledge. But his latitudinarian dogmatic\nstand-point as well as the anxiety to awaken no controversy or endanger\nthe gradual naturalising of a new science and culture, caused him to put\naside the most important problems of the history of dogma and devote his\nattention to political Church history as well as to the more indifferent\nhistorical questions. The opposition of two periods which he endeavoured\npeacefully to reconcile could not in this way be permanently set\naside.[23] In Mosheim's sense, but without the spirit of that great man,\nC.W.F. Walch taught on the subject and described the religious\ncontroversies of the Church with an effort to be impartial, and has thus\nmade generally accessible the abundant material collected by the\ndiligence of earlier scholars.[24] Walch, moreover, in the \"Gedanken von\nder Geschichte der Glaubenslehre,\" 1756, gave the impulse that was\nneeded to fix attention on the history of dogma as a special discipline.\nThe stand-point which he took up was still that of subjection to\necclesiastical dogma, but without confessional narrowness. Ernesti in\nhis programme of the year 1759. \"De theologiae historicae et dogmaticae\nconjungendae necessitate,\" gave eloquent expression to the idea that\nDogmatic is a positive science which has to take its material from\nhistory, but that history itself requires a devoted and candid study, on\naccount of our being separated from the earlier epochs by a complicated\ntradition.[25] He has also shewn in his celebrated \"Antimuratorius\" that\nan impartial and critical investigation of the problems of the history\nof dogma, might render the most effectual service to the polemic against\nthe errors of Romanism. Besides, the greater part of the dogmas were\nalready unintelligible to Ernesti, and yet during his lifetime the way\nwas opened up for that tendency in theology, which prepared in Germany\nby Chr. Thomasius, supported by English writers, drew the sure\nprinciples of faith and life from what is called reason, and therefore\nwas not only indifferent to the system of dogma, but felt it more and\nmore to be the tradition of unreason and of darkness. Of the three\nrequisites of a historian, knowledge of his subject, candid criticism,\nand a capacity for finding himself at home in foreign interests and\nideas, the Rationalistic Theologians who had outgrown Pietism and passed\nthrough the school of the English Deists and of Wolf, no longer\npossessed the first, a knowledge of the subject, to the same extent as\nsome scholars of the earlier generation. The second, free criticism,\nthey possessed in the high degree guaranteed by the conviction of having\na rational religion; the third, the power of comprehension, only in a\nvery limited measure. They had lost the idea of positive religion, and\nwith it a living and just conception of the history of religion.\n\nIn the history of thought there is always need for an apparently\ndisproportionate expenditure of power, in order to produce an advance in\nthe development. And it would appear as if a certain self-satisfied\nnarrow-mindedness within the progressing ideas of the present, as well\nas a great measure of inability even to understand the past and\nrecognise its own dependence on it, must make its appearance, in order\nthat a whole generation may be freed from the burden of the past. It\nneeded the absolute certainty which Rationalism had found in the\nreligious philosophy of the age, to give sufficient courage to subject\nto historical criticism the central dogmas on which the Protestant\nsystem as well as the Catholic finally rests, the dogmas of the canon\nand inspiration on the one hand, and of the Trinity and Christology on\nthe other. The work of Lessing in this respect had no great results. We\nto-day see in his theological writings the most important contribution\nto the understanding of the earliest history of dogma, which that period\nsupplies; but we also understand why its results were then so trifling.\nThis was due, not only to the fact that Lessing was no theologian by\nprofession, or that his historical observations were couched in\naphorisms, but because like Leibnitz and Mosheim, he had a capacity for\nappreciating the history of religion which forbade him to do violence to\nthat history or to sit in judgment on it, and because his philosophy in\nits bearings on the case allowed him to seek no more from his materials\nthan an assured understanding of them, in a word again, because he was\nno theologian. The Rationalists, on the other hand, who within certain\nlimits were no less his opponents than the orthodox, derived the\nstrength of their opposition to the systems of dogma, as the Apologists\nof the second century had already done with regard to polytheism, from\ntheir religious belief and their inability to estimate these systems\nhistorically. That, however, is only the first impression which one gets\nhere from the history, and it is everywhere modified by other\nimpressions. In the first place, there is no mistaking a certain\nlatitudinarianism in several prominent theologians of the rationalistic\ntendency. Moreover, the attitude to the canon was still frequently, in\nvirtue of the Protestant principle of scripture, an uncertain one, and\nit was here chiefly that the different types of rational supernaturalism\nwere developed. Then, with all subjection to the dogmas of Natural\nreligion, the desire for a real true knowledge was unfettered and\npowerfully excited. Finally, very significant attempts were made by some\nrationalistic theologians to explain in a real historical way the\nphenomena of the history of dogma, and to put an authentic and\nhistorical view of that history in the place of barren pragmatic or\nphilosophic categories.\n\nThe special zeal with which the older rationalism applied itself to the\ninvestigation of the canon, either putting aside the history of dogma,\nor treating it merely in the frame-work of Church history, has only been\nof advantage for the treatment of our subject. It first began to be\ntreated with thoroughness when the historical and critical interests had\nbecome more powerful than the rationalistic. After the important labours\nof Semler which here, above all, have wrought in the interests of\nfreedom,[26] and after some monographs on the history of dogma,[27] S.G.\nLange for the first time treated the history of dogma as a special\nsubject.[28] Unfortunately, his comprehensively planned and carefully\nwritten work, which shews a real understanding of the early history of\ndogma, remains incomplete. Consequently, W. Muenscher, in his learned\nmanual, which was soon followed by his compendium of the history of\ndogma, was the first to produce a complete presentation of our\nsubject.[29] Muenscher's compendium is a counterpart to Giesler's Church\nhistory; it shares with that the merit of drawing from the sources,\nintelligent criticism and impartiality, but with a thorough knowledge of\ndetails it fails to impart a real conception of the development of\necclesiastical dogma. The division of the material into particular\n_loci_, which, in three sections, is carried through the whole history\nof the Church, makes insight into the whole Christian conception of the\ndifferent epochs impossible, and the prefixed \"General History of\nDogma,\" is far too sketchily treated to make up for that defect.\nFinally, the connection between the development of dogma and the general\nideas of the time is not sufficiently attended to. A series of manuals\nfollowed the work of Muenscher, but did not materially advance the\nstudy.[30] The compendium of Baumgarten Crusius,[31] and that of F.K.\nMeier,[32] stand out prominently among them. The work of the former is\ndistinguished by its independent learning as well as by the discernment\nof the author that the centre of gravity of the subject lies in the\nso-called general history of dogma.[33] The work of Meier goes still\nfurther, and accurately perceives that the division into a general and\nspecial history of dogma must be altogether given up, while it is also\ncharacterised by an accurate setting and proportional arrangement of the\nfacts.[34]\n\nThe great spiritual revolution at the beginning of our century, which\nmust in every respect be regarded as a reaction against the efforts of\nthe rationalistic epoch, changed also the conceptions of the Christian\nreligion and its history. It appears therefore plainly in the treatment\nof the history of dogma. The advancement and deepening of Christian\nlife, the zealous study of the past, the new philosophy which no longer\nthrust history aside, but endeavoured to appreciate it in all its\nphenomena as the history of the spirit, all these factors co-operated in\nbegetting a new temper, and accordingly, a new estimate of religion\nproper and of its history. There were three tendencies in theology that\nbroke up rationalism; that which was identified with the names of\nSchleiermacher and Neander, that of the Hegelians, and that of the\nConfessionalists. The first two were soon divided into a right and a\nleft, in so far as they included conservative and critical interests\nfrom their very commencement. The conservative elements have been used\nfor building up the modern confessionalism, which in its endeavours to\ngo back to the Reformers has never actually got beyond the theology of\nthe Formula of Concord, the stringency of which it has no doubt\nabolished by new theologoumena and concessions of all kinds. All these\ntendencies have in common the effort to gain a real comprehension of\nhistory and be taught by it, that is, to allow the idea of development\nto obtain its proper place, and to comprehend the power and sphere of\nthe individual. In this and in the deeper conception of the nature and\nsignificance of positive religion, lay the advance beyond Rationalism.\nAnd yet the wish to understand history, has in great measure checked the\neffort to obtain a true knowledge of it, and the respect for history as\nthe greatest of teachers, has not resulted in that supreme regard for\nfacts which distinguished the critical rationalism. The speculative\npragmatism, which, in the Hegelian School, was put against the \"lower\npragmatism,\" and was rigorously carried out with the view of exhibiting\nthe unity of history, not only neutralised the historical material, in\nso far as its concrete definiteness was opposed, as phenomenon, to the\nessence of the matter, but also curtailed it in a suspicious way, as may\nbe seen, for example, in the works of Baur. Moreover, the universal\nhistorical suggestions which the older history of dogma had given were\nnot at all, or only very little regarded. The history of dogma was, as\nit were, shut out by the watchword of the immanent development of the\nspirit in Christianity. The disciples of Hegel, both of the right and of\nthe left, were, and still are, agreed in this watch-word,[35] the\nworking out of which, including an apology for the course of the history\nof dogma, must be for the advancement of conservative theology. But at\nthe basis of the statement that the history of Christianity is the\nhistory of the spirit, there lay further a very one-sided conception of\nthe nature of religion, which confirmed the false idea that religion is\ntheology. It will always, however, be the imperishable merit of Hegel's\ngreat disciple, F. Chr. Baur, in theology, that he was the first who\nattempted to give a uniform general idea of the history of dogma, and to\nlive through the whole process in himself, without renouncing the\ncritical acquisitions of the 18th century.[36] His brilliantly written\nmanual of the history of dogma, in which the history of this branch of\ntheological science is relatively treated with the utmost detail, is,\nhowever, in material very meagre, and shews in the very first\nproposition of the historical presentation an abstract view of\nhistory.[37] Neander, whose \"Christliche Dogmengeschichte,\" 1857, is\ndistinguished by the variety of its points of view, and keen\napprehension of particular forms of doctrine, shews a far more lively\nand therefore a far more just conception of the Christian religion. But\nthe general plan of the work, (General history of dogma--_loci_, and\nthese according to the established scheme), proves that Neander has not\nsucceeded in giving real expression to the historical character of the\nstudy, and in attaining a clear insight into the progress of the\ndevelopment.[38]\n\nKliefoth's thoughtful and instructive, \"Einleitung in die\nDogmengeschichte,\" 1839, contains the programme for the conception of\nthe history of dogma characteristic of the modern confessional theology.\nIn this work the Hegelian view of history, not without being influenced\nby Schleiermacher, is so represented as to legitimise a return to the\ntheology of the Fathers. In the successive great epochs of the Church\nseveral circles of dogmas have been successively fixed, so that the\nrespective doctrines have each time been adequately formulated.[39]\nDisturbances of the development are due to the influence of sin. Apart\nfrom this, Kliefoth's conception is in point of form equal to that of\nBaur and Strauss, in so far as they also have considered the theology\nrepresented by themselves as the goal of the whole historical\ndevelopment. The only distinction is that, according to them, the next\nfollowing stage always cancels the preceding, while according to\nKliefoth, who, moreover, has no desire to give effect to mere\ntraditionalism, the new knowledge is added to the old. The new edifice\nof true historical knowledge, according to Kliefoth, is raised on the\nruins of Traditionalism, Scholasticism, Pietism, Rationalism and\nMysticism. Thomasius (Das Bekenntniss der evang-luth. Kirche in der\nConsequenz seines Princips, 1848) has, after the example of Sartorius,\nattempted to justify by history the Lutheran confessional system of\ndoctrine from another side, by representing it as the true mean between\nCatholicism and the Reformed Spiritualism. This conception has found\nmuch approbation in the circles of Theologians related to Thomasius, as\nagainst the Union Theology. But Thomasius is entitled to the merit of\nhaving produced a Manual of the history of dogma which represents in the\nmost worthy manner,[40] the Lutheran confessional view of the history of\ndogma. The introduction, as well as the selection and arrangement of his\nmaterial, shews that Thomasius has learned much from Baur. The way in\nwhich he distinguishes between central and peripheral dogmas is,\naccordingly, not very appropriate, especially for the earliest period.\nThe question as to the origin of dogma and theology is scarcely even\ntouched by him. But he has an impression that the central dogmas contain\nfor every period the whole of Christianity, and that they must therefore\nbe apprehended in this sense.[41] The presentation is dominated\nthroughout by the idea of the self-explication of dogma, though a\nmalformation has to be admitted for the middle ages;[42] and therefore\nthe formation of dogma is almost everywhere justified as the testimony\nof the Church represented as completely hypostatised, and the outlook on\nthe history of the time is put into the background. But narrow and\ninsufficient as the complete view here is, the excellences of the work\nin details are great, in respect of exemplary clearness of presentation,\nand the discriminating knowledge and keen comprehension of the author\nfor religious problems. The most important work done by Thomasius is\ncontained in his account of the history of Christology.\n\nIn his outlines of the history of Christian dogma (Grundriss der\nChristl. Dogmengesch. 1870), which unfortunately has not been carried\nbeyond the first part (Patristic period), F. Nitzsch, marks an advance\nin the history of our subject. The advance lies, on the one hand, in the\nextensive use he makes of monographs on the history of dogma, and on the\nother hand, in the arrangement. Nitzsch has advanced a long way on the\npath that was first entered by F.K. Meier, and has arranged his material\nin a way that far excels all earlier attempts. The general and special\naspects of the history of dogma are here almost completely worked into\none,[43] and in the main divisions, \"Grounding of the old Catholic\nChurch doctrine,\" and \"Development of the old Catholic Church doctrine,\"\njustice is at last done to the most important problem which the history\nof dogma presents, though in my opinion the division is not made at the\nright place, and the problem is not so clearly kept in view in the\nexecution as the arrangement would lead one to expect.[44] Nitzsch has\nfreed himself from that speculative view of the history of dogma which\nreads ideas into it. No doubt idea and motive on the one hand, form and\nexpression on the other, must be distinguished for every period. But the\nhistorian falls into vagueness as soon as he seeks and professes to find\nbehind the demonstrable ideas and aims which have moved a period, others\nof which, as a matter of fact, that period itself knew nothing at all.\nBesides, the invariable result of that procedure is to concentrate the\nattention on the theological and philosophical points of dogma, and\neither neglect or put a new construction on the most concrete and\nimportant, the expression of the religious faith itself. Rationalism has\nbeen reproached with \"throwing out the child with the bath,\" but this is\nreally worse, for here the child is thrown out while the bath is\nretained. Every advance in the future treatment of our subject will\nfurther depend on the effort to comprehend the history of dogma without\nreference to the momentary opinions of the present, and also on keeping\nit in closest connection with the history of the Church, from which it\ncan never be separated without damage. We have something to learn on\nthis point from rationalistic historians of dogma.[45] But progress is\nfinally dependent on a true perception of what the Christian religion\noriginally was, for this perception alone enables us to distinguish that\nwhich sprang out of the inherent power of Christianity from that which\nit has assimilated in the course of its history. For the historian,\nhowever, who does not wish to serve a party, there are two standards in\naccordance with which he may criticise the history of dogma. He may\neither, as far as this is possible, compare it with the Gospel, or he\nmay judge it according to the historical conditions of the time and the\nresult. Both ways can exist side by side, if only they are not mixed up\nwith one another. Protestantism has in principle expressly recognised\nthe first, and it will also have the power to bear its conclusions; for\nthe saying of Tertullian still holds good in it; \"Nihil veritas\nerubescit nisi solummodo abscondi.\" The historian who follows this\nmaxim, and at the same time has no desire to be wiser than the facts,\nwill, while furthering science, perform the best service also to every\nChristian community that desires to build itself upon the Gospel.\n\nAfter the appearance of the first and second editions of this Work,\nLoofs published, \"Leitfaden fuer seine Vorlesungen ueber\nDogmengeschichte,\" Halle, 1889, and in the following year, \"Leitfaden\nzum Studium der Dogmengeschichte, zunaechst fuer seine Vorlesungen,\"\n(second and enlarged edition of the first-named book). The work in its\nconception of dogma and its history comes pretty near that stated above,\nand it is distinguished by independent investigation and excellent\nselection of material. I myself have published a \"Grundriss der\nDogmengeschichte,\" 2 Edit, in one vol. 1893. (Outlines of the history of\ndogma, English translation, Hodder and Stoughton). That this has not\nbeen written in vain, I have the pleasure of seeing from not a few\nnotices of professional colleagues. I may mention the Church history of\nHerzog in the new revision by Koffmane, the first vol. of the Church\nhistory of Karl Mueller, the first vol. of the Symbolik of Kattenbusch,\nand Kaftan's work, \"The truth of the Christian religion.\" Wilhelm\nSchmidt, \"Der alte Glaube und die Wahrheit des Christenthums,\" 1891, has\nattempted to furnish a refutation in principle of Kaftan's work.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: Weizsaecker, Goett. Gel. Anz. 1886, p. 823 f., says, \"It is a\nquestion whether we should limit the account of the genesis of Dogma to\nthe Antenicene period and designate all else as a development of that.\nThis is undoubtedly correct so long as our view is limited to the\nhistory of dogma of the Greek Church in the second period, and the\ndevelopment of it by the Oecumenical Synods. On the other hand, the\nLatin Church, in its own way and in its own province, becomes productive\nfrom the days of Augustine onwards; the formal signification of dogma in\nthe narrower sense becomes different in the middle ages. Both are\nrepeated in a much greater measure through the Reformation. We may\ntherefore, in opposition to that division into genesis and development,\nregard the whole as a continuous process, in which the contents as well\nas the formal authority of dogma are in process of continuous\ndevelopment.\" This view is certainly just, and I think is indicated by\nmyself in what follows. We have to decide here, as so often elsewhere in\nour account, between rival points of view. The view favoured by me has\nthe advantage of making the nature of dogma clearly appear as a product\nof the mode of thought of the early church, and that is what it has\nremained, in spite of all changes both in form and substance, till the\npresent day.]\n\n[Footnote 2: See Kattenbusch. Luther's Stellung zu den oekumenischen\nSymbolen, 1883.]\n\n[Footnote 3: See Ritschl, Geschichte des Pietismus. I. p. 80 ff., 93 ff.\nII. p. 60 f.: 88 f. \"The Lutheran view of life did not remain pure and\nundefiled, but was limited and obscured by the preponderance of dogmatic\ninterests. Protestantism was not delivered from the womb of the western\nChurch of the middle ages in full power and equipment, like Athene from\nthe head of Jupiter. The incompleteness of its ethical view, the\nsplitting up of its general conceptions into a series of particular\ndogmas, the tendency to express its beliefs as a hard and fast whole;\nare defects which soon made Protestantism appear to disadvantage in\ncomparison with the wealth of Mediaeval theology and asceticism ... The\nscholastic form of pure doctrine is really only the provisional, and not\nthe final form of Protestantism.\"]\n\n[Footnote 4: It is very evident how the mediaeval and old catholic dogmas\nwere transformed in the view which Luther originally took of them. In\nthis view we must remember that he did away with all the presuppositions\nof dogma, the infallible Apostolic Canon of Scripture, the infallible\nteaching function of the Church, and the infallible Apostolic doctrine\nand constitution. On this basis dogmas can only be utterances which do\nnot support faith, but are supported by it. But, on the other hand, his\nopposition to all the Apocryphal saints which the Church had created,\ncompelled him to emphasise faith alone, and to give it a firm basis in\nscripture, in order to free it from the burden of tradition. Here then,\nvery soon, first by Melanchthon, a summary of _articuli fidei_ was\nsubstituted for the faith, and the scriptures recovered their place as a\nrule. Luther himself, however, is responsible for both, and so it came\nabout that very soon the new evangelic standpoint was explained almost\nexclusively by the \"abolition of abuses\", and by no means so surely by\nthe transformation of the whole doctrinal tradition. The classic\nauthority for this is the Augsburg confession (\"haec fere summa est\ndoctrina apud suos, in qua cerni potest nihil inesse, quod discrepet a\nscripturis vel ab ecclesia Catholica vel ab ecclesia Romana ... sed\ndissensio est de quibusdam abusibus\"). The purified catholic doctrine\nhas since then become the palladium of the Reformation Churches. The\nrefuters of the Augustana have justly been unwilling to admit the mere\n\"purifying,\" but have noted in addition that the Augustana does not say\neverything that was urged by Luther and the Doctors (see Ficker, Die\nKonfutation des Augsburgischen Bekenntnisse, 1891). At the same time,\nhowever, the Lutheran Church, though not so strongly as the English,\nretained the consciousness of being the true Catholics. But, as the\nhistory of Protestantism proves, the original impulse has not remained\ninoperative. Though Luther himself all his life measured his personal\nChristian standing by an entirely different standard than subjection to\na law of faith; yet, however presumptuous the words may sound, we might\nsay that in the complicated struggle that was forced on him, he did not\nalways clearly understand his own faith.]\n\n[Footnote 5: In the modern Romish Church, Dogma is, above all, a\njudicial regulation which one has to submit to, and in certain\ncircumstances submission alone is sufficient, _fides implicita_. Dogma\nis thereby just as much deprived of its original sense and its original\nauthority as by the demand of the Reformers, that every thing should be\nbased upon a clear understanding of the Gospel. Moreover, the changed\nposition of the Romish Church towards dogma is also shewn by the fact\nthat it no longer gives a plain answer to the question as to what dogma\nis. Instead of a series of dogmas definitely defined, and of equal\nvalue, there is presented an infinite multitude of whole and half\ndogmas, doctrinal directions, pious opinions, probable theological\npropositions, etc. It is often a very difficult question whether a\nsolemn decision has or has not already been taken on this or that\nstatement, or whether such a decision is still necessary. Everything\nthat must be believed is nowhere stated, and so one sometimes hears in\nCatholic circles the exemplary piety of a cleric praised with the words\nthat \"he believes more than is necessary.\" The great dogmatic conflicts\nwithin the Catholic Church, since the Council of Trent, have been\nsilenced by arbitrary Papal pronouncements and doctrinal directions.\nSince one has simply to accommodate oneself to these as laws, it once\nmore appears clear that dogma has become a judicial regulation,\nadministered by the Pope, which is carried out in an administrative way\nand loses itself in an endless casuistry. We do not mean by this to deny\nthat dogma has a decided value for the pious Catholic as a Summary of\nthe faith. But in the Catholic Church it is no longer piety, but\nobedience that is decisive. The solidarity with the orthodox Protestants\nmay be explained by political reasons, in order from political reasons\nagain, to condemn, where it is necessary, all Protestants as heretics\nand revolutionaries.]\n\n[Footnote 6: See the discussions of Biedermann (Christliche Dogmatik. 2\nEd. p. 150 f.) about what he calls the law of stability in the history\nof religion.]\n\n[Footnote 7: See Ritschl's discussion of the methods of the early\nhistories of dogma in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theologie. 1871, p. 181\nff.]\n\n[Footnote 8: In Catholicism, the impulse which proceeded from Augustine\nhas finally proved powerless to break the traditional conception of\nChristianity, as the Council of Trent and the decrees of the Vatican\nhave shewn. For that very reason the development of the Roman Catholic\nChurch doctrine belongs to the history of dogma. Protestantism must,\nhowever, under all circumstances be recognised as a new thing, which\nindeed in none of its phases has been free from contradictions.]\n\n[Footnote 9: Here then begins the ecclesiastical theology which takes as\nits starting-point the finished dogma it strives to prove or harmonise,\nbut very soon, as experience has shewn, loses its firm footing in such\nefforts and so occasions new crises.]\n\n[Footnote 10: Weizsaecker, Apostolic Age, Vol. I. p. 123. \"Christianity\nas religion is absolutely inconceivable without theology; first of all,\nfor the same reasons which called forth the Pauline theology. As a\nreligion it cannot be separated from the religion of its founder, hence\nnot from historical knowledge. And as Monotheism and belief in a world\npurpose, it is the religion of reason with the inextinguishable impulse\nof thought. The first gentile Christians therewith gained the proud\nconsciousness of a gnosis.\" But of ecclesiastical Christianity which\nrests on dogma ready made, as produced by an earlier epoch, this\nconception holds good only in a very qualified way; and of the vigorous\nChristian piety of the earliest and of every period, it may also be said\nthat it no less feels the impulse to think against reason than with\nreason.]\n\n[Footnote 11: In this sense it is correct to class dogmatic theology as\nhistorical theology, as Schleiermacher has done. If we maintain that for\npractical reasons it must be taken out of the province of historical\ntheology, then we must make it part of practical theology. By dogmatic\ntheology here, we understand the exposition of Christianity in the form\nof Church doctrine, as it has been shaped since the second century. As\ndistinguished from it, a branch of theological study must be conceived\nwhich harmonises the historical exposition of the Gospel with the\ngeneral state of knowledge of the time. The Church can as little\ndispense with such a discipline as there can be a Christianity which\ndoes not account to itself for its basis and spiritual contents.]\n\n[Footnote 12: See Eusebius' preface to his Church History. Eusebius in\nthis work set himself a comprehensive task, but in doing so he never in\nthe remotest sense thought of a history of dogma. In place of that we\nhave a history of men \"who from generation to generation proclaimed the\nword of God orally or by writing,\" and a history of those who by their\npassion for novelties, plunged themselves into the greatest errors.]\n\n[Footnote 13: See for example, B. Schwane, Dogmengesch. d.\nVornicaenischen Zeit, 1862, where the sense in which dogmas have no\nhistorical side is first expounded, and then it is shewn that dogmas,\n\"notwithstanding, present a certain side which permits a historical\nconsideration, because in point of fact they have gone through\nhistorical developments.\" But these historical developments present\nthemselves simply either as solemn promulgations and explications, or as\nprivate theological speculations.]\n\n[Footnote 14: If we leave out of account the Marcionite gnostic\ncriticism of ecclesiastical Christianity, Paul of Samosata and Marcellus\nof Ancyra may be mentioned as men who, in the earliest period,\ncriticised the apologetic Alexandrian theology which was being\nnaturalised (see the remarkable statement of Marcellus in Euseb. C.\nMarc. I.4: [Greek: to tou dogmatos onoma tes anthropines echetai boules\nte kai gnomes k.t.l.] which I have chosen as the motto of this book). We\nknow too little of Stephen Gobarus (VI. cent.) to enable us to estimate\nhis review of the doctrine of the Church and its development (Photius\nBibl. 232). With regard to the middle ages (Abelard \"Sic et Non\"), see\nReuter, Gesch. der relig. Aufklaerung im MA., 1875. Hahn Gesch, der\nKetzer, especially in the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries, 3 vols., 1845.\nKeller, Die Reformation und die alteren Reform-Parteien, 1885.]\n\n[Footnote 15: See Voigt, Die Wiederbelebung des classischen Alterthums.\n2 vols., 1881, especially vol. II p. 1 ff. 363 ff. 494 ff. (\"Humanism\nand the science of history\"). The direct importance of humanism for\nilluminating the history of the middle ages is very little, and least of\nall for the history of the Church and of dogma. The only prominent works\nhere are those of Saurentius Valla and Erasmus. The criticism of the\nscholastic dogmas of the Church and the Pope began as early as the 12th\ncentury. For the attitude of the Renaissance to religion, see\nBurckhardt, Die Cultur der Renaissance. 2 vols., 1877.]\n\n[Footnote 16: See Holtzmann, Kanon und Tradition, 1859, Hase, Handbuch\nder protest. Polemik, 1878. Joh Delitszch, Das Lehrsystem der roem.\nKirche, 1875. New revelations, however, are rejected, and bold\nassumptions leading that way are not favoured: See Schwane, above work\np. 11: \"The content of revelation is not enlarged by the decisions or\nteaching of the Church, nor are new revelations added in course of time\n... Christian truth cannot therefore in its content be completed by the\nChurch, nor has she ever claimed the right of doing so, but always where\nnew designations or forms of dogma became necessary for the putting down\nof error or the instruction of the faithful, she would always teach what\nshe had received in Holy scripture or in the oral tradition of the\nApostles.\" Recent Catholic accounts of the history of dogma are Klee,\nLehrbuch der D.G. 2 vols, 1837, (Speculative). Schwane, Dogmengesch. der\nVornicaenischen Zeit, 1862, der patrist Zeit, 1869; der Mittleren Zeit,\n1882. Bach, Die D.G. des MA. 1873. There is a wealth of material for the\nhistory of dogma in Kuhn's Dogmatik, as well as in the great\ncontroversial writings occasioned by the celebrated work of Bellarmin;\nDisputationes de controversiis Christianae fidei adversus hujus temporis\nhaereticos, 1581-1593. It need not be said that, in spite of their\ninability to treat the history of dogma historically and critically,\nmuch may be learned from these works, and some other striking monographs\nof Roman Catholic scholars. But everything in history that is fitted to\nshake the high antiquity and unanimous attestation of the Catholic\ndogmas, becomes here a problem, the solution of which is demanded,\nthough indeed its carrying out often requires a very exceptional\nintellectual subtlety.]\n\n[Footnote 17: Historical interest in Protestantism has grown up around\nthe questions as to the power of the Pope, the significance of Councils,\nor the Scripturalness of the doctrines set up by them, and about the\nmeaning of the Lord's supper, of the conception of it by the Church\nFathers; (see Oecolampadius and Melanchthon.) Protestants were too sure\nthat the doctrine of justification was taught in the scriptures to feel\nany need of seeking proofs for it by studies in the history of dogma,\nand Luther also dispensed with the testimony of history for the dogma of\nthe Lord's supper. The task of shewing how far and in what way Luther\nand the Reformers compounded with history has not even yet been taken\nup. And yet there may be found in Luther's writings surprising and\nexcellent critical comments on the history of dogma and the theology of\nthe Fathers, as well as genial conceptions which have certainly remained\ninoperative; see especially the treatise \"Von den Conciliis und\nKirchen,\" and his judgment on different Church Fathers. In the first\nedition of the _Loci_ of Melanchthon we have also critical material for\nestimating the old systems of dogma. Calvin's depreciatory estimate of\nthe Trinitarian and Christological Formula, which, however, he retracted\nat a later period is well known.]\n\n[Footnote 18: Protestant Church history was brought into being by the\nInterim, Flacius being its father, see his Catalogus Testium Veritatis,\nand the so called Magdeburg Centuries 1559-1574, also Jundt Les\nCenturies de Magdebourg Paris, 1883 Von Engelhardt (Christenthum\nJustins, p. 9 ff.) has drawn attention to the estimate of Justin in the\nCenturies, and has justly insisted on the high importance of this first\nattempt at a criticism of the Church Fathers Khefoth (Eml. in. d. D.G.\n1839) has the merit of pointing out the somewhat striking judgment of A.\nHyperius on the history of dogma Chemnitz, Examen concilii Tridentini,\n1565 Forbesius a Corse (a Scotsman) Instructiones historico-theologiae de\ndoctrina Christiana 1645.]\n\n[Footnote 19: The learning, the diligence in collecting, and the\ncarefulness of the Benedictines and Maurians, as well as of English\nDutch and French theologians, such as Casaubon, Vossius, Pearson,\nDallaus Spanheim, Grabe, Basnage, etc. have never since been equalled,\nfar less surpassed. Even in the literary historical and higher criticism\nthese scholars have done splendid work, so far as the confessional\ndogmas did not come into question]\n\n[Footnote 20: See especially, G. Arnold, Unpartheyische Kirchen- und\nKetzerhistorie, 1699, also Baur, Epochen der kirchlichen\nGeschichtsschreibung p. 84 ff., Floring G. Arnold als Kirchenhistoriker\nDarmstadt, 1883. The latter determines correctly the measure of Arnold's\nimportance. His work was the direct preparation for an impartial\nexamination of the history of dogma however partial it was in itself\nPietism, here and there, after Spener, declared war against scholastic\ndogmatics as a hindrance to piety, and in doing so broke the ban under\nwhich the knowledge of history lay captive.]\n\n[Footnote 21: The investigations of the so-called English Deists about\nthe Christian religion contain the first, and to some extent a very\nsignificant free-spirited attempt at a critical view of the history of\ndogma (see Lechler, History of English Deism, 1841). But the criticism\nis an abstract rarely a historical one. Some very learned works bearing\non the history of dogma were written in England against the position of\nthe Deists especially by Lardner; see also at an earlier time Bull,\nDefensio fidei nic.]\n\n[Footnote 22: Calixtus of Helmstadt was the forerunner of Leibnitz with\nregard to Church history. But the merit of having recognised the main\nproblem of the history of dogma does not belong to Calixtus. By pointing\nout what Protestantism and Catholicism had in common he did not in any\nway clear up the historico-critical problem. On the other hand, the\n_Consensus repetitus_ of the Wittenberg theologians shews what\nfundamental questions Calixtus had already stirred.]\n\n[Footnote 23: Among the numerous historical writings of Mosheim may be\nmentioned specially his Dissert ad hist Eccles pertinentes 2 vols.\n1731-1741, as well as the work \"De rebus Christianorum ante Constantinum\nM Commentarii,\" 1753; see also \"Institutiones hist Eccl\" last Edition,\n1755.]\n\n[Footnote 24: Walch, \"Entwurf einer vollstaendigen Historie der\nKetzereien, Spaltungen und Religionsstreitigkeiten bis auf die Zeiten\nder Reformation.\" 11 Thle (incomplete), 1762-1785. See also his \"Entwurf\neiner vollstaendigen Historie der Kirchenversammlungen\" 1759, as well as\nnumerous monographs on the history of dogma. Such were already produced\nby the older Walch, whose \"Histor. theol Einleitung in die\nReligionsstreitigkeiten der Ev. Luth. Kirche,\" 5 vols. 1730-1739, and\n\"Histor.-theol. Einleit. in die Religionsstreitigkeiten welche\nsonderlich ausser der Ev Luth. Kirche entstanden sind 5 Thle\",\n1733-1736, had already put polemics behind the knowledge of history (see\nGass. \"Gesch. der protest. Dogmatik,\" 3rd Vol. p. 205 ff).]\n\n[Footnote 25: Opusc. p. 576 f.: \"Ex quo fit, ut nullo modo in\ntheologicis, quae omnia e libris antiquis hebraicis, grascis, latinis\nducuntur, possit aliquis bene in definiendo versari et a peccatis multis\net magnis sibi cavere, nisi litteras et historiam assumat.\" The title of\na programme of Crusius, Ernesti's opponent, \"De dogmatum Christianorum\nhistoria cum probatione dogmatum non confundenda,\" 1770, is significant\nof the new insight which was steadily making way.]\n\n[Footnote 26: Semler, Einleitung zu Baumgartens evang. Glaubenslehre,\n1759: also Geschichte der Glaubenslehre, zu Baumgartens Untersuch.\ntheol. Streitigkeiten, 1762-1764. Semler paved the way for the view that\ndogmas have arisen and been gradually developed under definite\nhistorical conditions. He was the first to grasp the problem of the\nrelation of Catholicism to early Christianity, because he freed the\nearly Christian documents from the fetters of the Canon. Schroeckh\n(Christl. Kirchengesch., 1786,) in the spirit of Semler described with\nimpartiality and care the changes of the dogmas.]\n\n[Footnote 27: Roessler, Lehrbegriff der Christlichen Kirche in den 3\nersten Jahrh. 1775; also, Arbeiten by Burscher, Heinrich, Staeudlin,\netc., see especially, Loeffler's \"Abhandlung welche eine kurze\nDarstellung der Entstehungsart der Dreieinigkeit enthaelt,\" 1792, in the\ntranslation of Souverain's Le Platonisme devoile, 1700. The question as\nto the Platonism of the Fathers, this fundamental question of the\nhistory of dogma, was raised even by Luther and Flacius, and was very\nvigorously debated at the end of the 17th and beginning of the 18th\ncenturies, after the Socinians had already affirmed it strongly. The\nquestion once more emerges on German soil in the church history of G.\nArnold, but cannot be said to have received the attention it deserves in\nthe 150 years that have followed (see the literature of the controversy\nin Tzschirner, Fall des Heidenthums, p. 580 f.). Yet the problem was\nfirst thrust aside by the speculative view of the history of\nChristianity.]\n\n[Footnote 28: Lange. Ausfuehr. Gesch. der Dogmen, oder der Glaubenslehre\nder Christl. Kirche nach den Kirchenvaeter ausgearbeitet. 1796.]\n\n[Footnote 29: Muenscher, Handb. d. Christl. D.G. 4 vols. first 6\nCenturies 1797-1809; Lehrbuch, 1st Edit. 1811; 3rd. Edit. edited by v\nCoelln, Hupfeld and Neudecker, 1832-1838. Planck's epoch-making work:\nGesch. der Veraenderungen und der Bildung unseres protestantischen\nLehrbegriffs. 6 vols. 1791-1800, had already for the most part appeared.\nContemporary with Muenscher are Wundemann, Gesch. d. Christl.\nGlaubenslehren vom Zeitalter des Athanasius bis auf Gregor. d. Gr. 2\nThle. 1789-1799; Muenter, Handbuch der alteren Christl. D.G. hrsg. von\nEwers, 2 vols. 1802-1804; Staeudlin, Lehrbuch der Dogmatik und\nDogmengeschichte, 1800, last Edition 1822, and Beck, Comment, hist.\ndecretorum religionis Christianae, 1801.]\n\n[Footnote 30: Augusti, Lehrb. d. Christl. D.G. 1805. 4 Edit. 1835.\nBerthold, Handb. der D.G. 2 vols. 1822-1823. Schickedanz, Versuch einer\nGesch. d. Christl. Glaubenslehre etc. 1827. Ruperti, Geschichte der\nDogmen, 1831. Lenz, Gesch. der Christl. Dogmen. 2 parts. 1834-1835.\nJ.G.V. Engelhardt, Dogmengesch. 1839. See also Giesler, Dogmengesch. 2\nvols. edited by Redepenning, 1855: also Illgen, Ueber den Werth der\nChristl. D.G. 1817.]\n\n[Footnote 31: Baumgarten Crusius, Lehrb. d. Christl. D.G. 1852: also\ncompendium d. Christl. D.G. 2 parts 1830-1846, the second part edited by\nHase.]\n\n[Footnote 32: Meier, Lehrb. d. D.G. 1840. 2nd Edit. revised by G. Baur\n1854.]\n\n[Footnote 33: The \"Special History of Dogma\" in Baumgarten Crusius, in\nwhich every particular dogma is by itself pursued through the whole\nhistory of the Church, is of course entirely unfruitful. But even the\nopinions which are given in the \"General History of Dogma,\" are\nfrequently very far from the mark, (Cf., e.g., Sec. 14 and p. 67), which is\nthe more surprising as no one can deny that he takes a scholarly view of\nhistory.]\n\n[Footnote 34: Meier's Lehrbuch is formally and materially a very\nimportant piece of work, the value of which has not been sufficiently\nrecognised, because the author followed neither the track of Neander nor\nof Baur. Besides the excellences noted in the text, may be further\nmentioned, that almost everywhere Meier has distinguished correctly\nbetween the history of dogma and the history of theology, and has given\nan account only of the former.]\n\n[Footnote 35: Biedermann (Christl Dogmatik 2 Edit 1 vol. p. 332 f) says,\n\"The history of the development of the Dogma of the Person of Christ\nwill bring before us step by step the ascent of faith in the Gospel of\nJesus Christ to its metaphysical basis in the nature of his person.\"\nThis was the quite normal and necessary way of actual faith and is not\nto be reckoned as a confused mixture of heterogeneous philosophical\nopinions. The only thing taken from the ideas of contemporary philosophy\nwas the special material of consciousness in which the doctrine of\nChrist's Divinity was at any time expressed. The process of this\ndoctrinal development was an inward necessary one.]\n\n[Footnote 36: Baur, Lehrbuch der Christl D.G. 1847 3rd Edit. 1867, also\nVorles uber die Christl D.G. edited by F. Baur 1865-68. Further the\nMonographs, \"Ueber die Christl Lehre v.d. Versohnung in ihrergesch Entw.\n1838.\" Ueber die Christl Lehre v.d. Dreieinigkeit u.d. Menschwerdung,\n1841, etc. D.F. Strauss preceded him with his work Die Christl\nGlaubenslehre in ihrer gesch Entw 2 vols 1840-41. From the stand-point\nof the Hegelian right we have Marheineke Christl D.G. edited by Matthias\nand Vatke 1849. From the same stand-point though at the same time\ninfluenced by Schleiermacher Dorner wrote \"The History of the Person of\nChrist.\"]\n\n[Footnote 37: See p. 63: \"As Christianity appeared in contrast with\nJudaism and Heathenism, and could only represent a new and peculiar form\nof the religious consciousness in distinction from both reducing the\ncontrasts of both to a unity in itself, so also the first difference of\ntendencies developing themselves within Christianity, must be determined\nby the relation in which it stood to Judaism on the one hand, and to\nHeathenism on the other.\" Compare also the very characteristic\nintroduction to the first volume of the Vorlesungen.]\n\n[Footnote 38: Hagenbach's Manual of the history of dogma might be put\nalongside of Neander's work. It agrees with it both in plan and spirit.\nBut the material of the history of dogma which it offers in\nsuperabundance, seems far less connectedly worked out than by Neander.\nIn Shedd's history of Christian doctrine the Americans possess a\npresentation of the history of dogma worth noting 2 vols 3 Edit 1883.\nThe work of Fr. Bonifas Hist des Dogmes 2 vols 1886 appeared after the\ndeath of the author and is not important.]\n\n[Footnote 39: No doubt Kliefoth also maintains for each period a stage\nof the disintegration of dogma but this is not to be understood in the\nordinary sense of the word. Besides there are ideas in this introduction\nwhich hardly obtain the approval of their author to-day.]\n\n[Footnote 40: Thomasius' Die Christl. Dogmengesch. als Entwickel. Gesch.\ndes Kirchl. Lehrbegriffs. 2 vols. 1874-76. 2nd Edit intelligently and\ncarefully edited by Bonwetsch. and Seeberg, 1887. (Seeberg has produced\nalmost a new work in vol. II). From the same stand-point is the manual\nof the history of dogma by H. Schmid, 1859, (in 4th Ed. revised and\ntransformed into an excellent collection of passages from the sources by\nHauck, 1887), as well as the Luther. Dogmatik (Vol. II 1864: Der\nKirchenglaube) of Kahnis, which, however, subjects particular dogmas to\na freer criticism.]\n\n[Footnote 41: See Vol. 1. p. 14.]\n\n[Footnote 42: See Vol. 1. p. 11. \"The first period treats of the\ndevelopment of the great main dogmas which were to become the basis of\nthe further development (the Patristic age). The problem of the second\nperiod was, partly to work up this material theologically, and partly to\ndevelop it. But this development, under the influence of the Hierarchy,\nfell into false paths, and became partly, at least, corrupt (the age of\nScholasticism), and therefore a reformation was necessary. It was\nreserved for this third period to carry back the doctrinal formation\nwhich had become abnormal, to the old sound paths, and on the other\nhand, in virtue of the regeneration of the Church which followed, to\ndeepen it and fashion it according to that form which it got in the\ndoctrinal systems of the Evangelic Church, while the remaining part\nfixed its own doctrine in the decrees of Trent (period of the\nReformation).\" This view of history, which, from the Christian\nstand-point, will allow absolutely nothing to be said against the\ndoctrinal formation of the early Church, is a retrogression from the\nview of Luther and the writers of the \"Centuries,\" for these were well\naware that the corruption did not first begin in the middle ages.]\n\n[Footnote 43: This fulfils a requirement urged by Weizsaecker (Jahrb. f.\nDeutsche Theol 1866 p. 170 ff.)]\n\n[Footnote 44: See Ritschl's Essay, \"Ueber die Methode der aelteren\nDogmengeschichte\" (Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1871 p. 191 ff.) in which\nthe advance made by Nitzsch is estimated, and at the same time, an\narrangement proposed for the treatment of the earlier history of dogma\nwhich would group the material more clearly and more suitably than has\nbeen done by Nitzsch. After having laid the foundation for a correct\nhistorical estimate of the development of early Christianity in his work\n\"Entstehung der Alt-Katholischen Kirche\", 1857, Ritschl published an\nepoch-making study in the history of dogma in his \"History of the\ndoctrine of justification and reconciliation\" 2 edit. 1883. We have no\nsuperabundance of good monographs on the history of dogma. There are few\nthat give such exact information regarding the Patristic period as that\nof Von Engelhardt \"Ueber das Christenthum Justin's\", 1878, and Zahn's\nwork on Marcellus, 1867. Among the investigators of our age, Renan above\nall has clearly recognised that there are only two main periods in the\nhistory of dogma, and that the changes which Christianity experienced\nafter the establishment of the Catholic Church bear no proportion to the\nchanges which preceded. His words are as follows (Hist. des origin. du\nChristianisme T. VII. p. 503 f.):--the division about the year 180 is\ncertainly placed too early, regard being had to what was then really\nauthoritative in the Church.--\"Si nous comparons maintenant le\nChristianisme, tel qu'il existait vers l'an 180, au Christianisme du IVe\net du Ve, siecle, au Christianisme du moyen age, au Christianisme de nos\njours, nous trouvons qu'en realite il s'est augmente des tres peu de\nchose dans les siecles qui ont suivis. En 180, le Nouveau Testament est\nclos: il ne s'y ajoutera plus un seul livre nouveau(?). Lentement, les\nEpitres de Paul out conquis leur place a la suite des Evangiles, dans le\ncode sacre et dans la liturgie. Quant aux dogmes, rien n'est fixe; mais\nle germe de tout existe; presque aucune idee n'apparaitra qui ne puisse\nfaire valoir des autorites du 1er et du 2e siecles. Il y a du trop, il y\na des contradictions; le travail theologique consistera bien plus a\nemonder, a ecarter des superfluites qu'a inventer du nouveau. L'Eglise\nlaissera tomber une foule de choses mal commencees, elle sortira de bien\ndes impasses. Elle a encore deux coeurs, pour ainsi dire; elle a\nplusieurs tetes; ces anomalies tomberont; mais aucun dogme vraiment\noriginal ne se formera plus.\" Also the discussions in chapters 28-34, of\nthe same volume. H. Thiersch (Die Kirche im Apostolischen Zeitalter,\n1852) reveals a deep insight into the difference between the spirit of\nthe New Testament writers and the post-Apostolic Fathers, but he has\noverdone these differences and sought to explain them by the\nmythological assumption of an Apostasy. A great amount of material for\nthe history of dogma may be found in the great work of Boehringer, Die\nKirche Christi und ihre Zeugen, oder die Kirchengeschichte in\nBiographien. 2 Edit. 1864.]\n\n[Footnote 45: By the connection with general church history we must,\nabove all, understand, a continuous regard to the world within which the\nchurch has been developed. The most recent works on the history of the\nchurch and of dogma, those of Renan, Overbeck (Anfaenge der patristischen\nLitteratur), Aube, Von Engelhardt (Justin), Kuehn (Minucius Felix). Hatch\n(\"Organization of the early church,\" and especially his posthumous work\n\"The influence of Greek ideas and usages upon the Christian Church,\"\n1890, in which may be found the most ample proof for the conception of\nthe early history of dogma which is set forth in the following pages),\nare in this respect worthy of special note. Deserving of mention also is\nR. Rothe, who, in his \"Vorlesungen ueber Kirchengeschichte\", edited by\nWeingarten, 1875, 2 vols, gave most significant suggestions towards a\nreally historical conception of the history of the church and of dogma.\nTo Rothe belongs the undiminished merit of realising thoroughly the\nsignificance of nationality in church history. But the theology of our\ncentury is also indebted for the first scientific conception of\nCatholicism, not to Marheineke or Winer, but to Rothe. (See Vol II. pp.\n1-11 especially p. 7 f.). \"The development of the Christian Church in\nthe Graeco-Roman world was not at the same time a development of that\nworld by the Church and further by Christianity. There remained, as the\nresult of the process, nothing but the completed Church. The world which\nhad built it had made itself bankrupt in doing so.\" With regard to the\norigin and development of the Catholic cultus and constitution, nay,\neven of the Ethic (see Luthardt, Die antike Ethik, 1887, preface), that\nhas been recognised by Protestant scholars, which one always hesitates\nto recognise with regard to catholic dogma: see the excellent remarks of\nSchwegler, Nachapostolisches Zeitalter. Vol. 1. p. 3 ff. It may be hoped\nthat an intelligent consideration of early Christian literature will\nform the bridge to a broad and intelligent view of the history of dogma.\nThe essay of Overbeck mentioned above (Histor. Zeitschrift. N. F. XII p.\n417 ff.) may be most heartily recommended in this respect. It is very\ngratifying to find an investigator so conservative as Sohm, now fully\nadmitting that \"Christian theology grew up in the second and third\ncenturies, when its foundations were laid for all time (?), the last\ngreat production of the Hellenic Spirit.\" (Kirchengeschichte im\nGrundriss, 1888. p. 37). The same scholar in his very important\nKirchenrecht. Bd. I. 1892, has transferred to the history of the origin\nof Church law and Church organization, the points of view which I have\napplied in the following account to the consideration of dogma. He has\nthereby succeeded in correcting many old errors and prejudices; but in\nmy opinion he has obscured the truth by exaggerations connected with a\nconception, not only of original Christianity, but also of the Gospel in\ngeneral, which is partly a narrow legal view, partly an enthusiastic\none. He has arrived _ex errore per veritatem ad errorem_; but there are\nfew books from which so much may be learned about early church history\nas from this paradoxical \"Kirchenrecht.\"]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nTHE PRESUPPOSITIONS OF THE HISTORY OF DOGMA\n\nSec. 1. _Introductory._\n\n\nThe Gospel presents itself as an Apocalyptic message on the soil of the\nOld Testament, and as the fulfilment of the law and the prophets, and\nyet is a new thing, the creation of a universal religion on the basis of\nthat of the Old Testament. It appeared when the time was fulfilled, that\nis, it is not without a connection with the stage of religious and\nspiritual development which was brought about by the intercourse of Jews\nand Greeks, and was established in the Roman Empire; but still it is a\nnew religion because it cannot be separated from Jesus Christ. When the\ntraditional religion has become too narrow the new religion usually\nappears as something of a very abstract nature; philosophy comes upon\nthe scene, and religion withdraws from social life and becomes a private\nmatter. But here an overpowering personality has appeared--the Son of\nGod. Word and deed coincide in that personality, and as it leads men\ninto a new communion with God, it unites them at the same time\ninseparably with itself, enables them to act on the world as light and\nleaven, and joins them together in a spiritual unity and an active\nconfederacy.\n\n2. Jesus Christ brought no new doctrine, but he set forth in his own\nperson a holy life with God and before God, and gave himself in virtue\nof this life to the service of his brethren in order to win them for the\nKingdom of God, that is, to lead them out of selfishness and the world\nto God, out of the natural connections and contrasts to a union in love,\nand prepare them for an eternal kingdom and an eternal life. But while\nworking for this Kingdom of God he did not withdraw from the religious\nand political communion of his people, nor did he induce his disciples\nto leave that communion. On the contrary, he described the Kingdom of\nGod as the fulfilment of the promises given to the nation, and himself\nas the Messiah whom that nation expected. By doing so he secured for his\nnew message, and with it his own person, a place in the system of\nreligious ideas and hopes, which by means of the Old Testament were\nthen, in diverse forms, current in the Jewish nation. The origin of a\ndoctrine concerning the Messianic hope, in which the Messiah was no\nlonger an unknown being, but Jesus of Nazareth, along with the new\ntemper and disposition of believers was a direct result of the\nimpression made by the person of Jesus. The conception of the Old\nTestament in accordance with the _analogia fidei_, that is, in\naccordance with the conviction that this Jesus of Nazareth is the\nChrist, was therewith given. Whatever sources of comfort and strength\nChristianity, even in its New Testament, has possessed or does possess\nup to the present, is for the most part taken from the Old Testament,\nviewed from a Christian stand-point, in virtue of the impression of the\nperson of Jesus. Even its dross was changed into gold; its hidden\ntreasures were brought forth, and while the earthly and transitory were\nrecognised as symbols of the heavenly and eternal, there rose up a world\nof blessings, of holy ordinances, and of sure grace prepared by God from\neternity. One could joyfully make oneself at home in it; for its long\nhistory guaranteed a sure future and a blessed close, while it offered\ncomfort and certainty in all the changes of life to every individual\nheart that would only raise itself to God. From the positive position\nwhich Jesus took up towards the Old Testament, that is, towards the\nreligious traditions of his people, his Gospel gained a footing which,\nlater on, preserved it from dissolving in the glow of enthusiasm, or\nmelting away in the ensnaring dream of antiquity, that dream of the\nindestructible Divine nature of the human spirit, and the nothingness\nand baseness of all material things.[46] But from the positive attitude\nof Jesus to the Jewish tradition, there followed also, for a generation\nthat had long been accustomed to grope after the Divine active in the\nworld, the summons to think out a theory of the media of revelation, and\nso put an end to the uncertainty with which speculation had hitherto\nbeen afflicted. This, like every theory of religion, concealed in itself\nthe danger of crippling the power of faith; for men are ever prone to\ncompound with religion itself by a religious theory.\n\n3. The result of the preaching of Jesus, however, in the case of the\nbelieving Jews, was not only the illumination of the Old Testament by\nthe Gospel and the confirmation of the Gospel by the Old Testament, but\nnot less, though indirectly, the detachment of believers from the\nreligious community of the Jews from the Jewish Church. How this came\nabout cannot be discussed here: we may satisfy ourselves with the fact\nthat it was essentially accomplished in the first two generations of\nbelievers. The Gospel was a message for humanity even where there was no\nbreak with Judaism: but it seemed impossible to bring this message home\nto men who were not Jews in any other way than by leaving the Jewish\nChurch. But to leave that Church was to declare it to be worthless, and\nthat could only be done by conceiving it as a malformation from its very\ncommencement, or assuming that it had temporarily or completely\nfulfilled its mission. In either case it was necessary to put another in\nits place, for, according to the Old Testament, it was unquestionable\nthat God had not only given revelations, but through these revelations\nhad founded a nation, a religious community. The result, also, to which\nthe conduct of the unbelieving Jews and the social union of the\ndisciples of Jesus required by that conduct, led, was carried home with\nirresistible power: believers in Christ are the community of God, they\nare the true Israel, the [Greek: ekklesia tou theou]: but the Jewish\nChurch persisting in its unbelief is the Synagogue of Satan. Out of this\nconsciousness sprang--first as a power in which one believed, but which\nimmediately began to be operative, though not as a commonwealth--the\nchristian church, a special communion of hearts on the basis of a\npersonal union with God, established by Christ and mediated by the\nSpirit; a communion whose essential mark was to claim as its own the Old\nTestament and the idea of being the people of God, to sweep aside the\nJewish conception of the Old Testament and the Jewish Church, and\nthereby gain the shape and power of a community that is capable of a\nmission for the world.\n\n4. This independent Christian community could not have been formed had\nnot Judaism, in consequence of inner and outer developments, then\nreached a point at which it must either altogether cease to grow or\nburst its shell. This community is the presupposition of the history of\ndogma, and the position which it took up towards the Jewish tradition\nis, strictly speaking, the point of departure for all further\ndevelopments, so far as with the removal of all national and ceremonial\npeculiarities it proclaimed itself to be what the Jewish Church wished\nto be. We find the Christian Church about the middle of the third\ncentury, after severe crisis, in nearly the same position to the Old\nTestament and to Judaism as it was 150 or 200 years earlier.[47] It\nmakes the same claim to the Old Testament, and builds its faith and hope\nupon its teaching. It is also, as before, strictly anti-national; above\nall, anti-judaic, and sentences the Jewish religious community to the\nabyss of hell. It might appear, then, as though the basis for the\nfurther development of Christianity as a church was completely given\nfrom the moment in which the first breach of believers with the\nsynagogue and the formation of independent Christian communities took\nplace. The problem, the solution of which will always exercise this\nchurch, so far as it reflects upon its faith, will be to turn the\nOld Testament more completely to account in its own sense, so as to\ncondemn the Jewish Church with its particular and national forms.\n\n5. But the rule even for the Christian use of the Old Testament lay\noriginally in the living connection in which one stood with the Jewish\npeople and its traditions, and a new religious community, a religious\ncommonwealth, was not yet realised, although it existed for faith and\nthought. If again we compare the Church about the middle of the third\ncentury with the condition of Christendom 150 or 200 years before, we\nshall find that there is now a real religious commonwealth, while at the\nearlier period there were only communities who believed in a heavenly\nChurch, whose earthly image they were, endeavoured to give it expression\nwith the simplest means, and lived in the future as strangers and\npilgrims on the earth, hastening to meet the Kingdom of whose existence\nthey had the surest guarantee. We now really find a new commonwealth,\npolitically formed and equipped with fixed forms of all kinds. We\nrecognise in these forms few Jewish, but many Graeco-Roman features, and\nfinally, we perceive also in the doctrine of faith on which this\ncommonwealth is based, the philosophic spirit of the Greeks. We find a\nChurch as a political union and worship institute, a formulated faith\nand a sacred learning; but one thing we no longer find, the old\nenthusiasm and individualism which had not felt itself fettered by\nsubjection to the authority of the Old Testament. Instead of\nenthusiastic independent Christians, we find a new literature of\nrevelation, the New Testament, and Christian priests. When did these\nformations begin? How and by what influence was the living faith\ntransformed into the creed to be believed, the surrender to Christ into\na philosophic Christology, the Holy Church into the _corpus permixtum_,\nthe glowing hope of the Kingdom of heaven into a doctrine of immortality\nand deification, prophecy into a learned exegesis and theological\nscience, the bearers of the spirit into clerics, the brethren into laity\nheld in tutelage, miracles and healings into nothing, or into\npriestcraft, the fervent prayers into a solemn ritual, renunciation of\nthe world into a jealous dominion over the world, the \"spirit\" into\nconstraint and law?\n\nThere can be no doubt about the answer: these formations are as old in\ntheir origin as the detachment of the Gospel from the Jewish Church. A\nreligious faith which seeks to establish a communion of its own in\nopposition to another, is compelled to borrow from that other what it\nneeds. The religion which is life and feeling of the heart cannot be\nconverted into a knowledge determining the motley multitude of men\nwithout deferring to their wishes and opinions. Even the holiest must\nclothe itself in the same existing earthly forms as the profane if it\nwishes to found on earth a confederacy which is to take the place of\nanother, and if it does not wish to enslave, but to determine the\nreason. When the Gospel was rejected by the Jewish nation, and had\ndisengaged itself from all connection with that nation, it was already\nsettled whence it must take the material to form for itself a new body\nand be transformed into a Church and a theology. National and\nparticular, in the ordinary sense of the word, these forms could not be:\nthe contents of the Gospel were too rich for that; but separated from\nJudaism, nay, even before that separation, the Christian religion came\nin contact with the Roman world and with a culture which had already\nmastered the world, viz., the Greek. The Christian Church and its\ndoctrine were developed within the Roman world and Greek culture in\nopposition to the Jewish Church. This fact is just as important for the\nhistory of dogma as the other stated above, that this Church was\ncontinuously nourished on the Old Testament. Christendom was of course\nconscious of being in opposition to the empire and its culture, as well\nas to Judaism; but this from the beginning--apart from a few\nexceptions--was not without reservations. No man can serve two masters;\nbut in setting up a spiritual power in this world one must serve an\nearthly master, even when he desires to naturalise the spiritual in the\nworld. As a consequence of the complete break with the Jewish Church\nthere followed not only the strict necessity of quarrying the stones for\nthe building of the Church from the Graeco-Roman world, but also the idea\nthat Christianity has a more positive relation to that world than to the\nsynagogue. And, as the Church was being built, the original enthusiasm\nmust needs vanish. The separation from Judaism having taken place, it\nwas necessary that the spirit of another people should be admitted, and\nshould also materially determine the manner of turning the Old Testament\nto advantage.\n\n6. But an inner necessity was at work here no less than an outer.\nJudaism and Hellenism in the age of Christ were opposed to each other,\nnot only as dissimilar powers of equal value, but the latter having its\norigin among a small people, became a universal spiritual power, which,\nsevered from its original nationality, had for that very reason\npenetrated foreign nations. It had even laid hold of Judaism, and the\nanxious care of her professional watchmen to hedge round the national\npossession, is but a proof of the advancing decomposition within the\nJewish nation. Israel, no doubt, had a sacred treasure which was of\ngreater value than all the treasures of the Greeks,--the living God--but\nin what miserable vessels was this treasure preserved, and how much\ninferior was all else possessed by this nation in comparison with the\nriches, the power, the delicacy and freedom of the Greek spirit and its\nintellectual possessions. A movement like that of Christianity, which\ndiscovered to the Jew the soul whose dignity was not dependent on its\ndescent from Abraham, but on its responsibility to God, could not\ncontinue in the framework of Judaism however expanded, but must soon\nrecognise in that world which the Greek spirit had discovered and\nprepared, the field which belonged to it: [Greek: eikotos Ioudaiois men\nnomos, Hellesi de philosophia mechris tes parousias enteuthen de he\nklesis he katholike] [to the Jews the law, to the Greeks Philosophy, up\nto the Parousia; from that time the catholic invitation.] But the Gospel\nat first was preached exclusively to the lost sheep of the house of\nIsrael, and that which inwardly united it with Hellenism did not yet\nappear in any doctrine or definite form of knowledge.\n\nOn the contrary, the Church doctrine of faith, in the preparatory stage,\nfrom the Apologists up to the time of Origen, hardly in any point shews\nthe traces, scarcely even the remembrance of a time in which the Gospel\nwas not detached from Judaism. For that very reason it is absolutely\nimpossible to understand this preparation and development solely from\nthe writings that remain to us as monuments of that short earliest\nperiod. The attempts at deducing the genesis of the Church's doctrinal\nsystem from the theology of Paul, or from compromises between Apostolic\ndoctrinal ideas, will always miscarry; for they fail to note that to the\nmost important premises of the Catholic doctrine of faith belongs an\nelement which we cannot recognise as dominant in the New Testament,[48]\nviz., the Hellenic spirit.[49] As far backwards as we can trace the\nhistory of the propagation of the Church's doctrine of faith, from the\nmiddle of the third century to the end of the first, we nowhere perceive\na leap, or the sudden influx of an entirely new element. What we\nperceive is rather the gradual disappearance of an original element, the\nEnthusiastic and Apocalyptic, that is, of the sure consciousness of an\nimmediate possession of the Divine Spirit, and the hope of the future\nconquering the present; individual piety conscious of itself and\nsovereign, living in the future world, recognising no external authority\nand no external barriers. This piety became ever weaker and passed away:\nthe utilising of the Codex of Revelation, the Old Testament,\nproportionally increased with the Hellenic influences which controlled\nthe process, for the two went always hand in hand. At an earlier period\nthe Churches made very little use of either, because they had in\nindividual religious inspiration on the basis of Christ's preaching and\nthe sure hope of his Kingdom which was near at hand, much more than\neither could bestow. The factors whose co-operation we observe in the\nsecond and third centuries, were already operative among the earliest\nGentile Christians. We nowhere find a yawning gulf in the great\ndevelopment which lies between the first Epistle of Clement and the work\nof Origen, [Greek: Peri archon]. Even the importance which the\n\"Apostolic\" was to obtain, was already foreshadowed by the end of the\nfirst century, and enthusiasm always had its limits.[50] The most\ndecisive division, therefore, falls before the end of the first century;\nor more correctly, the relatively new element, the Greek, which is of\nimportance for the forming of the Church as a commonwealth, and\nconsequently for the formation of its doctrine, is clearly present in\nthe churches even in the Apostolic age. Two hundred years, however,\npassed before it made itself completely at home in the Gospel, although\nthere were points of connection inherent in the Gospel.\n\n7. The cause of the great historical fact is clear. It is given in the\nfact that the Gospel, rejected by the majority of the Jews, was very\nsoon proclaimed to those who were not Jews, that after a few decades the\ngreater number of its professors were found among the Greeks, and that,\nconsequently, the development leading to the Catholic dogma took place\nwithin Graeco-Roman culture. But within this culture there was lacking\nthe power of understanding either the idea of the completed Old\nTestament theocracy, or the idea of the Messiah. Both of these essential\nelements of the original proclamation, therefore, must either be\nneglected or remodelled.[51] But it is hardly allowable to mention\ndetails however important, where the whole aggregate of ideas, of\nreligious historical perceptions and presuppositions, which were based\non the old Testament, understood in a Christian sense, presented itself\nas something new and strange. One can easily appropriate words, but not\npractical ideas. Side by side with the Old Testament religion as the\npresupposition of the Gospel, and using its forms of thought, the moral\nand religious views and ideals dominant in the world of Greek culture\ncould not but insinuate themselves into the communities consisting of\nGentiles. From the enormous material that was brought home to the hearts\nof the Greeks, whether formulated by Paul or by any other, only a few\nrudimentary ideas could at first be appropriated. For that very reason,\nthe Apostolic Catholic doctrine of faith in its preparation and\nestablishment, is no mere continuation of that which, by uniting things\nthat are certainly very dissimilar, is wont to be described as \"Biblical\nTheology of the New Testament.\" Biblical Theology, even when kept within\nreasonable limits, is not the presupposition of the history of dogma.\nThe Gentile Christians were little able to comprehend the controversies\nwhich stirred the Apostolic age within Jewish Christianity. The\npresuppositions of the history of dogma are given in certain fundamental\nideas, or rather motives of the Gospel, (in the preaching concerning\nJesus Christ, in the teaching of Evangelic ethics and the future life,\nin the Old Testament capable of any interpretation, but to be\ninterpreted with reference to Christ and the Evangelic history), and in\nthe Greek spirit.[52]\n\n8. The foregoing statements involve that the difference between the\ndevelopment which led to the Catholic doctrine of religion and the\noriginal condition, was by no means a total one. By recognising the Old\nTestament as a book of Divine revelation, the Gentile Christians\nreceived along with it the religious speech which was used by Jewish\nChristians, were made dependent upon the interpretation which had been\nused from the very beginning, and even received a great part of the\nJewish literature which accompanied the Old Testament. But the\npossession of a common religious speech and literature is never a mere\noutward bond of union, however strong the impulse be to introduce the\nold familiar contents into the newly acquired speech. The Jewish, that\nis, the Old Testament element, divested of its national peculiarity, has\nremained the basis of Christendom. It has saturated this element with\nthe Greek spirit, but has always clung to its main idea, faith in God as\nthe creator and ruler of the world. It has in the course of its\ndevelopment rejected important parts of that Jewish element, and has\nborrowed others at a later period from the great treasure that was\ntransmitted to it. It has also been able to turn to account the least\nadaptable features, if only for the external confirmation of its own\nideas. The Old Testament applied to Christ and his universal Church has\nalways remained the decisive document, and it was long ere Christian\nwritings received the same authority, long ere individual doctrines and\nsayings of Apostolic writings obtained an influence on the formation of\necclesiastical doctrine.\n\n9. From yet another side there makes its appearance an agreement between\nthe circles of Palestinian believers in Jesus and the Gentile Christian\ncommunities, which endured for more than a century, though it was of\ncourse gradually effaced. It is the enthusiastic element which unites\nthem, the consciousness of standing in an immediate union with God\nthrough the Spirit, and receiving directly from God's hand miraculous\ngifts, powers and revelations, granted to the individual that he may\nturn them to account in the service of the Church. The depotentiation of\nthe Christian religion, where one may believe in the inspiration of\nanother, but no longer feels his own, nay, dare not feel it, is not\naltogether coincident with its settlement on Greek soil. On the\ncontrary, it was more than two centuries ere weakness and reflection\nsuppressed, or all but suppressed, the forms in which the personal\nconsciousness of God originally expressed itself.[53] Now it certainly\nlies in the nature of enthusiasm, that it can assume the most diverse\nforms of expression, and follow very different impulses, and so far it\nfrequently separates instead of uniting. But so long as criticism and\nreflection are not yet awakened, and a uniform ideal hovers before one,\nit does unite, and in this sense there existed an identity of\ndisposition between the earliest Jewish Christians and the still\nenthusiastic Gentile Christian communities.\n\n10. But, finally, there is a still further uniting element between the\nbeginnings of the development to Catholicism, and the original condition\nof the Christian religion as a movement within Judaism, the importance\nof which cannot be overrated, although we have every reason to complain\nhere of the obscurity of the tradition. Between the Graeco-Roman world\nwhich was in search of a spiritual religion, and the Jewish commonwealth\nwhich already possessed such a religion as a national property, though\nvitiated by exclusiveness, there had long been a Judaism which,\npenetrated by the Greek spirit, was, _ex professo_, devoting itself to\nthe task of bringing a new religion to the Greek world, the Jewish\nreligion, but that religion in its kernel Greek, that is,\nphilosophically moulded, spiritualised and secularised. Here then was\nalready consummated an intimate union of the Greek spirit with the Old\nTestament religion, within the Empire and to a less degree in Palestine\nitself. If everything is not to be dissolved into a grey mist, we must\nclearly distinguish this union between Judaism and Hellenism and the\nspiritualising of religion it produced, from the powerful but\nindeterminable influences which the Greek spirit exercised on all things\nJewish, and which have been a historical condition of the Gospel. The\nalliance, in my opinion, was of no significance at all for the _origin_\nof the Gospel, but was of the most decided importance, first, for the\npropagation of Christianity, and then, for the development of\nChristianity to Catholicism, and for the genesis of the Catholic\ndoctrine of faith.[54] We cannot certainly name any particular\npersonality who was specially active in this, but we can mention three\nfacts which prove more than individual references. (1) The propaganda of\nChristianity in the Diaspora followed the Jewish propaganda and partly\ntook its place, that is, the Gospel was at first preached to those\nGentiles who were already acquainted with the general outlines of the\nJewish religion, and who were even frequently viewed as a Judaism of a\nsecond order, in which Jewish and Greek elements had been united in a\npeculiar mixture. (2) The conception of the Old Testament, as we find it\neven in the earliest Gentile Christian teachers, the method of\nspiritualising it, etc., agrees in the most surprising way with the\nmethods which were used by the Alexandrian Jews. (3) There are Christian\ndocuments in no small number and of unknown origin, which completely\nagree in plan, in form and contents with Graeco-Jewish writings of the\nDiaspora, as for example, the Christian Sibylline Oracles, and the\npseudo-Justinian treatise, \"de Monarchia.\" There are numerous tractates\nof which it is impossible to say with certainty whether they are of\nJewish or of Christian origin.\n\nThe Alexandrian and non-Palestinian Judaism is still Judaism. As the\nGospel seized and moved the whole of Judaism, it must also have been\noperative in the non Palestinian Judaism. But that already foreshadowed\nthe transition of the Gospel to the non-Jewish Greek region, and the\nfate which it was to experience there. For that non-Palestinian Judaism\nformed the bridge between the Jewish Church and the Roman Empire,\ntogether with its culture.[55] The Gospel passed into the world chiefly\nby this bridge. Paul indeed had a large share in this, but his own\nChurches did not understand the way he led them, and were not able on\nlooking back to find it.[56] He indeed became a Greek to the Greeks, and\neven began the undertaking of placing the treasures of Greek knowledge\nat the service of the Gospel. But the knowledge of Christ crucified, to\nwhich he subordinated all other knowledge as only of preparatory value,\nhad nothing in common with Greek philosophy, while the idea of\njustification and the doctrine of the Spirit (Rom. VIII), which together\nformed the peculiar contents of his Christianity, were irreconcilable\nwith the moralism and the religious ideals of Hellenism. But the great\nmass of the earliest Gentile Christians became Christians because they\nperceived in the Gospel the sure tidings of the benefits and obligations\nwhich they had already sought in the fusion of Jewish and Greek\nelements. It is only by discerning this that we can grasp the\npreparation and genesis of the Catholic Church and its dogma.\n\nFrom the foregoing statements it appears that there fall to be\nconsidered as presuppositions of the origin of the Catholic Apostolic\ndoctrine of faith, the following topics, though of unequal importance as\nregards the extent of their influence:\n\n(a) The Gospel of Jesus Christ.\n\n(b) The common preaching of Jesus Christ in the first generation of\nbelievers.\n\n(c) The current exposition of the Old Testament, the Jewish speculations\nand hopes of the future, in their significance for the earliest types of\nChristian preaching.[57]\n\n(d) The religious conceptions, and the religious philosophy of the\nHellenistic Jews, in their significance for the later restatement of the\nGospel.\n\n(e) The religious dispositions of the Greeks and Romans of the first two\ncenturies, and the current Graeco-Roman philosophy of religion.\n\n\nSec. 2. _The Gospel of Jesus Christ according to His own testimony\nconcerning Himself._\n\nI. The Fundamental Features.\n\nThe Gospel entered into the world as an apocalyptic eschatological\nmessage, apocalyptical and eschatological not only in its form, but also\nin its contents. But Jesus announced that the kingdom of God had already\nbegun with his own work, and those who received him in faith became\nsensible of this beginning; for the \"apocalyptical\" was not merely the\nunveiling of the future, but above all the revelation of God as the\nFather, and the \"eschatological\" received its counterpoise in the view\nof Jesus' work as Saviour, in the assurance of being certainly called to\nthe kingdom, and in the conviction that life and future dominion is hid\nwith God the Lord and preserved for believers by him. Consequently, we\nare following not only the indications of the succeeding history, but\nalso the requirement of the thing itself, when, in the presentation of\nthe Gospel, we place in the foreground, not that which unites it with\nthe contemporary disposition of Judaism, but that which raises it above\nit. Instead of the hope of inheriting the kingdom, Jesus had also spoken\nsimply of preserving the soul, or the life. In this one substitution\nlies already a transformation of universal significance, of political\nreligion into a religion that is individual and therefore holy; for the\nlife is nourished by the word of God, but God is the Holy One.\n\nThe Gospel is the glad message of the government of the world and of\nevery individual soul by the almighty and holy God, the Father and\nJudge. In this dominion of God, which frees men from the power of the\nDevil, makes them rulers in a heavenly kingdom in contrast with the\nkingdoms of the world, and which will also be sensibly realised in the\nfuture aeon just about to appear, is secured life for all men who yield\nthemselves to God, although they should lose the world and the earthly\nlife. That is, the soul which is pure and holy in connection with God,\nand in imitation of the Divine perfection is eternally preserved with\nGod, while those who would gain the world, and preserve their life, fall\ninto the hands of the Judge who sentences them to Hell. This dominion of\nGod imposes on men a law, an old and yet a new law, viz., that of the\nDivine perfection and therefore of undivided love to God and to our\nneighbour. In this love, where it sways the inmost feeling, is presented\nthe better righteousness (better not only with respect to the Scribes\nand Pharisees, but also with respect to Moses, see Matt. V.), which\ncorresponds to the perfection of God. The way to attain it is a change\nof mind, that is, self-denial, humility before God, and heartfelt trust\nin him. In this humility and trust in God there is contained a\nrecognition of one's own unworthiness; but the Gospel calls to the\nkingdom of God those very sinners who are thus minded, by promising the\nforgiveness of the sins which hitherto have separated them from God. But\nthe Gospel which appears in these three elements, the dominion of God, a\nbetter righteousness embodied in the law of love, and the forgiveness of\nsin, is inseparably connected with Jesus Christ; for in preaching this\nGospel Jesus Christ everywhere calls men to himself. In him the Gospel\nis word and deed; it has become his food, and therefore his personal\nlife, and into this life of his he draws all others. He is the Son who\nknows the Father. In him men are to perceive the kindness of the Lord;\nin him they are to feel God's power and government of the world, and to\nbecome certain of this consolation; they are to follow him the meek and\nlowly, and while he, the pure and holy one, calls sinners to himself,\nthey are to receive the assurance that God through him forgiveth sin.\n\nJesus Christ has by no express statement thrust this connection of his\nGospel with his Person into the foreground. No words could have\ncertified it unless his life, the overpowering impression of his Person,\nhad created it. By living, acting and speaking from the riches of that\nlife which he lived with his Father, he became for others the revelation\nof the God of whom they formerly had heard, but whom they had not known.\nHe declared his Father to be their Father and they understood him. But\nhe also declared himself to be Messiah, and in so doing gave an\nintelligible expression to his abiding significance for them and for his\npeople. In a solemn hour at the close of his life, as well as on special\noccasions at an earlier period, he referred to the fact that the\nsurrender to his Person which induced them to leave all and follow him,\nwas no passing element in the new position they had gained towards God\nthe Father. He tells them, on the contrary, that this surrender\ncorresponds to the service which he will perform for them and for the\nmany, when he will give his life a sacrifice for the sins of the world.\nBy teaching them to think of him and of his death in the breaking of\nbread and the drinking of wine, and by saying of his death that it takes\nplace for the remission of sins, he has claimed as his due from all\nfuture disciples what was a matter of course so long as he sojourned\nwith them, but what might fade away after he was parted from them. He\nwho in his preaching of the kingdom of God raised the strictest\nself-examination and humility to a law, and exhibited them to his\nfollowers in his own life, has described with clear consciousness his\nlife crowned by death as the imperishable service by which men in all\nages will be cleansed from their sin and made joyful in their God. By so\ndoing he put himself far above all others, although they were to become\nhis brethren; and claimed a unique and permanent importance as Redeemer\nand Judge. This permanent importance as the Lord he secured, not by\ndisclosures about the mystery of his Person, but by the impression of\nhis life and the interpretation of his death. He interprets it, like all\nhis sufferings, as a victory, as the passing over to his glory, and in\nspite of the cry of God-forsakenness upon the cross, he has proved\nhimself able to awaken in his followers the real conviction that he\nlives and is Lord and Judge of the living and the dead.\n\nThe religion of the Gospel is based on this belief in Jesus Christ, that\nis, by looking to him, this historical person, it becomes certain to the\nbeliever that God rules heaven and earth, and that God, the Judge, is\nalso Father and Redeemer. The religion of the Gospel is the religion\nwhich makes the highest moral demands, the simplest and the most\ndifficult, and discloses the contradiction in which every man finds\nhimself towards them. But it also procures redemption from such misery,\nby drawing the life of men into the inexhaustible and blessed life of\nJesus Christ, who has overcome the world and called sinners to himself.\n\nIn making this attempt to put together the fundamental features of the\nGospel, I have allowed myself to be guided by the results of this Gospel\nin the case of the first disciples. I do not know whether it is\npermissible to present such fundamental features apart from this\nguidance. The preaching of Jesus Christ was in the main so plain and\nsimple, and in its application so manifold and rich, that one shrinks\nfrom attempting to systematise it, and would much rather merely narrate\naccording to the Gospel. Jesus searches for the point in every man on\nwhich he can lay hold of him and lead him to the Kingdom of God. The\ndistinction of good and evil--for God or against God--he would make a\nlife question for every man, in order to shew him for whom it has become\nthis, that he can depend upon the God whom he is to fear. At the same\ntime he did not by any means uniformly fall back upon sin, or even the\nuniversal sinfulness, but laid hold of individuals very diversely, and\nled them to God by different paths. The doctrinal concentration of\nredemption on sin was certainly not carried out by Paul alone; but, on\nthe other hand, it did not in any way become the prevailing form for the\npreaching of the Gospel. On the contrary, the antitheses, night, error,\ndominion of demons, death and light, truth, deliverance, life, proved\nmore telling in the Gentile Churches. The consciousness of universal\nsinfulness was first made the negative fundamental frame of mind of\nChristendom by Augustine.\n\n\nII. Details.\n\n1. Jesus announced the Kingdom of God which stands in opposition to the\nkingdom of the devil, and therefore also to the kingdom of the world, as\na future Kingdom, and yet it is presented in his preaching as present;\nas an invisible, and yet it was visible--for one actually saw it. He\nlived and spoke within the circle of eschatological ideas which Judaism\nhad developed more than two hundred years before: but he controlled them\nby giving them a new content and forcing them into a new direction.\nWithout abrogating the law and the prophets he, on fitting occasions,\nbroke through the national, political and sensuous eudaemonistic forms in\nwhich the nation was expecting the realisation of the dominion of God,\nbut turned their attention at the same time to a future near at hand, in\nwhich believers would be delivered from the oppression of evil and sin,\nand would enjoy blessedness and dominion. Yet he declared that even now,\nevery individual who is called into the kingdom may call on God as his\nFather, and be sure of the gracious will of God, the hearing of his\nprayers, the forgiveness of sin, and the protection of God even in this\npresent life.[58] But everything in this proclamation is directed to the\nlife beyond: the certainty of that life is the power and earnestness of\nthe Gospel.\n\n2. The conditions of entrance to the kingdom are, in the first place, a\ncomplete change of mind, in which a man renounces the pleasures of this\nworld, denies himself, and is ready to surrender all that he has in\norder to save his soul; then, a believing trust in God's grace which he\ngrants to the humble and the poor, and therefore hearty confidence in\nJesus as the Messiah chosen and called by God to realise his kingdom on\nthe earth. The announcement is therefore directed to the poor, the\nsuffering, those hungering and thirsting for righteousness, not to those\nwho live, but to those who wish to be healed and redeemed, and finds\nthem prepared for entrance into, and reception of the blessings of the\nkingdom of God,[59] while it brings down upon the self-satisfied, the\nrich and those proud of their righteousness, the judgment of obduracy\nand the damnation of Hell.\n\n3. The commandment of undivided love to God and the brethren, as the\nmain commandment, in the observance of which righteousness is realised,\nand forming the antithesis to the selfish mind, the lust of the world,\nand every arbitrary impulse,[60] corresponds to the blessings of the\nKingdom of God, viz., forgiveness of sin, righteousness, dominion and\nblessedness. The standard of personal worth for the members of the King\nis self-sacrificing labour for others, not any technical mode of worship\nor legal preciseness. Renunciation of the world together with its goods,\neven of life itself in certain circumstances, is the proof of a man's\nsincerity and earnest in seeking the Kingdom of God; and the meekness\nwhich renounces every right, bears wrong patiently, requiting it with\nkindness, is the practical proof of love to God, the conduct that\nanswers to God's perfection.\n\n4. In the proclamation and founding of this kingdom, Jesus summoned men\nto attach themselves to him, because he had recognised himself to be the\nhelper called by God, and therefore also the Messiah who was\npromised.[61] He gradually declared himself to the people as such by the\nnames he assumed,[62] for the names \"Anointed,\" \"King,\" \"Lord,\" \"Son of\nDavid,\" \"Son of Man,\" \"Son of God,\" all denote the Messianic office, and\nwere familiar to the greater part of the people.[63] But though, at\nfirst, they express only the call, office, and power of the Messiah, yet\nby means of them and especially by the designation Son of God, Jesus\npointed to a relation to God the Father, then and in its immediateness\nunique, as the basis of the office with which he was entrusted. He has,\nhowever, given no further explanation of the mystery of this relation\nthan the declaration that the Son alone knoweth the Father, and that\nthis knowledge of God and Sonship to God are secured for all others by\nthe sending of the Son.[64] In the proclamation of God as Father,[65] as\nwell as in the other proclamation that all the members of the kingdom\nfollowing the will of God in love, are to become one with the Son and\nthrough him with the Father,[66] the message of the realised kingdom of\nGod receives its richest, inexhaustible content: the Son of the Father\nwill be the first-born among many brethren.\n\n5. Jesus as the Messiah chosen by God has definitely distinguished\nhimself from Moses and all the Prophets: as his preaching and his work\nare the fulfilment of the law and the prophets, so he himself is not a\ndisciple of Moses, but corrects that law-giver; he is not a Prophet, but\nMaster and Lord. He proves this Lordship during his earthly ministry in\nthe accomplishment of the mighty deeds given him to do, above all in\nwithstanding the Devil and his kingdom,[67] and--according to the law of\nthe Kingdom of God--for that very reason in the service which he\nperforms. In this service Jesus also reckoned the sacrifice of his life,\ndesignating it as a [Greek: lutron] which he offered for the redemption\nof man.[68] But he declared at the same time that his Messianic work was\nnot yet fulfilled in his subjection to death. On the contrary, the close\nis merely initiated by his death; for the completion of the kingdom will\nonly appear when he returns in glory in the clouds of heaven to\njudgment. Jesus seems to have announced this speedy return a short time\nbefore his death, and to have comforted his disciples at his departure,\nwith the assurance that he would immediately enter into a supramundane\nposition with God.[69]\n\n6. The instructions of Jesus to his disciples are accordingly dominated\nby the thought that the end, the day and hour of which, however, no one\nknows, is at hand. In consequence of this, also, the exhortation to\nrenounce all earthly good takes a prominent place. But Jesus does not\nimpose ascetic commandments as a new law, far less does he see in\nasceticism as such, sanctification[70]--he himself did not live as an\nascetic, but was reproached as a wine-bibber--but he prescribed a\nperfect simplicity and purity of disposition, and a singleness of heart\nwhich remains invariably the same in trouble and renunciation, in\npossession and use of earthly good. A uniform equality of all in the\nconduct of life is not commanded: \"To whom much is given, of him much\nshall be required.\" The disciples are kept as far from fanaticism and\noverrating of spiritual results as from asceticism. \"Rejoice not that\nthe spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are written\nin heaven.\" When they besought him to teach them to pray, he taught them\nthe \"Lord's prayer\", a prayer which demands such a collected mind, and\nsuch a tranquil, childlike elevation of the heart to God, that it cannot\nbe offered at all by minds subject to passion or preoccupied by any\ndaily cares.\n\n7. Jesus himself did not found a new religious community, but gathered\nround him a circle of disciples, and chose Apostles whom he commanded to\npreach the Gospel. His preaching was universalistic inasmuch as it\nattributed no value to ceremonialism as such, and placed the fulfilment\nof the Mosaic law in the exhibition of its moral contents, partly\nagainst or beyond the letter. He made the law perfect by harmonising its\nparticular requirements with the fundamental moral requirements which\nwere also expressed in the Mosaic law. He emphasised the fundamental\nrequirements more decidedly than was done by the law itself, and taught\nthat all details should be referred to them and deduced from them. The\nexternal righteousness of Pharisaism was thereby declared to be not only\nan outer covering, but also a fraud, and the bond which still united\nreligion and nationality in Judaism was sundered.[71] Political and\nnational elements may probably have been made prominent in the hopes of\nthe future, as Jesus appropriated them for his preaching. But from the\nconditions to which the realising of the hopes for the individual was\nattached, there already shone the clearer ray which was to eclipse those\nelements, and one saying such as Matt. XXII. 21, annulled at once\npolitical religion and religious politics.\n\n_Supplement_ 1.--The idea of the inestimable inherent value of every\nindividual human soul, already dimly appearing in several psalms, and\ndiscerned by Greek Philosophers, though as a rule developed in\ncontradiction to religion, stands out plainly in the preaching of Jesus.\nIt is united with the idea of God as Father, and is the complement to\nthe message of the communion of brethren realising itself in love. In\nthis sense the Gospel is at once profoundly individualistic and\nSocialistic. The prospect of gaining life, and preserving it for ever,\nis therefore also the highest which Jesus has set forth, it is not,\nhowever, to be a motive, but a reward of grace. In the certainty of this\nprospect, which is the converse of renouncing the world, he has\nproclaimed the sure hope of the resurrection, and consequently the most\nabundant compensation for the loss of the natural life. Jesus put an end\nto the vacillation and uncertainty which in this respect still prevailed\namong the Jewish people of his day. The confession of the Psalmist,\n\"Whom have I in heaven but thee, and there is none upon the earth that I\ndesire beside thee\", and the fulfilling of the Old Testament\ncommandment, \"Love thy neighbour as thyself\", were for the first time\npresented in their connection in the person of Jesus. He himself\ntherefore is Christianity, for the \"impression of his person convinced\nthe disciples of the facts of forgiveness of sin and the second birth,\nand gave them courage to believe in and to lead a new life.\" We cannot\ntherefore state the \"doctrine\" of Jesus; for it appears as a\nsupramundane life which must be felt in the person of Jesus, and its\ntruth is guaranteed by the fact that such a life can be lived.\n\n_Supplement_ 2.--The history of the Gospel contains two great\ntransitions, both of which, however, fall within the first century; from\nChrist to the first generation of believers, including Paul, and from\nthe first, Jewish Christian, generation of these believers to the\nGentile Christians, in other words: from Christ to the brotherhood of\nbelievers in Christ, and from this to the incipient Catholic Church. No\nlater transitions in the Church can be compared with these in\nimportance. As to the first, the question has frequently been asked, Is\nthe Gospel of Christ to be the authority or the Gospel concerning\nChrist? But the strict dilemma here is false. The Gospel certainly is\nthe Gospel of Christ. For it has only, in the sense of Jesus, fulfilled\nits Mission when the Father has been declared to men as he was known by\nthe Son, and where the life is swayed by the realities and principles\nwhich ruled the life of Jesus Christ. But it is in accordance with the\nmind of Jesus and at the same time a fact of history, that this Gospel\ncan only be appropriated and adhered to in connection with a believing\nsurrender to the person of Jesus Christ. Yet every dogmatic formula is\nsuspicious, because it is fitted to wound the spirit of religion; it\nshould not at least be put before the living experience in order to\nevoke it; for such a procedure is really the admission of the half\nbelief which thinks it necessary that the impression made by the person\nmust be supplemented. The essence of the matter is a personal life which\nawakens life around it as the fire of one torch kindles another. Early\nas weakness of faith is in the Church of Christ, it is no earlier than\nthe procedure of making a formulated and ostensibly proved confession\nthe foundation of faith, and therefore demanding, above all, subjection\nto this confession. Faith assuredly is propagated by the testimony of\nfaith, but dogma is not in itself that testimony.\n\nThe peculiar character of the Christian religion is conditioned by the\nfact that every reference to God is at the same time a reference to\nJesus Christ, and _vice versa_. In this sense the Person of Christ is\nthe central point of the religion, and inseparably united with the\nsubstance of piety as a sure reliance on God. Such a union does not, as\nis supposed, bring a foreign element into the pure essence of religion.\nThe pure essence of religion rather demands such a union; for \"the\nreverence for persons, the inner bowing before the manifestation of\nmoral power and goodness is the root of all true religion\" (W.\nHerrmann). But the Christian religion knows and names only one name\nbefore which it bows. In this rests its positive character, in all else,\nas piety, it is by its strictly spiritual and inward attitude, not a\npositive religion alongside of others, but religion itself. But just\nbecause the Person of Christ has this significance is the knowledge and\nunderstanding of the \"historical Christ\" required: for no other comes\nwithin the sphere of our knowledge. \"The historical Christ\" that, to be\nsure, is not the powerless Christ of contemporary history shewn to us\nthrough a coloured biographical medium, or dissipated in all sorts of\ncontroversies, but Christ as a power and as a life which towers above\nour own life, and enters into our life as God's Spirit and God's Word,\n(see Herrmann, Der Verkehr des Christen mit Gott. 2. Edit. 1892, (i.e.,\n\"The Fellowship of the Christian with God\", an important work included\nin the present series of translations. Ed.) Kaehler, Der sog. historische\nJesus und der geschichtliche biblische Christus, 1892). But historical\nlabour and investigation are needed in order to grasp this Jesus Christ\never more firmly and surely.\n\nAs to the second transition, it brought with it the most important\nchanges, which, however, became clearly manifest only after the lapse of\nsome generations. They appear, first, in the belief in holy\nconsecrations, efficacious in themselves, and administered by chosen\npersons; further, in the conviction, that the relation of the individual\nto God and Christ is, above all, conditioned on the acceptance of a\ndefinite divinely attested law of faith and holy writings; further, in\nthe opinion that God has established Church arrangements, observance of\nwhich is necessary and meritorious, as well as in the opinion that a\nvisible earthly community is the people of a new covenant. These\nassumptions, which formally constitute the essence of Catholicism as a\nreligion, have no support in the teaching of Jesus, nay, offend against\nthat teaching.\n\n_Supplement_ 3.--The question as to what new thing Christ has brought,\nanswered by Paul in the words, \"If any man be in Christ he is a new\ncreature, old things are passed away, behold all things are become new\",\nhas again and again been pointedly put since the middle of the second\ncentury by Apologists, Theologians and religious Philosophers, within\nand without the Church, and has received the most varied answers. Few of\nthe answers have reached the height of the Pauline confession. But where\none cannot attain to this confession, one ought to make clear to oneself\nthat every answer which does not lie in the line of it is altogether\nunsatisfactory; for it is not difficult to set over against every\narticle from the preaching of Jesus an observation which deprives it of\nits originality. It is the Person, it is the fact of his life that is\nnew and creates the new. The way in which he called forth and\nestablished a people of God on earth, which has become sure of God and\nof eternal life; the way in which he set up a new thing in the midst of\nthe old and transformed the religion of Israel into _the religion_ that\nis the mystery of his Person, in which lies his unique and permanent\nposition in the history of humanity.\n\n_Supplement_ 4.--The conservative position of Jesus towards the\nreligious traditions of his people had the necessary result that his\npreaching and his Person were placed by believers in the frame-work of\nthis tradition, which was thereby very soon greatly expanded. But,\nthough this way of understanding the Gospel was certainly at first the\nonly possible way, and though the Gospel itself could only be preserved\nby such means (see Sec. 1), yet it cannot be mistaken that a displacement\nin the conception of the Person and preaching of Jesus, and a burdening\nof religious faith, could not but forthwith set in, from which\ndevelopments followed, the premises of which would be vainly sought for\nin the words of the Lord (see Sec.Sec. 3, 4). But here the question arises as\nto whether the Gospel is not inseparably connected with the\neschatological world-renouncing element with which it entered into the\nworld, so that its being is destroyed where this is omitted. A few words\nmay be devoted to this question. The Gospel possesses properties which\noppose every positive religion, because they depreciate it, and these\nproperties form the kernel of the Gospel. The disposition which is\ndevoted to God, humble, ardent and sincere in its love to God and to the\nbrethren, is, as an abiding habit, law, and at the same time, a gift of\nthe Gospel, and also finally exhausts it. This quiet, peaceful element\nwas at the beginning strong and vigorous, even in those who lived in the\nworld of ecstasy and expected the world to come. One may be named for\nall, Paul. He who wrote 1 Cor. XIII. and Rom. VIII. should not, in spite\nof all that he has said elsewhere, be called upon to witness that the\nnature of the Gospel is exhausted in its world-renouncing, ecstatic and\neschatological elements, or at least, that it is so inseparably united\nwith these as to fall along with them. He who wrote those chapters, and\nthe greater than he who promised the kingdom of heaven to children, and\nto those who were hungering and thirsting for righteousness, he to whom\ntradition ascribes the words: \"Rejoice not that the spirits are subject\nto you, but rather rejoice that your names are written in heaven\"--both\nattest that the Gospel lies above the antagonisms between this world and\nthe next, work and retirement from the world, reason and ecstasy,\nJudaism and Hellenism. And because it lies above them it may be united\nwith either, as it originally unfolded its powers under the ruins of the\nJewish religion. But still more; it not only can enter into union with\nthem, it must do so if it is otherwise the religion of the living and is\nitself living. It has only one aim; that man may find God and have him\nas his own God, in order to gain in him humility and patience, peace,\njoy and love. How it reaches this goal through the advancing centuries,\nwhether with the co-efficients of Judaism or Hellenism, of renunciation\nof the world or of culture, of mysticism or the doctrine of\npredestination, of Gnosticism or Agnosticism, and whatever other\nincrustations there may yet be which can defend the kernel, and under\nwhich alone living elements can grow--all that belongs to the centuries.\nHowever each individual Christian may reckon to the treasure itself the\nearthly vessel in which he hides his treasure; it is the duty and the\nright, not only of the religious, but also of the historical estimate to\ndistinguish between the vessel and the treasure; for the Gospel did not\nenter into the world as a positive statutory religion, and cannot\ntherefore have its classic manifestation in any form of its intellectual\nor social types, not even in the first. It is therefore the duty of the\nhistorian of the first century of the Church, as well as that of those\nwhich follow, not to be content with fixing the changes of the Christian\nreligion, but to examine how far the new forms were capable of\ndefending, propagating and impressing the Gospel itself. It would\nprobably have perished if the forms of primitive Christianity had been\nscrupulously maintained in the Church; but now primitive Christianity\nhas perished in order that the Gospel might be preserved. To study this\nprogress of the development, and fix the significance of the newly\nreceived forms for the kernel of the matter, is the last and highest\ntask of the historian who himself lives in his subject. He who\napproaches from without must be satisfied with the general view that in\nthe history of the Church some things have always remained, and other\nthings have always been changing.\n\n_Literature._--Weiss. Biblical Theology of the New Testament. T. and T.\nClark. Wittichen. Beitr. z. bibl. Theol. 3. Thle. 1864-72.\n\nSchuereer. Die Predigt Jesu in ihrem Verhaltniss z. A.T.u. z. Judenthum,\n1882.\n\nWellhausen. Abriss der Gesch. Israels u. Juda's (Skizzen u. Vorarbeiten)\nI. Heft. 1884.\n\nBaldensperger. Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu im Licht der Messianischen\nHoffnungen seiner Zeit, 1888, (2 Aufl. 1891). The prize essays of\nSchmoller and Issel, Ueber die Lehre vom Reiche Gottes im N. Test. 1891\n(besides Gunkel in d. Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1893. N deg.. 2).\n\nWendt. Die Lehre Jesu. (The teaching of Jesus. T. and T. Clark. English\ntranslation.)\n\nJoh. Weiss. Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes, 1892.\n\nBousset. Jesu Predigt in ihrem Gegensatz zum Judenthum, 1892.\n\nC. Holtzman. Die Offenbarung durch Christus und das Neue Testament\n(Zeitschr. f. Theol. und Kirche I. p. 367 ff.) The special literature in\nthe above work of Weiss, and in the recent works on the life of Jesus,\nand the Biblical Theology of the New Testament by Beyschlag. (T.T.\nClark)\n\n\nSec. 3. _The Common Preaching concerning Jesus Christ in the First\nGeneration of Believers._\n\nMen had met with Jesus Christ and in him had found the Messiah. They\nwere convinced that God had made him to be wisdom and righteousness,\nsanctification and redemption. There was no hope that did not seem to be\ncertified in him, no lofty idea which had not become in him a living\nreality. Everything that one possessed was offered to him. He was\neverything lofty that could be imagined. Everything that can be said of\nhim was already said in the first two generations after his appearance.\nNay, more: he was felt and known to be the ever living one, Lord of the\nworld and operative principle of one's own life. \"To me to live is\nChrist and to die is gain;\" \"He is the way, the truth and the life.\" One\ncould now for the first time be certain of the resurrection and eternal\nlife, and with that certainty the sorrows of the world melted away like\nmist before the sun, and the residue of this present time became as a\nday. This group of facts which the history of the Gospel discloses in\nthe world, is at the same time the highest and most unique of all that\nwe meet in that history; it is its seal and distinguishes it from all\nother universal religions. Where in the history of mankind can we find\nanything resembling this, that men who had eaten and drunk with their\nMaster should glorify him, not only as the revealer of God, but as the\nPrince of life, as the Redeemer and Judge of the world, as the living\npower of its existence, and that a choir of Jews and Gentiles, Greeks\nand Barbarians, wise and foolish, should along with them immediately\nconfess that out of the fulness of this one man they have received grace\nfor grace? It has been said that Islam furnishes the unique example of a\nreligion born in broad daylight, but the community of Jesus was also\nborn in the clear light of day. The darkness connected with its birth is\noccasioned not only by the imperfection of the records, but by the\nuniqueness of the fact, which refers us back to the uniqueness of the\nPerson of Jesus.\n\nBut though it certainly is the first duty of the historian to signalise\nthe overpowering impression made by the Person of Jesus on the\ndisciples, which is the basis of all further developments, it would\nlittle become him to renounce the critical examination of all the\nutterances which have been connected with that Person with the view of\nelucidating and glorifying it; unless he were with Origen to conclude\nthat Jesus was to each and all whatever they fancied him to be for their\nedification. But this would destroy the personality. Others are of\nopinion that we should conceive him, in the sense of the early\ncommunities, as the second God who is one in essence with the Father, in\norder to understand from this point of view all the declarations and\njudgments of these communities. But this hypothesis leads to the most\nviolent distortion of the original declarations, and the suppression or\nconcealment of their most obvious features. The duty of the historian\nrather consists in fixing the common features of the faith of the first\ntwo generations, in explaining them as far as possible from the belief\nthat Jesus is Messiah, and in seeking analogies for the several\nassertions. Only a very meagre sketch can be given in what follows. The\npresentation of the matter in the frame-work of the history of dogma\ndoes not permit of more, because as noted above, Sec. 1, the presupposition\nof dogma forming itself in the Gentile Church is not the whole\ninfinitely rich abundance of early Christian views and perceptions. That\npresupposition is simply a proclamation of the one God and of Christ\ntransferred to Greek soil, fixed merely in its leading features and\notherwise very plastic, accompanied by a message regarding the future,\nand demands for a holy life. At the same time the Old Testament and the\nearly Christian Palestinian writings with the rich abundance of their\ncontents, did certainly exercise a silent mission in the earliest\ncommunities, till by the creation of the canon they became a power in\nthe Church.\n\nI. The contents of the faith of the disciples,[72] and the common\nproclamation which united them, may be comprised in the following\npropositions. Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah promised by the prophets.\nJesus after his death is by the Divine awakening raised to the right\nhand of God, and will soon return to set up his kingdom visibly upon the\nearth. He who believes in Jesus, and has been received into the\ncommunity of the disciples of Jesus, who, in virtue of a sincere change\nof mind, calls on God as Father, and lives according to the commandments\nof Jesus, is a saint of God, and as such can be certain of the\nsin-forgiving grace of God, and of a share in the future glory, that is,\nof redemption.[73]\n\nA community of Christian believers was formed within the Jewish national\ncommunity. By its organisation, the close brotherly union of its\nmembers, it bore witness to the impression which the Person of Jesus had\nmade on it, and drew from faith in Jesus and hope of his return, the\nassurance of eternal life, the power of believing in God the Father and\nof fulfilling the lofty moral and social commands which Jesus had set\nforth. They knew themselves to be the true Israel of the Messianic time\n(see Sec. 1), and for that very reason lived with all their thoughts and\nfeelings in the future. Hence the Apocalyptic hopes which in manifold\ntypes were current in the Judaism of the time, and which Jesus had not\ndemolished, continued to a great extent in force (see Sec. 4). One\nguarantee for their fulfilment was supposed to be possessed in the\nvarious manifestations of the Spirit,[74] which were displayed in the\nmembers of the new communities at their entrance, with which an act of\nbaptism seems to have been united from the very first[75], and in their\ngatherings. They were a guarantee that believers really were the [Greek:\nekklesia tou theou], those called to be saints, and, as such, kings and\npriests unto God[76] for whom the world, death and devil are overcome,\nalthough they still rule the course of the world. The confession of the\nGod of Israel as the Father of Jesus, and of Jesus as Christ and\nLord[77] was sealed by the testimony of the possession of the Spirit,\nwhich as Spirit of God assured every individual of his call to the\nkingdom, united him personally with God himself and became to him the\npledge of future glory[78].\n\n2. As the Kingdom of God which was announced had not yet visibly\nappeared, as the appeal to the Spirit could not be separated from the\nappeal to Jesus as Messiah, and as there was actually nothing possessed\nbut the reality of the Person of Jesus, so in preaching all stress must\nnecessarily fall on this Person. To believe in him was the decisive\nfundamental requirement, and, at first, under the presupposition of the\nreligion of Abraham and the Prophets, the sure guarantee of salvation.\nIt is not surprising then to find that in the earliest Christian\npreaching Jesus Christ comes before us as frequently as the Kingdom of\nGod in the preaching of Jesus himself. The image of Jesus, and the power\nwhich proceeded from it, were the things which were really possessed.\nWhatever was expected was expected only from Jesus the exalted and\nreturning one. The proclamation that the Kingdom of heaven is at hand\nmust therefore become the proclamation that Jesus is the Christ, and\nthat in him the revelation of God is complete. He who lays hold of Jesus\nlays hold in him of the grace of God, and of a full salvation. We\ncannot, however, call this in itself a displacement: but as soon as the\nproclamation that Jesus is the Christ ceased to be made with the same\nemphasis and the same meaning that it had in his own preaching, and what\nsort of blessings they were which he brought, not only was a\ndisplacement inevitable, but even a dispossession. But every\ndispossession requires the given forms to be filled with new contents.\nSimple as was the pure tradition of the confession: \"Jesus is the\nChrist,\" the task of rightly appropriating and handing down entire the\npeculiar contents which Jesus had given to his self-witnessing and\npreaching was nevertheless great, and in its limit uncertain. Even the\nJewish Christian could perform this task only according to the measure\nof his spiritual understanding and the strength of his religious life.\nMoreover, the external position of the first communities in the midst of\ncontemporaries who had crucified and rejected Jesus, compelled them to\nprove, as their main duty, that Jesus really was the Messiah who was\npromised. Consequently, everything united to bring the first communities\nto the conviction that the proclamation of the Gospel with which they\nwere entrusted, resolved itself into the proclamation that Jesus is the\nChrist. The [Greek: didaskein terein panta hota eneteilato ho Iesous]\n(teaching to observe all that Jesus had commanded), a thing of heart and\nlife, could not lead to reflection in the same degree, as the [Greek:\ndidaskein hoti outos estin ho christos tou theou] (teaching that this is\nthe Christ of God): for a community which possesses the Spirit does not\nreflect on whether its conception is right, but, especially a missionary\ncommunity, on what the certainty of its faith rests.\n\nThe proclamation of Jesus as the Christ, though rooted entirely in the\nOld Testament, took its start from the exaltation of Jesus, which again\nresulted from his suffering and death. The proof that the entire Old\nTestament points to him, and that his person, his deeds and his destiny\nare the actual and precise fulfilment of the Old Testament predictions,\nwas the foremost interest of believers, so far as they at all looked\nbackwards. This proof was not used in the first place for the purpose of\nmaking the meaning and value of the Messianic work of Jesus more\nintelligible, of which it did not seem to be in much need, but to\nconfirm the Messiahship of Jesus. Still, points of view for\ncontemplating the Person and work of Jesus could not fail to be got from\nthe words of the Prophets. The fundamental conception of Jesus\ndominating everything was, according to the Old Testament, that God had\nchosen him and through him the Church. God had chosen him and made him\nto be both Lord and Christ. He had made over to him the work of setting\nup the Kingdom, and had led him through death and resurrection to a\nsupra-mundane position of sovereignty, in which he would soon visibly\nappear and bring about the end. The hope of Christ's speedy return was\nthe most important article in the \"Christology,\" inasmuch as his work\nwas regarded as only reaching its conclusion by that return. It was the\nmost difficult, inasmuch as the Old Testament contained nothing of a\nsecond advent of Messiah. Belief in the second advent became the\nspecific Christian belief.\n\nBut the searching in the scriptures of the Old Testament, that is, in\nthe prophetic texts, had already, in estimating the Person and dignity\nof Christ, given an important impulse towards transcending the\nframe-work of the idea of the theocracy completed solely in and for\nIsrael. Moreover, belief in the exaltation of Christ to the right hand\nof God, caused men to form a corresponding idea of the beginning of his\nexistence. The missionary work among the Gentiles, so soon begun and so\nrich in results, threw a new light on the range of Christ's purpose and\nwork, and led to the consideration of its significance for the whole\nhuman race. Finally, the self-testimony of Jesus summoned them to ponder\nhis relation to God the Father, with the presuppositions of that\nrelation, and to give it expression in intelligible statements.\nSpeculation had already begun on these four points in the Apostolic age,\nand had resulted in very different utterances as to the Person and\ndignity of Jesus (Sec. 4).[79]\n\n3. Since Jesus had appeared and was believed on as the Messiah promised\nby the Prophets, the aim and contents of his mission seemed already to\nbe therewith stated with sufficient clearness. Further, as the work of\nChrist was not yet completed, the view of those contemplating it was,\nabove all, turned to the future. But in virtue of express words of\nJesus, and in the consciousness of having received the Spirit of God,\none was already certain of the forgiveness of sin dispensed by God, of\nrighteousness before him, of the full knowledge of the Divine will, and\nof the call to the future Kingdom as a present possession. In the\nprocuring of these blessings not a few perceived with certainty the\nresults of the first advent of Messiah, that is, his work. This work\nmight be seen in the whole activity of Christ. But as the forgiveness of\nsins might be conceived as _the_ blessing of salvation which included\nwith certainty every other blessing, as Jesus had put his death in\nexpress relation with this blessing, and as the fact of this death so\nmysterious and offensive required a special explanation, there appeared\nin the foreground from the very beginning the confession, in 1 Cor. XV.\n3: [Greek: paredoxa humin en protois, ho kai parelabon, hoti christos\napethanen huper ton hamartion hemon.] \"I delivered unto you first of all\nthat which I also received, that _Christ died for our sins_.\" Not only\nPaul, for whom, in virtue of his special reflections and experiences,\nthe cross of Christ had become the central point of all knowledge, but\nalso the majority of believers, must have regarded the preaching of the\ndeath of the Lord as an essential article in the preaching of\nChrist[80], seeing that, as a rule, they placed it somehow under the\naspect of a sacrifice offered to God. Still, there were very different\nconceptions of the value of the death as a means of procuring salvation,\nand there may have been many who were satisfied with basing its\nnecessity on the fact that it had been predicted, ([Greek: apethanen\nkata tas graphas]: \"he died for our sins _according to the\nscriptures_\"), while their real religious interests were entirely\ncentered in the future glory to be procured by Christ. But it must have\nbeen of greater significance for the following period that, from the\nfirst, a short account of the destiny of Jesus lay at the basis of all\npreaching about him (see a part of this in 1 Cor. XV. 1-11). Those\narticles in which the identity of the Christ who had appeared with the\nChrist who had been promised stood out with special clearness, must have\nbeen taken up into this report, as well as those which transcended the\ncommon expectations of Messiah, which for that very reason appeared of\nspecial importance, viz., his death and resurrection. In putting\ntogether this report, there was no intention of describing the \"work\" of\nChrist. But after the interest which occasioned it had been obscured,\nand had given place to other interests, the customary preaching of those\narticles must have led men to see in them Christ's real performance, his\n\"work.\"[81]\n\n4. The firm confidence of the disciples in Jesus was rooted in the\nbelief that he did not abide in death, but was raised by God. That\nChrist had risen was, in virtue of what they had experienced in him,\ncertainly only after they had seen him, just as sure as the fact of his\ndeath, and became the main article of their preaching about him.[82] But\nin the message of the risen Lord was contained not only the conviction\nthat he lives again, and now lives for ever, but also the assurance that\nhis people will rise in like manner and live eternally. Consequently,\nthe resurrection of Jesus became the sure pledge of the resurrection of\nall believers, that is of their real personal resurrection. No one at\nthe beginning thought of a mere immortality of the spirit, not even\nthose who assumed the perishableness of man's sensuous nature. In\nconformity with the uncertainty which yet adhered to the idea of\nresurrection in Jewish hopes and speculations, the concrete notions of\nit in the Christian communities were also fluctuating. But this could\nnot affect the certainty of the conviction that the Lord would raise his\npeople from death. This conviction, whose reverse side is the fear of\nthat God who casts into hell, has become the mightiest power through\nwhich the Gospel has won humanity.[83]\n\n5. After the appearance of Paul, the earliest communities were greatly\nexercised by the question as to how believers obtain the righteousness\nwhich they possess, and what significance a precise observance of the\nlaw of the Fathers may have in connection with it. While some would hear\nof no change in the regulations and conceptions which had hitherto\nexisted, and regarded the bestowal of righteousness by God as possible\nonly on condition of a strict observance of the law, others taught that\nJesus as Messiah had procured righteousness for his people, had\nfulfilled the law once for all, and had founded a new covenant, either\nin opposition to the old, or as a stage above it. Paul especially saw in\nthe death of Christ the end of the law, and deduced righteousness solely\nfrom faith in Christ, and sought to prove from the Old Testament itself,\nby means of historical speculation, the merely temporary validity of the\nlaw and therewith the abrogation of the Old Testament religion. Others,\nand this view, which is not everywhere to be explained by Alexandrian\ninfluences (see above p. 72 f.), is not foreign to Paul, distinguished\nbetween spirit and letter in the Mosaic law, giving to everything a\nspiritual significance, and in this sense holding that the whole law as\n[Greek: nomos pneumatikos] was binding. The question whether\nrighteousness comes from the works of the law or from faith, was\ndisplaced by this conception, and therefore remained in its deepest\ngrounds unsolved, or was decided in the sense of a spiritualised\nlegalism. But the detachment of Christianity from the political forms of\nthe Jewish religion, and from sacrificial worship, was also completed by\nthis conception, although it was regarded as identical with the Old\nTestament religion rightly understood. The surprising results of the\ndirect mission to the Gentiles would seem to have first called forth\nthose controversies (but see Stephen) and given them the highest\nsignificance. The fact that one section of Jewish Christians, and even\nsome of the Apostles, at length recognised the right of the Gentile\nChristians to be Christians without first becoming Jews, is the clearest\nproof that what was above all prized was faith in Christ and surrender\nto him as the saviour. In agreeing to the direct mission to the Gentiles\nthe earliest Christians, while they themselves observed the law, broke\nup the national religion of Israel, and gave expression to the\nconviction that Jesus was not only the Messiah of his people, but the\nredeemer of humanity.[84] The establishment of the universal character\nof the Gospel, that is, of Christianity as a religion for the world,\nbecame now, however, a problem, the solution of which, as given by Paul,\nbut few were able to understand or make their own.\n\n6. In the conviction that salvation is entirely bound up with faith in\nJesus Christ, Christendom gained the consciousness of being a new\ncreation of God. But while the sense of being the true Israel was\nthereby, at the same time, held fast, there followed, on the one hand,\nentirely new historical perspectives, and on the other, deep problems\nwhich demanded solution. As a new creation of God, [Greek: he ekklesia\ntou theou], the community was conscious of having been chosen by God in\nJesus before the foundation of the world. In the conviction of being the\ntrue Israel, it claimed for itself the whole historical development\nrecorded in the Old Testament, convinced that all the divine activity\nthere recorded had the new community in view. The great question which\nwas to find very different answers, was how, in accordance with this\nview, the Jewish nation, so far as it had not recognised Jesus as\nMessiah, should be judged. The detachment of Christianity from Judaism\nwas the most important preliminary condition, and therefore the most\nimportant preparation, for the Mission among the Gentile nations, and\nfor union with the Greek spirit.\n\n_Supplement_ 1.--Renan and others go too far when they say that Paul\nalone has the glory of freeing Christianity from the fetters of Judaism.\nCertainly the great Apostle could say in this connection also: [Greek:\nperissoteron auton panton ekopiasa], but there were others beside him\nwho, in the power of the Gospel, transcended the limits of Judaism.\nChristian communities, it may now be considered certain, had arisen in\nthe empire, in Rome for example, which were essentially free from the\nlaw without being in any way determined by Paul's preaching. It was\nPaul's merit that he clearly formulated the great question, established\nthe universalism of Christianity in a peculiar manner, and yet in doing\nso held fast the character of Christianity as a positive religion, as\ndistinguished from Philosophy and Moralism. But the later development\npresupposes neither his clear formulation nor his peculiar establishment\nof universalism, but only the universalism itself.\n\n_Supplement_ 2.--The dependence of the Pauline Theology on the Old\nTestament or on Judaism is overlooked in the traditional contrasting of\nPaulinism and Jewish Christianity, in which Paulinism is made equivalent\nto Gentile Christianity. This theology, as we might _a priori_ suppose,\ncould, apart from individual exceptions, be intelligible as a whole to\nborn Jews, if to any, for its doctrinal presuppositions were strictly\nPharisaic, and its boldness in criticising the Old Testament, rejecting\nand asserting the law in its historical sense, could be as little\ncongenial to the Gentile Christians as its piety towards the Jewish\npeople. This judgment is confirmed by a glance at the fate of Pauline\nTheology in the 120 years that followed. Marcion was the only Gentile\nChristian who understood Paul, and even he misunderstood him: the rest\nnever got beyond the appropriation of particular Pauline sayings, and\nexhibited no comprehension especially of the theology of the Apostle, so\nfar as in it the universalism of Christianity as a religion is proved,\neven without recourse to Moralism and without putting a new construction\non the Old Testament religion. It follows from this, however, that the\nscheme \"Jewish Christianity\"-\"Gentile Christianity\" is insufficient. We\nmust rather, in the Apostolic age, at least at its close, distinguish\nfour main tendencies that may have crossed each other here and\nthere,[85] (within which again different shades appear). (1) The Gospel\nhas to do with the people of Israel, and with the Gentile world only on\nthe condition that believers attach themselves to the people of Israel.\nThe punctilious observance of the law is still necessary and the\ncondition on which the messianic salvation is bestowed (particularism\nand legalism, in practice and in principle, which, however, was not to\ncripple the obligation to prosecute the work of the Mission). (2) The\nGospel has to do with Jews and Gentiles: the first, as believers in\nChrist, are under obligation as before to observe the law, the latter\nare not; but for that reason they cannot on earth fuse into one\ncommunity with the believing Jews. Very different judgments in details\nwere possible on this stand-point; but the bestowal of salvation could\nno longer be thought of as depending simply on the keeping of the\nceremonial commandments of the law[86] (universalism in principle,\nparticularism in practice; the prerogative of Israel being to some\nextent clung to). (3) The Gospel has to do with both Jews and Gentiles;\nno one is any longer under obligation to observe the law; for the law is\nabolished (or fulfilled), and the salvation which Christ's death has\nprocured is appropriated by faith. The law (that is the Old Testament\nreligion) in its literal sense is of divine origin, but was intended\nfrom the first only for a definite epoch of history. The prerogative of\nIsrael remains, and is shewn in the fact that salvation was first\noffered to the Jews, and it will be shewn again at the end of all\nhistory. That prerogative refers to the nation as a whole, and has\nnothing to do with the question of the salvation of individuals\n(Paulinism: universalism in principle and in practice, and Antinomianism\nin virtue of the recognition of a merely temporary validity of the whole\nlaw; breach with the traditional religion of Israel; recognition of the\nprerogative of the people of Israel; the clinging to the prerogative of\nthe people of Israel was not, however, necessary on this stand-point:\nsee the epistle to the Hebrews and the Gospel of John). (4) The Gospel\nhas to do with Jews and Gentiles: no one need therefore be under\nobligation to observe the ceremonial commandments and sacrificial\nworship, because these commandments themselves are only the wrappings of\nmoral and spiritual commandments which the Gospel has set forth as\nfulfilled in a more perfect form (universalism in principle and in\npractice in virtue of a neutralising of the distinction between law and\nGospel, old and new; spiritualising and universalising of the law).[87]\n\n_Supplement_ 3.--The appearance of Paul is the most important fact in\nthe history of the Apostolic age. It is impossible to give in a few\nsentences an abstract of his theology and work; and the insertion here\nof a detailed account is forbidden, not only by the external limits, but\nby the aim of this investigation. For, as already indicated (Sec. 1), the\ndoctrinal formation in the Gentile Church is not connected with the\nwhole phenomenon of the Pauline theology, but only with certain leading\nthoughts which were only in part peculiar to the Apostle. His most\npeculiar thoughts acted on the development of Ecclesiastical doctrine\nonly by way of occasional stimulus. We can find room here only for a few\ngeneral outlines.[88]\n\n(1) The inner conviction that Christ had revealed himself to him, that\nthe Gospel was the message of the crucified and risen Christ, and that\nGod had called him to proclaim that message to the world, was the power\nand the secret of his personality and his activity. These three elements\nwere a unity in the consciousness of Paul, constituting his conversion\nand determining his after-life. (2) In this conviction he knew himself\nto be a new creature, and so vivid was this knowledge that he was\nconstrained to become a Jew to the Jews, and a Greek to the Greeks in\norder to gain them. (3) The crucified and risen Christ became the\ncentral point of his theology, and not only the central point, but the\none source and ruling principle. The Christ was not in his estimation\nJesus of Nazareth now exalted, but the mighty personal spiritual being\nin divine form who had for a time humbled himself, and who as Spirit has\nbroken up the world of law, sin, and death, and continues to overcome\nthem in believers. (4) Theology therefore was to him, looking forwards,\nthe doctrine of the liberating power of the Spirit (of Christ) in all\nthe concrete relations of human life and need. The Christ who has\nalready overcome law, sin and death, lives as Spirit, and through his\nSpirit lives in believers, who for that very reason know him not after\nthe flesh. He is a creative power of life to those who receive him in\nfaith in his redeeming death upon the cross, that is to say, to those\nwho are justified. The life in the Spirit, which results from union with\nChrist, will at last reveal itself also in the body (not in the flesh).\n(5) Looking backwards, theology was to Paul a doctrine of the law and of\nits abrogation; or more accurately, a description of the old system\nbefore Christ in the light of the Gospel, and the proof that it was\ndestroyed by Christ. The scriptural proof, even here, is only a\nsuperadded support to inner considerations which move entirely within\nthe thought that that which is abrogated has already had its due, by\nhaving its whole strength made manifest that it might then be\nannulled,--the law, the flesh of sin, death: by the law the law is\ndestroyed, sin is abolished in sinful flesh, death is destroyed by\ndeath. (6) The historical view which followed from this begins, as\nregards Christ, with Adam and Abraham; as regards the law, with Moses.\nIt closes, as regards Christ, with the prospect of a time when he shall\nhave put all enemies beneath his feet, when God will be all in all; as\nregards Moses and the promises given to the Jewish nation, with the\nprospect of a time when all Israel will be saved. (7) Paul's doctrine of\nChrist starts from the final confession of the primitive Church, that\nChrist is with the Father as a heavenly being and as Lord of the living\nand the dead. Though Paul must have accurately known the proclamation\nconcerning the historical Christ, his theology in the strict sense of\nthe word does not revert to it: but springing over the historical, it\nbegins with the pre-existent Christ (the Man from heaven), whose moral\ndeed it was to assume the flesh in self-denying love, in order to break\nfor all men the powers of nature and the doom of death. But he has\npointed to the words and example of the historical Christ in order to\nrule the life in the Spirit. (8) Deductions, proofs, and perhaps also\nconceptions, which in point of form betray the theology of the Pharisaic\nschools, were forced from the Apostle by Christian opponents, who would\nonly grant a place to the message of the crucified Christ beside the\n[Greek: dikaiosune ex ergon]. Both as an exegete and as a typologist he\nappears as a disciple of the Pharisees. But his dialectic about law,\ncircumcision and sacrifice, does not form the kernel of his religious\nmode of thought, though, on the other hand, it was unquestionably his\nvery Pharisaism which qualified him for becoming what he was. Pharisaism\nembraced nearly everything lofty which Judaism apart from Christ at all\npossessed, and its doctrine of providence, its energetic insistence on\nmaking manifest the religious contrasts, its Messianic expectations, its\ndoctrines of sin and predestination, were conditions for the genesis of\na religious and Christian character such as Paul.[89] This first\nChristian of the second generation is the highest product of the Jewish\nspirit under the creative power of the Spirit of Christ. Pharisaism had\nfulfilled its mission for the world when it produced this man. (9) But\nHellenism also had a share in the making of Paul, a fact which does not\nconflict with his Pharisaic origin, but is partly given with it. In\nspite of all its exclusiveness the desire for making proselytes,\nespecially in the Diaspora, was in the blood of Pharisaism. Paul\ncontinued the old movement in a new way, and he was qualified for his\nwork among the Greeks by an accurate knowledge of the Greek translation\nof the Old Testament, by considerable dexterity in the use of the Greek\nlanguage, and by a growing insight into the spiritual life of the\nGreeks. But the peculiarity of his Gospel as a message from the Spirit\nof Christ, which was equally near to and equally distant from every\nreligious and moral mode of thought among the nations of the world,\nsignified much more than all this. This Gospel--who can say whether\nHellenism had already a share in its conception--required that the\nmissionary to the Greeks should become a Greek and that believers should\ncome to know, \"all things are yours, and ye are Christ's.\" Paul, as no\ndoubt other missionaries besides him, connected the preaching of Christ\nwith the Greek mode of thought; he even employed philosophic doctrines\nof the Greeks as presuppositions in his apologetic,[90] and therewith\nprepared the way for the introduction of the Gospel to the Graeco-Roman\nworld of thought. But, in my opinion, he has nowhere allowed that world\nof thought to influence his doctrine of salvation. This doctrine,\nhowever, was so fashioned in its practical aims that it was not\nnecessary to become a Jew in order to appropriate it. (10) Yet we cannot\nspeak of any total effect of Paulinism, as there was no such thing. The\nabundance of its details was too great and the greatness of its\nsimplicity too powerful, its hope of the future too vivid, its doctrine\nof the law too difficult, its summons to a new life in the spirit too\nmighty to be comprehended and adhered to even by those communities which\nPaul himself had founded. What they did comprehend was its Monotheism,\nits universalism, its redemption, its eternal life, its asceticism; but\nall this was otherwise combined than by Paul. The style became Hellenic,\nand the element of a new kind of knowledge from the very first, as in\nthe Church of Corinth, seems to have been the ruling one. The Pauline\ndoctrine of the incarnate heavenly Man was indeed apprehended; it fell\nin with Greek notions, although it meant something very different from\nthe notions which Greeks had been able to form of it.\n\n_Supplement_ 4.--What we justly prize above all else in the New\nTestament is that it is a union of the three groups, Synoptic Gospels,\nPauline Epistles,[91] and Johannine writings, in which are expressed the\nrichest contents of the earliest history of the Gospel. In the Synoptic\nGospels and the epistles of Paul are represented two types of preaching\nthe Gospel which mutually supplement each other. The subsequent history\nis dependent on both, and would have been other than it is had not both\nexisted alongside of each other. On the other hand, the peculiar and\nlofty conception of Christ and of the Gospel, which stands out in the\nwritings of John, has directly exercised no demonstrable influence on\nthe succeeding development--with the exception of one peculiar movement,\nthe Montanistic, which, however, does not rest on a true understanding\nof these writings--and indeed partly for the same reason that has\nprevented the Pauline theology as a whole from having such an influence.\nWhat is given in these writings is a criticism of the Old Testament as\nreligion, or the independence of the Christian religion, in virtue of an\naccurate knowledge of the Old Testament through development of its\nhidden germs. The Old Testament stage of religion is really transcended\nand overcome in the Johannine Christianity, just as in Paulinism, and in\nthe theology of the epistle to the Hebrews. \"The circle of disciples who\nappropriated this characterisation of Jesus is,\" says Weizsaecker, \"a\nrevived Christ-party in the higher sense.\" But this transcending of the\nOld Testament religion was the very thing that was unintelligible,\nbecause there were few ripe for such a conception. Moreover, the origin\nof the Johannine writings is, from the stand-point of a history of\nliterature and dogma, the most marvellous enigma which the early history\nof Christianity presents: Here we have portrayed a Christ who clothes\nthe indescribable with words, and proclaims as his own self-testimony\nwhat his disciples have experienced in him, a speaking, acting, Pauline\nChrist, walking on the earth, far more human than the Christ of Paul and\nyet far more Divine, an abundance of allusions to the historical Jesus,\nand at the same time the most sovereign treatment of the history. One\ndivines that the Gospel can find no loftier expression than John XVII.:\none feels that Christ himself put these words into the mouth of the\ndisciple, who gives them back to him, but word and thing, history and\ndoctrine are surrounded by a bright cloud of the suprahistorical. It is\neasy to shew that this Gospel could as little have been written without\nHellenism, as Luther's treatise on the freedom of a Christian man could\nhave been written without the \"Deutsche Theologie.\" But the reference to\nPhilo and Hellenism is by no means sufficient here, as it does not\nsatisfactorily explain even one of the external aspects of the problem.\nThe elements operative in the Johannine theology were not Greek\nTheologoumena--even the Logos has little more in common with that of\nPhilo than the name, and its mention at the beginning of the book is a\nmystery, not the solution of one[92]--but the Apostolic testimony\nconcerning Christ has created from the old faith of Psalmists and\nProphets, a new faith in a man who lived with the disciples of Jesus\namong the Greeks. For that very reason, in spite of his abrupt\nAnti-judaism, we must without doubt regard the Author as a born Jew.\n\n_Supplement_ 5.--The authorities to which the Christian communities were\nsubjected in faith and life, were these: (1) The Old Testament\ninterpreted in the Christian sense. (2) The tradition of the Messianic\nhistory of Jesus. (3) The words of the Lord: see the epistles of Paul,\nespecially 1 Corinthians. But every writing which was proved to have\nbeen given by the Spirit had also to be regarded as an authority, and\nevery tested Christian Prophet and Teacher inspired by the Spirit could\nclaim that his words be received and regarded as the words of God.\nMoreover, the twelve whom Jesus had chosen had a special authority, and\nPaul claimed a similar authority for himself ([Greek: diataxeis ton\napostolon]). Consequently, there were numerous courts of appeal in the\nearliest period of Christendom, of diverse kinds and by no means\nstrictly defined. In the manifold gifts of the spirit was given a fluid\nelement indefinable in its range and scope, an element which guaranteed\nfreedom of development, but which also threatened to lead the\nenthusiastic communities to extravagance.\n\n_Literature._--Weiss, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, 1884.\nBeyschlag, New Testament Theology, 1892. Ritschl, Entstehung der\nAlt-Katholischen Kirche, 2 Edit. 1857. Reuss, History of Christian\nTheology in the Apostolic Age, 1864. Baur, The Apostle Paul, 1866.\nHolsten, Zum Evangelium des Paulus und Petrus, 1868. Pfleiderer,\nPaulinism, 1873: also, Das Urchristenthum, 1887. Schenkel, Das\nChristusbild der Apostel, 1879. Renan, Origins of Christianity Vols.\nII.-IV. Havet, Le Christianisme et ses orig. T, IV. 1884. Lechler, The\nApostolic and Post-Apostolic Age, 1885. Weizsaecker, The Apostolic Age,\n1892. Hatch, Article \"Paul\" in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Everett, The\nGospel of Paul. Boston, 1893. On the origin and earliest history of the\nChristian proofs from prophecy, see my \"Texte und Unters. z. Gesch. der\nAlt-Christl.\" Lit. I. 3, p. 56 f.\n\nSec. 4. _The Current Exposition of the Old Testament, and the Jewish hopes\nof the future, in their significance for the earliest types of Christian\npreaching._\n\nInstead of the frequently very fruitless investigations about\n\"Jewish-Christian,\" and \"Gentile-Christian,\" it should be asked, What\nJewish elements have been naturalised in the Christian Church, which\nwere in no way demanded by the contents of the Gospel? have these\nelements been simply weakened in course of the development, or have some\nof them been strengthened by a peculiar combination with the Greek? We\nhave to do here, in the first instance, with the doctrine of Demons and\nAngels, the view of history, the growing exclusiveness, the fanaticism;\nand on the other hand, with the cultus, and the Theocracy, expressing\nitself in forms of law.\n\n1. Although Jesus had in principle abolished the methods of pedantry,\nthe casuistic treatment of the law, and the subtleties of prophetic\ninterpretation, yet the old Scholastic exegesis remained active in the\nChristian communities above all the unhistorical local method in the\nexposition of the Old Testament, both allegoristic and Haggadic; for in\nthe exposition of a sacred text--and the Old Testament was regarded as\nsuch--one is always required to look away from its historical\nlimitations and to expound it according to the needs of the present.[93]\nThe traditional view exercised its influence on the exposition of the\nOld Testament, as well as on the representations of the person, fate and\ndeeds of Jesus, especially in those cases where the question was about\nthe proof of the fulfilment of prophecy, that is, of the Messiahship of\nJesus. (See above Sec. 3, 2). Under the impression made by the history of\nJesus it gave to many Old Testament passages a sense that was foreign to\nthem, and, on the other hand, enriched the life of Jesus with new facts,\nturning the interest at the same time to details which were frequently\nunreal and seldom of striking importance.[94]\n\n2. The Jewish Apocalyptic literature, especially as it flourished since\nthe time of Antiochus Epiphanes, and was impregnated with new elements\nborrowed from an ethico-religious philosophy, as well as with Babylonian\nand Persian myths (Greek myths can only be detected in very small\nnumber), was not banished from the circles of the first professors of\nthe Gospel, but was rather held fast, eagerly read, and even extended\nwith the view of elucidating the promises of Jesus.[95] Though their\ncontents seem to have been modified on Christian soil, and especially\nthe uncertainty about the person of the Messiah exalted to victory and\ncoming to judgment,[96] yet the sensuous earthly hopes were in no way\nrepressed. Green fat meadows and sulphurous abysses, white horses and\nfrightful beasts, trees of life, splendid cities, war and bloodshed\nfilled the fancy,[97] and threatened to obscure the simple and yet, at\nbottom, much more affecting maxims about the judgment which is certain\nto every individual soul, and drew the confessors of the Gospel into a\nrestless activity, into politics, and abhorrence of the State. It was an\nevil inheritance which the Christians took over from the Jews,[98] an\ninheritance which makes it impossible to reproduce with certainty the\neschatological sayings of Jesus. Things directly foreign were mixed up\nwith them, and, what was most serious, delineations of the hopes of the\nfuture could easily lead to the undervaluing of the most important gifts\nand duties of the Gospel.[99]\n\n3. A wealth of mythologies and poetic ideas was naturalised and\nlegitimised[100] in the Christian communities, chiefly by the reception\nof the Apocalyptic literature, but also by the reception of artificial\nexegesis and Haggada. Most important for the following period were the\nspeculations about Messiah, which were partly borrowed from expositions\nof the Old Testament and from the Apocalypses, partly formed\nindependently, according to methods the justice of which no one\ncontested, and the application of which seemed to give a firm basis to\nreligious faith.\n\nSome of the Jewish Apocalyptists had already attributed pre-existence to\nthe expected Messiah, as to other precious things in the Old Testament\nhistory and worship, and, without any thought of denying his human\nnature, placed him as already existing before his appearing in a series\nof angelic beings.[101] This took place in accordance with an\nestablished method of speculation, so far as an attempt was made thereby\nto express the special value of an empiric object, by distinguishing\nbetween the essence and the inadequate form of appearance, hypostatising\nthe essence, and exalting it above time and space. But when a later\nappearance was conceived as the aim of a series of preparations, it was\nfrequently hypostatised and placed above these preparations even in\ntime. The supposed aim was, in a kind of real existence, placed, as\nfirst cause, before the means which were destined to realise it on\nearth.[102]\n\nSome of the first confessors of the Gospel, though not all the writers\nof the New Testament, in accordance with the same method, went beyond\nthe declarations which Jesus himself had made about his person, and\nendeavoured to conceive its value and absolute significance abstractly\nand speculatively. The religious convictions (see Sec. 3. 2): (1) That the\nfounding of the Kingdom of God on earth, and the mission of Jesus as the\nperfect mediator, were from eternity based on God's plan of Salvation,\nas his main purpose; (2) that the exalted Christ was called into a\nposition of Godlike Sovereignty belonging to him of right; (3) that God\nhimself was manifested in Jesus, and that he therefore surpasses all\nmediators of the Old Testament, nay, even all angelic powers,--these\nconvictions with some took the form that Jesus pre-existed, and that in\nhim has appeared and taken flesh a heavenly being fashioned like God,\nwho is older than the world, nay, its creative principle.[103] The\nconceptions of the old Teachers, Paul, the author of the Epistle to the\nHebrews, the Apocalypse, the author of the first Epistle of Peter, the\nfourth Evangelist, differ in many ways when they attempt to define these\nconvictions more closely. The latter is the only one who has recognised\nwith perfect clearness that the premundane Christ must be assumed to be\n[Greek: theos hon en arche pros ton theon], so as not to endanger by\nthis speculation the contents and significance of the revelation of God\nwhich was given in Christ. This, in the earliest period, was essentially\na religious problem, that is, it was not introduced for the explanation\nof cosmological problems, (see, especially, Epistle to the Ephesians, I\nPeter; but also the Gospel of John), and there stood peacefully beside\nit, such conceptions as recognised the equipment of the man Jesus for\nhis office in a communication of the Spirit at his baptism,[104] or in\nvirtue of Isaiah VII., found the germ of his unique nature in his\nmiraculous origin.[105] But as soon as that speculation was detached\nfrom its original foundation, it necessarily withdrew the minds of\nbelievers from the consideration of the work of Christ, and from the\ncontemplation of the revelation of God which was given in the ministry\nof the historical person Jesus. The mystery of the person of Jesus in\nitself, would then necessarily appear as the true revelation.[106]\n\nA series of theologoumena and religious problems for the future doctrine\nof Christianity lay ready in the teaching of the Pharisees and in the\nApocalypses (see especially the fourth book of Ezra), and was really\nfitted for being of service to it; e.g., doctrines about Adam, universal\nsinfulness, the fall, predestination, Theodicy, etc., besides all kinds\nof ideas about redemption. Besides these spiritual doctrines there were\nnot a few spiritualised myths which were variously made use of in the\nApocalypses. A rich, spiritual, figurative style, only too rich and\ntherefore confused, waited for the theological artist to purify, reduce\nand vigorously fashion. There really remained very little of the\nCosmico-Mythological in the doctrine of the great Church.\n\n_Supplement._--The reference to the proof from prophecy, to the current\nexposition of the Old Testament, the Apocalyptic and the prevailing\nmethods of speculation, does not suffice to explain all the elements\nwhich are found in the different types of Christian preaching. We must\nrather bear in mind here that the earliest communities were\nenthusiastic, and had yet among them prophets and ecstatic persons. Such\ncircumstances will always directly produce facts in the history. But, in\nthe majority of cases, it is absolutely impossible to account\nsubsequently for the causes of such productions, because their formation\nis subject to no law accessible to the understanding. It is therefore\ninadmissible to regard as proved the reality of what is recorded and\nbelieved to be a fact, when the motive and interest which led to its\nacceptance can no longer be ascertained.[107]\n\nMoreover, if we consider the conditions, outer and inner, in which the\npreaching of Christ in the first decades was placed, conditions which in\nevery way threatened the Gospel with extravagance, we shall only see\ncause to wonder that it continued to shine forth amid all its wrappings.\nWe can still, out of the strangest \"fulfilments\", legends and\nmythological ideas, read the religious conviction that the aim and goal\nof history is disclosed in the history of Christ, and that the Divine\nhas now entered into history in a pure form.\n\n_Literature._--The Apocalypses of Daniel, Enoch, Moses, Baruch, Ezra;\nSchuerer, History of the Jewish People in the time of Christ;\nBaldensperger, in the work already mentioned. Weber, System der\nAltsynagogalen palaestinischen Theologie, 1880, Kuenen, Hibbert Lectures,\n1883. Hilgenfeld, Die juedische Apokalyptik, 1857. Wellhausen, Sketch of\nthe History of Israel and Judah, 1887. Diestel, Gesch. des A. T. in der\nChristl. Kirche, 1869. Other literature in Schuerer. The essay of Hellwag\nin the Theol. Jahrb. von Baur and Zeller, 1848, \"Die Vorstellung von der\nPraeexistenz Christi in der aeltesten Kirche\", is worth noting; also Joel,\nBlicke in die Religionsgeschichte zu Anfang des 2 Christl. Jahrhunderts,\n1880-1883.\n\n\nSec. 5. _The Religious Conceptions and the Religious Philosophy of the\nHellenistic Jews, in their significance for the later formulation of the\nGospel_.\n\n1. From the remains of the Jewish Alexandrian literature and the Jewish\nSibylline writings, also from the work of Josephus, and especially from\nthe great propaganda of Judaism in the Graeco-Roman world, we may gather\nthat there was a Judaism in the Diaspora, for the consciousness of which\nthe cultus and ceremonial law were of comparatively subordinate\nimportance; while the monotheistic worship of God, apart from images,\nthe doctrines of virtue and belief in a future reward beyond the grave,\nstood in the foreground as its really essential marks. Converted\nGentiles were no longer everywhere required to be even circumcised; the\nbath of purification was deemed sufficient. The Jewish religion here\nappears transformed into a universal human ethic and a monotheistic\ncosmology. For that reason, the idea of the Theocracy as well as the\nMessianic hopes of the future faded away or were uprooted. The latter,\nindeed, did not altogether pass away; but as the oracles of the Prophets\nwere made use of mainly for the purpose of proving the antiquity and\ncertainty of monotheistic belief, the thought of the future was\nessentially exhausted in the expectation of the dissolution of the Roman\nempire, the burning of the world, and the eternal recompense. The\nspecific Jewish element, however, stood out plainly in the assertion\nthat the Old Testament, and especially the books of Moses, were the\nsource of all true knowledge of God, and the sum total of all doctrines\nof virtue for the nations, as well as in the connected assertion that\nthe religious and moral culture of the Greeks was derived from the Old\nTestament, as the source from which the Greek Poets and Philosophers had\ndrawn their inspiration.[108]\n\nThese Jews and the Greeks converted by them formed, as it were, a\nJudaism of a second order without law, i.e., ceremonial law, and with a\nminimum of statutory regulations. This Judaism prepared the soil for the\nChristianising of the Greeks, as well as for the genesis of a great\nGentile Church in the empire, free from the law; and this the more that,\nas it seems, after the second destruction of Jerusalem, the punctilious\nobservance of the law[109] was imposed more strictly than before on all\nwho worshipped the God of the Jews.[110]\n\nThe Judaism just portrayed, developed itself, under the influence of the\nGreek culture with which it came in contact, into a kind of\nCosmopolitanism. It divested itself, as religion, of all national forms,\nand exhibited itself as the most perfect expression of that \"natural\"\nreligion which the stoics had disclosed. But in proportion as it was\nenlarged and spiritualised to a universal religion for humanity, it\nabandoned what was most peculiar to it, and could not compensate for\nthat loss by the assertion of the thesis that the Old Testament is the\noldest and most reliable source of that natural religion, which in the\ntraditions of the Greeks had only witnesses of the second rank. The\nvigour and immediateness of the religious feeling was flattened down to\na moralism, the barrenness of which drove some Jews even into Gnosis,\nmysticism and asceticism.[111]\n\n2. The Jewish Alexandrian philosophy of religion, of which Philo gives\nus the clearest conception,[112] is the scientific theory which\ncorresponded to this religious conception. The theological system which\nPhilo, in accordance with the example of others, gave out as the Mosaic\nsystem revealed by God, and proved from the Old Testament by means of\nthe allegoric exegetic method, is essentially identical with the system\nof Stoicism, which had been mixed with Platonic elements and had lost\nits Pantheistic materialistic impress. The fundamental idea from which\nPhilo starts is a Platonic one; the dualism of God and the world, spirit\nand matter. The idea of God itself is therefore abstractly and\nnegatively conceived (God, the real substance which is not finite), and\nhas nothing more in common with the Old Testament conception. The\npossibility, however, of being able to represent God as acting on\nmatter, which as the finite is the non-existent, and therefore the evil,\nis reached, with the help of the Stoic [Greek: logos] as working powers\nand of the Platonic doctrine of archetypal ideas, and in outward\nconnection with the Jewish doctrine of angels and the Greek doctrine of\ndemons, by the introduction of intermediate spiritual beings which, as\npersonal and impersonal powers proceeding from God, are to be thought of\nas operative causes and as Archetypes. All these beings are, as it were,\ncomprehended in the Logos. By the Logos Philo understands the operative\nreason of God, and consequently also the power of God. The Logos is to\nhim the thought of God and at the same time the product of his thought,\ntherefore both idea and power. But further, the Logos is God himself on\nthat side of him which is turned to the world, as also the ideal of the\nworld and the unity of the spiritual forces which produce the world and\nrule in it. He can therefore be put beside God and in opposition to the\nworld; but he can also, so far as the spiritual contents of the world\nare comprehended in him, be put with the world in contrast with God. The\nLogos accordingly appears as the Son of God, the foremost creature, the\nrepresentative, Viceroy, High Priest, and Messenger of God; and again as\nprinciple of the world, spirit of the world, nay, as the world itself.\nHe appears as a power and as a person, as a function of God and as an\nactive divine being. Had Philo cancelled the contradiction which lies in\nthis whole conception of the Logos, his system would have been\ndemolished; for that system with its hard antithesis of God and the\nworld, needed a mediator who was, and yet was not God, as well as world.\nFrom this contrast, however, it further followed that we can only think\nof a world-formation by the Logos, not of a world-creation.[113] Within\nthis world man is regarded as a microcosm, that is, as a being of Divine\nnature according to his spirit, who belongs to the heavenly world, while\nthe adhering body is a prison which holds men captive in the fetters of\nsense, that is, of sin.\n\nThe Stoic and Platonic ideals and rules of conduct (also the\nNeo-pythagorean) were united by Philo in the religious Ethic as well as\nin the Cosmology. Rationalistic moralism is surmounted by the injunction\nto strive after a higher good lying above virtue. But here, at the same\ntime, is the point at which Philo decidedly goes beyond Platonism, and\nintroduces a new thought into Greek Ethics, and also in correspondence\ntherewith into theoretic philosophy. This thought, which indeed lay\naltogether in the line of the development of Greek philosophy, was not,\nhowever, pursued by Philo into all its consequences, though it was the\nexpression of a new frame of mind. While the highest good is resolved by\nPlato and his successors into knowledge of truth, which truth, together\nwith the idea of God, lies in a sphere really accessible to the\nintellectual powers of the human spirit, the highest good, the Divine\noriginal being, is considered by Philo, though not invariably, to be\nabove reason, and the power of comprehending it is denied to the human\nintellect. This assumption, a concession which Greek speculation was\ncompelled to make to positive religion for the supremacy which was\nyielded to it, was to have far-reaching consequences in the future. _A\nplace was now for the first time provided in philosophy for a mythology\nto be regarded as revelation._ The highest truths which could not\notherwise be reached, might be sought for in the oracles of the Deity;\nfor knowledge resting on itself had learnt by experience its inability\nto attain to the truth in which blessedness consists. _In this very\nexperience the intellectualism of Greek Ethics was, not indeed\ncancelled, but surmounted._ The injunction to free oneself from sense\nand strive upwards by means of knowledge, remained; but the wings of the\nthinking mind bore it only to the entrance of the sanctuary. Only\necstasy produced by God himself was able to lead to the reality above\nreason. The great novelties in the system of Philo, though in a certain\nsense the way had already been prepared for them, are the introduction\nof the idea of a philosophy of revelation and the advance beyond the\nabsolute intellectualism of Greek philosophy, an advance based on\nscepticism, but also on the deep-felt needs of life. Only the germs of\nthese are found in Philo, but they are already operative. They are\ninnovations of world-wide importance: for in them the covenant between\nthe thoughts of reason on the one hand, and the belief in revelation and\nmysticism on the other, is already so completed that neither by itself\ncould permanently maintain the supremacy. Thought about the world was\nhenceforth dependent, not only on practical motives, it is always that,\nbut on the need of a blessedness and peace which is higher than all\nreason. It might, perhaps, be allowable to say that Philo was the first\nwho, as a philosopher, plainly expressed that need, just because he was\nnot only a Greek, but also a Jew.[114]\n\nApart from the extremes into which the ethical counsels of Philo run,\nthey contain nothing that had not been demanded by philosophers before\nhim. The purifying of the affections, the renunciation of sensuality,\nthe acquisition of the four cardinal virtues, the greatest possible\nsimplicity of life, as well as a cosmopolitan disposition are\nenjoined.[115] But the attainment of the highest morality by our own\nstrength is despaired of, and man is directed beyond himself to God's\nassistance. Redemption begins with the spirit reflecting on its own\ncondition; it advances by a knowledge of the world and of the Logos, and\nit is perfected, after complete asceticism, by mystic ecstatic\ncontemplation in which a man loses himself, but in return is entirely\nfilled and moved by God.[116] In this condition man has a foretaste of\nthe blessedness which shall be given him when the soul, freed from the\nbody, will be restored to its true existence as a heavenly being.\n\nThis system, notwithstanding its appeal to revelation, has, in the\nstrict sense of the word, no place for Messianic hopes, of which nothing\nbut very insignificant rudiments are found in Philo. But he was really\nanimated by the hope of a glorious time to come for Judaism. The\nsynthesis of the Messiah and the Logos did not lie within his\nhorizon.[117]\n\n3. Neither Philo's philosophy of religion, nor the mode of thought from\nwhich it springs, exercised any appreciable influence on the first\ngeneration of believers in Christ.[118] But its practical\nground-thoughts, though in different degrees, must have found admission\nvery early into the Jewish Christian circles of the Diaspora, and\nthrough them to Gentile Christian circles also. Philo's philosophy of\nreligion became operative among Christian teachers from the beginning of\nthe second century,[119] and at a later period actually obtained the\nsignificance of a standard of Christian theology, Philo gaining a place\namong Christian writers. The systems of Valentinus and Origen presuppose\nthat of Philo. It can no longer, however, be shewn with certainty how\nfar the direct influence of Philo reached, as the development of\nreligious ideas in the second century took a direction which necessarily\nled to views similar to those which Philo had anticipated (see Sec. 6, and\nthe whole following account).\n\n_Supplement._--The hermeneutic principles (the \"Biblicalalchemy\"), above\nall, became of the utmost importance for the following period. These\nwere partly invented by Philo himself, partly traditional,--the Haggadic\nrules of exposition and the hermeneutic principles of the Stoics having\nalready at an earlier period been united in Alexandria. They fall into\ntwo main classes; \"first, those according to which the literal sense is\nexcluded, and the allegoric proved to be the only possible one, and\nthen, those according to which the allegoric sense is discovered as\nstanding beside and above the literal sense.\"[120] That these rules\npermitted the discovery of a new sense by minute changes within a word,\nwas a point of special importance.[121] Christian teachers went still\nfurther in this direction, and, as can be proved, altered the text of\nthe Septuagint in order to make more definite what suggested itself to\nthem as the meaning of a passage, or in order to give a satisfactory\nmeaning to a sentence which appeared to them unmeaning or\noffensive.[122] Nay, attempts were not wanting among Christians in the\nsecond century--they were aided by the uncertainty that existed about\nthe extent of the Septuagint, and by the want of plain predictions about\nthe death upon the cross--to determine the Old Testament canon in\naccordance with new principles; that is, to alter the text on the plea\nthat the Jews had corrupted it, and to insert new books into the Old\nTestament, above all, Jewish Apocalypses revised in a Christian sense.\nTertullian (de cultu fem. I. 3,) furnishes a good example of the latter.\n\"Scio scipturam Enoch, quae hunc ordinem angelis dedit, non recipi a\nquibusdam, quia nee in armorium Judaicum admittitur ... sed cum Enoch\neadem scriptura etiam de domino praedicarit, a nobis quidem nihil omnino\nreiciendum est quod pertinet ad nos. Et legimus omnem scripturam\naedificationi habilem divinitus inspirari. A Judaeis potest jam videri\npropterea reiecta, sicut et cetera fere quae Christum sonant.... Eo\naccedit quod Enoch apud Judam apostolum testimonium possidet.\" Compare\nalso the history of the Apocalypse of Ezra in the Latin Bible (Old\nTestament). Not only the genuine Greek portions of the Septuagint, but\nalso many Apocalypses were quoted by Christians in the second century as\nof equal value with the Old Testament. It was the New Testament that\nslowly put an end to these tendencies towards the formation of a\nChristian Old Testament.\n\nTo find the spiritual meaning of the sacred text, partly beside the\nliteral, partly by excluding it, became the watchword for the\n\"scientific\" Christian theology which was possible only on this basis,\nas it endeavoured to reduce the immense and dissimilar material of the\nOld Testament to unity with the Gospel, and both with the religious and\nscientific culture of the Greeks,--yet without knowing a relative\nstandard, the application of which would alone have rendered possible in\na loyal way the solution of the task. Here, Philo was the master; for he\nfirst to a great extent poured the new wine into old bottles. Such a\nprocedure is warranted by its final purpose; for history is a unity. But\napplied in a pedantic and stringently dogmatic way it is a source of\ndeception, of untruthfulness, and finally of total blindness.\n\n_Literature._--Gefroerer, Das Jahr des Heils, 1838. Parthey, Das\nAlexandr. Museum, 1838. Matter, Hist. de l'ecole d'Alex. 1840. Daehne,\nGesch. Darstellung der jued.-alex. Religions-philos. 1834. Zeller, Die\nPhilosophie der Griechen, III. 2. 3rd Edition. Mommsen, History of Rome,\nVol. V. Siegfried, Philo von Alex. 1875. Massebieau, Le Classement des\nOeuvres de Philon. 1889. Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, 1889.\nDrummond, Philo Judaeus, 1888. Bigg, The Christian Platonists of\nAlexandria, 1886. Schuerer, History of the Jewish People. The\ninvestigations of Freudenthal (Hellenistische Studien), and Bernays\n(Ueber das phokylideische Gedicht; Theophrastos' Schrift ueber\nFroemmigkeit; Die heraklitischen Briefe). Kuenen, Hibbert Lectures:\n\"Christian Theology could have made and has made much use of Hellenism.\nBut the Christian religion cannot have sprung from this source.\" Havet\nthinks otherwise, though in the fourth volume of his \"Origines\" he has\nmade unexpected admissions.\n\n\nSec. 6. _The Religious Dispositions of the Greeks and Romans in the first\ntwo centuries, and the current Graeco-Roman Philosophy of Religion._\n\n1. After the national religion and the religious sense generally in\ncultured circles had been all but lost in the age of Cicero and\nAugustus, there is noticeable in the Graeco-Roman world from the\nbeginning of the second century a revival of religious feeling which\nembraced all classes of society, and appears, especially from the middle\nof that century, to have increased from decennium to decennium.[123]\nParallel with it went the not altogether unsuccessful attempt to restore\nthe old national worship, religious usages, oracles, etc. In these\nattempts, however, which were partly superficial and artificial, the new\nreligious needs found neither vigorous nor clear expression. These needs\nrather sought new forms of satisfaction corresponding to the wholly\nchanged conditions of the time, including intercourse and mixing of the\nnations; decay of the old republican orders, divisions and ranks;\nmonarchy and absolutism and social crises; pauperism; influence of\nphilosophy on the domain of public morality and law; cosmopolitanism and\nthe rights of man; influx of Oriental cults into the West; knowledge of\nthe world and disgust with it. The decay of the old political cults and\nsyncretism produced a disposition in favour of monotheism both among the\ncultured classes who had been prepared for it by philosophy, and also\ngradually among the masses. Religion and individual morality became more\nclosely connected. There was developed a corresponding attempt at\nspiritualising the worship alongside of and within the ceremonial forms,\nand at giving it a direction towards the moral elevation of man through\nthe ideas of moral personality, conscience, and purity. The ideas of\nrepentance and of expiation and healing of the soul became of special\nimportance, and consequently such Oriental cults came to the front as\nrequired the former and guaranteed the latter. But what was sought above\nall, was to enter into an inner union with the Deity, to be saved by him\nand become a partaker in the possession and enjoyment of his life. The\nworshipper consequently longed to find a \"praesens numen\" and the\nrevelation of him in the cultus, and hoped to put himself in possession\nof the Deity by asceticism and mysterious rites. This new piety longed\nfor health and purity of soul, and elevation above earthly things, and\nin connection with these a divine, that is, a painless and eternal life\nbeyond the grave (\"renatus in aeternum taurobolio\"). A world beyond was\ndesired, sought for and viewed with an uncertain eye. By detachment from\nearthly things and the healing of its diseases (the passions) the freed,\nnew born soul should return to its divine nature and existence. It is\nnot a hope of immortality such as the ancients had dreamed of for their\nheroes, where they continue, as it were, their earthly existence in\nblessed enjoyment. To the more highly pitched self-consciousness this\nlife had become a burden, and in the miseries of the present, one hoped\nfor a future life in which the pain and vulgarity of the unreal life of\nearth would be completely laid aside ([Greek: Enkrateia] and [Greek:\nanastasis]). If the new moralistic feature stood out still more\nemphatically in the piety of the second century, it vanished more and\nmore behind the religious feature, the longing after life[124] and after\na Redeemer God. No one could any longer be a God who was not also a\nsaviour.[125]\n\nWith all this Polytheism was not suppressed, but only put into a\nsubordinate place. On the contrary, it was as lively and active as ever.\nFor the idea of a _numen supremum_ did not exclude belief in the\nexistence and manifestation of subordinate deities. Apotheosis came into\ncurrency. The old state religion first attained its highest and most\npowerful expression in the worship of the emperor, (the emperor\nglorified as \"dominus ac deus noster\",[126] as \"praesens et corporalis\ndeus\", the Antinous cult, etc.)., and in many circles an incarnate ideal\nin the present or the past was sought, which might be worshipped as\nrevealer of God and as God, and which might be an example of life and an\nassurance of religious hope. Apotheosis became less offensive in\nproportion as, in connection with the fuller recognition of the\nspiritual dignity of man, the estimate of the soul, the spirit, as of\nsupramundane nature, and the hope of its eternal continuance in a form\nof existence befitting it, became more general. That was the import of\nthe message preached by the Cynics and the Stoics, that the truly wise\nman is Lord, Messenger of God, and God upon the earth. On the other\nhand, the popular belief clung to the idea that the gods could appear\nand be visible in human form, and this faith, though mocked by the\ncultured, gained numerous adherents, even among them, in the age of the\nAntonines.[127]\n\nThe new thing which was here developed, continued to be greatly obscured\nby the old forms of worship which reasons of state and pious custom\nmaintained. And the new piety, dispensing with a fixed foundation,\ngroped uncertainly around, adapting the old rather than rejecting it.\nThe old religious practices of the Fathers asserted themselves in public\nlife generally, and the reception of new cults by the state, which was\ncertainly effected, though with many checks, did not disturb them. The\nold religious customs stood out especially on state holidays, in the\ngames in honour of the Gods, frequently degenerating into shameless\nimmorality, but yet protecting the institutions of the state. The\npatriot, the wise man, the sceptic, and the pious man compounded with\nthem, for they had not really at bottom outgrown them, and they knew of\nnothing better to substitute for the services they still rendered to\nsociety (see the [Greek: logos alethes] of Celsus).\n\n2. The system of associations, naturalised centuries before among the\nGreeks, was developed under the social and political pressure of the\nempire, and was greatly extended by the change of moral and religious\nideas. The free unions, which, as a rule, had a religious element and\nwere established for mutual help, support, or edification, balanced to\nsome extent the prevailing social cleavage, by a free democratic\norganisation. They gave to many individuals in their small circle the\nrights which they did not possess in the great world, and were\nfrequently of service in obtaining admission for new cults. Even the new\npiety and cosmopolitan disposition seem to have turned to them in order\nto find within them forms of expression. But the time had not come for\nthe greater corporate unions, and of an organised connection of\nsocieties in one city with those of another we know nothing. The state\nkept these associations under strict control. It granted them only to\nthe poorest classes (_collegia tenuiorum_) and had the strictest laws in\nreadiness for them. These free unions, however, did not in their\nhistorical importance approach the fabric of the Roman state in which\nthey stood. That represented the union of the greater part of humanity\nunder one head, and also more and more under one law. Its capital was\nthe capital of the world, and also, from the beginning of the third\ncentury, of religious syncretism. Hither migrated all who desired to\nexercise an influence on the great scale: Jew, Chaldean, Syrian priest,\nand Neoplatonic teacher. Law and Justice radiated from Rome to the\nprovinces, and in their light nationalities faded away, and a\ncosmopolitanism was developed which pointed beyond itself, because the\nmoral spirit can never find its satisfaction in that which is realised.\nWhen that spirit finally turned away from all political life, and after\nhaving laboured for the ennobling of the empire, applied itself, in\nNeoplatonism, to the idea of a new and free union of men, this certainly\nwas the result of the felt failure of the great creation, but it\nnevertheless had that creation for its presupposition. The Church\nappropriated piecemeal the great apparatus of the Roman state, and gave\nnew powers, new significance and respect to every article that had been\ndepreciated. But what is of greatest importance is that the Church by\nher preaching would never have gained whole circles, but only\nindividuals, had not the universal state already produced a neutralising\nof nationalities and brought men nearer each other in temper and\ndisposition.\n\n3. Perhaps the most decisive factor in bringing about the revolution of\nreligious and moral convictions and moods, was philosophy, which in\nalmost all its schools and representatives, had deepened ethics, and set\nit more and more in the foreground. After Possidonius, Seneca,\nEpictetus, and Marcus Aurelius of the Stoical school, and men like\nPlutarch of the Platonic, attained to an ethical view, which, though not\nvery clear in principle (knowledge, resignation, trust in God), is\nhardly capable of improvement in details. Common to them all, as\ndistinguished from the early Stoics, is the value put upon the soul,\n(not the entire human nature), while in some of them there comes clearly\nto the front a religious mood, a longing for divine help, for redemption\nand a blessed life beyond the grave, the effort to obtain and\ncommunicate a religious philosophical therapeutic of the soul. From\nthe beginning of the second century, however, already announced itself\nthat eclectic philosophy based on Platonism which after two or three\ngenerations appeared in the form of a school, and after three\ngenerations more was to triumph over all other schools. The several\nelements of the Neoplatonic philosophy, as they were already\nforeshadowed in Philo, are clearly seen in the second century, viz., the\ndualistic opposition of the divine and the earthly, the abstract\nconception of God, the assertion of the unknowableness of God,\nscepticism with regard to sensuous experience, and distrust with regard\nto the powers of the understanding, with a greater readiness to examine\nthings and turn to account the result of former scientific labour;\nfurther, the demand of emancipation from sensuality by means of\nasceticism, the need of authority, belief in a higher revelation, and\nthe fusion of science and religion. The legitimising of religious fancy\nin the province of philosophy was already begun. The myth was no longer\nmerely tolerated and re-interpreted as formerly, but precisely the\nmythic form with the meaning imported into it was the precious\nelement.[128] There were, however, in the second century numerous\nrepresentatives of every possible philosophic view. To pass over the\nfrivolous writers of the day, the Cynics criticised the traditional\nmythology in the interests of morality and religion.[129] But there were\nalso men who opposed the \"ne quid nimis\" to every form of practical\nscepticism, and to religion at the same time, and were above all intent\non preserving the state and society, and on fostering the existing\narrangements which appeared to be threatened far more by an intrusive\nreligious than by a nihilistic philosophy.[130] Yet men whose interest\nwas ultimately practical and political, became ever more rare,\nespecially as from the death of Marcus Aurelius, the maintenance of the\nstate had to be left more and more to the sword of the Generals. The\ngeneral conditions from the end of the second century were favourable to\na philosophy which no longer in any respect took into real consideration\nthe old forms of the state.\n\nThe theosophic philosophy which was prepared for in the second\ncentury,[131] was, from the stand-point of enlightenment and knowledge\nof nature, a relapse: but it was the expression of a deeper religious\nneed, and of a self-knowledge such as had not been in existence at an\nearlier period. The final consequences of that revolution in philosophy\nwhich made consideration of the inner life the starting-point of thought\nabout the world, only now began to be developed. The ideas of a divine,\ngracious providence, of the relationship of all men, of universal\nbrotherly love, of a ready forgiveness of wrong, of forbearing patience,\nof insight into one's own weakness--affected no doubt with many\nshadows--became, for wide circles, a result of the practical philosophy\nof the Greeks as well as, the conviction of inherent sinfulness, the\nneed of redemption, and the eternal value and dignity of a human soul\nwhich finds rest only in God. These ideas, convictions and rules, had\nbeen picked up in the long journey from Socrates to Ammonius Saccas: at\nfirst, and for long afterwards, they crippled the interest in a rational\nknowledge of the world; but they deepened and enriched the inner life,\nand therewith the source of all knowledge. Those ideas, however, lacked\nas yet the certain coherence, but, above all, the authority which could\nhave raised them above the region of wishes, presentiments, and\nstrivings, and have given them normative authority in a community of\nmen. There was no sure revelation, and no view of history which could be\nput in the place of the no longer prized political history of the nation\nor state to which one belonged.[132] There was, in fact, no such thing\nas certainty. In like manner, there was no power which might overturn\nidolatry and abolish the old, and therefore one did not get beyond the\nwavering between self-deification, fear of God, and deification of\nnature. The glory is all the greater of those statesmen and jurists who,\nin the second and third centuries, introduced human ideas of the Stoics\ninto the legal arrangements of the empire, and raised them to standards.\nAnd we must value all the more the numerous undertakings and\nperformances, in which it appeared that the new view of life was\npowerful enough in individuals to beget a corresponding practice even\nwithout a sure belief in revelation.[133]\n\n_Supplement._--For the correct understanding of the beginning of\nChristian theology, that is, for the Apologetic and Gnosis, it is\nimportant to note where they are dependent on Stoic, and where on\nPlatonic lines of thought. Platonism and Stoicism, in the second\ncentury, appeared in union with each other: but up to a certain point\nthey may be distinguished in the common channel in which they flow.\nWherever Stoicism prevailed in religious thought and feeling, as for\nexample, in Marcus Aurelius, religion gains currency as _natural_\nreligion in the most comprehensive sense of the word. The idea of\nrevelation or redemption scarcely emerges. To this rationalism, the\nobjects of knowledge are unvarying, ever the same: even cosmology\nattracts interest only in a very small degree. Myth and history are\npageantry and masks. Moral ideas (virtues and duties) dominate even the\nreligious sphere, which in its final basis has no independent authority.\nThe interest in psychology and apologetic is very pronounced. On the\nother hand, the emphasis, which, in principle, is put on the contrast of\nspirit and matter, God and the world, had for results: inability to rest\nin the actual realities of the cosmos, efforts to unriddle the history\nof the universe backwards and forwards, recognition of this process as\nthe essential task of theoretic philosophy, and a deep, yearning\nconviction that the course of the world needs assistance. Here were\ngiven the conditions for the ideas of revelation, redemption, etc., and\nthe restless search for powers from whom help might come, received here\nalso a scientific justification. The rationalistic apologetic interests\nthereby fell into the background: contemplation and historical\ndescription predominated.[134]\n\nThe stages in the ecclesiastical history of dogma, from the middle of\nthe first to the middle of the fifth century, correspond to the stages\nin the history of the ancient religion during the same period. The\nApologists, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus; the Alexandrians;\nMethodius, and the Cappadocians; Dionysius, the Areopagite, have their\nparallels in Seneca, Marcus Aurelius; Plutarch, Epictetus, Numenius;\nPlotinus, Porphyry; Iamblichus and Proclus.\n\nBut it is not only Greek philosophy that comes into question for the\nhistory of Christian dogma. The whole of Greek culture must be taken\ninto account. In his posthumous work, Hatch has shewn in a masterly way\nhow that is to be done. He describes the Grammar, the Rhetoric, the\nlearned Profession, the Schools, the Exegesis, the Homilies, etc., of\nthe Greeks, and everywhere shews how they passed over into the Church,\nthus exhibiting the Philosophy, the Ethic, the speculative Theology, the\nMysteries, etc., of the Greeks, as the main factors in the process of\nforming the ecclesiastical mode of thought.\n\nBut, besides the Greek, there is no mistaking the special influence of\nRomish ideas and customs upon the Christian Church. The following points\nspecially claim attention: (1) The conception of the contents of the\nGospel and its application as \"salus legitima,\" with the results which\nfollowed from the naturalising of this idea. (2) The conception of the\nword of Revelation, the Bible, etc., as \"lex.\" (3) The idea of tradition\nin its relation to the Romish idea. (4) The Episcopal constitution of\nthe Church, including the idea of succession, of the Primateship and\nuniversal Episcopate, in their dependence on Romish ideas and\ninstitutions (the Ecclesiastical organisation in its dependence on the\nRoman Empire). (5) The separation of the idea of the \"sacrament\" from\nthat of the \"mystery\", and the development of the forensic discipline of\npenance. The investigation has to proceed in a historical line,\ndescribed by the following series of chapters: Rome and Tertullian; Rome\nand Cyprian; Rome, Optatus and Augustine; Rome and the Popes of the\nfifth century. We have, to shew how, by the power of her constitution\nand the earnestness and consistency of her policy, Rome a second time,\nstep by step, conquered the world, but this time the Christian\nworld.[135]\n\nGreek philosophy exercised the greatest influence not only on the\nChristian mode of thought, but also through that, on the institutions of\nthe Church. The Church never indeed became a philosophic school: but yet\nin her was realised in a peculiar way, that which the Stoics and the\nCynics had aimed at. The Stoic (Cynic) Philosopher also belonged to the\nfactors from which the Christian Priests or Bishops were formed. That\nthe old bearers of the Spirit--Apostles, Prophets, Teachers--have been\nchanged into a class of professional moralists and preachers, who bridle\nthe people by counsel and reproof [Greek: nouthetein kai elenchein],\nthat this class considers itself and desires to be considered as a\nmediating Kingly Divine class, that its representatives became \"Lords\"\nand let themselves be called \"Lords\", all this was prefigured in the\nStoic wise man and in the Cynic Missionary. But so far as these several\n\"Kings and Lords\" are united in the idea and reality of the Church and\nare subject to it, the Platonic idea of the republic goes beyond the\nStoic and Cynic ideals, and subordinates them to it. But this Platonic\nideal has again obtained its political realisation in the Church through\nthe very concrete laws of the Roman Empire, which were more and more\nadopted, or taken possession of. Consequently, in the completed Church\nwe find again the philosophic schools and the Roman Empire.\n\n_Literature._--Besides the older works of Tzschirner, Doellinger,\nBurckhardt, Preller, see Friedlaender, Darstellungen aus der Sittengesch.\nRoms. in der Zeit von August bis zum Ausgang der Antonine, 3 Bd. Aufl.\nBoissier, La Religion Romaine d'Auguste aux Antonins, 2 Bd. 1874.\nRamsay, The Church in the Roman Empire before 170. London, 1893.\nReville, La Religion a Rome sous les Severes, 1886. Schiller, Geschichte\nder Roem. Kaiserzeit, 1883. Marquardt, Roemische Staatsverwaltung, 3 Bde.\n1878. Foucart, Les Associations Relig. chez les Grecs, 1873. Liebeman,\nZ. Gesch. u. Organisation d. Roem. Vereinswesen, 1890. K.J. Neumann, Der\nRoem. Staat und die allg. Kirche, Bd. I. 1890. Leopold Schmidt, Die Ethik\nder alten Griechen, 2 Bd. 1882. Heinrici, Die Christengemeinde Korinth's\nund die religioesen Genossenschaften der Griechen, in der Ztschr. f.\nwissensch. Theol. 1876-77. Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and\nUsages upon the Christian Church. Buechner, De neocoria, 1888.\nHirschfeld, Z. Gesch. d. roem. Kaisercultus. The Histories of Philosophy\nby Zeller, Erdmann, Ueberweg, Struempell, Windelband, etc. Heinze, Die\nLehre vom Logos in der Griech. Philosophie, 1872. By same Author, Der\nEudaemonismus in der Griech. Philosophie, 1883. Hirzel, Untersuchungen zu\nCicero's philos. Schriften, 3 Thle. 1877-1883. These investigations are\nof special value for the history of dogma, because they set forth with\nthe greatest accuracy and care, the later developments of the great\nGreek philosophic schools, especially on Roman soil. We must refer\nspecially to the discussions on the influence of the Roman on the Greek\nPhilosophy. Volkmann, Die Rhetorik der Griechen und Roemer, 1872.\n\n\n_Supplementary._\n\nPerhaps the most important fact for the following development of the\nhistory of Dogma, the way for which had already been prepared in the\nApostolic age, is the twofold conception of the aim of Christ's\nappearing, or of the religious blessing of salvation. The two\nconceptions were indeed as yet mutually dependent on each other, and\nwere twined together in the closest way, just as they are presented in\nthe teaching of Jesus himself; but they began even at this early period\nto be differentiated. Salvation, that is to say, was conceived, on the\none hand, as sharing in the glorious kingdom of Christ soon to appear,\nand everything else was regarded as preparatory to this sure prospect;\non the other hand, however, attention was turned to the conditions and\nto the provisions of God wrought by Christ, which first made men capable\nof attaining that portion, that is, of becoming sure of it. Forgiveness\nof sin, righteousness, faith, knowledge, etc., are the things which come\ninto consideration here, and these blessings themselves, so far as they\nhave as their sure result life in the kingdom of Christ, or more\naccurately eternal life, may be regarded as salvation. It is manifest\nthat these two conceptions need not be exclusive. The first regards the\nfinal effect as the goal and all else as a preparation, the other\nregards the preparation, the facts already accomplished by Christ and\nthe inner transformation of men as the main thing, and all else as the\nnatural and necessary result. Paul, above all, as may be seen especially\nfrom the arguments in the epistle to the Romans, unquestionably favoured\nthe latter conception and gave it vigorous expression. The peculiar\nconflicts with which he saw himself confronted, and, above all, the\ngreat controversy about the relation of the Gospel and the new\ncommunities to Judaism, necessarily concentrated the attention on\nquestions as to the arrangements on which the community of those\nsanctified in Christ should rest, and the conditions of admission to\nthis community. But the centre of gravity of Christian faith might also\nfor the moment be removed from the hope of Christ's second advent, and\nwould then necessarily be found in the first advent, in virtue of which\nsalvation was already prepared for man, and man for salvation (Rom.\nIII.-VIII.). The dual development of the conception of Christianity\nwhich followed from this, rules the whole history of the Gospel to the\npresent day. The eschatological view is certainly very severely\nrepressed, but it always breaks out here and there, and still guards the\nspiritual from the secularisation which threatens it. But the\npossibility of uniting the two conceptions in complete harmony with each\nother, and on the other hand, of expressing them antithetically, has\nbeen the very circumstance that has complicated in an extraordinary\ndegree the progress of the development of the history of dogma. From\nthis follows the antithesis, that from that conception which somehow\nrecognises salvation itself in a present spiritual possession, eternal\nlife in the sense of immortality may be postulated as final result,\nthough not a glorious kingdom of Christ on earth; while, conversely, the\neschatological view must logically depreciate every blessing which can\nbe possessed in the present life.\n\nIt is now evident that the theology, and, further, the Hellenising, of\nChristianity, could arise and has arisen in connection, not with the\neschatological, but only with the other conception. Just because the\nmatters here in question were present spiritual blessings, and because,\nfrom the nature of the case, the ideas of forgiveness of sin,\nrighteousness, knowledge, etc., were not so definitely outlined in the\nearly tradition, as the hopes of the future, conceptions entirely new\nand very different, could, as it were, be secretly naturalised. The\nspiritual view left room especially for the great contrast of a\nreligious and a moralistic conception, as well as for a frame of mind\nwhich was like the eschatological in so far as, according to it, faith\nand knowledge were to be only preparatory blessings in contrast with the\npeculiar blessing of immortality, which of course was contained in them.\nIn this frame of mind the illusion might easily arise that this hope of\nimmortality was the very kernel of those hopes of the future for which\nold concrete forms of expression were only a temporary shell. But it\nmight further be assumed that contempt for the transitory and finite as\nsuch, was identical with contempt for the kingdom of the world which the\nreturning Christ would destroy.\n\nThe history of dogma has to shew how the old eschatological view was\ngradually repressed and transformed in the Gentile Christian\ncommunities, and how there was finally developed and carried out a\nspiritual conception in which a strict moralism counterbalanced a\nluxurious mysticism, and wherein the results of Greek practical\nphilosophy could find a place. But we must here refer to the fact, which\nis already taught by the development in the Apostolic age, that\nChristian dogmatic did not spring from the eschatological, but from the\nspiritual mode of thought. The former had nothing but sure hopes and the\nguarantee of these hopes by the Spirit, by the words of prophecy and by\nthe apocalyptic writings. One does not think, he lives and dreams, in\nthe eschatological mode of thought; and such a life was vigorous and\npowerful till beyond the middle of the second century. There can be no\nexternal authorities here; for one has at every moment the highest\nauthority in living operation in the Spirit. On the other hand, not only\ndoes the ecclesiastical christology essentially spring from the\nspiritual way of thinking, but very specially also the system of\ndogmatic guarantees. The co-ordination of [Greek: logos theou, didache\nkuriou, kerygma ton dodeka apostolon] [word of God, teaching of the\nLord, preaching of the twelve Apostles], which lay at the basis of all\nGentile Christian speculation almost from the very beginning, and which\nwas soon directed against the enthusiasts, originated in a conception\nwhich regarded as the essential thing in Christianity, the sure\nknowledge which is the condition of immortality. If, however, in the\nfollowing sections of this historical presentation, the pervading and\ncontinuous opposition of the two conceptions is not everywhere clearly\nand definitely brought into prominence, that is due to the conviction\nthat the historian has no right to place the factors and impelling ideas\nof a development in a clearer light than they appear in the development\nitself. He must respect the obscurities and complications as they come\nin his way. A clear discernment of the difference of the two conceptions\nwas very seldom attained to in ecclesiastical antiquity, because they\ndid not look beyond their points of contact, and because certain\narticles of the eschatological conception could never be suppressed or\nremodelled in the Church. Goethe (Dichtung und Wahrheit, II. 8,) has\nseen this very clearly. \"The Christian religion wavers between its own\nhistoric positive element and a pure Deism, which, based on morality, in\nits turn offers itself as the foundation of morality. The difference of\ncharacter and mode of thought shew themselves here in infinite\ngradations, especially as another main distinction cooperates with them,\nsince the question arises, what share the reason, and what the feelings,\ncan and should have in such convictions.\" See, also, what immediately\nfollows.\n\n2. The origin of a series of the most important Christian customs and\nideas is involved in an obscurity which in all probability will never be\ncleared up. Though one part of those ideas may be pointed out in the\nepistles of Paul, yet the question must frequently remain unanswered,\nwhether he found them in existence or formed them independently, and\naccordingly the other question, whether they are exclusively indebted to\nthe activity of Paul for their spread and naturalisation in Christendom.\nWhat was the original conception of baptism? Did Paul develop\nindependently his own conception? What significance had it in the\nfollowing period? When and where did baptism in the name of the Father,\nSon and Holy Spirit arise, and how did it make its way in Christendom?\nIn what way were views about the saving value of Christ's death\ndeveloped alongside of Paul's system? When and how did belief in the\nbirth of Jesus from a Virgin gain acceptance in Christendom? Who first\ndistinguished Christendom, as [Greek: ekklesia tou theou], from Judaism,\nand how did the concept [Greek: ekklesia] become current? How old is the\ntriad: Apostles, Prophets and Teachers? When were Baptism and the Lord's\nSupper grouped together? How old are our first three Gospels? To all\nthese questions and many more of equal importance there is no sure\nanswer. But the greatest problem is presented by Christology, not indeed\nin its particular features doctrinally expressed, these almost\neverywhere may be explained historically, but in its deepest roots as it\nwas preached by Paul as the principle of a new life (2 Cor. V. 17), and\nas it was to many besides him the expression of a personal union with\nthe exalted Christ (Rev. II. 3). But this problem exists only for the\nhistorian who considers things only from the outside, or seeks for\nobjective proofs. Behind and in the Gospel stands the Person of Jesus\nChrist who mastered men's hearts, and constrained them to yield\nthemselves to him as his own, and in whom they found their God. Theology\nattempted to describe in very uncertain and feeble outline what the mind\nand heart had grasped. Yet it testifies of a new life which, like all\nhigher life, was kindled by a Person, and could only be maintained by\nconnection with that Person. \"I can do all things through Christ who\nstrengtheneth me.\" \"I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.\" These\nconvictions are not dogmas and have no history, and they can only be\npropagated in the manner described by Paul, Gal. I. 15, 16.\n\n3. It was of the utmost importance for the legitimising of the later\ndevelopment of Christianity as a system of doctrine, that early\nChristianity had an Apostle who was a theologian, and that his Epistles\nwere received into the canon. That the doctrine about Christ has become\nthe main article in Christianity is not of course the result of Paul's\npreaching, but is based on the confession that Jesus is the Christ. The\ntheology of Paul was not even the most prominent ruling factor in the\ntransformation of the Gospel to the Catholic doctrine of faith, although\nan earnest study of the Pauline Epistles by the earliest Gentile\nChristian theologians, the Gnostics, and their later opponents, is\nunmistakable. But the decisive importance of this theology lies in the\nfact that, as a rule, it formed the boundary and the foundation--just as\nthe words of the Lord himself--for those who in the following period\nendeavoured to ascertain original Christianity, because the Epistles\nattesting it stood in the canon of the New Testament. Now, as this\ntheology comprised both speculative and apologetic elements, as it can\nbe thought of as a system, as it contained a theory of history and a\ndefinite conception of the Old Testament, finally, as it was composed of\nobjective and subjective ethical considerations and included the\nrealistic elements of a national religion (wrath of God, sacrifice,\nreconciliation, Kingdom of glory), as well as profound psychological\nperceptions and the highest appreciation of spiritual blessings, the\nCatholic doctrine of faith as it was formed in the course of time,\nseemed, at least in its leading features, to be related to it, nay,\ndemanded by it. For the ascertaining of the deep-lying distinctions,\nabove all for the perception that the question in the two cases is about\nelements quite differently conditioned, that even the method is\ndifferent, in short, that the Pauline Gospel is not identical with the\noriginal Gospel and much less with any later doctrine of faith, there is\nrequired such historical judgment and such honesty of purpose not to be\nled astray in the investigation by the canon of the New Testament,[136]\nthat no change in the prevailing ideas can be hoped for for long years\nto come. Besides, critical theology has made it difficult, to gain an\ninsight into the great difference that lies between the Pauline and the\nCatholic theology, by the one-sided prominence it has hitherto given to\nthe antagonism between Paulinism and Judaistic Christianity. In contrast\nwith this view the remark of Havet, though also very one-sided, is\ninstructive, \"Quand on vient de relire Paul, on ne peut meconnaitre le\ncaractere eleve de son oeuvre. Je dirai en un mot, qu'il a agrandi dans\nune proportion extraordinaire l'attrait que le judaisme exercait sur le\nmonde ancien\" (Le Christianisme, T. IV. p. 216). That, however, was only\nvery gradually the case and within narrow limits. The deepest and most\nimportant writings of the New Testament are incontestably those in which\nJudaism is understood as religion, but spiritually overcome and\nsubordinated to the Gospel as a new religion,--the Pauline Epistles, the\nEpistle to the Hebrews, and the Gospel and Epistle of John. There is set\nforth in these writings a new and exalted world of religious feelings,\nviews and judgments, into which the Christians of succeeding centuries\ngot only meagre glimpses. Strictly speaking, the opinion that the New\nTestament in its whole extent comprehends a unique literature is not\ntenable; but it is correct to say that between its most important\nconstituent parts, and the literature of the period immediately\nfollowing there is a great gulf fixed.\n\nBut Paulinism especially has had an immeasurable and blessed influence\non the whole course of the history of dogma, an influence it could not\nhave had, if the Pauline Epistles had not been received into the canon.\nPaulinism is a religious and Christocentric doctrine, more inward and\nmore powerful than any other which has ever appeared in the Church. It\nstands in the clearest opposition to all merely natural moralism, all\nrighteousness of works, all religious ceremonialism, all Christianity\nwithout Christ. It has therefore become the conscience of the Church,\nuntil the Catholic Church in Jansenism killed this her conscience. \"The\nPauline reactions describe the critical epochs of theology and the\nChurch.\"[137] One might write a history of dogma as a history of the\nPauline reactions in the Church, and in doing so would touch on all the\nturning points of the history. Marcion after the Apostolic Fathers;\nIrenaeus, Clement and Origen after the Apologists; Augustine after the\nFathers of the Greek Church;[138] the great Reformers of the middle ages\nfrom Agobard to Wessel in the bosom of the mediaeval Church; Luther after\nthe Scholastics; Jansenism after the council of Trent:--Everywhere it\nhas been Paul, in these men, who produced the Reformation. Paulinism has\nproved to be a ferment in the history of dogma, a basis it has never\nbeen.[139] Just as it had that significance in Paul himself, with\nreference to Jewish Christianity, so it has continued to work through\nthe history of the Church.\n\n\n[Footnote 46: The Old Testament of itself alone could not have convinced\nthe Graeco-Roman world. But the converse question might perhaps be raised\nas to what results the Gospel would have had in that world without its\nunion with the Old Testament. The Gnostic Schools and the Marcionite\nChurch are to some extent the answer. But would they ever have arisen\nwithout the presupposition of a Christian community which recognised the\nOld Testament?]\n\n[Footnote 47: We here leave out of account learned attempts to expound\nPaulinism. Nor do we take any notice of certain truths regarding the\nrelation of the Old Testament to the New, and regarding the Jewish\nreligion, stated by the Antignostic church teachers, truths which are\ncertainly very important, but have not been sufficiently utilised.]\n\n[Footnote 48: There is indeed no single writing of the new Testament\nwhich does not betray the influence of the mode of thought and general\nconditions of the culture of the time which resulted from the\nHellenising of the east: even the use of the Greek translation of the\nOld Testament attests this fact. Nay, we may go further, and say that\nthe Gospel itself is historically unintelligible, so long as we compare\nit with an exclusive Judaism as yet unaffected by any foreign influence.\nBut on the other hand, it is just as clear that, specifically, Hellenic\nideas form the presuppositions neither for the Gospel itself, nor for\nthe most important New Testament writings. It is a question rather as to\na general spiritual atmosphere created by Hellenism, which above all\nstrengthened the individual element, and with it the idea of completed\npersonality, in itself living and responsible. On this foundation we\nmeet with a religious mode of thought in the Gospel and the early\nChristian writings, which so far as it is at all dependent on an earlier\nmode of thought, is determined by the spirit of the Old Testament\n(Psalms and Prophets) and of Judaism. But it is already otherwise with\nthe earliest Gentile Christian writings. The mode of thought here is so\nthoroughly determined by the Hellenic spirit that we seem to have\nentered a new world when we pass from the synoptists, Paul and John, to\nClement, Barnabas, Justin or Valentinus. We may therefore say,\nespecially in the frame-work of the history of dogma, that the Hellenic\nelement has exercised an influence on the Gospel first on Gentile\nChristian soil, and by those who were Greek by birth, if only we reserve\nthe general spiritual atmosphere above referred to. Even Paul is no\nexception; for in spite of the well-founded statements of Weizsaecker\n(Apostolic Age, vol. I. Book 11) and Heinrici (Das 2 Sendschreiben an\ndie Korinthier, 1887, p. 578 ff), as to the Hellenism of Paul, it is\ncertain that the Apostle's mode of religious thought, in the strict\nsense of the word, and therefore also the doctrinal formation peculiar\nto him, are but little determined by the Greek spirit. But it is to be\nspecially noted that as a missionary and an Apologist he made use of\nGreek ideas (Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians). He was not afraid\nto put the Gospel into Greek modes of thought. To this extent we can\nalready observe in him the beginning of the development which we can\ntrace so clearly in the Gentile Church from Clement to Justin, and from\nJustin to Irenaeus.]\n\n[Footnote 49: The complete universalism of salvation is given in the\nPauline conception of Christianity. But this conception is singular.\nBecause: (1) the Pauline universalism is based on a criticism of the\nJewish religion as religion, including the Old Testament, which was not\nunderstood and therefore not received by Christendom in general. (2)\nBecause Paul not only formulated no national anti-Judaism, but always\nrecognised the prerogative of the people of Israel as a people. (3)\nBecause his idea of the Gospel, with all his Greek culture, is\nindependent of Hellenism in its deepest grounds. This peculiarity of the\nPauline Gospel is the reason why little more could pass from it into the\ncommon consciousness of Christendom than the universalism of salvation,\nand why the later development of the Church cannot be explained from\nPaulinism. Baur, therefore, was quite right when he recognised that we\nmust exhibit another and more powerful element in order to comprehend\nthe post-Pauline formations. In the selection of this element, however,\nhe has made a fundamental mistake, by introducing the narrow national\nJewish Christianity, and he has also given much too great scope to\nPaulinism by wrongly conceiving it as Gentile Christian doctrine. One\ngreat difficulty for the historian of the early Church is that he cannot\nstart from Paulinism, the plainest phenomenon of the Apostolic age, in\nseeking to explain the following development, that in fact the premises\nfor this development are not at all capable of being indicated in the\nform of outlines, just because they were too general. But, on the other\nhand, the Pauline Theology, this theology of one who had been a\nPharisee, is the strongest proof of the independent and universal power\nof the impression made by the Person of Jesus.]\n\n[Footnote 50: In the main writings of the New Testament itself we have a\ntwofold conception of the Spirit. According to the one he comes upon the\nbeliever fitfully, expresses himself in visible signs, deprives men of\nself-consciousness, and puts them beside themselves. According to the\nother, the spirit is a constant possession of the Christian, operates in\nhim by enlightening the conscience and strengthening the character, and\nhis fruits are love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, etc. (Gal. V.\n22). Paul above all taught Christians to value these fruits of the\nspirit higher than all the other effects of his working. But he has not\nby any means produced a perfectly clear view on this point: for \"he\nhimself spoke with more tongues than they all.\" As yet \"Spirit\" lay\nwithin \"Spirit.\" One felt in the spirit of sonship a completely new gift\ncoming from God and recreating life, a miracle of God; further, this\nspirit also produced sudden exclamations--\"Abba, Father;\" and thus\nshewed himself in a way patent to the senses. For that very reason, the\nspirit of ecstasy and of miracle appeared identical with the spirit of\nsonship. (See Gunkel, Die Wirkungen d. h. Geistes nach der populaeren\nAnschauung der Apostol. Zeit. Goettingen, 1888).]\n\n[Footnote 51: It may even be said here that the [Greek: athanasia (zoe\naionios)], on the one hand, and the [Greek: ekklesia], on the other,\nhave already appeared in place of the [Greek: Basileia tou theou], and\nthat the idea of Messiah has been finally replaced by that of the Divine\nTeacher and of God manifest in the flesh.]\n\n[Footnote 52: It is one of the merits of Bruno Bauer (Christus und die\nCaesaren, 1877), that he has appreciated the real significance of the\nGreek element in the Gentile Christianity which became the Catholic\nChurch and doctrine, and that he has appreciated the influence of the\nJudaism of the Diaspora as a preparation for this Gentile Christianity.\nBut these valuable contributions have unfortunately been deprived of\ntheir convincing power by a baseless criticism of the early Christian\nliterature, to which Christ and Paul have fallen a sacrifice. Somewhat\nmore cautious are the investigations of Havet in the fourth volume of Le\nChristianisme, 1884; Le Nouveau Testament. He has won great merit by the\ncorrect interpretation of the elements of Gentile Christianity\ndeveloping themselves to catholicism, but his literary criticism is\noften unfortunately entirely abstract, reminding one of the criticism of\nVoltaire, and therefore his statements in detail are, as a rule,\narbitrary and untenable. There is a school in Holland at the present\ntime closely related to Bruno Bauer and Havet, which attempts to banish\nearly Christianity from the world. Christ and Paul are creations of the\nsecond century: the history of Christianity begins with the passage of\nthe first century into the second--a peculiar phenomenon on the soil of\nHellenised Judaism in quest of a Messiah. This Judaism created Jesus\nChrist just as the later Greek religious philosophers created their\nSaviour (Apollonius, for example). The Marcionite Church produced Paul\nand the growing Catholic Church completed him. See the numerous\ntreatises of Loman, the Verisimilia of Pierson and Naber (1886), and the\nanonymous English work \"Antiqua Mater\" (1887), also the works of Steck\n(see especially his Untersuchung ueber den Galaterbrief). Against these\nworks see P.V. Schmidt's, \"Der Galaterbrief,\" 1892. It requires a deep\nknowledge of the problems which the first two centuries of the Christian\nChurch present, in order not to thrust aside as simply absurd these\nattempts, which as yet have failed to deal with the subject in a\nconnected way. They have their strength in the difficulties and riddles\nwhich are contained in the history of the formation of the Catholic\ntradition in the second century. But the single circumstance that we are\nasked to regard as a forgery such a document as the first Epistle of\nPaul to the Corinthians, appears to me, of itself, to be an unanswerable\nargument against the new hypotheses.]\n\n[Footnote 53: It would be a fruitful task, though as yet it has not been\nundertaken, to examine how long visions, dreams and apocalypses, on the\none hand, and the claim of speaking in the power and name of the Holy\nSpirit, on the other, played a _role_ in the early Church; and further\nto shew how they nearly died out among the laity, but continued to live\namong the clergy and the monks, and how, even among the laity, there\nwere again and again sporadic outbreaks of them. The material which the\nfirst three centuries present is very great. Only a few may be mentioned\nhere: Ignat. ad. Rom. VII. 2; ad. Philad. VII; ad Eph. XX. 1, etc.; 1\nClem. LXIII. 2; Martyr. Polyc.; Acta Perpet. et Felic; Tertull de animo\nXLVII.; \"Major paene vis hominum e visionibus deum discunt.\" Orig. c.\nCelsum. i. 46: [Greek: polloi hosperei akontes proseleluthasi\nchristianismo, pneumatos tinos trepsantos ... kai phantasiosantos autous\nhupar e onar] (even Arnobius was ostensibly led to Christianity by a\ndream). Cyprian makes the most extensive use of dreams, visions, etc.,\nin his letters, see for example Ep. XI. 3-5; XVI. 4 (\"praeter nocturnas\nvisiones per dies quoque impletur apud nos spiritu sancto puerorum\ninnocens aetas, quae in ecstasi videt,\" etc.); XXXIX. 1; LXVI 10 (very\ninteresting: \"quamquam sciam somnia ridicula et visiones ineptas\nquibusdam videri, sed utique illis, qui malunt contra sacerdotes credere\nquam sacerdoti, sed nihil mirum, quando de Joseph fratres sui dixerunt:\necce somniator ille,\" etc.). One who took part in the baptismal\ncontroversy in the great Synod of Carthage writes, \"secundum motum animi\nmei et spiritus sancti.\" The enthusiastic element was always evoked with\nspecial power in times of persecution, as the genuine African\nmartyrdoms, from the second half of the third century, specially shew.\nCf. especially the passio Jacobi, Mariani, etc. But where the enthusiasm\nwas not convenient it was called, as in the case of the Montanists,\ndaemonic. Even Constantine operated with dreams and visions of Christ\n(see his Vita).]\n\n[Footnote 54: As to the first, the recently discovered \"Teaching of the\nApostles\" in its first moral part, shews a great affinity with the moral\nphilosophy which was set up by Alexandrian Jews and put before the Greek\nworld as that which had been revealed: see Massebieau, L'enseignement\ndes XII. Apotres, Paris, 1884, and in the Journal \"Le Temoignage,\" 7\nFebr. 1885. Usener, in his Preface to the Ges. Abhandl. Jacob Bernays',\nwhich he edited, 1885, p.v.f., has, independently of Massebieau, pointed\nout the relationship of chapters 1-5 of the \"Teaching of the Apostles\"\nwith the Phocylidean poem (see Bernays' above work, p. 192 ff.). Later\nTaylor, \"The teaching of the twelve Apostles\", 1886, threw out the\nconjecture that the Didache had a Jewish foundation, and I reached the\nsame conclusion independently of him: see my Treatise: Die Apostellehre\nund die judischen beiden Wege, 1886.]\n\n[Footnote 55: It is well known that Judaism at the time of Christ\nembraced a great many different tendencies. Beside Pharisaic Judaism as\nthe stem proper there was a motley mass of formations which resulted\nfrom the contact of Judaism with foreign ideas, customs, and\ninstitutions (even with Babylonian and Persian), and which attained\nimportance for the development of the predominant church as well as for\nthe formation of the so-called gnostic Christian communions. Hellenic\nelements found their way even into Pharisaic theology. Orthodox Judaism\nitself has marks which shew that no spiritual movement was able to\nescape the influence which proceeded from the victory of the Greeks over\nthe east. Besides who would venture to exhibit definitely the origin and\ncauses of that spiritualising of religions and that limitation of the\nmoral standard of which we can find so many traces in the Alexandrian\nage? The nations who inhabited the eastern shore of the Mediterranean\nsea had from the fourth century B.C. a common history and therefore had\nsimilar convictions. Who can decide what each of them acquired by its\nown exertions and what it obtained through interchange of opinions? But\nin proportion as we see this we must be on our guard against jumbling\nthe phenomena together and effacing them. There is little meaning in\ncalling a thing Hellenic, as that really formed an element in all the\nphenomena of the age. All our great political and ecclesiastical parties\nto-day are dependent on the ideas of 1789 and again on romantic ideas.\nIt is just as easy to verify this as it is difficult to determine the\nmeasure and the manner of the influence for each group. And yet the\nunderstanding of it turns altogether on this point. To call Pharisaism\nor the Gospel or the old Jewish Christianity Hellenic is not paradox but\nconfusion.]\n\n[Footnote 56: The Acts of the Apostles is in this respect a most\ninstructive book. It as well as the Gospel of Luke is a document of\nGentile Christianity developing itself to Catholicism; Cf. Overbeck in\nhis Commentar z Apostelgesch. But the comprehensive judgment of Havet in\nthe work above mentioned (IV. p. 395) is correct: \"L hellenisme tient\nassez peu de place dans le N.T. du moins l hellenisme voulu et reflechi.\nCes livres sont ecrits en grec et leurs auteurs vivaient en pays grec,\nil y a donc eu chez eux infiltration des idees et des sentiments\nhelleniques, quelquefois meme l imagination hellenique y a penetre comme\ndans le 3 evangile et dans les Actes. Dans son ensemble le N.T. garde le\ncaractere d un livre hebraique. Le christianisme ne commence avoir une\nlitterature et des doctrines vraiment helleniques qu au milieu du second\nsiecle. Mais il y avait un judaisme celui d Alexandrie qui avait faite\nalliance avec l hellenisme avant meme qu il y eut des chretiens.\"]\n\n[Footnote 57: The right of distinguishing (b) and (c) may be contested.\nBut if we surrender this we therewith surrender the right to distinguish\nkernel and husk in the original proclamation of the Gospel. The dangers\nto which the attempt is exposed should not frighten us from it for it\nhas its justification in the fact that the Gospel is neither doctrine\nnor law.]\n\n[Footnote 58: Therewith are, doubtless, heavenly blessings bestowed in\nthe present. Historical investigation has, notwithstanding, every reason\nfor closely examining whether, and in how far, we may speak of a present\nfor the Kingdom of God, in the sense of Jesus. But even if the question\nhad to be answered in the negative, it would make little or no\ndifference for the correct understanding of Jesus' preaching. The Gospel\nviewed in its kernel is independent of this question. It deals with the\ninner constitution and mood of the soul.]\n\n[Footnote 59: The question whether, and in what degree, a man of himself\ncan earn righteousness before God is one of those theoretic questions to\nwhich Jesus gave no answer. He fixed his attention on all the gradations\nof the moral and religious conduct of his countrymen as they were\nimmediately presented to him, and found some prepared for entrance into\nthe kingdom of God, not by a technical mode of outward preparation, but\nby hungering and thirsting for it, and at the same time unselfishly\nserving their brethren. Humility and love unfeigned were always the\ndecisive marks of these prepared ones. They are to be satisfied with\nrighteousness before God, that is, are to receive the blessed feeling\nthat God is gracious to them as sinners, and accepts them as his\nchildren. Jesus, however, allows the popular distinction of sinners and\nrighteous to remain, but exhibits its perverseness by calling sinners to\nhim and by describing the opposition of the righteous to his Gospel as a\nmark of their godlessness and hardness of heart.]\n\n[Footnote 60: The blessings of the kingdom were frequently represented\nby Jesus as a reward for work done. But this popular view is again\nbroken through by reference to the fact that all reward is the gift of\nGod's free grace.]\n\n[Footnote 61: Some Critics--most recently Havet, Le Christianisme et ses\norigines, 1884. T. IV. p. 15 ff.--have called in question the fact that\nJesus called himself Messiah. But this article of the Evangelic\ntradition seems to me to stand the test of the most minute\ninvestigation. But, in the case of Jesus, the consciousness of being the\nMessiah undoubtedly rested on the certainty of being the Son of God,\ntherefore of knowing the Father and being constrained to proclaim that\nknowledge.]\n\n[Footnote 62: We can gather with certainty from the Gospels that Jesus\ndid not enter on his work with the announcement: Believe in me for I am\nthe Messiah. On the contrary, he connected his work with the baptising\nmovement of John, but carried that movement further, and thereby made\nthe Baptist his forerunner (Mark I. 15: [Greek: peplerotai ho kairos kai\nengiken he basileia tou theou, metanoeite kai pisteuete en toi\neuaggelioi]). He was in no hurry to urge anything that went beyond that\nmessage, but gradually prepared, and cautiously required of his\nfollowers an advance beyond it. The goal to which he led them was to\nbelieve in him as Messiah without putting the usual political\nconstruction on the Messianic ideal.]\n\n[Footnote 63: Even \"Son of Man\" probably means Messiah: we do not know\nwhether Jesus had any special reason for favouring this designation\nwhich springs from Dan. VII. The objection to interpreting the word as\nMessiah really resolves itself into this, that the disciples (according\nto the Gospels) did not at once recognise him as Messiah. But that is\nexplained by the contrast of his own peculiar idea of Messiah with the\npopular idea. The confession of him as Messiah was the keystone of their\nconfidence in him, inasmuch as by that confession they separated\nthemselves from old ideas.]\n\n[Footnote 64: The distinction between the Father and the Son stands out\njust as plainly in the sayings of Jesus, as the complete obedient\nsubordination of the Son to the Father. Even according to John's Gospel,\nJesus finishes the work which the Father has given him, and is obedient\nin everything even unto death. He declares Matt. XIX. 17: [Greek: heis\nestin ho agathos]. Special notice should be given to Mark XIII. 32,\n(Matt. XXIV. 36). Behind the only manifested life of Jesus, later\nspeculation has put a life in which he wrought, not in subordination and\nobedience, but in like independence and dignity with God. That goes\nbeyond the utterances of Jesus even in the fourth Gospel. But it is no\nadvance beyond these, especially in the religious view and speech of the\ntime, when it is announced that the relation of the Father to the Son\nlies beyond time. It is not even improbable that the sayings in the\nfourth Gospel referring to this, have a basis in the preaching of Jesus\nhimself.]\n\n[Footnote 65: Paul knew that the designation of God as the Father of our\nLord Jesus Christ, was the new Evangelic confession. Origen was the\nfirst among the Fathers (though before him Marcion) to recognise that\nthe decisive advance beyond the Old Testament stage of religion, was\ngiven in the preaching of God as Father; see the exposition of the\nLord's prayer in his treatise _De oratione_. No doubt the Old Testament,\nand the later Judaism knew the designation of God as Father; but it\napplied it to the Jewish nation, it did not attach the evangelic meaning\nto the name, and it did not allow itself in any way to be guided in its\nreligion by this idea.]\n\n[Footnote 66: See the farewell discourses in John, the fundamental ideas\nof which are, in my opinion, genuine, that is, proceed from Jesus.]\n\n[Footnote 67: The historian cannot regard a miracle as a sure given\nhistorical event: for in doing so he destroys the mode of consideration\non which all historical investigation rests. Every individual miracle\nremains historically quite doubtful, and a summation of things doubtful\nnever leads to certainty. But should the historian, notwithstanding, be\nconvinced that Jesus Christ did extraordinary things, in the strict\nsense miraculous things, then, from the unique impression he has\nobtained of this person, he infers the possession by him of supernatural\npower. This conclusion itself belongs to the province of religious\nfaith: though there has seldom been a strong faith which would not have\ndrawn it. Moreover, the healing miracles of Jesus are the only ones that\ncome into consideration in a strict historical examination. These\ncertainly cannot be eliminated from the historical accounts without\nutterly destroying them. But how unfit are they of themselves, after\n1800 years, to secure any special importance to him to whom they are\nattributed, unless that importance was already established apart from\nthem. That he could do with himself what he would, that he created a new\nthing without overturning the old, that he won men to himself by\nannouncing the Father, that he inspired without fanaticism, set up a\nkingdom without politics, set men free from the world without\nasceticism, was a teacher without theology, at a time of fanaticism and\npolitics, asceticism and theology, is the great miracle of his person,\nand that he who preached the Sermon on the Mount declared himself in\nrespect of his life and death, to be the Redeemer and Judge of the\nworld, is the offence and foolishness which mock all reason.]\n\n[Footnote 68: See Mark X. 45.--That Jesus at the celebration of the\nfirst Lord's supper described his death as a sacrifice which he should\noffer for the forgiveness of sin, is clear from the account of Paul.\nFrom that account it appears to be certain, that Jesus gave expression\nto the idea of the necessity and saving significance of his death for\nthe forgiveness of sins, in a symbolical ordinance (based on the\nconclusion of the covenant, Exod. XXIV. 3 ff., perhaps, as Paul\npresupposes, on the Passover), in order that His disciples by repeating\nit in accordance with the will of Jesus, might be the more deeply\nimpressed by it. Certain observations based on John VI., on the supper\nprayer in the Didache, nay, even on the report of Mark, and supported at\nthe same time by features of the earliest practice in which it had the\ncharacter of a real meal, and the earliest theory of the supper, which\nviewed it as a communication of eternal life and an anticipation of the\nfuture existence, have for years made me doubt very much whether the\nPauline account and the Pauline conception of it, were really either the\noldest, or the universal and therefore only one. I have been\nstrengthened in this suspicion by the profound and remarkable\ninvestigation of Spitta (z. Gesch. u. Litt. d. Urchristenthums: Die\nurchristl. Traditionen ue. den Urspr. u. Sinnd. Abendmahls, 1893). He\nsees in the supper as not instituted, but celebrated by Jesus, the\nfestival of the Messianic meal, the anticipated triumph over death, the\nexpression of the perfection of the Messianic work, the symbolic\nrepresentation of the filling of believers with the powers of the\nMessianic kingdom and life. The reference to the Passover and the death\nof Christ was attached to it later, though it is true very soon. How\nmuch is thereby explained that was hitherto obscure--critical,\nhistorical, and dogmatico-historical questions--cannot at all be stated\nbriefly. And yet I hesitate to give a full recognition to Spitta's\nexposition: the words 1 Cor. XI. 23: [Greek: ego gar parelabon apo tou\nkuriou, ho kai paredoka humin k.t.l.] are too strong for me. Cf.\nbesides, Weizsaecker's investigation in \"The Apostolic Age.\" Lobstein, La\ndoctrine de la s. cene. 1889. A. Harnack i.d. Texten u. Unters. VII. 2.\np. 139 ff. Schuerer, Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1891, p. 29 ff. Juelicher Abhandl. f\nWeizsaecker, 1892, p. 215 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 69: With regard to the eschatology, no one can say in detail\nwhat proceeds from Jesus, and what from the disciples. What has been\nsaid in the text does not claim to be certain, but only probable. The\nmost important, and at the same time the most certain point, is that\nJesus made the definitive fate of the individual depend on faith,\nhumility and love. There are no passages in the Gospel which conflict\nwith the impression that Jesus reserved day and hour to God, and wrought\nin faith and patience as long as for him it was day.]\n\n[Footnote 70: He did not impose on every one, or desire from every one\neven the outward following of himself: see Mark V. 18-19. The \"imitation\nof Jesus\", in the strict sense of the word, did not play any noteworthy\nrole either in the Apostolic or in the old Catholic period.]\n\n[Footnote 71: It is asserted by well-informed investigators, and may be\ninferred from the Gospels (Mark XII. 32-34; Luke X. 27, 28), perhaps\nalso from the Jewish original of the Didache, that some representatives\nof Pharisaism, beside the pedantic treatment of the law, attempted to\nconcentrate it on the fundamental moral commandments. Consequently, in\nPalestinian and Alexandrian Judaism at the time of Christ, in virtue of\nthe prophetic word and the Thora, influenced also, perhaps, by the Greek\nspirit which everywhere gave the stimulus to inwardness, the path was\nindicated in which the future development of religion was to follow.\nJesus entered fully into the view of the law thus attempted, which\ncomprehended it as a whole and traced it back to the disposition. But he\nfreed it from the contradiction that adhered to it, (because, in spite\nof and alongside the tendency to a deeper perception, men still\npersisted in deducing righteousness from a punctilious observance of\nnumerous particular commandments, because in so doing they became\nself-satisfied, that is, irreligious, and because in belonging to\nAbraham they thought they had a claim of right on God). For all that, so\nfar as a historical understanding of the activity of Jesus is at all\npossible, it is to be obtained from the soil of Pharisaism, as the\nPharisees were those who cherished and developed the Messianic\nexpectations, and because, along with their care for the Thora, they\nsought also to preserve, in their own way, the prophetic inheritance. If\neverything does not deceive us, there were already contained in the\nPharisaic theology of the age, speculations which were fitted to modify\nconsiderably the narrow view of history, and to prepare for\nuniversalism. The very men who tithed mint, anise and cummin, who kept\ntheir cups and dishes outwardly clean, who, hedging round the Thora,\nattempted to hedge round the people, spoke also of the sum total of the\nlaw. They made room in their theology for new ideas which are partly to\nbe described as advances, and on the other hand, they have already\npondered the question even in relation to the law, whether submission to\nits main contents was not sufficient for being numbered among the people\nof the covenant (see Renan: _Paul_). In particular the whole sacrificial\nsystem, which Jesus also essentially ignored, was therewith thrust into\nthe background. Baldensperger (Selbstbewusstsein Jesu. p. 46) justly\nsays. \"There lie before us definite marks that the certainty of the\nnearness of God in the Temple (from the time of the Maccabees) begins to\nwaver, and the efficacy of the temple institutions to be called in\nquestion. Its recent desecration by the Romans, appears to the author of\nthe Psalms of Solomon (II. 2) as a kind of Divine requital for the sons\nof Israel, themselves having been guilty of so grossly profaning the\nsacrificial gifts. Enoch calls the shewbread of the second Temple\npolluted and unclean. There had crept in among the pious a feeling of\nthe insufficiency of their worship, and from this side the Essenic\nschism will certainly represent only the open outbreak of a disease\nwhich had already begun to gnaw secretly at the religious life of the\nnation\": see here the excellent explanations of the origin of Essenism\nin Lucius (Essenism 75 ff. 109 ff.) The spread of Judaism in the world,\nthe secularization and apostacy of the priestly caste, the desecration\nof the Temple, the building of the Temple at Leontopolis, the perception\nbrought about by the spiritualising of religion in the empire of\nAlexander the Great, that no blood of beast can be a means of\nreconciling God--all these circumstances must have been absolutely\ndangerous and fatal, both to the local centralisation of worship, and to\nthe statutory sacrificial system. The proclamation of Jesus (and of\nStephen) as to the overthrow of the Temple, is therefore no absolutely\nnew thing, nor is the fact that Judaism fell back upon the law and the\nMessianic hope, a mere result of the destruction of the Temple. This\nchange was rather prepared by the inner development. Whatever point in\nthe preaching of Jesus we may fix on, we shall find, that--apart from\nthe writings of the Prophets and the Psalms, which originated in the\nGreek Maccabean periods--parallels can be found only in Pharisaism, but\nat the same time that the sharpest contrasts must issue from it.\nTalmudic Judaism is not in every respect the genuine continuance of\nPharisaic Judaism, but a product of the decay which attests that the\nrejection of Jesus by the spiritual leaders of the people had deprived\nthe nation, and even the Virtuosi of Religion of their best part (see\nfor this the expositions of Kuenen \"Judaismus und Christenthum\", in his\n(Hibbert) lectures on national religions and world religions). The ever\nrecurring attempts to deduce the origin of Christianity from Hellenism,\nor even from the Roman Greek culture, are there also rightly, briefly\nand tersely rejected. Also the hypotheses, which either entirely\neliminate the person of Jesus or make him an Essene, or subordinate him\nto the person of Paul, may be regarded as definitively settled. Those\nwho think they can ascertain the origin of Christian religion from the\norigin of Christian Theology will, indeed, always think of Hellenism:\nPaul will eclipse the person of Jesus with those who believe that a\nreligion for the world must be born with a universalistic doctrine.\nFinally, Essenism will continue in authority with those who see in the\nposition of indifference which Jesus took to the Temple worship, the\nmain thing, and who, besides, create for themselves an \"Essenism of\ntheir own finding.\" Hellenism, and also Essenism, can of course indicate\nto the historian some of the conditions by which the appearance of Jesus\nwas prepared and rendered possible; but they explain only the\npossibility, not the reality of the appearance. But this with its\nhistorically not deducible power is the decisive thing. If some one has\nrecently said that \"the historical speciality of the person of Jesus\" is\nnot the main thing in Christianity, he has thereby betrayed that he does\nnot know how a religion that is worthy of the name is founded,\npropagated, and maintained. For the latest attempt to put the Gospel in\na historical connection with Buddhism (Seydel, Das Ev von Jesus in\nseinen Verhaeltnissen zur Buddha-Sage, 1882: likewise, Die Buddha-Legende\nund das Leben Jesu, 1884), see, Oldenburg, Theol. Lit-Z'g 1882. Col. 415\nf. 1884. 185 f. However much necessarily remains obscure to us in the\nministry of Jesus when we seek to place it in a historical\nconnection,--what is known is sufficient to confirm the judgment that\nhis preaching developed a germ in the religion of Israel (see the\nPsalms) which was finally guarded and in many respects developed by the\nPharisees, but which languished and died under their guardianship. The\npower of development which Jesus imported to it was not a power which he\nhimself had to borrow from without; but doctrine and speculation were as\nfar from him as ecstasy and visions. On the other hand, we must remember\nwe do not know the history of Jesus up to his public entrance on his\nministry, and that therefore we do not know whether in his native\nprovince he had any connection with Greeks.]\n\n[Footnote 72: See the brilliant investigations of Weizsaecker (Apost.\nZeitalter. p. 36) as to the earliest significant names,\nself-designations, of the disciples. The twelve were in the first place\n\"[Greek: mathetai],\" (disciples and family-circle of Jesus, see also the\nsignificance of James and the brethren of Jesus), then witnesses of the\nresurrection and therefore Apostles; very soon there appeared beside\nthem, even in Jerusalem, Prophets and Teachers.]\n\n[Footnote 73: The Christian preaching is very pregnantly described in\nActs XXVIII. 31. as [Greek: kerussein ten Basileian tou Theou, kai\ndidaskein ta peri tou Iesou Christou].]\n\n[Footnote 74: On the spirit of God (of Christ) see note, p. 50. The\nearliest Christians felt the influence of the spirit as one coming on\nthem from without.]\n\n[Footnote 75: It cannot be directly proved that Jesus instituted\nbaptism, for Matth. XXVIII. 19, is not a saying of the Lord. The reasons\nfor this assertion are: (1) It is only a later stage of the tradition\nthat represents the risen Christ as delivering speeches and giving\ncommandments. Paul knows nothing of it. (2) The Trinitarian formula is\nforeign to the mouth of Jesus and has not the authority in the Apostolic\nage which it must have had if it had descended from Jesus himself. On\nthe other hand, Paul knows of no other way of receiving the Gentiles\ninto the Christian communities than by baptism, and it is highly\nprobable that in the time of Paul all Jewish Christians were also\nbaptised. We may perhaps assume that the practice of baptism was\ncontinued in consequence of Jesus' recognition of John the Baptist and\nhis baptism, even after John himself had been removed. According to John\nIV. 2, Jesus himself baptised not, but his disciples under his\nsuperintendence. It is possible only with the help of tradition to trace\nback to Jesus a \"Sacrament of Baptism,\" or an obligation to it _ex\nnecessitate salutis_, though it is credible that tradition is correct\nhere. Baptism in the Apostolic age was [Greek: eis aphesin hamartion],\nand indeed [Greek: eis to onoma christou] (1 Cor. I. 13; Acts XIX. 5).\nWe cannot make out when the formula, [Greek: eis to onoma tou patros,\nkai tou huiou, kai tou hagiou pneumatos], emerged. The formula [Greek:\neis to onoma] expresses that the person baptised is put into a relation\nof dependence on him into whose name he is baptised. Paul has given\nbaptism a relation to the death of Christ, or justly inferred it from\nthe [Greek: eis aphesin hamartion]. The descent of the spirit on the\nbaptised very soon ceased to be regarded as the necessary and immediate\nresult of baptism; yet Paul, and probably his contemporaries also,\nconsidered the grace of baptism and the communication of the spirit to\nbe inseparably united. See Scholten. Die Taufformel. 1885. Holtzman, Die\nTaufe im N.T. Ztsch. f. wiss. Theol. 1879.]\n\n[Footnote 76: The designation of the Christian community as [Greek:\nekklesia] originates perhaps with Paul, though that is by no means\ncertain; see as to this \"name of honour,\" Sohm, Kirchenrecht, Vol. I. p.\n16 ff. The words of the Lord, Matt. XVI. 18; XVIII. 17, belong to a\nlater period. According to Gal. I. 22, [Greek: tais en christo] is added\nto the [Greek: tais ekklesiais tes Ioudaias]. The independence of every\nindividual Christian in, and before God is strongly insisted on in the\nEpistles of Paul, and in the Epistle of Peter, and in the Christian\nportions of Revelations: [Greek: epoiesen hemas basileian, hiereis toi\ntheo kai patri autou].]\n\n[Footnote 77: Jesus is regarded with adoring reverence as Messiah and\nLord, that is, these are regarded as the names which his Father has\ngiven him. Christians are those who call on the name of the Lord Jesus\nChrist (1 Cor. I. 2): every creature must bow before him and confess him\nas Lord (Phil. II. 9): see Deissmann on the N.T. formula \"in Christo\nJesu.\"]\n\n[Footnote 78: The confession of Father, Son and Spirit is therefore the\nunfolding of the belief that Jesus is the Christ: but there was no\nintention of expressing by this confession the essential equality of the\nthree persons, or even the similar relation of the Christian to them. On\nthe contrary, the Father, in it, is regarded as the God and Father over\nall, the Son as revealer, redeemer and Lord, the Spirit as a possession,\nprinciple of the new supernatural life and of holiness. From the\nEpistles of Paul we perceive that the Formula Father, Son and Spirit\ncould not yet have been customary, especially in Baptism. But it was\napproaching (2 Cor. XIII. 13).]\n\n[Footnote 79: The Christological utterances which are found in the New\nTestament writings, so far as they explain and paraphrase the confession\nof Jesus as the Christ and the Lord, may be almost entirely deduced from\none or other of the four points mentioned in the text. But we must at\nthe same time insist that these declarations were meant to be\nexplanations of the confession that \"Jesus is the Lord,\" which of course\nincluded the recognition that Jesus by the resurrection became a\nheavenly being (see Weizsaecker in above mentioned work, p. 110) The\nsolemn protestation of Paul, 1 Cor. XII. 3 [Greek: dio gnorizo humin\nhoti oudeis en pneumati theou lalon legei ANATHEMA IESOUS, kai oudeis\ndunatai eipein KURIOS IESOUS ei me en pneumati hagio] (cf. Rom. X. 9),\nshews that he who acknowledged Jesus as the Lord, and accordingly\nbelieved in the resurrection of Jesus, was regarded as a full-born\nChristian. It undoubtedly excludes from the Apostolic age the\nindependent authority of any christological dogma besides that\nconfession and the worship of Christ connected with it. It is worth\nnotice, however, that those early Christian men who recognised\nChristianity as the vanquishing of the Old Testament religion (Paul, the\nAuthor of the Epistle to the Hebrews, John) all held that Christ was a\nbeing who had come down from heaven.]\n\n[Footnote 80: Compare in their fundamental features the common\ndeclarations about the saving value of the death of Christ in Paul, in\nthe Johannine writings, in 1st Peter, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and\nin the Christian portions of the book of Revelation: [Greek: to agaponti\nhemas kai lusanti hemas ek ton hamartion en toi haimati autou, auto he\ndoxa]: Compare the reference to Isaiah LIII. and the Passover lamb: the\nutterances about the \"lamb\" generally in the early writings: see\nWestcott, The Epistles of John, p. 34 f.: The idea of the blood of\nChrist in the New Testament.]\n\n[Footnote 81: This of course could not take place otherwise than by\nreflecting on its significance. But a dislocation was already completed\nas soon as it was isolated and separated from the whole of Jesus, or\neven from his future activity. Reflection on the meaning or the causes\nof particular facts might easily, in virtue of that isolation, issue in\nentirely new conceptions.]\n\n[Footnote 82: See the discriminating statements of Weizsaecker,\n\"Apostolic Age\", p. 1 f., especially as to the significance of Peter as\nfirst witness of the resurrection. Cf. 1 Cor. XV. 5 with Luke XXIV. 34:\nalso the fragment of the \"Gospel of Peter\" which unfortunately breaks\noff at the point where one expects the appearance of the Lord to Peter.]\n\n[Footnote 83: It is often said that Christianity rests on the belief in\nthe resurrection of Christ. This may be correct, if it is first declared\nwho this Jesus Christ is, and what his life signifies. But when it\nappears as a naked report to which one must above all submit, and when\nin addition, as often happens, it is supplemented by the assertion that\nthe resurrection of Christ is the most certain fact in the history of\nthe world, one does not know whether he should marvel more at its\nthoughtlessness or its unbelief. We do not need to have faith in a fact,\nand that which requires religious belief, that is, trust in God, can\nnever be a fact which would hold good apart from that belief. The\nhistorical question and the question of faith must therefore be clearly\ndistinguished here. The following points are historically certain: (1)\nThat none of Christ's opponents saw him after his death. (2) That the\ndisciples were convinced that they had seen him soon after his death.\n(3) That the succession and number of those appearances can no longer be\nascertained with certainty. (4) That the disciples and Paul were\nconscious of having seen Christ not in the crucified earthly body, but\nin heavenly glory--even the later incredible accounts of the appearances\nof Christ, which strongly emphasise the reality of the body, speak at\nthe same time of such a body as can pass through closed doors, which\ncertainly is not an earthly body. (5) That Paul does not compare the\nmanifestation of Christ given to him with any of his later visions, but,\non the other hand, describes it in the words (Gal. I. 15): [Greek: hote\neudokesen ho theos apokalupsai ton huion autou en emoi], and yet puts it\non a level with the appearances which the earlier Apostles had seen.\nBut, as even the empty grave on the third day can by no means be\nregarded as a certain historical fact, because it appears united in the\naccounts with manifest legendary features, and further because it is\ndirectly excluded by the way in which Paul has portrayed the\nresurrection 1 Cor. XV. it follows: (1) That every conception which\nrepresents the resurrection of Christ as a simple reanimation of his\nmortal body, is far from the original conception, and (2) that the\nquestion generally as to whether Jesus has risen, can have no existence\nfor any one who looks at it apart from the contents and worth of the\nPerson of Jesus. For the mere fact that friends and adherents of Jesus\nwere convinced that they had seen him, especially when they themselves\nexplain that he appeared to them in heavenly glory, gives, to those who\nare in earnest about fixing historical facts not the least cause for the\nassumption that Jesus did not continue in the grave.\n\nHistory is therefore at first unable to bring any succour to faith here.\nHowever firm may have been the faith of the disciples in the appearances\nof Jesus in their midst, and it was firm, to believe in appearances\nwhich others have had is a frivolity which is always revenged by rising\ndoubts. But history is still of service to faith; it limits its scope\nand therewith shews the province to which it belongs. The question which\nhistory leaves to faith is this: Was Jesus Christ swallowed up of death,\nor did he pass through suffering and the cross to glory, that is, to\nlife, power and honour. The disciples would have been convinced of that\nin the sense in which Jesus meant them to understand it, though they had\nnot seen him in glory (a consciousness of this is found in Luke XXIV. 26\n[Greek: ouchi tauta edei pathein ton christon kai eiselthein eis ten\ndoxan autou], and Joh. XX. 29 [Greek: hoti eorakas me pepisteukas,\nmakarioi hoi me idontes kai pisteusantas]) and we might probably add,\nthat no appearances of the Lord could permanently have convinced them of\nhis life, if they had not possessed in their hearts the impression of\nhis Person. Faith in the eternal life of Christ and in our own eternal\nlife is not the condition of becoming a disciple of Jesus, but is the\nfinal confession of discipleship. Faith has by no means to do with the\nknowledge of the form in which Jesus lives, but only with the conviction\nthat he is the living Lord. The determination of the form was\nimmediately dependent on the most varied general ideas of the future\nlife, resurrection, restoration, and glorification of the body, which\nwere current at the time. The idea of the rising again of the body of\nJesus appeared comparatively early, because it was this hope which\nanimated wide circles of pious people for their own future. Faith in\nJesus, the living Lord, in spite of the death on the cross, cannot be\ngenerated by proofs of reason or authority, but only to-day in the same\nway as Paul has confessed of himself [Greek: hote eudokesen ho theos\napokalupssai ton huion autou en emoi]. The conviction of having seen the\nLord was no doubt of the greatest importance for the disciples and made\nthem Evangelists, but what they saw cannot at first help us. It can only\nthen obtain significance for us when we have gained that confidence in\nthe Lord which Peter has expressed in Mark VIII. 29. The Christian even\nto-day confesses with Paul [Greek: ei en te zoe taute en christo\nelpikotes esmen monon, eleeisteroi panton anthropon esmen]. He believes\nin a future life for himself with God because he believes that Christ\nlives. That is the peculiarity and paradox of Christian faith. But these\nare not convictions that can be common and matter of course to a deep\nfeeling and earnest thinking being standing amid nature and death, but\ncan only be possessed by those who live with their whole hearts and\nminds in God, and even they need the prayer, I believe, help thou mine\nunbelief. To act as if faith in eternal life and in the living Christ\nwas the simplest thing in the world, or a dogma to which one has just to\nsubmit, is irreligious. The whole question about the resurrection of\nChrist, its mode and its significance, has thereby been so thoroughly\nconfused in later Christendom, that we are in the habit of considering\neternal life as certain, even apart from Christ. That, at any rate, is\nnot Christian. It is Christian to pray that God would give the Spirit to\nmake us strong to overcome the feelings and the doubts of nature and\ncreate belief in an eternal life through the experience of dying to\nlive. Where this faith obtained in this way exists, it has always been\nsupported by the conviction that the Man lives who brought life and\nimmortality to light. To hold fast this faith is the goal of life, for\nonly what we consciously strive for is in this matter our own. What we\nthink we possess is very soon lost.]\n\n[Footnote 84: Weizsaecker (Apostolic Age, p. 73) says very justly: \"The\nrising of Judaism against believers put them on their own feet. They saw\nthemselves for the first time persecuted in the name of the law, and\ntherewith for the first time it must have become clear to them, that in\nreality the law was no longer the same to them as to the others. Their\nhope is the coming kingdom of heaven, in which it is not the law, but\ntheir Master from whom they expect salvation. Everything connected with\nsalvation is in him. But we should not investigate the conditions of the\nfaith of that early period, as though the question had been laid before\nthe Apostles whether they could have part in the Kingdom of heaven\nwithout circumcision, or whether it could be obtained by faith in Jesus,\nwith or without the observance of the law. Such questions had no\nexistence for them either practically or as questions of the school. But\nthough they were Jews, and the law which even their Master had not\nabolished, was for them a matter of course, that did not exclude a\nchange of inner position towards it, through faith in their Master and\nhope of the Kingdom. There is an inner freedom which can grow up\nalongside of all the constraints of birth, custom, prejudice, and piety.\nBut this only comes into consciousness, when a demand is made on it\nwhich wounds it, or when it is assailed on account of an inference drawn\nnot by its own consciousness, but only by its opponents.\"]\n\n[Footnote 85: Only one of these four tendencies--the Pauline, with the\nEpistle to the Hebrews and the Johannine writings which are related to\nPaulinism--has seen in the Gospel the establishment of a new religion.\nThe rest identified it with Judaism made perfect, or with the Old\nTestament religion rightly understood. But Paul, in connecting\nChristianity with the promise given to Abraham, passing thus beyond the\nlaw, that is, beyond the actual Old Testament religion, has not only\ngiven it a historical foundation, but also claimed for the Father of the\nJewish nation a unique significance for Christianity. As to the\ntendencies named 1 and 2, see Book I. chap. 6.]\n\n[Footnote 86: It is clear from Gal. II. 11 ff. that Peter then and for\nlong before occupied in principle the stand-point of Paul: see the\njudicious remarks of Weizsaecker in the book mentioned above, p. 75 f.]\n\n[Footnote 87: These four tendencies were represented in the Apostolic\nage by those who had been born and trained in Judaism, and they were\ncollectively transplanted into Greek territory. But we cannot be sure\nthat the third of the above tendencies found intelligent and independent\nrepresentatives in this domain, as there is no certain evidence of it.\nOnly one who had really been subject to it, and therefore understood it,\ncould venture on a criticism of the Old Testament religion. Still, it\nmay be noted that the majority of non-Jewish converts in the Apostolic\nage, had probably come to know the Old Testament beforehand--not always\nthe Jewish religion, (see Havet, Le Christianisme, T. IV. p. 120: \"Je ne\nsais s'il y est entre, du vivant de Paul, un seul paien: je veux dire un\nhomme, qui ne connut pas deja, avant d'y entrer, le judaisme et la\nBible\"). These indications will shew how mistaken and misleading it is\nto express the different tendencies in the Apostolic age and the period\nclosely following by the designations \"Jewish Christianity-Gentile\nChristianity.\" Short watchwords are so little appropriate here that one\nmight even with some justice reverse the usual conception, and maintain\nthat what is usually understood by Gentile Christianity (criticism of\nthe Old Testament religion) was possible only within Judaism, while that\nwhich is frequently called Jewish Christianity is rather a conception\nwhich must have readily suggested itself to born Gentiles superficially\nacquainted with the Old Testament.]\n\n[Footnote 88: The first edition of this volume could not appeal to\nWeizsaecker's work, Das Apostolische Zeitalter der Christlichen Kirche,\n1886, (second edition translated in this series). The author is now in\nthe happy position of being able to refer the readers of his imperfect\nsketch to this excellent presentation, the strength of which lies in the\ndelineation of Paulinism in its relation to the early Church, and to\nearly Christian theology (p. 79-172). The truth of Weizsaecker's\nexpositions of the inner relations (p. 85 f.), is but little affected by\nhis assumptions concerning the outer relations, which I cannot\neverywhere regard as just. The work of Weizsaecker as a whole is, in my\nopinion, the most important work on Church history we have received\nsince Ritschl's \"Entstehung der alt-katholischen Kirche.\" (2 Aufl.\n1857.)]\n\n[Footnote 89: Kabisch, _Die Eschatologie des Paulus_, 1893, has shewn\nhow strongly the eschatology of Paul was influenced by the later\nPharisaic Judaism. He has also called attention to the close connection\nbetween Paul's doctrine of sin and the fall, and that of the Rabbis.]\n\n[Footnote 90: Some of the Church Fathers (see Socr. H. E. III. 16) have\nattributed to Paul an accurate knowledge of Greek literature and\nphilosophy: but that cannot be proved. The references of Heinrici (2\nKor.-Brief. p. 537-604) are worthy of our best thanks; but no certain\njudgment can be formed about the measure of the Apostles' Greek culture,\nso long as we do not know how great was the extent of spiritual ideas\nwhich were already precipitated in the speech of the time.]\n\n[Footnote 91: The epistle to the Hebrews and the first epistle of Peter,\nas well as the Pastoral epistles belong to the Pauline circle; they are\nof the greatest value because they shew that certain fundamental\nfeatures of Pauline theology took effect afterwards in an original way,\nor received independent parallels, and because they prove that the\ncosmic Christology of Paul made the greatest impression and was\ncontinued. In Christology, the epistle to the Ephesians in particular,\nleads directly from Paul to the pneumatic Christology of the\npost-apostolic period. Its non-genuineness is by no means certain to\nme.]\n\n[Footnote 92: In the Ztschr. fuer Theol und Kirche, II. p. 189 ff. I have\ndiscussed the relation of the prologue of the fourth Gospel to the whole\nwork and endeavoured to prove the following: \"The prologue of the Gospel\nis not the key to its comprehension. It begins with a well-known great\nobject, the Logos, re-adapts and transforms it--implicitly opposing\nfalse Christologies--in order to substitute for it Jesus Christ, the\n[Greek: monogenes theos], or in order to unveil it as this Jesus Christ.\nThe idea of the Logos is allowed to fall from the moment that this takes\nplace.\" The author continues to narrate of Jesus only with the view of\nestablishing the belief that he is the Messiah, the son of God. This\nfaith has for its main article the recognition that Jesus is descended\nfrom God and from heaven; but the author is far from endeavouring to\nwork out this recognition from cosmological, philosophical\nconsiderations. According to the Evangelist, Jesus proves himself to be\nthe Messiah, the Son of God, in virtue of his self-testimony, and\nbecause he has brought a full knowledge of God and of life--purely\nsupernatural divine blessings (Cf. besides, and partly in opposition,\nHoltzmann, i.d. Ztschr. f. wissensch. Theol. 1893). The author's\npeculiar world of theological ideas, is not, however, so entirely\nisolated in the early Christian literature as appears on the first\nimpression. If, as is probable, the Ignatian Epistles are independent of\nthe Gospel of John, further, the Supper prayer in the Didache, finally,\ncertain mystic theological phrases in the Epistle of Barnabas, in the\nsecond epistle of Clement, and in Hermas, a complex of Theologoumena may\nbe put together, which reaches back to the primitive period of the\nChurch, and may be conceived as the general ground for the theology of\nJohn. This complex has on its side a close connection with the final\ndevelopment of the Jewish Hagiographic literature under Greek\ninfluence.]\n\n[Footnote 93: The Jewish religion, especially since the (relative) close\nof the canon, had become more and more a religion of the Book.]\n\n[Footnote 94: Examples of both in the New Testament are numerous. See,\nabove all, Matt. I. 11. Even the belief that Jesus was born of a Virgin\nsprang from Isaiah VII. 14. It cannot, however, be proved to be in the\nwritings of Paul (the two genealogies in Matt. and Luke directly exclude\nit: according to Dillmann, Jahrb. f. protest. Theol. p. 192 ff. Luke I.\n34, 35 would be the addition of a redactor); but it must have arisen\nvery early, as the Gentile Christians of the second century would seem\nto have unanimously confessed it (see the Romish Symbol, Ignatius,\nAristides, Justin, etc.) For the rest, it was long before theologians\nrecognised in the Virgin birth of Jesus more than fulfilment of a\nprophecy, viz., a fact of salvation. The conjecture of Usener, that the\nidea of the birth from a Virgin is a heathen myth which was received by\nthe Christians, contradicts the entire earliest development of Christian\ntradition which is free from heathen myths, so far as these had not\nalready been received by wide circles of Jews, (above all, certain\nBabylonian and Persian Myths), which in the case of that idea is not\ndemonstrable. Besides, it is in point of method not permissible to stray\nso far when we have near at hand such a complete explanation as Isaiah\nVII. 14. Those who suppose that the reality of the Virgin birth must be\nheld fast, must assume that a misunderstood prophecy has been here\nfulfilled (on the true meaning of the passage see Dillmann (Jesajas, 5\nAufl. p. 69): \"of the birth by a Virgin (i.e., of one who at the birth\nwas still a Virgin.) the Hebrew text says nothing ... Immanuel as\nbeginning and representative of the new generation, from which one\nshould finally take possession of the king's throne\"). The application\nof an unhistorical local method in the exposition of the Old\nTestament--Haggada and Rabbinic allegorism--may be found in many\npassages of Paul (see, e.g., Gal. III. 16, 19; IV. 22-31; 1 Cor. IX. 9;\nX. 4; XI. 10; Rom. IV. etc.).]\n\n[Footnote 95: The proof of this may be found in the quotations in early\nChristian writings from the Apocalypses of Enoch, Ezra, Eldad and Modad,\nthe assumption of Moses and other Jewish Apocalypses unknown to us. They\nwere regarded as Divine revelations beside the Old Testament; see the\nproofs of their frequent and long continued use in Schuerer's \"History of\nthe Jewish people in the time of our Lord.\" But the Christians in\nreceiving these Jewish Apocalypses did not leave them intact, but\nadapted them with greater or less Christian additions (see Ezra, Enoch,\nAscension of Isaiah). Even the Apocalypse of John is, as Vischer (Texte\nu. Unters. 3 altchristl. lit. Gesch. Bd. II. H. 4) has shown, a Jewish\nApocalypse adapted to a Christian meaning. But in this activity, and in\nthe production of little Apocalyptic prophetic sayings and articles (see\nin the Epistle to the Ephesians, and in those of Barnabas and Clement)\nthe Christian labour here in the earliest period seems to have exhausted\nitself. At least we do not know with certainty of any great Apocalyptic\nwriting of an original kind proceeding from Christian circles. Even the\nApocalypse of Peter which, thanks to the discovery of Bouriant, we now\nknow better, is not a completely original work as contrasted with the\nJewish Apocalypses.]\n\n[Footnote 96: The Gospel reliance on the Lamb who was slain, very\nsignificantly pervades the Revelation of John, that is, its Christian\nparts. Even the Apocalypse of Peter shews Jesus Christ as the comfort of\nbelievers and as the Revealer of the future. In it (v. 3,) Christ says;\n\"Then will God come to those who believe on me, those who hunger and\nthirst and mourn, etc.\"]\n\n[Footnote 97: These words were written before the Apocalypse of Peter\nwas discovered. That Apocalypse confirms what is said in the text.\nMoreover, its delineation of Paradise and blessedness are not wanting in\npoetic charm and power. In its delineation of Hell, which prepares the\nway for Dante's Hell, the author is scared by no terror.]\n\n[Footnote 98: These ideas, however, encircled the earliest Christendom\nas with a wall of fire, and preserved it from a too early contact with\nthe world.]\n\n[Footnote 99: An accurate examination of the eschatological sayings of\nJesus in the synoptists shews that much foreign matter is mixed with\nthem (see Weiffenbach, Der Wiederkunftsgedanke Jesu, 1875). That the\ntradition here was very uncertain because influenced by the Jewish\nApocalyptic, is shewn by the one fact that Papias (in Iren. V. 33)\nquotes as words of the Lord which had been handed down by the disciples,\na group of sayings which we find in the Apocalypse of Baruch, about the\namazing fruitfulness of the earth during the time of the Messianic\nKingdom.]\n\n[Footnote 100: We may here call attention to an interesting remark of\nGoethe. Among his Apophthegms (no. 537) is the following: \"Apocrypha: It\nwould be important to collect what is historically known about these\nbooks, and to shew that these very Apocryphal writings with which the\ncommunities of the first centuries of our era were flooded, were the\nreal cause why Christianity at no moment of political or Church history\ncould stand forth in all her beauty and purity.\" A historian would not\nexpress himself in this way, but yet there lies at the root of this\nremark a true historical insight.]\n\n[Footnote 101: See Schuerer, History of the Jewish people. Div. II. vol.\nII. p. 160 f., yet the remarks of the Jew Trypho in the dialogue of\nJustin shew that the notions of a pre-existent Messiah were by no means\nvery widely spread in Judaism. (See also Orig. c. Cels. I. 49: \"A Jew\nwould not at all admit that any Prophet had said, the Son of God will\ncome: they avoided this designation and used instead the saying: the\nanointed of God will come\"). The Apocalyptists and Rabbis attributed\npre-existence, that is, a heavenly origin to many sacred things and\npersons, such as the Patriarchs, Moses, the Tabernacle, the Temple\nvessels, the city of Jerusalem. That the true Temple and the real\nJerusalem were with God in heaven and would come down from heaven at the\nappointed time, must have been a very wide-spread idea, especially at\nthe time of the destruction of Jerusalem, and even earlier than that\n(see Gal. IV. 26; Rev. XXI. 2; Heb. XII. 22). In the Assumption of Moses\n(c. 1) Moses says of himself: Dominus invenit me, qui ab initio orbis\nterrarum praeparatus sum, ut sim arbiter ([Greek: mesites]) testamenti\nillius ([Greek: tes diathekes autou]). In the Midrasch Bereschith rabba\nVIII. 2. we read, \"R. Simeon ben Lakisch says, 'The law was in existence\n2000 years before the creation of the world.'\" In the Jewish treatise\n[Greek: Proseuche Ioseph], which Origen has several times quoted, Jacob\nsays of himself (ap. Orig. tom. II. in Joann. C. 25. Opp. IV. 84):\n\"[Greek: ho gar lalon pros humas, ego Iakob kai Isrel, angelos theou\neimi ego kai pneuma archikon kai Abraam kai Isaak proektisthesan pro\npantos ergou, ego de Iakob ... ego protogonos pantos zoos zooumenou hupo\ntheou].\" These examples could easily be increased. The Jewish\nspeculations about Angels and Mediators, which at the time of Christ\ngrew very luxuriantly among the Scribes and Apocalyptists, and\nendangered the purity and vitality of the Old Testament idea of God,\nwere also very important for the development of Christian dogmatics. But\nneither these speculations, nor the notions of heavenly Archetypes, nor\nof pre-existence, are to be referred to Hellenic influence. This may\nhave co-operated here and there, but the rise of these speculations in\nJudaism is not to be explained by it; they rather exhibit the Oriental\nstamp. But, of course, the stage in the development of the nations had\nnow been reached, in which the creations of Oriental fancy and Mythology\ncould be fused with the ideal conceptions of Hellenic philosophy.]\n\n[Footnote 102: The conception of heavenly ideals of precious earthly\nthings followed from the first naive method of speculation we have\nmentioned, that of a pre-existence of persons from the last. If the\nworld was created for the sake of the people of Israel, and the\nApocalyptists expressly taught that, then it follows, that in the\nthought of God Israel was older than the world. The idea of a kind of\npre-existence of the people of Israel follows from this. We can still\nsee this process of thought very plainly in the shepherd of Hermas, who\nexpressly declares that the world was created for the sake of the\nChurch. In consequence of this he maintains that the Church was very\nold, and was created before the foundation of the world. See Vis. I. 2.\n4; II. 4. 1 [Greek: Diati oun presbutera] (scil.) [Greek: he ekklesia:\nHoti, phesin, panton prote ektisthe dia touto presbutera, kai dia tauten\nho kosmos katertisthe]. But in order to estimate aright the bearing of\nthese speculations, we must observe that, according to them, the\nprecious things and persons, so far as they are now really manifested,\nwere never conceived as endowed with a double nature. No hint is given\nof such an assumption; the sensible appearance was rather conceived as a\nmere wrapping which was necessary only to its becoming visible, or,\nconversely, the pre-existence or the archetype was no longer thought of\nin presence of the historical appearance of the object. That pneumatic\nform of existence was not set forth in accordance with the analogy of\nexistence verified by sense, but was left in suspense. The idea of\n\"existence\" here could run through all the stages which, according to\nthe Mythology and Meta-physic of the time, lay between what we now call\n\"valid,\" and the most concrete being. He who nowadays undertakes to\njustify the notion of pre-existence, will find himself in a very\ndifferent situation from these earlier times, as he will no longer be\nable to count on shifting conceptions of existence. See Appendix I. at\nthe end of this Vol. for a fuller discussion of the idea of\npre-existence.]\n\n[Footnote 103: It must be observed here that Palestinian Judaism,\nwithout any apparent influence from Alexandria, though not independently\nof the Greek spirit, had already created a multitude of intermediate\nbeings between God and the world, avowing thereby that the idea of God\nhad become stiff and rigid. \"Its original aim was simply to help the God\nof Judaism in his need.\" Among these intermediate beings should be\nspecially mentioned the Memra of God (see also the Shechina and the\nMetatron).]\n\n[Footnote 104: See Justin Dial. 48. fin: Justin certainly is not\nfavourably disposed towards those who regard Christ as a \"man among\nmen,\" but he knows that there are such people.]\n\n[Footnote 105: The miraculous genesis of Christ in the Virgin by the\nHoly Spirit and the real pre-existence are of course mutually exclusive.\nAt a later period, it is true, it became necessary to unite them in\nthought.]\n\n[Footnote 106: There is the less need for treating this more fully here,\nas no New Testament Christology has become the direct starting-point of\nlater doctrinal developments. The Gentile Christians had transmitted to\nthem, as a unanimous doctrine, the message that Christ is the Lord who\nis to be worshipped, and that one must think of him as the Judge of the\nliving and the dead, that is, [Greek: hos peri theou]. But it certainly\ncould not fail to be of importance for the result that already many of\nthe earliest Christian writers, and therefore even Paul, perceived in\nJesus a spiritual being come down from heaven ([Greek: pneuma]) who was\n[Greek: en morphe theou], and whose real act of love consisted in his\nvery descent.]\n\n[Footnote 107: The creation of the New Testament canon first paved the\nway for putting an end, though only in part, to the production of\nEvangelic \"facts\" within the Church. For Hermas (Sim. IX. 16) can relate\nthat the Apostles also descended to the under world and there preached.\nOthers report the same of John the Baptist. Origen in his homily on 1\nKings XXVII. says that Moses, Samuel and all the Prophets descended to\nHades and there preached. A series of facts of Evangelic history which\nhave no parallel in the accounts of our Synoptists, and are certainly\nlegendary, may be put together from the epistle of Barnabas, Justin, the\nsecond epistle of Clement, Papias, the Gospel to the Hebrews, and the\nGospel to the Egyptians. But the synoptic reports themselves, especially\nin the articles for which we have only a solitary witness, shew an\nextensive legendary material, and even in the Gospel of John, the free\nproduction of facts cannot be mistaken. Of what a curious nature some of\nthese were, and that they are by no means to be entirely explained from\nthe Old Testament, as for example, Justin's account of the ass on which\nChrist rode into Jerusalem, having been bound to a vine, is shewn by the\nvery old fragment in one source of the Apostolic constitutions (Texte u.\nUnters II. 5. p. 28 ff.); [Greek: hote etpsen ho didaskalos ton arton\nkai to poterion kai eulogesen auta legon touto esti to soma mou kai to\nhaima, ouk epetrepse tautais] (the women) [Greek: sustenai hemin ...\nMartha eipen dia Mariam, hoti eiden auten meidiosan. Maria eipen ouketi\negelasa]. Narratives such as those of Christ's descent to Hell and\nascent to heaven, which arose comparatively late, though still at the\nclose of the first century (see Book I. Chap 3) sprang out of short\nformulae containing an antithesis (death and resurrection, first advent\nin lowliness, second advent in glory: descensus de coelo, ascensus in\nc[oe]lum; ascensus in coelum, descensus ad inferna) which appeared to be\nrequired by Old Testament predictions, and were commended by their\nnaturalness. Just as it is still, in the same way naively inferred: if\nChrist rose bodily he must also have ascended bodily (visibly?) into\nheaven.]\n\n[Footnote 108: The Sibylline Oracles, composed by Jews, from 160 B.C. to\n189 A.D. are specially instructive here: See the Editions of Friedlieb.\n1852; Alexandre, 1869; Rzach, 1891. Delaunay, Moines et Sibylles dans\nl'antiquite judeo-grecque, 1874. Schuerer in the work mentioned above.\nThe writings of Josephus also yield rich booty, especially his apology\nfor Judaism in the two books against Apion. But it must be noted that\nthere were Jews, enlightened by Hellenism, who were still very zealous\nin their observance of the law. \"Philo urges most earnestly to the\nobservance of the law in opposition to that party which drew the extreme\ninferences of the allegoristic method, and put aside the outer legality\nas something not essential for the spiritual life. Philo thinks that by\nan exact observance of these ceremonies on their material side, one will\nalso come to know better their symbolical meaning\" (Siegfried, Philo, p.\n157).]\n\n[Footnote 109: Direct evidence is certainly almost entirely wanting\nhere, but the indirect speaks all the more emphatically: see Sec. 3,\nSupplements 1, 2.]\n\n[Footnote 110: The Jewish propaganda, though by no means effaced, gave\nway very distinctly to the Christian from the middle of the second\ncentury. But from this time we find few more traces of an enlightened\nHellenistic Judaism. Moreover, the Messianic expectation also seems to\nhave somewhat given way to occupation with the law. But the God of\nAbraham, Isaac and Jacob, as well as other Jewish terms certainly played\na great role in Gentile and Gnostic magical formulae of the third\ncentury, as may be seen, e.g., from many passages in Origen c. Celsum.]\n\n[Footnote 111: The prerogative of Israel was for all that clung to;\nIsrael remains the chosen people.]\n\n[Footnote 112: The brilliant investigations of Bernays, however, have\nshewn how many-sided that philosophy of religion was. The proofs of\nasceticism in this Hellenistic Judaism are especially of great interest\nfor the history of dogma (See Theophrastus' treatise on piety). In the\neighth Epistle of Heraclitus, composed by a Hellenistic Jew in the first\ncentury, it is said (Bernays, p. 182). \"So long a time before, O\nHermodorus, saw thee that Sibyl, and even then thou wert\" [Greek: eide\nse pro posoutou aionos, Ermodore he Sibulla ekeine, kai tote estha].\nEven here then the notion is expressed that foreknowledge and\npredestination invest the known and the determined with a kind of\nexistence. Of great importance is the fact that even before Philo, the\nidea of the wisdom of God creating the world and passing over to men had\nbeen hypostatised in Alexandrian Judaism (see Sirach, Baruch, the wisdom\nof Solomon, Enoch, nay, even the book of Proverbs). But so long as the\ndeutero-canonical Old Testament, and also the Alexandrine and\nApocalyptic literature continue in the sad condition in which they are\nat present, we can form no certain judgment and draw no decided\nconclusions on the subject. When will the scholar appear who will at\nlength throw light on these writings, and therewith on the section of\ninner Jewish history most interesting to the Christian theologian? As\nyet we have only a most thankworthy preliminary study in Schuerer's great\nwork, and beside it particular or dilettante attempts which hardly shew\nwhat the problem really is, far less solve it. What disclosures even the\nfourth book of the Maccabees alone yields for the connection of the Old\nTestament with Hellenism!]\n\n[Footnote 113: \"So far as the sensible world is a work of the Logos, it\nis called [Greek: neoteros huios] (quod deus immut. 6. I.277), or\naccording to Prov. VIII. 22, an offspring of God and wisdom: [Greek: he\nde paradexamene to tou theou sperma telesphorois odisi ton monon kai\nagapeton aistheton huion apekuese ton de ton kosmon] (de ebriet 8 I. 361\nf). So far as the Logos is High Priest his relation to the world is\nsymbolically expressed by the garment of the High Priest, to which\nexegesis the play on the word [Greek: kosmos], as meaning both ornament\nand world, lent its aid.\" This speculation (see Siegfried. Philo, 235)\nis of special importance; for it shews how closely the ideas [Greek:\ncosmos] and [Greek: logos] were connected.]\n\n[Footnote 114: Of all the Greek Philosophers of the second century,\nPlutarch of Chaeronea, died c. 125 A.D., and Numenius of Apamea, second\nhalf of the second century, approach nearest to Philo; but the latter of\nthe two was undoubtedly familiar with Jewish philosophy, specially with\nPhilo, and probably also with Christian writings.]\n\n[Footnote 115: As to the way in which Philo (see also 4 Maccab. V. 24)\nlearned to connect the Stoic ethics with the authority of the Torah, as\nwas also done by the Palestinian Midrash, and represented the Torah as\nthe foundation of the world, and therewith as the law of nature: see\nSiegfried, Philo, p. 156.]\n\n[Footnote 116: Philo by his exhortations to seek the blessed life, has\nby no means broken with the intellectualism of the Greek philosophy, he\nhas only gone beyond it. The way of knowledge and speculation is to him\nalso the way of religion and morality. But his formal principle is\nsupernatural and leads to a supernatural knowledge which finally passes\nover into sight.]\n\n[Footnote 117: But everything was now ready for this synthesis so that\nit could be, and immediately was, completed by Christian philosophers.]\n\n[Footnote 118: We cannot discover Philo's influence in the writings of\nPaul. But here again we must remember that the scripture learning of\nPalestinian teachers developed speculations which appear closely related\nto the Alexandrian, and partly are so, but yet cannot be deduced from\nthem. The element common to them must, for the present at least, be\ndeduced from the harmony of conditions in which the different nations of\nthe East were at that time placed, a harmony which we cannot exactly\nmeasure.]\n\n[Footnote 119: The conception of God's relation to the world as given in\nthe fourth Gospel is not Philonic. The Logos doctrine there is therefore\nessentially not that of Philo (against Kuenen and others. See p. 93).]\n\n[Footnote 120: Siegfried (Philo. p. 160-197) has presented in detail\nPhilo's allegorical interpretation of scripture, his hermeneutic\nprinciples and their application. Without an exact knowledge of these\nprinciples we cannot understand the Scripture expositions of the\nFathers, and therefore also cannot do them justice.]\n\n[Footnote 121: See Siegfried, Philo. p. 176. Yet, as a rule, the method\nof isolating and adapting passages of scripture, and the method of\nunlimited combination were sufficient.]\n\n[Footnote 122: Numerous examples of this may be found in the epistle of\nBarnabas (see c. 4-9), and in the dialogue of Justin with Trypho (here\nthey are objects of controversy, see cc. 71-73, 120), but also in many\nother Christian writings, (e.g., Clem. ad. Cor. VIII. 3; XVII. 6; XXIII.\n3, 4; XXVI. 5; XLVI. 2; 2 Clem. XIII. 2). These Christian additions were\nlong retained in the Latin Bible, (see also Lactantius and other Latins:\nPseudo-Cyprian de aleat. 2 etc.), the most celebrated of them is the\naddition \"a ligno\" to \"dominus regnavit\" in Psalm XCVI., see Credner,\nBeitraege II. The treatment of the Old Testament in the epistle of\nBarnabas is specially instructive, and exhibits the greatest formal\nagreement with that of Philo. We may close here with the words in which\nSiegfried sums up his judgment on Philo. \"No Jewish writer has\ncontributed so much as Philo to the breaking up of particularism, and\nthe dissolution of Judaism. The history of his people, though he\nbelieved in it literally, was in its main points a didactic allegoric\npoem for enabling him to inculcate the doctrine that man attains the\nvision of God by mortification of the flesh. The law was regarded by him\nas the best guide to this, but it had lost its exclusive value, as it\nwas admitted to be possible to reach the goal without it, and it had,\nbesides, its aim outside itself. The God of Philo was no longer the old\nliving God of Israel, but an imaginary being who, to obtain power over\nthe world, needed a Logos by whom the palladium of Israel, the unity of\nGod, was taken a prey. So Israel lost everything which had hitherto\ncharacterised her.\"]\n\n[Footnote 123: Proofs in Friedlaender, Sittengeschichte, vol. 3.]\n\n[Footnote 124: See the chapter on belief in immortality in Friedlaender.\nSittengesch. Roms. Bde. 3. Among the numerous mysteries known to us,\nthat of Mythras deserves special consideration. From the middle of the\nsecond century the Church Fathers saw in it, above all, the caricature\nof the Church. The worship of Mithras had its redeemer, its mediator,\nhierarchy, sacrifice, baptism and sacred meal. The ideas of expiation,\nimmortality, and the Redeemer God, were very vividly present in this\ncult, which of course, in later times, borrowed much from Christianity:\nsee the accounts of Marquardt, Reville, and the Essay of Sayous, Le\nTaurobole in the Rev. de l'Hist. des Religions, 1887, where the earliest\nliterature is also utilised. The worship of Mithras in the third century\nbecame the most powerful rival of Christianity. In connection with this\nshould be specially noted the cult of AEsculapius, the God who helps the\nbody and the soul; see my essay \"Medicinisches aus der aeltesten\nKirchengeschichte,\" 1892. p. 93 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 125: Hence the wide prevalence of the cult of AEsculapius.]\n\n[Footnote 126: Dominus in certain circumstances means more than deus;\nsee Tertull. Apol. It signifies more than Soter: see Irenaeus I. 1. 3:\n[Greek: ton sotera legousin, oude gar kurion onomazein auton\nthelousin--kurios] and [Greek: despotes] are almost synonymous. See\nPhilo. Quis. rer. div. heres. 6: [Greek: sunonuma tauta einai legetai].]\n\n[Footnote 127: We must give special attention here to the variability\nand elasticity of the concept [Greek: theos], and indeed among the\ncultured as well as the uncultured (Orig. prolegg. in Psalm, in Pitra,\nAnal. T. II. p. 437, according to a Stoic source; [Greek: kat' allon de\ntropon legesthai theon zoion athanaton logikon opoudaion, hoste pasan\nasteian psychen theon huparchein, kan periechetai, allos de legesthai\ntheon to kath' auto on zoion athanaton hos ta en anthropois\nperiechomenas psychas me huparchein theous]). They still regarded the\nGods as passionless, blessed men living for ever. The idea therefore of\na [Greek: theopoiesis], and on the other hand, the idea of the\nappearance of the Gods in human form presented no difficulty (see Acts\nXIV. 11; XXVIII. 6). But philosophic speculation--the Platonic, as well\nas in yet greater measure the Stoic, and in the greatest measure of all\nthe Cynic--had led to the recognition of something divine in man's\nspirit ([Greek: pneuma, nous]). Marcus Aurelius in his Meditations\nfrequently speaks of the God who dwells in us. Clement of Alexandria\n(Strom. VI. 14. 113) says: [Greek: houtos dunamin labousa kuriaken he\npsyche meletai einai theos, kakon men ouden allo plen agnoias einai\nnomizousa.] In Bernays' Heraclitian Epistles, pp. 37 f. 135 f., will be\nfound a valuable exposition of the Stoic (Heraclitian) thesis and its\nhistory, that men are Gods. See Norden, Beitraege zur Gesch. d. griech.\nPhilos. Jahrb. f. klass Philol. XIX. Suppl. Bd. p. 373 ff., about the\nCynic Philosopher who, contemplating the life and activity of man\n([Greek: kataskopos]), becomes its [Greek: episkopos], and further\n[Greek: kurios, angelos theou, theos en anthropois]. The passages which\nhe adduces are of importance for the history of dogma in a twofold\nrespect. (1) They present remarkable parallels to Christology (one even\nfinds the designations, [Greek: kurios, angelos, kataskopos, episkopos,\ntheos] associated with the philosophers as with Christ, e.g., in Justin;\nnay, the Cynics and Neoplatonics speak of [Greek: episkopoi daimones]);\ncf. also the remarkable narrative in Laertius VI. 102, concerning the\nCynic Menedemus; [Greek: houtos, katha phesin Hippobotos, eis tosos ton\nterateias elasen, hoste Erinuos analabon schema perieiei, legon\nepiskopos aphichthai ex Haidou ton hamartomenon, hopos palin kation\ntasta apangelloi tois ekei, daimosin.] (2) They also explain how the\necclesiastical [Greek: episkopoi] came to be so highly prized, inasmuch\nas these also were from a very early period regarded as mediators\nbetween God and man, and considered as [Greek: en anthropois theoi].\nThere were not a few who in the first and second centuries, appeared\nwith the claim to be regarded as a God or an organ inspired and chosen\nby God (Simon Magus [cf. the manner of his treatment in Hippol. Philos.\nVI. 8: see also Clem. Hom. II. 27], Apollonius of Tyana (?), see further\nTacitus Hist. II. 51: \"Mariccus.... iamque adsertor Galliarum et deus,\nnomen id sibi indiderat\"; here belongs also the gradually developing\nworship of the Emperor: \"dominus ac deus noster.\" cf. Augustus,\nInscription of the year 25; 24 B.C. in Egypt [where the Ptolemies were\nfor long described as Gods] [Greek: Huper Kaisaros Autokrattoros theou]\n(Zeitschrift fur Aegypt. Sprache. XXXI Bd. p. 3). Domitian: [Greek:\ntheos Adrianos], Kaibel Inscr. Gr. 829. 1053. [Greek: theos Seoueros\nEusebes]. 1061--the Antinouscult with its prophets. See also Josephus on\nHerod Agrippa. Antiq. XIX 8. 2. (Euseb. H. E. II. 10). The flatterers\nsaid to him, [Greek: theon prosagoreuontes; ei kai mechri nun hos\nanthropon ephobethemen, alla tounteuthen kreittona se thnetes tes\nphuseos homologoumen.] Herod himself, Sec. 7, says to his friends in his\nsickness: [Greek: ho theos humin ego ede katastrephein epitattomai ton\nbion ... ho kletheis athanatos huph' hemon ede thanein apagomai]). On\nthe other hand, we must mention the worship of the founder in some\nphilosophic schools, especially among the Epicureans Epictetus says\n(Moral. 15), Diogenes and Heraclitus and those like them are justly\ncalled Gods. Very instructive in this connection are the reproaches of\nthe heathen against the Christians, and of Christian partisans against\none another with regard to the almost divine veneration of their\nteachers. Lucian (Peregr. II) reproaches the Christians in Syria for\nhaving regarded Peregrinus as a God and a new Socrates. The heathen in\nSmyrna, after the burning of Polycarp, feared that the Christians would\nbegin to pay him divine honours (Euseb. H. E. IV. 15 41). Caecilius in\nMinucius Felix speaks of divine honours being paid by Christians to\npriests (Octav. IX. 10). The Antimontanist (Euseb. H. E. V. 18. 6)\nasserts that the Montanists worship their prophet and Alexander the\nConfessor as divine. The opponents of the Roman Adoptians (Euseb. H. E.\nV. 28) reproach them with praying to Galen. There are many passages in\nwhich the Gnostics are reproached with paying Divine honours to the\nheads of their schools, and for many Gnostic schools (the Carpocratians,\nfor example) the reproach seems to have been just. All this is extremely\ninstructive. The genius, the hero, the founder of a new school who\npromises to shew the certain way to the _vita beata_, the emperor, the\nphilosopher (numerous Stoic passages might be noted here) finally, man,\nin so far as he is inhabited by [Greek: nous]--could all somehow be\nconsidered as [Greek: theoi], so elastic was this concept. All these\ninstances of Apotheosis in no way endangered the Monotheism which had\nbeen developed from the mixture of Gods and from philosophy; for the one\nsupreme Godhead can unfold his inexhaustible essence in a variety of\nexistences, which, while his creatures as to their origin, are parts of\nhis essence as to their contents. This Monotheism does not yet exactly\ndisclaim its Polytheistic origin. The Christian, Hermas, says to his\nMistress (Vis. I 1. 7) [Greek: ou pantote se hos thean hegesamen], and\nthe author of the Epistle of Diognetus writes (X. 6), [Greek: tauta tois\nepideomenois choregon], (i.e., the rich man) [Greek: theos ginetai ton\nlambanonton]. That the concept [Greek: theos] was again used only of one\nGod, was due to the fact that one now started from the definition \"qui\nvitam aeternam habet,\" and again from the definition \"qui est super omnia\net originem nescit.\" From the latter followed the absolute unity of God,\nfrom the former a plurality of Gods. Both could be so harmonised (see\nTertull. adv. Prax. and Novat. de Trinit.) that one could assume that\nthe God, _qui est super omnia_, might allow his monarchy to be\nadministered by several persons, and might dispense the gift of\nimmortality and with it a relative divinity.]\n\n[Footnote 128: See the so-called Neopythagorean philosophers and the\nso-called forerunners of Neoplatonism (Cf. Bigg, The Platonists of\nAlexandria, p. 250, as to Numenius). Unfortunately, we have as yet no\nsufficient investigation of the question what influence, if any, the\nJewish Alexandrian Philosophy of religion had on the development of\nGreek philosophy in the second and third centuries. The answering of the\nquestion would be of the greatest importance. But at present it cannot\neven be said whether the Jewish philosophy of religion had any influence\non the genesis of Neoplatonism. On the relation of Neoplatonism to\nChristianity and their mutual approximation, see the excellent account\nin Tzschirner, Fall des Heidenthums, pp. 574-618. Cf. also Reville, La\nReligion a Rome, 1886.]\n\n[Footnote 129: The Christians, that is the Christian preachers, were\nmost in agreement with the Cynics (see Lucian's Peregrinus Proteus),\nboth on the negative and on the positive side; but for that very reason\nthey were hard on one another (Justin and Tatian against Crescens)--not\nonly because the Christians gave a different basis for the right mode of\nlife from the Cynics, but above all, because they did not approve of the\nself-conscious, contemptuous, proud disposition which Cynicism produced\nin many of its adherents. Morality frequently underwent change for the\nworse in the hands of Cynics, and became the morality of a \"Gentleman,\"\nsuch as we have also experience of in modern Cynicism.]\n\n[Footnote 130: The attitude of Celsus, the opponent of the Christians,\nis specially instructive here.]\n\n[Footnote 131: For the knowledge of the spread of the idealistic\nphilosophy the statement of Origen (c. Celsum VI. 2) that Epictetus was\nadmired not only by scholars, but also by ordinary people who felt in\nthemselves the impulse to be raised to something higher, is well worthy\nof notice.]\n\n[Footnote 132: This point was of importance for the propaganda of\nChristianity among the cultured. There seemed to be given here a\nreliable, because revealed, Cosmology and history of the world--which\nalready contained the foundation of everything worth knowing. Both were\nneeded and both were here set forth in closest union.]\n\n[Footnote 133: The universalism as reached by the Stoics is certainly\nagain threatened by the self-righteous and self-complacent distinction\nbetween men of virtue, and men of pleasure, who, properly speaking, are\nnot men. Aristotle had already dealt with the virtuous elite in a\nnotable way. He says (Polit. 3. 13. p. 1284), that men who are\ndistinguished by perfect virtue should not be put on a level with the\nordinary mass, and should not be subjected to the constraints of a law\nadapted to the average man. \"There is no law for these elect, who are a\nlaw to themselves.\"]\n\n[Footnote 134: Notions of pre-existence were readily suggested by the\nPlatonic philosophy; yet this whole philosophy rests on the fact that\none again posits the thing (after stripping it of certain marks as\naccidental, or worthless, or ostensibly foreign to it) in order to\nexpress its value in this form, and hold fast the permanent in the\nchange of the phenomena.]\n\n[Footnote 135: See Tzschirn. i.d. Ztschr. f. K.-Gesch. XII. p. 215 ff.\n\"The genesis of the Romish Church in the second century.\" What he\npresents is no doubt partly incomplete, partly overdone and not proved:\nyet much of what he states is useful.]\n\n[Footnote 136: What is meant here is the imminent danger of taking the\nseveral constituent parts of the canon, even for historical\ninvestigation, as constituent parts, that is, of explaining one writing\nby the standard of another and so creating an artificial unity. The\ncontents of any of Paul's epistles, for example, will be presented very\ndifferently if it is considered by itself and in the circumstances in\nwhich it was written, or if attention is fixed on it as part of a\ncollection whose unity is presupposed.]\n\n[Footnote 137: See Bigg, The Christian Platonist of Alexandria, pp. 53,\n283 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 138: Reuter (August. Studien, p. 492) has drawn a valuable\nparallel between Marcion and Augustine with regard to Paul.]\n\n[Footnote 139: Marcion of course wished to raise it to the exclusive\nbasis, but he entirely misunderstood it.]\n\n\n\n\nDIVISION I.\n\nTHE GENESIS OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL DOGMA, OR THE GENESIS OF THE CATHOLIC\nAPOSTOLIC DOGMATIC THEOLOGY, AND THE FIRST SCIENTIFIC ECCLESIASTICAL\nSYSTEM OF DOCTRINE.\n\nBOOK I.\n\nTHE PREPARATION.\n\n[Greek: Ean murious paidagogous echete en christoi all' ou pollous\npateras.]\n\n1 Cor IV. 15.\n\nEine jede Idee tritt als ein fremder Gast in die Erscheinung, und wie\nsie sich zu realisiren beginnt, ist sie kaum von Phantasie und\nPhantasterei zu unterscheiden.\n\nGOETHE, Sprueche in Prosa, 566\n\n\n\n\nBOOK I\n\n_THE PREPARATION_\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nHISTORICAL SURVEY\n\n\nThe first century of the existence of Gentile Christian communities is\nparticularly characterised by the following features:\n\nI. The rapid disappearance of Jewish Christianity.[140]\n\nII. The enthusiastic character of the religious temper; the Charismatic\nteachers and the appeal to the Spirit.[141]\n\nIII. The strength of the hopes for the future, Chiliasm.[142]\n\nIV. The rigorous endeavour to fulfil the moral precepts of Christ, and\ntruly represent the holy and heavenly community of God in abstinence\nfrom everything unclean, and in love to God and the brethren here on\nearth \"in these last days.\"[143]\n\nV. The want of a fixed doctrinal form in relation to the abstract\nstatement of the faith, and the corresponding variety and freedom of\nChristian preaching on the basis of clear formulae and an increasingly\nrich tradition.\n\nVI. The want of a clearly defined external authority in the communities,\nsure in its application, and the corresponding independence and freedom\nof the individual Christian in relation to the expression of the ideas,\nbeliefs and hopes of faith.[144]\n\nVII. The want of a fixed political union of the several communities with\neach other--every _ecclesia_ is an image complete in itself, and an\nembodiment of the whole heavenly Church--while the consciousness of the\nunity of the holy Church of Christ which has the spirit in its midst,\nfound strong expression.[145]\n\nVIII. A quite unique literature in which were manufactured facts for the\npast and for the future, and which did not submit to the usual literary\nrules and forms, but came forward with the loftiest pretensions.[146]\n\nIX. The reproduction of particular sayings and arguments of Apostolic\nTeachers with an uncertain understanding of them.[147]\n\nX. The rise of tendencies which endeavoured to hasten in every respect\nthe inevitable process of fusing the Gospel with the spiritual and\nreligious interests of the time, viz., the Hellenic, as well as attempts\nto separate the Gospel from its origins and provide for it quite foreign\npresuppositions. To the latter belongs, above all, the Hellenic idea\nthat knowledge is not a charismatic supplement to the faith, or an\noutgrowth of faith alongside of others, but that it coincides with the\nessence of faith itself.[148]\n\nThe sources for this period are few, as there was not much written, and\nthe following period did not lay itself out for preserving a great part\nof the literary monuments of that epoch. Still we do possess a\nconsiderable number of writings and important fragments,[149] and\nfurther important inferences here are rendered possible by the monuments\nof the following period, since the conditions of the first century were\nnot changed in a moment, but were partly, at least, long preserved,\nespecially in certain national Churches and in remote communities.[150]\n\n_Supplement._--The main features of the message concerning Christ, of\nthe matter of the Evangelic history, were fixed in the first and second\ngenerations of believers, and on Palestinian soil. But yet, up to the\nmiddle of the second century, this matter was in many ways increased in\nGentile Christian regions, revised from new points of view, handed down\nin very diverse forms, and systematically allegorised by individual\nteachers. As a whole, the Evangelic history certainly appears to have\nbeen completed at the beginning of the second century. But in detail,\nmuch that was new was produced at a later period--and not only in\nGnostic circles--and the old tradition was recast or rejected.[151]\n\n\n[Footnote 140: This fact must have been apparent as early as the year\n100. The first direct evidence of it is in Justin (Apol. I. 53).]\n\n[Footnote 141: Every individual was, or at least should have been\nconscious, as a Christian, of having received the [Greek: pneuma theou],\nthough that does not exclude spiritual grades. A special peculiarity of\nthe enthusiastic nature of the religious temper is that it does not\nallow reflection as to the authenticity of the faith in which a man\nlives. As to the Charismatic teaching, see my edition of the Didache\n(Texte u Unters. II 1. 2 p. 93 ff.).]\n\n[Footnote 142: The hope of the approaching end of the world and the\nglorious kingdom of Christ still determined men's hearts; though\nexhortations against theoretical and practical scepticism became more\nand more necessary. On the other hand, after the Epistles to the\nThessalonians, there were not wanting exhortations to continue sober and\ndiligent.]\n\n[Footnote 143: There was a strong consciousness that the Christian\nChurch is, above all, a union for a holy life, as well as a\nconsciousness of the obligation to help one another, and use all the\nblessings bestowed by God in the service of our neighbours. Justin (2\nApol. in Euseb. H. E. IV. 17. 10) calls Christianity [Greek: to\ndidaskalion tes theias aretes].]\n\n[Footnote 144: The existing authorities (Old Testament, sayings of the\nLord, words of Apostles) did not necessarily require to be taken into\naccount; for the living acting Spirit, partly attesting himself also to\nthe senses, gave new revelations. The validity of these authorities\ntherefore held good only in theory, and might in practice be completely\nset aside (cf. above all, the Shepherd of Hermas).]\n\n[Footnote 145: Zahn remarks (Ignatius, v. A. p. VII.): \"I do not believe\nit to be the business of that province of historical investigation which\nis dependent on the writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers as main\nsources, to explain the origin of the universal Church in any sense of\nthe term; for that Church existed before Clement and Hermas, before\nIgnatius and Polycarp. But an explanatory answer is needed for the\nquestion, by what means did the consciousness of the 'universal Church'\nso little favoured by outer circumstances, maintain itself unbroken in\nthe post-Apostolic communities?\" This way of stating it obscures, at\nleast, the problem which here lies before us, for it does not take\naccount of the changes which the idea \"universal Church\" underwent up to\nthe middle of the third century--besides, we do not find the title\nbefore Ignatius. In so far as the \"universal Church\" is set forth as an\nearthly power recognisable in a doctrine or in political forms, the\nquestion as to the origin of the idea is not only allowable, but must be\nregarded as one of the most important. On the earliest conception of the\n\"Ecclesia\" and its realisation, see the fine investigations of Sohm\n\"Kirchenrecht,\" I. p. i ff., which, however, suffer from being a little\noverdriven.]\n\n[Footnote 146: See the important essay of Overbeck: Ueber die Anfaenge d.\npatrist. Litteratur (Hist. Ztschr. N. F. Bd. XII pp. 417-472). Early\nChristian literature, as a rule, claims to be inspired writing. One can\nsee, for example, in the history of the resurrection in the recently\ndiscovered Gospel of Peter (fragment) how facts were remodelled or\ncreated.]\n\n[Footnote 147: The writings of men of the Apostolic period, and that\nimmediately succeeding, attained in part a wide circulation, and in some\nportions of them, often of course incorrectly understood, very great\ninfluence. How rapidly this literature was diffused, even the letters,\nmay be studied in the history of the Epistles of Paul, the first Epistle\nof Clement, and other writings.]\n\n[Footnote 148: That which is here mentioned is of the greatest\nimportance; it is not a mere reference to the so-called Gnostics. The\nfoundations for the Hellenising of the Gospel in the Church were already\nlaid in the first century (50-150).]\n\n[Footnote 149: We should not over-estimate the extent of early Christian\nliterature. It is very probable that we know, so far as the titles of\nbooks are concerned, nearly all that was effective, and the greater\npart, by very diverse means, has also been preserved to us. We except,\nof course, the so-called Gnostic literature of which we have only a few\nfragments. Only from the time of Commodus, as Eusebius, H. E. V. 21. 27,\nhas remarked, did the great Church preserve an extensive literature.]\n\n[Footnote 150: It is therefore important to note the locality in which a\ndocument originates, and the more so the earlier the document is. In the\nearliest period, in which the history of the Church was more uniform,\nand the influence from without relatively less, the differences are\nstill in the background. Yet the spirit of Rome already announces itself\nin the Epistle of Clement, that of Alexandria in the Epistle of\nBarnabas, that of the East in the Epistles of Ignatius.]\n\n[Footnote 151: The history of the genesis of the four Canonical Gospels,\nor the comparison of them, is instructive on this point. Then we must\nbear in mind the old Apocryphal Gospels, and the way in which the\nso-called Apostolic Fathers and Justin attest the Evangelic history, and\nin part reproduce it independently, the Gospels of Peter, of the\nEgyptians, and of Marcion; the Diatesseron of Tatian; the Gnostic\nGospels and Acts of the Apostles, etc. The greatest gap in our knowledge\nconsists in the fact, that we know so little about the course of things\nfrom about the year 61 to the beginning of the reign of Trajan. The\nconsolidating and remodelling process must, for the most part, have\ntaken place in this period. We possess probably not a few writings which\nbelong to that period; but how are we to prove this, how are they to be\narranged? Here lies the cause of most of the differences, combinations\nand uncertainties; many scholars, therefore, actually leave these 40\nyears out of account, and seek to place everything in the first three\ndecennia of the second century.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nTHE ELEMENT COMMON TO ALL CHRISTIANS AND THE BREACH WITH JUDAISM\n\n\nOn account of the great differences among those who, in the first\ncentury, reckoned themselves in the Church of God, and called themselves\nby the name of Christ,[152] it seems at first sight scarcely possible to\nset up marks which would hold good for all, or even for nearly all, the\ngroups. Yet the great majority had one thing in common, as is proved,\namong other things, by the gradual expulsion of Gnosticism. The\nconviction that they knew the supreme God, the consciousness of being\nresponsible to him (Heaven and Hell), reliance on Jesus Christ, the hope\nof an eternal life, the vigorous elevation above the world--these are\nthe elements that formed the fundamental mood. The author of the Acts of\nThecla expresses the general view when he (c. 5-7) co-ordinates [Greek:\nton tou christou logon] with [Greek: logos theou peri enkateias, kai\nanastaseos]. The following particulars may here be specified.[153]\n\nI. The Gospel, because it rests on revelation, is the sure manifestation\nof the supreme God, and its believing acceptance guarantees salvation\n([Greek: soteria]).\n\nII. The essential content of this manifestation (besides the revelation\nand the verification of the oneness and spirituality of God),[154] is,\nfirst of all, the message of the resurrection and eternal life ([Greek:\nanastasis zoe aionios]), then the preaching of moral purity and\ncontinence ([Greek: enkrateia]), on the basis of repentance toward God\n([Greek: metanoia]), and of an expiation once assured by baptism, with\neye ever fixed on the requital of good and evil.[155]\n\nIII. This manifestation is mediated by Jesus Christ, who is the Saviour\n([Greek: soter]) sent by God \"in these last days,\" and who stands with\nGod himself in a union special and unique, (cf. the ambiguous [Greek:\npais theou], which was much used in the earliest period). He has brought\nthe true and full knowledge of God, as well as the gift of immortality\n[Greek: gnosis kai zoe], or [Greek: gnosis tes zoes], as an expression\nfor the sum of the Gospel. See the supper prayer in the Didache, c. IX.\nan X.; [Greek: eucharistoumen soi, pater hemon huper tes zoes kai\ngnoseos hes egnorisas hemin dia Iesou tou paidos sou], and is for that\nvery reason the redeemer ([Greek: soter] and victor over the demons) on\nwhom we are to place believing trust. But he is, further, in word and\nwalk the highest example of all moral virtue, and therefore in his own\nperson the law for the perfect life, and at the same time the\nGod-appointed lawgiver and judge.[156]\n\nIV. Virtue as continence, embraces as its highest task, renunciation of\ntemporal goods and separation from the common world; for the Christian\nis not a citizen, but a stranger on the earth, and expects its\napproaching destruction.[157]\n\nV. Christ has committed to chosen men, the Apostles (or to one Apostle),\nthe proclamation of the message he received from God; consequently,\ntheir preaching represents that of Christ himself. But, besides, the\nSpirit of God rules in Christians, \"the Saints.\" He bestows upon them\nspecial gifts, and, above all, continually raises up among them Prophets\nand spiritual Teachers who receive revelations and communications for\nthe edification of others, and whose injunctions are to be obeyed.\n\nVI. Christian Worship is a service of God in spirit and in truth (a\nspiritual sacrifice), and therefore has no legal ceremonial and\nstatutory rules. The value of the sacred acts and consecrations which\nare connected with the cultus, consists in the communication of\nspiritual blessings. (Didache X., [Greek: hemin de echariso, despota,\npneumatiken trophen kai poton kai zoen aionion dia tou paidos sou]).\n\nVII. Everything that Jesus Christ brought with him, may be summed up in\n[Greek: gnosis kai zoe], or in the knowledge of immortal life.[158] To\npossess the perfect knowledge was, in wide circles, an expression for\nthe sum total of the Gospel.[159]\n\nVIII. Christians, as such, no longer take into account the distinctions\nof race, age, rank, nationality and worldly culture, but the Christian\ncommunity must be conceived as a communion resting on a divine election.\nOpinions were divided about the ground of that election.\n\nIX. As Christianity is the only true religion, and as it is no national\nreligion, but somehow concerns the whole of humanity, or its best part,\nit follows that it can have nothing in common with the Jewish nation and\nits contemporary cultus. The Jewish nation in which Jesus Christ\nappeared, has, for the time at least, no special relation to the God\nwhom Jesus revealed. Whether it had such a relation at an earlier period\nis doubtful (cf. here, e.g., the attitude of Marcion, Ptolemaeus the\ndisciple of Valentinus, the author of the Epistle of Barnabas, Aristides\nand Justin); but certain it is that God has now cast it off, and that\nall revelations of God, so far as they took place at all before Christ,\n(the majority assumed that there had been such revelations and\nconsidered the Old Testament as a holy record), must have aimed solely\nat the call of the \"new people\", and in some way prepared for the\nrevelation of God through his Son.[160]\n\n\n[Footnote 152: See, as to this, Celsus in Orig. III. 10 ff. and V. 59\nff.]\n\n[Footnote 153: The marks adduced in the text do not certainly hold good\nfor some comparatively unimportant Gnostic groups, but they do apply to\nthe great majority of them, and in the main to Marcion also.]\n\n[Footnote 154: Most of the Gnostic schools know only one God, and put\nall emphasis on the knowledge of the oneness, supramundaneness, and\nspirituality of this God. The AEons, the Demiurgus, the God of matter, do\nnot come near this God though they are called Gods. See the testimony of\nHippolytus c. Noet. 11; [Greek: kai gar pantes apekleisthesan eis touto\nakontes eipein hoti to pan eis hena anatrechei ei oun ta panta eis hena\nanatrechei kai kata thualentinon kai kata Markiona, Kerinthon te kai\npasan ten ekeinon phluarian, kai akontes eis touto periepesan, hina ton\nhena homologesosin aition ton panton houtos oun suntrechousin kai autoi\nme thelontes te aletheia hena theon legein poiesanta hos ethelesen].]\n\n[Footnote 155: Continence was regarded as the condition laid down by God\nfor the resurrection and eternal life. The sure hope of this was for\nmany, if not for the majority, the whole sum of religion, in connection\nwith the idea of the requital of good and evil which was now firmly\nestablished. See the testimony of the heathen Lucian, in Peregrinus\nProteus.]\n\n[Footnote 156: Even where the judicial attributes were separated from\nGod (Christ) as not suitable, Christ was still comprehended as the\ncritical appearance by which every man is placed in the condition which\nbelongs to him. The Apocalypse of Peter expects that God himself will\ncome as Judge (see the Messianic expectations of Judaism, in which it\nwas always uncertain whether God or the Messiah would hold the\njudgment).]\n\n[Footnote 157: Celsus (Orig. c. Celsum, V. 59) after referring to the\nmany Christian parties mutually provoking and fighting with each other,\nremarks (V. 64) that though they differ much from each other, and\nquarrel with each other, you can yet hear from them all the\nprotestation, \"The world is crucified to me and I to the world.\" In the\nearliest Gentile Christian communities brotherly love for reflective\nthought falls into the background behind ascetic exercises of virtue, in\nunquestionable deviation from the sayings of Christ, but in fact it was\npowerful. See the testimony of Pliny and Lucian, Aristides, Apol. 15,\nTertull Apol. 39.]\n\n[Footnote 158: The word \"life\" comes into consideration in a double\nsense, viz., as soundness of the soul, and as immortality. Neither, of\ncourse, is to be separated from the other. But I have attempted to shew\nin my essay, \"Medicinisches aus der aeltesten Kirchengesch\" (1892), the\nextent to which the Gospel in the earliest Christendom was preached as\nmedicine and Jesus as a Physician, and how the Christian Message was\nreally comprehended by the Gentiles as a medicinal religion. Even the\nStoic philosophy gave itself out as a soul therapeutic, and AEsculapius\nwas worshipped as a Saviour-God; but Christianity alone was a religion\nof healing.]\n\n[Footnote 159: Heinrici, in his commentary on the epistles to the\nCorinthians, has dealt very clearly with this matter; see especially\n(Bd. II. p. 557 ff.) the description of the Christianity of the\nCorinthians: On what did the community base its Christian character? It\nbelieved in one God who had revealed himself to it through Christ,\nwithout denying the reality of the hosts of gods in the heathen world (1\nVIII. 6). It hoped in immortality without being clear as to the nature\nof the Christian belief in the resurrection (1 XV.) It had no doubt as\nto the requital of good and evil (1 IV. 5; 2 V. 10; XI. 15: Rom. II. 4),\nwithout understanding the value of self-denial, claiming no merit, for\nthe sake of important ends. It was striving to make use of the Gospel as\na new doctrine of wisdom about earthly and super-earthly things, which\nled to the perfect and best established knowledge (1 I. 21: VIII. 1). It\nboasted of special operations of the Divine Spirit, which in themselves\nremained obscure and non-transparent, and therefore unfruitful (1 XIV.),\nwhile it was prompt to put aside as obscure, the word of the Cross as\npreached by Paul (2. IV. 1 f). The hope of the near Parousia, however,\nand the completion of all things, evinced no power to effect a moral\ntransformation of society We herewith obtain the outline of a conviction\nthat was spread over the widest circles of the Roman Empire \"Naturam si\nexpellas furca, tamen usque recurret.\"]\n\n[Footnote 160: Nearly all Gentile Christian groups that we know, are at\none in the detachment of Christianity from empiric Judaism; the\n\"Gnostics,\" however, included the Old Testament in Judaism, while the\ngreater part of Christians did not. That detachment seemed to be\ndemanded by the claims of Christianity to be the one, true, absolute and\ntherefore oldest religion, foreseen from the beginning. The different\nestimates of the Old Testament in Gnostic circles have their exact\nparallels in the different estimates of Judaism among the other\nChristians; cf. for example, in this respect, the conception stated in\nthe Epistle of Barnabas with the views of Marcion, and Justin with\nValentinus. The particulars about the detachment of the Gentile\nChristians from the Synagogue, which was prepared for by the inner\ndevelopment of Judaism itself, and was required by the fundamental fact\nthat the Messiah, crucified and rejected by his own people, was\nrecognised as Saviour by those who were not Jews, cannot be given in the\nframe-work of a history of dogma; though, see Chaps. III. IV. VI. On the\nother hand, the turning away from Judaism is also the result of the mass\nof things which were held in common with it, even in Gnostic circles.\nChristianity made its appearance in the Empire in the Jewish propaganda.\nBy the preaching of Jesus Christ who brought the gift of eternal life,\nmediated the full knowledge of God, and assembled round him in these\nlast days a community, the imperfect and hybrid creations of the Jewish\npropaganda in the empire were converted into independent formations.\nThese formations were far superior to the synagogue in power of\nattraction, and from the nature of the case would very soon be directed\nwith the utmost vigour against the synagogue.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nTHE COMMON FAITH AND THE BEGINNINGS OF KNOWLEDGE IN GENTILE CHRISTIANITY\nAS IT WAS BEING DEVELOPED INTO CATHOLICISM[162]\n\n\nSec. 1. _The Communities and the Church._\n\n\nThe confessors of the Gospels, belonging to organised communities who\nrecognised the Old Testament as the Divine record of revelation, and\nprized the Evangelic tradition as a public message for all, to which, in\nits undiluted form, they wished to adhere truly and sincerely, formed\nthe stem of Christendom both as to extent and importance.[163] The\ncommunities stood to each other in an outwardly loose, but inwardly firm\nconnection, and every community by the vigour of its faith, the\ncertainty of its hope, the holy character of its life, as well as by\nunfeigned love, unity and peace, was to be an image of the holy Church\nof God which is in heaven, and whose members are scattered over the\nearth. They were further, by the purity of their walk and an active\nbrotherly disposition, to prove to those without, that is to the world,\nthe excellence and truth of the Christian faith.[164] The hope that the\nLord would speedily appear to gather into his Kingdom the believers who\nwere scattered abroad, punishing the evil and rewarding the good, guided\nthese communities in faith and life. In the recently discovered\n\"Teaching of the Apostles\" we are confronted very distinctly with ideas\nand aspirations of communities that are not influenced by Philosophy.\n\nThe Church, that is the totality of all believers destined to be\nreceived into the kingdom of God (Didache, 9. 10), is the holy Church,\n(Hermas) because it is brought together and preserved by the Holy\nSpirit. It is the one Church, not because it presents this unity\noutwardly, on earth the members of the Church are rather scattered\nabroad, but because it will be brought to unity in the kingdom of\nChrist, because it is ruled by the same spirit and inwardly united in a\ncommon relation to a common hope and ideal. The Church, considered in\nits origin, is the number of those chosen by God,[165] the true\nIsrael,[166] nay, still more, the final purpose of God, for the world\nwas created for its sake.[167] There were in connection with these\ndoctrines in the earliest period, various speculations about the Church:\nit is a heavenly AEon, is older than the world, was created by God at the\nbeginning of things as a companion of the heavenly Christ;[168] its\nmembers form the new nation which is really the oldest nation,[169] it\nis the [Greek: laos ho tou agapemenou ho philoumenos kai philon\nauton],[170] the people whom God has prepared \"in the Beloved,\"[171]\netc. The creation of God, the Church, as it is of an antemundane and\nheavenly nature, will also attain its true existence only in the AEon of\nthe future, the AEon of the kingdom of Christ. The idea of a heavenly\norigin, and of a heavenly goal of the Church, was therefore an essential\none, various and fluctuating as these speculations were. Accordingly,\nthe exhortations, so far as they have in view the Church, are always\ndominated by the idea of the contrast of the kingdom of Christ with the\nkingdom of the world. On the other hand, he who communicated knowledge\nfor the present time, prescribed rules of life, endeavoured to remove\nconflicts, did not appeal to the peculiar character of the Church. The\nmere fact, however, that from nearly the beginning of Christendom, there\nwere reflections and speculations not only about God and Christ, but\nalso about the Church, teaches us how profoundly the Christian\nconsciousness was impressed with being a new people, viz., the people of\nGod.[172] These speculations of the earliest Gentile Christian time\nabout Christ and the Church, as inseparable correlative ideas, are of\nthe greatest importance, for they have absolutely nothing Hellenic in\nthem, but rather have their origin in the Apostolic tradition. But for\nthat very reason the combination very soon, comparatively speaking,\nbecame obsolete or lost its power to influence. Even the Apologists made\nno use of it, though Clement of Alexandria and other Greeks held it\nfast, and the Gnostics by their AEon \"Church\" brought it into discredit.\nAugustine was the first to return to it.\n\nThe importance attached to morality is shewn in _Didache_ cc. 1-6, with\nparallels[173]. But this section and the statements so closely related\nto it in the pseudo phocylidean poem, which is probably of Christian\norigin, as well as in Sibyl, II. v. 56, 148, which is likewise to be\nregarded as Christian, and in many other Gnomic paragraphs, shews at the\nsame time, that in the memorable expression and summary statement of\nhigher moral commandments, the Christian propaganda had been preceded by\nthe Judaism of the Diaspora, and had entered into its labours. These\nstatements are throughout dependent on the Old Testament wisdom, and\nhave the closest relationship with the genuine Greek parts of the\nAlexandrian Canon, as well as with Philonic exhortations. Consequently,\nthese moral rules, the two ways, so aptly compiled and filled with such\nan elevated spirit, represent the ripest fruit of Jewish as well as of\nGreek development. The Christian spirit found here a disposition which\nit could recognise as its own. It was of the utmost importance, however,\nthat this disposition was already expressed in fixed forms suitable for\ndidactic purposes. The young Christianity therewith received a gift of\nfirst importance. It was spared a labour in a legion, the moral, which\nexperience shews, can only be performed in generations, viz, the\ncreation of simple fixed impressive rules, the labour of the Catechist.\nThe sayings of the Sermon on the Mount were not of themselves sufficient\nhere. Those who in the second century attempted to rest in these alone\nand turned aside from the Judaeo-Greek inheritance, landed in Marcionite\nor Encratite doctrines.[174] We can see, especially from the Apologies\nof Aristides (c. 15), Justin and Tatian (see also Lucian), that the\nearnest men of the Graeco-Roman world were won by the morality and active\nlove of the Christians.\n\n\nSec. 2. _The Foundations of the Faith._\n\nThe foundations of the faith--whose abridged form was, on the one hand,\nthe confession of the one true God, [Greek: monos alethinos theos],[175]\nand of Jesus, the Lord, the Son of God, the Saviour[176] and also of the\nHoly Spirit, and on the other hand, the confident hope of Christ's\nkingdom and the resurrection--were laid on the Old Testament interpreted\nin a Christian sense together with the Apocalypses,[177] and the\nprogressively enriched traditions about Jesus Christ ([Greek: he\nparodosis--ho paradotheis logos--ho kanon tes aletheias] or [Greek: tes\nparadoseos--he pistis--ho kanon tes pisteos--ho dotheisa pistis--to\nkerygma--ta didagmata tou christou--he didache--ta mathemata], or\n[Greek: to mathema]).[178] The Old Testament revelations and oracles were\nregarded as pointing to Christ; the Old Testament itself, the words of\nGod spoken by the Prophets, as the primitive Gospel of salvation, having\nin view the new people, which is, however, the oldest, and belonging to\nit alone.[179] The exposition of the Old Testament, which, as a rule,\nwas of course read in the Alexandrian Canon of the Bible, turned it into\na Christian book. A historical view of it, which no born Jew could in\nsome measure fail to take, did not come into fashion, and the freedom\nthat was used in interpreting the Old Testament,--so far as there was a\nmethod, it was the Alexandrian Jewish--went the length of even\ncorrecting the letter and enriching the contents.[180]\n\nThe traditions concerning Christ on which the communities were based,\nwere of a twofold character. First, there were words of the Lord, mostly\nethical, but also of eschatological content, which were regarded as\nrules, though their expression was uncertain, ever changing, and only\ngradually assuming a fixed form. The [Greek: didagmata tou christou] are\noften just the moral commandments.[181] Second, the foundation of the\nfaith, that is, the assurance of the blessing of salvation, was formed\nby a proclamation of the history of Jesus concisely expressed, and\ncomposed with reference to prophecy.[182] The confession of God the\nFather Almighty, of Christ as the Lord and Son of God, and of the Holy\nSpirit,[183] was at a very early period in the communities, united with\nthe short proclamation of the history of Jesus, and at the same time, in\ncertain cases, referred expressly to the revelation of God (the Spirit)\nthrough the prophets.[184] The confession thus conceived had not\neverywhere obtained a fixed definite expression in the first century (c.\n50-150). It would rather seem that, in most of the communities, there\nwas no exact formulation beyond a confession of Father, Son and Spirit,\naccompanied in a free way by the historical proclamation.[185] It is\nhighly probable, however, that a short confession was strictly\nformulated in the Roman community before the middle of the second\ncentury,[186] expressing belief in the Father, Son and Spirit, embracing\nalso the most important facts in the history of Jesus, and mentioning\nthe Holy Church, as well as the two great blessings of Christianity, the\nforgiveness of sin, and the resurrection of the dead ([Greek: aphesis\nhamartion, sarkos anastasis][187]). But, however the proclamation might\nbe handed down, in a form somehow fixed, or in a free form, the\ndisciples of Jesus, the (twelve) Apostles, were regarded as the\nauthorities who mediated and guaranteed it. To them was traced back in\nthe same way everything that was narrated of the history of Jesus, and\neverything that was inculcated from his sayings.[188] Consequently, it\nmay be said, that beside the Old Testament, the chief court of appeal in\nthe communities was formed by an aggregate of words and deeds of the\nLord;--for the history and the suffering of Jesus are his deed: [Greek:\nho Iesous hupemeinen pathein, k.t.l.]--fixed in certain fundamental\nfeatures, though constantly enriched, and traced back to apostolic\ntestimony.[189]\n\nThe authority which the Apostles in this way enjoyed, did not, in any\ngreat measure, rest on the remembrance of direct services which the\ntwelve had rendered to the Gentile Churches: for, as the want of\nreliable concrete traditions proves, no such services had been rendered,\nat least not by the _twelve_. On the contrary, there was a theory\noperative here regarding the special authority which the twelve enjoyed\nin the Church at Jerusalem, a theory which was spread by the early\nmissionaries, including Paul, and sprang from the _a priori_\nconsideration that the tradition about Christ, just because it grew up\nso quickly,[190] must have been entrusted to eye-witnesses who were\ncommissioned to proclaim the Gospel to the whole world, and who\nfulfilled that commission. The _a priori_ character of this assumption\nis shewn by the fact that--with the exception of reminiscences of an\nactivity of Peter and John among the [Greek: ethne], not sufficiently\nclear to us[191]--the twelve, as a rule, are regarded as a _college_, to\nwhich the mission and the tradition are traced back.[192] That such a\ntheory, based on a dogmatic construction of history, could have at all\narisen, proves that either the Gentile Churches never had a living\nrelation to the twelve, or that they had very soon lost it in the rapid\ndisappearance of Jewish Christianity, while they had been referred to\nthe twelve from the beginning. But even in the communities which Paul\nhad founded and for a long time guided, the remembrance of the\ncontroversies of the Apostolic age must have been very soon effaced, and\nthe vacuum thus produced filled by a theory which directly traced back\nthe _status quo_ of the Gentile Christian communities to a tradition of\nthe twelve as its foundation. This fact is extremely paradoxical, and is\nnot altogether explained by the assumptions that the Pauline-Judaistic\ncontroversy had not made a great impression on the Gentile Christians,\nthat the way in which Paul, while fully recognising the twelve, had\ninsisted on his own independent importance, had long ceased to be really\nunderstood, and that Peter and John had also really been missionaries to\nthe Gentiles. The guarantee that was needed for the \"teaching of the\nLord\" must, finally, be given not by Paul, but only by chosen\neye-witnesses. The less that was known about them, the easier it was to\nclaim them. The conviction as to the unanimity of the twelve, and as to\ntheir activity in founding the Gentile Churches, appeared in these\nChurches as early as the urgent need of protection against the serious\nconsequences of unfettered religious enthusiasm and unrestrained\nreligious fancy. This urgency cannot be dated too far back. In\ncorrespondence therewith, the principle of tradition in the Church\n(Christ, the twelve Apostles) in the case of those who were intent on\nthe unity and completeness of Christendom, is also very old. But one\npassed logically from the Apostles to the disciples of the Apostles,\n\"the Elders,\" without at first claiming for them any other significance\nthan that of reliable hearers (Apostoli et discentes ipsorum). In coming\ndown to them, one here and there betook oneself again to real historical\nground, disciples of Paul, of Peter, of John.[193] Yet even here legends\nwith a tendency speedily got mixed with facts, and because, in\nconsequence of this theory of tradition, the Apostle Paul must needs\nfall into the background, his disciples also were more or less\nforgotten. The attempt which we have in the Pastoral Epistles remained\nwithout effect, as regards those to whom these epistles were addressed.\nTimothy and Titus obtained no authority outside these epistles. But so\nfar as the epistles of Paul were collected, diffused, and read, there\nwas created a complex of writings which at first stood beside the\n\"Teaching of the Lord by the twelve Apostles\", without being connected\nwith it, and only obtained such connection by the creation of the New\nTestament, that is, by the interpolation of the Acts of the Apostles,\nbetween Gospels and Epistles.[194]\n\n\nSec. 3. _The Main Articles of Christianity and the Conceptions of\nSalvation. Eschatology._\n\n1. The main articles of Christianity were (1) belief in God the [Greek:\ndespotes], and in the Son in virtue of proofs from prophecy, and the\nteaching of the Lord as attested by the Apostles; (2) discipline\naccording to the standard of the words of the Lord; (3) baptism; (4) the\ncommon offering of prayer, culminating in the Lord's Supper and the holy\nmeal, (5) the sure hope of the nearness of Christ's glorious kingdom. In\nthese appears the unity of Christendom, that is, of the Church which\npossesses the Holy Spirit.[195] On the basis of this unity Christian\nknowledge was free and manifold. It was distinguished as [Greek: sophia,\nsunesis, episteme, gnosis (ton dikaiomaton)], from the [Greek: logos\ntheou tes pisteos], the [Greek: klesis tes epangelias] and the [Greek:\nentolai tes didaches] (Barn. 16. 9, similarly Hermas). Perception and\nknowledge of Divine things was a Charism possessed only by individuals,\nbut like all Charisms it was to be used for the good of the whole. In so\nfar as every actual perception was a perception produced by the Spirit,\nit was regarded as important and indubitable truth, even though some\nChristians were unable to understand it. While attention was given to\nthe firm inculcation and observance of the moral precepts of Christ, as\nwell as to the awakening of sure faith in Christ, and while all\nwaverings and differences were excluded in respect of these, there was\nabsolutely no current doctrine of faith in the communities, in the sense\nof a completed theory, and the theological speculations of even closely\nrelated Christian writers of this epoch, exhibit the greatest\ndifferences.[196] The productions of fancy, the terrible or consoling\npictures of the future pass for sacred knowledge, just as much as\nintelligent and sober reflections, and edifying interpretation of Old\nTestament sayings. Even that which was afterwards separated as Dogmatic\nand Ethics was then in no way distinguished.[197] The communities gave\nexpression in the cultus, chiefly in the hymns and prayers, to what they\npossessed in their God and their Christ; here sacred formulae were\nfashioned and delivered to the members.[198] The problem of surrendering\nthe world in the hope of a life beyond was regarded as the practical\nside of the faith, and the unity in temper and disposition resting on\nfaith in the saving revelation of God in Christ, permitted the highest\ndegree of freedom in knowledge, the results of which were absolutely\nwithout control as soon as the preacher or the writer was recognised as\na true teacher, that is, inspired by the Spirit of God.[199] There was\nalso in wide circles a conviction that the Christian faith, after the\nnight of error, included the full knowledge of everything worth knowing,\nthat precisely in its most important articles it is accessible to men of\nevery degree of culture, and that in it, in the now attained truth, is\ncontained one of the most essential blessings of Christianity. When it\nis said in the Epistle of Barnabas (II. 2. 3); [Greek: tes pisteos hemon\neisin boethoi phobos kai hupomone, ta de summachounta hemin makrothumia\nkai enkrateia; touton menonton ta pros kurion hagnos, suneuphrainontai\nautois sophia, sunesis, episteme, gnosis], knowledge appears in this\nclassic formula to be an essential element in Christianity, conditioned\nby faith and the practical virtues, and dependent on them. Faith takes\nthe lead, knowledge follows it: but of course in concrete cases it could\nnot always be decided what was [Greek: logos tes pisteos], which\nimplicitly contained the highest knowledge, and what the special [Greek:\ngnosis]; for in the last resort the nature of the two was regarded as\nidentical, both being represented as produced by the Spirit of God.\n\n2. The conceptions of Christian salvation, or of redemption, were\ngrouped around two ideas, which were themselves but loosely connected\nwith each other, and of which the one influenced more the temper and the\nimagination, the other the intellectual faculty. On the one hand,\nsalvation, in accordance with the earliest preaching, was regarded as\nthe glorious kingdom which was soon to appear on earth with the visible\nreturn of Christ, which will bring the present course of the world to an\nend, and introduce for a definite series of centuries, before the final\njudgment, a new order of all things to the joy and blessedness of the\nsaints.[200] In connection with this the hope of the resurrection of the\nbody occupied the foreground[201]. On the other hand, salvation appeared\nto be given in the truth, that is, in the complete and certain knowledge\nof God, as contrasted with the error of heathendom and the night of sin,\nand this truth included the certainty of the gift of eternal life, and\nall conceivable spiritual blessings.[202] Of these the community, so far\nas it is a community of saints, that is, so far as it is ruled by the\nSpirit of God, already possesses forgiveness of sins and righteousness.\nBut, as a rule, neither blessing was understood in a strictly religious\nsense, that is to say, the effect of their religious sense was narrowed.\nThe moralistic view, in which eternal life is the wages and reward of a\nperfect moral life wrought out essentially by one's own power, took the\nplace of first importance at a very early period. On this view,\naccording to which the righteousness of God is revealed in punishment\nand reward alike, the forgiveness of sin only meant a single remission\nof sin in connection with entrance into the Church by baptism,[203] and\nrighteousness became identical with virtue. The idea is indeed still\noperative, especially in the oldest Gentile-Christian writings known to\nus, that sinlessness rests upon a new creation (regeneration) which is\neffected in baptism;[204] but, so far as dissimilar eschatological hopes\ndo not operate, it is everywhere in danger of being supplanted by the\nother idea, which maintains that there is no other blessing in the\nGospel than the perfect truth and eternal life. All else is but a sum of\nobligations in which the Gospel is presented as a new law. The\nchristianising of the Old Testament supported this conception. There was\nindeed an opinion that the Gospel, even so far as it is a law,\ncomprehends a gift of salvation which is to be grasped by faith [Greek:\nnomos aneu zugou anankes,[205] nomos t. eleutherias],[206] Christ\nhimself the law;[207] but this notion, as it is obscure in itself, was\nalso an uncertain one and was gradually lost. Further, by the \"law\" was\nfrequently meant in the first place, not the law of love, but the\ncommandments of ascetic holiness, or an explanation and a turn were\ngiven to the law of love, according to which it is to verify itself\nabove all in asceticism.[208]\n\nThe expression of the contents of the Gospel in the concepts [Greek:\nepangelia (zoe aionios) gnosis (aletheia) nomos (enkrateia)], seemed\nquite as plain as it was exhaustive, and the importance of faith which\nwas regarded as the basis of hope and knowledge and obedience in a holy\nlife, was at the same time in every respect perceived.[209]\n\n\n_Supplement_ 1.--The moralistic view of sin, forgiveness of sin, and\nrighteousness, in Clement, Barnabas, Polycarp and Ignatius, gives place\nto Pauline formulae; but the uncertainty with which these are reproduced,\nshews that the Pauline idea has not been clearly seen.[210] In Hermas,\nhowever, and in the second Epistle of Clement, the consciousness of\nbeing under grace, even after baptism, almost completely disappears\nbehind the demand to fulfil the tasks which baptism imposes.[211] The\nidea that serious sins, in the case of the baptised, no longer should or\ncan be forgiven, except under special circumstances, appears to have\nprevailed in wide circles, if not everywhere.[212] It reveals the\nearnestness of those early Christians and their elevated sense of\nfreedom and power; but it might be united either with the highest moral\nintensity, or with a lax judgment on the little sins of the day. The\nlatter, in point of fact, threatened to become more and more the\npresupposition and result of that idea--for there exists here a fatal\nreciprocal action.\n\n\n_Supplement_ 2.--The realisation of salvation--as [Greek: basileia tou\ntheou] and as [Greek: aphtharsia]--being expected from the future, the\nwhole present possession of salvation might be comprehended under the\ntitle of vocation ([Greek: klesis]) see, for example, the second Epistle\nof Clement. In this sense _gnosis_ itself was regarded as something only\npreparatory.\n\n\n_Supplement_ 3.--In some circles the Pauline formula about righteousness\nand salvation by faith alone, must, it would appear, not infrequently\n(as already in the Apostolic age itself) have been partly misconstrued,\nand partly taken advantage of as a cloak for laxity. Those who resisted\nsuch a disposition, and therefore also the formula in the post-Apostolic\nage, shew indeed by their opposition how little they have hit upon or\nunderstood the Pauline idea of faith: for they not only issued the\nwatchword \"faith and works\" (though the Jewish ceremonial law was not\nthereby meant), but they admitted, and not only hypothetically, that one\nmight have the true faith even though in his case that faith remained\ndead or united with immorality. See, above all, the Epistle of James and\nthe Shepherd of Hermas; though the first Epistle of John comes also into\nconsideration (III. 7: \"He that doeth righteousness is righteous\").[213]\n\n\n_Supplement_ 4.--However similar the eschatological expectations of the\nJewish Apocalyptists and the Christians may seem, there is yet in one\nrespect an important difference between them. The uncertainty about the\nfinal consummation was first set aside by the Gospel. It should be noted\nas highly characteristic of the Jewish hopes of the future, even of the\nmost definite, how the beginning of the end, that is, the overthrow of\nthe world-powers and the setting up of the earthly kingdom of God, was\nmuch more certainly expressed than the goal and the final end. Neither\nthe general judgment, nor what we, according to Christian tradition,\ncall heaven and hell, should be described as a sure possession of Jewish\nfaith in the primitive Christian period. It is only in the Gospel of\nChrist, where everything is subordinated to the idea of a higher\nrighteousness and the union of the individual with God, that the general\njudgment and the final condition after it are the clear, firmly grasped\ngoal of all meditation. No doctrine has been more surely preserved in\nthe convictions and preaching of believers in Christ than this. Fancy\nmight roam ever so much and, under the direction of the tradition,\nthrust bright and precious images between the present condition and the\nfinal end, the main thing continued to be the great judgment of the\nworld, and the certainty that the saints would go to God in heaven, the\nwicked to hell. But while the judgment, as a rule, was connected with\nthe Person of Jesus himself (see the Romish Symbol: the words [Greek:\nkrites zonton kai nekron], were very frequently applied to Christ in the\nearliest writings), the moral condition of the individual, and the\nbelieving recognition of the Person of Christ were put in the closest\nrelation. The Gentile Christians held firmly to this. Open the Shepherd,\nor the second Epistle of Clement, or any other early Christian writing,\nand you will find that the judgment, heaven and hell, are the decisive\nobjects. But that shews that the moral character of Christianity as a\nreligion is seen and adhered to. The fearful idea of hell, far from\nsignifying a backward step in the history of the religious spirit, is\nrather a proof of its having rejected the morally indifferent point of\nview, and of its having become sovereign in union with the ethical\nspirit.\n\n\nSec. 4. _The Old Testament as Source of the Knowledge of Faith._[214]\n\nThe sayings of the Old Testament, the word of God, were believed to\nfurnish inexhaustible material for deeper knowledge. The Christian\nprophets were nurtured on the Old Testament, the teachers gathered from\nit the revelation of the past, present and future (Barn. 1. 7), and were\ntherefore able as prophets to edify the Churches; from it was further\ndrawn the confirmation of the answers to all emergent questions, as one\ncould always find in the Old Testament what he was in search of. The\ndifferent writers laid the holy book under contribution in very much the\nsame way; for they were all dominated by the presupposition that this\nbook is a Christian book, and contains the explanations that are\nnecessary for the occasion. There were several teachers, e.g., Barnabas,\nwho at a very early period boasted of finding in it ideas of special\nprofundity and value--these were always an expression of the\ndifficulties that were being felt. The plain words of the Lord as\ngenerally known, did not seem sufficient to satisfy the craving for\nknowledge, or to solve the problems that were emerging;[215] their\norigin and form also opposed difficulties at first to the attempt to\nobtain from them new disclosures by re-interpretation. But the Old\nTestament sayings and histories were in part unintelligible, or in their\nliteral sense offensive; they were at the same time regarded as\nfundamental words of God. This furnished the conditions for turning them\nto account in the way we have stated. The following are the most\nimportant points of view under which the Old Testament was used. (1) The\nMonotheistic cosmology and view of nature were borrowed from it (see,\nfor example, 1 Clem.). (2) It was used to prove that the appearance and\nentire history of Jesus had been foretold centuries, nay, thousands of\nyears beforehand, and that the founding of a new people gathered out of\nall nations had been predicted and prepared for from the very\nbeginning.[216] (3) It was used as a means of verifying all principles\nand institutions of the Christian Church,--the spiritual worship of God\nwithout images, the abolition of all ceremonial legal precepts, baptism,\netc. (4) The Old Testament was used for purposes of exhortation\naccording to the formula _a minori ad majus_; if God then punished and\nrewarded this or that in such a way, how much more may we expect, who\nnow stand in the last days, and have received the [Greek: klesis tes\nepangelias]. (5) It was proved from the Old Testament that the Jewish\nnation is in error, and either never had a covenant with God or has lost\nit, that it has a false apprehension of God's revelations, and therefore\nhas, now at least, no longer any claim to their possession. But beyond\nall this, (6) there were in the Old Testament books, above all, in the\nProphets and in the Psalms, a great number of sayings--confessions of\ntrust in God and of help received from God, of humility and holy\ncourage, testimonies of a world-overcoming faith and words of comfort,\nlove and communion--which were too exalted for any cavilling, and\nintelligible to every spiritually awakened mind. Out of this treasure\nwhich was handed down to the Greeks and Romans, the Church edified\nherself, and in the perception of its riches was largely rooted the\nconviction that the holy book must in every line contain the highest\ntruth.\n\nThe point mentioned under (5) needs, however, further explanation. The\nself-consciousness of the Christian community of being the people of\nGod, must have been, above all, expressed in its position towards\nJudaism, whose mere existence--even apart from actual assaults--\nthreatened that consciousness most seriously. A certain antipathy of the\nGreeks and Romans towards Judaism co-operated here with a law of\nself-preservation. On all hands, therefore, Judaism as it then existed\nwas abandoned as a sect judged and rejected by God, as a society of\nhypocrites,[217] as a synagogue of Satan,[218] as a people seduced by an\nevil angel,[219] and the Jews were declared to have no further right to\nthe possession of the Old Testament. Opinions differed, however, as to\nthe earlier history of the nation and its relation to the true God.\nWhile some denied that there ever had been a covenant of salvation\nbetween God and this nation, and in this respect recognised only an\nintention of God,[220] which was never carried out because of the\nidolatry of the people, others admitted in a hazy way that a relation\ndid exist; but even they referred all the promises of the Old Testament\nto the Christian people.[221] While the former saw in the observance of\nthe letter of the law, in the case of circumcision, sabbath, precepts as\nto food, etc., a proof of the special devilish temptation to which the\nJewish people succumbed,[222] the latter saw in circumcision a sign[223]\ngiven by God, and in virtue of certain considerations acknowledged that\nthe literal observance of the law was for the time God's intention and\ncommand, though righteousness never came from such observance. Yet even\nthey saw in the spiritual the alone true sense, which the Jews had\ndenied, and were of opinion that the burden of ceremonies was a\npaedagogic necessity with reference to a people stiff-necked and prone to\nidolatry, i.e., a defence of monotheism, and gave an interpretation to\nthe sign of circumcision which made it no longer a blessing, but rather\nthe mark for the execution of judgment on Israel.[224]\n\nIsrael was thus at all times the pseudo-Church. The older people does\nnot in reality precede the younger people, the Christians, even in point\nof time; for though the Church appeared only in the last days, it was\nforeseen and created by God from the beginning. The younger people is\ntherefore really the older, and the new law rather the original\nlaw.[225] The Patriarchs, Prophets, and men of God, however, who were\nfavoured with the communication of God's words, have nothing inwardly in\ncommon with the Jewish people. They are God's elect who were\ndistinguished by a holy walk, and must be regarded as the forerunners\nand fathers of the Christian people.[226] To the question how such holy\nmen appeared exclusively, or almost exclusively, among the Jewish\npeople, the documents preserved to us yield no answer.\n\n\nSec. 5. _The Knowledge of God and of the World. Estimate of the World._\n\nThe knowledge of faith was, above all, the knowledge of God as one,\nsupramundane, spiritual,[227] and almighty ([Greek: pantokrator]); God\nis creator and governor of the world and therefore the Lord.[228] But as\nhe created the world a beautiful ordered whole (monotheistic view of\nnature)[229] for the sake of man,[230] he is at the same time the God of\ngoodness and redemption ([Greek: theos soter]), and the true faith in\nGod and knowledge of him as the Father,[231] is made perfect only in the\nknowledge of the identity of the God of creation and the God of\nredemption. Redemption, however, was necessary, because at the beginning\nhumanity and the world alike fell under the dominion of evil\ndemons,[232] of the evil one. There was no universally accepted theory\nas to the origin of this dominion; but the sure and universal conviction\nwas that the present condition and course of the world is not of God,\nbut is of the devil. Those, however, who believed in God, the almighty\ncreator, and were expecting the transformation of the earth, as well as\nthe visible dominion of Christ upon it, could not be seduced into\naccepting a dualism in principle (God and devil: spirit and matter).\nBelief in God, the creator, and eschatological hopes, preserved the\ncommunities from the theoretic dualism that so readily suggested itself,\nwhich they slightly touched in many particular opinions, and which\nthreatened to dominate their feelings. The belief that the world is of\nGod and therefore good, remained in force. A distinction was made\nbetween the present constitution of the world, which is destined for\ndestruction, and the future order of the world which will be a glorious\n\"restitutio in integrum.\" The theory of the world as an articulated\nwhole which had already been proclaimed by the Stoics, and which was\nstrengthened by Christian monotheism, would not, even if it had been\nknown to the uncultured, have been vigorous enough to cope with the\nimpression of the wickedness of the course of this world, and the\nvulgarity of all things material. But the firm belief in the omnipotence\nof God, and the hope of the world's transformation grounded on the Old\nTestament, conquered the mood of absolute despair of all things visible\nand sensuous, and did not allow a theoretic conclusion, in the sense of\ndualism in principle, to be drawn from the practical obligation to\nrenounce the world, or from the deep distrust with regard to the flesh.\n\n\nSec. 6. _Faith in Jesus Christ._\n\n1. As surely as redemption was traced back to God himself, so surely was\nJesus ([Greek: ho soter hemon]) held to be the mediator of it. Faith in\nJesus was therefore, even for Gentile Christians, a compendium of\nChristianity. Jesus is mostly designated with the same name as God,[233]\n[Greek: ho kurios (hemon)], for we must remember the ancient use of this\ntitle. All that has taken place or will take place with reference to\nsalvation, is traced back to the \"Lord.\" The carelessness of the early\nChristian writers about the bearing of the word in particular\ncases,[234] shews that in a religious relation, so far as there was\nreflection on the gift of salvation, Jesus could directly take the place\nof God. The invisible God is the author, Jesus the revealer and\nmediator, of all saving blessings. The final subject is presented in the\nnearest subject, and there is frequently no occasion for expressly\ndistinguishing them, as the range and contents of the revelation of\nsalvation in Jesus coincide with the range and contents of the will of\nsalvation in God himself. Yet prayers, as a rule, were addressed to God:\nat least, there are but few examples of direct prayers to Jesus\nbelonging to the first century (apart from the prayers in the Act. Joh.\nof the so-called Leucius). The usual formula rather reads: [Greek: theoi\nexomologoumetha dia 'I. Chr.--theoi doxa dio 'I. Chr].[235]\n\n2. As the Gentile Christians did not understand the significance of the\nidea that Jesus is the Christ (Messiah), the designation \"[Greek:\nchristos]\" had either to be given up in their communities, or to subside\ninto a mere name.[236] But even where, through the Old Testament, one\nwas reminded of the meaning of the word, and allowed a value to it, he\nwas far from finding in the statement that Jesus is the Lord's anointed,\na clear expression of the dignity peculiar to him. That dignity had\ntherefore to be expressed by other means. Nevertheless the\neschatological series of ideas connected the Gentile Christians very\nclosely with the early Christian ideas of faith, and therefore also with\nthe earliest ideas about Jesus. In the confession that God chose[237]\nand prepared[238] Jesus, that Jesus is the Angel[239] and the servant of\nGod,[240] that he will judge the living and the dead,[241] etc.,\nexpression is given to ideas about Jesus, in the Gentile Christian\ncommunities, which are borrowed from the thought that he is the Christ\ncalled of God and entrusted with an office.[242] Besides, there was a\nvery old designation handed down from the circle of the disciples, and\nspecially intelligible to Gentile Christians, though not frequent and\ngradually disappearing, viz., \"the Master.\"[243]\n\n3. But the earliest tradition not only spoke of Jesus as [Greek: kurios,\nsoter], and [Greek: didaskalos], but as \"[Greek: ho huios tou theou]\",\nand this name was firmly adhered to in the Gentile Christian\ncommunities.[244] It followed immediately from this that Jesus belongs\nto the sphere of God, and that, as is said in the earliest preaching\nknown to us,[245] one must think of him \"[Greek: hos peri theou].\" This\nformula describes in a classic manner the indirect \"theologia Christi\"\nwhich we find unanimously expressed in all witnesses of the earliest\nepoch.[246] We must think about Christ as we think about God, because,\non the one hand, God had exalted him, and committed to him as Lord,\njudgment over the living and the dead, and because, on the other hand,\nhe has brought the knowledge of the truth, called sinful men, delivered\nthem from the dominion of demons, and hath led, or will lead them, out\nof the night of death and corruption to eternal life. Jesus Christ is\n\"our faith\", \"our hope\", \"our life\", and in this sense \"our God.\" The\nreligious assurance that he is this, for we find no wavering on this\npoint, is the root of the \"theologia Christi\"; but we must also remember\nthat the formula \"[Greek: theos]\" was inserted beside \"[Greek: kurios],\"\nthat the \"dominus ac deus,\" was very common at that time,[247] and that\na Saviour [Greek: soter] could only be represented somehow as a Divine\nbeing.[248] Yet Christ never was, as \"[Greek: theos],\" placed on an\nequality with the Father,[249]--monotheism guarded against that. Whether\nhe was intentionally and deliberately identified with Him the following\nparagraph will shew.\n\n\n4. The common confession did not go beyond the statements that Jesus is\nthe Lord, the Saviour, the Son of God, that one must think of him as of\nGod, that dwelling now with God in heaven, he is to be adored as [Greek:\nprostates kai boethos tes astheneias], and as [Greek: archiereus ton\nprosphoron hemon] [as guardian and helper of the weak and as High Priest\nof our oblations], to be feared as the future Judge, to be esteemed most\nhighly as the bestower of immortality, that he is our hope and our\nfaith. There are found rather, on the basis of that confession, very\ndiverse conceptions of the Person, that is, of the nature of Jesus,\nbeside each other,[250] which collectively exhibit a certain analogy\nwith the Greek theologies, the naive and the philosophic.[251] There was\nas yet no such thing here as ecclesiastical \"doctrines\" in the strict\nsense of the word, but rather conceptions more or less fluid, which were\nnot seldom fashioned _ad hoc._[252] These may be reduced collectively to\ntwo.[253] Jesus was either regarded as the man whom God hath chosen, in\nwhom the Deity or the Spirit of God dwelt, and who, after being tested,\nwas adopted by God and invested with dominion, (Adoptian\nChristology);[254] or Jesus was regarded as a heavenly spiritual being\n(the highest after God) who took flesh, and again returned to heaven\nafter the completion of his work on earth (pneumatic Christology).[255]\nThese two Christologies which are, strictly speaking, mutually\nexclusive--the man who has become a God, and the Divine being who has\nappeared in human form--yet came very near each other when the Spirit of\nGod implanted in the man Jesus was conceived as the pre-existent Son of\nGod,[256] and when, on the other hand, the title, Son of God, for that\npneumatic being, was derived only from the miraculous generation in the\nflesh; yet both these seem to have been the rule.[257] Yet, in spite of\nall transitional forms, the two Christologies may be clearly\ndistinguished. Characteristic of the one is the development through\nwhich Jesus is first to become a Godlike Ruler,[258] and connected\ntherewith, the value put on the miraculous event at the baptism; of the\nother, a naive docetism.[259] For no one as yet thought of affirming two\nnatures in Jesus:[260] the Divine dignity appeared rather, either as a\ngift,[261] or the human nature ([Greek: sarx]) as a veil assumed for a\ntime, or as the metamorphosis of the Spirit.[262] The formula that Jesus\nwas a mere man ([Greek: psilos anthropos]), was undoubtedly always, and\nfrom the first, regarded as offensive.[263] But the converse formulae,\nwhich identified the person of Jesus in its essence with the Godhead\nitself, do not seem to have been rejected with the same decision.[264]\nYet such formulae may have been very rare, and even objects of suspicion,\nin the leading ecclesiastical circles, at least until after the middle\nof the second century we can point to them only in documents which\nhardly found approbation in wide circles. The assumption of the\nexistence of at least one heavenly and eternal spiritual being beside\nGod, was plainly demanded by the Old Testament writings, as they were\nunderstood; so that even those whose Christology did not require them to\nreflect on that heavenly being were forced to recognise it.[265] The\npneumatic Christology, accordingly, meets us wherever there is an\nearnest occupation with the Old Testament, and wherever faith in Christ\nas the perfect revealer of God, occupies the foreground, therefore not\nin Hermas, but certainly in Barnabas, Clement, etc. The future belonged\nto this Christology, because the current exposition of the Old Testament\nseemed directly to require it, because it alone permitted the close\nconnection between creation and redemption, because it furnished the\nproof that the world and religion rest upon the same Divine basis,\nbecause it was represented in the most valuable writings of the early\nperiod of Christianity, and finally, because it had room for the\nspeculations about the Logos. On the other hand, no direct and natural\nrelation to the world and to universal history could be given to the\nAdoptian Christology, which was originally determined eschatologically.\nIf such a relation, however, were added to it, there resulted formulae\nsuch as that of two Sons of God, one natural and eternal, and one\nadopted, which corresponded neither to the letter of the Holy\nScriptures, nor to the Christian preaching. Moreover, the revelations of\nGod in the Old Testament made by Theophanies, must have seemed, because\nof this their form, much more exalted than the revelations made through\na man raised to power and glory, which Jesus constantly seemed to be in\nthe Adoptian Christology. Nay, even the mysterious personality of\nMelchisedec, without father or mother, might appear more impressive than\nthe Chosen Servant, Jesus, who was born of Mary, to a mode of thought\nwhich, in order to make no mistake, desired to verify the Divine by\nouter marks. The Adoptian Christology, that is, the Christology which is\nmost in keeping with the self-witness of Jesus (the Son as the chosen\nServant of God), is here shewn to be unable to assure to the Gentile\nChristians those conceptions of Christianity which they regarded as of\nhighest value. It proved itself insufficient when confronted by any\nreflection on the relation of religion to the cosmos, to humanity, and\nto its history. It might, perhaps, still have seemed doubtful about the\nmiddle of the second century, as to which of the two opposing formulae\n\"Jesus is a man exalted to a Godlike dignity\", and \"Jesus is a divine\nspiritual being incarnate\", would succeed in the Church. But one only\nneeds to read the pieces of writing which represent the latter thesis,\nand to compare them, say, with the Shepherd of Hermas, in order to see\nto which view the future must belong. In saying this, however, we are\nanticipating; for the Christological reflections were not yet vigorous\nenough to overcome enthusiasm and the expectation of the speedy end of\nall things, and the mighty practical tendency of the new religion to a\nholy life did not allow any theory to become the central object of\nattention. But, still, it is necessary to refer here to the\ncontroversies which broke out at a later period; for the pneumatic\nChristology forms an essential article, which cannot be dispensed with,\nin the expositions of Barnabas, Clement and Ignatius, and Justin shews\nthat he cannot conceive of a Christianity without the belief in a real\npre-existence of Christ. On the other hand, the liturgical formulae, the\nprayers, etc., which have been preserved, scarcely ever take notice of\nthe pre-existence of Christ. They either comprise statements which are\nborrowed from the Adoptian Christology, or they testify in an\nunreflective way to the Dominion and Deity of Christ.\n\n5. The ideas of Christ's work which were influential in the\ncommunities--Christ as Teacher: creation of knowledge, setting up of the\nnew law; Christ as Saviour: creation of life, overcoming of the demons,\nforgiveness of sins committed in the time of error,--were by some, in\nconformity with Apostolic tradition and following the Pauline Epistles,\npositively connected with the death and resurrection of Christ, while\nothers maintained them without any connection with these events. But one\nnowhere finds independent thorough reflections on the connection of\nChrist's saving work with the facts proclaimed in the preaching, above\nall, with the death on the cross and the resurrection as presented by\nPaul. The reason of this undoubtedly is that in the conception of the\nwork of salvation, the procuring of forgiveness fell into the\nbackground, as this could only be connected by means of the notion of\nsacrifice, with a definite act of Jesus, viz., with the surrender of his\nlife. Consequently, the facts of the destiny of Jesus combined in the\npreaching, formed, only for the religious fancy, not for reflection, the\nbasis of the conception of the work of Christ, and were therefore by\nmany writers, Hermas, for example, taken no notice of. Yet the idea of\nsuffering freely accepted, of the cross and of the blood of Christ,\noperated in wide circles as a holy mystery, in which the deepest wisdom\nand power of the Gospel must somehow lie concealed.[266] The peculiarity\nand uniqueness of the work of the historical Christ seemed, however, to\nbe prejudiced by the assumption that Christ, essentially as the same\nperson, was already in the Old Testament the Revealer of God. All\nemphasis must therefore fall on this--without a technical reflection\nwhich cannot be proved--that the Divine revelation has now, through the\nhistorical Christ, become accessible and intelligible to all, and that\nthe life which was promised will shortly be made manifest.[267]\n\nAs to the facts of the history of Jesus, the real and the supposed, the\ncircumstance that they formed the ever repeated proclamation about\nChrist gave them an extraordinary significance. In addition to the birth\nfrom the Holy Spirit and the Virgin, the death, the resurrection, the\nexaltation to the right hand of God, and the coming again, there now\nappeared more definitely the ascension to heaven, and also, though more\nuncertainly, the descent into the kingdom of the dead. The belief that\nJesus ascended into heaven forty days after the resurrection, gradually\nmade way against the older conception, according to which resurrection\nand ascension really coincided, and against other ideas which maintained\na longer period between the two events. That probably is the result of a\nreflection which sought to distinguish the first from the later\nmanifestations of the exalted Christ, and it is of the utmost importance\nas the beginning of a demarcation of the times. It is also very probable\nthat the acceptance of an actual _ascensus in coelum_, not a mere\n_assumptio_, was favourable to the idea of an actual descent of Christ\n_de coelo_, therefore to the pneumatic Christology and vice versa. But\nthere is also closely connected with the _ascensus in coelum_, the\nnotion of a _descensus ad inferna_, which commended itself on the ground\nof Old Testament prediction. In the first century, however, it still\nremained uncertain, lying on the borders of those productions of\nreligious fancy which were not able at once to acquire a right of\ncitizenship in the communities.[268]\n\nOne can plainly see that the articles contained in the _Kerygma_ were\nguarded and defended in their reality ([Greek: kat' aletheian]) by the\nprofessional teachers of the Church, against sweeping attempts at\nexplaining them away, or open attacks on them.[269] But they did not yet\npossess the value of dogmas, for they were neither put in an\nindissoluble union with the idea of salvation, nor were they stereotyped\nin their extent, nor were fixed limits set to the imagination in the\nconcrete delineation and conception of them.[270]\n\n\nSec. 7. _The Worship, the Sacred Ordinances, and the Organisation of the\nChurches._\n\nIt is necessary to examine the original forms of the worship and\nconstitution, because of the importance which they acquired in the\nfollowing period even for the development of doctrine.\n\n1. In accordance with the purely spiritual idea of God, it was a fixed\nprinciple that only a spiritual worship is well pleasing to Hun, and\nthat all ceremonies are abolished, [Greek: hina ho kainos nomos tou\nkuriou hemon Iesou Christou me anthropopoieton echei ten\nprosphoran].[271] But as the Old Testament and the Apostolic tradition\nmade it equally certain that the worship of God is a sacrifice, the\nChristian worship of God was set forth under the aspect of the spiritual\nsacrifice. In the most general sense it was conceived as the offering of\nthe heart and of obedience, as well as the consecration of the whole\npersonality, body and soul (Rom XIII. 1) to God.[272] Here, with a\nchange of the figure, the individual Christian and the whole community\nwere described as a temple of God.[273] In a more special sense, prayer\nas thanksgiving and intercession,[274] was regarded as the sacrifice\nwhich was to be accompanied, without constraint or ceremony, by fasts\nand acts of compassionate love.[275] Finally, prayers offered by the\nworshipper in the public worship of the community, and the gifts brought\nby them, out of which were taken the elements for the Lord's supper, and\nwhich were used partly in the common meal, and partly in support of the\npoor, were regarded as sacrifice in the most special sense ([Greek:\nprosphora, dora]).[276] For the following period, however, it became of\nthe utmost importance, (1) that the idea of sacrifice ruled the whole\nworship, (2) that it appeared in a special manner in the celebration of\nthe Lord's supper, and consequently invested that ordinance with a new\nmeaning, (3) that the support of the poor, alms, especially such alms as\nhad been gained by prayer and fasting, was placed under the category of\nsacrifice (Heb. XIII. 16), for this furnished the occasion for giving\nthe widest application to the idea of sacrifice, and thereby\nsubstituting for the original Semitic Old Testament idea of sacrifice\nwith its spiritual interpretation, the Greek idea with its\ninterpretation.[277] It may, however, be maintained that the changes\nimposed on the Christian religion by Catholicism, are at no point so\nobvious and far-reaching, as in that of sacrifice, and especially in the\nsolemn ordinance of the Lord's supper, which was placed in such close\nconnection with the idea of sacrifice.\n\n2. When in the \"Teaching of the Apostles,\" which may be regarded here as\na classic document, the discipline of life in accordance with the words\nof the Lord, Baptism, the order of fasting and prayer, especially the\nregular use of the Lord's prayer, and the Eucharist are reckoned the\narticles on which the Christian community rests, and when the common\nSunday offering of a sacrifice made pure by a brotherly disposition, and\nthe mutual exercise of discipline are represented as decisive for the\nstability of the individual community,[278] we perceive that the general\nidea of a pure spiritual worship of God has nevertheless been realised\nin definite institutions, and that, above all, it has included the\ntraditional sacred ordinances, and adjusted itself to them as far as\nthat was possible.[279] This could only take effect under the idea of\nthe symbolical, and therefore this idea was most firmly attached to\nthese ordinances. But the symbolical of that time is not to be\nconsidered as the opposite of the objectively real, but as the\nmysterious, the God produced ([Greek: mysterion]) as contrasted with the\nnatural, the profanely clear. As to Baptism, which was administered in\nthe name of the Father, Son and Spirit, though Cyprian, Ep. 73. 16-18,\nfelt compelled to oppose the custom of baptising in the name of Jesus,\nwe noted above (Chap. III. p. 161 f.) that it was regarded as the bath\nof regeneration, and as renewal of life, inasmuch as it was assumed that\nby it the sins of the past state of blindness were blotted out.[280] But\nas faith was looked upon as the necessary condition,[281] and as on the\nother hand, the forgiveness of the sins of the past was in itself deemed\nworthy of God,[282] the asserted specific result of baptism remained\nstill very uncertain, and the hard tasks which it imposed, might seem\nmore important than the merely retrospective gifts which it\nproffered.[283] Under such circumstances the rite could not fail to lead\nbelievers about to be baptized, to attribute value here to the\nmysterious as such.[284] But that always creates a state of things which\nnot only facilitates, but positively prepares for the introduction of\nnew and strange ideas. For neither fancy nor reflection can long\ncontinue in the vacuum of mystery. The names [Greek: sphragis] and\n[Greek: photismos], which at that period came into fashion for baptism,\nare instructive, inasmuch as neither of them is a direct designation of\nthe presupposed effect of baptism, the forgiveness of sin, and as\nbesides, both of them evince a Hellenic conception. Baptism in being\ncalled the seal,[285] is regarded as the guarantee of a blessing, not as\nthe blessing itself, at least the relation to it remains obscure; in\nbeing called enlightenment,[286] it is placed directly under an aspect\nthat is foreign to it. It would be different if we had to think of\n[Greek: photismos] as a gift of the Holy Spirit, which is given to the\nbaptised as real principle of a new life and miraculous powers. But the\nidea of a necessary union of baptism with a miraculous communication of\nthe Spirit, seems to have been lost very early, or to have become\nuncertain, the actual state of things being no longer favourable to\nit;[287] at any rate, it does not explain the designation of baptism as\n[Greek: photismos].\n\nAs regards the Lord's Supper, the most important point is that its\ncelebration became more and more the central point, not only for the\nworship of the Church, but for its very life as a Church. The form of\nthis celebration, the common meal, made it appear to be a fitting\nexpression of the brotherly unity of the community (on the public\nconfession before the meal, see Didache, 14, and my notes on the\npassage). The prayers which it included presented themselves as vehicles\nfor bringing before God, in thanksgiving and intercession, every thing\nthat affected the community; and the presentation of the elements for\nthe holy ordinance was naturally extended to the offering of gifts for\nthe poor brethren, who in this way received them from the hand of God\nhimself. In all these respects, however, the holy ordinance appeared as\na sacrifice of the community, and indeed, as it was also named, [Greek:\neucharistia], sacrifice of thanksgiving.[288] As an act of sacrifice,\n_termini technici_ which the Old Testament applied to sacrifice could be\napplied to it, and all the wealth of ideas which the Old Testament\nconnects with sacrifice, could be transferred to it. One cannot say that\nanything absolutely foreign was therewith introduced into the ordinance,\nhowever doubtful it may be whether in the idea of its founder the meal\nwas thought of as a sacrificial meal. But it must have been of the most\nwide-reaching significance, that a wealth of ideas was in this way\nconnected with the ordinance, which had nothing whatever in common,\neither with the purpose of the meal as a memorial of Christ's\ndeath,[289] or with the mysterious symbols of the body and blood of\nChrist. The result was that the one transaction obtained a double value.\nAt one time it appeared as the [Greek: prosphora] and [Greek: thusia] of\nthe Church,[290] as the pure sacrifice which is presented to the great\nking by Christians scattered over the world, as they offer to him their\nprayers, and place before him again what he has bestowed in order to\nreceive it back with thanks and praise. But there is no reference in\nthis to the mysterious words that the bread and wine are the body of\nChrist broken, and the blood of Christ shed for the forgiveness of sin.\nThese words, in and of themselves, must have challenged a special\nconsideration. They called forth the recognition in the sacramental\naction, or rather in the consecrated elements, of a mysterious\ncommunication of God, a gift of salvation, and this is the second\naspect. But on a purely spiritual conception of the Divine gift of\nsalvation, the blessings mediated through the Holy Supper could only be\nthought of as spiritual (faith, knowledge, or eternal life), and the\nconsecrated elements could only be recognised as the mysterious vehicles\nof these blessings. There was yet no reflection on the distinction\nbetween symbol and vehicle; the symbol was rather regarded as the\nvehicle, and vice versa. We shall search in vain for any special\nrelation of the partaking of the consecrated elements to the forgiveness\nof sin. That was made impossible by the whole current notions of sin and\nforgiveness. That on which value was put was the strengthening of faith\nand knowledge, as well as the guarantee of eternal life, and a meal in\nwhich there was appropriated not merely common bread and wine, but a\n[Greek: trophe pneumatike], seemed to have a bearing upon these. There\nwas as yet little reflection; but there can be no doubt that thought\nhere moved in a region bounded, on the one hand, by the intention of\ndoing justice to the wonderful words of institution which had been\nhanded down, and on the other hand, by the fundamental conviction that\nspiritual things can only be got by means of the Spirit.[291] There was\nthus attached to the Supper the idea of sacrifice, and of a sacred gift\nguaranteed by God. The two things were held apart, for there is as yet\nno trace of that conception, according to which the body of Christ\nrepresented in the bread[292] is the sacrifice offered by the community.\nBut one feels almost called upon here to construe from the premises the\nlater development of the idea, with due regard to the ancient Hellenic\nideas of sacrifice.\n\n3. The natural distinctions among men, and the differences of position\nand vocation which these involve, were not to be abolished in the\nChurch, notwithstanding the independence and equality of every\nindividual Christian, but were to be consecrated: above all, every\nrelation of natural piety was to be respected. Therefore the elders also\nacquired a special authority, and were to receive the utmost deference\nand due obedience. But, however important the organisation that was\nbased on the distinction between [Greek: presbuteroi] and [Greek:\nneoteroi], it ought not to be considered as characteristic of the\nChurches, not even where there appeared at the head of the community a\ncollege of chosen elders, as was the case in the greater communities and\nperhaps soon everywhere. On the contrary, only an organisation founded\non the gifts of the Spirit [Greek: charismata], bestowed on the Church\nby God,[293] corresponded to the original peculiarity of the Christian\ncommunity. The Apostolic age therefore transmitted a twofold\norganisation to the communities. The one was based on the [Greek:\ndiakonia tou logou], and was regarded as established directly by God;\nthe other stood in the closest connection with the economy of the\nchurch, above all with the offering of gifts, and so with the\nsacrificial service. In the first were men speaking the word of God,\ncommissioned and endowed by God, and bestowed on Christendom, not on a\nparticular community, who as [Greek: apostoloi, prophetai], and [Greek:\ndidaskaloi] had to spread the Gospel, that is to edify the Church of\nChrist. They were regarded as the real [Greek: hegoumenoi] in the\ncommunities, whose words given them by the Spirit all were to accept in\nfaith. In the second were [Greek: episkopoi], and [Greek: diakonoi],\nappointed by the individual congregation and endowed with the charisms\nof leading and helping, who had to receive and administer the gifts, to\nperform the sacrificial service (if there were no prophets present), and\ntake charge of the affairs of the community.[294] It lay in the nature\nof the case that as a rule the [Greek: episkopoi], as independent\nofficials, were chosen from among the elders, and might thus coincide\nwith the chosen [Greek: presbyteroi]. But a very important development\ntakes place in the second half of our epoch. The prophets and\nteachers--as the result of causes which followed the naturalising of the\nChurches in the world--fell more and more into the background, and their\nfunction, the solemn service of the word, began to pass over to the\nofficials of the community, the bishops, who already played a great role\nin the public worship. At the same time, however, it appeared more and\nmore fitting to entrust one official, as chief leader (superintendent of\npublic worship), with the reception of gifts and their administration,\ntogether with the care of the unity of public worship, that is, to\nappoint one bishop instead of a number of bishops, leaving, however, as\nbefore, the college of presbyters, as [Greek: proistamenoi tes\nekklesias], a kind of senate of the community.[295] Moreover, the idea\nof the chosen bishops and deacons as the antitypes of the Priests and\nLevites, had been formed at an early period in connection with the idea\nof the new sacrifice. But we find also the idea, which is probably the\nearlier of the two, that the prophets and teachers, as the commissioned\npreachers of the word, are the priests. The hesitancy in applying this\nimportant allegory must have been brought to an end by the disappearance\nof the latter view. But it must have been still more important that the\nbishops, or bishop, in taking over the functions of the old [Greek:\nlalountes ton logon], who were not Church officials, took over also the\nprofound veneration with which they were regarded as the special organs\nof the Spirit. But the condition of the organisation in the communities\nabout the year 140, seems to have been a very diverse one. Here and\nthere, no doubt, the convenient arrangement of appointing only one\nbishop was carried out, while his functions had not perhaps been\nessentially increased, and the prophets and teachers were still the\ngreat spokesmen. Conversely, there may still have been in other\ncommunities a number of bishops, while the prophets and teachers no\nlonger played regularly an important role. A fixed organisation was\nreached, and the Apostolic episcopal constitution established, only in\nconsequence of the so-called Gnostic crisis, which was epoch-making in\nevery respect. One of its most important presuppositions, and one that\nhas struck very deep into the development of doctrine must, however, be\nborne in mind here. As the Churches traced back all the laws according\nto which they lived, and all the blessings they held sacred, to the\ntradition of the twelve Apostles, because they regarded them as\nChristian only on that presupposition, they also in like manner, as far\nas we can discover, traced back their organisation of presbyters, i.e.,\nof bishops and deacons, to Apostolic appointment. The notion which\nfollowed quite naturally, was that the Apostles themselves had appointed\nthe first church officials.[296] That idea may have found support in\nsome actual cases of the kind, but this does not need to be considered\nhere; for these cases would not have led to the setting up of a theory.\nBut the point in question here is a theory, which is nothing else than\nan integral part of the general theory, that the twelve Apostles were in\nevery respect the middle term between Jesus and the present Churches\n(see above, p. 158). This conception is earlier than the great Gnostic\ncrisis, for the Gnostics also shared it. But no special qualities of the\nofficials, but only of the Church itself, were derived from it, and it\nwas believed that the independence and sovereignty of the Churches were\nin no way endangered by it, because an institution by Apostles was\nconsidered equivalent to an institution by the Holy Spirit, whom they\npossessed, and whom they followed. The independence of the Churches\nrested precisely on the fact that they had the Spirit in their midst.\nThe conception here briefly sketched, was completely transformed in the\nfollowing period by the addition of another idea--that of Apostolic\nsuccession,[297] and then became, together with the idea of the specific\npriesthood of the leader of the Church, the most important means of\nexalting the office above the community.[298]\n\n\n_Supplementary._\n\nThis review of the common faith and the beginnings of knowledge, worship\nand organisation, in the earliest Gentile Christianity, will have shewn\nthat the essential premises for the development of Catholicism were\nalready in existence before the middle of the second century, and before\nthe burning conflict with Gnosticism. We may see this, whether we look\nat the peculiar form of the _Kerygma_, or at the expression of the idea\nof tradition, or at the theology with its moral and philosophic\nattitude. We may therefore conclude that the struggle with Gnosticism\nhastened the development, but did not give it a new direction. For the\nGreek spirit, the element which was most operative in Gnosticism, was\nalready concealed in the earliest Gentile Christianity itself: it was\nthe atmosphere which one breathed; but the elements peculiar to\nGnosticism were for the most part rejected.[299] We may even go back a\nstep further (see above, pp. 41, 76). The great Apostle to the Gentiles\nhimself, in his epistle to the Romans, and in those to the Corinthians,\ntransplanted the Gospel into Greek modes of thought. He attempted to\nexpound it with Greek ideas, and not only called the Greeks to the Old\nTestament and the Gospel, but also introduced the Gospel as a leaven\ninto the religious and philosophic world of Greek ideas. Moreover, in\nhis pneumatico-cosmic Christology he gave the Greeks an impulse towards\na theologoumenon, at whose service they could place their whole\nphilosophy and mysticism. He preached the foolishness of Christ\ncrucified, and yet in doing so, proclaimed the wisdom of the\nnature-vanquishing Spirit, the heavenly Christ. From this moment was\nestablished a development which might indeed assume very different\nforms, but in which all the forces and ideas of Hellenism must gradually\npass over to the Gospel. But even with this the last word has not been\nsaid; on the contrary, we must remember that the Gospel itself belonged\nto the fulness of the times, which is indicated by the inter-action of\nthe Old Testament and the Hellenic religions (see above, pp. 41, 56).\n\nThe documents which have been preserved from the first century of the\nGentile Church are, in their relation to the history of Dogma, very\ndiverse. In the Didache we have a Catechism for Christian life,\ndependent on a Jewish Greek Catechism, and giving expression to what was\nspecifically Christian in the prayers, and in the order of the Church.\nThe Epistle of Barnabas, probably of Alexandrian origin, teaches the\ncorrect, Christian, interpretation of the Old Testament, rejects the\nliteral interpretation and Judaism as of the devil, and in Christology\nessentially follows Paul. The Romish first Epistle of Clement, which\nalso contains other Pauline reminiscences (reconciliation and\njustification) represents the same Christology, but it set it in a\nmoralistic mode of thought. This is a most typical writing in which the\nspirit of tradition, order, stability, and the universal ecclesiastical\nguardianship of Rome is already expressed. The moralistic mode of\nthought is classically represented by the Shepherd of Hermas, and the\nsecond Epistle of Clement, in which, besides, the eschatological element\nis very prominent. We have in the Shepherd the most important document\nfor the Church Christianity of the age, reflected in the mirror of a\nprophet who, however, takes into account the concrete relations. The\ntheology of Ignatius is the most advanced, in so far as he, opposing the\nGnostics, brings the facts of salvation into the foreground, and directs\nhis Gnosis not so much to the Old Testament as to the history of Christ.\nHe attempts to make Christ [Greek: kata pneuma] and [Greek: kata sarka]\nthe central point of Christianity. In this sense his theology and speech\nis Christocentric, related to that of Paul and the fourth Evangelist,\n(specially striking is the relationship with Ephesians), and is strongly\ncontrasted with that of his contemporaries. Of kindred spirit with him\nare Melito and Irenaeus, whose forerunner he is. He is related to them as\nMethodius at a later period was related to the classical orthodox\ntheology of the fourth and fifth centuries. This parallel is\nappropriate, not merely in point of form: it is rather one and the same\ntendency of mind which passes over from Ignatius to Melito, Irenaeus,\nMethodius, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa (here, however, mixed with\nOrigenic elements), and to Cyril of Alexandria. Its characteristic is\nthat not only does the person of Christ as the God-man form the central\npoint and sphere of theology, but also that all the main points of his\nhistory are mysteries of the world's redemption. (Ephes. 19). But\nIgnatius is also distinguished by the fact that behind all that is\nenthusiastic, pathetic, abrupt, and again all that pertains to\nliturgical form, we find in his epistles a true devotion to Christ\n([Greek: ho theos mou]). He is laid hold of by Christ: Cf. Ad. Rom. 6:\n[Greek: ekeinon zeto, ton hyper hemon apothanonta, ekeinon thelo ton di'\nhemas anastanta]; Rom. 7: [Greek: ho emos eros estaurotai kai ouk estin\nen emoi pur philoulon]. As a sample of his theological speech and his\nrule of faith, see ad. Smyrn. 1: [Greek: enoesa humas katertismenous en\nakineto pistei, hosper kathelomenous en to stauro tou kuriou Iesou\nChristou sarki te kai pneumati kai hedrasmenous en agape en to haimati\nChristou, peplerophoremenous eis ton kuriou hemon, alethos onta ek\ngenous Dabid kata sarka, huion theou kata thelema kai dunamin theou,\ngegenemenon alethos ek parthenou, bebaptismenon hypo Ioannou, hina\nplerothe pasa dikaiosune hup' autou, alethos epi Pontiou Pilatou kai\nHerodou tetrarchou kathelomenon huper hemon en sarki--aph' hou karpou\nhemeis, apo tou theomakaritou autou pathous--hina are sussemon eis tous\naionas dia tes anastaseos eis tous agious kai pistous autou eite en\nIoudaious eite en ethnesin en heni somati tes ekklesias autou]. The\nEpistle of Polycarp is characterised by its dependence on earlier\nChristian writings (Epistles of Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John), consequently, by\nits conservative attitude with regard to the most valuable traditions of\nthe Apostolic period. The _Kerygma_ of Peter exhibits the transition\nfrom the early Christian literature to the apologetic (Christ as [Greek:\nnomos] and as [Greek: logos]).\n\nIt is manifest that the lineage, \"Ignatius, Polycarp, Melito, Irenaeus\",\nis in characteristic contrast with all others, has deep roots in the\nApostolic age, as in Paul and in the Johannine writings, and contains in\ngerm important factors of the future formation of dogma, as it appeared\nin Methodius, Athanasius, Marcellus, Cyril of Jerusalem. It is very\ndoubtful therefore, whether we are justified in speaking of an Asia\nMinor theology. (Ignatius does not belong to Asia Minor.) At any rate,\nthe expression, Asia Minor-Romish Theology, has no justification. But it\nhas its truth in the correct observation, that the standards by which\nChristianity and Church matters were measured and defined, must have\nbeen similar in Rome and Asia Minor during the second century. We lack\nall knowledge of the closer connections. We can only again refer to the\njourney of Polycarp to Rome, to that of Irenaeus by Rome to Gaul, to the\njourney of Abercius and others (cf. also the application of the\nMontanist communities in Asia Minor for recognition by the Roman\nbishop). In all probability, Asia Minor, along with Rome, was the\nspiritual centre of Christendom from about 60-200: but we have but few\nmeans for describing how this centre was brought to bear on the\ncircumference. What we do know belongs more to the history of the Church\nthan to the special history of dogma.\n\n_Literature._--The writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers. See the\nedition of v. Gebhardt, Harnack, Zahn, 1876. Hilgenfeld, Nov. Test.\nextra Can. recept. fasc. IV. 2 edit. 1884, has collected further remains\nof early Christian literature. The Teaching of the twelve Apostles.\nFragments of the Gospel and Apocalypse of Peter (my edition, 1893). Also\nthe writings of Justin and other apologists, in so far as they give\ndisclosures about the faith of the communities of his time, as well as\nstatements in Celsus [Greek: Alethes Logos], in Irenaeus, Clement of\nAlexandria, and Tertullian. Even Gnostic fragments may be cautiously\nturned to profit. Ritschl, Entstehung der altkath. Kirche 2 Aufl. 1857.\nPfleiderer, Das Urchristenthum, 1887. Renan, Origins of Christianity,\nvol. V. V. Engelhardt, Das Christenthum Justin's, d. M. 1878, p. 375 ff.\nSchenkel, Das Christusbild der Apostel, etc., 1879. Zahn, Gesch. des\nN.-Tlichen Kanons, 2 Bde. 1888. Behm, Das Christliche Gesetzthum der\nApostolischen Vaeter (Zeitschr. f. kirchl. Wissensch. 1886). Dorner,\nHistory of the doctrine of the Person of Christ, 1845. Schultz, Die\nLehre von der Gottheit Christi, 1881, p. 22 ff. Hoefling. Die Lehre der\naeltesten Kirche vom Opfer, 1851. Hoefling, Das Sacrament d. Taufe, 1848.\nKahnis, Die Lehre vom Abendmahl, 1851. Th. Harnack, Der Christliche\nGemeindegottedienst im Apost. u. Altkath. Zeitalter, 1854. Hatch,\nOrganisation of the Early Church, 1883. My Prolegomena to the Didache\n(Texte u. Unters. II. Bd. H. 1, 2). Diestel, Gesch. des A.T. in der\nChristi. Kirche, 1869. Sohm, Kirchenrecht, 1892, Monographs on the\nApostolic Fathers: on 1 Clem.: Lipsius, Lightfoot (most accurate\ncommentary), Wrede; on 2 Clem.: A. Harnack (Ztschr. f. K. Gesch. 1887);\non Barnabas: J. Mueller; on Hermas: Zahn, Hueckstaedt, Link; on Papias:\nWeiffenbach, Leimbach, Zahn, Lightfoot; on Ignatius and Polycarp:\nLightfoot (accurate commentary) and Zahn; on the Gospel and Apocalypse\nof Peter: A. Harnack: on the Kerygma of Peter: von Dobschuetz; on Acts of\nThecla: Schlau.\n\n\n[Footnote 162: The statements made in this chapter need special\nforbearance, especially as the selection from the rich and motley\nmaterial--cf. only the so-called Apostolic Fathers--the emphasising of\nthis, the throwing into the background of that element, cannot here be\nvindicated. It is not possible, in the compass of a brief account, to\ngive expression to that elasticity and those oscillations of ideas and\nthoughts which were peculiar to the Christians of the earliest period.\nThere was indeed, as will be shewn, a complex of tradition in many\nrespects fixed, but this complex was still under the dominance of an\nenthusiastic fancy, so that what at one moment seemed fixed, in the next\nhad disappeared. Finally, attention must be given to the fact that when\nwe speak of the beginnings of knowledge, the members of the Christian\ncommunity in their totality are no longer in question, but only\nindividuals who of course were the leaders of the others. If we had no\nother writings from the times of the Apostolic Fathers than the first\nEpistle of Clement and the Epistle of Polycarp, it would be\ncomparatively easy to sketch a clear history of the development\nconnecting Paulinism with the old-Catholic Theology as represented by\nIrenaeus, and so to justify the traditional ideas. But besides these two\nEpistles which are the classic monuments of the mediating tradition, we\nhave a great number of documents which shew us how manifold and\ncomplicated the development was. They also teach us how careful we\nshould be in the interpretation of the post-Apostolic documents that\nimmediately followed the Pauline Epistles, and that we must give special\nheed to the paragraphs and ideas in them, which distinguish them from\nPaulinism. Besides, it is of the greatest importance that those two\nEpistles originated in Rome and Asia Minor, as these are the places\nwhere we must seek the embryonic stage of old-Catholic doctrine.\nNumerous fine threads, in the form of fundamental ideas and particular\nviews, pass over from the Asia Minor theology of the post-Apostolic\nperiod into the old-Catholic theology.]\n\n[Footnote 163: The Epistle to the Hebrews (X. 25), the Epistle of\nBarnabas (IV. 10), the Shepherd of Hermas (Sim. IX. 26, 3), but\nespecially the Epistles of Ignatius and still later documents, shew that\nup to the middle of the second Century, and even later, there were\nChristians who, for various reasons, stood outside the union of\ncommunities, or wished to have only a loose and temporary relation to\nthem. The exhortation: [Greek: epi to auto sunerchomenoi sunzeteite peri\ntou koine sumpherontos] (see my note on Didache, XVI. 2, and cf.) for\nthe expression the interesting State Inscription which was found at\nMagnesia on the Meander. Bull, Corresp. Hellen 1883, p. 506: [Greek:\napagoreuo mete sunerchesthai tous artokokous kat' hetairian mete\nparestekotas thrasunesthai, peitharchein de pantos tois huper tou koine\nsumpherontos epitattomenois k.t.l.] or the exhortation: [Greek:\nkollasthe tois hagiois, hoti hoi kollomenoi autois hagiasthesontai] (1\nClem. 46. 2, introduced as [Greek: graphe]) runs through most of the\nwritings of the post-Apostolic and pre-catholic period. New doctrines\nwere imported by wandering Christians who, in many cases, may not\nthemselves have belonged to a community, and did not respect the\narrangements of those they found in existence, but sought to form\nconventicles. If we remember how the Greeks and Romans were wont to get\nthemselves initiated into a mystery cult, and took part for a long time\nin the religious exercises, and then, when they thought they had got the\ngood of it, for the most part or wholly to give up attending, we shall\nnot wonder that the demand to become a permanent member of a Christian\ncommunity was opposed by many. The statements of Hermas are specially\ninstructive here.]\n\n[Footnote 164: \"Corpus sumus,\" says Tertullian at a time when this\ndescription had already become an anachronism, \"de conscientia\nreligionis et disciplinae unitate et spei foedere.\" (Apol. 39: cf. Ep.\nPetri ad Jacob. I.: [Greek: eis theos, eis nomos, mia elpis]). The\ndescription was applicable to the earlier period, when there was no such\nthing as a federation with political forms, but when the consciousness\nof belonging to a community and of forming a brotherhood ([Greek:\nadelphotes]) was all the more deeply felt: See, above all, 1 Clem ad\nCorinth., the Didache (9-15), Aristides, Apol 15: \"and when they have\nbecome Christians, they call them (the slaves) brethren without\nhesitation ... for they do not call them brethren according to the\nflesh, but according to the spirit and in God;\" cf. also the statements\non brotherhood in Tertullian and Minucius Felix (also Lucian). We have\nin 1 Clem. I. 2, the delineation of a perfect Christian Church. The\nEpistles of Ignatius are specially instructive as to the independence of\neach individual community: 1 Clem. and Didache, as to the obligation to\nassist stranger communities by counsel and action, and to support the\ntravelling brethren. As every Christian is a [Greek: paroikos] so every\ncommunity is a [Greek: paroikousa ten polin] but it is under obligation\nto give an example to the world, and must watch that \"the name be not\nblasphemed.\" The importance of the social element in the oldest\nChristian communities, has been very justly brought into prominence in\nthe latest works on the subject (Renan, Heinrici, Hatch). The historian\nof dogma must also emphasise it, and put the fluid notions of the faith\nin contrast with the definite consciousness of moral tasks. See 1 Clem.\n47-50; Polyc. Ep. 3; Didache 1 ff.; Ignat. ad Eph. 14, on [Greek: agape]\nas the main requirement Love demands that everyone \"[Greek: zetei to\nkoinopheles pasin kai me to heautou]\" (1 Clem. 48. 6, with parallels;\nDidache 16. 3; Barn. 4. 10; Ignatius).]\n\n[Footnote 165: 1 Clem. 59. 2. in the Church prayer; [Greek: hopos ton\narithmon ton katerithmenon ton eklekton autou en holo toi kosmo\ndiaphulaxe athrauston ho demiourgos ton hapanton dia tou egapemenou\npaidos autou Iesou Christou].]\n\n[Footnote 166: See 1 Clem., 2 Clem., Ignatius (on the basis of the\nPauline view; but see also Rev. II. 9).]\n\n[Footnote 167: See Hermas (the passage is given above, p. 103, note).]\n\n[Footnote 168: See Hermas Vis. I-III. Papias. Fragm. VI. and VII. of my\nedition. 2 Clem. 14: [Greek: poiountes to thelema tou patros hemon\nesometha ek tes ekklesias tes protes tes pneumatikes, tes pro heliou kai\nselenes ektismenes.... ekklesia zosa soma esti Christou legei gar he\ngraphe epoiesen ho theos ton anthropon arsen kai thelu. to arsen estin\nho Christos, to thelu he ekklesia].]\n\n[Footnote 169: See Barn. 13 (2 Clem. 2).]\n\n[Footnote 170: See Valentinus in Clem. Strom. VI. 6. 52. \"Holy Church\",\nperhaps also in Marcion, if his text (Zahn. Gesch. des N.T.-lichen\nKanons, II. p. 502) in Gal. IV. 21, read: [Greek: hetis estin meter\nhumon, gennosa eis hen epengeilametha hagian ekklesian].]\n\n[Footnote 171: Barn. 3. 6.]\n\n[Footnote 172: We are also reminded here of the \"tertium genus.\" The\nnickname of the heathen corresponded to the self-consciousness of the\nChristians (see Aristides, Apol).]\n\n[Footnote 173: See also the letter of Pliny the paragraphs about\nChristian morality, in the first third part of Justin's apology and\nespecially the apology of Aristides c. 15. Aristides portrays\nChristianity by portraying Christian morality. The Christians know and\nbelieve in God the creator of heaven and of earth, the God by whom all\nthings consist, i.e. in him from whom they have received the\ncommandments which they have written in their hearts commandments, which\nthey observe in faith and in the expectation of the world to come. For\nthis reason they do not commit adultery, nor practise unchastity, nor\nbear false witness, nor covet that with which they are entrusted or what\ndoes not belong to them, etc. Compare how in the Apocalypse of Peter\ndefinite penalties in hell are portrayed for the several forms of\nimmorality.]\n\n[Footnote 174: An investigation of the Greco Jewish Christian literature\nof norms and moral rules commencing with the Old Testament doctrine of\nwisdom on the one hand and the Stoic collections on the other then\npassing beyond the Alexandrian and Evangelic norms up to the Didache,\nthe Pauline tables of domestic duties, the Sibylline sayings,\nPhocylides, the Neopythagorean rules and to the norms of the enigmatic\nSextus, is still an unfulfilled task. The moral rules of the Pharisaic\nRabbis should also be included.]\n\n[Footnote 175: Herm. Mand. I. has merely fixed the Monotheistic\nconfession [Greek: proton panton pisteuson, hoti eis estin ho theos, ho\nta panta ktisas kai katartisas k.t.l.] See Praed Petri in Clem Strom VI.\n6, 48, VI. 5, 39. Aristides gives in c. 2 of his Apology the preaching\nof Jesus Christ but where he wishes to give a short expression of\nChristianity he is satisfied with saying that Christians are those who\nhave found the one true God. See e.g. c. 15.\n\nChristians have found the truth. They know and believe in God the\ncreator of heaven and of earth by whom all things consist and from whom\nall things come who has no other god beside him and from whom they have\nreceived commandments which they have written on their hearts,\ncommandments which they observe in faith and in expectation of the world\nto come. It is interesting to note how Origen Comm. in Joh. XXXII. 9 has\nbrought the Christological Confession into approximate harmony with that\nof Hermas. First Mand. I. is verbally repeated and then it is said\n[Greek: chre de kai pisteuein, hoti kurios Iesous Christos kai pase te\nperi autou kata ten theoteta kai ten anthropoteta aletheia dei de kai\neis to hagion pisteuein pneuma, kai hoti autexousioi ontes kolazometha\nmen eph' hois hamartanomen timometha de eph' hois eu prattomen].]\n\n[Footnote 176: Very instructive here is 2 Clem. ad Corinth. 20, 5\n[Greek: to mono theo aorato, patri tes aletheias, to exatosteilanti\nhemin ton sotera kai archegon tes aphtharsias, di' ou kai ephanerosen\nhemin ten aletheian kai ten epouranion zoen, auto he doxa]. On the Holy\nSpirit see previous note.]\n\n[Footnote 177: They were quoted as [Greek: he graphe, ta biblia], or\nwith the formula [Greek: ho theos (kurios) legei, gegraptai]. Also Law\nand Prophets. Law Prophets and Psalms. See the original of the first six\nbooks of the Apostolic Constitutions.]\n\n[Footnote 178: See the collection of passages in Patr. App. Opp. edit.\nGebhardt. 1. 2 p. 133, and the formula, Diogn. 11: [Greek: apostolon\ngenomenos mathetes ginomai didaskalos ethnon, ta paradothenta axios\nhupereton ginomenois aletheias mathetais]. Besides the Old Testament and\nthe traditions about Jesus (Gospels), the Apocalyptic writings of the\nJews, which were regarded as writings of the Spirit, were also drawn\nupon. Moreover, Christian letters and manifestoes proceeding from\nApostles, prophets, or teachers, were read. The Epistles of Paul were\nearly collected and obtained wide circulation in the first half of the\nsecond century; but they were not Holy Scripture in the specific sense,\nand therefore their authority was not unqualified.]\n\n[Footnote 179: Barn. 5. 6, [Greek: hoi prophetai, apo tou kuriou\nechontes ten charin, eis auton epropheteusan]. Ignat. ad Magn. 8. 2. cf.\nalso Clem. Paedag. I. 7. 59: [Greek: ho gar autos houtos paidagogos tote\nmen \"phobethese kurion ton theon elegen, hemin de agapeseis kurion ton\ntheon sou\" tarenesen. dia touto kai entelletai hemin \"pausasthe apo ton\nergon humon\" ton palaion hamartion, \"mathete kalon poiein, ekklinon apo\nkakou kai poieson agathon, egapesas dikaiosunen, emisesas anomian\" haute\nmou he nea diatheke palaioi kecharagmene grammati].]\n\n[Footnote 180: See above Sec. 5, p. 114 f.]\n\n[Footnote 181: See my edition of the Didache. Prolegg. p. 32 ff.; Rothe,\n\"De disciplina arcani origine,\" 1841.]\n\n[Footnote 182: The earliest example is 1 Cor. XI. 1 f. It is different\nin 1 Tim. III. 16, where already the question is about [Greek: to tes\neusebeias mysterion]. See Patr. App. Opp. 1. 2. p. 134.]\n\n[Footnote 183: Father, son, and spirit: Paul; Matt XXVIII. 19; 1 Clem.\nad. Cor. 58. 2 (see 2. 1. f.; 42. 3; 46. 6); Didache 7; Ignat. Eph. 9.\n1; Magn. 13. 1. 2.; Philad. inscr.; Mart. Polyc. 14. 1. 2; Ascens. Isai.\n8 18:9. 27:10. 4:11. 32ff;, Justin _passim_; Montan. ap. Didym. de\ntrinit. 411; Excerpta ex Theodot. 80; Pseudo Clem. de virg. 1 13. Yet\nthe omission of the Holy Spirit is frequent, as in Paul, or the Holy\nSpirit is identified with the Spirit of Christ. The latter takes place\neven with such writers as are familiar with the baptismal formula.\nIgnat. ad Magn. 15; [Greek: kektemenoi adiakriton pneuma, hos estin\nIesous Christos.].]\n\n[Footnote 184: The formulae run: \"God who has spoken through the\nProphets,\" or the \"Prophetic Spirit,\" etc.]\n\n[Footnote 185: That should be assumed as certain in the case of the\nEgyptian Church, yet Caspari thinks he can shew that already Clement of\nAlexandria presupposes a symbol.]\n\n[Footnote 186: Also in the communities of Asia Minor (Smyrna); for a\ncombination of Polyc. Ep. c. 2 with c. 7, proves that in Smyrna the\n[Greek: paradotheis logos] must have been something like the Roman\nSymbol, see Lightfoot on the passage; it cannot be proved that it was\nidentical with it. See, further, how in the case of Polycarp the moral\nelement is joined on to the dogmatic. This reminds us of the Didache and\nhas its parallel even in the first homily of Aphraates.]\n\n[Footnote 187: See Caspari, Quellen z. Gesch. des Taufsymbols, III. p. 3\nff. and Patr. App. Opp. 1. 2. p 115-142. The old Roman Symbol reads:\n[Greek: Pisteuo eis theon patera pantokratora, kai eis Christon Iesoun\n(ton) huion autou ton monogene], (on this word see Westcott's Excursus\nin his commentary on 1st John) [Greek: ton kurion hemon ton gennethenta\nek pneumatos hagiou kai Marias tes parthenou, ton epi Pontiou Pilatou\nstaurothenta kai taphenta; te trite hemerai anastanta ek nekron,\nanabanta eis tous ouranous, kathemenon en dexia tou patros, hothen\nerchetai krinai zontas kai nekrous. kai eis pneuma hagion, hagian\nekklesian, aphesin hamartion sarkos anastasin, amen]. To estimate this\nvery important article aright we must note the following: (1) It is not\na formula of doctrine, but of confession. (2) It has a liturgical form\nwhich is shewn in the rhythm and in the disconnected succession of its\nseveral members, and is free from everything of the nature of polemic.\n(3) It tapers off into the three blessings, Holy Church, forgiveness of\nsin, resurrection of the body, and in this as well as in the fact that\nthere is no mention of [Greek: gnosis (aletheia) kai zoe aionos], is\nrevealed an early Christian untheological attitude. (4) It is worthy of\nnote, on the other hand, that the birth from the Virgin occupies the\nfirst place, and all reference to the baptism of Jesus, also to the\nDavidic Sonship, is wanting. (5) It is further worthy of note, that\nthere is no express mention of the death of Jesus, and that the\nAscension already forms a special member (that is also found elsewhere,\nAscens. Isaiah, c. 3. 13. ed. Dillmann. p. 13. Murator. Fragment, etc.).\nFinally, we should consider the want of the earthly Kingdom of Christ\nand the mission of the twelve Apostles, as well as, on the other hand,\nthe purely religious attitude, no notice being taken of the new law.\nZahn (Das Apostol. Symbolum, 1893) assumes, \"That in all essential\nrespects the identical baptismal confession which Justin learned in\nEphesus about 130, and Marcion confessed in Rome about 145, originated\nat latest somewhere about 120.\" In some \"unpretending notes\" (p. 37 ff.)\nhe traces this confession back to a baptismal confession of the Pauline\nperiod (\"it had already assumed a more or less stereotyped form in the\nearlier Apostolic period\"), which, however, was somewhat revised, so far\nas it contained, for example, \"of the house of David\", with reference to\nChrist. \"The original formula, reminding us of the Jewish soil of\nChristianity, was thus remodelled, perhaps about 70-120, with retention\nof the fundamental features, so that it might appear to answer better to\nthe need of candidates for baptism, proceeding more and more from the\nGentiles.... This changed formula soon spread on all sides. It lies at\nthe basis of all the later baptismal confessions of the Church, even of\nthe East. The first article was slightly changed in Rome about 200-220.\"\nWhile up till then, in Rome as everywhere else, it had read [Greek:\npisteuo eis hena theon pantokratora], it was now changed in [Greek:\npisteuo eis theon patera pantokratora]. This hypothesis, with regard to\nthe early history of the Roman Symbol, presupposes that the history of\nthe formation of the baptismal confession in the Church, in east and\nwest, was originally a uniform one. This cannot be proved; besides, it\nis refuted by the facts of the following period. It presupposes\nsecondly, that there was a strictly formulated baptismal confession\noutside Rome before the middle of the second century, which likewise\ncannot be proved; (the converse rather is probable, that the fixed\nformulation proceeded from Rome.) Moreover, Zahn himself retracts\neverything again by the expression \"more or less stereotyped form;\" for\nwhat is of decisive interest here is the question, when and where the\nfixed sacred form was produced. Zahn here has set up the radical thesis\nthat it can only have taken place in Rome between 200 and 220. But\nneither his negative nor his positive proof for a change of the Symbol\nin Rome at so late a period is sufficient. No sure conclusion as to the\nSymbol can be drawn from the wavering _regulae fidei_ of Irenaeus and\nTertullian which contain the \"unum\"; further, the \"unum\" is not found in\nthe western provincial Symbols, which, however, are in part earlier than\nthe year 200. The Romish correction must therefore have been\nsubsequently taken over in the provinces (Africa?). Finally, the formula\n[Greek: theon patera pantokratora] beside the more frequent [Greek:\ntheon pantokratora] is attested by Irenaeus, I. 10. 1, a decisive\npassage. With our present means we cannot attain to any direct knowledge\nof Symbol formation before the Romish Symbol. But the following\nhypotheses, which I am not able to establish here, appear to me to\ncorrespond to the facts of the case and to be fruitful: (1) There were,\neven in the earliest period, separate _Kerygmata_ about God and Christ:\nsee the Apostolic writings, Hermas, Ignatius, etc. (2) The _Kerygma_\nabout God was the confession of the one God of creation, the almighty\nGod. (3) The _Kerygma_ about Christ had essentially the same historical\ncontents everywhere, but was expressed in diverse forms: (a) in the form\nof the fulfilment of prophecy, (b) in the form [Greek: kata sarka, kata\npneuma], (c) in the form of the first and second advent, (d) in the\nform, [Greek: katabas-anabas]; these forms were also partly combined.\n(4) The designations \"Christ\", \"Son of God\" and \"Lord\"; further, the\nbirth from the Holy Spirit, or [Greek: kata pneuma], the sufferings (the\npractice of exorcism contributed also to the fixing and naturalising of\nthe formula \"crucified under Pontius Pilate\"), the death, the\nresurrection, the coming again to judgment, formed the stereotyped\ncontent of the _Kerygma_ about Jesus. The mention of the Davidic\nSonship, of the Virgin Mary, of the baptism by John, of the third day,\nof the descent into Hades, of the _demonstratio verae carnis post\nresurrectionem_, of the ascension into heaven and the sending out of the\ndisciples, were additional articles which appeared here and there. The\n[Greek: sarka labon], and the like, were very early developed out of the\nforms (b) and (d). All this was already in existence at the transition\nof the first century to the second. (5) The proper contribution of the\nRoman community consisted in this, that it inserted the _Kerygma_ about\nGod and that about Jesus into the baptismal formula, widened the clause\nreferring to the Holy Spirit, into one embracing Holy Church,\nforgiveness of sin, resurrection of the body, excluded theological\ntheories in other respects, undertook a reduction all round, and\naccurately defined everything up to the last world. (6) The western\n_regulae fidei_ do not fall back exclusively on the old Roman Symbol, but\nalso on the earlier freer _Kerygmata_ about God and about Jesus which\nwere common to the east and west; not otherwise can the _regulae fidei_\nof Irenaeus and Tertullian, for example, be explained. But the symbol\nbecame more and more the support of the _regula_. (7) The eastern\nconfessions (baptismal symbols) do not fall back directly on the Roman\nSymbol, but were probably on the model of this symbol, made up from the\nprovincial _Kerygmata_, rich in contents and growing ever richer,\nhardly, however, before the third century. (8) It cannot be proved, and\nit is not probable, that the Roman Symbol was in existence before\nHermas, that is, about 135.]\n\n[Footnote 188: See the fragment in Euseb. H. E. III. 39, from the work\nof Papias.]\n\n[Footnote 189: [Greek: Didache kurion dia ton ib' apostolon] (Did.\ninscr.) is the most accurate expression (similarly 2 Pet. III. 2).\nInstead of this might be said simply [Greek: ho kurios] (Hegesipp.).\nHegesippus (Euseb. H. E. IV. 22. 3; See also Steph. Gob.) comprehends\nthe ultimate authorities under the formula: [Greek: hos ho nomos\nkerussei kai hoi prophetai kai ho kurios], just as even Pseudo Clem de\nVirg. I. 2: \"Sicut ex lege ac prophetis et a domino nostro Jesu Christo\ndidicimus.\" Polycarp (6.3) says: [Greek: kathos autos eneteilato kai hoi\neuangelisamenoi hemas apostoloi kai hoi prophetai hoi prokeruxantes ten\neleusin tou kuriou hemon]. In the second Epistle of Clement (14. 2) we\nread: [Greek: ta biblia] (O.T.) [Greek: kai hoi apostoloi, to\neuangelion] may also stand for [Greek: ho kurios]; (Ignat., Didache. 2\nClem. etc.). The Gospel, so far as it is described, is quoted as [Greek:\nta apomnemoneumata t. apostolon] (Justin, Tatian), or on the other hand,\nas [Greek: hai kuriakai graphai], (Dionys. Cor. in Euseb. H. E. IV. 23.\n12: at a later period in Tertull. and Clem. Alex.). The words of the\nLord, in the same way as the words of God, are called simply [Greek: ta\nlogia (kuriaka)]. The declaration of Serapion at the beginning of the\nthird century (Euseb., H. E. VI. 12. 3): [Greek: hemeis kai Petron kai\ntous allous apostolous apodechometha hos Christon], is an innovation in\nso far as it puts the words of the Apostles fixed in writing and as\ndistinct from the words of the Lord, on a level with the latter. That\nis, while differentiating the one from the other, Serapion ascribes to\nthe words of the apostles and those of the Lord equal authority. But the\ndevelopment which led to this position, had already begun in the first\ncentury. At a very early period there were read in the communities,\nbeside the Old Testament, Gospels, that is collections of words of the\nLord, which at the same time contained the main facts of the history of\nJesus. Such notes were a necessity (Luke 1.4; [Greek: hina epignos peri\nhon katechethes logon ten asphaleian]), and though still indefinite and\nin many ways unlike, they formed the germ for the genesis of the New\nTestament. (See Weiss, Lehrb. d. Einleit in d. N. T. p. 21 ff.). Further\nthere were read Epistles and Manifestoes by apostles, prophets and\nteachers, but, above all, Epistles of Paul. The Gospels at first stood\nin no connection with these Epistles, however high they might be prized.\nBut there did exist a connection between the Gospels and the [Greek: ap'\narches autoptais kai huperetais tou logou], so far as these mediated the\ntradition of the Evangelic material, and on their testimony rests the\n_Kerygma_ of the Church about the Lord as the Teacher, the crucified and\nrisen One. Here lies the germ for the genesis of a canon which will\ncomprehend the Lord and the Apostles, and will also draw in the Pauline\nEpistles. Finally, Apocalypses were read as Holy Scriptures.]\n\n[Footnote 190: Read, apart from all others, the canonical Gospels, the\nremains of the so-called Apocryphal Gospels, and perhaps the Shepherd of\nHermas: see also the statements of Papias.]\n\n[Footnote 191: That Peter was in Antioch follows from Gal. II.; that he\nlaboured in Corinth, perhaps before the composition of the first epistle\nto the Corinthians, is not so improbable as is usually maintained (1\nCor.; Dionys. of Corinth); that he was at Rome even is very credible.\nThe sojourn of John in Asia Minor cannot, I think, be contested.]\n\n[Footnote 192: See how in the three early \"writings of Peter\" (Gospel,\nApocalypse, _Kerygma_) the twelve are embraced in a perfect unity. Peter\nis the head and spokesman for them all.]\n\n[Footnote 193: See Papias and the Reliq. Presbyter, ap. Iren., collecta\nin Patr. Opp. I. 2, p. 105: see also Zahn, Forschungen. III., p. 156 f.]\n\n[Footnote 194: The Gentile-Christian conception of the significance of\nthe twelve--a fact to be specially noted--was all but unanimous (see\nabove Chap. II.): the only one who broke through it was Marcion. The\nwriters of Asia Minor, Rome and Egypt coincide in this point. Beside the\nActs of the Apostles, which is specially instructive, see 1 Clem. 42;\nBarn 5. 9, 8. 3: Didache inscr.; Hermas, Vis. III. 5, 11; Sim. IX. 15,\n16, 17, 25; Petrusev-Petrusapok. Praed. Petr. ap. Clem. Strom. VI. 6, 48;\nIgnat. ad Trall. 3; ad Rom 4; ad Philad. 5; Papias; Polyc., Aristides;\nJustin _passim_; inferences from the great work of Irenaeus, the works of\nTertull. and Clem. Alex; the Valentinians. The inference that follows\nfrom the eschatological hope, that the Gospel has already been preached\nto the world, and the growing need of having a tradition mediated by\neye-witnesses co-operated here, and out of the twelve who were in great\npart obscure, but who had once been authoritative in Jerusalem and\nPalestine, and highly esteemed in the Christian Diaspora from the\nbeginning, though unknown, created a court of appeal, which presented\nitself as not only taking a second rank after the Lord himself, but as\nthe medium through which alone the words of the Lord became the\npossession of Christendom, as he neither preached to the nations nor\nleft writings. The importance of the twelve in the main body of the\nChurch may at any rate be measured by the facts, that the personal\nactivity of Jesus was confined to Palestine, that he left behind him\nneither a confession nor a doctrine, and that in this respect the\ntradition tolerated no more corrections. Attempts which were made in\nthis direction, the fiction of a semi-Gentile origin of Christ, the\ndenial of the Davidic Sonship, the invention of a correspondence between\nJesus and Abgarus, meetings of Jesus with Greeks, and much else, belong\nonly in part to the earliest period, and remained as really inoperative\nas they were uncertain (according to Clem. Alex., Jesus himself is the\nApostle to the Jews; the twelve are the Apostles to the Gentiles in\nEuseb. H. E. VI. 141). The notion about the twelve Apostles evangelising\nthe world in accordance with the commission of Jesus, is consequently to\nbe considered as the means by which the Gentile Christians got rid of\nthe inconvenient fact of the merely local activity of Jesus (compare how\nJustin expresses himself about the Apostles: their going out into all\nthe world is to him one of the main articles predicted in the Old\nTestament, Apol. 1. 39; compare also the Apology of Aristides, c. 2, and\nthe passage of similar tenor in the Ascension of Isaiah, where the\n\"adventus XII. discipulorum\" is regarded as one of the fundamental facts\nof salvation, c. 3. 13, ed. Dillmann, p 13, and a passage such as Iren.\nfragm. XXIX. in Harvey II., p. 494, where the parable about the grain of\nmustard seed is applied to the [Greek: logos epouranios] and the twelve\nApostles; the Apostles are the branches [Greek: hup' hon kladon\nskepasthentes hoi pantes hos ornea hupo kalian sunelthonta metelabon tes\nex auton proerchomenes edodimou kai epouraniou trophes] Hippol. de\nAntichr. 61. Orig. c. Cels. III. 28). This means, as it was empty of\ncontents, was very soon to prove the most convenient instrument for\nestablishing ever new historical connections, and legitimising the\n_status quo_ in the communities. Finally, the whole catholic idea of\ntradition was rooted in that statement which was already, at the close\nof the first century, formulated by Clement of Rome (c. 42): [Greek: hoi\napostoloi hemin euengelisthesan apo tou kuriou Iesou Christou, Iesous ho\nchristos apo tou theou exepemphthe. ho christos oun apo tou theou, kai\nhoi apostoloi apo tou Christou; egenonto oun amphotera eutaktos ek\nthelematos theou, k.t.l.] Here, as in all similar statements which\nelevate the Apostles into the history of revelation, the unanimity of\nall the Apostles is always presupposed, so that the statement of Clem.\nAlex. (Strom VII., 17, 108: [Greek: mia he panton gegone ton apostolon\nhosper didaskalia houtos de kai he paradosis], see Tertull., de praescr.\n32: \"Apostoli non diversa inter se docuerent,\" Iren. alii), contains no\ninnovation, but gives expression to an old idea: That the twelve\nunitedly proclaimed one and the same message, that they proclaimed it to\nthe world, that they were chosen to this vocation by Christ, that the\ncommunities possess the witness of the Apostles as their rule of conduct\n(Excerp. ex Theod. 25 [Greek: hosper hupo ton zodion he genesis\ndioikeitai houtos hupo ton apostolon he anagennesis]) are authoritative\ntheses which can be traced back as far as we have any remains of\nGentile-Chnstian literature. It was thereby presupposed that the\nunanimous _kerygma_ of the twelve Apostles which the communities possess\nas [Greek: kanon tes paradoseos] (1 Clem. 7), was public and accessible\nto all. Yet the idea does not seem to have been everywhere kept at a\ndistance that besides the _kerygma_ a still deeper knowledge was\ntransmitted by the Apostles or by certain Apostles to particular\nChristians who were specially gifted. Of course we have no direct\nevidence of this, but the connection in which certain Gnostic unions\nstood at the beginning with the communities developing themselves to\nCatholicism and inferences from utterances of later writers (Clem. Alex.\nTertull.), make it probable that this conception was present in the\ncommunities here and there even in the age of the so-called Apostolic\nFathers. It may be definitely said that the peculiar idea of tradition\n([Greek: theos--christos--hoi dodeka apostoloi--ekklesiai]) in the\nGentile Churches is very old but that it was still limited in its\nsignificance at the beginning and was threatened (1) by a wider\nconception of the idea 'Apostle' (besides, the fact is important that\nAsia Minor and Rome were the very places where a stricter idea of\nApostle made its appearance. See my Edition of the Didache, p. 117), (2)\nby free prophets and teachers moved by the Spirit, who introduced new\nconceptions and rules and whose word was regarded as the word of God,\n(3) by the assumption not always definitely rejected, that besides the\npublic tradition of the _kerygma_ there was a secret tradition. That\nPaul as a rule was not included in this high estimate of the Apostles is\nshewn by this fact among others, that the earlier Apocryphal Acts of the\nApostles are much less occupied with his person than with the rest of\nthe Apostles. The features of the old legends which make the Apostles in\ntheir deeds, their fate, nay even in appearance as far as possible,\nequal to the person of Jesus himself deserve special consideration (see,\nfor example the descent of the Apostles into hell in Herm. Sim. IX. 16),\nfor it is just here that the fact above established that the activity of\nthe Apostles was to make up for the want of the activity of Jesus\nhimself among the nations stands clearly out (See Acta Johannis ed. Zahn\np 246 [Greek: ho eklexamenos hemas eis apostolen ethnon ho ekpempsas\nhemas eis ten oikoumenen theos ho deixas heauton dia ton apostolon] also\nthe remarkable declaration of Origen about the Chronicle of Phlegon\n[Hadrian], that what holds good of Christ, is in that Chronicle\ntransferred to Peter; finally we may recall to mind the visions in which\nan Apostle suddenly appears as Christ). Between the judgment of value\n[Greek: hemeis tous apostolous apodechometha hos Christon] and those\ncreations of fancy in which the Apostles appear as gods and demigods\nthere is certainly a great interval but it can be proved that there are\nstages lying between these extreme points. It is therefore permissible\nto call to mind here the oldest Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles although\nthey may have originated almost completely in Gnostic circles (see also\nthe Pistis Sophia which brings a metaphysical theory to the\nestablishment of the authority of the Apostles, p. 11, 14; see Texte u\nUnters VII. 2 p. 61 ff.). Gnosticism here as frequently elsewhere is\nrelated to common Christianity as excess progressing to the invention of\na myth with a tendency to a historical theorem determined by the effort\nto maintain one's own position; cf. the article from the _kerygma_ of\nPeter in Clem. Strom. VI. 6, 48 [Greek: Exelexamen humas dodeka\nmathetas, k.t.l.] the introduction to the basal writing of the first 6\nbooks of the Apostolic Constitutions and the introduction to the\nEgyptian ritual, [Greek: kata keleusin tou kuriou humon k.t.l.] Besides\nit must be admitted that the origin of the idea of tradition and its\nconnection with the twelve is obscure; what is historically reliable\nhere has still to be investigated, even the work of Seufert (Der Urspr.\nu. d. Bedeutung des Apostolats in der christl Kirche der ersten zwei\nJahrhunderte, 1887) has not cleared up the dark points. We will perhaps\nget more light by following the important hint given by Weizsaecker\n(Apost. Age p. 13 ff.) that Peter was the first witness of the\nresurrection, and was called such in the _kerygma_ of the communities\n(see 1 Cor. XV., 5 Luke XXIV. 34). The twelve Apostles are also further\ncalled [Greek: hoi peri ton Petron] (Mrc. fin. in L Ign. ad Smyrn. 3,\ncf. Luke VIII. 45, Acts II. 14, Gal. I. 18 f., 1 Cor. XV. 5), and it is\na correct historical reminiscence when Chrysostom says (Hom. in Joh.\n88), [Greek: ho Petros ekeritos en ton apostolon kai stoma ton matheton\nkai koruphe tou chorou.] Now as Peter was really in personal relation\nwith important Gentile-Christian communities, that which held good of\nhim, the recognized head and spokesman of the twelve, was perhaps\ntransferred to these. One has finally to remember that besides the\nappeal to the twelve there was in the Gentile Churches an appeal to\nPeter and Paul (but not for the evangelic _kerygma_) which has a certain\nhistorical justification, cf. Gal. II. 8, 1 Cor. I. 12 f., IX. 5, 1\nClem. Ign. ad Rom. 4 and the numerous later passages. Paul in claiming\nequality with Peter, though Peter was the head and mouth of the twelve\nand had himself been active in mission work, has perhaps contributed\nmost towards spreading the authority of the twelve. It is notable how\nrarely we find any special appeal to John in the tradition of the main\nbody of the Church. For the middle of the 2nd century the authority of\nthe twelve Apostles may be expressed in the following statements: (1)\nThey were missionaries for the world, (2) They ruled the Church and\nestablished Church Offices, (3) They guaranteed the true doctrine (a) by\nthe tradition going back to them, (b) by writings, (4) They are the\nideals of Christian life, (5) They are also directly mediators of\nsalvation--though this point is uncertain.]\n\n[Footnote 195: See Didache c. 1-10, with parallel passages.]\n\n[Footnote 196: Cf., for example, the first epistle of Clement to the\nCorinthians with the Shepherd of Hermas. Both documents originated in\nRome.]\n\n[Footnote 197: Compare how dogmatic and ethical elements are inseparably\nunited in the Shepherd, in first and second Clement, as well as in\nPolycarp and Justin.]\n\n[Footnote 198: Note the hymnal parts of the Revelation of John, the\ngreat prayer with which the first epistle of Clement closes, the \"carmen\ndicere Christo quasi deo,\" reported by Pliny, the eucharist prayer in\nthe [Greek: Didache], the hymn 1 Tim. III. 16, the fragments from the\nprayers which Justin quotes, and compare with these the declaration of\nthe anonymous writer in Euseb. H. E. V. 28. 5, that the belief of the\nearliest Christians in the Deity of Christ might be proved from the old\nChristian hymns and odes. In the epistles of Ignatius the theology\nfrequently consists of an aimless stringing together of articles\nmanifestly originating in hymns and the cultus.]\n\n[Footnote 199: The prophet and teacher express what the Spirit of God\nsuggests to them. Their word is therefore God's word, and their\nwritings, in so far as they apply to the whole of Christendom, are\ninspired, holy writings. Further, not only does Acts XV. 22 f. exhibit\nthe formula [Greek: edoxen toi pneumati toi hagioi kai hemin] (see\nsimilar passages in the Acts), but the Roman writings also appeal to the\nHoly Spirit (1 Clem. 63. 2): likewise Barnabas, Ignatius, etc. Even in\nthe controversy about the baptism of heretics a Bishop gave his vote\nwith the formula: \"secundum motum animi mei et spiritus sancti\" (Cypr.\nOpp. ed. Hartel, I. p. 457).]\n\n[Footnote 200: The so-called Chiliasm--the designation is unsuitable and\nmisleading--is found wherever the Gospel is not yet Hellenised (see, for\nexample, Barn. 4. 15; Hermas; 2 Clem.; Papias [Euseb. III. 39]; [Greek:\nDidache], 10. 16; Apoc. Petri; Justin. Dial. 32, 51, 80, 82, 110, 139;\nCerinthus), and must be regarded as a main element of the Christian\npreaching (see my article \"Millenium\" in the Encycl. Brit.) In it lay\nnot the least of the power of Christianity in the first century, and the\nmeans whereby it entered the Jewish propaganda in the Empire and\nsurpassed it. The hopes springing out of Judaism were at first but\nlittle modified, that is, only so far as the substitution of the\nChristian communities for the nation of Israel made modification\nnecessary. In all else even the details of the Jewish hopes of the\nfuture were retained, and the extra-canonical Jewish Apocalypses (Esra,\nEnoch, Baruch, Moses, etc.) were diligently read alongside of Daniel.\nTheir contents were in part joined on to sayings of Jesus and they\nserved as models for similar productions (here therefore an enduring\nconnection with the Jewish religion is very plain). In the Christian\nhopes of the future as in the Jewish eschatology may be distinguished\nessential and accidental fixed and fluid elements. To the former belong:\n(1) the notion of a final fearful conflict with the powers of the world\nwhich is just about to break out [Greek: to teleion skandalon engiken],\n(2) belief in the speedy return of Christ, (3) the conviction that after\nconquering the secular power (this was variously conceived as God's\nMinisters as that which restrains--2 Thess. II. 6, as a pure kingdom of\nSatan see the various estimates in Justin, Melito, Irenaeus and\nHippolytus) Christ will establish a glorious kingdom on the earth and\nwill raise the saints to share in that kingdom, and (4) that he will\nfinally judge all men. To the fluid elements belong the notions of the\nAntichrist or of the secular power culminating in the Antichrist as well\nas notions about the place, the extent, and the duration of Christ's\nglorious kingdom. But it is worthy of special note that Justin regarded\nthe belief that Christ will set up his kingdom in Jerusalem, and that it\nwill endure for 1000 years, as a necessary element of orthodoxy, though\nhe confesses he knew Christians who did not share this belief, while\nthey did not like the pseudo Christians reject also the resurrection of\nthe body (the promise of Montanus that Christ's kingdom would be let\ndown at Pepuza and Tymion is a thing by itself and answers to the other\npromises and pretensions of Montanus). The resurrection of the body is\nexpressed in the Roman Symbol while very notably the hope of Christ's\nearthly kingdom is not there mentioned (see above p. 157). The great\ninheritance which the Gentile Christian communities received from\nJudaism is the eschatological hopes along with the Monotheism assured by\nrevelation and belief in providence. The law as a national law was\nabolished. The Old Testament became a new book in the hands of the\nGentile Christians. On the contrary the eschatological hopes in all\ntheir details and with all the deep shadows which they threw on the\nstate and public life were at first received and maintained themselves\nin wide circles pretty much unchanged and only succumbed in some of\ntheir details--just as in Judaism--to the changes which resulted from\nthe constant change of the political situation. But these hopes were\nalso destined in great measure to pass away after the settlement of\nChristianity on Graeco-Roman soil. We may set aside the fact that they\ndid not occupy the foreground in Paul, for we do not know whether this\nwas of importance for the period that followed. But that Christ would\nset up the kingdom in Jerusalem, and that it would be an earthly kingdom\nwith sensuous enjoyments--these and other notions contend on the one\nhand with the vigorous antijudaism of the communities, and on the other\nwith the moralistic spiritualism, in the pure carrying out of which the\nGentile Christians in the East at least increasingly recognised the\nessence of Christianity. Only the vigorous world renouncing enthusiasm\nwhich did not permit the rise of moralistic spiritualism and mysticism,\nand the longing for a time of joy and dominion that was born of it,\nprotected for a long time a series of ideas which corresponded to the\nspiritual disposition of the great multitude of converts only at times\nof special oppression. Moreover the Christians in opposition to Judaism\nwere, as a rule, instructed to obey magistrates whose establishment\ndirectly contradicted the judgment of the state contained in the\nApocalypses. In such a conflict however that judgment necessarily\nconquers at last which makes as little change as possible in the\nexisting forms of life. A history of the gradual attenuation and\nsubsidence of eschatologlcal hopes in the II.-IV. centuries can only be\nwritten in fragments. They have rarely--at best by fits and\nstarts--marked out the course. On the contrary if I may say so they only\ngave the smoke, for the course was pointed out by the abiding elements\nof the Gospel, trust in God and the Lord Christ, the resolution to a\nholy life, and a firm bond of brotherhood. The quiet gradual change, in\nwhich the eschatologlcal hopes passed away fell into the background or\nlost important parts, was on the other hand a result of deep reaching\nchanges in the faith and life of Christendom. Chiliasm as a power was\nbroken up by speculative mysticism and on that account very much later\nin the West than in the East. But speculative mysticism has its centre\nin christology. In the earliest period this as a theory belonged more to\nthe defence of religion than to religion itself. Ignatius alone was able\nto reflect on that transference of power from Christ which Paul had\nexperienced. The disguises in which the apocalyptic eschatologlcal\nprophecies were set forth belonged in part to the form of this\nliterature (in so far as one could easily be given the lie if he became\ntoo plain or in so far as the prophet really saw the future only in\nlarge outline) partly it had to be chosen in order not to give political\noffence. See Hippol. comm. in Daniel (Georgiades, p. 49, 51. [Greek:\nnoein opheilomen ta kata kairon sumbainonta kai eidotas siopan]), but\nabove all Constantine orat. ad s. coetum 19, on some verses of Virgil\nwhich are interpreted in a Christian sense but that none of the rulers\nin the capital might be able to accuse their author of violating the\nlaws of the state with his poetry or of destroying the traditional ideas\nof the procedure about the gods he concealed the truth under a veil.\nThat holds good also of the Apocalyptists and the poets of the Christian\nSibylline sayings.]\n\n[Footnote 201: The hope of the resurrection of the body (1 Clem. 26. 3\n[Greek: anasteseis ten sarka mou tauten], Herm. Sim. V. 7. 2 [Greek:\nblepe metote anabe epi ten kardian sou ten sarka sou tauten phtharten\neinai]. Barn. 5. 6 f., 21. 1, 2 Clem. 9. 1 [Greek: kai me legeto tis\nhumon oti haute he sarx ou krinetai oude anistatai]. Polyc. Ep. 7. 2,\nJustin Dial. 80, etc.) finds its place originally in the hope of a share\nin the glorious kingdom of Christ. It therefore disappears or is\nmodified wherever that hope itself falls into the background. But it\nfinally asserted itself through out and became of independent importance\nin a new structure of eschatologlcal expectations in which it attained\nthe significance of becoming the specific conviction of Christian faith.\nWith the hope of the resurrection of the body was originally connected\nthe hope of a happy life in easy blessedness under green trees in\nmagnificent fields with joyous feeding flocks and flying angels clothed\nin white. One must read the Revelation of Peter the Shepherd or the Acts\nof Perpetua and Felicitas in order to see how entirely the fancy of many\nChristians and not merely of those who were uncultured dwelt in a\nfairyland in which they caught sight now of the Ancient of days and now\nof the Youthful Shepherd Christ. The most fearful delineations of the\ntorments of Hell formed the reverse side to this. We now know through\nthe Apocalypse of Peter, how old these delineations are.]\n\n[Footnote 202: The perfect knowledge of the truth and eternal life are\nconnected in the closest way (see p. 144, note 1) because the Father of\ntruth is also Prince of life (see Diognet. 12: [Greek: oude gar zoe aneu\ngnoseos oude gnosis asphales aneu zoes alethous dio plesion ekateron\npephyteutai], see also what follows). The classification is a Hellenic\none, which has certainly penetrated also into Palestinian Jewish\ntheology. It may be reckoned among the great intuitions, which in the\nfulness of the times, united the religious and reflective minds of all\nnations. The Pauline formula, \"Where there is forgiveness of sin, there\nalso is life and salvation\", had for centuries no distinct history. But\nthe formula, \"Where there is truth, perfect knowledge, there also is\neternal life\", has had the richest history in Christendom from the\nbeginning. Quite apart from John, it is older than the theology of the\nApologists (see, for example, the Supper prayer in the Didache, 9. 10,\nwhere there is no mention of the forgiveness of sin, but thanks are\ngiven, [Greek: huper tes gnoseos kai pisteos kai athanasias hes\negnorisen hemin ho theos dia Iesou], or [Greek: huper tes zoes kai\ngnoseos], and 1 Clem. 36. 2: [Greek: dia touto ethelesen ho despotes tes\nathanatou gnoseos hemas geusasthai]). It is capable of a very manifold\ncontent, and has never made its way in the Church without reservations,\nbut so far as it has we may speak of a hellenising of Christianity. This\nis shewn most clearly in the fact that the [Greek: athanasia], identical\nwith [Greek: aphtharsia] and [Greek: zoe aionios], as is proved by their\nbeing often interchanged, gradually supplanted the [Greek: basileia tou\ntheou] ([Greek: christou]) and thrust it out of the sphere of religious\nintuition and hope into that of religious speech. It should also be\nnoted, at the same time, that in the hope of eternal life which is\nbestowed with the knowledge of the truth, the resurrection of the body\nis by no means with certainty included. It is rather added to it (see\nabove) from another series of ideas. Conversely, the words [Greek: zoen\naionion] were first added to the words [Greek: sarkos anastasin] in the\nwestern Symbols at a comparatively late period, while in the prayers\nthey are certainly very old.]\n\n[Footnote 203: Even the assumption of such a remission is fundamentally\nin contradiction with moralism; but that solitary remission of sin was\nnot called in question, was rather regarded as distinctive of the new\nreligion, and was established by an appeal to the omnipotence and\nspecial goodness of God, which appears just in the calling of sinners.\nIn this calling, grace as grace is exhausted (Barn. 5. 9; 2 Clem. 2.\n4-7). But this grace itself seems to be annulled, inasmuch as the sins\ncommitted before baptism were regarded as having been committed in a\nstate of ignorance (Tertull. de bapt. I.: delicta pristinae caecitatis),\non account of which it seemed worthy of God to forgive them, that is, to\naccept the repentance which followed on the ground of the new knowledge.\nSo considered, everything, in point of fact, amounts to the gracious\ngift of knowledge, and the memory of the saying, \"Jesus receiveth\nsinners\", is completely obscured. But the tradition of this saying and\nmany like it, and above all, the religious instinct, where it was more\npowerfully stirred, did not permit a consistent development of that\nmoralistic conception. See for this, Hermas, Sim. V. 7. 3: [Greek: peri\nton proteron agnoematon toi theoi monoi dunaton iasin dounai; autou gar\nesti pasa exousia]. Praed. Petri ap. Clem. Strom. VI. 6. 48: [Greek: hosa\nen agnoia tis humon epoiesen me eidos saphos ton theon, ean epignous\nmetanoesei, panta autoi aphethesetai ta hamartemata]. Aristides, Apol.\n17: \"The Christians offer prayers (for the unconverted Greeks) that they\nmay be converted from their error. But when one of them is converted he\nis ashamed before the Christians of the works which he has done. And he\nconfesses to God, saying: 'I have done these things in ignorance.' And\nhe cleanses his heart, and his sins are forgiven him, because he had\ndone them in ignorance, in the earlier period when he mocked and jeered\nat the true knowledge of the Christians.\" Exactly the same in Tertull.\nde pudic. so. init. The statement of this same writer (1. c. fin),\n\"Cessatio delicti radix est veniae, ut venia sit paenitentiae fructus\", is\na pregnant expression of the conviction of the earliest Gentile\nChristians.]\n\n[Footnote 204: This idea appears with special prominence in the Epistle\nof Barnabas (see 6. 11. 14); the new formation ([Greek: anaplassein])\nresults through the forgiveness of sin. In the moralistic view the\nforgiveness of sin is the result of the renewal that is spontaneously\nbrought about on the ground of knowledge shewing itself in penitent\nfeeling.]\n\n[Footnote 205: Barn. 2. 6, and my notes on the passage.]\n\n[Footnote 206: James I. 25.]\n\n[Footnote 207: Hermas. Sim. VIII. 3. 2; Justin Dial. II. 43; Praed. Petri\nin Clem., Strom. I. 29. 182; II. 15. 68.]\n\n[Footnote 208: Didache, c. 1., and my notes on the passage (Prolegg. p.\n45 f.).]\n\n[Footnote 209: The concepts, [Greek: epangelia, gnosis, nomos], form the\nTriad on which the later catholic conception of Christianity is based,\nthough it can be proved to have been in existence at an earlier period.\nThat [Greek: pistis] must everywhere take the lead was undoubted, though\nwe must not think of the Pauline idea of [Greek: pistis]. When the\nApostolic Fathers reflect upon faith, which, however, happens only\nincidentally, they mean a holding for true of a sum of holy traditions,\nand obedience to them, along with the hope that their consoling contents\nwill yet be fully revealed. But Ignatius speaks like a Christian who\nknows what he possesses in faith in Christ, that is, in confidence in\nhim. In Barn. 1, Polyc. Ep. 2, we find \"faith, hope, love\"; in Ignatius,\n\"faith and love.\" Tertullian, in an excellent exposition, has shewn how\nfar patience is a temper corresponding to Christian faith (see besides\nthe Epistle of James).]\n\n[Footnote 210: See Lipsius De Clementis R. ep. ad. Cor. priore disquis.\n1855. It would be in point of method inadmissible to conclude from the\nfact that in 1 Clem. Pauline formulae are relatively most faithfully\nproduced, that Gentile Christianity generally understood Pauline\ntheology at first, but gradually lost this understanding in the course\nof two generations.]\n\n[Footnote 211: Formally: [Greek: teresate ten sarka agnen kai ten\nsphragida aspilon] (2 Clem. 8. 6).]\n\n[Footnote 212: Hermas (Mand. IV. 3) and Justin presuppose it. Hermas of\ncourse sought and found a way of meeting the results of that idea which\nwere threatening the Church with decimation; but he did not question the\nidea itself. Because Christendom is a community of saints which has in\nits midst the sure salvation, all its members--this is the necessary\ninference--must lead a sinless life.]\n\n[Footnote 213: The formula, \"righteousness by faith alone\", was really\nrepressed in the second century; but it could not be entirely destroyed:\nsee my Essay, \"Gesch. d. Seligkeit allein durch den Glauben in der alten\nK.\" Ztsch. f. Theol. u Kirche. I. pp. 82-105.]\n\n[Footnote 214: The only thorough discussion of the use of the Old\nTestament by an Apostolic Father, and of its authority, that we possess,\nis Wrede's \"Untersuchungen zum 1 Clemensbrief\" (1891). Excellent\npreliminary investigations, which, however, are not everywhere quite\nreliable, may be found in Hatch's Essays in Biblical Greek, 1889. Hatch\nhas taken up again the hypothesis of earlier scholars, that there were\nvery probably in the first and second centuries systematised extracts\nfrom the Old Testament (see p. 203-214). The hypothesis is not yet quite\nestablished (see Wrede, above work, p. 65), but yet it is hardly to be\nrejected. The Jewish catechetical and missionary instruction in the\nDiaspora needed such collections, and their existence seem to be proved\nby the Christian Apologies and the Sybilline books.]\n\n[Footnote 215: It is an extremely important fact that the words of the\nLord were quoted and applied in their literal sense (that is chiefly for\nthe statement of Christian morality) by Ecclesiastical authors, almost\nwithout exception, up to and inclusive of Justin. It was different with\nthe theologians of the age, that is the Gnostics, and the Fathers from\nIrenaeus.]\n\n[Footnote 216: Justin was not the first to do so, for it had already\nbeen done by the so-called Barnabas (see especially c. 13) and others.\nOn the proofs from prophecy see my Texte und Unters. Bd. I. 3. pp.\n56-74. The passage in the Praed. Petri (Clem. Strom. VI. 15. 128) is\nvery complete: [Greek: Hemis anaptixantes tas biblous tas eichomen ton\npropheton, ha men dia parabolon ha de dia ainigmaton, ha de authentikos\nkai autolexei ton Christon Iesoun onomazonton, euromen kai ten parousian\nautou kai ton thanaton kai ton stauron kai tas loipas kolaseis pasas,\nhosas epoiesan auto hoi Ioudaioi, kai ten egersin kai ten eis ouranous\nanalepsin pro tou Hiersoluma krithenai, kathos egegrapto tauta panta ha\nedei auton pathein kai met' auton ha estai; tauta oun epignontes\nepisteusamen to theo dia ton gegrammennon eis auton.] With the help of\nthe Old Testament the teachers dated back the Christian religion to the\nbeginning of the human race, and joined the preparations for the\nfounding of the Christian community with the creation of the world. The\nApologists were not the first to do so, for Barnabas and Hermas, and\nbefore these, Paul, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and others\nhad already done the same. This was undoubtedly to the cultured classes\none of the most impressive articles in the missionary preaching. The\nChristian religion in this way got a hold which the others--with the\nexception of the Jewish--lacked. But for that very reason, we must guard\nagainst turning it into a formula, that the Gentile Christians had\ncomprehended the Old Testament essentially through the scheme of\nprediction and fulfilment. The Old Testament is certainly the book of\npredictions, but for that very reason the complete revelation of God\nwhich needs no additions and excludes subsequent changes. The historical\nfulfilment only proves to the world the truth of those revelations. Even\nthe scheme of shadow and reality is yet entirely out of sight. In such\ncircumstances the question necessarily arises, as to what independent\nmeaning and significance Christ's appearance could have, apart from that\nconfirmation of the Old Testament. But, apart from the Gnostics, a\nsurprisingly long time passed before this question was raised, that is\nto say, it was not raised till the time of Irenaeus.]\n\n[Footnote 217: See [Greek: Didache], 8.]\n\n[Footnote 218: See the Revelation of John II. 9; III. 9; but see also\nthe \"Jews\" in the Gospels of John and of Peter. The latter exonerates\nPilate almost completely, and makes the Jews and Herod responsible for\nthe crucifixion.]\n\n[Footnote 219: See Barn. 9. 4. In the second epistle of Clement the Jews\nare called: [Greek: hoi dokiountes echein theon], cf. Praed. Petri in\nClem., Strom. VI. 5. 41: [Greek: mede kata Ioudaious sebesthe, kai gar\nekeinoi monoi oiomenoi ton theon gignoskein ouk epistantai, latreuontes\nangelois kai archangelois, meni kai selene, kai ean me selene phanei,\nsabbaton ouk agousi to legomenon proton, oude neomenian agousin, oude\nazuma, oude heorten, oude megalen hemera]. (Cf. Diognet. 34.) Even\nJustin does not judge the Jews more favourably than the Gentiles, but\nless favourably; see Apol I. 37, 39, 43, 34, 47, 53, 60. On the other\nhand, Aristides (Apol. c. 14, especially in the Syrian text) is much\nmore friendly disposed to the Jews and recognises them more. The words\nof Pionius against and about the Jews, in the \"Acta Pionii,\" c. 4, are\nvery instructive.]\n\n[Footnote 220: Barn. 4. 6. f.; 14. 1 f. The author of Praed. Petri must\nhave had a similar view of the matter.]\n\n[Footnote 221: Justin in the Dialogue with Trypho.]\n\n[Footnote 222: Barn. 9 f. It is a thorough misunderstanding of Barnabas'\nposition towards the Old Testament to suppose it possible to pass over\nhis expositions, c. 6-10, as oddities and caprices, and put them aside\nas indifferent or unmethodical. There is nothing here unmethodical, and\ntherefore nothing arbitrary. Barnabas' strictly spiritual idea of God,\nand the conviction that all (Jewish) ceremonies are of the devil, compel\nhis explanations. These are so little ingenious conceits to Barnabas\nthat, but for them, he would have been forced to give up the Old\nTestament altogether. The account, for example, of Abraham having\ncircumcised his slaves would have forced Barnabas to annul the whole\nauthority of the Old Testament if he had not succeeded in giving it a\nparticular interpretation. He does this by combining other passages of\nGenesis with the narrative, and then finding in it no longer\ncircumcision, but a prediction of the crucified Christ.]\n\n[Footnote 223: Barn. 9. 6: [Greek: all' ereis, kai men peritetmetai ho\nlaos eis sphragida].]\n\n[Footnote 224: See the expositions of Justin in the Dial. (especially,\n16, 18, 20, 30, 40-46); Von Engelhardt, \"Christenthum Justin's\", p. 429,\nff. Justin has the three estimates side by side. (1) That the ceremonial\nlaw was a paedagogic measure of God with reference to a stiff-necked\npeople, prone to idolatry. (2) That it--like circumcision--was to make\nthe people conspicuous for the execution of judgment, according to the\nDivine appointment. (3) That in the ceremonial legal worship of the Jews\nis exhibited the special depravity and wickedness of the nation. But\nJustin conceived the Decalogue as the natural law of reason, and\ntherefore definitely distinguished it from the ceremonial law.]\n\n[Footnote 225: See Ztschr fur K.G. I., p. 330 f.]\n\n[Footnote 226: This is the unanimous opinion of all writers of the\npost-Apostolic age. Christians are the true Israel; and therefore all\nIsrael's predicates of honour belong to them. They are the twelve\ntribes, and therefore Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, are the Fathers of the\nChristians. This idea, about which there was no wavering, cannot\neverywhere be traced back to the Apostle Paul. The Old Testament men of\nGod were in a certain measure Christians. See Ignat. Magn. 8. 2: [Greek:\nhoi prophetai kata Christon Iesoun ezesan].]\n\n[Footnote 227: God was naturally conceived and represented as corporeal\nby uncultured Christians, though not by these alone, as the later\ncontroversies prove (e.g., Orig. contra Melito; see also Tertull. De\nanima). In the case of the cultured, the idea of a corporeality of God\nmay be traced back to Stoic influences; in the case of the uncultured,\npopular ideas co-operated with the sayings of the Old Testament\nliterally understood, and the impression of the Apocalyptic images.]\n\n[Footnote 228: See Joh. IV. 22, [Greek: hemeis proskunoumen ho oidamen].\n1 Clem. 59. 3, 4, Herm. Mand. I., Praed Petri in Clem., Strom. VI. 5. 9\n[Greek: ginoskete hoti eis theos estin, hos archen panton epoiesen, kai\ntelous exousian echon]. Aristides Apol. 15 (Syr) \"The Christians know\nand believe in God, the creator of heaven and of earth.\" Chap. 16\n\"Christians as men who know God pray to him for things which it becomes\nhim to give and them to receive.\" Similarly Justin: \"From very many old\nGentile Christian writings we hear it as a cry of joy 'We know God the\nAlmighty, the night of blindness is past'\" (see, e.g., 2 Clem. c. 1).\nGod is [Greek: despotes], a designation which is very frequently used\n(it is rare in the New Testament). Still more frequently do we find\n[Greek: kurios]. As the Lord and Creator God is also called the Father\n(of the world) so 1 Clem. 19. 2 [Greek: ho pater kai ktistes tou\nsumpantos kosmou]; 35. 3 [Greek: demiourgos kai pater ton aionon]. This\nuse of the name Father for the supreme God was as is well known familiar\nto the Greeks, but the Christians alone were in earnest with the name.\nThe creation out of nothing was made decidedly prominent by Hermas, see\nVis. I. 1. 6 and my notes on the passage. In the Christian Apocrypha, in\nspite of the vividness of the idea of God, the angels play the same role\nas in the Jewish, and as in the current Jewish speculations. According\nto Hermas, e.g., all God's actions are mediated by special angels, nay\nthe Son of God himself is represented by a special angel, viz. Michael,\nand works by him. But outside the Apocalypses there seems to have been\nlittle interest in the good angels.]\n\n[Footnote 229: See, for example 1 Clem. 20.]\n\n[Footnote 230: This is frequent in the Apologists, see also Diogn. 10.\n2; but Hermas, Vis. II. 4. 1 (see also Cels. ap Orig. IV. 23) says\n[Greek: dia ten ekklesian ho kosmos katertisthe] (cf. I. 1. 6 and my\nnotes on the passage). Aristides (Apol. 16) declares it as his\nconviction that \"the beautiful things, that is, the world are maintained\nonly for the sake of Christians,\" see besides the words (I. c.), \"I have\nno doubt that the earth continues to exist (only) on account of the\nprayers of the Christians.\" Even the Jewish Apocalyptists wavered\nbetween the formulae, that the world was created for the sake of man and\nfor the sake of the Jewish nation. The two are not mutually exclusive.\nThe statement in the Eucharistic prayer of Didache, 9. 3 [Greek: ektisas\nta panta heneken tou onomatos sou] is singular.]\n\n[Footnote 231: God is named the Father, (1) in relation to the Son (very\nfrequent) (2) as Father of the world (see above) (3) as the merciful one\nwho has proved his goodness, declared his will and called Christians to\nbe his sons (1 Clem. 23. 1, 29. 1, 2 Clem. 1. 4, 8. 4, 10. 1, 14. 1, see\nthe index to Zahn's edition of the Ignatian Epistles, Didache, 1. 5, 9.\n2, 3, 10. 2). The latter usage is not very common, it is entirely\nwanting for example in the Epistle of Barnabas. Moreover God is also\ncalled [Greek: pater tes aletheias] as the source of all truth (2 Clem.\n3. 1, 20. 5 [Greek: theos to aletheias]). The identity of the Almighty\nGod of creation with the merciful God of redemption is the tacit\npresupposition of all declarations about God in the case of both the\ncultured and the uncultured. It is also frequently expressed (see above\nall the Pastoral Epistles), most frequently by Hermas (Vis. 1. 3. 4) so\nfar as the declaration about the creation of the world is there united\nin the closest way with that about the creation of the Holy Church. As\nto the designation of God in the Roman Symbol as the \"Father Almighty,\"\nthat threefold exposition just given, may perhaps allow it.]\n\n[Footnote 232: The present dominion of evil demons or of one evil demon,\nwas just as generally presupposed as man's need of redemption, which was\nregarded as a result of that dominion. The conviction that the world's\ncourse (the [Greek: politeia en to kosmo], the Latins afterwards used\nthe word Saeculum) is determined by the devil, and that the dark one\n(Barnabas) has dominion, comes out most prominently where eschatological\nhopes obtain expression. But where salvation is thought of as knowledge\nand immortality, it is ignorance and frailty from which men are to be\ndelivered. We may here also assume with certainty that these, in the\nlast instance, were traced back by the writers to the action of demons.\nBut it makes a very great difference whether the judgment was ruled by\nfancy which saw a real devil everywhere active, or whether, in\nconsequence of theoretic reflection, it based the impression of\nuniversal ignorance and mortality on the assumption of demons who have\nproduced them. Here again we must note the two series of ideas which\nintertwine and struggle with each other in the creeds of the earliest\nperiod, the traditional religious series resting on a fanciful view of\nhistory--it is essentially identical with the Jewish Apocalyptic, see,\nfor example Barn 4--and the empiric moralistic, (see 2 Clem. 1. 2-7, as\na specially valuable discussion, or Praed. Petri in Clem, Strom. VI. 5,\n39, 40), which abides by the fact that men have fallen into ignorance,\nweakness and death (2 Clem. 1. 6 [Greek: ho bios hemon holos allo ouden\nen ei me thanatos]). But perhaps, in no other point, with the exception\nof the [Greek: anastasis sarkos] has the religious conception remained\nso tenacious as in this and it decidedly prevailed, especially in the\nepoch with which we are now dealing. Its tenacity may be explained,\namong other things, by the living impression of the polytheism that\nsurrounded the communities on every side. Even where the national gods\nwere looked upon as dead idols--and that was perhaps the rule, see\nPraed. Petri. I. c, 2 Clem. 3. 1, Didache, 6--one could not help\nassuming that there were mighty demons operative behind them, as\notherwise the frightful power of idolatry could not be explained. But on\nthe other hand, even a calm reflection and a temper unfriendly to all\nreligious excess must have welcomed the assumption of demons who sought\nto rule the world and man. For by means of this assumption which was\nwide-spread even among the Greeks, humanity seemed to be unburdened, and\nthe presupposed capacity for redemption could therefore be justified in\nits widest range. From the assumption that the need of redemption was\naltogether due to ignorance and mortality there was but one step, or\nlittle more than one step, to the assumption that the need of redemption\nwas grounded in a condition of man for which he was not responsible,\nthat is, in the flesh. But this step which would have led either to\ndualism (heretical Gnosis) or to the abolition of the distinction\nbetween natural and moral, was not taken within the main body of the\nChurch. The eschatological series of ideas with its thesis that death\nevil and sin entered into humanity at a definite historical moment when\nthe demons took possession of the world drew a limit which was indeed\noverstepped at particular points but was in the end respected. We have\ntherefore the remarkable fact that, on the one hand, early Christian\n(Jewish) eschatology called forth and maintained a disposition in which\nthe Kingdom of God, and that of the world, (Kingdom of the devil) were\nfelt to be absolutely opposed (practical dualism), while, on the other\nhand, it rejected theoretic dualism. Redemption through Christ, however,\nwas conceived in the eschatological Apocalyptic series of ideas as\nessentially something entirely in the future, for the power of the devil\nwas not broken, but rather increased (or it was virtually broken in\nbelievers and increased in unbelievers), by the first advent of Christ,\nand therefore the period between the first and second advent of Christ\nbelongs to [Greek: houtos ho aion] (see Barn. 2. 4; Herm. Sim 1; 2 Clem.\n6. 3: [Greek: estin de houtos ho aion kai ho mellon duo echthroi; houtos\nlegei moicheian kai phthoran kai philargourian kai apaten, ekeinos de\ntoutois apostassetai], Ignat. Magn. 5. 2). For that very reason, the\nsecond coming of Christ must, as a matter of course, be at hand, for\nonly through it could the first advent get its full value. The painful\nimpression that nothing had been outwardly changed by Christ's first\nadvent (the heathen, moreover, pointed this out in mockery to the\nsuffering Christians), must be destroyed by the hope of his speedy\ncoming again. But the first advent had its independent significance in\nthe series of ideas which regarded Christ as redeeming man from\nignorance and mortality; for the knowledge was already given, and the\ngift of immortality could only of course be dispensed after this life\nwas ended, but then immediately. The hope of Christ's return was\ntherefore a superfluity, but was not felt or set aside as such, because\nthere was still a lively expectation of Christ's earthly Kingdom.]\n\n[Footnote 233: No other name adhered to Christ so firmly as that of\n[Greek: kurios]; see a specially clear evidence of this, Novatian de\ntrinit. 30, who argues against the Adoptian and Modalistic heretics\nthus: \"Et in primis illud retorquendum in istos, qui duorum nobis deorum\ncontroversiam facere praesumunt. Scriptum est, quod negare non possunt:\n'Quoniam unus est dominus.' De Christo ergo quid sentiunt? Dominum esse,\naut illum omnino non esse? Sed dominum illum omnino non dubitant. Ergo\nsi vera est illorum ratiocinatio, jam duo sunt domini.\" On [Greek:\nkurios--despotes], see above, p. 119, note.]\n\n[Footnote 234: Specially instructive examples of this are found in the\nEpistle of Barnabas and the second Epistle of Clement. Clement (Ep. 1)\nspeaks only of faith in God.]\n\n[Footnote 235: See 1 Clem. 59-61. [Greek: Didache], c. 9. 10. Yet\nNovatian (de trinit. 14) exactly reproduces the old idea, \"Si homo\ntantummodo Christus, cur homo in orationibus mediator invocatur, cum\ninvocatio hominis ad praestandam salutem inefficax judicetur.\" As the\nMediator, High Priest, etc., Christ is of course always and everywhere\ninvoked by the Christians, but such invocations are one thing and formal\nprayer another. The idea of the congruence of God's will of salvation\nwith the revelation of salvation which took place through Christ, was\nfurther continued in the idea of the congruence of this revelation of\nsalvation with the universal preaching of the twelve chosen Apostles\n(see above, p. 162 ff.), the root of the Catholic principle of\ntradition. But the Apostles never became \"[Greek: hoi kurioi]\" though\nthe concepts [Greek: didache (logos) kuriou, didache (kerugma) ton\napostolon] were just as interchangeable as [Greek: logos theou] and\n[Greek: logos christou]. The full formula would be [Greek: logos theou\ndia Iesou Christou dia ton apostolon]. But as the subjects introduced by\n[Greek: dia] are chosen and perfect media, religious usage permitted the\nabbreviation.]\n\n[Footnote 236: In the epistle of Barnabas \"Jesus Christ\" and \"Christ\"\nappear each once, but \"Jesus\" twelve times: in the Didache \"Jesus\nChrist\" once, \"Jesus\" three times. Only in the second half of the second\ncentury, if I am not mistaken, did the designation \"Jesus Christ\", or\n\"Christ\", become the current one, more and more crowding out the simple\n\"Jesus.\" Yet the latter designation--and this is not surprising--appears\nto have continued longest in the regular prayers. It is worthy of note\nthat in the Shepherd there is no mention either of the name Jesus or of\nChrist. The Gospel of Peter also says [Greek: ho kurios] where the other\nGospels use these names.]\n\n[Footnote 237: See 1 Clem. 64: [Greek: ho theos, ho eklexamenos ton\nkurion Iesoun Christon kai hemas di' autou eis laon periousion doe,\nk.t.l.] (It is instructive to note that wherever the idea of election is\nexpressed, the community is immediately thought of, for in point of fact\nthe election of the Messiah has no other aim than to elect or call the\ncommunity; Barn. 3. 6: [Greek: ho laos hon hetoimasen en to egapemenoi\nautou]). Herm. Sim. V. 2: [Greek: eklexamenos doulon tina piston kai\neuareston] V. 6. 5. Justin, Dial. 48: [Greek: me arneisthai hoti houtos\nestin ho Christos, ean phainetai hos anthropos ex anthropon gennetheis\nkai ekloge genomenos eis to Christon einai apodeiknuetai].]\n\n[Footnote 238: See Barn. 14. 5: [Greek: Iesous eis touto hetoimasthe,\nhina ... hemas lutrosamenos ek tou skotous diathetai en hemin diatheken\nlogoi]. The same word concerning the Church, I. c. 3. 6. and 5. 7:\n[Greek: autos eauto ton laon ton kainon etoimazon] 14 6.]\n\n[Footnote 239: \"Angel\" is a very old designation for Christ (see\nJustin's Dial.) which maintained itself up to the Nicean controversy,\nand is expressly claimed for him in Novatian's treatise \"de trinit.\" 11.\n25 ff. (the word was taken from Old Testament passages which were\napplied to Christ). As a rule, however, it is not to be understood as a\ndesignation of the nature, but of the office of Christ as such, though\nthe matter was never very clear. There were Christians who used it as a\ndesignation of the nature, and from the earliest times we find this idea\ncontradicted (see the Apoc. Sophoniae, ed. Stern, 1886, IV. fragment, p\n10: \"He appointed no Angel to come to us, nor Archangel, nor any power,\nbut he transformed himself into a man that he might come to us for our\ndeliverance.\" Cf. the remarkable parallel, ep. ad. Diagn. 7. 2: ...\n[Greek: ou, kathaper an tis eikaseien anthropos, hypereten tina pempsas\ne angelon e archonta e tina ton dieponton ta epigeia he tina ton\npepisteumenon tas en ouranois dioikeseis, all' auton ton techniten kai\ndemiourgon ton holon. k.t.l.]). Yet it never got the length of a great\ncontroversy and as the Logos doctrine gradually made way, the\ndesignation \"Angel\" became harmless and then vanished.]\n\n[Footnote 240: [Greek: Pais] (after Isaiah): this designation,\nfrequently united with [Greek: Iesous] and with the adjectives [Greek:\nhagios] and [Greek: egapemenos] (see Barn. 3, 6; 4, 3; 4, 8; Valent. ap.\nClem. Alex., Strom. VI. 6. 52, and the Ascensio Isaiae), seems to have\nbeen at the beginning a usual one. It sprang undoubtedly from the\nMessianic circle of ideas, and at its basis lies the idea of election.\nIt is very interesting to observe how it was gradually put into the\nbackground and finally abolished. It was kept longest in the liturgical\nprayers: see 1 Clem. 59. 2; Barn. 61. 9. 2; Acts iii. 13, 26; iv. 27,\n30; Didache, 9. 2. 3; Mart. Polyc. 14. 20; Act. Pauli et Theclae, 17, 24;\nSibyl. I. v. 324, 331, 364; Diogn. 8, 9, 10: [Greek: ho hagapetos pais]\n9; also Ep. Orig. ad Afric. init; Clem. Strom. VII. 1. 4: [Greek: ho\nmonogenes pais], and my note on Barn 6. 1. In the Didache (9. 2) Jesus\nas well as David is in one statement called \"Servant of God.\" Barnabas,\nwho calls Christ the \"Beloved\", uses the same expression for the Church\n(4. 1. 9); see also Ignat ad Smyrn. inscr.]\n\n[Footnote 241: See the old Roman Symbol and Acts X. 42; 2 Tim. IV. 1;\nBarn. 7. 2; Polyc. Ep. 2. 1; 2 Clem. 2. 1; Hegesipp. in Euseb. H. E.\nIII. 20, 6: Justin Dial. 118]\n\n[Footnote 242: There could of course be no doubt that Christ meant the\n\"anointed\" (even Aristides Apol. 2 fin., if Nestle's correction is\nright, Justin's Apol. 1. 4 and similar passages do not justify doubt on\nthat point). But the meaning and the effect of this anointing was very\nobscure. Justin says (Apol. II. 6) [Greek: Christos men kata to\nkechristhai kai kosmesai ta panta di autou ton theon legetai] and\ntherefore (see Dial. 76 fin.) finds in this designation an expression of\nthe cosmic significance of Christ.]\n\n[Footnote 243: See the Apologists: Apost. K.O. (Texte. v. Unters. II. 5,\np. 25) [Greek: proorontas tous logous tou didaskalou hemon], ibid, p. 28\n[Greek: ote etesen ho didaskalos ton arton], ibid. p. 30 [Greek:\nproelegen ote edidasken], Apost. Constit. (original writing) III. 6\n[Greek: autos ho didaskalos hemon kai kurios], III. 7 [Greek: ho kurios\nkai didaskalos hemon eipen], III. 19, III. 20, V. 12, 1 Clem. 13. 1\n[Greek: ton logon tou kuriou Iesou hous elalesen didaskon], Polyc. Ep. 2\n[Greek: mnemoneuontes hon eipen ho kurios didaskon], Ptolem. ad Floram 5\n[Greek: he didaskalia tou soteros].]\n\n[Footnote 244: The baptismal formula which had been naturalised\neverywhere in the communities at this period preserved it above all. The\naddition of [Greek: idios prototokos] is worthy of notice. [Greek:\nMonogenes] (= the only begotten and also the beloved) is not common, it\nis found only in John, in Justin, in the Symbol of the Romish Church and\nin Mart. Polyc. (Diogn. 10. 3).]\n\n[Footnote 245: The so-called second Epistle of Clement begins with the\nwords [Greek: Adelphoi outos dei hemas phronein peri Iesou hos peri\ntheou, hos peri kritou zonton kai nekron] (this order in which the Judge\nappears as the higher is also found in Barn. 7. 2), [Greek: kai ou dei\nhemas mikra phronein peri tes soterias hemon; en to gar phronein hemas\nmikra peri autou mikra kai elpizomen labein]. This argumentation (see\nalso the following verses up to II. 7) is very instructive, for it shews\nthe grounds on which the [Greek: phronein peri autou os peri theou] was\nbased H. Schultz (L. v. d. Gottheit Christi, p. 25 f.) very correctly\nremarks. In the second Epistle of Clement and in the Shepherd the\nChristological interest of the writer ends in obtaining the assurance,\nthrough faith in Christ as the world ruling King and Judge that the\ncommunity of Christ will receive a glory corresponding to its moral and\nascetic works.]\n\n[Footnote 246: Pliny in his celebrated letter (96) speaks of a \"Carmen\ndicere Christo quasi deo\" on the part of the Christians. Hermas has no\ndoubt that the Chosen Servant, after finishing his work, will be adopted\nas God's Son, and therefore has been destined from the beginning,\n[Greek: eis exousian megalen kai kurioteta], Sim. V. 6. 1. But that\nsimply means that he is now in a Divine sphere and that one must think\nof him as of God. But there was no unanimity beyond that. The formula\nsays nothing about the nature or constitution of Jesus. It might indeed\nappear from Justin's dialogue that the direct designation of Jesus as\n[Greek: theos] (not as [Greek: o theos]) was common in the communities,\nbut not only are there some passages in Justin himself to be urged\nagainst this but also the testimony of other writers. [Greek: Theos],\neven without the article, was in no case a usual designation for Jesus.\nOn the contrary, it was always quite definite occasions which led them\nto speak of Christ as of a God or as God. In the first place there were\nOld Testament passages such as Ps. XLV. 8, CX. 1 f. etc. which as soon\nas they were interpreted in relation to Christ led to his getting the\npredicate [Greek: theos]. These passages, with many others taken from\nthe Old Testament, were used in this way by Justin. Yet it is very well\nworth noting that the author of the Epistle of Barnabas avoided this\nexpression in a passage which must have suggested it (12, 10, 11 on Ps.\nCX. 4) The author of the Didache calls him \"[Greek: o theos Dabid]\" on\nthe basis of the above psalm. It is manifestly therefore in liturgical\nformulae of exalted paradox or living utterances of religious feeling\nthat Christ is called God. See Ignat. ad Rom. 6. 3, [Greek: epitrepsate\nmoi mimeten einai tou pathous tou theou mou] (the [Greek: mou] here\nshould be observed), ad Eph. 1. 1 [Greek: anazopuresantes en aimati\ntheou], Tatian Orat. 13 [Greek: diakonos tou peponthotos theou]. As to\nthe celebrated passage 1 Clem. ad Cor. 2. 10 [Greek: ta pathemata autou]\n(the [Greek: autou] refers to [Greek: theos]) we may perhaps observe\nthat that [Greek: o theos] stands far apart. However, such a\nconsideration is hardly in place. The passages just adduced shew that\nprecisely the union of suffering (blood, death) with the concept\n\"God\"--and only this union--must have been in Christendom from a very\nearly period, see Acts XX. 28 [Greek: ten ekklaesian tou theou hen\nperiepoiesato dia tou haimatos tou idiou], and from a later period\nMelito, Fragm (in Routh Rel Sacra I. 122), [Greek: ho theos peponthen\nhupo dexias Israelitidos], Anonym ap Euseb H. E. V. 28 11, [Greek: ho\neusplanchnos theos kai kurios hemon Iesous Christos ouk ebouleto\napolesthai martura ton idion pathematon], Test XII. Patriarch. (Levi. 4)\n[Greek: epi to pathei tou hupsistou]; Tertull. de carne 5, \"passiones\ndei,\" ad Uxor. II. 3: \"sanguine dei.\" Tertullian also speaks frequently\nof the crucifying of God, the flesh of God, the death of God. (see\nLightfoot, Clem. of Rome, p. 400, sq.). These formulae were first\nsubjected to examination in the Patripassian controversy. They were\nrejected by Athanasius for example in the fourth century (cf. Apollin.\nII. 13, 14, Opp. I. p. 758) [Greek: pos oun gegraphate hoti theos ho dia\nsarkos pathon kai anastas, ... oudamou de haima theou dicha sarkos\nparadedokasin hai graphai e theon dia sarkos pathonta kai anastanta].\nThey continued in use in the west and became of the utmost significance\nin the christological controversies of the fifth century. It is not\nquite certain whether there is a theologia Christi in such passages as\nTit. II. 13, 2 Pet. I. 1 (see the controversies on Rom. IX. 5). Finally\n[Greek: theos] and Christus were often interchanged in religious\ndiscourse (see above). In the so called second Epistle of Clement (c. 1.\n4) the dispensing of right knowledge is traced back to Christ. It is\nsaid of him that like a Father, he has called us children, he has\ndelivered us, he has called us into existence out of non-existence and\nin this God himself is not thought of. Indeed he is called (2. 2. 3) the\nhearer of prayer and the controller of history, but immediately thereon\na saying of the Lord is introduced as a saying of God (Matt. IX. 13). On\nthe contrary Isaiah XXIX. 13 is quoted (3. 5) as a declaration of Jesus,\nand again (13. 4) a saying of the Lord with the formula [Greek: legei o\ntheos]. It is Christ who pitied us (3. 1, 16. 2), he is described simply\nas the Lord who hath called and redeemed us (5. 1, 8. 2, 9. 5 etc). Not\nonly is there frequent mention of the [Greek: entolai] ([Greek:\nentalmata]) of Christ, but 6. 7 (see 14. 1) speak directly of a [Greek:\npoiein to thelema tou Christou]. Above all, in the entire first division\n(up to 9. 5) the religious situation is for the most part treated as if\nit were something essentially between the believer and Christ. On the\nother hand, (10. 1), the Father is he who calls (see also 16. 1), who\nbrings salvation (9. 7), who accepts us as Sons (9. 10; 16. 1); he has\ngiven us promises (11. 1, 6. 7.); we expect his kingdom, nay, the day of\nhis appearing (12. 1 f.; 6. 9; 9. 6; 11. 7; 12. 1). He will judge the\nworld, etc.; while in 17. 4. we read of the day of Christ's appearing,\nof his kingdom and of his function of Judge, etc. Where the preacher\ntreats of the relation of the community to God, where he describes the\nreligious situation according to its establishment or its consummation,\nwhere he desires to rule the religious and moral conduct, he introduces,\nwithout any apparent distinction, now God himself, and now Christ. But\nthis religious view, in which acts of God coincide with acts of Christ,\ndid not, as will be shewn later on, influence the theological\nspeculations of the preacher. We have also to observe that the\ninterchanging of God and Christ is not always an expression of the high\ndignity of Christ, but, on the contrary, frequently proves that the\npersonal significance of Christ is misunderstood, and that he is\nregarded only as the dependent revealer of God. All this shews that\nthere cannot have been many passages in the earliest literature where\nChrist was roundly designated [Greek: theos]. It is one thing to speak\nof the blood (death, suffering) of God, and to describe the gifts of\nsalvation brought by Christ as gifts of God, and another thing to set up\nthe proposition that Christ is a God (or God). When, from the end of the\nsecond century, one began to look about in the earlier writings for\npassages [Greek: en hois theologeitai ho christos], because the matter\nhad become a subject of controversy, one could, besides the Old\nTestament, point only to the writings of authors from the time of Justin\n(to apologists and controversialists) as well as to Psalms and odes (see\nthe Anonym. in Euseb. H. E. V. 28. 4-6). In the following passages of\nthe Ignatian Epistles \"[Greek: theos]\" appears as a designation of\nChrist; he is called [Greek: ho theos haemon] in Ephes. inscript.; Rom.\ninscr. bis 3. 2; Polyc. 8. 3; Eph. 1. 1, [Greek: haima theou]; Rom. 6.\n3, [Greek: to pathos tou theou mou]; Eph. 7. 2, [Greek: en sarki\ngenomenos theos], in another reading, [Greek: en anthropo theos], Smyrn.\nI. 1, I. Chr. [Greek: ho theos ho outos humas sophisas]. The latter\npassage, in which the relative clause must he closely united with\n\"[Greek: ho theos]\", seems to form the transition to the three passages\n(Trall. 7. 1; Smyrn. 6. 1; 10. 1), in which Jesus is called [Greek:\ntheos] without addition. But these passages are critically suspicious,\nsee Lightfoot _in loco_. In the same way the \"deus Jesus Christus\" in\nPolyc. Ep. 12. 2, is suspicious, and indeed in both parts of the verse.\nIn the first, all Latin codd. have \"dei filius,\" and in the Greek codd.\nof the Epistle, Christ is nowhere called [Greek: theos]. We have a keen\npolemic against the designation of Christ as [Greek: theos] in Clem.\nRom. Homil. XVI. 15 sq.; [Greek: Ho Petros apekrithae ho kurios haemon\noute theous einai ephthenxato para ton ktisanta ta panta oute heauton\ntheon einai anaegoreusen, huion de theou tou ta panta diakosmaesantos ton\neiponta auton eulogos emakarisen, kai o Simon apekrinato; ou dokei soi\noun ton apo theou theon einai, kai ho Petros ephae: pos touto einai\ndunatai, phrason haemin, touto gar haemeis eipein soi ou dunametha, hoti\nmae haekousamen par' autou.]]\n\n[Footnote 247: On the further use of the word [Greek: theos] in\nantiquity, see above, Sec. 8, p. 120 f.; the formula \"[Greek: theos ek\ntheou]\" for Augustus, even 24 years before Christ's birth; on the\nformula \"dominus ac deus\", see John XX. 28; the interchange of these\nconcepts in many passages beside one another in the anonymous writer\n(Euseb. H. E. V. 28. 11). Domitian first allowed himself to be called\n\"dominus ac deus.\" Tertullian, Apol. 10. 11, is very instructive as to\nthe general situation in the second century. Here are brought forward\nthe different causes which then moved men, the cultured and the\nuncultured, to give to this or that personality the predicate of\nDivinity. In the third century the designation of \"dominus ac deus\nnoster\" for Christ, was very common, especially in the west (see\nCyprian, Pseudo-Cyprian, Novatian; in the Latin Martyrology a Greek\n[Greek: ho kurios] is also frequently so translated). But only at this\ntime had the designation come to be in actual use even for the Emperor.\nIt seems at first sight to follow from the statements of Celsus (in\nOrig. c. Cels. III. 22-43) that this Greek had and required a very\nstrict conception of the Godhead; but his whole work shews how little\nthat was really the case. The reference to these facts of the history of\nthe time is not made with the view of discovering the \"theologia\nChristi\" itself in its ultimate roots--these roots lie elsewhere, in the\nperson of Christ and Christian experience; but that this experience,\nbefore any technical reflection, had so easily and so surely substituted\nthe new formula instead of the idea of Messiah, can hardly be explained\nwithout reference to the general religious ideas of the time.]\n\n[Footnote 248: The combination of [Greek: theos] and [Greek: soter] in\nthe Pastoral Epistles is very important. The two passages in the New\nTestament in which perhaps a direct \"theologia Christi\" may be\nrecognised, contain likewise the concept [Greek: soter]; see Tit. II.\n13; [Greek: prosdechomenoi ten makarian elpida kai epiphaneian tes doxes\ntou megalou theou kai soteros hemon Christou Iesou] (cf. Abbot, Journal\nof the Society of Bibl. Lit., and Exeg. 1881. June. p. 3 sq.): 2 Pet. I.\n1: [Greek: en dikaiosunei tou theou hemon kai soteros 'I. Chr.]. In both\ncases the [Greek: hemon] should be specially noted. Besides, [Greek:\ntheos soter] is also an ancient formula.]\n\n[Footnote 249: A very ancient formula ran \"[Greek: theos kai theos\nhuios]\" see Cels. ap. Orig II. 30; Justin, frequently: Alterc. Sim. et\nTheoph. 4, etc. The formula is equivalent to [Greek: theos monogenes]\n(see Joh. I. 18).]\n\n[Footnote 250: Such conceptions are found side by side in the same\nwriter. See, for example, the second Epistle of Clement, and even the\nfirst.]\n\n[Footnote 251: See Sec. 6, p. 120. The idea of a [Greek: theopoiesis] was\nas common as that of the appearances of the gods. In wide circles,\nhowever, philosophy had long ago naturalised the idea of the [Greek:\nlogos tou theou]. But now there is no mistaking a new element\neverywhere. In the case of the Christologies which include a kind of\n[Greek: theopoiesis], it is found in the fact that the deified Jesus was\nto be recognised not as a Demigod or Hero, but as Lord of the world,\nequal in power and honour to the Deity. In the case of those\nChristologies which start with Christ as the heavenly spiritual being,\nit is found in the belief in an actual incarnation. These two articles,\nas was to be expected, presented difficulties to the Gentile Christians,\nand the latter more than the former.]\n\n[Footnote 252: This is usually overlooked. Christological doctrinal\nconceptions are frequently constructed by a combination of particular\npassages, the nature of which does not permit of combination. But the\nfact that there was no universally recognised theory about the nature of\nJesus till beyond the middle of the second century, should not lead us\nto suppose that the different theories were anywhere declared to be of\nequal value, etc., therefore more or less equally valid; on the\ncontrary, everyone, so far as he had a theory at all, included his own\nin the revealed truth. That they had not yet come into conflict is\naccounted for, on the one hand, by the fact that the different theories\nran up into like formulae, and could even frequently be directly carried\nover into one another, and on the other hand, by the fact that their\nrepresentatives appealed to the same authorities. But we must, above\nall, remember that conflict could only arise after the enthusiastic\nelement, which also had a share in the formation of Christology, had\nbeen suppressed, and problems were felt to be such, that is, after the\nstruggle with Gnosticism, or even during that struggle.]\n\n[Footnote 253: Both were clearly in existence in the Apostolic age.]\n\n[Footnote 254: Only one work has been preserved entire which gives clear\nexpression to the Adoptian Christology, viz., the Shepherd of Hermas\n(see Sim. V. and IX. 1. 12). According to it, the Holy Spirit--it is not\ncertain whether he is identified with the chief Archangel--is regarded\nas the pre-existent Son of God, who is older than creation, nay, was\nGod's counsellor at creation. The Redeemer is the virtuous man [Greek:\nsarx] chosen by God, with whom that Spirit of God was united. As he did\nnot defile the Spirit, but kept him constantly as his companion, and\ncarried out the work to which the Deity had called him, nay, did more\nthan he was commanded, he was in virtue of a Divine decree adopted as a\nson and exalted to [Greek: megale exousia kai kuriotes]. That this\nChristology is set forth in a book which enjoyed the highest honour and\nsprang from the Romish community, is of great significance. The\nrepresentatives of this Christology, who in the third century were\ndeclared to be heretics, expressly maintained that it was at one time\nthe ruling Christology at Rome and had been handed down by the Apostles.\n(Anonym, in Euseb. H. E. V. 28. 3, concerning the Artemonites: [Greek:\nphasi tous men proterous hapantas kai autous tous apostolous\npareilephenai te kai dedidachenai tauta, ha nun houtoi legousi, kai\nteteresthai ten aletheian tou kerygmatos mechri ton chronon tou Biktoros\n... apo tou diadochon auto Zephurinou parakecharachthai ten aletheian]).\nThis assertion, though exaggerated, is not incredible after what we find\nin Hermas. It cannot, certainly, be verified by a superficial\nexamination of the literary monuments preserved to us, but a closer\ninvestigation shews that the Adoptian Christology must at one time have\nbeen very widespread, that it continued here and there undisturbed up to\nthe middle of the third century (see the Christology in the Acta\nArchelai. 49, 50), and that it continued to exercise great influence\neven in the fourth and fifth centuries (see Book II. c. 7). Something\nsimilar is found even in some Gnostics, e.g., Valentinus himself (see\nIren. I. 11. 1: [Greek: kai ton Christon de ouk apo ton en toi pleromati\naionon probeblesthai, alla hupo tes metros, exo de genomenes, kata ten\ngnomen ton kreittonon apokekuesthai meta skias tinos. Kai touton men,\nhate arrena huparchontaf, apokopsanta huph' heautou ten skian,\nanadramein eis to pleroma]. The same in the Exc. ex Theodot Sec.Sec. 22, 23,\n32, 33), and the Christology of Basilides presupposes that of the\nAdoptians. Here also belongs the conception which traces back the\ngenealogy of Jesus to Joseph. The way in which Justin (Dialog. 48, 49,\n87 ff.) treats the history of the baptism of Jesus, against the\nobjection of Trypho that a pre-existent Christ would not have needed to\nbe filled with the Spirit of God, is instructive. It is here evident\nthat Justin deals with objections which were raised within the\ncommunities themselves to the pre-existence of Christ, on the ground of\nthe account of the baptism. In point of fact, this account (it had,\naccording to very old witnesses, see Resch, Agrapha Christi, p. 307,\naccording to Justin, for example, Dial. 88. 103, the wording: [Greek:\nhama toi anabenai auton apo tou potamou tou Iordanou, tes phones autou\nlechtheises huios mou ei ss, ego semeron gegenneka se]; see the Cod. D.\nof Luke. Clem. Alex, etc.) forms the strongest foundation of the\nAdoptian Christology, and hence it is exceedingly interesting to see how\none compounds with it from the second to the fifth century, an\ninvestigation which deserves a special monograph. But, of course, the\nedge was taken off the report by the assumption of the miraculous birth\nof Jesus from the Holy Spirit, so that the Adoptians in recognising\nthis, already stood with one foot in the camp of their opponents. It is\nnow instructive to see here how the history of the baptism, which\noriginally formed the beginning of the proclamation of Jesus' history,\nis suppressed in the earliest formulae, and therefore also in the Romish\nSymbol, while the birth from the Holy Spirit is expressly stated. Only\nin Ignatius (ad Smyrn. I; cf. ad Eph. 18. 2) is the baptism taken into\naccount in the confession; but even he has given the event a turn by\nwhich it has no longer any significance for Jesus himself (just as in\nthe case of Justin, who concludes from the _resting_ of the Spirit in\nhis fulness upon Jesus, that there will be no more prophets among the\nJews, spiritual gifts being rather communicated to Christians; compare\nalso the way in which the baptism of Jesus is treated in Joh. I.).\nFinally, we must point out that in the Adoptian Christology, the\nparallel between Jesus and all believers who have the Spirit and are\nSons of God, stands out very clearly (Cf. Herm. Sim. V. with Mand. III.\nV. 1; X. 2; most important is Sim. V. 6. 7). But this was the very thing\nthat endangered the whole view. Celsus, I. 57, addressing Jesus, asks;\n\"If thou sayest that every man whom Divine Providence allows to be born\n(this is of course a formulation for which Celsus alone is responsible),\nis a son of God, what advantage hast thou then over others?\" We can see\nalready in the Dialogue of Justin, the approach of the later great\ncontroversy, whether Christ is Son of God [Greek: kata gnomen], or\n[Greek: kata phusin], that is, had a pre-existence: \"[Greek: kai gar\neisi tines], he says, [Greek: apo tou humeterou genous homologountes\nauton Christon einai, anthropon de ex anthropon genomenon\napophainomenoi, hois ou suntithemai]\" (c. 48).]\n\n[Footnote 255: This Christology which may be traced back to the Pauline,\nbut which can hardly have its point of departure in Paul alone, is found\nalso in the Epistle to the Hebrews and in the writings of John,\nincluding the Apocalypse, and is represented by Barnabas, 1 and 2 Clem.,\nIgnatius, Polycarp, the author of the Pastoral Epistles, the Authors of\nPraed. Petri, and the Altercatio Jasonis et Papisci, etc. The Classic\nformulation is in 2 Clem. 9. 5: [Greek: Christos ho kurios ho sosas\nhemas on men to proton pneuma egeneto sarx kai houtos hemas ekalesen].\nAccording to Barnabas (5. 3), the pre-existent Christ is [Greek: pantos\ntou kosmou kurios]: to him God said, [Greek: apo kataboles kosmou], \"Let\nus make man, etc.\" He is (5. 6) the subject and goal of all Old\nTestament revelation. He is [Greek: ouxi huios anthropou all: huios tou\ntheou, tupoi de en sarki phanerotheis] (12. 10); the flesh is merely the\nveil of the Godhead, without which man could not have endured the light\n(5. 10). According to 1 Clement, Christ is [Greek: to skeptron tes\nmelagosunes tou theou] (16. 2), who if he had wished could have appeared\non earth [Greek: en kompoi alazoneias], he is exalted far above the\nangels (32), as he is the Son of God ([Greek: pathemata tou theou], 2.\n1); he hath spoken through the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament (22. 1).\nIt is not certain whether Clement understood Christ under the [Greek:\nlogos megalosunes tou theou] (27. 4). According to 2 Clem., Christ and\nthe church are heavenly spiritual existences which have appeared in the\nlast times. Gen. I. 27 refers to their creation (c. 14; see my note on\nthe passage: We learn from Origen that a very old Theologoumenon\nidentified Jesus with the ideal of Adam, the church with that of Eve).\nSimilar ideas about Christ are found in Gnostic Jewish Christians); one\nmust think about Christ as about God (I. 1). Ignatius writes (Eph. 7-2):\n[Greek: Eis, iatros estin sarkikos te kai pneumatikos, gennetos kai\nagennetos, en sarki genomenos theos, en thanatoi zoe alethine, kai ek\nMarias kai ek theou, proton pathaetos kai tote apathes Iesous Christos\nho kurios hemon]. As the human predicates stand here first, it might\nappear as though, according to Ignatius, the man Jesus first became God\n([Greek: ho theos hemon], Cf. Eph. inscr.: 18. 2). In point of fact, he\nregards Jesus as Son of God only by his birth from the Spirit; but on\nthe other hand, Jesus is [Greek: aph' henos patros proelthon] (Magn. 7.\n2), is [Greek: logos theou] (Magn. 8. 2,) and when Ignatius so often\nemphasises the truth of Jesus' history against Docetism (Trall. 9. for\nexample), we must assume that he shares the thesis with the Gnostics\nthat Jesus is by nature a spiritual being. But it is well worthy of\nnotice that Ignatius, as distinguished from Barnabas and Clement, really\ngives the central place to the historical Jesus Christ, the Son of God\nand the Son of Mary, and his work. The like is found only in Irenaeus.\nThe pre-existence of Christ is presupposed by Polycarp. (Ep 7. 1); but,\nlike Paul, he strongly emphasises a real exaltation of Christ (2. 1).\nThe author of Praed. Petri calls Christ the [Greek: logos] (Clem. Strom.\nI. 29, 182). As Ignatius calls him this also, as the same designation is\nfound in the Gospel, Epistles, and Apocalypse of John (the latter a\nChristian adaptation of a Jewish writing), in the Act. Joh. (see Zahn,\nActa Joh. p. 220), finally, as Celsus (II. 31) says quite generally,\n\"The Christians maintain that the Son of God is at the same time his\nincarnate Word\", we plainly perceive that this designation for Christ\nwas not first started by professional philosophers (see the Apologists,\nfor example, Tatian, Orat. 5, and Melito Apolog. fragm. in the Chron.\npasch. p. 483, ed. Dindorf: [Greek: Christos on theou logos pro aionon].\nWe do not find in the Johannine writings such a Logos speculation as in\nthe Apologists, but the current expression is taken up in order to shew\nthat it has its truth in the appearing of Jesus Christ. The ideas about\nthe existence of a Divine Logos were very widely spread; they were\ndriven out of philosophy into wide circles. The author of the Alterc.\nJas. et Papisci conceived the phrase in Gen I. 1, [Greek: en arche], as\nequivalent to [Greek: en huioi (Christoi)] Jerome. Quaest. hebr. in Gen.\np. 3; see Tatian Orat. 5: [Greek: theos en en archei ten de archen logou\ndunamin pareilephamen]. Ignatius (Eph. 3) also called Christ [Greek: he\ngnome tou patros] (Eph. 17: [Greek: he gnosis tou theou]); that is a\nmore fitting expression than [Greek: logos]. The subordination of Christ\nas a heavenly being to the Godhead, is seldom or never carefully\nemphasised, though it frequently comes plainly into prominence. Yet the\nauthor of the second Epistle of Clement does not hesitate to place the\npre-existent Christ and the pre-existent church on one level, and to\ndeclare of both that God created them (c. 14). The formulae [Greek:\nphanerousthai en sarki], or, [Greek: gignesthai sarx], are\ncharacteristic of this Christology. It is worthy of special notice that\nthe latter is found in all those New Testament writers, who have put\nChristianity in contrast with the Old Testament religions, and\nproclaimed the conquest of that religion by the Christian, viz., Paul,\nJohn, and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews.]\n\n[Footnote 256: Hermas, for example, does this (therefore Link;\nChristologie des Hermas, and Weizsaecker, Gott Gel. Anz. 1886, p. 830,\ndeclare his Christology to be directly pneumatic): Christ is then\nidentified with this Holy Spirit (see Acta. Archel. 50), similarly\nIgnatius (ad. Magn. 15): [Greek: kektemenoi adiakriton pneuma, hos estin\nIesous Christos.] This formed the transition to Gnostic conceptions on\nthe one hand, to pneumatic Christology on the other. But in Hermas the\nreal substantial thing in Jesus Christ is the [Greek: sarx].]\n\n[Footnote 257: Passages may indeed be found in the earliest Gentile\nChristian literature, in which Jesus is designated Son of God,\nindependently of his human birth and before it (so in Barnabas, against\nZahn), but they are not numerous. Ignatius very clearly deduces the\npredicate \"Son\" from the birth in the flesh. Zahn, Marcellus, p. 216\nff.]\n\n[Footnote 258: The distinct designation \"[Greek: theopoiesis]\" is not\nfound, though that may be an accident. Hermas has the thing itself quite\ndistinctly (See Epiph. c. Alog. H. 51. 18: [Greek: nomizontes apo Marias\nkai deuro Christon auton kaleisthai kai huion theou, kai einai men\nproteron psilon anthropon, kata prokopen de eilephenai ten tou huiou tou\ntheou prosegorian]). The stages of the [Greek: prokope] were undoubtedly\nthe birth, baptism and resurrection. Even the adherents of the pneumatic\nChristology, could not at first help recognising that Jesus, through his\nexaltation, got more than he originally possessed. Yet in their case,\nthis conception was bound to become rudimentary, and it really did so.]\n\n[Footnote 259: The settlement with Gnosticism prepared a still always\nuncertain end for this naive Docetism. Apart from Barn. 5. 12, where it\nplainly appears, we have to collect laboriously the evidences of it\nwhich have not accidentally either perished or been concealed. In the\ncommunities of the second century there was frequently no offence taken\nat Gnostic docetism (see the Gospel of Peter. Clem. Alex., Adumbrat in\nJoh. Ep. I. c. 1, [Zahn, Forsch. z. Gesch. des N. T.-lichen Kanons, III.\np. 871]; \"Fertur ergo in traditionibus, quoniam Johannes ipsum corpus,\nquod erat extrinsecus, tangens manum suam in profunda misisse et\nduritiam carnis nullo modo reluctatam esse, sed locum manui praebuisse\ndiscipuli.\" Also Acta Joh. p. 219, ed. Zahn). In spite of all his\npolemic against \"[Greek: dokesis]\" proper, one can still perceive a\n\"moderate docetism\" in Clem. Alex., to which indeed certain narratives\nin the Canonical Gospels could not but lead. The so-called Apocryphal\nliterature (Apocryphal Gospels and Acts of Apostles), lying on the\nboundary between heretical and common Christianity, and preserved only\nin scanty fragments and extensive alterations, was, it appears,\nthroughout favourable to Docetism. But the later recensions attest that\nit was read in wide circles.]\n\n[Footnote 260: Even such a formulation as we find in Paul (e.g., Rom. I.\n3 f. [Greek: kata sarka--kata pneuma]), does not seem to have been often\nrepeated (yet see 1 Clem. 32. 21). It is of value to Ignatius only, who\nhas before his mind the full Gnostic contrast. But even to him we cannot\nascribe any doctrine of two natures: for this requires as its\npresupposition, the perception that the divinity and humanity are\nequally essential and important for the personality of the Redeemer\nChrist. Such insight, however, presupposes a measure and a direction of\nreflection which the earliest period did not possess. The expression\n\"[Greek: duo ousiai Christou]\" first appears in a fragment of Melito,\nwhose genuineness is not, however, generally recognised (see my Texte u.\nUnters. I. 1. 2. p. 257). Even the definite expression for Christ\n[Greek: theos on homou te kai anthropos] was fixed only in consequence\nof the Gnostic controversy.]\n\n[Footnote 261: Hermas (Sim. V. 6. 7) describes the exaltation of Jesus,\nthus: [Greek: hina kai he sarx haute, douleusasa toi pneumati amemptos,\nschaei topon tina kataskenoseos, kai me doxei ton misthon tes douleias\nautes apololekenai]. The point in question is a reward of grace which\nconsists in a position of rank (see Sim. V. 6. 1). The same thing is\nmanifest from the statements of the later Adoptians. (Cf. the teaching\nof Paul Samosata).]\n\n[Footnote 262: Barnabas, e. g., conceives it as a veil (5. 10: [Greek:\nei gar me elthen en sarki, oud' an pos hoi anthropoi esothesan blepontes\nauton, hote ton mellonta me einai helion emblepontes ouk ischusousin eis\ntas aktinas autou antophthalmesai]). The formulation of the Christian\nidea in Celsus is instructive (c. Cels VI. 69): \"Since God is great and\nnot easily accessible to the view, he put his spirit in a body which is\nlike our own, and sent it down in order that we might be instructed by\nit.\" To this conception corresponds the formula: [Greek: erchesthai\n(phanerousthai) en sarki] (Barnabas, frequently; Polyc. Ep. 7. 1). But\nsome kind of transformation must also have been thought of (See 2 Clem.\n9. 5. and Celsus IV. 18: \"Either God, as these suppose, is really\ntransformed into a mortal body....\" Apoc. Sophon. ed. Stern. 4 fragm. p.\n10; \"He has transformed himself into a man who comes to us to redeem\nus\"). This conception might grow out of the formula [Greek: sarx\negeneto] (Ignat. ad. Eph. 7, 2 is of special importance here). One is\nalmost throughout here satisfied with the [Greek: sarx] of Christ, that\nis the [Greek: aletheia tes sarkos], against the Heretics (so Ignatius,\nwho was already anti-gnostic in his attitude). There is very seldom any\nmention of the humanity of Jesus. Barnabas (12). the author of the\nDidache (c. 10. 6. See my note on the passage), and Tatian questioned\nthe Davidic Sonship of Jesus, which was strongly emphasised by Ignatius;\nnay, Barnabas even expressly rejects the designation \"Son of Man\" (12.\n10; [Greek: ide palin Iesous, ouchi huios anthropou alla huios tou\ntheou, tupo de en sarki phanerotheis]). A docetic thought, however, lies\nin the assertion that the spiritual being Christ only assumed human\nflesh, however much the reality of the flesh may be emphasised. The\npassage 1 Clem. 49. 6, is quite unique: [Greek: to haima autou edoken\nhuper hemon Iesous Christos ... kai ten sarka huper tes sarkos hemon kai\nten psuchen huper ton psuchon humon]. One would fain believe this an\ninterpolation; the same idea is first found in Irenaeus. (V. 1. 1).]\n\n[Footnote 263: Even Hermas docs not speak of Jesus as [Greek: anthropos]\n(see Link). This designation was used by the representatives of the\nAdoptian Christology only after they had expressed their doctrine\nantithetically and developed it to a theory, and always with a certain\nreservation. The \"[Greek: anthropos Christos Iesous]\" in 1 Tim. II. 5 is\nused in a special sense. The expression [Greek: anthropos] for Christ\nappears twice in the Ignatian Epistles (the third passage Smyrn. 4. 2:\n[Greek: autou me endunamountos tou teleiou anthropou genomenou], apart\nfrom the [Greek: genomenou], is critically suspicious, as well as the\nfourth, Eph. 7. 2; see above), in both passages, however, in connections\nwhich seem to modify the humanity; see Eph. 20. 1: [Greek: oikonomia eis\nton kainon anthropon Iesoun Christon], Eph. 20. 2: [Greek: toi huioi\nanthropou kai huioi theou].]\n\n[Footnote 264: See above p. 185, note; p. 189, note. We have no sure\nevidence that the later so-called Modalism (Monarchianism) had\nrepresentatives before the last third of the second century; yet the\npolemic of Justin, Dial. 128, seems to favour the idea, (the passage\nalready presupposes controversies about the personal independence of the\npre-existent pneumatic being of Christ beside God; but one need not\nnecessarily think of such controversies within the communities; Jewish\nnotions might be meant, and this, according to Apol. I. 63, is the more\nprobable). The judgment is therefore so difficult, because there were\nnumerous formulae in practical use which could be so understood, as if\nChrist was to be completely identified with the Godhead itself (see\nIgnat. ad Eph. 7. 2, besides Melito in Otto Corp. Apol. IX. p. 419. and\nNoetus in the Philos. IX. 10, p. 448). These formulae may, in point of\nfact, have been so understood, here and there, by the rude and\nuncultivated. The strongest again is presented in writings whose\nauthority was always doubtful: see the Gospel of the Egyptians (Epiph.\nH. 62. 2), in which must have stood a statement somewhat to this effect:\n[Greek: ton auton einai patera, ton auton einai huion, ton auton einai\nhagion pneuma], and the Acta Joh. (ed. Zahn, p. 220 f., 240 f.: [Greek:\nho agathos hemon theos ho eusplanchnos, ho eleemon, ho hagios, ho\nkatharos, ho amiantos, ho monos, ho heis, ho ametabletos, ho eilikrines,\nho adolos, ho me orgizomenos, ho pases hemin legomenes e nooumenes\nprosegorias anoteros kai hupseloteros hemon theos Iesous]). In the Act.\nJoh. are found also prayers with the address [Greek: thee Iesou Christe]\n(pp. 242. 247). Even Marcion and a part the Montanists--both bear\nwitness to old traditions--put no value on the distinction between God\nand Christ; cf. the Apoc. Sophon. A witness to a naive Modalism is found\nalso in the Acta Pionii 9: \"Quem deum colis? Respondit: Christum Polemon\n(judex): Quid ergo? iste alter est? [the co-defendant Christians had\nimmediately before confessed God the Creator] Respondit: Non; sed ipse\nquem et ipsi paullo ante confessi sunt;\" cf. c. 16. Yet a reasoned\nModalism may perhaps be assumed here. See also the Martyr Acts; e.g.,\nActa Petri, Andrae, Pauli et Dionysiae I (Ruinart, p. 205): [Greek: hemeis\noi Christon ton basilea echomen, hoti alethinos theos estin kai poietes\nouranou kai ges kai thalasses]. \"Oportet me magis deo vivo et vero. regi\nsaeculorum omnium Christo, sacrificium offerre.\" Act. Nicephor. 3 (p.\n285). I take no note of the Testament of the twelve Patriarchs, out of\nwhich one can, of course, beautifully verify the strict Modalistic, and\neven the Adoptian Christology. But the Testamenta are not a primitive or\nJewish Christian writing which Gentile Christians have revised, but a\nJewish writing christianised at the end of the second century by a\nCatholic of Modalistic views. But he has given us a very imperfect work,\nthe Christology of which exhibits many contradictions. It is instructive\nto find Modalism in the theology of the Simonians, which was partly\nformed according to Christian ideas; see Irenaeus I. 23. I. \"hic igitur a\nmultis quasi deus glorificatus est, et docuit semetipsum esse qui inter\nJudaeos quidem quasi filius apparuerit, in Samaria autem quasi pater\ndescenderit, in reliquis vero gentibus quasi Spiritus Sanctus\nadventaverit.\"]\n\n[Footnote 265: That is a very important fact which clearly follows from\nthe Shepherd. Even the later school of the Adoptians in Rome, and the\nlater Adoptians in general, were forced to assume a divine hypostasis\nbeside the Godhead, which of course sensibly threatened their\nChristology. The adherents of the pneumatic Christology partly made a\ndefinite distinction between the pre-existent Christ and the Holy Spirit\n(see, e.g., 1 Clem. 22. 1), and partly made use of formulae from which\none could infer an identity of the two. The conceptions about the Holy\nSpirit were still quite fluctuating; whether he is a power of God, or\npersonal, whether he is identical with the pre-existent Christ, or is to\nbe distinguished from him, whether he is the servant of Christ (Tatian\nOrat. 13), whether he is only a gift of God to believers, or the eternal\nSon of God, was quite uncertain. Hermas assumed the latter, and even\nOrigen (de princip. praef. c. 4) acknowledges that it is not yet decided\nwhether or not the Holy Spirit is likewise to be regarded as God's Son.\nThe baptismal formula prevented the identification of the Holy Spirit\nwith the pre-existent Christ, which so readily suggested itself. But so\nfar as Christ was regarded as a [Greek: pneuma], his further demarcation\nfrom the angel powers was quite uncertain, as the Shepherd of Hermas\nproves (though see 1 Clem. 36). For even Justin, in a passage, no doubt,\nin which his sole purpose was to shew that the Christians were not\n[Greek: atheoi], could venture to thrust in between God, the Son and the\nSpirit, the good angels as beings who were worshipped and adored by the\nChristians (Apol. 1. 6 [if the text be genuine and not an\ninterpolation]; see also the Suppl. of Athanagoras). Justin, and\ncertainly most of those who accepted a pre-existence of Christ,\nconceived of it as a real pre-existence. Justin was quite well\nacquainted with the controversy about the independent quality of the\npower which proceeded from God. To him it is not merely, \"Sensus, motus,\naffectus dei\", but a \"personalis substantia\" (Dial. 128).]\n\n[Footnote 266: See the remarkable narrative about the cross in the\nfragment of the Gospel of Peter, and in Justin, Apol. 1. 55.]\n\n[Footnote 267: We must, above all things, be on our guard here against\nattributing dogmas to the churches, that is to say, to the writers of\nthis period. The difference in the answers to the question, How far and\nby what means, Jesus procured salvation? was very great, and the\nmajority undoubtedly never at all raised the question, being satisfied\nwith recognising Jesus as the revealer of God's saving will (Didache,\n10. 2: [Greek: eucharistoi men soi, pater hagie, huper tou agiou\nonomatos sou, ou kateskenosas en tais kardiais hemon kai huper tes\ngnoseos kai pisteos kai athanasias, hes egnorisas hemin dia Iesou tou\npaidos sou]), without reflecting on the fact that this saving will was\nalready revealed in the Old Testament. There is nowhere any mention of a\nsaving work of Christ in the whole Didache, nay, even the _Kerygma_\nabout him is not taken notice of. The extensive writing of Hermas shews\nthat this is not an accident. There is absolutely no mention here of the\nbirth, death, resurrection, etc., of Jesus, although the author in Sim.\nV had an occasion for mentioning them. He describes the work of Jesus as\n(1) preserving the people whom God had chosen. (2) purifying the people\nfrom sin, (3) pointing out the path of life and promulgating the Divine\nlaw (c. c. 5. 6). This work however, seems to have been performed by the\nwhole life and activity of Jesus; even to the purifying of sin the\nauthor has only added the words: [Greek: (kai autos tas hamartias auton\nekatharise) polla kopiasas kai pollous kopous entlekos] (Sim. V. 6. 2).\nBut we must further note that Hermas held the proper and obligatory work\nof Jesus to be only the preservation of the chosen people (from demons\nin the last days, and at the end), while in the other two articles he\nsaw a performance in excess of his duty, and wished undoubtedly to\ndeclare therewith, that the purifying from sin and the giving of the law\nare not, strictly speaking, integral parts of the Divine plan of\nsalvation, but are due to the special goodness of Jesus (this idea is\nexplained by Moralism). Now, as Hermas, and others, saw the saving\nactivity of Jesus in his whole labours, others saw salvation given and\nassured in the moment of Jesus' entrance into the world, and in his\npersonality as a spiritual being become flesh. This mystic conception,\nwhich attained such wide-spread recognition later on, has a\nrepresentative in Ignatius, if one can at all attribute clearly\nconceived doctrines to this emotional confessor. That something can be\ndeclared of Jesus, [Greek: kata pneuma] and [Greek: kata sarka]--this is\nthe mystery on which the significance of Jesus seems to Ignatius\nessentially to rest, but how far is not made clear. But the [Greek:\npathos (haima, stauros)] and [Greek: anastasis] of Jesus are to the same\nwriter of great significance, and by forming paradoxical formulae of\nworship, and turning to account reminiscences of Apostolic sayings, he\nseems to wish to base the whole salvation brought by Christ on his\nsuffering and resurrection (see Lightfoot on Eph. inscr. Vol. II. p.\n25). In this connection also, he here and there regards all articles of\nthe _Kerygma_ as of fundamental significance. At all events, we have in\nthe Ignatian Epistles the first attempt in the post-Apostolic\nliterature, to connect all the theses of the _Kerygma_ about Jesus as\nclosely as possible with the benefits which he brought. But only the\nwill of the writer is plain here, all else is confused, and what is\nmainly felt is that the attempt to conceive the blessings of salvation\nas the fruit of the sufferings and resurrection, has deprived them of\ntheir definiteness and clearness. In proof we may adduce the following:\nIf we leave out of account the passages in which Ignatius speaks of the\nnecessity of repentance for the Heretics, or the Heathen, and the\npossibility that their sins may be forgiven (Philad. 3. 2:8. 1; Smyrn.\n4. 1: 5-3; Eph. 10. 1), there remains only one passage in which the\nforgiveness of sin is mentioned, and that only contains a traditional\nformula (Smyrn 7. 1: [Greek: sarx Iesou Christou, he huper ton hamartion\nhemon pathousa]). The same writer, who is constantly speaking of the\n[Greek: pathos] and [Greek: anastasis] of Christ, has nothing to say, to\nthe communities to which he writes, about the forgiveness of sin. Even\nthe concept \"sin\", apart from the passages just quoted, appears only\nonce, viz., Eph 14. 2: [Greek: oudeis pistin epangellomenos hamartanei].\nIgnatius has only once spoken to a community about repentance (Smyrn. 9.\n1). It is characteristic that the summons to repentance runs exactly as\nin Hermas and 2 Clem., the conclusion only being peculiarly Ignatian. It\nis different with Barnabas, Clement and Polycarp. They (see 1 Clem. 7.\n4:12, 7:21, 6:49 6; Barn. 5. 1 ff.) place the forgiveness of sin\nprocured by Jesus in the foreground, connect it most definitely with the\ndeath of Christ, and in some passages seem to have a conception of that\nconnection, which reminds us of Paul. But this just shews that they are\ndependent here on Paul (or on 1st Peter), and on a closer examination we\nperceive that they very imperfectly understand Paul, and have no\nindependent insight into the series of ideas which they reproduce. That\nis specially plain in Clement. For in the first place, he everywhere\npasses over the resurrection (he mentions it only twice, once as a\nguarantee of our own resurrection, along with the Phoenix and other\nguarantees, 24. 1, and then as a means whereby the Apostles were\nconvinced that the kingdom of God will come, 42. 3). In the second\nplace, he in one passage declares that the [Greek: charis metanoias] was\ncommunicated to the world through the shedding of Christ's blood (7. 4.)\nBut this transformation of the [Greek: aphesis hamartion] into [Greek:\ncharis metanoias] plainly shews that Clement had merely taken over from\ntradition the special estimate of the death of Christ as procuring\nsalvation; for it is meaningless to deduce the [Greek: charis metanoias]\nfrom the blood of Christ. Barnabas testifies more plainly that Christ\nbehoved to offer the vessel of his spirit as a sacrifice for our sins\n(4. 3; 5. 1), nay, the chief aim of his letter is to harmonise the\ncorrect understanding of the cross, the blood, and death of Christ in\nconnection with baptism, the forgiveness of sin, and sanctification\n(application of the idea of sacrifice). He also unites the death and\nresurrection of Jesus (5. 6: [Greek: autos de hina kataergesei ton\nthanaton kai ten ek nekron anastasin deixei, hoti en sarki edei auton\nphanerothenai, hupemeinen, hina kai tois patrasin ten epangellian apodoi\nkai autos heautoi ton laon ton kainon hetoimazon epideixei, epi tes ges\non. hoti ten anastasin autos poiesas krinei]): but the significance of\nthe death of Christ is for him at bottom, the fact that it is the\nfulfilment of prophecy. But the prophecy is related, above all, to the\nsignificance of the tree, and so Barnabas on one occasion says with\nadmirable clearness (5. 13); [Greek: autos de ethelesen houto pathein;\nedei gar hina epi xulou pathei]. The notion which Barnabas entertains of\nthe [Greek: sarx] of Christ suggests the supposition that he could have\ngiven up all reference to the death of Christ, if it had not been\ntransmitted as a fact and predicted in the Old Testament. Justin shews\nstill less certainty. To him also, as to Ignatius, the cross (the death)\nof Christ is a great, nay, the greatest mystery, and he sees all things\npossible in it (see Apol. 1. 35, 55). He knows, further, as a man\nacquainted with the Old Testament, how to borrow from it very many\npoints of view for the significance of Christ's death, (Christ the\nsacrifice, the Paschal lamb; the death of Christ the means of redeeming\nmen; death as the enduring of the curse for us; death as the victory\nover the devil; see Dial 44. 90, 91, 111, 134). But in the discussions\nwhich set forth in a more intelligible way the significance of Christ,\ndefinite facts from the history have no place at all, and Justin nowhere\ngives any indication of seeing in the death of Christ more than the\nmystery of the Old Testament, and the confirmation of its\ntrustworthiness. On the other hand, it cannot be mistaken that the idea\nof an individual righteous man being able effectively to sacrifice\nhimself for the whole, in order through his voluntary death to deliver\nthem from evil, was not unknown to antiquity. Origen (c. Celsum 1. 31)\nhas expressed himself on this point in a very instructive way. The\npurity and voluntariness of him who sacrifices himself are here the main\nthings. Finally, we must be on our guard against supposing that the\nexpressions [Greek: sortia, apolutrosis] and the like, were as a rule\nrelated to the deliverance from sin. In the superscription of the\nEpistle from Lyons, for example, (Euseb. H. E V. 1. 3: [Greek: hoi auten\ntes apolutroseos hemin pistin kai elpida echontes]) the future\nredemption is manifestly to be understood by [Greek: apolutrosis].]\n\n[Footnote 268: On the Ascension, see my edition of the Apost. Fathers I.\n2, p. 138. Paul knows nothing of an Ascension, nor is it mentioned by\nClement, Ignatius, Hermas, or Polycarp. In no case did it belong to the\nearliest preaching. Resurrection and sitting at the right hand of God\nare frequently united in the formulae (Eph. I. 20; Acts. II. 32 ff.)\nAccording to Luke XXIV. 51, and Barn. 15. 9, the ascension into heaven\ntook place on the day of the resurrection (probably also according to\nJoh. XX. 17; see also the fragment of the Gosp. of Peter), and is hardly\nto be thought of as happening but once (Joh. III. 13; VI 62; see also\nRom. X. 6 f.; Eph. IV. 9 f; 1 Pet. III. 19 f.; very instructive for the\norigin of the notion). According to the Valentinians and Ophites, Christ\nascended into heaven 18 months after the resurrection (Iren. I. 3. 2;\n30. 14); according to the Ascension of Isaiah, 545 days (ed. Dillmann,\npp. 43. 57 etc.); according to Pistis Sophia 11 years after the\nresurrection. The statement that the Ascension took place 40 days after\nthe resurrection is first found in the Acts of the Apostles. The\nposition of the [Greek: anelemphthe en doxei], in the fragment of an old\nHymn, 1 Tim. III. 16, is worthy of note, in so far as it follows the\n[Greek: ophthe angelois, ekeruchthe en ethnesin, episteuthe en kosmoi].\nJustin speaks very frequently of the Ascension into heaven (see also\nAristides). It is to him a necessary part of the preaching about Christ.\nOn the descent into hell, see the collection of passages in my edition\nof the Apost. Fathers, III. p. 232. It is important to note that it is\nfound already in the Gospel of Peter ([Greek: ekeruxas tois koimomenois,\nnai]), and that even Marcion recognised it (in Iren. I. 27. 31), as well\nas the Presbyter of Irenaeus (IV. 27. 2), and Ignatius (ad Magn. 9. 3),\nsee also Celsus in Orig. II. 43. The witnesses to it are very numerous,\nsee Huidekoper, \"The belief of the first three centuries concerning\nChrist's Mission to the under-world.\" New York, 1876.]\n\n[Footnote 269: See the Pastoral Epistles, and the Epistles of Ignatius\nand Polycarp.]\n\n[Footnote 270: The \"facts\" of the history of Jesus were handed down to\nthe following period as mysteries predicted in the Old Testament, but\nthe idea of sacrifice was specially attached to the death of Christ,\ncertainly without any closer definition. It is very noteworthy that in\nthe Romish baptismal confession, the Davidic Sonship of Jesus, the\nbaptism, the descent into the under-world, and the setting up of a\nglorious Kingdom on the earth, are not mentioned. These articles do not\nappear even in the parallel confessions which began to be formed. The\nhesitancy that yet prevailed here with regard to details, is manifest\nfrom the fact, for example, that instead of the formula, \"Jesus was born\nof ([Greek: ek]) Mary,\" is found the other, \"He was born through\n([Greek: dia]) Mary\" (see Justin, Apol. I. 22. 31-33, 54, 63; Dial. 23.\n43, 45. 48, 57. 54, 63, 66, 75, 85, 87, 100, 105, 120, 127), Iren. (I.\n7. 2) and Tertull. (de carne 20) first contested the [Greek: dia]\nagainst the Valentinians.]\n\n[Footnote 271: This was strongly emphasised see my remarks on Barn. 2.\n3. The Jewish cultus is often brought very close to the heathen by\nGentile Christian writers: Praed. Petri (Clem. Strom. VI. 5. 41) [Greek:\nkainos ton theon dia tou Christou sebometha]. The statement in Joh. IV.\n24, [Greek: pneuma ho theos kai tous proskunountas auton en pneumati kai\naletheias dei proskunein], was for long the guiding principle for the\nChristian worship of God.]\n\n[Footnote 272: Ps. LI. 19 is thus opposed to the ceremonial system\n(Barn. 2. 10). Polycarp consumed by fire is (Mart. 14. 1) compared to a\n[Greek: krios episemos ek megalou poimniou eis prosphoran olokautoma\ndekton toi theoi hetoimasmenon].]\n\n[Footnote 273: See Barn. 6. 15, 16, 7-9, Tatian Orat. 15, Ignat. ad.\nEph. 9. 15, Herm Mand. V. etc. The designation of Christians as priests\nis not often found.]\n\n[Footnote 274: Justin, Apol. I. 9. Dial. 117 [Greek: hoti men oun kai\neuchai ka eucharistiai, hupo ton axion ginomenai teleiai monai kai\neuarestoi eisi toi theoi thusiai kai autos phemi], see also still the\nlater Fathers: Clem. Strom. VII. 6. 31: [Greek: hemeis di euches timomen\nton theon kai tauten ten thusian aristen kai hagiotaten meta dikaiosunes\nanapempomen toi dikaioi logoi], Iren. III. 18. 3, Ptolem ad. Floram. 3:\n[Greek: prosphoras prospherein prosetaxen hemin ho soter alla ouchi tas\ndi alogon zoon he touton ton domiamaton alla dia pneumatikon ainon kai\ndoxon kai eucharistias kai dia tes eis tous plesion koinonias kai\neupoiias].]\n\n[Footnote 275: The Jewish regulations about fastings together with the\nJewish system of sacrifice were rejected, but on the other hand, in\nvirtue of words of the Lord, fasts were looked upon as a necessary\naccompaniment of prayer and definite arrangements were already made for\nthem (see Barn. 3, Didache 8, Herm. Sim. V. 1. ff). The fast is to have\na special value from the fact that whatever one saved by means of it is\nto be given to the poor (see Hermas and Aristides, Apol. 15, \"And if any\none among the Christians is poor and in want, and they have not overmuch\nof the means of life, they fast two or three days in order that they may\nprovide those in need with the food they require\"). The statement of\nJames I. 27 [Greek: threskeia kathara kai amiantos para to theo kai\npatri haute estin episkeptesthai orphanous kai cheras en te thlipsei\nauton], was again and again inculcated in diverse phraseology (Polycarp\nEp. 4, called the Widows [Greek: thusiasterion] of the community). Where\nmoralistic views preponderated as in Hermas and 2 Clement good works\nwere already valued in detail, prayers, fasts, alms appeared separately,\nand there was already introduced especially under the influence of the\nso-called deutero-canonical writings of the Old Testament the idea of a\nspecial meritoriousness of certain performances in fasts and alms (see 2\nClem. 16. 4). Still the idea of the Christian moral life as a whole\noccupied the foreground (see Didache cc. 1-5) and the exhortations to\nlove God and one's neighbour, which as exhortations to a moral life were\nbrought forward in every conceivable relation, supplemented the general\nsummons to renounce the world just as the official diaconate of the\nchurches originating in the cultus, prevented the decomposition of them\ninto a society of ascetics.]\n\n[Footnote 276: For details, see below in the case of the Lord's Supper.\nIt is specially important that even charity, through its union with the\ncultus, appeared as sacrificial worship (see e.g. Polyc. Ep. 4. 3).]\n\n[Footnote 277: The idea of sacrifice adopted by the Gentile Christian\ncommunities, was that which was expressed in individual prophetic\nsayings and in the Psalms, a spiritualising of the Semitic Jewish\nsacrificial ritual which, however, had not altogether lost its original\nfeatures. The entrance of Greek ideas of sacrifice cannot be traced\nbefore Justin. Neither was there as yet any reflection as to the\nconnection of the sacrifice of the Church with the sacrifice of Christ\nupon the cross.]\n\n[Footnote 278: See my Texte und Unters. z Gesch. d. Altchristl. Lit. II.\n1. 2, p. 88 ff., p. 137 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 279: There neither was a \"doctrine\" of Baptism and the Lord's\nSupper, nor was there any inner connection presupposed between these\nholy actions. They were here and there placed together as actions by the\nLord.]\n\n[Footnote 280: Melito, Fragm. XII. (Otto. Corp. Apol. IX. p. 418).\n[Greek: Duo suneste ta aphesin hamartematon parechomena, pathos dia\nXriston kai baptisma].]\n\n[Footnote 281: There is no sure trace of infant baptism in this epoch;\npersonal faith is a necessary condition (see Hermas, Vis. III. 7. 3;\nJustin, Apol. 1. 61). \"Prius est praedicare posterius tinguere\" (Tertull.\n\"de bapt.\" 14).]\n\n[Footnote 282: On the basis of repentance. See Praed. Petri in Clem.\nStrom. VI. 5. 43, 48.]\n\n[Footnote 283: See especially the second Epistle of Clement; Tertull.\n\"de bapt.\" 15: \"Felix aqua quae semel abluit, quas ludibrio peccatoribus\nnon est.\"]\n\n[Footnote 284: The sinking and rising in baptism, and the immersion,\nwere regarded as significant, but not indispensable symbols (see\nDidache. 7). The most important passages for baptism are Didache 7;\nBarn. 6. 11; 11. 1. 11 (the connection in which the cross of Christ is\nhere placed to the water is important; the tertium comp. is that\nforgiveness of sin is the result of both); Herm. Vis. III. 3, Sim. IX 16.\nMand. IV. 3 ([Greek: hetera metanoia ouk estin ei me ekeine, hote eis\nhudor katebemen kai elabomen aphesin hamartion hemon ton proteron]); 2\nClem. 6. 9; 7. 6; 8. 6. Peculiar is Ignat. ad. Polyc. 6. 2: [Greek: to\nbaptisma humon meneto hos hopla]. Specially important is Justin, Apol.\nI. 61. 65. To this also belong many passages from Tertullian's treatise\n\"de bapt.\"; a Gnostic baptismal hymn in the third pseudo-Solomonic ode\nin the Pistis Sophia, p. 131, ed. Schwartze; Marcion's baptismal formula\nin Irenaeus 1. 21. 3. It clearly follows from the seventh chapter of the\nDidache, that its author held that the pronouncing of the sacred names\nover the baptised, and over the water, was essential, but that immersion\nwas not; see the thorough examination of this passage by Schaff, \"The\noldest church manual called the teaching of the twelve Apostles\" pp.\n29-57. The controversy about the nature of John's baptism in its\nrelation to Christian baptism, is very old in Christendom; see also\nTertull. \"de bapt.\" 10. Tertullian sees in John's baptism only a baptism\nto repentance, not to forgiveness.]\n\n[Footnote 285: In Hermas and 2 Clement. The expression probably arose\nfrom the language of the mysteries: see Appuleius, \"de Magia\", 55:\n\"Sacrorum pleraque initia in Graecia participavi. Eorum quaedam signa et\nmonumenta tradita mihi a sacerdotibus sedulo conservo.\" Ever since the\nGentile Christians conceived baptism (and the Lord's Supper) according\nto the mysteries, they were of course always surprised by the parallel\nwith the mysteries themselves. That begins with Justin. Tertullian, \"de\nbapt.\" 5, says: \"Sed enim nationes extraneae, ab omni intellectu\nspiritalium potestatum eadem efficacia idolis suis subministrant. Sed\nviduis aquis sibi mentiuntur. Nam et sacris quibusdam per lavacrum\ninitiantur, Isidis alicujus aut Mithrae; ipsos etiam deos suos\nlavationibus efferunt. Ceterum villas, domos, templa totasque urbes\naspergine circumlatae aquae; expiant passim. Certe ludis Apollinaribus et\nEleusiniis tinguuntur, idque se in regenerationem et impunitatem\nperiuriorum suorum agere praesumunt. Item penes veteres, quisquis se\nhomicidio infecerat, purgatrices aquas explorabat.\" De praescr. 40:\n\"Diabolus ipsas quoque res sacramentorum divinorum idolorum mysteriis\naemulatur. Tingit et ipse quosdam, utique credentes et fideles suos;\nexpositionem delictorum de lavacro repromittit. et si adhuc memini,\nMithras signat illic in frontibus milites suos, celebrat et panis\noblationem et imaginem resurrectionis inducit ... summum pontificem in\nunius nuptiis statuit, habet et virgines, habet et continentes.\" The\nancient notion that matter has a mysterious influence on spirit, came\nvery early into vogue in connection with baptism. We see that from\nTertullian's treatise on baptism and his speculations about the power of\nthe water (c. 1 ff.). The water must, of course, have been first\nconsecrated for this purpose (that is, the demons must be driven out of\nit). But then it is holy water with which the Holy Spirit is united, and\nwhich is able really to cleanse the soul. See Hatch, \"The influence of\nGreek ideas, etc.,\" p. 19. The consecration of the water is certainly\nvery old: though we have no definite witnesses from the earliest period.\nEven for the exorcism of the baptised before baptism I know of no\nearlier witness than the Sentent. LXXXVII. episcoporum (Hartel. Opp.\nCypr. I. p. 450, No. 37: \"primo per manus impositionem in exorcismo,\nsecundo per baptismi regenerationem\").]\n\n[Footnote 286: Justin is the first who does so (I. 61). The word comes\nfrom the Greek mysteries. On Justin's theory of baptism, see also I. 62.\nand Von Engelhardt, \"Christenthum Justin's,\" p. 102 f.]\n\n[Footnote 287: Paul unites baptism and the communication of the Spirit;\nbut they were very soon represented apart, see the accounts in the Acts\nof the Apostles, which are certainly very obscure, because the author\nhas evidently never himself observed the descent of the Spirit, or\nanything like it. The ceasing of special manifestations of the Spirit in\nand after baptism, and the enforced renunciation of seeing baptism\naccompanied by special shocks, must be regarded as the first stage in\nthe sobering of the churches.]\n\n[Footnote 288: The idea of the whole transaction of the Supper as a\nsacrifice, is plainly found in the Didache, (c. 14), in Ignatius, and,\nabove all, in Justin (I. 65 f.) But even Clement of Rome presupposes it,\nwhen in (cc. 40-44) he draws a parallel between bishops and deacons and\nthe Priests and Levites of the Old Testament, describing as the chief\nfunction of the former (44. 4) [Greek: prospherein ta dora]. This is not\nthe place to enquire whether the first celebration had, in the mind of\nits founder, the character of a sacrificial meal; but, certainly, the\nidea, as it was already developed at the time of Justin, had been\ncreated by the churches. Various reasons tended towards seeing in the\nSupper a sacrifice. In the first place, Malachi I. 11, demanded a solemn\nChristian sacrifice: see my notes on Didache, 14. 3. In the second\nplace, all prayers were regarded as sacrifice, and therefore the solemn\nprayers at the Supper must be specially considered as such. In the third\nplace, the words of institution [Greek: touto poieite], contained a\ncommand with regard to a definite religious action. Such an action,\nhowever, could only be represented as a sacrifice, and this the more\nthat the Gentile Christians might suppose that they had to understand\n[Greek: poiein] in the sense of [Greek: thuein]. In the fourth place,\npayments in kind were necessary for the \"agapae\" connected with the\nSupper, out of which were taken the bread and wine for the Holy\ncelebration; in what other aspect could these offerings in the worship\nbe regarded than as [Greek: prosphorai] for the purpose of a sacrifice?\nYet the spiritual idea so prevailed that only the prayers were regarded\nas the [Greek: thusia] proper, even in the case of Justin (Dial. 117).\nThe elements are only [Greek: dora, prosphorai] which obtain their value\nfrom the prayers, in which thanks are given for the gifts of creation\nand redemption, as well as for the holy meal, and entreaty is made for\nthe introduction of the community into the Kingdom of God (see Didache,\n9. 10). Therefore, even the sacred meal itself is called [Greek:\neucharistia] (Justin, Apol. I. 66: [Greek: he trophe haute chaleitai\npar' hemin eucharistia]). Didache, 9. 1; Ignat., because it is [Greek:\ntrophe eucharistetheisa]. It is a mistake to suppose that Justin already\nunderstood the body of Christ to be the object of [Greek: poiein], and\ntherefore thought of a sacrifice of this body (I. 66). The real\nsacrificial act in the Supper consists rather, according to Justin, only\nin the [Greek: eucharistian poiein], whereby the [Greek: koinos artos]\nbecomes the [Greek: artos tes eucharistias]. The sacrifice of the Supper\nin its essence, apart from the offering of alms, which in the practice\nof the Church was closely united with it, is nothing but a sacrifice of\nprayer: the sacrificial act of the Christian here also is nothing else\nthan an act of prayer (see Apol. I. 13, 65-67; Dial. 28, 29, 41, 70,\n116-118).]\n\n[Footnote 289: Justin lays special stress on this purpose. On the other\nhand, it is wanting in the Supper prayers of the Didache, unless c. 9. 2\nbe regarded as an allusion to it.]\n\n[Footnote 290: The designation [Greek: thusia] is first found in the\nDidache, c. 14.]\n\n[Footnote 291: The Supper was regarded as a \"Sacrament\" in so far as a\nblessing was represented in its holy food. The conception of the nature\nof this blessing as set forth in John VI. 27-58, appears to have been\nthe most common. It may be traced back to Ignatius, ad Eph. 20.2:\n[Greek: hena arton klontes hos estin pharmakon athanasias, antidotos tou\nme apothanein alla zen en Iesou Christou dia pantos]. Cf Didache, 10.3:\n[Greek: hemin echariso pneumatiken trophen kai poton kai zoen aionion],\nalso 10.21: [Greek: eucharistoumen soi huper tes gnoseos kai pisteos kai\nathanasias]. Justin Apol. 1. 66: [Greek: ek tes trophes tautes haima kai\nsarkes kata metabolen trephontai hemon kata metabolen] that is, the\nholy food, like all nourishment, is completely transformed into our\nflesh; but what Justin has in view here is most probably the body of the\nresurrection. The expression, as the context shews, is chosen for the\nsake of the parallel to the incarnation). Iren. IV. 18. 5; V. 2. 2 f. As\nto how the elements are related to the body and blood of Christ,\nIgnatius seems to have expressed himself in a strictly realistic way in\nseveral passages, especially ad. Smyr. 7-1: [Greek: eucharistias kai\nproseuches apechontai dia to me homologein, ten eucharistian sarka einai\ntou soteros hemon Iesou Christou, ten huper ton hamartion hemon\npathousan]. But many passages shew that Ignatius was far from such a\nconception, and rather thought as John did. In Trall. 8, faith is\ndescribed as the flesh, and love as the blood of Christ; in Rom. 7, in\none breath the flesh of Christ is called the bread of God, and the blood\n[Greek: agape aphthartos]. In Philad. 1, we read: [Greek: haima I. Chr.\nhetis estin chara aionios kai paramonos]. In Philad. 5, the Gospel is\ncalled the flesh of Christ, etc. Hoefling is therefore right in saying\n(Lehre v. Opfer, p. 39): \"The Eucharist is to Ignatius [Greek: sarx] of\nChrist, as a visible Gospel, a kind of Divine institution attesting the\ncontent of [Greek: pistis], viz., belief in the [Greek: sarx pathousa],\nan institution which is at the same time, to the community, a means of\nrepresenting and preserving its unity in this belief.\" On the other\nhand, it cannot be mistaken that Justin (Apol. I. 66) presupposed the\nidentity, miraculously produced by the Logos, of the consecrated bread\nand the body he had assumed. In this we have probably to recognise an\ninfluence on the conception of the Supper, of the miracle represented in\nthe Greek Mysteries: [Greek: Ouch hos koinon arton oude koinon poma\ntauta lambanomen, all' hon tropon dia logou theou sarkopoietheis Iesous\nChristos ho soter hemon kai sarka kai haima huper soterias hemon eschen,\nhoutos kai ten di' euches logou tou par' autou eucharistetheisan\ntrophen, ex es haima ka sarkes kata metabolen trephontai hemon, ekeinou\ntou sarkopoiethentos Iesou kai sarka kai haima edidachthemen einai] (See\nVon Otto on the passage). In the Texte u. Unters. VII. 2. p. 117 ff., I\nhave shewn that in the different Christian circles of the second\ncentury, water and only water was often used in the Supper instead of\nwine, and that in many regions this custom was maintained up to the\nmiddle of the third century (see Cypr. Ep. 63). I have endeavoured to\nmake it further probable, that even Justin in his Apology describes a\ncelebration of the Lord's Supper with bread and water. The latter has\nbeen contested by Zahn, \"Bread and wine in the Lord's Supper, in the\nearly Church,\" 1892, and Juelicher, Zur Gesch. der Abendmahlsfeier in der\naeltesten Kirche (Abhandl. f Weiszacker, 1892, p. 217 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 292: Ignatius calls the thank-offering the flesh of Christ,\nbut the concept \"flesh of Christ\" is for him itself a spiritual one. On\nthe contrary, Justin sees in the bread the actual flesh of Christ, but\ndoes not connect it with the idea of sacrifice. They are thus both as\nyet far from the later conception. The numerous allegories which are\nalready attached to the Supper (one bread equivalent to one community;\nmany scattered grains bound up in the one bread, equivalent to the\nChristians scattered abroad in the world, who are to be gathered\ntogether into the Kingdom of God; one altar, equivalent to one assembly\nof the community, excluding private worship, etc.), cannot as a group be\nadduced here.]\n\n[Footnote 293: Cf. for the following my arguments in the larger edition\nof the \"Teaching of the Apostles\" Chap 5, (Texte u. Unters II. 1. 2).\nThe numerous recent enquiries (Loening, Loofs, Reville etc.) will be\nfound referred to in Sohm's Kirchenrecht. Vol. I. 1892, where the most\nexhaustive discussions are given.]\n\n[Footnote 294: That the bishops and deacons were, primarily, officials\nconnected with the cultus, is most clearly seen from 1 Clem. 40-44, but\nalso from the connection in which the 14th Chap. of the Didache stands\nwith the 15th (see the [Greek: oun], 15. 1) to which Hatch in\nconversation called my attention. The [Greek: philoxenia], and the\nintercourse with other communities (the fostering of the \"unitas\")\nbelonged, above all, to the affairs of the church. Here, undoubtedly,\nfrom the beginning lay an important part of the bishop's duties. Ramsay\n(\"The Church in the Roman Empire,\" p. 361 ff.) has emphasised this point\nexclusively, and therefore one-sidedly. According to him, the\nmonarchical Episcopate sprang from the officials who were appointed _ad\nhoc_ and for a time, for the purpose of promoting intercourse with other\nchurches.]\n\n[Footnote 295: Sohm (in the work mentioned above) seeks to prove that\nthe monarchical Episcopate originated in Rome and is already presupposed\nby Hermas. I hold that the proof for this has not been adduced, and I\nmust also in great part reject the bold statements which are fastened on\nto the first Epistle of Clement. They may be comprehended in the\nproposition which Sohm, p. 158, has placed at the head of his discussion\nof the Epistle. \"The first Epistle of Clement makes an epoch in the\nhistory of the organisation of the Church. It was destined to put an end\nto the early Christian constitution of the Church.\" According to Sohm\n(p. 165), another immediate result of the Epistle was a change of\nconstitution in the Romish Church, the introduction of the monarchical\nEpiscopate. That, however, can only be asserted, not proved; for the\nproof which Sohm has endeavoured to bring from Ignatius' Epistle to the\nRomans and the Shepherd of Hermas, is not convincing.]\n\n[Footnote 296: See, above all, 1 Clem. 42, 44, Acts of the Apostles,\nPastoral Epistles, etc.]\n\n[Footnote 297: This idea is Romish. See Book II. chap, 11 C.]\n\n[Footnote 298: We must remember here, that besides the teachers, elders,\nand deacons, the ascetics (virgins, widows, celibates, abstinentes) and\nthe martyrs (confessors) enjoyed a special respect in the Churches, and\nfrequently laid hold of the government and leading of them. Hermas\nenjoins plainly enough the duty of esteeming the confessors higher than\nthe presbyters (Vis. III. 1. 2). The widows were soon entrusted with\ndiaconal tasks connected with the worship, and received a corresponding\nrespect. As to the limits of this there was, as we can gather from\ndifferent passages, much disagreement. One statement in Tertullian shews\nthat the confessors had special claims to be considered in the choice of\na bishop (adv. Valent. 4: \"Speraverat Episcopatum Valentinus, quia et\ningenio poterat et eloquio. Sed alium ex martyrii praerogativa loci\npotitum indignatus de ecclesia authenticae regulae abrupit\"). This\nstatement is strengthened by other passages; see Tertull. de fuga; 11.\n\"Hoc sentire et facere omnem servum dei oportet, etiam minoris loci, ut\nmaioris fieri possit, si quem gradum in persecutionis tolerantia\nascenderit\"; see Hippol in the Arab. canons, and also Achelis, Texte u.\nUnters VI. 4. pp. 67, 220; Cypr. Epp. 38. 39. The way in which\nconfessors and ascetics, from the end of the second century, attempted\nto have their say in the leading of the Churches, and the respectful way\nin which it was sought to set their claims aside, shew that a special\nrelation to the Lord, and therefore a special right with regard to the\ncommunity, was early acknowledged to these people, on account of their\nachievements. On the transition of the old prophets and teachers into\nwandering ascetics, later into monks, see the Syriac Pseudo-Clementine\nEpistles, \"de virginitate,\" and my Abhandl i d. Sitzungsberichten d. K.\nPr. Akad. d. Wissensch. 1891, p. 361 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 299: See Weizsaecker, Goett Gel. Anz. 1886, No. 21, whose\nstatements I can almost entirely make my own.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nTHE ATTEMPTS OF THE GNOSTICS TO CREATE AN APOSTOLIC DOGMATIC, AND A\nCHRISTIAN THEOLOGY; OR, THE ACUTE SECULARISING OF CHRISTIANITY.\n\n\nSec. 1. _The Conditions for the Rise of Gnosticism._\n\nThe Christian communities were originally unions for a holy life, on the\nground of a common hope, which rested on the belief that the God who has\nspoken by the Prophets has sent his Son Jesus Christ, and through him\nrevealed eternal life, and will shortly make it manifest. Christianity\nhad its roots in certain facts and utterances, and the foundation of the\nChristian union was the common hope, the holy life in the Spirit\naccording to the law of God, and the holding fast to those facts and\nutterances. There was, as the foregoing chapter will have shewn, no\nfixed Didache beyond that.[300] There was abundance of fancies, ideas,\nand knowledge, but these had not yet the value of being the religion\nitself. Yet the belief that Christianity guarantees the perfect\nknowledge, and leads from one degree of clearness to another, was in\noperation from the very beginning. This conviction had to be immediately\ntested by the Old Testament, that is, the task was imposed on the\nmajority of thinking Christians, by the circumstances in which the\nGospel had been proclaimed to them, of making the Old Testament\nintelligible to themselves, in other words, of using this book as a\nChristian book, and of finding the means by which they might be able to\nrepel the Jewish claim to it, and refute the Jewish interpretation of\nit. This task would not have been imposed, far less solved, if the\nChristian communities in the Empire had not entered into the inheritance\nof the Jewish propaganda, which had already been greatly influenced by\nforeign religions (Babylonian and Persian, see the Jewish Apocalypses),\nand in which an extensive spiritualising of the Old Testament religion\nhad already taken place. This spiritualising was the result of a\nphilosophic view of religion, and this philosophic view was the outcome\nof a lasting influence of Greek philosophy and of the Greek spirit\ngenerally on Judaism. In consequence of this view, all facts and sayings\nof the Old Testament in which one could not find his way, were\nallegorised. \"Nothing was what it seemed, but was only the symbol of\nsomething invisible. The history of the Old Testament was here\nsublimated to a history of the emancipation of reason from passion.\" It\ndescribes, however, the beginning of the historical development of\nChristianity, that as soon as it wished to give account of itself, or to\nturn to advantage the documents of revelation which were in its\npossession, it had to adopt the methods of that fantastic syncretism. We\nhave seen above that those writers who made a diligent use of the Old\nTestament, had no hesitation in making use of the allegorical method.\nThat was required not only by the inability to understand the verbal\nsense of the Old Testament, presenting diverging moral and religious\nopinions, but, above all, by the conviction, that on every page of that\nbook Christ and the Christian Church must be found. How could this\nconviction have been maintained, unless the definite concrete meaning of\nthe documents had been already obliterated by the Jewish philosophic\nview of the Old Testament?\n\nThis necessary allegorical interpretation, however, brought into the\ncommunities an intellectual philosophic element, a _gnosis_, which was\nperfectly distinct from the Apocalyptic dreams, in which were beheld\nangel hosts on white horses, Christ with eyes as a flame of fire,\nhellish beasts, conflict and victory.[301] In this [Greek: gnosis],\nwhich attached itself to the Old Testament, many began to see the\nspecific blessing which was promised to mature faith, and through which\nit was to attain perfection. What a wealth of relations, hints, and\nintuitions seemed to disclose itself, as soon as the Old Testament was\nconsidered allegorically, and to what extent had the way been prepared\nhere by the Jewish philosophic teachers! From the simple narratives of\nthe Old Testament had already been developed a theosophy, in which the\nmost abstract ideas had acquired reality, and from which sounded forth\nthe Hellenic canticle of the power of the Spirit over matter and\nsensuality, and of the true home of the soul. Whatever in this great\nadaptation still remained obscure and unnoticed, was now lighted up by\nthe history of Jesus, his birth, his life, his sufferings and triumph.\nThe view of the Old Testament as a document of the deepest wisdom,\ntransmitted to those who knew how to read it as such, unfettered the\nintellectual interest which would not rest until it had entirely\ntransferred the new religion from the world of feelings, actions and\nhopes, into the world of Hellenic conceptions, and transformed it into a\nmetaphysic. In that exposition of the Old Testament which we find, for\nexample, in the so-called Barnabas, there is already concealed an\nimportant philosophic, Hellenic element, and in that sermon which bears\nthe name of Clement (the so-called second Epistle of Clement),\nconceptions such as that of the Church, have already assumed a bodily\nform and been joined in marvellous connections, while, on the contrary,\nthings concrete have been transformed into things invisible.\n\nBut once the intellectual interest was unfettered, and the new religion\nhad approximated to the Hellenic spirit by means of a philosophic view\nof the Old Testament, how could that spirit be prevented from taking\ncomplete and immediate possession of it, and where, in the first\ninstance, could the power be found that was able to decide whether this\nor that opinion was incompatible with Christianity? This Christianity,\nas it was, unequivocally excluded all polytheism, and all national\nreligions existing in the Empire. It opposed to them the one God, the\nSaviour Jesus, and a spiritual worship of God. But, at the same time, it\nsummoned all thoughtful men to knowledge, by declaring itself to be the\nonly true religion, while it appeared to be only a variety of Judaism.\nIt seemed to put no limits to the character and extent of the knowledge,\nleast of all to such knowledge as was able to allow all that was\ntransmitted to remain, and at the same time, abolish it by transforming\nit into mysterious symbols. That really was the method which every one\nmust and did apply who wished to get from Christianity more than\npractical motives and super-earthly hopes. But where was the limit of\nthe application? Was not the next step to see in the Evangelic records\nalso new material for spiritual interpretations, and to illustrate from\nthe narratives there, as from The Old Testament, the conflict of the\nspirit with matter, of reason with sensuality? Was not the conception\nthat the traditional deeds of Christ were really the last act in the\nstruggle of those mighty spiritual powers whose conflict is delineated\nin the Old Testament, at least as evident as the other, that those deeds\nwere the fulfilment of mysterious promises? Was it not in keeping with\nthe consciousness possessed by the new religion of being the universal\nreligion, that one should not be satisfied with mere beginnings of a new\nknowledge, or with fragments of it, but should seek to set up such\nknowledge in a complete and systematic form, and so to exhibit the best\nand universal system of life as also the best and universal system of\nknowledge of the world? Finally, did not the free and yet so rigid forms\nin which the Christian communities were organised, the union of the\nmysterious with a wonderful publicity, of the spiritual with significant\nrites (baptism and the Lord's Supper), invite men to find here the\nrealisation of the ideal which the Hellenic religious spirit was at that\ntime seeking, viz., a communion which in virtue of a Divine revelation,\nis in possession of the highest knowledge, and therefore leads the\nholiest life, a communion which does not communicate this knowledge by\ndiscourse, but by mysterious efficacious consecrations, and by revealed\ndogmas? These questions are thrown out here in accordance with the\ndirection which the historical progress of Christianity took. The\nphenomenon called Gnosticism gives the answer to them.[302]\n\n\nSec. 2. _The Nature of Gnosticism._\n\nThe Catholic Church afterwards claimed as her own those writers of the\nfirst century (60-160) who were content with turning speculation to\naccount only as a means of spiritualising the Old Testament, without,\nhowever, attempting a systematic reconstruction of tradition. But all\nthose who in the first century undertook to furnish Christian practice\nwith the foundation of a complete systematic knowledge, she declared\nfalse Christians, Christians only in name. Historical enquiry cannot\naccept this judgment. On the contrary, it sees in Gnosticism a series of\nundertakings, which in a certain way is analogous to the Catholic\nembodiment of Christianity, in doctrine, morals, and worship. The great\ndistinction here consists essentially in the fact that the Gnostic\nsystems represent the acute secularising or hellenising of Christianity,\nwith the rejection of the Old Testament,[303] while the Catholic system,\non the other hand, represents a gradual process of the same kind with\nthe conservation of the Old Testament. The traditional religion on\nbeing, as it were, suddenly required to recognise itself in a picture\nforeign to it, was yet vigorous enough to reject that picture; but to\nthe gradual, and one might say indulgent remodelling to which it was\nsubjected, it offered but little resistance, nay, as a rule, it was\nnever conscious of it. It is therefore no paradox to say that\nGnosticism, which is just Hellenism, has in Catholicism obtained half a\nvictory. We have, at least, the same justification for that\nassertion--the parallel may be permitted--as we have for recognising a\ntriumph of 18th century ideas in the first Empire, and a continuance,\nthough with reservations, of the old regime.\n\nFrom this point of view the position to be assigned to the Gnostics in\nthe history of dogma, which has hitherto been always misunderstood, is\nobvious. _They were, in short, the Theologians of the first\ncentury._[304] They were the first to transform Christianity into a\nsystem of doctrines (dogmas). They were the first to work up tradition\nsystematically. They undertook to present Christianity as the absolute\nreligion, and therefore placed it in definite opposition to the other\nreligions, even to Judaism. But to them the absolute religion, viewed in\nits contents, was identical with the result of the philosophy of\nreligion for which the support of a revelation was to be sought. They\nare therefore those Christians who, in a swift advance, attempted to\ncapture Christianity for Hellenic culture, and Hellenic culture for\nChristianity, and who gave up the Old Testament in order to facilitate\nthe conclusion of the covenant between the two powers, and make it\npossible to assert the absoluteness of Christianity.--But the\nsignificance of the Old Testament in the religious history of the world,\nlies just in this, that, in order to be maintained at all, it required\nthe application of the allegoric method, that is, a definite proportion\nof Greek ideas, and that, on the other hand, it opposed the strongest\nbarrier to the complete hellenising of Christianity. Neither the sayings\nof Jesus, nor Christian hopes, were at first capable of forming such a\nbarrier. If, now, the majority of Gnostics could make the attempt to\ndisregard the Old Testament, that is a proof that, in wide circles of\nChristendom, people were at first satisfied with an abbreviated form of\nthe Gospel, containing the preaching of the one God, of the resurrection\nand of continence, a law and an ideal of practical life.[305] In this\nform, as it was realised in life, the Christianity which dispensed with\n\"doctrines\" seemed capable of union with every form of thoughtful and\nearnest philosophy, because the Jewish foundation did not make its\nappearance here at all. But the majority of Gnostic undertakings may\nalso be viewed as attempts to transform Christianity into a theosophy,\nthat is, into a revealed metaphysic and philosophy of history, with a\ncomplete disregard of the Jewish Old Testament soil on which it\noriginated, through the use of Pauline ideas,[306] and under the\ninfluence of the Platonic spirit. Moreover, comparison is possible\nbetween writers such as Barnabas and Ignatius, and the so-called\nGnostics, to the effect of making the latter appear in possession of a\ncompleted theory, to which fragmentary ideas in the former exhibit a\nstriking affinity.\n\nWe have hitherto tacitly presupposed that in Gnosticism the Hellenic\nspirit desired to make itself master of Christianity, or more correctly\nof the Christian communities. This conception may be, and really is\nstill contested. For according to the accounts of later opponents, and\non these we are almost exclusively dependent here, the main thing with\nthe Gnostics seems to have been the reproduction of Asiatic\nMythologoumena of all kinds, so that we should rather have to see in\nGnosticism a union of Christianity with the most remote Oriental cults\nand their wisdom. But with regard to the most important Gnostic systems\nthe words hold true, \"The hands are the hands of Esau, but the voice is\nthe voice of Jacob.\" There can be no doubt of the fact, that the\nGnosticism which has become a factor in the movement of the history of\ndogma, was ruled in the main by the Greek spirit, and determined by the\ninterests and doctrines of the Greek philosophy of religion,[307] which\ndoubtless had already assumed a syncretistic character. This fact is\ncertainly concealed by the circumstance that the material of the\nspeculations was taken now from this, and now from that Oriental\nreligious philosophy, from astrology and the Semitic cosmologies. But\nthat is only in keeping with the stage which the religious development\nhad reached among the Greeks and Romans of that time.[308] The cultured,\nand these primarily come into consideration here, no longer had a\nreligion in the sense of a national religion, but a philosophy of\nreligion. They were, however, in search of a religion, that is, a firm\nbasis for the results of their speculations, and they hoped to obtain it\nby turning themselves towards the very old Oriental cults, and seeking\nto fill them with the religious and moral knowledge which had been\ngained by the Schools of Plato and of Zeno. The union of the traditions\nand rites of the Oriental religions, viewed as mysteries, with the\nspirit of Greek philosophy is the characteristic of the epoch. The\nneeds, which asserted themselves with equal strength, of a complete\nknowledge of the All, of a spiritual God, a sure, and therefore very old\nrevelation, atonement and immortality, were thus to be satisfied at one\nand the same time. The most sublimated spiritualism enters here into the\nstrangest union with a crass superstition based on Oriental cults. This\nsuperstition was supposed to insure and communicate the spiritual\nblessings. These complicated tendencies now entered into Christianity.\n\nWe have accordingly to ascertain and distinguish in the prominent\nGnostic schools, which, in the second century on Greek soil, became an\nimportant factor in the history of the Church, the Semitic-cosmological\nfoundations, the Hellenic philosophic mode of thought, and the\nrecognition of the redemption of the world by Jesus Christ. Further, we\nhave to take note of the three elements of Gnosticism, viz., the\nspeculative and philosophical, the mystic element connection with\nworship, and the practical, ascetic. The close connection in which these\nthree elements appear,[309] the total transformation of all ethical into\ncosmological problems, the upbuilding of a philosophy of God and the\nworld on the basis of a combination of popular Mythologies, physical\nobservations belonging to the Oriental (Babylonian) religious\nphilosophy, and historical events, as well as the idea that the history\nof religion is the last act in the drama-like history of the Cosmos--all\nthis is not peculiar to Gnosticism, but rather corresponds to a definite\nstage of the general development. It may, however, be asserted that\nGnosticism anticipated the general development, and that not only with\nregard to Catholicism, but also with regard to Neo-platonism, which\nrepresents the last stage in the inner history of Hellenism.[310] The\nValentinians have already got as far as Jamblichus.\n\nThe name Gnosis, Gnostics, describes excellently the aims of Gnosticism,\nin so far as its adherents boasted of the absolute knowledge, and faith\nin the Gospel was transformed into a knowledge of God, nature and\nhistory. This knowledge, however, was not regarded as natural, but in\nthe view of the Gnostics was based on revelation, was communicated and\nguaranteed by holy consecrations, and was accordingly cultivated by\nreflection supported by fancy. A mythology of ideas was created out of\nthe sensuous mythology of any Oriental religion, by the conversion of\nconcrete forms into speculative and moral ideas, such as \"Abyss,\"\n\"Silence,\" \"Logos,\" \"Wisdom,\" \"Life,\" while the mutual relation and\nnumber of these abstract ideas were determined by the data supplied by\nthe corresponding concretes. Thus arose a philosophic dramatic poem,\nsimilar to the Platonic, but much more complicated, and therefore more\nfantastic, in which mighty powers, the spiritual and good, appear in an\nunholy union with the material and wicked, but from which the spiritual\nis finally delivered by the aid of those kindred powers which are too\nexalted to be ever drawn down into the common. The good and heavenly\nwhich has been drawn down into the material, and therefore really\nnon-existing, is the human spirit, and the exalted power who delivers it\nis Christ. The Evangelic history as handed down is not the history of\nChrist, but a collection of allegoric representations of the great\nhistory of God and the world. Christ has really no history. His\nappearance in this world of mixture and confusion is his deed, and the\nenlightenment of the spirit about itself is the result which springs out\nof that deed. This enlightenment itself is life. But the enlightenment\nis dependent on revelation, asceticism and surrender to those mysteries\nwhich Christ founded, in which one enters into communion with a _praesens\nnumen_, and which in mysterious ways promote the process of raising the\nspirit above the sensual. This rising above the sensual is, however, to\nbe actively practised. Abstinence therefore, as a rule, is the\nwatchword. Christianity thus appears here as a speculative philosophy\nwhich redeems the spirit by enlightening it, consecrating it, and\ninstructing it in the right conduct of life. The Gnosis is free from the\nrationalistic interest in the sense of natural religion. Because the\nriddles about the world which it desires to solve are not properly\nintellectual, but practical, because it desires to be in the end [Greek:\ngnosis soterias], it removes into the region of the suprarational the\npowers which are supposed to confer vigour and life on the human spirit.\nOnly a [Greek: mathesis], however, united with [Greek: mystagogia],\nresting on revelation, leads thither, not an exact philosophy. Gnosis\nstarts from the great problem of this world, but occupies itself with a\nhigher world, and does not wish to be an exact philosophy, but a\nphilosophy of religion. Its fundamental philosophic doctrines are the\nfollowing: (1) The indefinable, infinite nature of the Divine primeval\nBeing exalted above all thought. (2) Matter as opposed to the Divine\nBeing, and therefore having no real being, the ground of evil. (3) The\nfulness of divine potencies, AEons, which are thought of partly as\npowers, partly as real ideas, partly as relatively independent beings,\npresenting in gradation the unfolding and revelation of the Godhead, but\nat the same time rendering possible the transition of the higher to the\nlower. (4) The Cosmos as a mixture of matter with divine sparks, which\nhas arisen from a descent of the latter into the former, or, as some\nsay, from the perverse, or, at least, merely permitted undertaking of a\nsubordinate spirit. The Demiurge, therefore, is an evil, intermediate,\nor weak, but penitent being; the best thing therefore in the world is\naspiration. (5) The deliverance of the spiritual element from its union\nwith matter, or the separation of the good from the world of sensuality\nby the Spirit of Christ which operates through knowledge, asceticism,\nand holy consecration: thus originates the perfect Gnostic, the man who\nis free from the world, and master of himself, who lives in God and\nprepares himself for eternity. All these are ideas for which we find the\nway prepared in the philosophy of the time, anticipated by Philo, and\nrepresented in Neoplatonism as the great final result of Greek\nphilosophy. It lies in the nature of the case that only some men are\nable to appropriate the Christianity that is comprehended in these\nideas, viz., just as many as are capable of entering into this kind of\nChristianity, those who are spiritual. The others must be considered as\nnon-partakers of the Spirit from the beginning, and therefore excluded\nfrom knowledge as the _profanum vulgus_. Yet some, the Valentinians, for\nexample, made a distinction in this _vulgus_, which can only be\ndiscussed later on, because it is connected with the position of the\nGnostics towards Jewish Christian tradition.\n\nThe later opponents of Gnosticism preferred to bring out the fantastic\ndetails of the Gnostic systems, and thereby created the prejudice that\nthe essence of the matter lay in these. They have thus occasioned modern\nexpounders to speculate about the Gnostic speculations in a manner that\nis marked by still greater strangeness. Four observations shew how\nunhistorical and unjust such a view is, at least with regard to the\nchief systems. (1) The great Gnostic schools, wherever they could,\nsought to spread their opinions. But it is simply incredible that they\nshould have expected of all their disciples, male and female, an\naccurate knowledge of the details of their system. On the contrary, it\nmay be shewn that they often contented themselves with imparting\nconsecration, with regulating the practical life of their adherents, and\ninstructing them in the general features of their system.[311] (2) We\nsee how in one and the same school, for example, the Valentinian, the\ndetails of the religious metaphysic were very various and changing. (3)\nWe hear but little of conflicts between the various schools. On the\ncontrary, we learn that the books of doctrine and edification passed\nfrom one school to another.[312] (4) The fragments of Gnostic writings\nwhich have been preserved, and this is the most important consideration\nof the four, shew that the Gnostics devoted their main strength to the\nworking out of those religious, moral, philosophical and historical\nproblems, which must engage the thoughtful of all times.[313] We only\nneed to read some actual Gnostic document, such as the Epistle of\nPtolemaeus to Flora, or certain paragraphs of the Pistis Sophia, in order\nto see that the fantastic details of the philosophic poem can only, in\nthe case of the Gnostics themselves, have had the value of liturgical\napparatus, the construction of which was not of course a matter of\nindifference, but hardly formed the principal interest. The things to be\nproved, and to be confirmed by the aid of this or that very old\nreligious philosophy, were certain religious and moral fundamental\nconvictions, and a correct conception of God, of the sensible, of the\ncreator of the world, of Christ, of the Old Testament, and the evangelic\ntradition. Here were actual dogmas. But how the grand fantastic union of\nall the factors was to be brought about, was, as the Valentinian school\nshews, a problem whose solution was ever and again subjected to new\nattempts.[314] No one to-day can in all respects distinguish what to\nthose thinkers was image and what reality, or in what degree they were\nat all able to distinguish image from reality, and in how far the magic\nformulae of their mysteries were really objects of their meditation. But\nthe final aim of their endeavours, the faith and knowledge of their own\nhearts which they instilled into their disciples, the practical rules\nwhich they wished to give them, and the view of Christ which they wished\nto confirm them in, stand out with perfect clearness. Like Plato, they\nmade their explanation of the world start from the contradiction between\nsense and reason, which the thoughtful man observes in himself. The\ncheerful asceticism, the powers of the spiritual and the good which were\nseen in the Christian communities, attracted them and seemed to require\nthe addition of theory to practice. Theory without being followed by\npractice had long been in existence, but here was the as yet rare\nphenomenon of a moral practice which seemed to dispense with that which\nwas regarded as indispensable, viz., theory. The philosophic life was\nalready there; how could the philosophic doctrine be wanting, and after\nwhat other model could the latent doctrine be reproduced than that of\nthe Greek religious philosophy?[315] That the Hellenic spirit in\nGnosticism turned with such eagerness to the Christian communities and\nwas ready even to believe in Christ in order to appropriate the moral\npowers which it saw operative in them, is a convincing proof of the\nextraordinary impression which these communities made. For what other\npeculiarities and attractions had they to offer to that spirit than the\ncertainty of their conviction (of eternal life), and the purity of their\nlife? We hear of no similar edifice being erected in the second century\non the basis of any other Oriental cult--even the Mithras cult is\nscarcely to be mentioned here--as the Gnostic was on the foundation of\nthe Christian.[316] The Christian communities, however, together with\ntheir worship of Christ, formed the real solid basis of the greater\nnumber and the most important of the Gnostic systems, and in this fact\nwe have, on the very threshold of the great conflict, a triumph of\nChristianity over Hellenism. The triumph lay in the recognition of what\nChristianity had already performed as a moral and social power. This\nrecognition found expression in bringing the highest that one possessed\nas a gift to be consecrated by the new religion, a philosophy of\nreligion whose end was plain and simple, but whose means were mysterious\nand complicated.\n\n\nSec. 3. _History of Gnosticism and the forms in which it appeared._\n\nIn the previous section we have been contemplating Gnosticism as it\nreached its prime in the great schools of Basilides and Valentinus, and\nthose related to them,[317] at the close of the period we are now\nconsidering, and became an important factor in the history of dogma. But\nthis Gnosticism had (1) preliminary stages, and (2) was always\naccompanied by a great number of sects, schools and undertakings which\nwere only in part related to it, and yet, reasonably enough, were\ngrouped together with it.\n\nTo begin with the second point, the great Gnostic schools were flanked\non the right and left by a motley series of groups which at their\nextremities can hardly be distinguished from popular Christianity on the\none hand, and from the Hellenic and the common world on the other.[318]\nOn the right were communities such as the Encratites, which put all\nstress on a strict asceticism, in support of which they urged the\nexample of Christ, but which here and there fell into dualistic\nideas.[319] There were further, whole communities which, for decennia,\ndrew their views of Christ from books which represented him as a\nheavenly spirit who had merely assumed an apparent body.[320] There were\nalso individual teachers who brought forward peculiar opinions without\nthereby causing any immediate stir in the Churches.[321] On the left\nthere were schools such as the Carpocratians, in which the philosophy\nand communism of Plato were taught, the son of the founder and second\nteacher Epiphanes honoured as a God (at Cephallenia), as Epicurus was in\nhis school, and the image of Jesus crowned along with those of\nPythagoras, Plato and Aristotle.[322] On this left flank are, further,\nswindlers who take their own way, like Alexander of Abonoteichus,\nmagicians, soothsayers, sharpers and jugglers, under the sign-board of\nChristianity, deceivers and hypocrites who appear using mighty words\nwith a host of unintelligible formulae, and take up with scandalous\nceremonies, in order to rob men of their money and women of their\nhonour.[323] All this was afterwards called \"Heresy\" and \"Gnosticism,\"\nand is still so called.[324] And these names may be retained, if we will\nunderstand by them nothing else than the world taken into Christianity,\nall the manifold formations which resulted from the first contact of the\nnew religion with the society into which it entered. To prove the\nexistence of that left wing of Gnosticism is of the greatest interest\nfor the history of dogma, but the details are of no consequence. On the\nother hand, in the aims and undertakings of the Gnostic right, it is\njust the details that are of greatest significance, because they shew\nthat there was no fixed boundary between what one may call common\nChristian and Gnostic Christian. But as Gnosticism, in its contents,\nextended itself from the Encratites and the philosophic interpretation\nof certain articles of the Christian proclamation, as brought forward\nwithout offence by individual teachers in the communities, to the\ncomplete dissolution of the Christian element by philosophy, or the\nreligious charlatanry of the age, so it exhibits itself formally also in\na long series of groups which comprised all imaginable forms of unions.\nThere were churches, ascetic associations, mystery cults, strictly\nprivate philosophic schools,[325] free unions for edification,\nentertainments by Christian charlatans and deceived deceivers, who\nappeared as magicians and prophets, attempts at founding new religions\nafter the model and under the influence of the Christian, etc. But,\nfinally, the thesis that Gnosticism is identical with an acute\nsecularising of Christianity, in the widest sense of the word, is\nconfirmed by the study of its own literature. The early Christian\nproduction of Gospel and Apocalypses was indeed continued in Gnosticism\nyet so that the class of \"Acts of the Apostles\" was added to them, and\nthat didactic, biographic and \"belles lettres,\" elements were received\ninto them, and claimed a very important place. If this makes the Gnostic\nliterature approximate to the profane, that is much more the case with\nthe scientific theological literature which Gnosticism first produced.\nDogmatico-philosophic tracts, theologico-critical treatises, historical\ninvestigations and scientific commentaries on the sacred books, were,\nfor the first time in Christendom, composed by the Gnostics, who in part\noccupied the foremost place in the scientific knowledge, religious\nearnestness and ardour of the age. They form, in every respect, the\ncounterpart to the scientific works which proceeded from the\ncontemporary philosophic schools. Moreover, we possess sufficient\nknowledge of Gnostic hymns and odes, songs for public worship, didactic\npoems, magic formulae, magic books, etc., to assure us that Christian\nGnosticism took possession of a whole region of the secular life in its\nfull breadth, and thereby often transformed the original forms of\nChristian literature into secular.[326] If, however, we bear in mind how\nall this at a later period was gradually legitimised in the Catholic\nChurch, philosophy, the science of the sacred books, criticism and\nexegesis, the ascetic associations, the theological schools, the\nmysteries, the sacred formulae, the superstition, the charlatanism, all\nkinds of profane literature, etc., it seems to prove the thesis that the\nvictorious epoch of the gradual hellenising of Christianity followed the\nabortive attempts at an acute hellenising.\n\nThe traditional question as to the origin and development of Gnosticism,\nas well as that about the classification of the Gnostic systems, will\nhave to be modified in accordance with the foregoing discussion. As the\ndifferent Gnostic systems might be contemporary, and in part were\nundoubtedly contemporary, and as a graduated relation holds good only\nbetween some few groups, we must, in the classification, limit ourselves\nessentially to the features which have been specified in the foregoing\nparagraph, and which coincide with the position of the different groups\nto the early Christian tradition in its connection with the Old\nTestament religion, both as a rule of practical life, and of the common\ncultus.[327]\n\nAs to the origin of Gnosticism, we see how, even in the earliest period,\nall possible ideas and principles foreign to Christianity force their\nway into it, that is, are brought in under Christian rules, and find\nentrance, especially in the consideration of the Old Testament.[328] We\nmight be satisfied with the observation that the manifold Gnostic\nsystems were produced by the increase of this tendency. In point of fact\nwe must admit that in the present state of our sources, we can reach no\nsure knowledge beyond that. These sources, however, give certain\nindications which should not be left unnoticed. If we leave out of\naccount the two assertions of opponents, that Gnosticism was produced by\ndemons[329] and--this, however, was said at a comparatively late\nperiod--that it originated in ambition and resistance to the\necclesiastical office, the episcopate, we find in Hegesippus, one of the\nearliest writers on the subject, the statement that the whole of the\nheretical schools sprang out of Judaism or the Jewish sects; in the\nlater writers, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Hippolytus, that these schools\nowe most to the doctrines of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, Zeno,\netc.[330] But they all agree in this, that a definite personality, viz.,\nSimon the Magician, must be regarded as the original source of the\nheresy. If we try it by these statements of the Church Fathers, we must\nsee at once that the problem in this case is limited--certainly in a\nproper way. For after Gnosticism is seen to be the acute secularising of\nChristianity the only question that remains is, how are we to account\nfor the origin of the great Gnostic schools, that is, whether it is\npossible to indicate their preliminary stages. The following may be\nasserted here with some confidence: Long before the appearance of\nChristianity, combinations of religion had taken place in Syria and\nPalestine,[331] especially in Samaria, in so far, on the one hand, as\nthe Assyrian and Babylonian religious philosophy, together with its\nmyths, as well as the Greek popular religion, with its manifold\ninterpretations, had penetrated as far as the eastern shore of the\nMediterranean, and been accepted even by the Jews, and, on the other\nhand, the Jewish Messianic idea had spread and called forth various\nmovements.[332] The result of every mixing of national religions,\nhowever, is to break through the traditional, legal and particular\nforms.[333] For the Jewish religion syncretism signified the shaking of\nthe authority of the Old Testament by a qualitative distinction of its\ndifferent parts, as also doubt as to the identity of the supreme God\nwith the national God. These ferments were once more set in motion by\nChristianity. We know that in the Apostolic age there were attempts in\nSamaria to found new religions, which were in all probability influenced\nby the tradition and preaching concerning Jesus. Dositheus, Simon Magus,\nCleobius, and Menander appeared as Messiahs or bearers of the Godhead,\nand proclaimed a doctrine in which the Jewish faith was strangely and\ngrotesquely mixed with Babylonian myths, together with some Greek\nadditions. The mysterious worship, the breaking up of Jewish\nparticularism, the criticism of the Old Testament, which for long had\nhad great difficulty in retaining its authority in many circles, in\nconsequence of the widened horizon and the deepening of religious\nfeeling, finally, the wild syncretism, whose aim, however, was a\nuniversal religion, all contributed to gain adherents for Simon.[334]\nHis enterprise appeared to the Christians as a diabolical caricature of\ntheir own religion, and the impression made by the success which\nSimonianism gained by a vigorous propaganda even beyond Palestine into\nthe West, supported this idea.[335] We can therefore understand how,\nafterwards, all heresies were traced back to Simon. To this must be\nadded that we can actually trace in many Gnostic systems the same\nelements which were prominent in the religion proclaimed by Simon (the\nBabylonian and Syrian), and that the new religion of the Simonians, just\nlike Christianity, had afterwards to submit to be transformed into a\nphilosophic, scholastic doctrine.[336] The formal parallel to the\nGnostic doctrines was therewith established. But even apart from these\nattempts at founding new religions, Christianity in Syria, under the\ninfluence of foreign religions and speculation on the philosophy of\nreligion, gave a powerful impulse to the criticism of the law and the\nprophets which had already been awakened. In consequence of this, there\nappeared, about the transition of the first century to the second, a\nseries of teachers, who, under the impression of the Gospel, sought to\nmake the Old Testament capable of furthering the tendency to a universal\nreligion, not by allegorical interpretation, but by a sifting criticism.\nThese attempts were of very different kinds. Teachers such as Cerinthus,\nclung to the notion that the universal religion revealed by Christ was\nidentical with undefined Mosaism, and therefore maintained even such\narticles as circumcision and the Sabbath commandment, as well as the\nearthly kingdom of the future. But they rejected certain parts of the\nlaw, especially, as a rule, the sacrificial precepts, which were no\nlonger in keeping with the spiritual conception of religion. They\nconceived the creator of the world as a subordinate being distinct from\nthe supreme God, which is always the mark of a syncretism with a\ndualistic tendency; introduced speculations about AEons and angelic\npowers, among whom they placed Christ, and recommended a strict\nasceticism. When, in their Christology, they denied the miraculous\nbirth, and saw in Jesus a chosen man on whom the Christ, that is, the\nHoly Spirit, descended at the baptism, they were not creating any\ninnovation, but only following the earliest Palestinian tradition. Their\nrejection of the authority of Paul is explained by their efforts to\nsecure the Old Testament as far as possible for the universal\nreligion.[337] There were others who rejected all ceremonial\ncommandments as proceeding from the devil, or from some intermediate\nbeing, but yet always held firmly that the God of the Jews was the\nsupreme God. But alongside of these stood also decidedly anti-Jewish\ngroups, who seem to have been influenced in part by the preaching of\nPaul. They advanced much further in the criticism of the Old Testament\nand perceived the impossibility of saving it for the Christian universal\nreligion. They rather connected this religion with the cultus-wisdom of\nBabylon and Syria, which seemed more adapted for allegorical\ninterpretations, and opposed this formation to the Old Testament\nreligion. The God of the Old Testament appears here at best as a\nsubordinate Angel of limited power, wisdom and goodness. In so far as he\nwas identified with the creator of the world, and the creation of the\nworld itself was regarded as an imperfect or an abortive undertaking,\nexpression was given both to the anti-Judaism and to that religious\ntemper of the time, which could only value spiritual blessing in\ncontrast with the world and the sensuous. These systems appeared more or\nless strictly dualistic, in proportion as they did or did not accept a\nslight co-operation of the supreme God in the creation of man; and the\nway in which the character and power of the world-creating God of the\nJews was conceived, serves as a measure of how far the several schools\nwere from the Jewish religion and the Monism that ruled it. All possible\nconceptions of the God of the Jews, from the assumption that he is a\nbeing supported in his undertakings by the supreme God, to his\nidentification with Satan, seem to have been exhausted in these schools.\nAccordingly, in the former case, the Old Testament was regarded as the\nrevelation of a subordinate God, in the latter as the manifestation of\nSatan, and therefore the ethic--with occasional use of Pauline\nformula--always assumed an antinomian form, compared with the Jewish\nlaw, in some cases antinomian even in the sense of libertinism.\nCorrespondingly, the anthropology exhibits man as bipartite, or even\ntripartite, and the Christology is strictly docetic and anti-Jewish. The\nredemption by Christ is always, as a matter of course, related only to\nthat element in humanity which has an affinity with the Godhead.[338]\n\nIt is uncertain whether we should think of the spread of these doctrines\nin Syria in the form of a school, or of a cultus; probably it was both.\nFrom the great Gnostic systems as formed by Basilides and Valentinus\nthey are distinguished by the fact, that they lack the peculiar\nphilosophic, that is Hellenic element, the speculative conversion of\nangels and AEons into real ideas, etc. We have almost no knowledge of\ntheir effect. This Gnosticism has never directly been a historical\nfactor of striking importance, and the great question is whether it was\nso indirectly.[339] That is to say, we do not know whether this Syrian\nGnosticism was, in the strict sense, the preparatory stage of the great\nGnostic schools, so that these schools should be regarded as an actual\nreconstruction of it. But there can be no doubt that the appearance of\nthe great Gnostic schools in the Empire, from Egypt to Gaul, is\ncontemporaneous with the vigorous projection of Syrian cults westwards,\nand therefore the assumption is suggested, that the Syrian Christian\nsyncretism was also spread in connection with that projection, and\nunderwent a change corresponding to the new conditions. We know\ndefinitely that the Syrian Gnostic, Cerdo, came to Rome, wrought there,\nand exercised an influence on Marcion. But no less probable is the\nassumption that the great Hellenic Gnostic schools arose spontaneously,\nin the sense of having been independently developed out of the elements\nto which undoubtedly the Asiatic cults also belonged, without being\ninfluenced in any way by Syrian syncretistic efforts. The conditions for\nthe growth of such formations were nearly the same in all parts of the\nEmpire. The great advance lies in the fact that the religious material\nas contained in the Gospel, the Old Testament, and the wisdom connected\nwith the old cults, was philosophically, that is, scientifically,\nmanipulated by means of allegory, and the aggregate of mythological\npowers translated into an aggregate of ideas. The Pythagorean and\nPlatonic, more rarely the Stoic philosophy, were compelled to do service\nhere. Great Gnostic schools, which were at the same time unions for\nworship, first enter into the clear light of history in this form, (see\nprevious section), and on the conflict with these, surrounded as they\nwere by a multitude of dissimilar and related formations, depends the\nprogress of the development.[340]\n\nWe are no longer able to form a perfectly clear picture of how these\nschools came into being, or how they were related to the Churches. It\nlay in the nature of the case that the heads of the schools, like the\nearly itinerant heretical teachers, devoted attention chiefly, if not\nexclusively, to those who were already Christian, that is, to the\nChristian communities.[341] From the Ignatian Epistles, the Shepherd of\nHermas (Vis. III. 7. 1; Sim. VIII. 6. 5; IX. 19. and especially 22) and\nthe Didache (XI. 1. 2) we see that those teachers who boasted of a\nspecial knowledge, and sought to introduce \"strange\" doctrines, aimed at\ngaining the entire churches. The beginning, as a rule, was necessarily\nthe formation of conventicles. In the first period therefore, when there\nwas no really fixed standard for warding off the foreign\ndoctrines--Hermas is unable even to characterise the false\ndoctrines--the warnings were commonly exhausted in the exhortation:\n[Greek: kollasthe tois hagiois, hoti hoi kollomenoi autois\nhagiasthesontai] [\"connect yourselves with the saints, because those who\nare connected with them shall be sanctified\"]. As a rule, the doctrines\nmay really have crept in unobserved, and those gained over to them may\nfor long have taken part in a two-fold worship, the public worship of\nthe churches, and the new consecration. Those teachers must of course\nhave assumed a more aggressive attitude who rejected the Old Testament.\nThe attitude of the Church, when it enjoyed competent guidance, was one\nof decided opposition towards unmasked or recognised false teachers. Yet\nIrenaeus' account of Cerdo in Rome shews us how difficult it was at the\nbeginning to get rid of a false teacher.[342] For Justin, about the year\n150, the Marcionites, Valentinians, Basilideans and Saturninians, are\ngroups outside the communities, and undeserving of the name\n\"Christians.\"[343] There must therefore have been at that time, in Rome\nand Asia Minor at least, a really perfect separation of those schools\nfrom the Churches (it was different in Alexandria). Notwithstanding,\nthis continued to be the region from which those schools obtained their\nadherents. For the Valentinians recognised that the common Christians\nwere much better than the heathen, that they occupied a middle position\nbetween the \"pneumatic\" and the \"hylic\", and might look forward to a\nkind of salvation. This admission, as well as their conforming to the\ncommon Christian tradition, enabled them to spread their views in a\nremarkable way, and they may not have had any objection in many cases,\nto their converts remaining in the great Church. But can this community\nhave perceived everywhere and at once, that the Valentinian distinction\nof \"psychic\" and \"pneumatic\" is not identical with the scriptural\ndistinction of children and men in understanding? Where the organisation\nof the school (the union for worship) required a long time of probation,\nwhere degrees of connection with it were distinguished, and a strict\nasceticism demanded of the perfect, it followed of course that those on\nthe lower stage should not be urged to a speedy break with the\nChurch.[344] But after the creation of the catholic confederation of\nchurches, existence was made more and more difficult for these schools.\nSome of them lived on somewhat like our freemason-unions, some, as in\nthe East, became actual sects (confessions), in which the wise and the\nsimple now found a place, as they were propagated by families. In both\ncases they ceased to be what they had been at the beginning. From about\n210, they ceased to be a factor of the historical development, though\nthe Church of Constantine and Theodosius was alone really able to\nsuppress them.\n\n\n4. _The most important Gnostic Doctrines._\n\nWe have still to measure and compare with the earliest tradition those\nGnostic doctrines which, partly at once and partly in the following\nperiod, became important. Once more, however, we must expressly refer to\nthe fact, that the epoch-making significance of Gnosticism for the\nhistory of dogma, must not be sought chiefly in the particular\ndoctrines, but rather in the whole way in which Christianity is here\nconceived and transformed. The decisive thing is the conversion of the\nGospel into a doctrine, into an absolute philosophy of religion, the\ntransforming of the _disciplina Evangelii_ into an asceticism based on a\ndualistic conception, and into a practice of mysteries.[345] We have now\nbriefly to shew, with due regard to the earliest tradition, how far this\ntransformation was of positive or negative significance for the\nfollowing period, that is, in what respects the following development\nwas anticipated by Gnosticism, and in what respects Gnosticism was\ndisavowed by this development.[346]\n\n(1) Christianity, which is the only true and absolute religion, embraces\na revealed system of doctrine (positive).\n\n(2) This doctrine contains mysterious powers, which are communicated to\nmen by initiation (mysteries).\n\n(3) The revealer is Christ (positive), but Christ alone, and only in his\nhistorical appearance--no Old Testament Christ (negative); this\nappearance is itself redemption: the doctrine is the announcement of it\nand of its presuppositions (positive).[347]\n\n(4) Christian doctrine is to be drawn from the Apostolic tradition,\ncritically examined. This tradition lies before us in a series of\nApostolic writings, and in a secret doctrine derived from the Apostles,\n(positive).[348] As exoteric it is comprehended in the _regula fidei_\n(positive),[349] as esoteric it is propagated by chosen teachers.[350]\n\n(5) The documents of revelation (Apostolic writings), just because they\nare such, must be interpreted by means of allegory, that is, their\ndeeper meaning must be extracted in this way (positive).[351]\n\n(6) The following may be noted as the main points in the Gnostic\nconception of the several parts of the _regula fidei_.\n\n(a) The difference between the supreme God and the creator of the world,\nand therewith the opposing of redemption and creation, and therefore the\nseparation of the Mediator of revelation from the Mediator of\ncreation.[352]\n\n(b) The separation of the supreme God from the God of the Old Testament,\nand therewith the rejection of the Old Testament, or the assertion that\nthe Old Testament contains no revelations of the supreme God, or at\nleast only in certain parts.[353]\n\n(c) The doctrine of the independence and eternity of matter.\n\n(d) The assertion that the present world sprang from a fall of man, or\nfrom an undertaking hostile to God, and is therefore the product of an\nevil or intermediate being.[354]\n\n(e) The doctrine, that evil is inherent in matter, and therefore is a\nphysical potence.[355]\n\n(f) The assumption of AEons, that is, real powers and heavenly persons in\nwhom is unfolded the absoluteness of the Godhead.[356]\n\n(g) The assertion that Christ revealed a God hitherto unknown.\n\n(h) The doctrine that in the person of Jesus Christ--the Gnostics saw in\nit redemption, but they reduced the person to the physical nature--the\nheavenly AEon, Christ, and the human appearance of that AEon must be\nclearly distinguished, and a \"distincte agere\" ascribed to each.\nAccordingly, there were some, such as Basilides, who acknowledged no\nreal union between Christ and the man Jesus, whom, besides, they\nregarded as an earthly man. Others, e.g., part of the Valentinians,\namong whom the greatest differences prevailed--see Tertull. adv. Valent.\n39--taught that the body of Jesus was a heavenly psychical formation,\nand sprang from the womb of Mary only in appearance. Finally, a third\nparty, such as Saturninus, declared that the whole visible appearance of\nChrist was a phantom, and therefore denied the birth of Christ.[357]\nChrist separates that which is unnaturally united, and thus leads\neverything back again to himself; in this redemption consists (full\ncontrast to the notion of the [Greek: anakephalaiosis]).\n\n(i) The conversion of the [Greek: ekklesia] (it was no innovation to\nregard the heavenly Church as an AEon) into the college of the pneumatic,\nwho alone, in virtue of their psychological endowment, are capable of\nGnosis and the divine life, while the others, likewise in virtue of\ntheir constitution, as hylic perish. The Valentinians, and probably many\nother Gnostics also, distinguished between pneumatic, psychic and hylic.\nThey regarded the psychic as capable of a certain blessedness, and of a\ncorresponding certain knowledge of the supersensible, the latter being\nobtained through Pistis, that is, through Christian faith.[358]\n\n(k) The rejection of the entire early Christian eschatology, especially\nthe second coming of Christ, the resurrection of the body, and Christ's\nKingdom of glory on the earth, and, in connection with this, the\nassertion that the deliverance of the spirit from the sensuous can be\nexpected only from the future, while the spirit enlightened about itself\nalready possesses immortality, and only awaits its introduction into the\npneumatic pleroma.[359]\n\nIn addition to what has been mentioned here, we must finally fix our\nattention on the ethics of Gnosticism. Like the ethics of all systems\nwhich are based on the contrast between the sensuous and spiritual\nelements of human nature, that of the Gnostics took a twofold direction.\nOn the one hand, it sought to suppress and uproot the sensuous, and thus\nbecame strictly ascetic (imitation of Christ as motive of\nasceticism;[360] Christ and the Apostles represented as ascetics);[361]\non the other hand, it treated the sensuous element as indifferent, and\nso became libertine, that is, conformed to the world. The former was\nundoubtedly the more common, though there are credible witnesses to the\nlatter; the _frequentissimum collegium_ in particular, the Valentinians,\nin the days of Irenaeus and Tertullian, did not vigorously enough\nprohibit a lax and world-conforming morality;[362] and among the Syrian\nand Egyptian Gnostics there were associations which celebrated the most\nrevolting orgies.[363] As the early Christian tradition summoned to a\nstrict renunciation of the world and to self-control, the Gnostic\nasceticism could not but make an impression at the first; but the\ndualistic basis on which it rested could not fail to excite suspicion as\nsoon as one was capable of examining it.[364]\n\n_Literature._--The writings of Justin (his syntagma against heresies has\nnot been preserved), Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Clement of\nAlexandria, Origen, Epiphanius, Philastrius and Theodoret; cf. Volkmar,\nDie Quellen der Ketzergeschichte, 1885.\n\nLipsius, Zur Quellenkritik des Epiphanios, 1875; also Die Quellen der\naeltesten Ketzergeschichte, 1875.\n\nHarnack, Zur Quellenkritik d. Gesch. d. Gnostic, 1873 (continued i. D.\nZtschr. f. d. hist. Theol. 1874, and in Der Schrift de Apellis gnosi\nmonarch. 1874).\n\nOf Gnostic writings we possess the book Pistis Sophia, the writings\ncontained in the Coptic Cod. Brucianus, and the Epistle of Ptolemy to\nFlora; also numerous fragments, in connection with which Hilgenfeld\nespecially deserves thanks, but which still require a more complete\nselecting and a more thorough discussion (see Grabe, Spicilegium T. I.\nII. 1700. Heinrici, Die Valentin. Gnosis, u. d. H. Schrift, 1871).\n\nOn the (Gnostic) Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, see Zahn, Acta Joh.\n1880, and the great work of Lipsius, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten,\nI. Vol., 1883; II. Vol., 1887. (See also Lipsius, Quellen d. roem.\nPetrussage, 1872).\n\nNeander, Genet. Entw. d. vornehmsten gnostischen Systeme, 1818.\n\nMatter, Hist. crit. du gnosticisme, 2 Vols., 1828.\n\nBaur, Die Christl. Gnosis, 1835.\n\nLipsius, Der Gnosticismus, in Ersch. und Gruber's Allg. Encykl. 71 Bd.\n1860.\n\nMoeller, Geschichte d. Kosmologie i. d. Griech. K. his auf Origenes.\n1860.\n\nKing, The Gnostics and their remains, 1873.\n\nMansel, The Gnostic heresies, 1875.\n\nJacobi, Art. \"Gnosis\" in Herzog's Real Encykl. 2nd Edit.\n\nHilgenfeld, Die Ketzergeschichte des Urchristenthums, 1884, where the\nmore recent, special literature concerning individual Gnostics is\nquoted.\n\nLipsius, Art. \"Valentinus\" in Smith's Dictionary of Christian Biography.\n\nHarnack, Art. \"Valentinus\" in the Encycl. Brit.\n\nHarnack, Pistis Sophia in the Texte und Unters. VII. 2.\n\nCarl Schmidt, Gnostische Schriften in koptischer Sprache aus dem Codex\nBrucianus (Texte und Unters. VIII. 1. 2).\n\nJoel, Blicke in die Religionsgeschichte zu Anfang des 2 Christl.\nJahrhunderts, 2 parts, 1880, 1883.\n\nRenan, History of the Origins of Christianity. Vols. V. VI. VII.\n\n\n[Footnote 300: We may consider here once more the articles which are\nembraced in the first ten chapters of the recently discovered [Greek:\nDidache ton apostolon], after enumerating and describing which, the\nauthor continues (II. 1): [Greek: hos an oun elthon didachei umas tauta\npanta ta proeiremena, dexasthe auton].]\n\n[Footnote 301: It is a good tradition, which designates the so-called\nGnosticism, simply as Gnosis, and yet uses this word also for the\nspeculations of non-Gnostic teachers of antiquity (e.g., of Barnabas).\nBut the inferences which follow have not been drawn. Origen says truly\n(c. Celsus III. 12) \"As men, not only the labouring and serving classes,\nbut also many from the cultured classes of Greece, came to see something\nhonourable in Christianity, sects could not fail to arise, not simply\nfrom the desire for controversy and contradiction, but because several\nscholars endeavoured to penetrate deeper into the truth of Christianity.\nIn this way sects arose, which received their names from men who indeed\nadmired Christianity in its essence, but from many different causes had\narrived at different conceptions of it.\"]\n\n[Footnote 302: The majority of Christians in the second century belonged\nno doubt to the uncultured classes, and did not seek abstract knowledge,\nnay, were distrustful of it; see the [Greek: logos alethes] of Celsus,\nespecially III. 44, and the writings of the Apologists. Yet we may infer\nfrom the treatise of Origen against Celsus that the number of\n\"Christiani rudes\" who cut themselves off from theological and\nphilosophic knowledge, was about the year 240 a very large one; and\nTertullian says (Adv. Prax. 3): \"Simplices quique, ne dixerim\nimprudentes et idiotae, quae major semper credentium pars est,\" cf. de\njejun. 11: \"Major pars imperitorum apud gloriosissimam multitudinem\npsychicorum.\"]\n\n[Footnote 303: Overbeck (Stud. z. Gesch. d. alten Kirche. p. 184) has the\nmerit of having first given convincing expression to this view of\nGnosticism.]\n\n[Footnote 304: The ability of the prominent Gnostic teachers has been\nrecognised by the Church Fathers: see Hieron. Comm in Osee. II. 10, Opp.\nVI. i: \"Nullus potest haeresim struere, nisi qui ardens ingenii est et\nhabet dona naturae quae a deo artifice sunt creata: talis fuit Valentinus,\ntails Marcion, quos doctissimos legimus, talis Bardesanes, cujus etiam\nphilosophi admirantur ingenium.\" It is still more important to see how\nthe Alexandrian theologians (Clement and Origen) estimated the exegetic\nlabours of the Gnostics, and took account of them. Origen undoubtedly\nrecognised Herakleon as a prominent exegete, and treats him most\nrespectfully even where he feels compelled to differ from him. All\nGnostics cannot, of course, be regarded as theologians. In their\ntotality they form the Greek society with a Christian name.]\n\n[Footnote 305: Otherwise the rise of Gnosticism cannot at all be\nexplained.]\n\n[Footnote 306: Cf. Bigg, \"The Christian Platonists of Alexandria,\" p.\n83: \"Gnosticism was in one respect distorted Paulinism.\"]\n\n[Footnote 307: Joel, \"Blick in die Religionsgesch.\" Vol. I. pp. 101-170,\nhas justly emphasised the Greek character of Gnosis, and insisted on the\nsignificance of Platonism for it. \"The Oriental element did not always\nin the case of the Gnostics, originate at first hand, but had already\npassed through a Greek channel.\"]\n\n[Footnote 308: The age of the Antonines was the flourishing period of\nGnosticism. Marquardt (Roemische Staatsverwaltung Vol. 3, p. 81) says of\nthis age: \"With the Antonines begins the last period of the Roman\nreligious development in which two new elements enter into it. These are\nthe Syrian and Persian deities, whose worship at this time was prevalent\nnot only in the city of Rome, but in the whole empire, and, at the same\ntime, Christianity, which entered into conflict with all ancient\ntradition, and in this conflict exercised a certain influence even on\nthe Oriental forms of worship.\"]\n\n[Footnote 309: It is a special merit of Weingarten (Histor. Ztschr. Bd\n45. 1881. p. 441 f.) and Koffmane (Die Gnosis nach ihrer Tendenz und\nOrganisation, 1881) to have strongly emphasised the mystery character of\nGnosis, and in connection with that, its practical aims. Koffmane,\nespecially, has collected abundant material for proving that the\ntendency of the Gnostics was the same as that of the ancient mysteries,\nand that they thence borrowed their organisation and discipline. This\nfact proves the proposition that Gnosticism was an acute hellenising of\nChristianity. Koffmane has, however, undervalued the union of the\npractical and speculative tendency in the Gnostics, and, in the effort\nto obtain recognition for the mystery character of the Gnostic\ncommunities, has overlooked the fact that they were also schools. The\nunion of mystery-cultus and school is just, however, their\ncharacteristic. In this also they prove themselves the forerunners of\nNeoplatonism and the Catholic Church. Moehler in his programme of 1831\n(Urspr. d. Gnosticismus Tubingen), vigorously emphasised the practical\ntendency of Gnosticism, though not in a convincing way. Hackenschmidt\n(Anfange des katholischen Kirchenbegriffs, p. 83 f.) has judged\ncorrectly.]\n\n[Footnote 310: We have also evidence of the methods by which ecstatic\nvisions were obtained among the Gnostics, see the Pistis Sophia, and the\nimportant role which prophets and Apocalypses played in several\nimportant Gnostic communities (Barcoph and Barcabbas, prophets of the\nBasilideans; Martiades and Marsanes among the Ophites; Philumene in the\ncase of Apelles; Valentinian prophecies, Apocalypses of Zostrian,\nZoroaster, etc.) Apocalypses were also used by some under the names of\nOld Testament men of God and Apostles.]\n\n[Footnote 311: See Koftmane, before-mentioned work, p. 5 f.]\n\n[Footnote 312: See Fragm. Murat. V. 81 f.; Clem. Strom. VII. 17. 108;\nOrig. Hom. 34. The Marcionite Antitheses were probably spread among\nother Gnostic sects. The Fathers frequently emphasise the fact that the\nGnostics were united against the church: Tertullian de praescr 42: \"Et\nhoc est, quod schismata apud haereticos fere non sunt, quia cum sint, non\nparent. Schisma est enim unitas ipsa.\" They certainly also delight in\nemphasising the contradictions of the different schools; but they cannot\npoint to any earnest conflict of these schools with each other. We know\ndefinitely that Bardasanes argued against the earlier Gnostics, and\nPtolemaeus against Marcion.]\n\n[Footnote 313: See the collection, certainly not complete, of Gnostic\nfragments by Grabe (Spicileg.) and Hilgenfeld (Ketzergeschichte). Our\nbooks on the history of Gnosticism take far too little notice of these\nfragments as presented to us, above all, by Clement and Origen, and\nprefer to keep to the doleful accounts of the Fathers about the\n\"Systems\", (better in Heinrici: Valent. Gnosis, 1871). The vigorous\nefforts of the Gnostics to understand the Pauline and Johannine ideas,\nand their in part surprisingly rational and ingenious solutions of\nintellectual problems, have never yet been systematically estimated. Who\nwould guess, for example, from what is currently known of the system of\nBasilides, that, according to Clement, the following proceeds from him,\n(Strom. IV. 12. 18): [Greek: hos autos phesin ho Basileides, en meros ek\ntou legomenou thelematos tou theou hupeilephamen, to egapekenai hapanta.\nhoti logon aposozousi pros to pan hapanta; heteron de to medenos\nepithumein, kai to triton misein mede hen], and where do we find, in the\nperiod before Clement of Alexandria, faith in Christ united with such\nspiritual maturity and inner freedom as in Valentinians, Ptolemaeus and\nHeracleon?]\n\n[Footnote 314: Testament of Tertullian (adv. Valent. 4) shews the\ndifference between the solution of Valentinus, for example, and his\ndisciple Ptolemaeus. \"Ptolemaeus nomina et numeros AEonum distinxit in\npersonales substantias, sed extra deum determinatas, quas Valentinus in\nipsa summa divinitatis ut sensus et affectus motus incluserat.\" It is,\nmoreover, important that Tertullian himself should distinguish this so\nclearly.]\n\n[Footnote 315: There is nothing here more instructive than to hear the\njudgments of the cultured Greeks and Romans about Christianity, as soon\nas they have given up the current gross prejudices. They shew with\nadmirable clearness, the way in which Gnosticism originated. Galen says\n(quoted by Gieseler, Church Hist. 1. 1. 41): \"Hominum plerique orationem\ndemonstrativam continuam mente assequi nequeunt, quare indigent, ut\ninstituantur parabolis. Veluti nostro tempore videmus, homines illos,\nqui Christian! vocantur, fidem suam e parabolis petiisse. Hi tamen\ninterdum talia faciunt, qualia qui vere philosophantur. Nam quod mortem\ncontemnunt, id quidem omnes ante oculos habemus; item quod verecundia\nquadam ducti ab usu rerum venerearum abhorrent. Sunt enim inter eos\nfeminae et viri, qui per totam vitam a concubitu abstinuerint; sunt etiam\nqui in animis regendis coercendisque et in accerrimo honestatis studio\neo progressi sint, ut nihil cedant vere philosophantibus.\" Christians,\ntherefore, are philosophers without philosophy. What a challenge for\nthem to produce such, that is to seek out the latent philosophy! Even\nCelsus could not but admit a certain relationship between Christians and\nphilosophers. But as he was convinced that the miserable religion of the\nChristians could neither include nor endure a philosophy, he declared\nthat the moral doctrines of the Christians were borrowed from the\nphilosophers (I. 4). In course of his presentation (V. 65; VI. 12.\n15-19, 42; VII. 27-35) he deduces the most decided marks of\nChristianity, as well as the most important sayings of Jesus from\n(misunderstood) statements of Plato and other Greek philosophers. This\nis not the place to shew the contradictions in which Celsus was involved\nby this. But it is of the greatest significance that even this\nintelligent man could only see philosophy where he saw something\nprecious. The whole of Christianity from its very origin appeared to\nCelsus (in one respect) precisely as the Gnostic systems appear to us,\nthat is, these really are what Christianity as such seemed to Celsus to\nbe. Besides, it was constantly asserted up to the fifth century that\nChrist had drawn from Plato's writings. Against those who made this\nassertion, Ambrosius (according to Augustine, Ep. 31. c. 8) wrote a\ntreatise which unfortunately is no longer in existence.]\n\n[Footnote 316: The Simonian system at most might be named, on the basis\nof the syncretistic religion founded by Simon Magus. But we know little\nabout it, and that little is uncertain. Parallel attempts are\ndemonstrable in the third century on the basis of various \"revealed\"\nfundamental ideas ([Greek: he ek logion philosophia]).]\n\n[Footnote 317: Among these I reckon those Gnostics whom Irenaeus (I.\n29-31) has portrayed, as well as part of the so-called Ophites, Peratae,\nSethites and the school of the Gnostic Justin (Hippol. Philosoph. V.\n6-28). There is no reason for regarding them as earlier or more Oriental\nthan the Valentinians, as is done by Hilgenfeld against Baur, Moeller,\nand Gruber (the Ophites, 1864). See also Lipsius, \"Ophit. Systeme\", i.\nd. Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1863. IV, 1864, I. These schools claimed for\nthemselves the name Gnostic (Hippol. Philosoph. V. 6). A part of them,\nas is specially apparent from Orig. c. Celsum. VI., is not to be\nreckoned Christian. This motley group is but badly known to us through\nEpiphanius, much better through the original Gnostic writings preserved\nin the Coptic language. (Pistis Sophia and the works published by Carl\nSchmidt Texte u. Unters. Bd. VIII.). Yet these original writings belong,\nfor the most part, to the second half of the third century (see also the\nimportant statements of Porphyry in the Vita Plotini, c. 16), and shew a\nGnosticism burdened with an abundance of wild speculations, formulae,\nmysteries, and ceremonial. However, from these very monuments it becomes\nplain that Gnosticism anticipated Catholicism as a ritual system (see\nbelow).]\n\n[Footnote 318: On Marcion, see the following Chapter.]\n\n[Footnote 319: We know that from the earliest period (perhaps we might\nrefer even to the Epistle to the Romans) there were circles of ascetics\nin the Christian communities who required of all, as an inviolable law,\nunder the name of Christian perfection, complete abstinence from\nmarriage, renunciation of possessions, and a vegetarian diet. (Clem.\nStrom. III. 6. 49: [Greek: hupo diabolou tauten paradidosthai\ndogmatizousi, mimeisthai d' autous hoi megalanchoi phasi ton kurion mete\ngemanta, mete ti en toi kosmoi ktesamenon, mallon para allous nenoekenai\nto euangelion kauchomenoi].--Here then, already, imitation of the poor\nlife of Jesus, the \"Evangelic\" life, was the watchword. Tatian wrote a\nbook, [Greek: peri tou kata ton sotera katartismou], that is, on\nperfection according to the Redeemer: in which he set forth the\nirreconcilability of the worldly life with the Gospel). No doubt now\nexisted in the Churches that abstinence from marriage, from wine and\nflesh, and from possessions, was the perfect fulfilling of the law of\nChrist ([Greek: bastazein holon ton zugon tou kuriou]). But in wide\ncircles strict abstinence was deduced from a special charism, all\nboastfulness was forbidden, and the watchword given out: [Greek: hoson\ndunasai hagneuseis], which may be understood as a compromise with the\nworldly life as well as a reminiscence of a freer morality (see my notes\non Didache, c. 6; 11, 11 and Prolegg. p. 42 ff.). Still, the position\ntowards asceticism yielded a hard problem, the solution of which was\nmore and more found in distinguishing a higher and a lower though\nsufficient morality, yet repudiating the higher morality as soon as it\nclaimed to be the alone authoritative one. On the other hand, there were\nsocieties of Christian ascetics who persisted in applying literally to\nall Christians the highest demands of Christ, and thus arose, by\nsecession, the communities of the Encratites and Severians. But in the\ncircumstances of the time even they could not but be touched by the\nHellenic mode of thought, to the effect of associating a speculative\ntheory with asceticism, and thus approximating to Gnosticism. This is\nspecially plain in Tatian, who connected himself with the Encratites,\nand in consequence of the severe asceticism which he prescribed, could\nno longer maintain the identity of the supreme God and the creator of\nthe world (see the fragments of his later writings in the Corp. Apol. ed\nOtto. T. VI.). As the Pauline Epistles could furnish arguments to either\nside, we see some Gnostics such as Tatian himself, making diligent use\nof them, while others such as the Severians, rejected them. (Euseb. H.\nE. IV. 29. 5, and Orig. c. Cels. V. 65). The Encratite controversy was,\non the one hand, swallowed up by the Gnostic, and on the other hand,\nreplaced by the Montanistic. The treatise written in the days of Marcus\nAurelius by a certain Musanus (where?) which contains warnings against\njoining the Encratites (Euseb. H. E. IV. 28) we unfortunately no longer\npossess.]\n\n[Footnote 320: See Eusebius, H. E. VI. 12. Docetic elements are apparent\neven in the fragment of the Gospel of Peter recently discovered.]\n\n[Footnote 321: Here, above all, we have to remember Tatian, who in his\nhighly praised Apology, had already rejected altogether the eating of\nflesh (c. 23) and set up very peculiar doctrines about the spirit,\nmatter, and the nature of man (c. 12 ff.). The fragments of the\nHypotyposes of Clem. of Alex. show how much one had to bear in some\nrural Churches at the end of the second century.]\n\n[Footnote 322: See Clem. Strom III. 2. 5; [Greek: Epiphanes, huios\nKarpokratous, ezese ta panta ete heptakaideka kai theos en Samei tes\nKephallenias tetimetai, entha autoi hieron ruton lithon, bomoi, temene,\nmouseion, oikodometai te kai kathierotai, kai suniontes eis to hieron\nhoi Kaphallenes kata noumenian genethlion apotheosin thuousin Epiphanei,\nspendousi te kai euochountai kai humnoi legontai]. Clement's quotations\nfrom the writings of Epiphanes shew him to be a pure Platonist: the\nproposition that property is theft is found in him. Epiphanes and his\nfather, Carpocrates, were the first who attempted to amalgamate Plato's\nState with the Christian ideal of the union of men with each other.\nChrist was to them, therefore, a philosophic Genius like Plato, see\nIrenaeus I. 25. 5: \"Gnosticos autem se vocant, etiam imagines, quasdam\nquidem depictas, quasdam autem et de reliqua materia fabricatas\nhabent..... et has coronant, et proponent eas cum imaginibus mundi\nphilosophorum, videlicet cum imagine Pythagorae et Platonis et\nAristotelis et reliquorum, et reliquam observationem circa eas similiter\nut gentes faciunt.\"]\n\n[Footnote 323: See the \"Gnostics\" of Hermas, especially the false\nprophet whom he portrays, Mand. XI., Lucian's Peregrinus, and the\nMarcus, of whose doings Irenaeus (I. 13. ff.) gives such an abominable\npicture. To understand how such people were able to obtain a following\nso quickly in the Churches, we must remember the respect in which the\n\"prophets\" were held (see Didache XI.). If one had once given the\nimpression that he had the Spirit, he could win belief for the strangest\nthings, and could allow himself all things possible (see the\ndelineations of Celsus in Orig. c. Cels. VII. 9. 11). We hear frequently\nof Gnostic prophets and prophetesses, see my notes on Herm. Mand. XI. 1\nand Didache XI. 7. If an early Christian element is here preserved by\nthe Gnostic schools, it has undoubtedly been hellenised and secularised\nas the reports shew. But that the prophets altogether were in danger of\nbeing secularised is shewn in Didache XI. In the case of the Gnostics\nthe process is again only hastened.]\n\n[Footnote 324: The name Gnostic originally attached to schools which had\nso named themselves. To these belonged, above all, the so-called\nOphites, but not the Valentinians or Basilideans.]\n\n[Footnote 325: Special attention should be given to this form, as it\nbecame in later times of the very greatest importance for the general\ndevelopment of doctrine in the Church. The sect of Carpocrates was a\nschool. Of Tatian Irenaeus says (I. 28. 1): [Greek: Tatianos Ioustinou\nacroates gegonais ... meta de ten ekeinou marturian apostas tes\nekklesias, oiemati didaskalon epartheis ... idion charakter didaskaleiou\nsunestesato]. Rhodon (in Euseb. H. E. V. 13. 4) speaks of a Marcionite\n[Greek: didaskaleion]. Other names were, \"Collegium\" (Tertull. ad Valen\n1), \"Secta\", the word had not always a bad meaning, [Greek: hairesis,\nekklesia] (Clem. Strom. VII. 16. 98, on the other hand, VII. 15. 92:\nTertull. de praescr. 42: plerique nec Ecclesias habent), [Greek: thiasos]\n(Iren. I. 13. 4, for the Marcosians). [Greek: sunagoge, sustema,\ndiatribe, hai athropinai suneluseis], factiuncula, congregatio,\nconciliabulum, conventiculum. The mystery-organisation most clearly\nappears in the Naassenes of Hippolytus, the Marcosians of Irenaeus, and\nthe Elkasites of Hippolytus, as well as in the Coptic-Gnostic documents\nthat have been preserved. (See Koffmane, above work, pp. 6-22).]\n\n[Footnote 326: The particulars here belong to church history. Overbeck\n(\"Ueber die Anfaenge der patristischen Litteratur\" in d. hist. Ztschr. N.\nF. Bd. XII. p. 417 ff.) has the merit of being the first to point out\nthe importance, for the history of the Church, of the forms of\nliterature as they were gradually received in Christendom. Scientific,\ntheological literature has undoubtedly its origin in Gnosticism. The Old\nTestament was here, for the first time, systematically and also in part,\nhistorically criticised; a selection was here made from the primitive\nChristian literature; scientific commentaries were here written on the\nsacred books (Basilides and especially the Valentinians, see Heracleon's\ncomm. on the Gospel of John [in Origen]); the Pauline Epistles were also\ntechnically expounded; tracts were here composed on dogmatico-philosophic\nproblems (for example, [Greek: peri dikaiosunes--peri prosphuous\npsuches--ethika--peri enkrateias he peri eunouchias]), and systematic\ndoctrinal systems already constructed (as the Basilidean and\nValentinian); the original form of the Gospel was here first transmuted\ninto the Greek form of sacred novel and biography (see, above all, the\nGospel of Thomas, which was used by the Marcosians and Naassenes, and\nwhich contained miraculous stories from the childhood of Jesus); here,\nfinally, psalms, odes and hymns were first composed (see the Acts of\nLucius, the psalms of Valentinus, the psalms of Alexander the disciple\nof Valentinus, the poems of Bardesanes). Irenaeus, Tertullian and\nHippolytus have indeed noted, that the scientific method of\ninterpretation followed by the Gnostics, was the same as that of the\nphilosophers (e.g., of Philo). Valentinus, as is recognised even by the\nChurch Fathers, stands out prominent for his mental vigour and religious\nimagination, Heracleon for his exegetic theological ability, Ptolemy for\nhis ingenious criticism of the Old Testament and his keen perception of\nthe stages of religious development (see his Epistle to Flora in\nEpiphanius, haer. 33. c. 7). As a specimen of the language of Valentinus\none extract from a homily may suffice (in Clem. Strom. IV. 13. 89).\n[Greek: Ap arches athanatoi este kai tekna zoes este aionias, kai ton\nthanaton ethelete merisasthai eis heautous, hina dapanesete auton kai\nanalosete, kai apothane ho thanatos en humin kai di' humon, hotan gar\nton men kosmon luete, autoi de me kataluesthe, kurieuete tes kriseos kai\ntes phthoras apases.] Basilides falls into the background behind\nValentinus and his school. Yet the Church Fathers, when they wish to\nsummarise the most important Gnostics, usually mention Simon Magus,\nBasilides, Valentinus, Marcion (even Apelles). On the relation of the\nGnostics to the New Testament writings, and to the New Testament, see\nZahn, Gesch. des N. T-lichen Kanons I. 2, p. 718.]\n\n[Footnote 327: Baur's classification of the Gnostic systems, which rests\non the observation of how they severally realised the idea of\nChristianity as the absolute religion, in contrast to Judaism and\nHeathenism, is very ingenious, and contains a great element of truth.\nBut it is insufficient with reference to the whole phenomenon of\nGnosticism, and it has been carried out by Baur by violent\nabstractions.]\n\n[Footnote 328: The question, therefore, as to the time of the origin of\nGnosticism, as a complete phenomenon, cannot be answered. The remarks of\nHegesippus (Euseb. H. E. IV. 22) refer to the Jerusalem Church, and have\nnot even for that the value of a fixed datum. The only important\nquestion here is the point of time at which the expulsion or secession\nof the schools and unions took place in the different national\nchurches.]\n\n[Footnote 329: Justin Apol. 1. 26.]\n\n[Footnote 330: Hegesippus in Euseb. H. E. IV. 22, Iren. II. 14. 1 f.,\nTertull. de praescr. 7, Hippol. Philosoph. The Church Fathers have also\nnoted the likeness of the cultus of Mithras and other deities.]\n\n[Footnote 331: We must leave the Essenes entirely out of account here,\nas their teaching, in all probability, is not to be considered\nsyncretistic in the strict sense of the word, (see Lucius, \"Der\nEssenismus\", 1881), and as we know absolutely nothing of a greater\ndiffusion of it. But we need no names here, as a syncretistic, ascetic\nJudaism could and did arise everywhere in Palestine and the Diaspora.]\n\n[Footnote 332: Freudenthal's \"Hellenistische Studien\" informs us as to\nthe Samaritan syncretism; see also Hilgenfeld's \"Ketzergeschichte\", p.\n149 ff. As to the Babylonian mythology in Gnosticism, see the statements\nin the elaborate article, \"Manichaismus\", by Kessler (Real-Encycl. fuer\nprotest. Theol., 2 Aufl.).]\n\n[Footnote 333: Wherever traditional religions are united under the badge\nof philosophy a conservative syncretism is the result, because the\nallegoric method, that is, the criticism of all religion, veiled and\nunconscious of itself, is able to blast rocks and bridge over abysses.\nAll forms may remain here, under certain circumstances, but a new spirit\nenters into them. On the other hand, where philosophy is still weak, and\nthe traditional religion is already shaken by another, there arises the\ncritical syncretism in which either the gods of one religion are\nsubordinated to those of another, or the elements of the traditional\nreligion are partly eliminated and replaced by others. Here, also, the\nsoil is prepared for new religious formations, for the appearance of\nreligious founders.]\n\n[Footnote 334: It was a serious mistake of the critics to regard Simon\nMagus as a fiction, which, moreover, has been given up by Hilgenfeld\n(Ketzergeschichte, p. 163 ff.). and Lipsius (Apocr Apostelgesch 11.\n1),--the latter, however, not decidedly. The whole figure, as well as\nthe doctrines attributed to Simon (see Acts of the Apostles, Justin,\nIrenaeus, Hippolytus), not only have nothing improbable in them, but suit\nvery well the religious circumstances which we must assume for Samaria.\nThe main point in Simon is his endeavour to create a universal religion\nof the supreme God. This explains his success among the Samaritans and\nGreeks. He is really a counterpart to Jesus, whose activity can just as\nlittle have been unknown to him as that of Paul. At the same time, it\ncannot be denied, that the later tradition about Simon was the most\nconfused and biassed imaginable, or that certain Jewish Christians at a\nlater period may have attempted to endow the magician with the features\nof Paul in order to discredit the personality and teaching of the\nApostle. But this last assumption requires a fresh investigation.]\n\n[Footnote 335: Justin, Apol. I. 26: [Greek: kai schedon pantes men\nSamareis, oligoi de kai en allois ethnesin, hos ton proton theon Simona\nhomologountes, ekeinon kai proskunousin] (besides the account in the\nPhilos and Orig. c. Cels i. 57; VI. 11). The positive statement of\nJustin that Simon came even to Rome (under Claudius) can hardly be\nrefuted from the account of the Apologist himself, and therefore not at\nall (See Renan, \"Antichrist\").]\n\n[Footnote 336: We have it as such in the [Greek: Megale Apophasis] which\nHippolytus (Philosoph. VI. 19. 20) made use of. This Simonianism may\nperhaps have been related to the original, as the doctrines of the\nChristian Gnostics to the Apostolic preaching.]\n\n[Footnote 337: The Heretics opposed in the Epistle to the Colossians may\nbelong to these. On Cerinthus, see Polycarp, in Iren. III. 3. 2, Irenaeus\n(I. 26. I.; III. 11. 1), Hippolytus and the redactions of the Syntagma,\nCajus in Euseb. III. 28. 2, Hilgenfeld, Ketzergeschichte, p. 411 ff. To\nthis category belong also the Ebionites and Elkasites of Epiphanius (See\nChap. 6).]\n\n[Footnote 338: The two Syrian teachers, Saturninus and Cerdo, must in\nparticular be mentioned here. The first (See Iren I. 24. 1. 2, Hippolyt.\nand the redactions of the Syntagma) was not strictly speaking a dualist,\nand therefore allowed the God of the Old Testament to be regarded as an\nAngel of the supreme God, while at the same time he distinguished him\nfrom Satan. Accordingly, he assumed that the supreme God co-operated in\nthe creation of man by angel powers--sending a ray of light, an image of\nlight, that should be imitated as an example and enjoined as an ideal.\nBut all men have not received the ray of light. Consequently, two\nclasses of men stand in abrupt contrast with each other. History is the\nconflict of the two. Satan stands at the head of the one, the God of the\nJews at the head of the other. The Old Testament is a collection of\nprophecies out of both camps. The truly good first appears in the AEon\nChrist, who assumed nothing cosmic, did not even submit to birth. He\ndestroys the works of Satan (generation, eating of flesh), and delivers\nthe men who have within them a spark of light The Gnosis of Cerdo was\nmuch coarser. (Iren. I. 27. 1, Hippolyt. and the redactions). He\ncontrasted the good God and the God of the Old Testament as two primary\nbeings. The latter he identified with the creator of the world.\nConsequently, he completely rejected the Old Testament and everything\ncosmic and taught that the good God was first revealed in Christ. Like\nSaturninus he preached a strict docetism; Christ had no body, was not\nborn, and suffered in an unreal body. All else that the Fathers report\nof Cerdo's teaching has probably been transferred to him from Marcion,\nand is therefore very doubtful.]\n\n[Footnote 339: This question might perhaps be answered if we had the\nJustinian Syntagma against all heresies; but, in the present condition\nof our sources, it remains wrapped in obscurity. What may be gathered\nfrom the fragments of Hegesippus, the Epistles of Ignatius, the Pastoral\nEpistles and other documents, such as, for example, the Epistle of Jude,\nis in itself so obscure, so detached, and so ambiguous, that it is of no\nvalue for historical construction.]\n\n[Footnote 340: There are, above all, the schools of the Basilideans,\nValentinians and Ophites. To describe the systems in their full\ndevelopment lies, in my opinion, outside the business of the history of\ndogma and might easily lead to the mistake that the systems as such were\ncontroverted, and that their construction was peculiar to Christian\nGnosticism. The construction, as remarked above, is rather that of the\nlater Greek philosophy, though it cannot be mistaken that, for us, the\nfull parallel to the Gnostic systems first appears in those of the\nNeoplatonists. But only particular doctrines and principles of the\nGnostics were really called in question, their critique of the world, of\nprovidence, of the resurrection, etc.; these therefore are to be adduced\nin the next section. The fundamental features of an inner development\ncan only be exhibited in the case of the most important, viz., the\nValentinian school. But even here, we must distinguish an Eastern and a\nWestern branch. (Tertull. adv. Valent. I.: \"Valentiniani frequentissimum\nplane collegium inter haereticos.\" Iren. I. 1.; Hippol. Philos. VI. 35;\nOrig. Hom. II. 5 in Ezech. Lomm. XIV. p. 40: \"Valentini robustissima\nsecta\").]\n\n[Footnote 341: Tertull. de praescr. 42: \"De verbi autem administratione\nquid dicam, cum hoc sit negotium illis, non ethnicos convertendi, sed\nnostros evertendi? Hanc magis gloriam captant, si stantibus ruinam, non\nsi jacentibus elevationem operentur. Quoniam et ipsum opus eorum non de\nsuo proprio aedificio venit, sed de veritatis destructione; nostra\nsuffodiunt, ut sua aedificent. Adime illis legem Moysis et prophetas et\ncreatorem deum, accusationem eloqui non habent.\" (See adv. Valent. I\ninit.). This is hardly a malevolent accusation. The philosophic\ninterpretation of a religion will always impress those only on whom the\nreligion itself has already made an impression.]\n\n[Footnote 342: Iren. III. 4. 2: [Greek: Kerdon eis ten ekklesian elthon\nkai exomologoumenos, houtos dietelete, pote men lathrodidaskalon pote de\npalin exomologoumenos, pote de eleggomenos eph hois edidaske kakos, kai\naphistamenos tes ton adelphon sunodias], see, besides, the valuable\naccount of Tertull. de praescr. 30. The account of Irenaeus (I. 13) is\nvery instructive as to the kind of propaganda of Marcus, and the\nrelation of the women he deluded to the Church. Against actually\nrecognised false teachers the fixed rule was to renounce all intercourse\nwith them (2 Joh. 10. 11, Iren. ep. ad. Florin on Polycarp's procedure,\nin Euseb. H. E. V. 20. 7; Iren. III. 3. 4) But how were the heretics to\nbe surely known?]\n\n[Footnote 343: Among those who justly bore this name he distinguishes\nthose [Greek: Hoi orthognomenes kata panta christanoi eisin] (Dial.\n80).]\n\n[Footnote 344: Very important is the description which Irenaeus (III. 15.\n2) and Tertullian have given of the conduct of the Valentinians as\nobserved by themselves (adv. Valent. 1). \"Valentiniani nihil magis\ncurant quam occultare, quod praedicant; si tamen praedicant qui occultant.\nCustodiae officium conscientiae officium est (a comparison with the\nEleusinian mysteries follows.) Si bona fide quaeras, concreto vultu,\nsuspenso supercilio, Altum est, aiunt. Si subtiliter temptes per\nambiguitates bilingues communem fidem adfirmant. Si scire te subostendas\nnegant quidquid agnoscunt. Si cominus certes, tuam simplicitatem sua\ncaede dispergunt. Ne discipulis quidem propriis ante committunt quam suos\nfecerint. Habent artificium quo prius persuadeant quam edoceant.\" At a\nlater period Dionysius of Alex, (in Euseb. H. E. VII. 7) speaks of\nChristians who maintain an apparent communion with the brethren, but\nresort to one of the false teachers (cf. as to this Euseb. H. E. VI. 2.\n13). The teaching of Bardesanes influenced by Valentinus, who, moreover,\nwas hostile to Marcionitism, was tolerated for a long time in Edessa (by\nthe Christian kings), nay, was recognised. The Bardesanites and the\n\"Palutians\" (catholics) were differentiated only after the beginning of\nthe third century.]\n\n[Footnote 345: There can be no doubt that the Gnostic propaganda was\nseriously hindered by the inability to organise and discipline churches,\nwhich is characteristic of all philosophic systems of religion. The\nGnostic organisation of schools and mysteries was not able to contend\nwith the episcopal organisation of the churches; see Ignat. ad Smyr. 6.\n2; Tertull de praescr. 41. Attempts at actual formations of churches were\nnot altogether wanting in the earliest period; at a later period they\nwere forced on some schools. We have only to read Iren. III. 15. 2 in\norder to see that these associations could only exist by finding support\nin a church. Irenaeus expressly remarks that the Valentinians designated\nthe common Christians [Greek: katholikoi] (communes) [Greek: kai\nekklesiastikoi], but that they, on the other hand, complained that \"we\nkept away from their fellowship without cause, as they thought like\nourselves.\"]\n\n[Footnote 346: The differences between the Gnostic Christianity and that\nof the Church, that is, the later ecclesiastical theology, were fluid,\nif we observe the following points. (1) That even in the main body of\nthe Church, the element of knowledge was increasingly emphasised, and\nthe Gospel began to be converted into a perfect knowledge of the world\n(increasing reception of Greek philosophy, development of [Greek:\npistis] to [Greek: gnosis]). (2) That the dramatic eschatology began to\nfade away. (3) That room was made for docetic views, and value put upon\na strict asceticism. On the other hand, we must note: (1) That all this\nexisted only in germ or fragments within the great Church during the\nflourishing period of Gnosticism. (2) That the great Church held fast to\nthe facts fixed in the baptismal formula (in the _Kerygma_), and to the\neschatological expectations, further, to the creator of the world as the\nsupreme God, to the unity of Jesus Christ, and to the Old Testament, and\ntherefore rejected dualism. (3) That the great Church defended the unity\nand equality of the human race, and therefore the uniformity and\nuniversal aim of the Christian salvation. (4) That it rejected every\nintroduction of new, especially of Oriental Mythologies, guided in this\nby the early Christian consciousness and a sure intelligence. A deeper,\nmore thorough distinction between the Church and the Gnostic parties\nhardly dawned on the consciousness of either. The Church developed\nherself instinctively into an imperial Church, in which office was to\nplay the chief role. The Gnostics sought to establish or conserve\nassociations in which the genius should rule, the genius in the way of\nthe old prophets or in the sense of Plato, or in the sense of a union of\nprophecy and philosophy. In the Gnostic conflict, at least at its close,\nthe judicial priest fought with the virtuoso and overcame him.]\n\n[Footnote 347: The absolute significance of the person of Christ was\nvery plainly expressed in Gnosticism (Christ is not only the teacher of\nthe truth, but the manifestation of the truth), more plainly than where\nhe was regarded as the subject of Old Testament revelation. The\npre-existent Christ has significance in some Gnostic schools, but always\na comparatively subordinate one. The isolating of the person of Christ,\nand quite as much the explaining away of his humanity, is manifestly out\nof harmony with the earliest tradition. But, on the other hand, it must\nnot be denied that the Gnostics recognised redemption in the historical\nChrist: Christ personally procured it (see under 6. h.).]\n\n[Footnote 348: In this thesis, which may be directly corroborated by the\nmost important Gnostic teachers, Gnosticism shews that it desires _in\nthesi_ (in a way similar to Philo) to continue on the soil of\nChristianity as a positive religion. Conscious of being bound to\ntradition, it first definitely raised the question, what is\nChristianity? and criticised and sifted the sources for an answer to the\nquestion. The rejection of the Old Testament led it to that question and\nto this sifting. It may be maintained with the greatest probability,\nthat the idea of a canonical collection of Christian writings first\nemerged among the Gnostics (see also Marcion). They really needed such a\ncollection, while all those who recognised the Old Testament as a\ndocument of revelation, and gave it a Christian interpretation, did not\nat first need a new document, but simply joined on the new to the old,\nthe Gospel to the Old Testament. From the numerous fragments of Gnostic\ncommentaries on New Testament writings which have been preserved, we see\nthat these writings there enjoyed canonical authority, while at the same\nperiod, we hear nothing of such authority, nor of commentaries in the\nmain body of Christendom (see Heinrici, \"Die Valentinianische Gnosis\", u.\nd. h. Schrift, 1871). Undoubtedly, sacred writings were selected\naccording to the principle of apostolic origin. This is proved by the\ninclusion of the Pauline Epistles in the collections of books. There is\nevidence of such having been made by the Naassenes, Peratae,\nValentinians, Marcion, Tatian, and the Gnostic Justin. The collection of\nthe Valentinians, and the Canon of Tatian must have really coincided\nwith the main parts of the later Ecclesiastical Canon. The later\nValentinians accommodated themselves to this Canon, that is, recognised\nthe books that had been added (Tertull. de praescr. 38). The question as\nto who first conceived and realised the idea of a Canon of Christian\nwritings, Basilides or Valentinus or Marcion or whether this was done by\nseveral at the same time, will always remain obscure, though many things\nfavour Marcion. If it should even be proved that Basilides (see Euseb.\nH. E. IV. 7. 7) and Valentinus himself, regarded the Gospels only as\nauthoritative yet the full idea of the Canon lies already in the fact of\ntheir making these the foundation and interpreting them allegorically.\nThe question as to the extent of the Canon afterwards became the subject\nof an important controversy between the Gnostics and the Catholic\nChurch. The Catholics throughout took up the position that their Canon\nwas the earlier, and the Gnostic collection the corrupt revision of it\n(they were unable to adduce proof, as is attested by Tertullian's de\npraescr.) But the aim of the Gnostics to establish themselves on the\nuncorrupted apostolic tradition gathered from writings was crossed by\nthree tendencies, which, moreover, were all jointly operative in the\nChristian communities and are therefore not peculiar to Gnosticism. (1)\nBy faith in the continuance of prophecy, in which new things are always\nrevealed by the Holy Spirit (the Basilidean and Marcionite prophets).\n(2) By the assumption of an esoteric secret tradition of the Apostles\n(see Clem. Strom. VII. 17. 106, 108, Hipp. Philos. VII. 20, Iren. I. 25.\n5, III. 2. 1, Tertull. de praescr. 25. Cf. the Gnostic book [Greek:\nPistis Sophia], which in great part is based on doctrines said to be\nimparted by Jesus to his disciples after his resurrection). (3) By the\ninability to oppose the continuous production of Evangelic writings in\nother words by the continuance of this kind of literature and the\naddition of Acts of the Apostles (Gospel of the Egyptians (?), other\nGospels, Acts of John, Thomas, Philip etc. We know absolutely nothing\nabout the conditions under which these writings originated the measure\nof authority which they enjoyed or the way in which they gained that\nauthority). In all these points which in Gnosticism hindered the\ndevelopment of Christianity to the religion of a new book the Gnostic\nschools shew that they stood precisely under the same conditions as the\nChristian communities in general (see above Chap. 3 Sec. 2). If all things\ndo not deceive us, the same inner development may be observed even in\nthe Valentinian school, as in the great Church viz. the production of\nsacred Evangelic and Apostolic writings, prophecy and secret gnosis,\nfalling more and more into the background, and the completed Canon\nbecoming the most important basis of the doctrine of religion. The later\nValentinians (see Tertull. de praescr. and adv. Valent.) seem to have\nappealed chiefly to this Canon, and Tatian no less (about whose Canon\nsee my Texte u Unters I. 1. 2. pp. 213-218). But finally we must refer\nto the fact that it was the highest concern of the Gnostics to furnish\nthe historical proof of the Apostolic origin of their doctrine by an\nexact reference to the links of the tradition (see Ritschl Entstehung\nder altkath Kirche 2nd ed. p. 338 f.). Here again it appears that\nGnosticism shared with Christendom the universal presupposition that the\nvaluable thing is the Apostolic origin (see above p. 160 f.), but that\nit first created artificial chains of tradition, and that this is the\nfirst point in which it was followed by the Church (see the appeals to\nthe Apostle Matthew, to Peter and Paul, through the mediation of\n\"Glaukias,\" and \"Theodas,\" to James and the favourite disciples of the\nLord, in the case of the Naassenes, Ophites, Basilideans and\nValentinians, etc., see, further, the close of the Epistle of Ptolemy to\nFlora in Epiphan H. 33. 7 [Greek: Mathaesae exes kai ten toutou archen\nte ka kennesin, axioumene tes apostolikes paradoseos. he ek diadoches\nkai hemeis pareilephamen meta kairou] [sic] [Greek: kanonisai pantas\ntous logous tei tou soteros didaskalia], as well as the passages adduced\nabove under (2)). From this it further follows that the Gnostics may have\ncompiled their Canon solely according to the principle of Apostolic\norigin. Upon the whole we may see here how foolish it is to seek to\ndispose of Gnosticism with the phrase lawless fancies. On the contrary,\nthe Gnostics purposely took their stand on the tradition, nay they were\nthe first in Christendom who determined the range, contents and manner\nof propagating the tradition. They are thus the first Christian\ntheologians.]\n\n[Footnote 349: Here also we have a point of unusual historical\nimportance. As we first find a new Canon among the Gnostics so also\namong them (and in Marcion) we first meet with the traditional complex\nof the Christian _Kerygma_ as a doctrinal confession (_regula fidei_),\nthat is, as a confession which, because it is fundamental, needs a\nspeculative exposition, but is set forth by this exposition as the\nsummary of all wisdom. The hesitancy about the details of the _Kerygma_,\nonly shews the general uncertainty which at that time prevailed. But\nagain, we see that the later Valentinians completely accommodated\nthemselves to the later development in the Church (Tertull. adv. Valent.\nI: communem fidem adfirmant) that is attached themselves, probably even\nfrom the first, to the existing forms, while in the Marcionite Church a\npeculiar _regula_ was set up by a criticism of the tradition. The\n_regula_ as a matter of course, was regarded as Apostolic. On Gnostic\n_regulae_ see Iren. I. 21. 5, 31. 3, II. praef. II. 19. 8, III. II. 3,\nIII. 16. 1, 5, Ptolem. ap Epiph. h. 33. 7, Tertull. adv Valent. I. 4, de\npraescr. 42, adv Marc. I. 1, IV. 5, 17, Ep. Petri ad Jacob in Clem. Hom.\nc. 1. We still possess in great part verbatim the _regula_ of Apelles,\nin Epiphan II. 44, 2 Irenaeus (I. 7. 2) and Tertull (de carne. 20) state\nthat the Valentinian _regula_ contained the formula, '[Greek:\ngennethenta dia Marias]', see on this p. 203. In noting that the two\npoints so decisive for Catholicism the Canon of the New Testament and\nthe Apostolic _regula_ were first, in the strict sense, set up by the\nGnostics on the basis of a definite fixing and systematising of the\noldest tradition we may see that the weakness of Gnosticism here\nconsisted in its inability to exhibit the publicity of tradition and to\nplace its propagation in close connection with the organisation of the\nchurches.]\n\n[Footnote 350: We do not know the relation in which the Valentinians\nplaced the public Apostolic _regula fidei_ to the secret doctrine\nderived from one Apostle. The Church in opposition to the Gnostics\nstrongly emphasised the publicity of all tradition. Yet afterwards\nthough with reservations, she gave a wide scope to the assumption of a\nsecret tradition.]\n\n[Footnote 351: The Gnostics transferred to the Evangelic writings, and\ndemanded as simply necessary, the methods which Barnabas and others used\nin expounding the Old Testament (see the samples of their exposition in\nIrenaeus and Clement. Heinrici, l. c.). In this way, of course, all the\nspecialties of the systems may be found in the documents. The Church at\nfirst condemned this method (Tertull. de praescr. 17-19. 39; Iren. I. 8.\n9), but applied it herself from the moment in which she had adopted a\nNew Testament Canon of equal authority with that of the Old Testament.\nHowever, the distinction always remained, that in the confrontation of\nthe two Testaments with the views of getting proofs from prophecy, the\nhistory of Jesus described in the Gospels was not at first allegorised.\nYet afterwards, the Christological dogmas of the third and following\ncenturies demanded a docetic explanation of many points in that\nhistory.]\n\n[Footnote 352: In the Valentinian, as well as in all systems not\ncoarsely dualistic, the Redeemer Christ has no doubt a certain share in\nthe constitution of the highest class of men, but only through\ncomplicated mediations. The significance which is attributed to Christ\nin many systems for the production or organisation of the upper world,\nmay be mentioned. In the Valentinian system there are several mediators.\nIt may be noted that the abstract conception of the divine primitive\nBeing seldom called forth a real controversy. As a rule, offence was\ntaken only at the expression.]\n\n[Footnote 353: The Epistle of Ptolemy to Flora is very instructive here.\nIf we leave out of account the peculiar Gnostic conception, we have\nrepresented in Ptolemy's criticism the later Catholic view of the Old\nTestament, as well as also the beginning of a historical conception of\nit. The Gnostics were the first critics of the Old Testament in\nChristendom. Their allegorical exposition of the Evangelic writings\nshould be taken along with their attempts at interpreting the Old\nTestament literally and historically. It may be noted, for example, that\nthe Gnostics were the first to call attention to the significance of the\nchange of name for God in the Old Testament; see Iren. II. 35.. 3. The\nearly Christian tradition led to a procedure directly the opposite.\nApelles, in particular, the disciple of Marcion, exercised an\nintelligent criticism on the Old Testament, see my treatise, \"de Apellis\ngnosi.\" p. 71 sq., and also Texte u. Unters VI. 3. p. 111 ff. Marcion\nhimself recognised the historical contents of the Old Testament as\nreliable, and the criticism of most Gnostics only called in question its\nreligious value.]\n\n[Footnote 354: Ecclesiastical opponents rightly put no value on the\nfact, that some Gnostics advanced to Pan-Satanism with regard to the\nconception of the world, while others beheld a certain _justitia\ncivilis_ ruling in the world. For the standpoint which the Christian\ntradition had marked out, this distinction is just as much a matter of\nindifference, as the other, whether the Old Testament proceeded from an\nevil, or from an intermediate being. The Gnostics attempted to correct\nthe judgment of faith about the world and its relation to God, by an\nempiric view of the world. Here again they are by no means\n\"visionaries\", however fantastic the means by which they have expressed\ntheir judgment about the condition of the world, and attempted to\nexplain that condition. Those, rather are \"visionaries\" who give\nthemselves up to the belief that the world is the work of a good and\nomnipotent Deity, however apparently reasonable the arguments they\nadduce. The Gnostic (Hellenistic) philosophy of religion, at this point,\ncomes into the sharpest opposition to the central point of the Old\nTestament Christian belief, and all else really depends on this.\nGnosticism is antichristian so far as it takes away from Christianity\nits Old Testament foundation, and belief in the identity of the creator\nof the world with the supreme God. That was immediately felt and noted\nby its opponents.]\n\n[Footnote 355: The ecclesiastical opposition was long uncertain on this\npoint. It is interesting to note that Basilides portrayed the sin\ninherent in the child from birth, in a way that makes one feel as though\nhe were listening to Augustine (see the fragment from the 23rd book of\nthe [Greek: Exegetika] in Clem., Strom. VI. 12. 83). But it is of great\nimportance to note how even very special later terminologies, dogmas,\netc., of the Church, were in a certain way anticipated by the Gnostics.\nSome samples will be given below; but meanwhile we may here refer to a\nfragment from Apelles' Syllogisms in Ambrosius (de Parad. V. 28): \"Si\nhominem non perfectum fecit deus, unusquisque autcm per industriam\npropriam perfectionem sibi virtutis adsciscit: nonne videtur plus sibi\nhomo adquirere, quam ei deus contulit?\" One seems here to be transferred\ninto the fifth century.]\n\n[Footnote 356: The Gnostic teaching did not meet with a vigorous\nresistance even on this point, and could also appeal to the oldest\ntradition. The arbitrariness in the number, derivation and designation\nof the AEons was contested. The aversion to barbarism also co-operated\nhere, in so far as Gnosticism delighted in mysterious words borrowed\nfrom the Semites. But the Semitic element attracted as well as repelled\nthe Greeks and Romans of the second century. The Gnostic terminologies\nwithin the AEon speculations were partly reproduced among the Catholic\ntheologians of the third century; most important is it that the Gnostics\nhave already made use of the concept \"[Greek: homoousios]\"; see Iren.,\nI. 5. 1: [Greek: alla to men pneumatikon me dedunesthai auten morphosai,\nepeide homoousion huperchen autei] (said of the Sophia): L. 5. 4,\n[Greek: kai touton einai ton kat' eikona kai homoiosin gegonota; kat'\neikona men ton hulikon huparchein, paraplesion men, all' ouch homoousion\ntoi theoi kath' homoiosin de ton psuchikon.] I. 5. 5: [Greek: to de\nkuema tes metros tes \"Achamoth\", homoousion huparchon tei metri.] In all\nthese cases the word means \"of one substance.\" It is found in the same\nsense in Clem., Hom. 20. 7: See also Philos. VII. 22; Clem., Exc. Theod.\n42. Other terms also which have acquired great significance in the\nChurch since the days of Origen, (e.g., [Greek: agennetos]), are found\namong the Gnostics, see Ep. Ptol. ad Floram, 5; and Bigg. (1. c. p. 58,\nnote 3) calls attention to the appearance [Greek: trias] in Excerpt. ex.\nTheod. Sec. 80, perhaps the earliest passage.]\n\n[Footnote 357: The characteristic of the Gnostic Christology is not\nDocetism, in the strict sense, but the doctrine of the two natures, that\nis, the distinction between Jesus and Christ, or the doctrine that the\nRedeemer as Redeemer was not a man. The Gnostics based this view on the\ninherent sinfulness of human nature, and it was shared by many teachers\nof the age without being based on any principle (see above, p. 195 f.).\nThe most popular of the three Christologies briefly characterised above\nwas undoubtedly that of the Valentinians. It is found, with great\nvariety of details, in most of the nameless fragments of Gnostic\nliterature that have been preserved, as well as in Apelles. This\nChristology might be accommodated to the accounts of the Gospels and the\nbaptismal confession (how far is shewn by the _regula_ of Apelles, and\nthat of the Valentinians may have run in similar terms). It was taught\nhere that Christ had passed through Mary as a channel; from this\ndoctrine followed very easily the notion of the Virginity of Mary,\nuninjured even after the birth--it was already known to Clem. Alex.\n(Strom. VII. 16. 93). The Church also, later on, accepted this view. It\nis very difficult to get a clear idea of the Christology of Basilides,\nas very diverse doctrines were afterwards set up in his school as is\nshewn by the accounts. Among them is the doctrine, likewise held by\nothers, that Christ in descending from the highest heaven took to\nhimself something from every sphere through which he passed. Something\nsimilar is found among the Valentinians, some of whose prominent leaders\nmade a very complicated phenomenon of Christ, and gave him also a direct\nrelation to the demiurge. There is further found here the doctrine of\nthe heavenly humanity, which was afterwards accepted by ecclesiastical\ntheologians. Along with the fragments of Basilides the account of Clem.\nAlex. seems to me the most reliable. According to this, Basilides taught\nthat Christ descended on the man Jesus at the baptism. Some of the\nValentinians taught something similar: the Christology of Ptolemy is\ncharacterised by the union of all conceivable Christology theories. The\ndifferent early Christian conceptions may be found in him. Basilides did\nnot admit a real union between Christ and Jesus; but it is interesting\nto see how the Pauline Epistles caused the theologians to view the\nsufferings of Christ as necessarily based on the assumption of sinful\nflesh, that is, to deduce from the sufferings that Christ has assumed\nsinful flesh. The Basilidean Christology will prove to be a peculiar\npreliminary stage of the later ecclesiastical Christology. The\nanniversary of the baptism of Christ was to the Basilideans, as the day\nof the [Greek: epiphaneia], a high festival day (see Clem., Strom. I.\n21. 146): they fixed it for the 6th (2nd) January. And in this also the\nCatholic Church has followed the Gnosis. The real docetic Christology as\nrepresented by Saturninus (and Marcion) was radically opposed to the\ntradition, and struck out the birth of Jesus, as well as the first 30\nyears of his life. An accurate exposition of the Gnostic Christologies,\nwhich would carry us too far here, (see especially Tertull., de carne\nChristi), would shew, that a great part of the questions which occupy\nChurch theologians till the present day, were already raised by the\nGnostics; for example, what happened to the body of Christ after the\nresurrection? (see the doctrines of Apelles and Hermogenes); what\nsignificance the appearance of Christ had for the heavenly and Satanic\npowers? what meaning belongs to his sufferings, although there was no\nreal suffering for the heavenly Christ, but only for Jesus? etc. In no\nother point do the anticipations in the Gnostic dogmatic stand out so\nplainly (see the system of Origen; many passages bearing on the subject\nwill be found in the third and fourth volumes of this work, to which\nreaders are referred). The Catholic Church has learned but little from\nthe Gnostics, that is, from the earliest theologians in Christendom, in\nthe doctrine of God and the world, but very much in Christology, and who\ncan maintain that she has ever completely overcome the Gnostic doctrine\nof the two natures, nay, even Docetism? Redemption viewed in the\nhistorical person of Jesus, that is, in the appearance of a Divine being\non the earth, but the person divided and the real history of Jesus\nexplained away and made inoperative, is the signature of the Gnostic\nChristology--this, however, is also the danger of the system of Origen\nand those systems that are dependent on him (Docetism) as well as, in\nanother way, the danger of the view of Tertullian and the Westerns\n(doctrine of two natures). Finally, it should be noted that the Gnosis\nalways made a distinction between the supreme God and Christ, but that,\nfrom the religious position, it had no reason for emphasising that\ndistinction. For to many Gnostics, Christ was in a certain way the\nmanifestation of the supreme God himself, and therefore in the more\npopular writings of the Gnostics (see the Acta Johannis) expressions are\napplied to Christ which seem to identify him with God. The same thing is\ntrue of Marcion and also of Valentinus (see his Epistle in Clem., Strom.\nII. 20. 114: [Greek: eis de estin agathos. ou parousia he dia tou huiou\nphanerosis]). This Gnostic estimate of Christ has undoubtedly had a\nmighty influence on the later Church development of Christology. We\nmight say without hesitation that to most Gnostics Christ was a [Greek:\npneuma homoousion toi patri]. The details of the life, sufferings and\nresurrection of Jesus are found in many Gnostics, transformed,\ncomplemented and arranged in the way in which Celsus (Orig., c. Cels. I.\nII.) required for an impressive and credible history. Celsus indicates\nhow everything must have taken place if Christ had been a God in human\nform. The Gnostics in part actually narrate it so. What an instructive\ncoincidence! How strongly the docetic view itself was expressed in the\ncase of Valentinus, and how the exaltation of Jesus above the earthly\nwas thereby to be traced back to his moral struggle, is shewn in the\nremarkable fragment of a letter (in Clem., Strom. III. 7. 59): [Greek:\nPanta hupomeinas egkrates ten theoteta Iesous eirgazeto. esthien gar kai\napien idios ouk apodidous ta bromata, tosaute en autoi tes egkrateias\ndunamis, hoste kai me phtharenai ten trophen en autoi epei to\nphtheresthai autos ouk eichen]. In this notion, however, there is more\nsense and historical meaning than in that of the later ecclesiastical\naphtharto-docetism.]\n\n[Footnote 358: The Gnostic distinction of classes of men was connected\nwith the old distinction of stages in spiritual understanding, but has\nits basis in a law of nature. There were again empirical and\npsychological views--they must have been regarded as very important, had\nnot the Gnostics taken them from the traditions of the philosophic\nschools--which made the universalism of the Christian preaching of\nsalvation, appear unacceptable to the Gnostics. Moreover, the\ntransformation of religion into a doctrine of the school, or into a\nmystery cult, always resulted in the distinction of the knowing from the\n_profanum vulgus_. But in the Valentinian assumption that the common\nChristians as psychical occupy an intermediate stage, and that they are\nsaved by faith, we have a compromise which completely lowered the Gnosis\nto a scholastic doctrine within Christendom. Whether and in what way the\nCatholic Church maintained the significance of Pistis as contrasted with\nGnosis, and in what way the distinction between the knowing (priests)\nand the laity was there reached, will be examined in its proper place.\nIt should be noted, however, that the Valentinian, Ptolemy, ascribes\nfreedom of will to the psychic (which the pneumatic and hylic lack), and\ntherefore has sketched by way of by-work a theology for the psychical\nbeside that for the pneumatic, which exhibits striking harmonies with\nthe exoteric system of Origen. The denial by Gnosticism of free will,\nand therewith of moral responsibility, called forth very decided\ncontradiction. Gnosticism, that is, the acute hellenising of\nChristianity, was wrecked in the Church on free will, the Old Testament\nand eschatology.]\n\n[Footnote 359: The greatest deviation of Gnosticism from tradition\nappears in eschatology, along with the rejection of the Old Testament\nand the separation of the creator of the world from the supreme God.\nUpon the whole our sources say very little about the Gnostic\neschatology. This, however, is not astonishing; for the Gnostics had not\nmuch to say on the matter, or what they had to say found expression in\ntheir doctrine of the genesis of the world, and that of redemption\nthrough Christ. We learn that the _regula_ of Apelles closed with the\nwords: [Greek: anepte eis ouranon hothen kai heke], instead of [Greek:\nhothen erchetai krinai zontas kai nekrous]. We know that Marcion, who\nmay already be mentioned here, referred the whole eschatological\nexpectations of early Christian times to the province of the god of the\nJews, and we hear that Gnostics (Valentinians) retained the words\n[Greek: sarkos anastasin], but interpreted them to mean that one must\nrise in this life, that is perceive the truth (thus the \"resurrectio a\nmortuis\", that is, exaltation above the earthly, took the place of the\n\"resurrectio mortuorum\"; See Iren. II. 31. 2: Tertull., de resurr.\ncarnis, 19). While the Christian tradition placed a great drama at the\nclose of history, the Gnostics regard the history itself as the drama,\nwhich virtually closes with the (first) appearing of Christ. It may not\nhave been the opinion of all Gnostics that the resurrection has already\ntaken place, yet for most of them the expectations of the future seem to\nhave been quite faint, and above all without significance. The life is\nso much included in knowledge, that we nowhere in our sources find a\nstrong expression of hope in a life beyond (it is different in the\nearliest Gnostic documents preserved in the Coptic language), and the\nintroduction of the spirits into the Pleroma appears very vague and\nuncertain. But it is of great significance that those Gnostics who,\naccording to their premises, required a real redemption from the world\nas the highest good, remained finally in the same uncertainty and\nreligious despondency with regard to this redemption, as characterised\nthe Greek philosophers. A religion which is a philosophy of religion\nremains at all times fixed to this life, however strongly it may\nemphasise the contrast between the spirit and its surroundings, and\nhowever ardently it may desire redemption. The desire for redemption is\nunconsciously replaced by the thinker's joy in his knowledge, which\nallays the desire (Iren. III. 15. 2: \"Inflatus est iste [scil. the\nValentinian proud of knowledge] neque in coelo, neque in terra putat se\nesse, sed intra Pleroma introisse et complexum jam angelum suum, cum\ninstitorio et supercilio incedit gallinacei elationem habens....\nPlurimi, quasi jam perfecti, semetipsos spiritales vocant, et se nosse\njam dicunt eum qui sit intra Pleroma ipsorum refrigerii locum\"). As in\nevery philosophy of religion, an element of free thinking appears very\nplainly here also. The eschatological hopes can only have been\nmaintained in vigour by the conviction that the world is of God. But we\nmust finally refer to the fact, that even in eschatology, Gnosticism\nonly drew the inferences from views which were pressing into Christendom\nfrom all sides, and were in an increasing measure endangering its hopes\nof the future. Besides, in some Valentinian circles, the future life was\nviewed as a condition of education, as a progress through the series of\nthe (seven) heavens; i.e., purgatorial experiences in the future were\npostulated. Both afterwards, from the time of Origen, forced their way\ninto the doctrine of the Church (purgatory, different ranks in heaven),\nClement and Origen being throughout strongly influenced by the\nValentinian eschatology.]\n\n[Footnote 360: See the passage Clem. Strom. III. 6, 49, which is given\nabove, p. 238.]\n\n[Footnote 361: Cf. the Apocryphal Acts of Apostles and diverse legends\nof Apostles (e.g., in Clem. Alex.).]\n\n[Footnote 362: More can hardly be said: the heads of schools were\nthemselves earnest men. No doubt statements such as that of Heracleon\nseem to have led to laxity in the lower sections of the collegium:\n[Greek: homologian einai ten men en tei pistei kai politeiai. ten de en\nphonei; he men oun en phonei homologia kai epi ton exousion ginetai, hen\nmonen homologian hegountai einai hoi polloi, ouch hugios dunantai de\ntauten ten homologian kai hoi hupokritai homologein.]]\n\n[Footnote 363: See Epiph. h. 26, and the statements in the Coptic\nGnostic works. (Schmidt, Texte u Unters. VIII. 1. 2, p. 566 ff.).]\n\n[Footnote 364: There arose in this way an extremely difficult\ntheoretical problem, but practically a convenient occasion for throwing\nasceticism altogether overboard, with the Gnostic asceticism, or\nrestricting it to easy exercises. This is not the place for entering\ninto the details. Shibboleths, such as [Greek: pheugete ou tas phuseis\nalla tas gnomas ton kakon], may have soon appeared. It may be noted\nhere, that the asceticism which gained the victory in Monasticism, was\nnot really that which sprang from early Christian, but from Greek\nimpulses, without, of course, being based on the same principle.\nGnosticism anticipated the future even here. That could be much more\nclearly proved in the history of the worship. A few points which are of\nimportance for the history of dogma may be mentioned here: (1) The\nGnostics viewed the traditional sacred actions (Baptism and the Lord's\nSupper) entirely as mysteries, and applied to them the terminology of\nthe mysteries (some Gnostics set them aside as psychic); but in doing so\nthey were only drawing the inferences from changes which were then in\nprocess throughout Christendom. To what extent the later Gnosticism in\nparticular was interested in sacraments, may be studied especially in\nthe Pistis Sophia and the other Coptic works of the Gnostics, which Carl\nSchmidt has edited; see, for example, Pistis Sophia, p. 233. \"Dixit\nJesus ad suos [Greek: mathetas; amen] dixi vobis, haud adduxi quidquam\nin [Greek: kosmon] veniens nisi hunc ignem et hanc aquam et hoc vinum et\nhunc sanguinem.\" (2) They increased the holy actions by the addition of\nnew ones, repeated baptisms (expiations), anointing with oil, sacrament\nof confirmation [Greek: apolutrosis]; see, on Gnostic sacraments, Iren.\nI. 20, and Lipsius, Apokr. Apostelgesch. I. pp. 336-343, and cf. the\n[Greek: puknos metanosusi] in the delineation of the Shepherd of Hermas.\nMand. XI. (3) Marcus represented the wine in the Lord's Supper as actual\nblood in consequence of the act of blessing: see Iren., I. 13.2: [Greek:\npoteria oino kekramena prospoioumenos eucharistein kai epi pleon\nekteinon ton logon tes epikleseos, porphurea kai eruthra anaphainesthai\npoiei, hos dokein ten apo ton huper ta hola charin to haima to heautes\nstazein en ekeino to poterio dia tes epikleseos autou, kai\nhuperimeiresthai tous parontas ex ekeinou geusasthai tou pomatos, hina\nkai eis autous epombrese he dia tou magou toutou kleizomene charis.]\nMarcus was indeed a charlatan; but religious charlatanry afterwards\nbecame very earnest, and was certainly taken earnestly by many adherents\nof Marcus. The transubstantiation idea, in reference to the elements in\nthe mysteries, is also plainly expressed in the Excerpt. ex. Theodot. Sec.\n82: [Greek: kai ho artos kai to elaion agiazetai te dunamei tou onomatos\nou ta auta onta kata to phainomenon dia elephthe, alla du amei eis\ndunamin pneumatiken metabebletai] (that is, not into a new\nsuper-terrestrial material, not into the real body of Christ, but into a\nspiritual power) [Greek: outos kai to hudor kai to exorkizomenon kai to\nbaptisma ginomenon ou monon chorei to cheiron, alla kai agiasmon\nproslambanei]. Irenaeus possessed a liturgical handbook of the\nMarcionites, and communicates many sacramental formula from it (I. c. 13\nsq). In my treatise on the Pistis Sophia (Texte u. Unters. VII. 2. pp.\n59-94) I think I have shewn (\"The common Christian and the Catholic\nelements of the Pistis Sophia\") to what extent Gnosticism anticipated\nCatholicism as a system of doctrine and an institute of worship. These\nresults have been strengthened by Carl Schmidt (Texte u. Unters. VIII.\n1. 2). Even purgatory, prayers for the dead, and many other things,\nraised in speculative questions and definitely answered, are found in\nthose Coptic Gnostic writings, and are then met with again in\nCatholicism. One general remark may be permitted in conclusion. The\nGnostics were not interested in apologetics, and that is a very\nsignificant fact. The [Greek: pneuma] in man was regarded by them as a\nsupernatural principle, and on that account they are free from all\nrationalism and moralistic dogmatism. For that very reason they are in\nearnest with the idea of revelation, and do not attempt to prove it or\nconvert its contents into natural truths. They did endeavour to prove\nthat their doctrines were Christian, but renounced all proof that\nrevelation is the truth (proofs from antiquity). One will not easily\nfind in the case of the Gnostics themselves, the revealed truth\ndescribed as philosophy, or morality as the philosophic life. If we\ncompare therefore, the first and fundamental system of Catholic\ndoctrine, that of Origen, with the system of the Gnostics, we shall find\nthat Origen, like Basilides and Valentinus, was a philosopher of\nrevelation, but that he had besides a second element which had its\norigin in apologetics.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nMARCION'S ATTEMPT TO SET ASIDE THE OLD TESTAMENT FOUNDATION OF\nCHRISTIANITY, TO PURIFY TRADITION AND TO REFORM CHRISTENDOM ON THE BASIS\nOF THE PAULINE GOSPEL\n\n\nMarcion cannot be numbered among the Gnostics in the strict sense of the\nword.[365] For (1) he was not guided by any speculatively scientific, or\neven by an apologetic, but by a soteriological interest.[366] (2) He\ntherefore put all emphasis on faith, not on Gnosis.[367] (3) In the\nexposition of his ideas he neither applied the elements of any Semitic\nreligious wisdom, nor the methods of the Greek philosophy of\nreligion.[368] (4) He never made the distinction between an esoteric and\nan exoteric form of religion. He rather clung to the publicity of the\npreaching, and endeavoured to reform Christendom, in opposition to the\nattempts at founding schools for those who knew and mystery cults for\nsuch as were in quest of initiation. It was only after the failure of\nhis attempts at reform that he founded churches of his own, in which\nbrotherly equality, freedom from all ceremonies, and strict evangelical\ndiscipline were to rule.[369] Completely carried away with the novelty,\nuniqueness and grandeur of the Pauline Gospel of the grace of God in\nChrist, Marcion felt that all other conceptions of the Gospel, and\nespecially its union with the Old Testament religion, was opposed to,\nand a backsliding from the truth.[370] He accordingly supposed that it\nwas necessary to make the sharp antitheses of Paul, law and gospel,\nwrath and grace, works and faith, flesh and spirit, sin and\nrighteousness, death and life, that is the Pauline criticism of the Old\nTestament religion, the foundation of his religious views, and to refer\nthem to two principles, the righteous and wrathful god of the Old\nTestament, who is at the same time identical with the creator of the\nworld, and the God of the Gospel, quite unknown before Christ, who is\nonly love and mercy.[371] This Paulinism in its religious strength, but\nwithout dialectic, without the Jewish Christian view of history, and\ndetached from the soil of the Old Testament, was to him the true\nChristianity. Marcion, like Paul, felt that the religious value of a\nstatutory law with commandments and ceremonies, was very different from\nthat of a uniform law of love.[372] Accordingly, he had a capacity for\nappreciating the Pauline idea of faith; it is to him reliance on the\nunmerited grace of God which is revealed in Christ. But Marcion shewed\nhimself to be a Greek, influenced by the religious spirit of the time,\nby changing the ethical contrast of the good and legal into the contrast\nbetween the infinitely exalted spiritual and the sensible which is\nsubject to the law of nature, by despairing of the triumph of good in\nthe world and, consequently, correcting the traditional faith that the\nworld and history belong to God, by an empirical view of the world and\nthe course of events in it,[373] a view to which he was no doubt also\nled by the severity of the early Christian estimate of the world. Yet to\nhim systematic speculation about the final causes of the contrast\nactually observed, was by no means the main thing. So far as he himself\nventured on such a speculation he seems to have been influenced by the\nSyrian Cerdo. The numerous contradictions which arise as soon as one\nattempts to reduce Marcion's propositions to a system, and the fact that\nhis disciples tried all possible conceptions of the doctrine of\nprinciples, and defined the relation of the two Gods very differently,\nare the clearest proof that Marcion was a religious character, that he\nhad in general nothing to do with principles, but with living beings\nwhose power he felt, and that what he ultimately saw in the Gospel was\nnot an explanation of the world, but redemption from the\nworld,[374]--redemption from a world, which even in the best that it can\noffer, has nothing that can reach the height of the blessing bestowed in\nChrist.[375] Special attention may be called to the following\nparticulars.\n\n1. Marcion explained the Old Testament in its literal sense and rejected\nevery allegorical interpretation. He recognised it as the revelation of\nthe creator of the world and the god of the Jews, but placed it, just on\nthat account, in sharpest contrast to the Gospel. He demonstrated the\ncontradictions between the Old Testament and the Gospel in a voluminous\nwork (the [Greek: antitheseis]).[376] In the god of the former book he\nsaw a being whose character was stern justice, and therefore anger;\ncontentiousness and unmercifulness. The law which rules nature and man\nappeared to him to accord with the characteristics of this god and the\nkind of law revealed by him, and therefore it seemed credible to him\nthat this god is the creator and lord of the world ([Greek:\nkosmokrator]). As the law which governs the world is inflexible, and\nyet, on the other hand, full of contradictions, just and again brutal,\nand as the law of the Old Testament exhibits the same features, so the\ngod of creation was to Marcion a being who united in himself the whole\ngradations of attributes from justice to malevolence, from obstinacy to\ninconsistency.[377] Into this conception of the creator of the world,\nthe characteristic of which is that it cannot be systematised, could\neasily be fitted the Syrian Gnostic theory which regards him as an evil\nbeing, because he belongs to this world and to matter. Marcion did not\naccept it in principle,[378] but touched it lightly and adopted certain\ninferences.[379] On the basis of the Old Testament and of empirical\nobservation, Marcion divided men into two classes, good and evil, though\nhe regarded them all, body and soul, as creatures of the demiurge. The\ngood are those who strive to fulfil the law of the demiurge. These are\noutwardly better than those who refuse him obedience. But the\ndistinction found here is not the decisive one. To yield to the\npromptings of Divine grace is the only decisive distinction, and those\njust men will shew themselves less susceptible to the manifestation of\nthe truly good than sinners. As Marcion held the Old Testament to be a\nbook worthy of belief, though his disciple, Apelles, thought otherwise,\nhe referred all its predictions to a Messiah whom the creator of the\nworld is yet to send, and who, as a warlike hero, is to set up the\nearthly kingdom of the \"just\" God.[380]\n\n2. Marcion placed the good God of love in opposition to the creator of\nthe world.[381] This God has only been revealed in Christ. He was\nabsolutely unknown before Christ,[382] and men were in every respect\nstrange to him.[383] Out of pure goodness and mercy, for these are the\nessential attributes of this God who judges not and is not wrathful, he\nespoused the cause of those beings who were foreign to him, as he could\nnot bear to have them any longer tormented by their just and yet\nmalevolent lord.[384] The God of love appeared in Christ and proclaimed\na new kingdom (Tertull., adv. Marc. III. 24. fin.). Christ called to\nhimself the weary and heavy laden,[385] and proclaimed to them that he\nwould deliver them from the fetters of their lord and from the world. He\nshewed mercy to all while he sojourned on the earth, and did in every\nrespect the opposite of what the creator of the world had done to men.\nThey who believed in the creator of the world nailed him to the cross.\nBut in doing so they were unconsciously serving his purpose, for his\ndeath was the price by which the God of love purchased men from the\ncreator of the world.[386] He who places his hope in the Crucified can\nnow be sure of escaping from the power of the creator of the world, and\nof being translated into the kingdom of the good God. But experience\nshews that, like the Jews, men who are virtuous according to the law of\nthe creator of the world, do not allow themselves to be converted by\nChrist; it is rather sinners who accept his message of redemption.\nChrist, therefore, rescued from the under-world, not the righteous men\nof the Old Testament (Iren. I. 27. 3), but the sinners who were\ndisobedient to the creator of the world. If the determining thought of\nMarcion's view of Christianity is here again very clearly shewn, the\nGnostic woof cannot fail to be seen in the proposition that the good God\ndelivers only the souls, not the bodies of believers. The antithesis of\nspirit and matter, appears here as the decisive one, and the good God of\nlove becomes the God of the spirit, the Old Testament god the god of the\nflesh. In point of fact, Marcion seems to have given such a turn to the\ngood God's attributes of love, and incapability of wrath, as to make Him\nthe apathetic, infinitely exalted Being, free from all affections. The\ncontradiction in which Marcion is here involved is evident, because he\ntaught expressly that the spirit of man is in itself just as foreign to\nthe good God as his body. But the strict asceticism which Marcion\ndemanded as a Christian, could have had no motive, without the Greek\nassumption of a metaphysical contrast of flesh and Spirit, which in fact\nwas also apparently the doctrine of Paul.\n\n3. The relation in which Marcion placed the two Gods, appears at first\nsight to be one of equal rank.[387] Marcion himself, according to the\nmost reliable witnesses, expressly asserted that both were uncreated,\neternal, etc. But if we look more closely we shall see that in Marcion's\nmind there can be no thought of equality. Not only did he himself\nexpressly declare that the creator of the world is a self-contradictory\nbeing of limited knowledge and power, but the whole doctrine of\nredemption shews that he is a power subordinate to the good God. We need\nnot stop to enquire about the details, but it is certain that the\ncreator of the world formerly knew nothing of the existence of the good\nGod, that he is in the end completely powerless against him, that he is\novercome by him, and that history in its issue with regard to man, is\ndetermined solely by its relation to the good God. The just god appears\nat the end of history, not as an independent being, hostile to the good\nGod, but as one subordinate to him,[388] so that some scholars, such as\nNeander, have attempted to claim for Marcion a doctrine of one\nprinciple, and to deny that he ever held the complete independence of\nthe creator of the world, the creator of the world being simply an angel\nof the good God. This inference may certainly be drawn with little\ntrouble, as the result of various considerations, but it is forbidden by\nreliable testimony. The characteristic of Marcion's teaching is just\nthis, that as soon as we seek to raise his ideas from the sphere of\npractical considerations to that of a consistent theory, we come upon a\ntangled knot of contradictions. The theoretic contradictions are\nexplained by the different interests which here cross each other in\nMarcion. In the first place, he was consciously dependent on the Pauline\ntheology, and was resolved to defend everything which he held to be\nPauline. Secondly, he was influenced by the contrast in which he saw the\nethical powers involved. This contrast seemed to demand a metaphysical\nbasis, and its actual solution seemed to forbid such a foundation.\nFinally, the theories of Gnosticism, the paradoxes of Paul, the\nrecognition of the duty of strictly mortifying the flesh, suggested to\nMarcion the idea that the good God was the exalted God of the spirit,\nand the just god the god of the sensuous, of the flesh. This view, which\ninvolved the principle of a metaphysical dualism, had something very\nspecious about it, and to its influence we must probably ascribe the\nfact that Marcion no longer attempted to derive the creator of the world\nfrom the good God. His disciples who had theoretical interests in the\nmatter, no doubt noted the contradictions. In order to remove them, some\nof these disciples advanced to a doctrine of three principles, the good\nGod, the just creator of the world, the evil god, by conceiving the\ncreator of the world sometimes as an independent being, sometimes as one\ndependent on the good God. Others reverted to the common dualism, God of\nthe spirit and god of matter. But Apelles, the most important of\nMarcion's disciples, returned to the creed of the one God ([Greek: mia\narche]), and conceived the creator of the world and Satan as his angels,\nwithout departing from the fundamental thought of the master, but rather\nfollowing suggestions which he himself had given.[389] Apart from\nApelles, who founded a Church of his own, we hear nothing of the\ncontroversies of disciples breaking up the Marcionite church. All those\nwho lived in the faith for which the master had worked--viz., that the\nlaws ruling in nature and history, as well as the course of common\nlegality and righteousness, are the antitheses of the act of Divine\nmercy in Christ, and that cordial love and believing confidence have\ntheir proper contrasts in self-righteous pride and the natural religion\nof the heart,--those who rejected the Old Testament and clung solely to\nthe Gospel proclaimed by Paul, and finally, those who considered that a\nstrict mortification of the flesh and an earnest renunciation of the\nworld were demanded in the name of the Gospel, felt themselves members\nof the same community, and to all appearance allowed perfect liberty to\nspeculations about final causes.\n\n4. Marcion had no interest in specially emphasising the distinction\nbetween the good God and Christ, which according to the Pauline\nEpistles, could not be denied. To him Christ is the manifestation of the\ngood God himself.[390] But Marcion taught that Christ assumed absolutely\nnothing from the creation of the Demiurge, but came down from heaven in\nthe 15th year of the Emperor Tiberius, and after the assumption of an\napparent body, began his preaching in the synagogue of Capernaum.[391]\nThis pronounced docetism which denies that Jesus was born, or subjected\nto any human process of development,[392] is the strongest expression of\nMarcion's abhorrence of the world. This aversion may have sprung from\nthe severe attitude of the early Christians toward the world, but the\ninference which Marcion here draws, shews, that this feeling was, in his\ncase, united with the Greek estimate of spirit and matter. But Marcion's\ndocetism is all the more remarkable that, under Paul's guidance, he put\na high value on the fact of Christ's death upon the cross. Here also is\na glaring contradiction which his later disciples laboured to remove.\nThis much, however, is unmistakable, that Marcion succeeded in placing\nthe greatness and uniqueness of redemption through Christ in the\nclearest light and in beholding this redemption in the person of Christ,\nbut chiefly in his death upon the cross.\n\n5. Marcion's eschatology is also quite rudimentary. Yet be assumed with\nPaul that violent attacks were yet in store for the Church of the good\nGod on the part of the Jewish Christ of the future, the Antichrist. He\ndoes not seem to have taught a visible return of Christ, but, in spite\nof the omnipotence and goodness of God, he did teach a twofold issue of\nhistory. The idea of a deliverance of all men, which seems to follow\nfrom his doctrine of boundless grace, was quite foreign to him. For this\nvery reason, he could not help actually making the good God the judge,\nthough in theory he rejected the idea, in order not to measure the will\nand acts of God by a human standard. Along with the fundamental\nproposition of Marcion, that God should be conceived only as goodness\nand grace, we must take into account the strict asceticism which he\nprescribed for the Christian communities, in order to see that that idea\nof God was not obtained from antinomianism. We know of no Christian\ncommunity in the second century which insisted so strictly on\nrenunciation of the world as the Marcionites. No union of the sexes was\npermitted. Those who were married had to separate ere they could be\nreceived by baptism into the community. The sternest precepts were laid\ndown in the matter of food and drink. Martyrdom was enjoined; and from\nthe fact that they were [Greek: talaiporoi kai misoumenoi] in the world,\nthe members were to know that they were disciples of Christ.[393] With\nall that, the early Christian enthusiasm was wanting.\n\n6. Marcion defined his position in theory and practice towards the\nprevailing form of Christianity, which, on the one hand, shewed\nthroughout its connection with the Old Testament, and, on the other,\nleft room for a secular ethical code, by assuming that it had been\ncorrupted by Judaism, and therefore needed a reformation.[394] But he\ncould not fail to note that this corruption was not of recent date, but\nbelonged to the oldest tradition itself. The consciousness of this moved\nhim to a historical criticism of the whole Christian tradition.[395]\nMarcion was the first Christian who undertook such a task. Those\nwritings to which he owed his religious convictions, viz., the Pauline\nEpistles, furnished the basis for it. He found nothing in the rest of\nChristian literature that harmonised with the Gospel of Paul. But he\nfound in the Pauline Epistles hints which explained to him this result\nof his observations. The twelve Apostles whom Christ chose did not\nunderstand him, but regarded him as the Messiah of the god of\ncreation.[396] And therefore Christ inspired Paul by a special\nrevelation, lest the Gospel of the grace of God should be lost through\nfalsifications.[397] But even Paul had been understood only by few (by\nnone?). His Gospel had also been misunderstood, nay, his Epistles had\nbeen falsified in many passages,[398] in order to make them teach the\nidentity of the god of creation and the God of redemption. A new\nreformation was therefore necessary. Marcion felt himself entrusted with\nthis commission, and the church which he gathered recognised this\nvocation of his to be the reformer.[399] He did not appeal to a new\nrevelation such as he presupposed for Paul. As the Pauline Epistles and\nan authentic [Greek: euangelion kuriou] were in existence, it was only\nnecessary to purify these from interpolations, and restore the genuine\nPaulinism which was just the Gospel itself. But it was also necessary to\nsecure and preserve this true Christianity for the future. Marcion, in\nall probability, was the first to conceive and, in great measure, to\nrealise the idea of placing Christendom on the firm foundation of a\ndefinite theory of what is Christian--but not of basing it on a\ntheological doctrine--and of establishing this theory by a fixed\ncollection of Christian writings with canonical authority.[400] He was\nnot a systematic thinker; but he was more, for he was not only a\nreligious character, but at the same time a man with an organising\ntalent, such as has no peer in the early Church. If we think of the\nlofty demands he made on Christians, and, on the other hand, ponder the\nresults that accompanied his activity, we cannot fail to wonder.\nWherever Christians were numerous about the year 160, there must have\nbeen Marcionite communities with the same fixed but free organisation,\nwith the same canon and the same conception of the essence of\nChristianity, pre-eminent for the strictness of their morals and their\njoy in martyrdom.[401] The Catholic Church was then only in process of\ngrowth, and it was long ere it reached the solidity won by the\nMarcionite church through the activity of one man, who was animated by a\nfaith so strong that he was able to oppose his conception of\nChristianity to all others as the only right one, and who did not shrink\nfrom making selections from tradition instead of explaining it away. He\nwas the first who laid the firm foundation for establishing what is\nChristian, because, in view of the absoluteness of his faith,[402] he\nhad no desire to appeal either to a secret evangelic tradition, or to\nprophecy, or to natural religion.\n\n_Remarks._--The innovations of Marcion are unmistakable. The way in\nwhich he attempted to sever Christianity from the Old Testament was a\nbold stroke which demanded the sacrifice of the dearest possession of\nChristianity as a religion, viz., the belief that the God of creation is\nalso the God of redemption. And yet this innovation was partly caused by\na religious conviction, the origin of which must be sought not in\nheathenism, but on Old Testament and Christian soil. For the bold\nAnti-judaist was the disciple of a Jewish thinker, Paul, and the origin\nof Marcion's antinomianism may be ultimately found in the prophets. It\nwill always be the glory of Marcion in the early history of the Church\nthat he, the born heathen, could appreciate the religious criticism of\nthe Old Testament religion as formerly exercised by Paul. The\nantinomianism of Marcion was ultimately based on the strength of his\nreligious feeling, on his personal religion as contrasted with all\nstatutory religion. That was also its basis in the case of the prophets\nand of Paul, only the statutory religion which was felt to be a burden\nand a fetter was different in each case. As regards the prophets, it was\nthe outer sacrificial worship, and the deliverance was the idea of\nJehovah's righteousness. In the case of Paul, it was the pharisaic\ntreatment of the law, and the deliverance was righteousness by faith. To\nMarcion it was the sum of all that the past had described as a\nrevelation of God: only what Christ had given him was of real value to\nhim. In this conviction he founded a Church. Before him there was no\nsuch thing in the sense of a community, firmly united by a fixed\nconviction, harmoniously organised, and spread over the whole world.\nSuch a Church the Apostle Paul had in his mind's eye, but he was not\nable to realise it. That in the century of the great mixture of religion\nthe greatest apparent paradox was actually realised: namely, a Paulinism\nwith two Gods and without the Old Testament; and that this form of\nChristianity first resulted in a church which was based not only on\nintelligible words, but on a definite conception of the essence of\nChristianity as a religion, seems to be the greatest riddle which the\nearliest history of Christianity presents. But it only seems so. The\nGreek, whose mind was filled with certain fundamental features of the\nPauline Gospel (law and grace), who was therefore convinced that in all\nrespects the truth was there, and who on that account took pains to\ncomprehend the real sense of Paul's statements, could hardly reach any\nother results than those of Marcion. The history of Pauline theology in\nthe Church, a history first of silence, then of artificial\ninterpretation, speaks loudly enough. And had not Paul really separated\nChristianity as religion from Judaism and the Old Testament? Must it not\nhave seemed an inconceivable inconsistency, if he had clung to the\nspecial national relation of Christianity to the Jewish people, and if\nhe had taught a view of history in which for paedagogic reasons indeed,\nthe Father of mercies and God of all comfort had appeared as one so\nentirely different? He who was not capable of translating himself into\nthe consciousness of a Jew, and had not yet learned the method of\nspecial interpretation, had only the alternative, if he was convinced of\nthe truth of the Gospel of Christ as Paul had proclaimed it, of either\ngiving up this Gospel against the dictates of his conscience, or\nstriking out of the Epistles whatever seemed Jewish. But in this case\nthe god of creation also disappeared, and the fact that Marcion could\nmake this sacrifice proves that this religious spirit, with all his\nenergy, was not able to rise to the height of the religious faith which\nwe find in the preaching of Jesus.\n\nIn basing his own position and that of his church on Paulism, as he\nconceived and remodelled it, Marcion connected himself with that part of\nthe earliest tradition of Christianity which is best known to us, and\nhas enabled us to understand his undertaking historically as we do no\nother. Here we have the means of accurately indicating what part of this\nstructure of the second century has come down from the Apostolic age and\nis really based on tradition, and what does not. Where else could we do\nthat? But Marcion has taught us far more. He does not impart a correct\nunderstanding of early Christianity, as was once supposed, for his\nexplanation of that is undoubtedly incorrect, but a correct estimate of\nthe reliability of the traditions that were current in his day alongside\nof the Pauline. There can be no doubt that Marcion criticised tradition\nfrom a dogmatic stand-point. But would his undertaking have been at all\npossible, if at that time a reliable tradition of the twelve Apostles\nand their teaching had existed and been operative in wide circles? We\nmay venture to say no. Consequently, Marcion gives important testimony\nagainst the historical reliability of the notion that the common\nChristianity was really based on the tradition of the twelve Apostles.\nIt is not surprising that the first man who clearly put and answered the\nquestion, \"What is Christian?\" adhered exclusively to the Pauline\nEpistles, and therefore found a very imperfect solution. When more than\n1600 years later the same question emerged for the first time in\nscientific form, its solution had likewise to be first attempted from\nthe Pauline Epistles, and therefore led at the outset to a one-sidedness\nsimilar to that of Marcion. The situation of Christendom in the middle\nof the second century was not really more favourable to a historical\nknowledge of early Christianity, than that of the 18th century, but in\nmany respects more unfavourable. Even at that time, as attested by the\nenterprise of Marcion, its results, and the character of the polemic\nagainst him, there were besides the Pauline Epistles, no reliable\ndocuments from which the teaching of the twelve Apostles could have been\ngathered. The position which the Pauline Epistles occupy in the history\nof the world is, however, described by the fact that every tendency in\nthe Church which was unwilling to introduce into Christianity the power\nof Greek mysticism, and was yet no longer influenced by the early\nChristian eschatology, learned from the Pauline Epistles a Christianity\nwhich, as a religion, was peculiarly vigorous. But that position is\nfurther described by the fact that every tendency which courageously\ndisregards spurious traditions, is compelled to turn to the Pauline\nEpistles, which, on the one hand, present such a profound type of\nChristianity, and on the other, darken and narrow the judgment about the\npreaching of Christ himself, by their complicated theology. Marcion was\nthe first, and for a long time the only Gentile Christian who took his\nstand on Paul. He was no moralist, no Greek mystic, no Apocalyptic\nenthusiast, but a religious character, nay, one of the few pronouncedly\ntypical religious characters whom we know in the early Church before\nAugustine. But his attempt to resuscitate Paulinism is the first great\nproof that the conditions under which this Christianity originated do\nnot repeat themselves, and that therefore Paulinism itself must receive\na new construction if one desires to make it the basis of a Church. His\nattempt is a further proof of the unique value of the Old Testament to\nearly Christendom, as the only means at that time of defending Christian\nmonotheism. Finally, his attempt confirms the experience that a\nreligious community can only be founded by a religious spirit who\nexpects nothing from the world.\n\nNearly all ecclesiastical writers, from Justin to Origen, opposed\nMarcion. He appeared already to Justin as the most wicked enemy. We can\nunderstand this, and we can quite as well understand how the Church\nFathers put him on a level with Basilides and Valentinus, and could not\nsee the difference between them. Because Marcion elevated a better God\nabove the god of creation, and consequently robbed the Christian God of\nhis honour, he appeared to be worse than a heathen (Sentent. episc.\nLXXXVII., in Hartel's edition of Cyprian, I. p. 454; \"Gentiles quamvis\nidola colant, tamen summum deum patrem creatorem cognoscunt et\nconfitentur [!]; in hunc Marcion blasphemat, etc.\"), as a blaspheming\nemissary of demons, as the first-born of Satan (Polyc., Justin,\nIrenaeus). Because he rejected the allegoric interpretation of the Old\nTestament, and explained its predictions as referring to a Messiah of\nthe Jews who was yet to come, he seemed to be a Jew (Tertull., adv.\nMarc. III.). Because he deprived Christianity of the apologetic proof\n(the proof from antiquity) he seemed to be a heathen and a Jew at the\nsame time (see my Texte u. Unters. I. 3, p. 68; the antitheses of\nMarcion became very important for the heathen and Manichaean assaults on\nChristianity). Because he represented the twelve Apostles as unreliable\nwitnesses, he appeared to be the most wicked and shameless of all\nheretics. Finally, because he gained so many adherents, and actually\nfounded a church, he appeared to be the ravening wolf (Justin, Rhodon),\nand his church as the spurious church. (Tertull., adv. Marc. IV. 5). In\nMarcion the Church Fathers chiefly attacked what they attacked in all\nGnostic heretics, but here error shewed itself in its worst form. They\nlearned much in opposing Marcion (see Bk. II.). For instance, their\ninterpretation of the _regula fidei_ and of the New Testament received a\ndirectly Antimarcionite expression in the Church. One thing, however,\nthey could not learn from him, and that was how to make Christianity\ninto a philosophic system. He formed no such system, but he has given a\nclearly outlined conception, based on historic documents, of\nChristianity as the religion which redeems the world.\n\n_Literature._--All anti-heretical writings of the early Church, but\nespecially Justin, Apol. I. 26, 58; Iren. I. 27; Tertull., adv. Marc.\nI-V.; de praescr.; Hippol., Philos.; Adamant., de recta in deum fidei;\nEpiph. h. 42; Ephr. Syr.; Esnik. The older attempts to restore the\nMarcionite Gospel and Apostolicum have been antiquated by Zahn's\nKanonsgeschichte, l. c. Hahn (Regimonti, 1823) has attempted to restore\nthe Antitheses. We are still in want of a German monograph on Marcion\n(see the whole presentation of Gnosticism by Zahn, with his Excursus, l.\nc.). Hilgenfeld, Ketzergesch. p. 316 f. 522 f.; cf. my works, Zur\nQuellenkritik des Gnosticismus, 1873; de Apelles Gnosis Monarchia, 1874;\nBeitraege z. Gesch. der Marcionitischen Kirchen (Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol.\n1876). Marcion's Commentar zum Evangelium (Ztschr. f. K. G. Bd. IV. 4).\nApelles Syllogismen in the Texte u. Unters. VI. H. 3. Zahn, die Dialoge\ndes Adamantius in the Ztschr. f. K.-Gesch. IX. p. 193 ff. Meyboom,\nMarcion en de Marcionieten, Leiden, 1888.\n\n\n[Footnote 365: He belonged to Pontus and was a rich shipowner: about 139\nhe came to Rome already a Christian, and for a short time belonged to\nthe church there. As he could not succeed in his attempt to reform it,\nhe broke away from it about 144. He founded a church of his own and\ndeveloped a very great activity. He spread his views by numerous\njourneys and communities bearing his name very soon arose in every\nprovince of the Empire (Adamantius, de recta in deum fide, Origen Opp.\ned Delarue 1. p. 809, Epiph. h. 42. p. 668, ed. Oehler). They were\necclesiastically organised (Tertull., de praescr. 41. and adv. Marc. IV.\n5) and possessed bishops, presbyters, etc. (Euseb. H. E. IV. 15. 46: de\nMart. Palaest. X. 2; Les Bas and Waddington Inscript, Grecq. et Latines\nrec. en Grece et en Asie Min. Vol. III. No. 2558). Justin (Apol. 1. 26)\nabout 150 tells us that Marcion's preaching had spread [Greek: kata pan\ngenos anthropon] and by the year 155, the Marcionites were already\nnumerous in Rome (Iren. III. 34). Up to his death however Marcion did\nnot give up the purpose of winning the whole of Christendom and\ntherefore again and again sought connection with it (Iren. I. c.;\nTertull., de praescr. 30), likewise his disciples (see the conversation\nof Apelles with Rhodon in Euseb. H. E. V. 13. 5. and the dialogue of the\nMarcionites with Adamantius). It is very probable that Marcion had fixed\nthe ground features of his doctrine and had laboured for its propagation\neven before he came to Rome. In Rome the Syrian Gnostic Cerdo had a\ngreat influence on him, so that we can even yet perceive, and clearly\ndistinguish the Gnostic element in the form of the Marcionite doctrine\ntransmitted to us.]\n\n[Footnote 366: \"Sufficit,\" said the Marcionites, \"unicum opsus deo\nnostro quod hominem liberavit summa et praecipua bonitate sua\" (Tertull.\nadv. Marc. I. 17).]\n\n[Footnote 367: Apelles, the disciple of Marcion, declared (Euseb. H. E.\nV. 13. 5) [Greek: sothesesthai tous epi ton estauromenon elpikotas,\nmonon ean en ergois agathois euriskontai.]]\n\n[Footnote 368: This is an extremely important point. Marcion rejected\nall allegories (See Tertull. adv. Marc. II. 19. 21, 22, III. 5. 6, 14,\n19, IV. 15. 20, V. 1, Orig. Comment. in Matth. T. XV. 3, Opp. III. p.\n655, in ep. ad. Rom. Opp. IV. p. 494 sq., Adamant. Sect. I., Orig. Opp.\nI. pp. 808, 817, Ephr. Syrus. hymn. 36., Edit. Benedict p. 520 sq.) and\ndescribes this method as an arbitrary one. But that simply means that he\nperceived and avoided the transformation of the Gospel into Hellenic\nphilosophy. No philosophic formulae are found in any of his statements\nthat have been handed down to us. But what is still more important, none\nof his early opponents have attributed to Marcion a system as they did\nto Basilides and Valentinus. There can be no doubt that Marcion did not\nset up any system (the Armenian Esnik first gives a Marcionite system\nbut that is a late production, see my essay in the Ztschr. f. wiss.\nTheol. 1896, p. 80 f.). He was just as far from having any apologetic or\nrationalistic interest; Justin (Apol. I. 58) says of the Marcionites\n[Greek: apodeixin medemian peri hon legousin echousin alla alogos hos\nhupo lukou arnes sunerpasmenoi k.t.l.]. Tertullian again and again casts\nin the teeth of Marcion that he has adduced no proof. See I. 11 sq.,\nIII. 2. 3, 4, IV. 11: \"Subito Christus subito et Johannes Sic sunt omnia\napud Marcionem quae suum et plenum habent ordinem apud creatorem.\" Rhodon\n(Euseb. H. E. V. 13. 4) says of two prominent genuine disciples of\nMarcion [Greek: me euriskontes ten diairesin ton pragmaton hos oude\nekeinos duo archas apephenanto psilos ka anapodeiktos]. Of Apelles the\nmost important of Marcion's disciples, who laid aside the Gnostic\nborrows of his master, we have the words (1. c) [Greek: me dein holos\nexetazein ton logon all' hekaston hos pepisteuke diamenein Sothesesthai\nvar tous eti ton estaromenon elpikotas apephaineto monon ean en ergois\nagathois heuriskontai. to de pos esti mia arche me ginoskein elegen\nhouto de kineisthai monon. me epistasthai pos eis estin agennetos theos\ntouto de pisteuein]. It was Marcion's purpose therefore to give all\nvalue to faith alone to make it dependent on its own convincing power\nand avoid all philosophic paraphrase and argument. The contrast in which\nhe placed the Christian blessing of salvation has in principle nothing\nin common with the contract in which Greek philosophy viewed the _summum\nbonum_. Finally it may be pointed out that Marcion introduced no new\nelements (AEons, Matter, etc.) into his evangelic views and leant on no\nOriental religious science. The later Marcionite speculations about\nmatter (see the account of Esnik) should not be charged upon the master\nhimself as is manifest from the second book of Tertullian against\nMarcion. The assumption that the creator of the world created it out of\na _materia subjacens_ is certainly found in Marcion (see Tertull. 1. 15,\nHippol. Philos. X. 19) but he speculated no further about it and that\nassumption itself was not rejected, for example, by Clem. Alex. (Strom.\nII. 16. 74, Photius on Clement's Hypotyposes). Marcion did not really\nspeculate even about the good God, yet see Tertull. adv. Marc. I. 14.\n15, IV. 7: \"Mundus ille superior--coelum tertium.\"]\n\n[Footnote 369: Tertull., de praescr. 41. sq.; the delineation refers\nchiefly to the Marcionites (see Epiph. h. 42. c. 3. 4, and Esnik's\naccount), on the Church system of Marcion, see also Tertull., adv. Marc.\nI. 14, 21, 23, 24, 28, 29: III. 1, 22: IV. 5, 34: V. 7, 10, 15, 18.]\n\n[Footnote 370: Marcion himself originally belonged to the main body of\nthe Church, as is expressly declared by Tertullian and Epiphanius, and\nattested by one of his own letters.]\n\n[Footnote 371: Tertull., adv. Marc. I. 2, 19: \"Separatio legis et\nevangelii proprium et principale opus est Marcionis ... ex diversitate\nsententiarum utriusque instrumenti diversitatem quoque argumentatur\ndeorum.\" II. 28, 29: IV. 1. I. 6: \"dispares deos, alterum, judicem,\nferum, bellipotentem; alterum mitem, placidum et tantummodo bonum atque\noptimum.\" Iren. I. 27. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 372: Marcion maintained that the good God is not to be feared.\nTertull., adv. Marc. I. 27: \"Atque adeo prae se ferunt Marcionitae quod\ndeum suum omnino non timeant. Malus autem, inquiunt, timebitur; bonus\nautem diligitur.\" To the question why they did not sin if they did not\nfear their God, the Marcionites answered in the words of Rom. VI. 1. 2.\n(l. c).]\n\n[Footnote 373: Tertull., adv. Marc. I. 2; II. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 374: See the passage adduced, p. 266, note 2, and Tertull, I.\n19: \"Immo inquiunt Marcionitae, deus noster, etsi non ab initio, etsi non\nper conditionem, sed per semetipsum revelatus est in Christi Jesu.\" The\nvery fact that different theological tendencies (schools) appeared\nwithin Marcionite Christianity and were mutually tolerant, proves that\nthe Marcionite Church itself was not based on a formulated system of\nfaith. Apelles expressly conceded different forms of doctrine in\nChristendom, on the basis of faith in the Crucified and a common holy\nideal of life (see p. 267).]\n\n[Footnote 375: Tertull., I, 13. \"Narem contrahentes impudentissimi\nMarcionitae convertuntur ad destructionem operum creatoris. Nimirum,\ninquiunt, grande opus et dignum deo mundus?\" The Marcionites (Iren., IV.\n34. 1) put the question to their ecclesiastical opponents, \"Quid novi\nattulit dominus veniens?\" and therewith caused them no small\nembarrassment.]\n\n[Footnote 376: On these see Tertull. I. 19; II. 28. 29; IV. 1, 4, 6;\nEpiph. Hippol., Philos. VII. 30; the book was used by other Gnostics\nalso (it is very probable that 1 Tim. VI. 20, an addition to the\nEpistle--refers to Marcion's Antitheses). Apelles, Marcion's disciple,\ncomposed a similar work under the title of \"Syllogismi.\" Marcion's\nAntitheses, which may still in part be reconstructed from Tertullian,\nEpiphanius, Adamantius, Ephraem, etc., possessed canonical authority in\nthe Marcionite church, and therefore took the place of the Old\nTestament. That is quite clear from Tertull., I. 19 (cf. IV. 1):\nSeparatio legis et Evangelii proprium et principale opus est Marcionis,\nnee poterunt negare discipuli ejus, quod in summo (suo) instrumento\nhabent, quo denique initiantur et indurantur in hanc haeresim.]\n\n[Footnote 377: Tertullian has frequently pointed to the contradictions\nin the Marcionite conception of the god of creation. These\ncontradictions, however, vanish as soon as we regard Marcion's god from\nthe point of view that he is like his revelation in the Old Testament.]\n\n[Footnote 378: The creator of the world is indeed to Marcion \"malignus\",\nbut not \"malus.\"]\n\n[Footnote 379: Marcion touched on it when he taught that the \"visibilia\"\nbelonged to the god of creation, but the \"invisibilia\" to the good God\n(I. 16). He adopted the consequences, inasmuch as he taught docetically\nabout Christ, and only assumed a deliverance of the human soul.]\n\n[Footnote 380: See especially the third book of Tertull., adv. Marcion.]\n\n[Footnote 381: \"Solius bonitatis\", \"deus melior\", were Marcion's\nstanding expressions for him.]\n\n[Footnote 382: \"Deus incognitus\" was likewise a standing expression.\nThey maintained against all attacks the religious position that, from\nthe nature of the case, believers only can know God, and that this is\nquite sufficient (Tertull., 1. 11).]\n\n[Footnote 383: Marcion firmly emphasised this and appealed to passages\nin Paul; see Tertull., I. 11, 19, 23: \"scio dicturos, atquin hanc esse\nprincipalem et perfectam bonitatem, cum sine ullo debito familiaritatis\nin extraneos voluntaria et libera effunditur, secundum quam inimicos\nquoque nostros et hoc nomine jam extraneos deligere jubeamur.\" The\nChurch Fathers therefore declared that Marcion's good God was a thief\nand a robber. See also Celsus, in Orig. VI. 53.]\n\n[Footnote 384: See Esnik's account, which, however, is to be used\ncautiously.]\n\n[Footnote 385: Marcion has strongly emphasised the respective passages\nin Luke's Gospel: see his Antitheses, and his comments on the Gospel, as\npresented by Tertullian (l. IV).]\n\n[Footnote 386: That can be plainly read in Esnik, and must have been\nthought by Marcion himself, as he followed Paul (see Tertull., l. V. and\nI. 11). Apelles also emphasised the death upon the cross. Marcion's\nconception of the purchase can indeed no longer be ascertained in its\ndetails. But see Adamant., de recta in deum fide, sect. I. It is one of\nhis theoretic contradictions that the good God who is exalted above\nrighteousness should yet purchase men.]\n\n[Footnote 387: Tertull. I. 6: \"Marcion non negat creatorem deum esse.\"]\n\n[Footnote 388: Here Tertull., I. 27, 28, is of special importance; see\nalso II. 28: IV. 29 (on Luke XII. 41-46): IV. 30. Marcion's idea was\nthis. The good God does not judge or punish; but He judges in so far as\nhe keeps evil at a distance from Him: it remains foreign to Him.\n\"Marcionitae interrogati quid fiet peccatori cuique die illo? respondent\nabici illum quasi ab oculis.\" \"Tranquilitas est et mansuetudinis\nsegregare solummodo et partem ejus cum infidelibus ponere.\" But what is\nthe end of him who is thus rejected? \"Ab igne, inquiunt, creatoris\ndeprehendetur.\" We might think with Tertullian that the creator of the\nworld would receive sinners with joy: but this is the god of the law who\npunishes sinners. The issue is twofold: the heaven of the good God, and\nthe hell of the creator of the world. Either Marcion assumed with Paul\nthat no one can keep the law, or he was silent about the end of the\n\"righteous\" because he had no interest in it. At any rate, the teaching\nof Marcion closes with an outlook in which the creator of the world can\nno longer be regarded as an independent god. Marcion's disciples (see\nEsnik) here developed a consistent theory: the creator of the world\nviolated his own law by killing the righteous Christ, and was therefore\ndeprived of all his power by Christ.]\n\n[Footnote 389: Schools soon arose in the Marcionite church, just as they\ndid later on in the main body of Christendom (see Rhodon in Euseb, H. E.\nV. 13. 2-4). The different doctrines of principles which were here\ndeveloped (two, three, four principles; the Marcionite Marcus's doctrine\nof two principles in which the creator of the world is an evil being,\ndiverges furthest from the Master), explain the different accounts of\nthe Church Fathers about Marcion's teaching. The only one of the\ndisciples who really seceded from the Master, was Apelles (Tertull., de\npraescr. 30). His teaching is therefore the more important, as it shews\nthat it was possible to retain the fundamental ideas of Marcion without\nembracing dualism. The attitude of Apelles to the Old Testament is that\nof Marcion, in so far as he rejects the book. But perhaps he somewhat\nmodified the strictness of the Master. On the other hand, he certainly\ndesignated much in it as untrue and fabulous. It is remarkable that we\nmeet with a highly honoured prophetess in the environment of Apelles: in\nMarcion's church we hear nothing of such, nay, it is extremely important\nas regards Marcion, that he has never appealed to the Spirit and to\nprophets. The \"sanctiores feminae\" Tertull. V. 8, are not of this nature,\nnor can we appeal even to V. 15. Moreover, it is hardly likely that\nJerome ad Eph. III. 5, refers to Marcionites. In this complete disregard\nof early Christian prophecy, and in his exclusive reliance on literary\ndocuments, we see in Marcion a process of despiritualising, that is, a\nform of secularisation peculiar to himself. Marcion no longer possessed\nthe early Christian enthusiasm as, for example, Hermas did.]\n\n[Footnote 390: Marcion was fond of calling Christ \"Spiritus salutaris.\"\nFrom the treatise of Tertullian we can prove both that Marcion\ndistinguished Christ from God, and that he made no distinction (see, for\nexample, I. 11, 14; II. 27; III. 8, 9, 11; IV. 7). Here again Marcion\ndid not think theologically. What he regarded as specially important was\nthat God has revealed himself in Christ, \"per semetipsum.\" Later\nMarcionites expressly taught Patripassianism, and have on that account\nbeen often grouped with the Sabellians. But other Christologies also\narose in Marcion's church, which is again a proof that it was not\ndependent on scholastic teaching, and therefore could take part in the\nlater development of doctrines.]\n\n[Footnote 391: See the beginning of the Marcionite Gospel.]\n\n[Footnote 392: Tertullian informs us sufficiently about this. The body\nof Christ was regarded by Marcion merely as an \"umbra\", a \"phantasma.\"\nHis disciples adhered to this, but Apelles first constructed a\n\"doctrine\" of the body of Christ.]\n\n[Footnote 393: The strict asceticism of Marcion and the Marcionites is\nreluctantly acknowledged by the Church Fathers; see Tertull., de praescr.\n30: \"Sanctissimus magister\"; I. 28, \"carni imponit sanctitem.\" The\nstrict prohibition of marriage: I. 29: IV. 11, 17, 29, 34, 38: V. 7, 8,\n15. 18; prohibition of food: I. 14; cynical life: Hippol., Philos. VII.\n29; numerous martyrs: Euseb. H. E. V. 16, 21. and frequently elsewhere.\nMarcion named his adherents (Tertull. IV. 9 36) \"[Greek: suntalaiporoi\nkai summisoumenoi].\" It is questionable whether Marcion himself allowed\nthe repetition of baptism; it arose in his church. But this repetition\nis a proof that the prevailing conception of baptism was not sufficient\nfor a vigorous religious temper.]\n\n[Footnote 394: Tertull. I. 20. \"Aiunt, Marcionem non tam innovasse\nregulam separatione legis et evangelii quam retro adulteratam\nrecurasse.\" See the account of Epiphanius, taken from Hippolytus, about\nthe appearance of Marcion in Rome (h. 42. 1, 2).]\n\n[Footnote 395: Here again we must remember that Marcion appealed neither\nto a secret tradition, nor to the \"Spirit,\" in order to appreciate the\nepoch-making nature of his undertaking.]\n\n[Footnote 396: In his estimate of the twelve Apostles Marcion took as\nhis standpoint Gal. II. See Tertull. I. 20: IV. 3 (generally IV. 1-6),\nV. 3; de praescr. 22. 23. He endeavoured to prove from this chapter that\nfrom a misunderstanding of the words of Christ, the twelve Apostles had\nproclaimed a different Gospel than that of Paul; they had wrongly taken\nthe Father of Jesus Christ for the god of creation. It is not quite\nclear how Marcion conceived the inward condition of the Apostles during\nthe lifetime of Jesus (See Tertull. III. 22: IV. 3. 39). He assumed that\nthey were persecuted by the Jews as the preachers of a new God. It is\nprobable, therefore, that he thought of a gradual obscuring of the\npreaching of Jesus in the case of the primitive Apostles. They fell back\ninto Judaism; see Iren. III. 2. 2. \"Apostolos admiscuisse ea quae sunt\nlegalia salvatoris verbis\"; III. 12. 12: \"Apostoli quae sunt Judaeorum\nsentientes scripserunt\" etc.; Tertull. V. 3: \"Apostolos vultis Judaismi\nmagis adfines subintelligi.\" The expositions of Marcion in Tertull. IV.\n9, 11, 13, 21, 24, 39: V. 13. shew that he regarded the primitive\nApostles as out and out real Apostles of Christ.]\n\n[Footnote 397: The call of Paul was viewed by Marcion as a manifestation\nof Christ, of equal value with His first appearance and ministry; see\nthe account of Esnik. \"Then for the second time Jesus came down to the\nlord of the creatures in the form of his Godhead, and entered into\njudgment with him on account of his death.... And Jesus said to him:\n'Judgment is between me and thee, let no one be judge but thine own\nlaws.... hast thou not written in this thy law, that he who killeth\nshall die?' And he answered, 'I have so written' ... Jesus said to him,\n'Deliver thyself therefore into my hands' ... The creator of the world\nsaid, 'Because I have slain thee I give thee a compensation, all those\nwho shall believe on thee, that thou mayest do with them what thou\npleasest.' Then Jesus left him and carried away Paul, and shewed him the\nprice, and sent him to preach that we are bought with this price, and\nthat all who believe in Jesus are sold by this just god to the good\none.\" This is a most instructive account; for it shews that in the\nMarcionite schools the Pauline doctrine of reconciliation was\ntransformed into a drama, and placed between the death of Christ and the\ncall of Paul, and that the Pauline Gospel was based, not directly on the\ndeath of Christ upon the cross, but on a theory of it converted into\nhistory. On Paul as the one apostle of the truth; see Tertull. I. 20:\nIII. 5, 14: IV. 2 sq.: IV. 34: V. 1. As to a Marcionite theory that the\npromise to send the Spirit was fulfilled in the mission of Paul, an\nindication of the want of enthusiasm among the Marcionites, see the\nfollowing page, note 2.]\n\n[Footnote 398: Marcion must have spoken _ex professo_ in his Antitheses\nabout the Judaistic corruptions of Paul's Epistles and the Gospel. He\nmust also have known Evangelic writings bearing the names of the\noriginal Apostles, and have expressed himself about them (Tertull. IV.\n1-6).]\n\n[Footnote 399: Marcion's self-consciousness of being a reformer, and the\nrecognition of this in his church is still not understood, although his\nundertaking itself and the facts speak loud enough. (1) The great\nMarcionite church called itself after Marcion (Adamant., de recta in\ndeum fide. I. 809; Epiph. h. 42, p. 668, ed. Oehler: [Greek: Markion sou\nto onoma epikeklentai hoi upo sou epatemenoi, hos seauton keruxantos kai\nouchi Christon]. We possess a Marcionite inscription which begins:\n[Greek: sunagoge Markioniston]). As the Marcionites did not form a\nschool, but a church, it is of the greatest value for shewing the\nestimate of the master in this church, that its members called\nthemselves by his name. (2) The Antitheses of Marcion had a place in the\nMarcionite canon (see above, p. 270). This canon therefore embraced a\nbook of Christ, Epistles of Paul, and a book of Marcion, and for that\nreason the Antitheses were always circulated with the canon of Marcion.\n(3) Origen (in Luc. hom. 25. T. III. p. 962) reports as follows:\n\"Denique in tantam quidam dilectionis audaciam proruperunt, ut nova\nquaedam et inaudita super Paulo monstra confingerent. Alli enim aiunt,\nhoc quod scriptum est, sedere a dextris salvatoris et sinistris, de\nPaulo et de Marcione dici, quod Paulus sedet a dextris, Marcion sedet a\nsinistris. Porro alii legentes: Mittam vobis advocatum Spiritum\nveritatis, nolunt intelligere tertiam personam a patre et filio, sed\nApostolum Paulum.\" The estimate of Marcion which appears here is\nexceedingly instructive. (4) An Arabian writer, who, it is true, belongs\nto a later period, reports that Marcionites called their founder\n\"Apostolorum principem.\" (5) Justin, the first opponent of Marcion,\nclassed him with Simon Magus and Menander, that is, with demonic\nfounders of religion. These testimonies may suffice.]\n\n[Footnote 400: On Marcion's Gospel see the Introductions to the New\nTestament and Zahn's Kanonsgeschichte, Bd. I., p. 585 ff. and II., p.\n409. Marcion attached no name to his Gospel, which, according to his own\ntestimony, he produced from the third one of our Canon (Tertull, adv.\nMarc. IV. 2, 3, 4). He called it simply [Greek: euangelion (kuriou)],\nbut held that it was the Gospel which Paul had in his mind when he spoke\nof his Gospel. The later Marcionites ascribed the authorship of the\nGospel partly to Paul, partly to Christ himself, and made further\nchanges in it. That Marcion chose the Gospel called after Luke should be\nregarded as a makeshift; for this Gospel, which is undoubtedly the most\nHellenistic of the four Canonical Gospels, and therefore comes nearest\nto the Catholic conception of Christianity, accommodated itself in its\ntraditional form but little better than the other three to Marcionite\nChristianity. Whether Marcion took it for a basis because in his time it\nhad already been connected with Paul (or really had a connection with\nPaul), or whether the numerous narratives about Jesus as the Saviour of\nsinners, led him to recognise in this Gospel alone a genuine kernel, we\ndo not know.]\n\n[Footnote 401: The associations of the Encratites and the community\nfounded by Apelles stood between the main body of Christendom and the\nMarcionite church. The description of Celsus (especially V. 61-64 in\nOrig.) shews the motley appearance which Christendom presented soon\nafter the middle of the second century. He there mentions the\nMarcionites, and a little before (V. 59), the \"great Church.\" It is very\nimportant that Celsus makes the main distinction consist in this, that\nsome regarded their God as identical with the God of the Jews, whilst\nothers again declared that \"theirs was a different Deity who is hostile\nto that of the Jews, and that it was he who had sent the Son.\" (V. 61).]\n\n[Footnote 402: One might be tempted to comprise the character of\nMarcion's religion in the words, \"The God who dwells in my breast can\nprofoundly excite my inmost being. He who is throned above all my powers\ncan move nothing outwardly.\" But Marcion had the firm assurance that God\nhas done something much greater than move the world: he has redeemed men\nfrom the world, and given them the assurance of this redemption, in the\nmidst of all oppression and enmity which do not cease.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nAPPENDIX: THE CHRISTIANITY OF THE JEWISH CHRISTIANS\n\n\n1. Original Christianity was in appearance Christian Judaism, the\ncreation of a universal religion on Old Testament soil. It retained\ntherefore, so far as it was not hellenised, which never altogether took\nplace, its original Jewish features. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob\nwas regarded as the Father of Jesus Christ, the Old Testament was the\nauthoritative source of revelation, and the hopes of the future were\nbased on the Jewish ones. The heritage which Christianity took over from\nJudaism, shews itself on Gentile Christian soil, in fainter or\ndistincter form, in proportion as the philosophic mode of thought\nalready prevails, or recedes into the background.[403] To describe the\nappearance of the Jewish, Old Testament, heritage in the Christian\nfaith, so far as it is a religious one, by the name Jewish Christianity,\nbeginning at a certain point quite arbitrarily chosen, and changeable at\nwill, must therefore necessarily lead to error, and it has done so to a\nvery great extent. For this designation makes it appear as though the\nJewish element in the Christian religion were something accidental,\nwhile it is rather the case that all Christianity, in so far as\nsomething alien is not foisted into it, appears as the religion of\nIsrael perfected and spiritualised. We are therefore not justified in\nspeaking of Jewish Christianity, where a Christian community, even one\nof Gentile birth, calls itself the true Israel, the people of the twelve\ntribes, the posterity of Abraham; for this transfer is based on the\noriginal claim of Christianity and can only be forbidden by a view that\nis alien to it. Just as little may we designate Jewish Christian the\nmighty and realistic hopes of the future which were gradually repressed\nin the second and third centuries. They may be described as Jewish, or\nas Christian; but the designation Jewish Christian must be rejected; for\nit gives a wrong impression as to the historic right of these hopes in\nChristianity. The eschatological ideas of Papias were not Jewish\nChristian, but Christian; while, on the other hand, the eschatological\nspeculations of Origen were not Gentile Christian, but essentially\nGreek. Those Christians who saw in Jesus the man chosen by God and\nendowed with the Spirit, thought about the Redeemer not in a Jewish\nChristian, but in a Christian manner. Those of Asia Minor who held\nstrictly to the 14th of Nisan as the term of the Easter festival, were\nnot influenced by Jewish Christian, but by Christian or Old Testament,\nconsiderations. The author of the \"Teaching of the Apostles,\" who has\ntransferred the rights of the Old Testament priests with respect to the\nfirst fruits, to the Christian prophets, shews himself by such\ntransference not as a Jewish Christian, but as a Christian. There is no\nboundary here; for Christianity took possession of the whole of Judaism\nas religion, and it is therefore a most arbitrary view of history which\nlooks upon the Christian appropriation of the Old Testament religion,\nafter any point, as no longer Christian, but only Jewish Christian.\nWherever the universalism of Christianity is not violated in favour of\nthe Jewish nation, we have to recognise every appropriation of the Old\nTestament as Christian. Hence this proceeding could be spontaneously\nundertaken in Christianity, as was in fact done.\n\n2. But the Jewish religion is a national religion, and Christianity\nburst the bonds of nationality, though not for all who recognised Jesus\nas Messiah. This gives the point at which the introduction of the term\n\"Jewish Christianity\" is appropriate.[404] It should be applied\nexclusively to those Christians who really maintained in their whole\nextent, or in some measure, even if it were to a minimum degree, the\nnational and political forms of Judaism and the observance of the Mosaic\nlaw in its literal sense, as essential to Christianity, at least to the\nChristianity of born Jews, or who, though rejecting these forms,\nnevertheless assumed a prerogative of the Jewish people even in\nChristianity (Clem., Homil. XI. 26: [Greek: ean ho allophulos ton nomon\npraxei, Ioudaios estin, me praxas de Hellen]; \"If the foreigner observe\nthe law he is a Jew, but if not he is a Greek.\")[405] To this Jewish\nChristianity is opposed, not Gentile Christianity, but the Christian\nreligion, in so far as it is conceived as universalistic and\nanti-national in the strict sense of the term (Presupp. Sec. 3), that is,\nthe main body of Christendom in so far as it has freed itself from\nJudaism as a nation.[406]\n\nIt is not strange that this Jewish Christianity was subject to all the\nconditions which arose from the internal and external position of the\nJudaism of the time; that is, different tendencies were necessarily\ndeveloped in it, according to the measure of the tendencies (or the\ndisintegrations) which asserted themselves in the Judaism of that time.\nIt lies also in the nature of the case that, with one exception, that of\nPharisaic Jewish Christianity, all other tendencies were accurately\nparallelled in the systems which appeared in the great, that is,\nanti-Jewish Christendom. They were distinguished from these, simply by a\nsocial and political, that is, a national element. Moreover, they were\nexposed to the same influences from without as the synagogue, and as the\nlarger Christendom, till the isolation to which Judaism as a nation,\nafter severe reverses condemned itself, became fatal to them also.\nConsequently, there were besides Pharisaic Jewish Christians, ascetics\nof all kinds who were joined by all those over whom Oriental religious\nwisdom and Greek philosophy had won a commanding influence (see above,\np. 242 f.)\n\nIn the first century these Jewish Christians formed the majority in\nPalestine, and perhaps also in some neighbouring provinces. But they\nwere also found here and there in the West.\n\nNow the great question is, whether this Jewish Christianity as a whole,\nor in certain of its tendencies, was a factor in the development of\nChristianity to Catholicism. This question is to be answered in the\nnegative, and quite as much with regard to the history of dogma as with\nregard to the political history of the Church. From the stand-point of\nthe universal history of Christianity, these Jewish Christian\ncommunities appear as rudimentary structures which now and again, as\nobjects of curiosity, engaged the attention of the main body of\nChristendom in the East, but could not exert any important influence on\nit, just because they contained a national element.\n\nThe Jewish Christians took no considerable part in the Gnostic\ncontroversy, the epoch-making conflict which was raised within the pale\nof the larger Christendom about the decisive question, whether, and to\nwhat extent, the Old Testament should remain a basis of Christianity,\nalthough they themselves were no less occupied with the question.[407]\nThe issue of this conflict in favour of that party which recognised the\nOld Testament in its full extent as a revelation of the Christian God,\nand asserted the closest connection between Christianity and the Old\nTestament religion, was so little the result of any influence of Jewish\nChristianity, that the existence of the latter would only have rendered\nthat victory more difficult, unless it had already fallen into the\nbackground, as a phenomenon of no importance.[408] How completely\ninsignificant it was is shewn not only by the limited polemics of the\nChurch Fathers, but perhaps still more by their silence, and the new\nimport which the reproach of Judaising obtained in Christendom after the\nmiddle of the second century. In proportion as the Old Testament, in\nopposition to Gnosticism, became a more conscious and accredited\npossession in the Church, and at the same time, in consequence of the\nnaturalising of Christianity in the world, the need of regulations,\nfixed rules, statutory enactments etc., appeared as indispensable, it\nmust have been natural to use the Old Testament as a holy code of such\nenactments. This procedure was no falling away from the original\nanti-Judaic attitude, provided nothing national was taken from the book,\nand some kind of spiritual interpretation given to what had been\nborrowed. The \"apostasy\" rather lay simply in the changed needs. But one\nnow sees how those parties in the Church, to which for any reason this\nprogressive legislation was distasteful, raised the reproach of\n\"Judaising,\"[409] and further, how conversely the same reproach was\nhurled at those Christians who resisted the advancing hellenising of\nChristianity, with regard, for example, to the doctrine of God,\neschatology, Christology, etc.[410] But while this reproach is raised,\nthere is nowhere shewn any connection between those described as\nJudaising Christians and the Ebionites. That they were identified\noff-hand is only a proof that \"Ebionitism\" was no longer known. That\n\"Judaising\" within Catholicism which appears, on the one hand, in the\nsetting up of a Catholic ceremonial law (worship, constitution, etc.),\nand on the other, in a tenacious clinging to less hellenised forms of\nfaith and hopes of faith, has nothing in common with Jewish\nChristianity, which desired somehow to confine Christianity to the\nJewish nation.[411] Speculations that take no account of history may\nmake out that Catholicism became more and more Jewish Christian. But\nhistorical observation, which reckons only with concrete quantities, can\ndiscover in Catholicism, besides Christianity, no element which it would\nhave to describe as Jewish Christian. It observes only a progressive\nhellenising, and in consequence of this, a progressive spiritual\nlegislation which utilizes the Old Testament, a process which went on\nfor centuries according to the same methods which had been employed in\nthe larger Christendom from the beginning.[412] Baur's brilliant attempt\nto explain Catholicism as a product of the mutual conflict and\nneutralising of Jewish and Gentile Christianity, (the latter according\nto Baur being equivalent to Paulinism) reckons with two factors, of\nwhich, the one had no significance at all, and the other only an\nindirect effect, as regards the formation of the Catholic Church. The\ninfluence of Paul in this direction is exhausted in working out the\nuniversalism of the Christian religion, for a Greater than he had laid\nthe foundation for this movement, and Paul did not realise it by himself\nalone. Placed on this height Catholicism was certainly developed by\nmeans of conflicts and compromises, not, however, by conflicts with\nEbionitism, which was to all intents and purposes discarded as early as\nthe first century, but as the result of the conflict of Christianity\nwith the united powers of the world in which it existed, on behalf of\nits own peculiar nature as the universal religion based on the Old\nTestament. Here were fought triumphant battles, but here also\ncompromises were made which characterise the essence of Catholicism as\nChurch and as doctrine.[413]\n\nA history of Jewish Christianity and its doctrines does not therefore,\nstrictly speaking, belong to the history of dogma, especially as the\noriginal distinction between Jewish Christianity and the main body of\nthe Church lay, as regards its principle, not in doctrine, but in\npolicy. But seeing that the opinions of the teachers in this Church\nregarding Jewish Christianity, throw light upon their own stand-point,\nalso that up till about the middle of the second century Jewish\nChristians were still numerous and undoubtedly formed the great majority\nof believers in Palestine,[414] and finally, that attempts--unsuccessful\nones indeed--on the part of Jewish Christianity to bring Gentile\nChristians under its sway, did not cease till about the middle of the\nthird century, a short sketch may be appropriate here.[415]\n\nJustin vouches for the existence of Jewish Christians, and distinguishes\nbetween those who would force the law even on Gentile-Christians, and\nwould have no fellowship with such as did not observe it, and those who\nconsidered that the law was binding only on people of Jewish birth, and\ndid not shrink from fellowship with Gentile Christians who were living\nwithout the law. How the latter could observe the law and yet enter into\nintercourse with those who were not Jews, is involved in obscurity, but\nthese he recognises as partakers of the Christian salvation and\ntherefore as Christian brethren, though he declares that there are\nChristians who do not possess this large heartedness. He also speaks of\nGentile Christians who allowed themselves to be persuaded by Jewish\nChristians into the observance of the Mosaic law, and confesses that he\nis not quite sure of the salvation of these. This is all we learn from\nJustin,[416] but it is instructive enough. In the first place, we can\nsee that the question is no longer a burning one: \"Justin here\nrepresents only the interests of a Gentile Christianity whose stability\nhas been secured.\" This has all the more meaning that in the Dialogue\nJustin has not in view an individual Christian community, or the\ncommunities of a province, but speaks as one who surveys the whole\nsituation of Christendom.[417] The very fact that Justin has devoted to\nthe whole question only one chapter of a work containing 142, and the\nmagnanimous way in which he speaks, shew that the phenomena in question\nhave no longer any importance for the main body of Christendom.\nSecondly, it is worthy of notice that Justin distinguishes two\ntendencies in Jewish Christianity. We observe these two tendencies in\nthe Apostolic age (Presupp. Sec. 3); they had therefore maintained\nthemselves to his time. Finally, we must not overlook the circumstance\nthat he adduces only the [Greek: ennomos politeia], \"legal polity,\" as\ncharacteristic of this Jewish Christianity. He speaks only incidentally\nof a difference in doctrine, nay, he manifestly presupposes that the\n[Greek: didagmata Christou], \"teachings of Christ,\" are essentially\nfound among them just as among the Gentile Christians; for he regards\nthe more liberal among them as friends and brethren.[418]\n\nThe fact that, even then, there were Jewish Christians here and there\nwho sought to spread the [Greek: ennomos politeia] among Gentile\nChristians, has been attested by Justin and also by other contemporary\nwriters.[419] But there is no evidence of this propaganda having\nacquired any great importance. Celsus also knows Christians who desire\nto live as Jews according to the Mosaic law (V. 61), but he mentions\nthem only once, and otherwise takes no notice of them in his delineation\nof, and attack on, Christianity. We may perhaps infer that he knew of\nthem only from hearsay, for he simply enumerates them along with the\nnumerous Gnostic sects. Had this keen observer really known them he\nwould hardly have passed them over, even though he had met with only a\nsmall number of them.[420] Irenaeus placed the Ebionites among the\nheretical schools,[421] but we can see from his work that in his day\nthey must have been all but forgotten in the West.[422] This was not yet\nthe case in the East. Origen knows of them. He knows also of some who\nrecognise the birth from the Virgin. He is sufficiently intelligent and\nacquainted with history to judge that the Ebionites are no school, but\nas believing Jews are the descendants of the earliest Christians, in\nfact he seems to suppose that all converted Jews have at all times\nobserved the law of their fathers. But he is far from judging of them\nfavourably. He regards them as little better than the Jews ([Greek:\nIoudaioi kai hoi oligo diapherontes auton Ebionaioi], \"Jews and\nEbionites who differ little from them\"). Their rejection of Paul\ndestroys the value of their recognition of Jesus as Messiah. They appear\nonly to have assumed Christ's name, and their literal exposition of the\nScripture is meagre and full of error. It is possible that such Jewish\nChristians may have existed in Alexandria, but it is not certain. Origen\nknows nothing of an inner development in this Jewish Christianity.[423]\nEven in Palestine, Origen seems to have occupied himself personally with\nthese Jewish Christians, just as little as Eusebius.[424] They lived\napart by themselves and were not aggressive. Jerome is the last who\ngives us a clear and certain account of them.[425] He, who associated\nwith them, assures us that their attitude was the same as in the second\ncentury, only they seem to have made progress in the recognition of the\nbirth from the Virgin and in their more friendly position towards the\nChurch.[426] Jerome at one time calls them Ebionites and at another\nNazarenes, thereby proving that these names were used synonymously.[427]\nThere is not the least ground for distinguishing two clearly marked\ngroups of Jewish Christians, or even for reckoning the distinction of\nOrigen and the Church Fathers to the account of Jewish Christians\nthemselves, so as to describe as Nazarenes those who recognised the\nbirth from the Virgin, and who had no wish to compel the Gentile\nChristians to observe the law, and the others as Ebionites. Apart from\nsyncretistic or Gnostic Jewish Christianity, there is but one group of\nJewish Christians holding various shades of opinion, and these from the\nbeginning called themselves Nazarenes as well as Ebionites. From the\nbeginning, likewise, one portion of them was influenced by the existence\nof a great Gentile Church which did not observe the law. They\nacknowledged the work of Paul and experienced in a slight degree\ninfluences emanating from the great Church.[428] But the gulf which\nseparated them from that Church did not thereby become narrower. That\ngulf was caused by the social and political separation of these Jewish\nChristians, whatever mental attitude, hostile or friendly, they might\ntake up to the great Church. This Church stalked over hem with iron\nfeet, as over a structure which in her opinion was full of\ncontradictions throughout (\"Semi-christiani\"), and was disconcerted\nneither by the gospel of these Jewish Christians nor by anything else\nabout them.[429] But as the Synagogue also vigorously condemned them,\ntheir position up to their extinction was a most tragic one. These\nJewish Christians, more than any other Christian party, bore the\nreproach of Christ.\n\nThe Gospel, at the time when it was proclaimed among the Jews, was not\nonly law, but theology, and indeed syncretistic theology. On the other\nhand, the temple service and the sacrificial system had begun to lose\ntheir hold in certain influential circles.[430] We have pointed out\nabove (Presupp. Sec.Sec.. 1. 2. 5) how great were the diversities of Jewish\nsects, and that there was in the Diaspora, as well as in Palestine\nitself, a Judaism which, on the one hand, followed ascetic impulses, and\non the other, advanced to a criticism of the religious tradition without\ngiving up the national claims. It may even be said that in theology the\nboundaries between the orthodox Judaism of the Pharisees and a\nsyncretistic Judaism were of an elastic kind. Although religion, in\nthose circles, seemed to be fixed in its legal aspect, yet on its\ntheological side it was ready to admit very diverse speculations, in\nwhich angelic powers especially played a great role.[431] That\nintroduced into Jewish monotheism an element of differentiation, the\nresults of which were far-reaching. The field was prepared for the\nformation of syncretistic sects. They present themselves to us on the\nsoil of the earliest Christianity, in the speculations of those Jewish\nChristian teachers who are opposed in the Epistle to the Colossians, and\nin the Gnosis of Cerinthus (see above, p. 246). Here cosmological ideas\nand myths were turned to profit. The idea of God was sublimated by both.\nIn consequence of this, the Old Testament records were subjected to\ncriticism, because they could not in all respects be reconciled with the\nuniversal religion which hovered before men's minds. This criticism was\nopposed to the Pauline in so far as it maintained, with the common\nJewish Christians, and Christendom as a whole, that the genuine Old\nTestament religion was essentially identical with the Christian. But\nwhile those common Jewish Christians drew from this the inference that\nthe whole of the Old Testament must be adhered to in its traditional\nsense and in all its ordinances, and while the larger Christendom\nsecured for itself the whole of the Old Testament by deviating from the\nordinary interpretation, those syncretistic Jewish Christians separated\nfrom the Old Testament, as interpolations, whatever did not agree with\ntheir purer moral conceptions and borrowed speculations. Thus, in\nparticular, they got rid of the sacrificial ritual, and all that was\nconnected with it, by putting ablutions in their place. First the\nprofanation, and afterwards, the abolition of the temple worship, after\nthe destruction of Jerusalem, may have given another new and welcome\nimpulse to this by coming to be regarded as its Divine confirmation\n(Presupp. Sec. 2). Christianity now appeared as purified Mosaism. In these\nJewish Christian undertakings we have undoubtedly before us a series of\npeculiar attempts to elevate the Old Testament religion into the\nuniversal one, under the impression of the person of Jesus; attempts,\nhowever, in which the Jewish religion, and not the Jewish people, was to\nbear the costs by curtailment of its distinctive features. The great\ninner affinity of these attempts with the Gentile Christian Gnostics has\nalready been set forth. The firm partition wall between them, however,\nlies in the claim of these Jewish Christians to set forth the pure Old\nTestament religion, as well as in the national Jewish colouring which\nthe constructed universal religion was always to preserve. This national\ncolouring is shewn in the insistence upon a definite measure of Jewish\nnational ceremonies as necessary to salvation, and in the opposition to\nthe Apostle Paul, which united the Gnostic Judaeo-Christians with the\ncommon type, those of the strict observance. How the latter were related\nto the former, we do not know, for the inner relations here are almost\ncompletely unknown to us.[432]\n\nApart from the false doctrines opposed in the Epistle to the Colossians,\nand from Cerinthus, this syncretistic Jewish Christianity which aimed at\nmaking itself a universal religion, meets us in tangible form only in\nthree phenomena:[433] in the Elkesaites of Hippolytus and Origen, in the\nEbionites with their associates of Epiphanius, sects very closely\nconnected, in fact to be viewed as one party of manifold shades,[434]\nand in the activity of Symmachus.[435] We observe here a form of\nreligion as far removed from that of the Old Testament as from the\nGospel, subject to strong heathen influences, not Greek, but Asiatic,\nand scarcely deserving the name \"Christian,\" because it appeals to a new\nrevelation of God which is to complete that given in Christ. We should\ntake particular note of this in judging of the whole remarkable\nphenomenon. The question in this Jewish Christianity is not the\nformation of a philosophic school, but to some extent the establishment\nof a kind of new religion, that is, the completion of that founded by\nChrist, undertaken by a particular person basing his claims on a\nrevealed book which was delivered to him from heaven. This book which\nwas to form the complement of the Gospel, possessed, from the third\ncentury, importance for all sections of Jewish Christians so far as\nthey, in the phraseology of Epiphanius, were not Nazarenes.[436] The\nwhole system reminds one of Samaritan Christian syncretism;[437] but we\nmust be on our guard against identifying the two phenomena, or even\nregarding them as similar. These Elkesaite Jewish Christians held fast\nby the belief that Jesus was the Son of God, and saw in the \"book\" a\nrevelation which proceeded from him. They did not offer any worship to\ntheir founder,[438] that is, to the receiver of the \"book,\" and they\nwere, as will be shewn, the most ardent opponents of Simonianism.[439]\n\nAlcibiades of Apamea, one of their disciples, came from the East to Rome\nabout 220-230, and endeavoured to spread the doctrines of the sect in\nthe Roman Church. He found the soil prepared, inasmuch as he could\nannounce from the \"book\" forgiveness of sins to all sinful Christians,\neven the grossest transgressors, and such forgiveness was very much\nneeded. Hippolytus opposed him, and had an opportunity of seeing the\nbook and becoming acquainted with its contents. From his account and\nthat of Origen we gather the following: (1) The sect is a Jewish\nChristian one, for it requires the [Greek: nomou politeia] (circumcision\nand the keeping of the Sabbath), and repudiates the Apostle Paul; but it\ncriticises the Old Testament and rejects a part of it. (2) The objects\nof its faith are the \"Great and most High God\", the Son of God (the\n\"Great King\"), and the Holy Spirit (thought of as female); Son and\nSpirit appear as angelic powers. Considered outwardly, and according to\nhis birth, Christ is a mere man, but with this peculiarity, that he has\nalready been frequently born and manifested ([Greek: pollakis\ngennethenta kai gennomenon pephenenai kai phuesthai, allassonta geneseis\nkai metensomatoumenon], cf. the testimony of Victorinus as to\nSymmachus). From the statements of Hippolytus we cannot be sure whether\nhe was identified with the Son of God,[440] at any rate the assumption\nof repeated births of Christ shews how completely Christianity was meant\nto be identified with what was supposed to be the pure Old Testament\nreligion. (3) The \"book\" proclaimed a new forgiveness of sin, which, on\ncondition of faith in the \"book\" and a real change of mind, was to be\nbestowed on every one, through the medium of washings, accompanied by\ndefinite prayers which are strictly prescribed. In these prayers appear\npeculiar Semitic speculations about nature (\"the seven witnesses:\nheaven, water, the holy spirits, the angels of prayer, oil, salt,\nearth\"). The old Jewish way of thinking appears in the assumption that\nall kinds of sickness and misfortune are punishments for sin, and that\nthese penalties must therefore be removed by atonement. The book\ncontains also astrological and geometrical speculations in a religious\ngarb. The main thing, however, was the possibility of a forgiveness of\nsin, ever requiring to be repeated, though Hippolytus himself was unable\nto point to any gross laxity. Still, the appearance of this sect\nrepresents the attempt to make the religion of Christian Judaism\npalatable to the world. The possibility of repeated forgiveness of sin,\nthe speculations about numbers, elements, and stars, the halo of\nmystery, the adaptation to the forms of worship employed in the\n\"mysteries\", are worldly means of attraction which shew that this Jewish\nChristianity was subject to the process of acute secularization. The\nJewish mode of life was to be adopted in return for these concessions.\nYet its success in the West was of small extent and short-lived.\n\nEpiphanius confirms all these features, and adds a series of new ones.\nIn his description, the new forgiveness of sin is not so prominent as in\nthat of Hippolytus, but it is there. From the account of Epiphanius we\ncan see that these syncretistic Judaeo-Christian sects were at first\nstrictly ascetic and rejected marriage as well as the eating of flesh,\nbut that they gradually became more lax. We learn here that the whole\nsacrificial service was removed from the Old Testament by the Elkesaites\nand declared to be non-Divine, that is non-Mosaic, and that fire was\nconsequently regarded as the impure and dangerous element, and water as\nthe good one.[441] We learn further, that these sects acknowledged no\nprophets and men of God between Aaron and Christ, and that they\ncompletely adapted the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew to their own views.[442]\nIn addition to this book, however, (the Gospel of the 12 Apostles),\nother writings, such as [Greek: Periodoi Petrou dia Klementos,\nAnabathmoi Iakobou] and similar histories of Apostles, were held in\nesteem by them. In these writings the Apostles were represented as\nzealous ascetics, and, above all, as vegetarians, while the Apostle Paul\nwas most bitterly opposed. They called him a Tarsene, said he was a\nGreek, and heaped on him gross abuse. Epiphanius also dwells strongly\nupon their Jewish mode of life (circumcision, Sabbath), as well as their\ndaily washings,[443] and gives some information about the constitution\nand form of worship of these sects (use of baptism: Lord's Supper with\nbread and water). Finally, Epiphanius gives particulars about their\nChristology. On this point there were differences of opinion, and these\ndifferences prove that there was no Christological dogma. As among the\ncommon Jewish Christians, the birth of Jesus from the Virgin was a\nmatter of dispute. Further, some identified Christ with Adam, others saw\nin him a heavenly being ([Greek: anothen on]), a spiritual being, who\nwas created before all, who was higher than all angels and Lord of all\nthings, but who chose for himself the upper world; yet this Christ from\nabove came down to this lower world as often as he pleased. He came in\nAdam, he appeared in human form to the patriarchs, and at last appeared\non earth as a man with the body of Adam, suffered, etc. Others again, as\nit appears, would have nothing to do with these speculations, but stood\nby the belief that Jesus was the man chosen by God, on whom, on account\nof his virtue, the Holy Spirit--[Greek: hoper estin ho Christos]--\ndescended at the baptism.[444] (Epiph. h. 30. 3, 14, 16). The account\nwhich Epiphanius gives of the doctrine held by these Jewish Christians\nregarding the Devil, is specially instructive (h. 30. 16): [Greek: Duo\nde tinas sunistosin ek theou tetagmenous, ena men ton Christon, ena de\nton diabolon. kai ton men Christon legousi tou mellontos aionos\neilephenai ton kleron, ton de diabolon touton pepisteusthai on aiona, ek\nprostages dethen tou pantokratopos kata aitesin ekateron auton]. Here we\nhave a very old Semitico-Hebraic idea preserved in a very striking way,\nand therefore we may probably assume that in other respects also, these\nGnostic Ebionites preserved that which was ancient. Whether they did so\nin their criticism of the Old Testament, is a point on which we must not\npronounce judgment.\n\nWe might conclude by referring to the fact that this syncretistic Jewish\nChristianity, apart from a well-known missionary effort at Rome, was\nconfined to Palestine and the neighbouring countries, and might consider\nit proved that this movement had no effect on the history and\ndevelopment of Catholicism,[445] were it not for two voluminous writings\nwhich still continue to be regarded as monuments of the earliest epoch\nof syncretistic Jewish Christianity. Not only did Baur suppose that he\ncould prove his hypothesis about the origin of Catholicism by the help\nof these writings, but the attempt has recently been made on the basis\nof _the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions and Homilies_, for these are the\nwritings in question, to go still further and claim for Jewish\nChristianity the glory of having developed by itself the whole doctrine,\nworship and constitution of Catholicism, and of having transmitted it to\nGentile Christianity as a finished product which only required to be\ndivested of a few Jewish husks.[446] It is therefore necessary to\nsubject these writings to a brief examination. Everything depends on the\ntime of their origin, and the tendencies they follow. But these are just\nthe two questions that are still unanswered. Without depreciating those\nworthy men who have earnestly occupied themselves with the\nPseudo-Clementines,[447] it may be asserted, that in this region\neverything is as yet in darkness, especially as no agreement has been\nreached even in the question of their composition. No doubt such a\nresult appears to have been pretty nearly arrived at as far as the time\nof composition is concerned, but that estimate (150-170, or the latter\nhalf of the second century) not only awakens the greatest suspicion, but\ncan be proved to be wrong. The importance of the question for the\nhistory of dogma does not permit the historian to set it aside, while,\non the other hand, the compass of a manual does not allow us to enter\ninto an exhaustive investigation. The only course open in such\ncircumstances is briefly to define one's own position.\n\n1. The Recognitions and Homilies, in the form in which we have them, do\nnot belong to the second century, but at the very earliest to the first\nhalf of the third. There is nothing, however, to prevent our putting\nthem a few decades later.[448]\n\n2. They were not composed in their present form by heretical Christians,\nbut most probably by Catholics. Nor do they aim at forming a theological\nsystem,[449] or spreading the views of a sect. Their primary object is\nto oppose Greek polytheism, immoral mythology, and false philosophy, and\nthus to promote edification.[450]\n\n3. In describing the authors as Catholic, we do not mean that they were\nadherents of the theology of Irenaeus or Origen. The instructive point\nhere rather, is that they had as yet no fixed theology, and therefore\ncould without hesitation regard and use all possible material as means\nof edification. In like manner, they had no fixed conception of the\nApostolic age, and could therefore appropriate motley and dangerous\nmaterial. Such Christians, highly educated and correctly trained too,\nwere still to be found, not only in the third century, but even later.\nBut the authors do not seem to have been free from a bias, inasmuch as\nthey did not favour the Catholic, that is, the Alexandrian apologetic\ntheology which was in process of formation.\n\n4. The description of the Pseudo-Clementine writings, naturally derived\nfrom their very form, as \"edifying, didactic romances for the refutation\nof paganism\", is not inconsistent with the idea, that the authors, at\nthe same time, did their utmost to oppose heretical phenomena,\nespecially the Marcionite church and Apelles, together with heresy and\nheathenism in general, as represented by Simon Magus.\n\n5. The objectionable materials which the authors made use of were\nedifying for them, because of the position assigned therein to Peter,\nbecause of the ascetic and mysterious elements they contained, and the\nopposition offered to Simon, etc. The offensive features, so far as they\nwere still contained in these sources, had already become unintelligible\nand harmless. They were partly conserved as such and partly removed.\n\n6. The authors are to be sought for perhaps in Rome, perhaps in Syria,\nperhaps in both places, certainly not in Alexandria.\n\n7. The main ideas are: (1) The monarchy of God. (2) the syzygies (weak\nand strong). (3) Prophecy (the true Prophet). (4) Stoical rationalism,\nbelief in providence, good works. [Greek: Philanthropia], etc.--Mosaism.\nThe Homilies are completely saturated with stoicism, both in their\nethical and metaphysical systems, and are opposed to Platonism, though\nPlato is quoted in Hom. XV. 8, as [Greek: Hellenon sophistia] (a wise\nman of the Greeks). In addition to these ideas we have also a strong\nhierarchical tendency. The material which the authors made use of was in\ngreat part derived from syncretistic Jewish Christian tradition, in\nother words, those histories of the Apostles were here utilised which\nEpiphanius reports to have been used by the Ebionites (see above). It is\nnot probable, however, that these writings in their original form were\nin the hands of the narrators; the likelihood is that they made use of\nthem in revised forms.\n\n8. It must be reserved for an accurate investigation to ascertain\nwhether those modified versions which betray clear marks of Hellenic\norigin, were made within syncretistic Judaism itself, or whether they\nare to be traced back to Catholic writers. In either case, they should\nnot be placed earlier than about the beginning of the third century, but\nin all probability one or two generations later still.\n\n9. If we adopt the first assumption, it is most natural to think of that\npropaganda which, according to the testimony of Hippolytus and Origen,\nJewish Christianity attempted in Rome in the age of Caracalla and\nHeliogabalus, through the medium of the Syrian, Alcibiades. This\ncoincides with the last great advance of Syrian cults into the West, and\nis, at the same time, the only one known to us historically. But it is\nfurther pretty generally admitted that the immediate sources of the\nPseudo-Clementines already presuppose the existence of Elkesaite\nChristianity. We should accordingly have to assume that in the West,\nthis Christianity made greater concessions to the prevailing type, that\nit gave up circumcision and accommodated itself to the Church system of\nGentile Christianity, at the same time withdrawing its polemic against\nPaul.\n\n10. Meanwhile the existence of such a Jewish Christianity is not as yet\nproved, and therefore we must reckon with the possibility that the\nremodelled form of the Jewish Christian sources, already found in\nexistence by the revisers of the Pseudo-Clementine Romances, was solely\na Catholic literary product. In this assumption, which commends itself\nboth as regards the aim of the composition and its presupposed\nconditions, we must remember that, from the third century onwards,\nCatholic writers systematically corrected, and to a great extent\nreconstructed, the heretical histories which were in circulation in the\nchurches as interesting reading, and that the extent and degree of this\nreconstruction varied exceedingly, according to the theological and\nhistorical insight of the writer. The identifying of pure Mosaism with\nChristianity was in itself by no means offensive when there was no\nfurther question of circumcision. The clear distinction between the\nceremonial and moral parts of the Old Testament, could no longer prove\nan offence after the great struggle with Gnosticism.[451] The strong\ninsistence upon the unity of God, and the rejection of the doctrine of\nthe Logos, were by no means uncommon in the beginning of the third\ncentury; and in the speculations about Adam and Christ, in the views\nabout God and the world and such, like, as set before us in the\nimmediate sources of the Romances, the correct and edifying elements\nmust have seemed to outweigh the objectionable. At any rate, the\nhistorian who, until further advised, denies the existence of a Jewish\nChristianity composed of the most contradictory elements, lacking\ncircumcision and national hopes, and bearing marks of Catholic and\ntherefore of Hellenic influence, judges more prudently than he who\nasserts, solely on the basis of Romances which are accompanied by no\ntradition and have never been the objects of assault, the existence of a\nJewish Christianity accommodating itself to Catholicism which is\nentirely unattested.\n\n11. Be that as it may, it may at least be regarded as certain that the\nPseudo-Clementines contribute absolutely nothing to our knowledge of the\norigin of the Catholic Church and doctrine, as they shew at best in\ntheir immediate sources a Jewish Christianity strongly influenced by\nCatholicism and Hellenism.\n\n12. They must be used with great caution even in seeking to determine\nthe tendencies and inner history of syncretistic Jewish Christianity. It\ncannot be made out with certainty, how far back the first sources of the\nPseudo-Clementines date, or what their original form and tendency were.\nAs to the first point, it has indeed been said that Justin, nay, even\nthe author of the Acts of the Apostles, presupposes them, and that the\nCatholic tradition of Peter, in Rome, and of Simon Magus, are dependent\non them (as is still held by Lipsius); but there is so little proof of\nthis adduced, that in Christian literature up to the end of the second\ncentury (Hegesippus?) we can only discover very uncertain traces of\nacquaintance with Jewish Christian historical narrative. Such\nindications can only be found, to any considerable extent, in the third\ncentury, and I do not mean to deny that the contents of the Jewish\nChristian histories of the Apostles contributed materially to the\nformation of the ecclesiastical legends about Peter. As is shewn in the\nPseudo-Clementines, these histories of the Apostles especially opposed\nSimon Magus and his adherents (the new Samaritan attempt at a universal\nreligion), and placed the authority of the Apostle Peter against them.\nBut they also opposed the Apostle Paul, and seem to have transferred\nSimonian features to Paul, and Pauline features to Simon. Yet it is also\npossible that the Pauline traits found in the magician were the outcome\nof the redaction, in so far as the whole polemic against Paul is here\nstruck out, though certain parts of it have been woven into the polemic\nagainst Simon. But probably the Pauline features of the magician are\nmerely an appearance. The Pseudo-Clementines may, to some extent, be\nused, though with caution, in determining the doctrines of syncretistic\nJewish Christianity. In connection with this we must take what\nEpiphanius says as our standard. The Pantheistic and Stoic elements\nwhich are found here and there must of course be eliminated. But the\ntheory of the genesis of the world from a change in God himself (that is\nfrom a [Greek: probole]), the assumption that all things emanated from\nGod in antitheses (Son of God--Devil; heaven--earth; male--female; male\nand female prophecy), nay, that these antitheses are found in God\nhimself (goodness, to which corresponds the Son of God--punitive\njustice, to which corresponds the Devil), the speculations about the\nelements which have proceeded from the one substance, the ignoring of\nfreedom in the question about the origin of evil, the strict adherence\nto the unity and absolute causality of God, in spite of the dualism, and\nin spite of the lofty predicates applied to the Son of God--all this\nplainly bears the Semitic-Jewish stamp.\n\nWe must here content ourselves with these indications. They were meant\nto set forth briefly the reasons which forbid our assigning to\nsyncretistic Jewish Christianity, on the basis of the Pseudo-\nClementines, a place in the history of the genesis of the Catholic\nChurch and its doctrine.\n\nBigg, The Clementine Homilies (Studia Biblica et Eccles. II. p. 157\nff.), has propounded the hypothesis that the Homilies are an Ebionitic\nrevision of an older Catholic original (see p. 1841: \"The Homilies as we\nhave it, is a recast of an orthodox work by a highly unorthodox editor.\"\nP. 175: \"The Homilies are surely the work of a Catholic convert to\nEbionitism, who thought he saw in the doctrine of the two powers the\nonly tenable answer to Gnosticism. We can separate his Catholicism from\nhis Ebionitism, just as surely as his Stoicism\"). This is the opposite\nof the view expressed by me in the text. I consider Bigg's hypothesis\nwell worth examining, and at first sight not improbable; but I am not\nable to enter into it here.\n\n\n[Footnote 403: The attitude of the recently discovered \"Teaching of the\ntwelve Apostles\" is strictly universalistic, and hostile to Judaism as a\nnation, but shews us a Christianity still essentially uninfluenced by\nphilosophic elements. The impression made by this fact has caused some\nscholars to describe the treatise as a document of Jewish Christianity.\nBut the attitude of the Didache is rather the ordinary one of\nuniversalistic early Christianity on the soil of the Graeco-Roman world.\nIf we describe this as Jewish Christian, then from the meaning which we\nmust give to the words \"Christian\" and \"Gentile Christian\", we tacitly\nlegitimise an undefined and undefinable aggregate of Greek ideas, along\nwith a specifically Pauline element, as primitive Christianity, and this\nis perhaps not the intended, but yet desired, result of the false\nterminology. Now, if we describe even such writings as the Epistle of\nJames and the Shepherd of Hermas as Jewish Christian, we therewith\nreduce the entire early Christianity, which is the creation of a\nuniversal religion on the soil of Judaism, to the special case of an\nindefinable religion. The same now appears as one of the particular\nvalues of a completely indeterminate magnitude. Hilgenfeld (Judenthum\nund Juden-christenthum, 1886; cf. also Ztschr f. wiss. Theol. 1886, II.\n4) advocates another conception of Jewish Christianity in opposition to\nthe following account. Zahn, Gesch. des N.T-lich. Kanons, II. p. 668 ff.\nhas a different view still.]\n\n[Footnote 404: Or even Ebionitism; the designations are to be used as\nsynonymous.]\n\n[Footnote 405: The more rarely the right standard has been set up in the\nliterature of Church history, for the distinction of Jewish\nChristianity, the more valuable are those writings in which it is found.\nWe must refer, above all, to Diestel, Geschichte des A. T. in der\nChristl. Kirche, p. 44, note 7.]\n\n[Footnote 406: See Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1883. Col. 409 f. as to the attempt\nof Joel to make out that the whole of Christendom up to the end of the\nfirst century was strictly Jewish Christian, and to exhibit the complete\nfriendship of Jews and Christians in that period (\"Blicke in die\nReligionsgesch.\" 2 Abth. 1883). It is not improbable that Christians\nlike James, living in strict accordance with the law, were for the time\nbeing respected even by the Pharisees in the period preceding the\ndestruction of Jerusalem. But that can in no case have been the rule. We\nsee from, Epiph., h. 29. 9. and from the Talmud, what was the custom at\na later period.]\n\n[Footnote 407: There were Jewish Christians who represented the position\nof the great Church with reference to the Old Testament religion, and\nthere were some who criticised the Old Testament like the Gnostics.\nTheir contention may have remained as much an internal one, as that\nbetween the Church Fathers and Gnostics (Marcion) did, so far as Jewish\nChristianity is concerned. There may have been relations between Gnostic\nJewish Christians and Gnostics, not of a national Jewish type, in Syria\nand Asia Minor, though we are completely in the dark on the matter.]\n\n[Footnote 408: From the mere existence of Jewish Christians, those\nChristians who rejected the Old Testament might have argued against the\nmain body of Christendom and put before it the dilemma: either Jewish\nChristian or Marcionite. Still more logical indeed was the dilemma:\neither Jewish, or Marcionite Christian.]\n\n[Footnote 409: So did the Montanists and Antimontanists mutually\nreproach each other with Judaising (see the Montanist writings of\nTertullian). Just in the same way the arrangements as to worship and\norganisation, which were ever being more richly developed, were\ndescribed by the freer parties as Judaising, because they made appeal to\nthe Old Testament, though, as regards their contents, they had little in\ncommon with Judaism. But is not the method of claiming Old Testament\nauthority for the regulations rendered necessary by circumstances nearly\nas old as Christianity itself? Against whom the lost treatise of Clement\nof Alexandria \"[Greek: kanon ekklesiastikos he pros tous Ioudaizontas]\"\n(Euseb., H. E. VI. 13. 3) was directed, we cannot tell. But as we read,\nStrom., VI. 15, 125, that the Holy Scriptures are to be expounded\naccording to the [Greek: ekklesiastikos kanon], and then find the\nfollowing definition of the Canon: [Greek: kanon de ekklesiastikos he\nsunodia kai sumphonia nomon te kai propheton te kata ten tou kuriou\nparousian paradidomenei diathekei], we may conjecture that the Judaisers\nwere those Christians, who, in principle, or to some extent, objected to\nthe allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament. We have then to\nthink either of Marcionite Christians or of \"Chiliasts,\" that is, the\nold Christians who were still numerous in Egypt about the middle of the\nthird century (see Dionys. Alex, in Euseb., H. E. VII. 24). In the first\ncase, the title of the treatise would be paradoxical. But perhaps the\ntreatise refers to the Quarto-decimans, although the expression [Greek:\nkanon ekklesiastikos] seems too ponderous for them (see, however, Orig.,\nComm. in Matth. n. 76, ed. Delarue III. p. 895) Clement may possibly\nhave had Jewish Christians before him. See Zahn, Forschungen, vol. III.\np. 37 f.]\n\n[Footnote 410: Cases of this kind are everywhere, up to the fifth\ncentury, so numerous that they need not be cited. We may only remind the\nreader that the Nestorian Christology was described by its earliest and\nits latest opponents as Ebionitic.]\n\n[Footnote 411: Or were those western Christians Ebionitic who, in the\nfourth century still clung to very realistic Chiliastic hopes, who, in\nfact, regarded their Christianity as consisting in these?]\n\n[Footnote 412: The hellenising of Christianity went hand in hand with a\nmore extensive use of the Old Testament; for, according to the\nprinciples of Catholicism, every new article of the Church system must\nbe able to legitimise itself as springing from revelation. But, as a\nrule, the attestation could only be gathered from the Old Testament,\nsince religion here appears in the fixed form of a secular community.\nNow the needs of a secular community for outward regulations gradually\nbecame so strong in the Church as to require palpable ceremonial rules.\nBut it cannot be denied, that from a certain point of time, first by\nmeans of the fiction of Apostolic constitutions (see my edition of the\nDidache, Prolegg. p. 239 ff.), and then without this fiction, not,\nhowever, as a rule, without reservations, ceremonial regulations were\nsimply taken over from the Old Testament. But this transference (See Bk.\nII.) takes place at a time when there can be absolutely no question of\nan influence of Jewish Christianity. Moreover, it always proves itself\nto be catholic by the fact that it did not in the least soften the\ntraditional anti-Judaism. On the contrary, it attained its full growth\nin the age of Constantine. Finally, it should not be overlooked that at\nall times in antiquity, certain provincial churches were exposed to\nJewish influences, especially in the East and in Arabia, that they were\ntherefore threatened with being Judaised, or with apostasy to Judaism,\nand that even at the present day, certain Oriental Churches shew tokens\nof having once been subject to Jewish influences (see Serapion in Euseb,\nH. E. VI. 12. 1, Martyr. Pion., Epiph. de mens. et pond. 15. 18; my\nTexte u. Unters. I. 3. p. 73 f., and Wellhausen, Skizzen und\nVorarbeiten, Part. 3. p. 197 ff.; actual disputations with Jews do not\nseem to have been common, though see Tertull. adv. Jud. and Orig. c.\nCels. I. 45, 49, 55: II. 31. Clement also keeps in view Jewish\nobjections.) This Jewish Christianity, if we like to call it so, which\nin some regions of the East was developed through an immediate influence\nof Judaism on Catholicism, should not, however, be confounded with the\nJewish Christianity which is the most original form in which\nChristianity realised itself. This was no longer able to influence the\nChristianity which had shaken itself free from the Jewish nation (as to\nfutile attempts, see below), any more than the protecting covering\nstripped from the new shoot, can ever again acquire significance for the\nlatter.]\n\n[Footnote 413: What is called the ever-increasing legal feature of\nGentile Christianity and the Catholic Church is conditioned by its\norigin, in so far as its theory is rooted in that of Judaism\nspiritualised and influenced by Hellenism. As the Pauline conception of\nthe law never took effect and a criticism of the Old Testament religion\nwhich is just law neither understood nor ventured upon in the larger\nChristendom--the forms were not criticised, but the contents\nspiritualised--so the theory that Christianity is promise and spiritual\nlaw is to be regarded as the primitive one. Between the spiritual law\nand the national law there stand indeed ceremonial laws, which, without\nbeing spiritually interpreted, could yet be freed from the national\napplication. It cannot be denied that the Gentile Christian communities\nand the incipient Catholic Church were very careful and reserved in\ntheir adoption of such laws from the Old Testament, and that the later\nChurch no longer observed this caution. But still it is only a question\nof degree for there are many examples of that adoption in the earliest\nperiod of Christendom. The latter had no cause for hurry in utilizing\nthe Old Testament so long as there was no external or internal policy or\nso long as it was still in embryo. The decisive factor lies here again\nin enthusiasm and not in changing theories. The basis for these was\nsupplied from the beginning. But a community of individuals under\nspiritual excitement builds on this foundation something different from\nan association which wishes to organise and assert itself as such on\nearth. (The history of Sunday is specially instructive here, see Zahn,\nGesch. des Sonntags, 1878, as well as the history of the discipline of\nfasting, see Linsenmayr, Entwickelung der Kirchl Fastendisciplin, 1877,\nand Die Abgabe des Zehnten. In general, Cf. Ritschl Entstehung der\nAltkath Kirche 2 edit. pp. 312 ff., 331 ff., 1 Cor. IX. 9, may be\nnoted).]\n\n[Footnote 414: Justin. Apol. I. 53, Dial. 47, Euseb. H. E. IV. 5, Sulpic\nSev. Hist. Sacr. II. 31, Cyrill. Catech. XIV. 15. Important testimonies\nin Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius and Jerome.]\n\n[Footnote 415: No Jewish Christian writings have been transmitted to us\neven from the earliest period, for the Apocalypse of John, which\ndescribes the Jews as a synagogue of Satan, is not a Jewish Christian\nbook (III. 9 especially shews that the author knows of only one covenant\nof God, viz. that with the Christians). Jewish Christian sources lie at\nthe basis of our synoptic Gospels, but none of them in their present\nform is a Jewish Christian writing. The Acts of the Apostles is so\nlittle Jewish Christian, its author seemingly so ignorant of Jewish\nChristianity, at least so unconcerned with regard to it that to him the\nspiritualised Jewish law, or Judaism as a religion which he connects as\nclosely as possible with Christianity, is a factor already completely\ndetached from the Jewish people (see Overbeck's Commentar z Apostelgesch\nand his discussion in the Ztschr f wiss. Theol. 1872 p. 305 ff.)\nMeasured by the Pauline theology we may indeed, with Overbeck, say of\nthe Gentile Christianity, as represented by the author of the Acts of\nthe Apostles, that it already has germs of Judaism, and represents a\nfalling off from Paulinism; but these expressions are not correct,\nbecause they have at least the appearance of making Paulinism the\noriginal form of Gentile Christianity. But as this can neither be proved\nnor believed, the religious attitude of the author of the Acts of the\nApostles must have been a very old one in Christendom. The Judaistic\nelement was not first introduced into Gentile Christianity by the\nopponents of Paul, who indeed wrought in the national sense, and there\nis even nothing to lead to the hypothesis that the common Gentile\nChristian view of the Old Testament and of the law should be conceived\nas resulting from the efforts of Paul and his opponents, for the\nconsequent effect here would either have been null, or a strengthening\nof the Jewish Christian thesis. The Jewish element, that is the total\nacceptance of the Jewish religion _sub specie aeternitatis et Christi_,\nis simply the original Christianity of the Gentile Christians itself\nconsidered as theory. Contrary to his own intention, Paul was compelled\nto lead his converts to this Christianity, for only for such\nChristianity was \"the time fulfilled\" within the empire of the world.\nThe Acts of the Apostles gives eloquent testimony to the pressing\ndifficulties which under such circumstances stand in the way of a\nhistorical understanding of the Gentile Christians in view of the work\nand the theology of Paul. Even the Epistle to the Hebrews is not a\nJewish Christian writing, but there is certainly a peculiar state of\nthings connected with this document. For, on the one hand, the author\nand his readers are free from the law; a spiritual interpretation is\ngiven to the Old Testament religion, which makes it appear to be\nglorified and fulfilled in the work of Christ; and there is no mention\nof any prerogative of the people of Israel. But, on the other hand,\nbecause the spiritual interpretation, as in Paul, is here teleological,\nthe author allows a temporary significance to the cultus as literally\nunderstood, and therefore, by his criticism he conserves the Old\nTestament religion for the past, while declaring that it was set aside,\nas regards the present, by the fulfilment of Christ. The teleology of\nthe author, however, looks at everything only from the point of view of\nshadow and reality, an antithesis which is at the service of Paul also,\nbut which in his case vanishes behind the antithesis of law and grace.\nThis scheme of thought, which is to be traced back to a way of looking\nat things which arose in Christian Judaism, seeing that it really\ndistinguishes between old and new, stands midway between the conception\nof the Old Testament religion entertained by Paul, and that of the\ncommon Gentile Christian as it is represented by Barnabas. The author of\nthe Epistle to the Hebrews undoubtedly knows of a twofold covenant of\nGod. But the two are represented as stages, so that the second is\ncompletely based on the first. This view was more likely to be\nunderstood by the Gentile Christians than the Pauline, that is, with\nsome seemingly slight changes, to be recognised as their own. But even\nit at first fell to the ground, and it was only in the conflict with the\nMarcionites that some Church Fathers advanced to views which seem to be\nrelated to those of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Whether the author of\nthis Epistle was a born Jew or a Gentile--in the former case he would\nfar surpass the Apostle Paul in his freedom from the national claims--we\ncannot, at any rate, recognise in it a document containing a conception\nwhich still prizes the Jewish nationality in Christianity, nay, not even\na document to prove that such a conception was still dangerous.\nConsequently, we have no Jewish Christian memorial in the New Testament\nat all, unless it be in the Pauline Epistles. But as concerns the early\nChristian literature outside the Canon, the fragments of the great work\nof Hegesippus are even yet by some investigators claimed for Jewish\nChristianity. Weizsaecker (Art \"Hegesippus\" in Herzog's R. E. 2 edit) has\nshewn how groundless this assumption is. That Hegesippus occupied the\ncommon Gentile Christian position is certain from unequivocal testimony\nof his own. If, as is very improbable, we were obliged to ascribe to him\na rejection of Paul, we should have to refer to Eusebius, H. E. IV. 29.\n5. ([Greek: Seuerianoi blasphemountes Paulon ton apostolon athetousin\nautou tas epistolas mede tas praxeis ton apostolon katadechomenoi], but\nprobably the Gospels; these Severians therefore, like Marcion,\nrecognised the Gospel of Luke, but rejected the Acts of the Apostles),\nand Orig. c. Cels. V. 65: ([Greek: eisi gar tines haireseis tas Paulou\nepistolas tou apostolou me prosiemenai hosper Ebionaioi amphoteroi kai\nhoi kaloumenoi Enkratetai]). Consequently, our only sources of knowledge\nof Jewish Christianity in the post-Pauline period are merely the\naccounts of the Church Fathers, and some additional fragments (see the\ncollection of fragments of the Ebionite Gospel and that to the Hebrews\nin Hilgenfeld, Nov. Test, extra can. rec. fasc. IV. Ed 2, and in Zahn,\nl. c. II. p 642 ff.). We know better, but still very imperfectly,\ncertain forms of the syncretistic Jewish Christianity, from the\nPhilosoph. of Hippolytus and the accounts of Epiphanius, who is\ncertainly nowhere more incoherent than in the delineation of the Jewish\nChristians, because he could not copy original documents here, but was\nforced to piece together confused traditions with his own observations.\nSee below on the extensive documents which are even yet as they stand,\ntreated as records of Jewish Christianity, viz., the Pseudo-Clementines.\nOf the pieces of writing whose Jewish Christian origin is controverted,\nin so far as they may be simply Jewish, I say nothing.]\n\n[Footnote 416: As to the chief localities where Jewish Christians were\nfound, see Zahn, Kanonsgesch. II. p. 648 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 417: Dialogue 47.]\n\n[Footnote 418: Yet it should be noted that the Christians who, according\nto Dial. 48, denied the pre-existence of Christ and held him to be a\nman, are described as Jewish Christians. We should read in the passage\nin question, as my recent comparison of the Parisian codex shews,\n[Greek: apo tou umeterou genous]. Yet Justin did not make this a\ncontroversial point of great moment.]\n\n[Footnote 419: The so-called Barnabas is considerably older than Justin.\nIn his Epistle (4. 6) he has in view Gentile Christians who have been\nconverted by Jewish Christians, when he utters a warning against those\nwho say [Greek: hoti a diatheke ekeinon] (the Jews) [Greek: kai hemon\n(estin)]. But how great the actual danger was cannot be gathered from\nthe Epistle. Ignatius in two Epistles (ad Magn. 8-10, ad Philad. 6. 9)\nopposes Jewish Christian intrigues, and characterises them solely from\nthe point of view that they mean to introduce the Jewish observance of\nthe law. He opposes them with a Pauline idea (Magn. 8 1: [Greek: ei gar\nmechri nun kata nomon. Ioudaismon zomen homologoumen charin me\neilephenai]), as well as with the common Gentile Christian assumption\nthat the prophets themselves had already lived [Greek: kata Christon].\nThese Judaists must be strictly distinguished from the Gnostics whom\nIgnatius elsewhere opposes (against Zahn, Ignat. v. Ant. p. 356 f.). The\ndangers from this Jewish Christianity cannot have been very serious,\neven if we take Magn. 11. 1, as a phrase. There was an active Jewish\ncommunity in Philadelphia (Rev. III. 9), and so Jewish Christian plots\nmay have continued longer there. At the first look it seems very\npromising that in the old dialogue of Aristo of Pella, a Hebrew\nChristian, Jason, is put in opposition to the Alexandrian Jew, Papiscus.\nBut as the history of the little book proves, this Jason must have\nessentially represented the common Christian and not the Ebionite\nconception of the Old Testament and its relation to the Gospel, etc; see\nmy Texte u. Unters. I. 1 2. p. 115 ff.; I. 3 p. 115-130. Testimony as to\nan apostasy to Judaism is occasionally though rarely given; see Serapion\nin Euseb., H. E. VI. 12, who addresses a book to one Domninus, [Greek:\nekpeptokota para ton tou diogmou kairon apo tes eis Christon pisteos epi\nten Ioudaiken ethelothreskeian]; see also Acta Pionii, 13. 14. According\nto Epiphanius, de mens. et pond. 14, 15, Acquila, the translator of the\nBible, was first a Christian and then a Jew. This account is perhaps\nderived from Origen, and is probably reliable. Likewise according to\nEpiphanius (l. c. 17. 18), Theodotion was first a Marcionite and then a\nJew. The transition from Marcionitism to Judaism (for extremes meet) is\nnot in itself incredible.]\n\n[Footnote 420: It follows from c. Cels II. 1-3, that Celsus could hardly\nhave known Jewish Christians.]\n\n[Footnote 421: Iren. I. 26. 2; III 11. 7; III. 15. 1, 21. 1; IV. 33. 4;\nV. 1. 3. We first find the name Ebionaei, the poor, in Irenaeus. We are\nprobably entitled to assume that this name was given to the Christians\nin Jerusalem as early as the Apostolic age, that is, they applied it to\nthemselves (poor in the sense of the prophets and of Christ, fit to be\nreceived into the Messianic kingdom). It is very questionable whether we\nshould put any value on Epiph. h. 30. 17.]\n\n[Footnote 422: When Irenaeus adduces as the points of distinction between\nthe Church and the Ebionites, that besides observing the law and\nrepudiating the Apostle Paul, the latter deny the Divinity of Christ and\nhis birth from the Virgin, and reject the New Testament Canon (except\nthe Gospel of Matthew), that only proves that the formation of dogma has\nmade progress in the Church. The less was known of the Ebionites from\npersonal observation, the more confidently they were made out to be\nheretics who denied the Divinity of Christ and rejected the Canon. The\ndenial of the Divinity of Christ and the birth from the Virgin was, from\nthe end of the second century, regarded as the Ebionite heresy _par\nexcellence_, and the Ebionites themselves appeared to the Western\nChristians, who obtained their information solely from the East, to be a\nschool like those of the Gnostics, founded by a scoundrel named Ebion\nfor the purpose of dragging down the person of Jesus to the common\nlevel. It is also mentioned incidentally, that this Ebion had commanded\nthe observance of circumcision and the Sabbath; but that is no longer\nthe main thing (see Tertull, de carne 14, 18, 24: de virg. vel. 6: de\npraescr. 10. 33; Hippol, Syntagma, (Pseudo-Tertull, 11; Philastr. 37;\nEpiph. h. 30); Hippol, Philos. VII. 34. The latter passage contains the\ninstructive statement that Jesus by his perfect keeping of the law\nbecame the Christ). This attitude of the Western Christians proves that\nthey no longer knew Jewish Christian communities. Hence it is all the\nmore strange that Hilgenfeld (Ketzergesch. p. 422 ff.) has in all\nearnestness endeavoured to revive the Ebion of the Western Church\nFathers.]\n\n[Footnote 423: See Orig. c. Cels II. 1; V. 61, 65; de princip. IV. 22;\nhom. in Genes. III. 15 (Opp. II. p. 65); hom. in Jerem XVII. 12 (III. p.\n254); in Matth. T. XVI. 12 (III. p. 494), T. XVII. 12 (III. p. 733); cf.\nOpp. III. p. 895; hom in XVII. (III. p. 952). That a portion of the\nEbionites recognised the birth from the Virgin was according to Origen\nfrequently attested. That was partly reckoned to them for righteousness\nand partly not, because they would not admit the pre-existence of\nChrist. The name \"Ebionites\" is interpreted as a nickname given them by\nthe Church (\"beggarly\" in the knowledge of scripture, and particularly\nof Christology).]\n\n[Footnote 424: Eusebius knows no more than Origen (H. E. III. 27),\nunless we specially credit him with the information that the Ebionites\nkeep along with the Sabbath also the Sunday. What he says of Symmachus,\nthe translator of the Bible, and an Ebionite, is derived from Origen (H.\nE. VI. 17). The report is interesting, because it declares that\nSymmachus _wrote_ against Catholic Christianity, especially against the\nCatholic Gospel of Matthew (about the year 200). But Symmachus is to be\nclassed with the Gnostics, and not with the common type of Jewish\nChristianity (see below). We have also to thank Eusebius (H. E. III. 5.\n3) for the information that the Christians of Jerusalem fled to Pella,\nin Peraea, before the destruction of that city. In the following period\nthe most important settlements of the Ebionites must have been in the\ncountries east of the Jordan, and in the heart of Syria (see Jul. Afric.\nin Euseb. H. E. I. 7. 14; Euseb. de loc. hebr. in Lagarde, Onomast p.\n301; Epiph., h. 29. 7; h. 30. 2). This fact explains how the bishops in\nJerusalem and the coast towns of Palestine came to see very little of\nthem. There was a Jewish Christian community in Beroea with which Jerome\nhad relations (Jerom., de Vir inl 3).]\n\n[Footnote 425: Jerome correctly declares (Ep. ad. August. 122 c. 13,\nOpp. I. p. 746), \"(Ebionitae) credentes in Christo propter hoc solum a\npatribus anathematizati sunt, quod legis caeremonias Christi evangelio\nmiscuerunt, et sic nova confessi sunt, ut vetera non omitterent.\"]\n\n[Footnote 426: Ep. ad August. l. c.: \"Quid dicam de Hebionitis, qui\nChristianos esse se simulant? usque hodie per totas orientis synagogas\ninter Judaeos(!) haeresis est, que dicitur Minaeorum et a Pharisaeis nunc\nusque damnatur, quos vulgo Nazaraeos nuncupant, qui credunt in Christum\nfilium dei natum de Virgine Maria et eum dicunt esse, qui sub pontio\nPilato passus est et resurrexit, in quem et nos credimus; sed dum volunt\net Judaei esse et Christiani, nec Judaei sunt nec Christiani.\" The\napproximation of the Jewish Christian conception to that of the\nCatholics shews itself also in their exposition of Isaiah IX. 1. f. (see\nJerome on the passage). But we must not forget that there were such\nJewish Christians from the earliest times. It is worthy of note that the\nname Nazarenes, as applied to Jewish Christians, is found in the Acts of\nthe Apostles XXIV. 5, in the Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus, and then\nfirst again in Jerome.]\n\n[Footnote 427: Zahn, l. c. p. 648 ff. 668 ff. has not convinced me of\nthe contrary, but I confess that Jerome's style of expression is not\neverywhere clear.]\n\n[Footnote 428: Zahn, (l. c.) makes a sharp distinction between the\nNazarenes, on the one side, who used the Gospel of the Hebrews,\nacknowledged the birth from the Virgin, and in fact the higher\nChristology to some extent, did not repudiate Paul, etc., and the\nEbionites on the other, whom he simply identifies with the Gnostic\nJewish Christians, if I am not mistaken. In opposition to this, I think\nI must adhere to the distinction as given above in the text and in the\nfollowing: (1) Non-Gnostic, Jewish Christians (Nazarenes, Ebionites) who\nappeared in various shades, according to their doctrine and attitude to\nthe Gentile Church, and whom, with the Church Fathers, we may\nappropriately classify as strict or tolerant (exclusive or liberal). (2)\nGnostic or syncretistic Judaeo-Christians who are also termed Ebionites.]\n\n[Footnote 429: This Gospel no doubt greatly interested the scholars of\nthe Catholic Church from Clement of Alexandria onwards. But they have\nalmost all contrived to evade the hard problem which it presented. It\nmay be noted, incidentally, that the Gospel of the Hebrews, to judge\nfrom the remains preserved to us, can neither have been the model nor\nthe translation of our Matthew, but a work independent of this, though\ndrawing from the same sources, representing perhaps to some extent an\nearlier stage of the tradition. Jerome also knew very well that the\nGospel of the Hebrews was not the original of the canonical Matthew, but\nhe took care not to correct the old prejudice. Ebionitic conceptions,\nsuch as that of the female nature of the Holy Spirit, were of course\nleast likely to convince the Church Fathers. Moreover, the common Jewish\nChristians hardly possessed a Church theology, because for them\nChristianity was something entirely different from the doctrine of a\nschool. On the Gospel of the Hebrews, see Handmann (Texte u. Unters V.\n3), Resch, Agrapha (I. c. V. 4), and Zahn, 1. c. p. 642 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 430: We have as yet no history of the sacrificial system, and\nthe views as to sacrifice in the Graeco-Roman epoch, of the Jewish\nNation. It is urgently needed.]\n\n[Footnote 431: We may remind readers of the assumptions, that the world\nwas created by angels, that the law was given by angels, and similar\nones which are found in the theology of the Pharisees Celsus (in Orig.\nI. 26; V. 6) asserts generally that the Jews worshipped angels, so does\nthe author of the Praedicatio Petri, as well as the apologist Aristides.\nCf Joel, Blicke in die Religionsgesch I. Abth, a book which is certainly\nto be used with caution (see Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1881. Coll. 184 ff.).]\n\n[Footnote 432: No reliance can be placed on Jewish sources, or on Jewish\nscholars, as a rule. What we find in Joel, l. c. I. Abth. p. 101 ff. is\ninstructive. We may mention Graetz, Gnosticismus und Judenthum\n(Krotoschin, 1846), who has called attention to the Gnostic elements in\nthe Talmud, and dealt with several Jewish Gnostics and Antignostics, as\nwell as with the book of Jezira. Graetz assumes that the four main\ndogmatic points in the book Jezira, viz., the strict unity of the deity,\nand, at the same time, the negation of the demiurgic dualism, the\ncreation out of nothing with the negation of matter, the systematic\nunity of the world and the balancing of opposites, were directed against\nprevailing Gnostic ideas.]\n\n[Footnote 433: We may pass over the false teachers of the Pastoral\nEpistles, as they cannot be with certainty determined, and the\npossibility is not excluded that we have here to do with an arbitrary\nconstruction; see Holtzman, Pastoralbriefe, p. 150 f.]\n\n[Footnote 434: Orig. in Euseb. VI. 38; Hippol., Philos. IX. 13 ff., X.\n29; Epiph., h. 30, also h. 19, 53; Method, Conviv. VIII. 10. From the\nconfused account of Epiphanius who called the common Jewish Christians\nNazarenes, the Gnostic type Ebionites and Sampsaei, and their Jewish\nforerunners Osseni, we may conclude, that in many regions where there\nwere Jewish Christians they yielded to the propaganda of the Elkesaite\ndoctrines, and that in the fourth century there was no other\nsyncretistic Jewish Christianity besides the various shades of\nElkesaites.]\n\n[Footnote 435: I formerly reckoned Symmachus, the translator of the\nBible, among the common Jewish Christians; but the statements of\nVictorinus Rhetor on Gal. I. 19. II. 26 (Migne T. VIII. Col. 1155, 1162)\nshew that he has a close affinity with the Pseudo-Clementines, and is\nalso to be classed with the Elkesaite Alcibiades. \"Nam Jacobum apostolum\nSymmachiani faciunt quasi duodecimum et hunc secuntur, qui ad dominum\nnostrum Jesum Christum adjungunt Judaismi observationem, quamquam etiam\nJesum Christum fatentur; dicunt enim eum ipsum Adam esse et esse animam\ngeneralem, et aliae hujusmodi blasphemiae.\" The account given by Eusebius,\nH. E. VI. 17 (probably on the authority of Origen, see also Demonstr.\nVII. I) is important: [Greek: Ton ge men hermeneuton auton de touton\nhisteon, Ebionaion ton Summachon gegonenai ... kai hupomnemata de tou\nSummachou eiseti nun pheretai, hen ois dokei pros to kata Matuaion\napoteinomenos euaggelion ten dedelomenen airesin kratunein.] Symmachus\ntherefore adopted an aggressive attitude towards the great Church, and\nhence we may probably class him with Alcibiades who lived a little\nlater. Common Jewish Christianity was no longer aggressive in the second\ncentury.]\n\n[Footnote 436: Wellhausen (l. c. Part III. p. 206) supposes that Elkesai\nis equivalent to Alexius. That the receiver of the \"book\" was a\nhistorical person is manifest from Epiphanius' account of his\ndescendants (h. 19. 2; 53. 1). From Hipp, Philosoph. IX. 16, p. 468, it\nis certainly probable, though not certain, that the book was produced by\nthe unknown author as early as the time of Trajan. On the other hand,\nthe existence of the sect itself can be proved only at the beginning of\nthe third century, and therefore we have the possibility of an\nante-dating of the \"book.\" This seems to have been Origen's opinion.]\n\n[Footnote 437: Epiph. (h. 53. 1) says of the Elkesaites: [Greek: oute\nchristianoi huparchontes oute Ioudaioi oute Ellenes, alla meson aplos\nuparchontes.] He pronounces a similar judgment as to the Samaritan sects\n(Simonians), and expressly (h. 30. 1) connects the Elkesaites with\nthem.]\n\n[Footnote 438: The worship paid to the descendants of this Elkesai,\nspoken of by Epiphanius, does not, if we allow for exaggerations, go\nbeyond the measure of honour which was regularly paid to the descendants\nof prophets and men of God in the East. Cf. the respect enjoyed by the\nblood relations of Jesus and Mohammed.]\n\n[Footnote 439: If the \"book\" really originated in the time of Trajan,\nthen its production keeps within the frame-work of common Christianity,\nfor at that time there were appearing everywhere in Christendom revealed\nbooks which contained new instructions and communications of grace. The\nreader may be reminded, for example, of the Shepherd of Hermas. When the\nsect declared that the \"book\" was delivered to Elkesai by a male and a\nfemale angel, each as large as a mountain, that these angels were the\nSon of God and the Holy Spirit, etc., we have, apart from the fantastic\ncolouring, nothing extraordinary.]\n\n[Footnote 440: It may be assumed from Philos. X. 29, that, in the\nopinion of Hippolytus, the Elkesaites identified the Christ from above\nwith the Son of God, and assumed that this Christ appeared on earth in\nchanging and purely human forms, and will appear again ([Greek: auton\nmetangizomenon en somasi pollois pollakis, kai nun de en to Iesou,\nhomoios pote men ek tou theou gegenesthai, pote de pneuma gegonenai,\npote de ek parthenou, pote de ou kai toutou de metepeita aei en somati\nmetangizesthai kai en pollois kata kairous deiknusthai]). As the\nElkesaites (see the account by Epiphanius) traced back the incarnations\nof Christ to Adam, and not merely to Abraham, we may see in this view of\nhistory the attempt to transform Mosaism into the universal religion.\nBut the Pharisitic theology had already begun with these\nAdam-speculations, which are always a sign that the religion in Judaism\nis feeling its limits too narrow. The Jews in Alexandria were also\nacquainted with these speculations.]\n\n[Footnote 441: In the Gospel of these Jewish Christians Jesus is made to\nsay (Epiph. h. 30. 16) [Greek: elthon katalusai tas thusias, kai ean me\npausesthe tou thuein, ou pausetai aph' humon he orge]. We see the\nessential progress of this Jewish Christianity within Judaism, in the\nopposition in principle to the whole sacrificial service (vid. also\nEpiph., h. 19. 3).]\n\n[Footnote 442: On this new Gospel see Zahn, Kanongesch II. p. 724 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 443: It is incorrect to suppose that the lustrations were\nmeant to take the place of baptism, or were conceived by these Jewish\nChristians as repeated baptisms. Their effect was certainly equal to\nthat of baptism. But it is nowhere hinted in our authorities that they\nwere on that account made equivalent to the regular baptism.]\n\n[Footnote 444: The characteristic here, as in the Gentile Christian\nGnosis, is the division of the person of Jesus into a more or less\nindifferent medium, and into the Christ. Here the factor constituting\nhis personality could sometimes be placed in that medium, and sometimes\nin the Christ spirit, and thus contradictory formulae could not but\narise. It is therefore easy to conceive how Epiphanius reproaches these\nJewish Christians with a denial, sometimes of the Divinity, and\nsometimes of the humanity of Christ (see h. 30. 14).]\n\n[Footnote 445: This syncretistic Judaism had indeed a significance for\nthe history of the world, not, however, in the history of Christianity,\nbut for the origin of Islam. Islam, as a religious system, is based\npartly on syncretistic Judaism (including the Zabians, so enigmatic in\ntheir origin), and, without questioning Mohammed's originality, can only\nbe historically understood by taking this into account. I have\nendeavoured to establish this hypothesis in a lecture printed in MS\nform, 1877. Cf. now the conclusive proofs in Wellhausen, l. c. Part III.\np. 197-212. On the Mandeans, see Brandt, Die Mandaeische Religion, 1889;\n(also Wellhausen in d. deutschen Lit. Ztg., 1890 No. 1. Lagarde i. d.\nGoett. Gel. Anz., 1890, No. 10).]\n\n[Footnote 446: See Bestmann, Gesch. der Christl. Sitte Bd. II. 1 Part:\nDie juden-christliche Sitte, 1883; also, Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1883. Col. 269\nff. The same author, Der Ursprung des Katholischen Christenthums und des\nIslams, 1884; also Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1884, Col. 291 ff.]\n\n[Footnote 447: See Schliemann, Die Clementinen etc. 1844; Hilgenfeld,\nDie Clementinischen Recogn. u. Homil, 1848; Ritschl, in d Allg\nMonatschrift f. Wissensch. u. Litt., 1852. Uhlhorn, Die Homil. u.\nRecogn., 1854; Lehmann, Die Clement. Schriften, 1869; Lipsius, in d.\nProtest. K. Ztg., 1869, p. 477 ff.; Quellen der Roemische Petrussage,\n1872. Uhlhorn, in Herzog's R. Encykl. (Clementinen) 2 Edit. III. p. 286,\nadmits: \"There can be no doubt that the Clementine question still\nrequires further discussion. It can hardly make any progress worth\nmentioning until we have collected better the material, and especially\ntill we have got a corrected edition with an exhaustive commentary.\" The\ntheory of the genesis, contents and aim of the pseudo-Clementine\nwritings, unfolded by Renan (Orig. T. VII. p. 74-101) is essentially\nidentical with that of German scholars. Langen (die Clemensromane, 1890)\nhas set up very bold hypotheses, which are also based on the assumption\nthat Jewish Christianity was an important church factor in the second\ncentury, and that the pseudo-Clementines are comparatively old\nwritings.]\n\n[Footnote 448: There is no external evidence for placing the\npseudo-Clementine writings in the second century. The oldest witness is\nOrigen (IV. p. 401, Lommatzsch); but the quotation: \"Quoniam opera bona,\nquae fiunt ab infidelibus, in hoc saeculo iis prosunt,\" etc., is not found\nin our Clementines, so that Origen appears to have used a still older\nversion. The internal evidence all points to the third century (canon,\ncomposition, theological attitude, etc.) Moreover, Zahn (Goett. Gel. Anz.\n1876. No. 45) and Lagarde have declared themselves in favour of this\ndate; while Lipsius (Apokr. Apostelgesch II. 1) and Weingarten\n(Zeittafeln, 3 Edit. p. 23) have recently expressed the same opinion.\nThe Homilies presuppose (1) Marcion's Antitheses, (2) Apelles'\nSyllogisms, (3) perhaps Callistus' edict about penance (see III. 70),\nand writings of Hippolytus (see also the expression [Greek: episkopos\nepiskopon], Clem. ep. ad Jacob I, which is first found in Tertull, de\npudic I.) (4) The most highly developed form of polemic against heathen\nmythology. (5) The complete development of church apologetics, as well\nas the conviction that Christianity is identical with correct and\nabsolute knowledge. They further presuppose a time when there was a lull\nin the persecution of Christians, for the Emperor, though pretty often\nreferred to, is never spoken of as a persecutor, and when the cultured\nheathen world was entirely disposed in favour of an eclectic monotheism.\nMoreover, the remarkable Christological statement in Hom. XVI. 15, 16.\npoints to the third century, in fact probably even presupposes the\ntheology of Origen; Cf. the sentence: [Greek: tou patros to me\ngegennesthai estin, huiou de to gegennesthai genneton de agenneto e kai\nautogenneto ou sunkrinetai.] Finally, the decided repudiation of the\nawakening of Christian faith by visions and dreams, and the polemic\nagainst these is also no doubt of importance for determining the date;\nsee XVII. 14-19. Peter says, Sec. 18: [Greek: to adidaktos aneu optasias\nkai oneiron mathein apokalupsis estin], he had already learned that at\nhis confession (Matt. XVI.). The question, [Greek: ei tis di optasian\npros didaskalian sophisthenai dunatai], is answered in the negative, Sec.\n19.]\n\n[Footnote 449: This is also acknowledged in Koffmane. Die Gnosis, etc,\np. 33].\n\n[Footnote 450: The Homilies, as we have them, are mainly composed of the\nspeeches of Peter and others. These speeches oppose polytheism,\nmythology and the doctrine of demons, and advocate monotheism, ascetic\nmorality and rationalism. The polemic against Simon Magus almost appears\nas a mere accessory.]\n\n[Footnote 451: This distinction can also be shewn elsewhere in the\nChurch of the third century. But I confess I do not know how Catholic\ncircles got over the fact that, for example, in the third book of the\nHomilies many passages of the old Testament are simply characterised as\nuntrue, immoral and lying. Here the Homilies remind one strongly of the\nSyllogisms of Apelles, the author of which, in other respects, opposed\nthem in the interest of his doctrine of creating angels. In some\npassages the Christianity of the Homilies really looks like a syncretism\ncomposed of the common Christianity, the Jewish Christianity,\nGnosticism, and the criticism of Apelles. Hom. VIII. 6-8 is also highly\nobjectionable.]\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX I.\n\n_On the Conception of Pre-existence._\n\n\nOn account of the importance of the question we may be here permitted to\namplify a few hints given in Chap. II., Sec. 4, and elsewhere, and to draw\na clearer distinction between the Jewish and Hellenic conceptions of\npre-existence.\n\nAccording to the theory held by the ancient Jews and by the whole of the\nSemitic nations, everything of real value, that from time to time\nappears on earth has its existence in heaven. In other words it exists\nwith God, that is, God possesses a knowledge of it; and for that reason\nit has a real being. But it exists beforehand with God in the same way\nas it appears on earth, that is with all the material attributes\nbelonging to its essence. Its manifestation on earth is merely a\ntransition from concealment to publicity ([Greek: Phanerousthai]). In\nbecoming visible to the senses, the object in question assumes no\nattribute that it did not already possess with God. Hence its material\nnature is by no means an inadequate expression of it, nor is it a second\nnature added to the first. The truth rather is that what was in heaven\nbefore is now revealing itself upon earth, without any sort of\nalteration taking place in the process. There is no _assumptio naturae\nnovae_, and no change or mixture. The old Jewish theory of pre-existence\nis founded on the religious idea of the omniscience and omnipotence of\nGod, that God to whom the events of history do not come as a surprise,\nbut who guides their course. As the whole history of the world and the\ndestiny of each individual are recorded on his tablets or books, so also\neach thing is ever present before him. The decisive contrast is between\nGod and the creature. In designating the latter as \"foreknown\" by God,\nthe primary idea is not to ennoble the creature, but rather to bring to\nlight the wisdom and power of God. The ennobling of created things by\nattributing to them a pre-existence is a secondary result (see below).\n\nAccording to the Hellenic conception, which has become associated with\nPlatonism, the idea of pre-existence is independent of the idea of God;\nit is based on the conception of the contrast between spirit and matter,\nbetween the infinite and finite, found in the cosmos itself. In the case\nof all spiritual beings, life in the body or flesh is at bottom an\ninadequate and unsuitable condition, for the spirit is eternal, the\nflesh perishable. But the pre-temporal existence, which was only a\ndoubtful assumption as regards ordinary spirits, was a matter of\ncertainty in the case of the higher and purer ones. They lived in an\nupper world long before this earth was created, and they lived there as\nspirits without the \"polluted garment of the flesh.\" Now if they\nresolved for some reason or other to appear in this finite world, they\ncannot simply become visible, for they have no \"visible form.\" They must\nrather \"assume flesh\", whether they throw it about them as a covering,\nor really make it their own by a process of transformation or mixture.\nIn all cases--and here the speculation gave rise to the most exciting\nproblems--the body is to them something inadequate which they cannot\nappropriate without adopting certain measures of precaution, but this\nprocess may indeed pass through all stages, from a mere seeming\nappropriation to complete union. The characteristics of the Greek ideas\nof pre-existence may consequently be thus expressed. First, the objects\nin question to which pre-existence is ascribed are meant to be ennobled\nby this attribute. Secondly, these ideas have no relation to God.\nThirdly, the material appearance is regarded as something inadequate.\nFourthly, speculations about _phantasma_, _assumptio naturae humanae_,\n_transmutatio_, _mixtura_, _duae naturae_, etc., were necessarily\nassociated with these notions.\n\nWe see that these two conceptions are as wide apart as the poles. The\nfirst has a religious origin, the second a cosmological and\npsychological, the first glorifies God, the second the created spirit.\n\nHowever, not only does a certain relationship in point of form exist\nbetween these speculations, but the Jewish conception is also found in a\nshape which seems to approximate still more to the Greek one.\n\nEarthly occurrences and objects are not only regarded as \"foreknown\" by\nGod before being seen in this world, but the latter manifestation is\nfrequently considered as the copy of the existence and nature which they\npossess in heaven, and which remains unalterably the same, whether they\nappear upon earth or not. That which is before God experiences no\nchange. As the destinies of the world are recorded in the books, and God\nreads them there, it being at the same time a matter of indifference, as\nregards this knowledge of his, when and how they are accomplished upon\nearth, so the Tabernacle and its furniture, the Temple, Jerusalem, etc.,\nare before God, and continue to exist before him in heaven, even during\ntheir appearance on earth and after it.\n\nThis conception seems really to have been the oldest one. Moses is to\nfashion the Temple and its furniture according to the pattern he saw on\nthe Mount (Exod. XXV. 9. 40; XXVI. 30; XXVII. 8; Num. VIII. 4). The\nTemple and Jerusalem exist in heaven, and they are to be distinguished\nfrom the earthly Temple and the earthly Jerusalem; yet the ideas of a\n[Greek: Phanerousthai] of the thing which is in heaven and of its copy\nappearing on earth, shade into one another and are not always clearly\nseparated.\n\nThe classing of things as original and copy was at first no more meant\nto glorify them than was the conception of a pre-existence they\npossessed within the knowledge of God. But since the view which in\ntheory was true of everything earthly, was, as is naturally to be\nexpected, applied in practice to nothing but valuable objects--for\nthings common and ever recurring give no impulse to such\nspeculations--the objects thus contemplated were ennobled, because they\nwere raised above the multitude of the commonplace. At the same time the\ntheory of original and copy could not fail to become a starting-point\nfor new speculations, as soon as the contrast between the spiritual and\nmaterial began to assume importance among the Jewish people.\n\nThat took place under the influence of the Greek spirit; and was perhaps\nalso the simultaneous result of an intellectual or moral development\nwhich arose independently of that spirit. Accordingly, a highly\nimportant advance in the old ideas of pre-existence appeared in the\nJewish theological literature belonging to the time of the Maccabees and\nthe following decades. To begin with, these conceptions are now applied\nto persons, which, so far as I know, was not the case before this\n(individualism). Secondly, the old distinction of original and copy is\nnow interpreted to mean that the copy is the inferior and more\nimperfect, that in the present aeon of the transient it cannot be\nequivalent to the original, and that we must therefore look forward to\nthe time when the original itself will make its appearance, (contrast of\nthe material and finite and the spiritual).\n\nWith regard to the first point, we have not only to consider passages in\nApocalypses and other writings in which pre-existence is attributed to\nMoses, the patriarchs, etc., (see above, p. 102), but we must, above\nall, bear in mind utterances like Ps. CXXXIX. 15, 16. The individual\nsaint soars upward to the thought that the days of his life are in the\nbook of God, and that he himself was before God, whilst he was still\nun-perfect. But, and this must not be overlooked, it was not merely his\nspiritual part that was before God, for there is not the remotest idea\nof such a distinction, but the whole man, although he is [Hebrew:\nbashar] (flesh).\n\nAs regards the second point, the distinction between a heavenly and an\nearthly Jerusalem, a heavenly and an earthly Temple, etc., is\nsufficiently known from the Apocalypses and the New Testament. But the\nimportant consideration is that the sacred things of earth were regarded\nas objects of less value, instalments, as it were, pending the\nfulfilment of the whole promise. The desecration and subsequent\ndestruction of sacred things must have greatly strengthened this idea.\nThe hope of the heavenly Jerusalem comforted men for the desecration or\nloss of the earthly one. But this gave at the same time the most\npowerful impulse to reflect whether it was not an essential feature of\nthis temporal state, that everything high and holy in it could only\nappear in a meagre and inadequate form. Thus the transition to Greek\nideas was brought about. The fulness of the time had come when the old\nJewish ideas, with a slightly mythological colouring, could amalgamate\nwith the ideal creations of Hellenic philosophers.\n\nThese, however, are also the general conditions which gave rise to the\nearliest Jewish speculations about a personal Messiah, except that, in\nthe case of the Messianic ideas within Judaism itself, the adoption of\nspecifically Greek thoughts, so far as I am able to see, cannot be made\nout.\n\nMost Jews, as Trypho testifies in Justin's Dialogue, 49, conceived the\nMessiah as a man. We may indeed go a step further and say that no Jew at\nbottom imagined him otherwise; for even those who attached ideas of\npre-existence to him, and gave the Messiah a supernatural background,\nnever advanced to speculations about assumption of the flesh,\nincarnation, two natures and the like. They only transferred in specific\nmanner to the Messiah the old idea of pre-terrestrial existence with\nGod, universally current among the Jews. Before the creation of the\nworld the Messiah was hidden with God, and, when the time is fulfilled,\nhe makes his appearance. This is neither an incarnation nor a\nhumiliation, but he appears on earth as he exists before God, viz., as a\nmighty and just king, equipped with all gifts. The writings in which\nthis thought appears most clearly are the Apocalypse of Enoch (Book of\nSimilitudes, Chap. 46-49) and the Apocalypse of Esra (Chap. 12-14).\nSupport to this idea, if anything more of the kind had been required,\nwas lent by passages like Daniel VII. 13 f. and Micah, V. 1. Nowhere do\nwe find in Jewish writings a conception which advances beyond the notion\nthat the Messiah is the man who is with God in heaven; and who will make\nhis appearance at his own time. We are merely entitled to say that, as\nthe same idea was not applied to all persons with the same certainty, it\nwas almost unavoidable that men's minds should have been led to\ndesignate the Messiah as the man from heaven. This thought was adopted\nby Paul (see below), but I know of no _Jewish_ writing which gave clear\nexpression to it.\n\nJesus Christ designated himself as the Messiah, and the first of his\ndisciples who recognised him as such were native Jews. The Jewish\nconceptions of the Messiah consequently passed over into the Christian\ncommunity. But they received an impulse to important modifications from\nthe living impression conveyed by the person and destiny of Jesus. Three\nfacts were here of pre-eminent importance. First, Jesus appeared in\nlowliness, and even suffered death. Secondly, he was believed to be\nexalted through the resurrection to the right hand of God, and his\nreturn in glory was awaited with certainty. Thirdly, the strength of a\nnew life and of an indissoluble union with God was felt issuing from\nhim, and therefore his people were connected with him in the closest\nway.\n\nIn some old Christian writings found in the New Testament and emanating\nfrom the pen of native Jews, there are no speculations at all about the\npre-temporal existence of Jesus as the Messiah, or they are found\nexpressed in a manner which simply embodies the old Jewish theory and is\nmerely distinguished from it by the emphasis laid on the exaltation of\nJesus after death through the resurrection. 1. Pet. I. 18 ff. is a\nclassic passage: [Greek: elutrothete timio haimati hos amnou amomou kai\naspilou Christou, proegnosmenou men pro kataboles kosmou, phanerothentos\nde ep' eschatou ton chronon di' humas tous di autou pistous eis theon\nton egeiranta autou ek nekron kai doxan auto donta, hoste ten pistin\nhumon kai elpida einai eis theon]. Here we find a conception of the\npre-existence of Christ which is not yet affected by cosmological or\npsychological speculation, which does not overstep the boundaries of a\npurely religious contemplation, and which arose from the Old Testament\nway of thinking, and the living impression derived from the person of\nJesus. He is \"foreknown (by God) before the creation of the world\", not\nas a spiritual being without a body, but as a Lamb without blemish and\nwithout spot; in other words, his whole personality together with the\nwork which it was to carry out, was within God's eternal knowledge. He\n\"was manifested in these last days for our sake\", that is, he is now\nvisibly what he already was before God. What is meant here is not an\nincarnation, but a _revelatio_. Finally, he appeared in order that our\nfaith and hope should now be firmly directed to the living God, _that_\nGod who raised him from the dead and gave him honour. In the last clause\nexpression is given to the specifically Christian thought, that the\nMessiah Jesus was _exalted_ after crucifixion and death: from this,\nhowever, no further conclusions are drawn.\n\nBut it was impossible that men should everywhere rest satisfied with\nthese utterances, for the age was a theological one. Hence the paradox\nof the suffering Messiah, the certainty of his glorification through the\nresurrection, the conviction of his specific relationship to God, and\nthe belief in the real union of his Church with him did not seem\nadequately expressed by the simple formulae [Greek: proegnosmenos,\nphanerotheis]. In reference to all these points, we see even in the\noldest Christian writings, the appearance of formulae which fix more\nprecisely the nature of his pre-existence, or in other words his\nheavenly existence. With regard to the first and second points there\narose the view of humiliation and exaltation, such as we find in Paul\nand in numerous writings after him. In connection with the third point\nthe concept \"Son of God\" was thrust into the foreground, and gave rise\nto the idea of the image of God (2 Cor. IV. 4; Col. I. 15; Heb. I. 2;\nPhil. II. 6). The fourth point gave occasion to the formation of theses,\nsuch as we find in Rom. VIII. 29: [Greek: prototokos en pollois\nadelphois], Col. I. 18: [Greek: prototokos ek ton nekron] (Rev. I. 5),\nEph. II. 6 [Greek: sunegeiren kai sunekathisen en tois epouraniois hemas\nen Christo Iesou], I. 4: [Greek: ho theos exelexato hemas en Christo pro\nkataboles kosmou], I. 22: [Greek: ho theos edoken ton Christon kephalen\nhuper panta te ekklesia hetis estin to soma autou] etc. This purely\nreligious view of the Church, according to which all that is predicated\nof Christ is also applied to his followers, continued a considerable\ntime. Hermas declares that the Church is older than the world, and that\nthe world was created for its sake (see above, p. 103), and the author\nof the so-called 2nd Epistle of Clement declares (Chap. 14) [Greek: ...\nesometha ek tes ekklesias tes protes tes pneumatikes, tes pro heliou kai\nselenes hektismenes ... ouk oiomai de humas agnoein, hoti ekklesia zosa\nsoma esti Christou. legei gar hegraphe. Epoiesen ho theos ton anthropon\narsen kai thelu. to arsen estin ho Christos to thelu he ekklesia.] Thus\nChrist and his Church are inseparably connected. The latter is to be\nconceived as pre-existent quite as much as the former; the Church was\nalso created before the sun and the moon, for the world was created for\nits sake. This conception of the Church illustrates a final group of\nutterances about the pre-existent Christ, the origin of which might\neasily be misinterpreted unless we bear in mind their reference to the\nChurch. In so far as he is [Greek: proegnosmenos pro kataboles kosmou],\nhe is the [Greek: arche tes ktiseos tou theou] (Rev. III. 14), the\n[Greek: prototokos pases ktiseos] etc. According to the current\nconception of the time, these expressions mean exactly the same as the\nsimple [Greek: proegnosmenos pro kataboles kosmou], as is proved by the\nparallel formulae referring to the Church. Nay, even the further advance\nto the idea that the world was created by him (Cor. Col. Eph. Heb.) need\nnot yet necessarily be a [Greek: metabasis eis allo genos]; for the\nbeginning of things [Greek: arche] and their purpose form the real force\nto which their origin is due (principle [Greek: arche]). Hermas indeed\ncalls the Church older than the world simply because \"the world was\ncreated for its sake.\"\n\nAll these further theories which we have quoted up to this time need in\nno sense alter the original conception, so long as they appear in an\nisolated form and do not form the basis of fresh speculations. They may\nbe regarded as the working out of the original conception attaching to\nJesus Christ, [Greek: proegnosmenos pro kataboles kosmou, phanerotheis\nk.t.l.]; and do not really modify this religious view of the matter.\nAbove all, we find in them as yet no certain transition to the Greek\nview which splits up his personality into a heavenly and an earthly\nportion; it still continues to be the complete Christ to whom all the\nutterances apply. But, beyond doubt, they already reveal the strong\nimpulse to conceive the Christ that had appeared as a divine being. He\nhad not been a transitory phenomenon, but has ascended into heaven and\nstill continues to live. This post-existence of his gave to the ideas of\nhis pre-existence a support and a concrete complexion which the earlier\nJewish theories lacked.\n\nWe find the transition to a new conception in the writings of Paul. But\nit is important to begin by determining the relationship between his\nChristology and the views we have been hitherto considering. In the\nApostle's clearest trains of thought everything that he has to say of\nChrist hinges on his death and resurrection. For this we need no proofs,\nbut see, more especially Rom. I. 3 f.: [Greek: peri tou huiou autou, tou\ngenomenou ek spermatos Daueid kata sarka, tou horisthentos huiou theou\nen dunamei kata pneuma agiosunes ek anastaseos nekron, Iesou Christou\ntou kuriou hemon]. What Christ became and his significance for us now\nare due to his death on the cross and his resurrection. He condemned sin\nin the flesh and was obedient unto death. Therefore he now shares in the\n[Greek: doxa] of God. The exposition in 1 Cor. XV. 45, also ([Greek: ho\neschatos Adam eis pneuma Zoopoioun, all' ou proton to pneumatikon alla\nto psuchikon, epeita to pneumatikon. ho protos anthropos ek ges choikos\nho deuteros anthropos ex ouranou]) is still capable of being understood,\nas to its fundamental features, in a sense which agrees with the\nconception of the Messiah, as [Greek: kat' exochen,] the man from heaven\nwho was hidden with God. There can be no doubt, however, that this\nconception as already shewn by the formulae in the passage just quoted,\nformed to Paul the starting-point of a speculation, in which the\noriginal theory assumed a completely new shape. The decisive factors in\nthis transformation were the Apostle's doctrine of \"spirit and flesh\",\nand the corresponding conviction that the Christ who is not be known\n\"after the flesh\", is a spirit, namely, the mighty spiritual being\n[Greek: pneuma zoopoioun], who has condemned sin in the flesh, and\nthereby enabled man to walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit.\n\nAccording to one of the Apostle's ways of regarding the matter, Christ,\nafter the accomplishment of his work, became the [Greek: pneuma\nzoopoioun] through the resurrection. But the belief that Jesus always\nstood before God as the heavenly man, suggested to Paul the other view,\nthat Christ was always a \"spirit\", that he was sent down by God, that\nthe flesh is consequently something inadequate and indeed hostile to\nhim, that he nevertheless assumed it in order to extirpate the sin\ndwelling in the flesh, that he therefore humbled himself by appearing,\nand that this humiliation was the deed he performed.\n\nThis view is found in 2 Cor. VIII. 9: [Greek: Iesous Christos di' humas\neptocheusen plousios on]; in Rom. VIII. 3: [Greek: ho theos ton heautou\nhuion pempsas en homoiomati sarkos hamartias kai peri hamartias\nkatekrine ten hamartian en te sarki]; and in Phil. II. 5 f.: [Greek:\nChristos Iesous en morphe theou huparchon ... heauton ekenosen morphen\ndoulon labon, en homoiomati anthropon genomenos, kai schemati heuretheis\nhos anthropos etapeinosen heauton k.t.l.] In both forms of thought Paul\npresupposes a real exaltation of Christ. Christ receives after the\nresurrection more than he ever possessed ([Greek: to onoma to huper pan\nonoma]). In this view Paul retains a historical interpretation of\nChrist, even in the conception of the [Greek: pneuma Christos]. But\nwhilst many passages seem to imply that the work of Christ began with\nsuffering and death, Paul shews in the verses cited, that he already\nconceives the appearance of Christ on earth as his moral act, as a\nhumiliation, purposely brought about by God and Christ himself, which\nreaches its culminating point in the death on the cross. Christ, the\ndivine spiritual being, is sent by the Father from heaven to earth, and\nof his own free will he obediently takes this mission upon himself. He\nappears in the [Greek: homoioma sarkos amartias], dies the death of the\ncross, and then, raised by the Father, ascends again into heaven in\norder henceforth to act as the [Greek: kurios zonton] and [Greek:\nnekron] and to become to his own people the principle of a new life in\nthe spirit.\n\nWhatever we may think about the admissibility and justification of this\nview, to whatever source we may trace its origin and however strongly we\nmay emphasise its divergencies from the contemporaneous Hellenic ideas,\nit is certain that it approaches very closely to the latter; for the\ndistinction of spirit and flesh is here introduced into the concept of\npre-existence, and this combination is not found in the Jewish notions\nof the Messiah.\n\nPaul was the first who limited the idea of pre-existence by referring it\nsolely to the spiritual part of Jesus Christ, but at the same time gave\nlife to it by making the pre-existing Christ (the spirit) a being who,\neven during his pre-existence, stands independently side by side with\nGod.\n\nHe was also the first to designate Christ's [Greek: sarx] as \"assumpta\",\nand to recognise its assumption as in itself a humiliation. To him the\nappearance of Christ was no mere [Greek: phanerousthai], but a [Greek:\nkenousthai, tapeinousthai] and [Greek: ptocheuein].\n\nThese outstanding features of the Pauline Christology must have been\nintelligible to the Greeks, but, whilst embracing these, they put\neverything else in the system aside. [Greek: Christos ho kurios ho sosas\nhemas, hon men to proton pneuma, egeneto sarx kai houtos hemas\nekalesen], says 2 Clem. (9. 5), and that is also the Christology of 1\nClement, Barnabas and many other Greeks. From the sum total of\nJudaeo-Christian speculations they only borrowed, in addition, the one\nwhich has been already mentioned: the Messiah as [Greek: proegnosmenos\npro kataboles kosmou] is for that very reason also [Greek: he arche tes\nktiseos tou theou], that is the beginning, purpose and principle of the\ncreation. The Greeks, as the result of their cosmological interest,\nembraced this thought as a fundamental proposition. The complete Greek\nChristology then is expressed as follows: [Greek: Christos, ho sosas\nhemas, hon men to proton pneuma kai pases ktiseos arche, egeneto sarx\nkai houtos hemas ekalesen]. _That is the fundamental theological and\nphilosophical creed on which the whole Trinitarian and Christological\nspeculations of the Church of the succeeding centuries are built, and it\nis thus the root of the orthodox system of dogmatics_; for the notion\nthat Christ was the [Greek: arche pases ktiseos] necessarily led in some\nmeasure to the conception of Christ as the Logos. For the Logos had long\nbeen regarded by cultured men as the beginning and principle of the\ncreation.[452]\n\nWith this transition the theories concerning Christ are removed from\nJewish and Old Testament soil, and also that of religion (in the strict\nsense of the word), and transplanted to the Greek one. Even in his\npre-existent state Christ is an independent power existing side by side\nwith God. The pre-existence does not refer to his whole appearance, but\nonly to a part of his essence; it does not primarily serve to glorify\nthe wisdom and power of the God who guides history, but only glorifies\nChrist, and thereby threatens the monarchy of God.[453] The appearance\nof Christ is now an \"assumption of flesh\", and immediately the intricate\nquestions about the connection of the heavenly and spiritual being with\nthe flesh simultaneously arise and are at first settled by the theories\nof a naive docetism. But the flesh, that is the human nature created by\nGod, appears depreciated, because it was reckoned as something\nunsuitable for Christ, and foreign to him as a spiritual being. Thus the\nChristian religion was mixed up with the refined asceticism of a\nperishing civilization, and a foreign substructure given to its system\nof morality, so earnest in its simplicity.[454] But the most\nquestionable result was the following. Since the predicate \"Logos\",\nwhich at first, and for a long time, coincided with the idea of the\nreason ruling in the cosmos, was considered as the highest that could be\ngiven to Christ, the holy and divine element, namely, the power of a new\nlife, a power to be viewed and laid hold of in Christ, was transformed\ninto a cosmic force and thereby secularised.\n\nIn the present work I have endeavoured to explain fully how the doctrine\nof the Church developed from these premises into the doctrine of the\nTrinity and of the two natures. I have also shewn that the imperfect\nbeginnings of Church doctrine, especially as they appear in the Logos\ntheory derived from cosmology, were subjected to wholesome\ncorrections--by the Monarchians, by Athanasius, and by the influence of\nbiblical passages which pointed in another direction. Finally, the Logos\ndoctrine received a form in which the idea was deprived of nearly all\ncosmical content. Nor could the Hellenic contrast of \"spirit\" and\n\"flesh\" become completely developed in Christianity, because the belief\nin the bodily resurrection of Christ, and in the admission of the flesh\ninto heaven, opposed to the principle of dualism a barrier which Paul as\nyet neither knew nor felt to be necessary. The conviction as to the\nresurrection of the flesh proved the hard rock which shattered the\nenergetic attempts to give a completely Hellenic complexion to the\nChristian religion.\n\nThe history of the development of the ideas of pre-existence is at the\nsame time the criticism of them, so that we need not have recourse to\nour present theory of knowledge which no longer allows such\nspeculations. The problem of determining the significance of Christ\nthrough a speculation concerning his natures, and of associating with\nthese the concrete features of the historical Christ, was originated by\nHellenism. But even the New Testament writers, who appear in this\nrespect to be influenced in some way by Hellenism, did not really\nspeculate concerning the different natures, but, taking Christ's\nspiritual nature for granted, determined his religious significance by\nhis moral qualities--Paul by the moral act of humiliation and obedience\nunto death, John by the complete dependence of Christ upon God and hence\nalso by his obedience, as well as the unity of the love of Father and\nSon. There is only one idea of pre-existence which no empiric\ncontemplation of history and no reason can uproot. This is identical\nwith the most ancient idea found in the Old Testament, as well as that\nprevalent among the early Christians, and consists in the religious\nthought that God the Lord directs history. In its application to Jesus\nChrist, it is contained in the words we read in 1 Pet. I. 20: [Greek:\nproegnosmenos men pro kataboles kosmou, phanerotheis de di' humas tous\ndi' autou pistous eis theon ton egeiranta auton ek nekron kai doxan\nautoi donta, hoste ten pistin humon kai elpida einai eis theon].\n\n\n[Footnote 452: These hints will have shewn that Paul's theory occupies a\nmiddle position between the Jewish and Greek ideas of pre-existence. In\nthe canon, however, we have another group of writings which likewise\ngives evidence of a middle position with regard to the matter, I mean\nthe Johannine writings. If we only possessed the prologue to the Gospel\nof John with its \"[Greek: en arche en ho logos],\" the \"[Greek: panta di'\nautou egeneto]\" and the \"[Greek: ho logos sarx egeneto]\" we could indeed\npoint to nothing but Hellenic ideas. But the Gospel itself, as is well\nknown, contains very much that must have astonished a Greek, and is\nopposed to the philosophical idea of the Logos. This occurs even in the\nthought, \"[Greek: ho logos sarx egeneto],\" which in itself is foreign to\nthe Logos conception. Just fancy a proposition like the one in VI. 44,\n[Greek: oudeis dunatai elthein pros me, ean me ho pater ho pempsas me\nelkuse auton], or in V. 17. 21, engrafted on Philo's system, and\nconsider the revolution it would have caused there. No doubt the\nprologue to some extent contains the themes set forth in the\npresentation that follows, but they are worded in such a way that one\ncannot help thinking the author wished to prepare Greek readers for the\nparadox he had to communicate to them, by adapting his prologue to their\nmode of thought. Under the altered conditions of thought which now\nprevail, the prologue appears to us the mysterious part, and the\nnarrative that follows seems the portion that is relatively more\nintelligible. But to the original readers, if they were educated Greeks,\nthe prologue must have been the part most easily understood. As nowadays\na section on the nature of the Christian religion is usually prefixed to\na treatise on dogmatics, in order to prepare and introduce the reader,\nso also the Johannine prologue seems to be intended as an introduction\nof this kind. It brings in conceptions which were familiar to the\nGreeks, in fact it enters into these more deeply than is justified by\nthe presentation which follows; for the notion of the incarnate Logos is\nby no means the dominant one here. Though faint echoes of this idea may\npossibly be met with here and there in the Gospel--I confess I do not\nnotice them--the predominating thought is essentially the conception of\nChrist as the Son of God, who obediently executes what the Father has\nshewn and appointed him. The works which he does are allotted to him,\nand he performs them in the strength of the Father. The whole of\nChrist's farewell discourses and the intercessory prayer evince no\nHellenic influence and no cosmological speculation whatever, but shew\nthe inner life of a man who knows himself to be one with God to a\ngreater extent than any before him, and who feels the leading of men to\nGod to be the task he had received and accomplished. In this\nconsciousness he speaks of the glory he had with the Father before the\nworld was (XVII. 4 f.; [Greek: ego se edoxasa epi tes ges, to ergon\nteleiosas ho dedokas moi hina poieso; kai nun doxason me su, pater, para\nseauto te doxe he eichon pro tou ton kosmon einai, para soi]). With this\nwe must compare verses like III. 13: [Greek: oudeis anabebeken eis ton\nouranon ei me ho ek tou ouranou katabas, ho huios tou anthropou], and\nIII. 31: [Greek: ho anothen erchomenos epano panton estin. ho on ek tes\nges ek tes ges estin kai ek tes ges lalei ho ek tou ouranou erchomenos\nepano panton estin] (see also I. 30: VI. 33, 38, 41 f. 50 f. 58, 62:\nVIII. 14, 58; XVII. 24). But though the pre-existence is strongly\nexpressed in these passages, a separation of [Greek: pneuma (logos)] and\n[Greek: sarx] in Christ is nowhere assumed in the Gospel except in the\nprologue. It is always Christ's whole personality to which every sublime\nattribute is ascribed. The same one who \"can do nothing of himself\", is\nalso the one who was once glorious and will yet be glorified. This idea,\nhowever, can still be referred to the [Greek: proegnosmenos pro\nkataboles kosmon], although it gives a peculiar [Greek: doxa] with God\nto him who was foreknown of God, and the oldest conception is yet to be\ntraced in many expressions, as, for example, I. 31: [Greek: kago ouk\nedein auton, all' hina phanerothae to Israel dia touto elthon], V. 19:\n[Greek: ou duvatai ho uios poiein aph' eautou ouden an me ti blepe ton\npatera poiountai], V. 36: VIII. 38: [Greek: ha ego heoraka para to patri\nlalo], VIII. 40: [Greek: ten aletheian humin lelaleka hen ekousa para\ntou theou], XII. 49: XV. 15: [Greek: panta ha exousa para tou patros mou\negnorisa humin.]]\n\n[Footnote 453: This is indeed counterbalanced in the fourth Gospel by\nthe thought of the complete community of love between the Father and the\nSon, and the pre-existence and descent of the latter here also tend to\nthe glory of God. In the sentence \"God so loved the world\" etc., that\nwhich Paul describes in Phil. II. becomes at the same time an act of\nGod, in fact the act of God. The sentence \"God is love\" sums up again\nall individual speculations, and raises them into a new and most exalted\nsphere.]\n\n[Footnote 454: If it had been possible for speculation to maintain the\nlevel of the Fourth Gospel, nothing of that would have happened; but\nwhere were there theologians capable of this?]\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX II.\n\n_Liturgy and the Origin of Dogma._\n\n\nThe reader has perhaps wondered why I have made so little reference to\nLiturgy in my description of the origin of dogma. For according to the\nmost modern ideas about the history of religion and the origin of\ntheology, the development of both may be traced in the ritual. Without\nany desire to criticise these notions, I think I am justified in\nasserting that this is another instance of the exceptional nature of\nChristianity. For a considerable period it possessed no ritual at all,\nand the process of development in this direction had been going on, or\nbeen completed, a long time before ritual came to furnish material for\ndogmatic discussion.\n\nThe worship in Christian Churches grew out of that in the synagogues,\nwhereas there is no trace of its being influenced by the Jewish Temple\nservice (Duchesne, Origines du Culte Chretien, p. 45 ff.). Its oldest\nconstituents are accordingly prayer, reading of the scriptures,\napplication of scripture texts, and sacred song. In addition to these we\nhave, as specifically Christian elements, the celebration of the Lord's\nSupper, and the utterances of persons inspired by the Spirit. The latter\nmanifestations, however, ceased in the course of the second century, and\nto some extent as early as its first half. The religious services in\nwhich a ritual became developed were prayer, the Lord's Supper and\nsacred song. The Didache had already prescribed stated formulae for\nprayer. The ritual of the Lord's Supper was determined in its main\nfeatures by the memory of its institution. The sphere of sacred song\nremained the most unfettered, though here also, even at an early\nperiod--no later in fact than the end of the first and beginning of the\nsecond century--a fixed and a variable element were distinguished; for\nresponsory hymns, as is testified by the Epistle of Pliny and the still\nearlier Book of Revelation, require to follow a definite arrangement.\nBut the whole, though perhaps already fixed during the course of the\nsecond century, still bore the stamp of spirituality and freedom. It was\nreally worship in spirit and in truth, and this and no other was the\nlight in which the Apologists, for instance, regarded it. Ritualism did\nnot begin to be a power in the Church till the end of the second\ncentury; though it had been cultivated by the \"Gnostics\" long before,\nand traces of it are found at an earlier period in some of the older\nFathers, such as Ignatius.\n\nAmong the liturgical fragments still preserved to us from the first\nthree centuries two strata may be distinguished. Apart from the\nresponsory hymns in the Book of Revelation, which can hardly represent\nfixed liturgical pieces, the only portions of the older stratum in our\npossession are the Lord's Prayer, originating with Jesus himself and\nused as a liturgy, together with the sacramental prayers of the Didache.\nThese prayers exhibit a style unlike any of the liturgical formulae of\nlater times; the prayer is exclusively addressed to God, it returns\nthanks for knowledge and life; it speaks of Jesus the [Greek: pais\ntheou] (Son of God) as the mediator; the intercession refers exclusively\nto the Church, and the supplication is for the gathering together of the\nChurch, the hastening of the coming of the kingdom and the destruction\nof the world. No direct mention is made of the death and resurrection of\nChrist. These prayers are the peculiar property of the Christian Church.\nIt cannot, however, be said that they exercised any important influence\non the history of dogma. The thoughts contained in them perished in\ntheir specific shape; the measure of permanent importance they attained\nin a more general form, was not preserved to them through these prayers.\n\nThe second stratum of liturgical pieces dates back to the great prayer\nwith which the first Epistle of Clement ends, for in many respects this\nprayer, though some expressions in it remind us of the older type\n([Greek: dia tou egapemenou paidos sou Iesoun Christou], \"through thy\nbeloved son Jesus Christ \"), already exhibits the characteristics of the\nlater liturgy, as is shewn, for example, by a comparison of the\nliturgical prayer in the Constitutions of the Apostles (see Lightfoot's\nedition and my own). But this piece shews at the same time that the\nliturgical prayers, and consequently the liturgy also, sprang from those\nin the synagogue, for the similarity is striking. Here we find a\nconnection resembling that which exists between the Jewish \"Two Ways\"\nand the Christian instruction of catechumens. If this observation is\ncorrect, it clearly explains the cautious use of historical and dogmatic\nmaterial in the oldest liturgies--a precaution not to their\ndisadvantage. As in the prayers of the synagogue, so also in Christian\nChurches, all sorts of matters were not submitted to God or laid bare\nbefore Him, but the prayers serve as a religious ceremony, that is, as\nadoration, petition and intercession. [Greek: Su ei ho theos monos kai\nIesous Christos ho pais sou kai hemeis laos sou kai probata tes nomes\nsou], (thou art God alone and Jesus Christ is thy son, and we are thy\npeople and the sheep of thy pasture). In this confession, an expressive\nChristian modification of that of the synagogue, the whole liturgical\nceremony is epitomised. So far as we can assume and conjecture from the\nscanty remains of Ante-Nicene liturgy, the character of the ceremony was\nnot essentially altered in this respect. Nothing containing a specific\ndogma or theological speculation was admitted. The number of sacred\nceremonies, already considerable in the second century (how did they\narise?), was still further increased in the third; but the accompanying\nwords, so far as we know, expressed nothing but adoration, gratitude,\nsupplication, and intercession. The relations expressed in the liturgy\nbecame more comprehensive, copious and detailed; but its fundamental\ncharacter was not changed. The history of dogma in the first three\ncenturies is not reflected in their liturgy.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX III.\n\nNEOPLATONISM.\n\n\n_The historical significance and position of Neoplatonism._\n\nThe political history of the ancient world ends with the Empire of\nDiocletian and Constantine, which has not only Roman and Greek, but also\nOriental features. The history of ancient philosophy ends with the\nuniversal philosophy of Neoplatonism, which assimilated the elements of\nmost of the previous systems, and embodied the result of the history of\nreligion and civilisation in East and West. But as the Roman Byzantine\nEmpire is at one and the same time a product of the final effort and the\nexhaustion of the ancient world, so also Neoplatonism is, on one side,\nthe completion of ancient philosophy, and, on another, its abolition.\nNever before in the Greek and Roman theory of the world did the\nconviction of the dignity of man and his elevation above nature, attain\nso certain an expression as in Neoplatonism; and never before in the\nhistory of civilisation did its highest exponents, notwithstanding all\ntheir progress in inner observation, so much undervalue the sovereign\nsignificance of real science and pure knowledge as the later\nNeoplatonists did. Judged from the stand-point of pure science, of\nempirical knowledge of the world, the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle\nmarks a momentous turning-point, the post-Aristotelian a retrogression,\nthe Neoplatonic a complete declension. But judging from the stand-point\nof religion and morality, it must be admitted that the ethical temper\nwhich Neoplatonism sought to beget and confirm, was the highest and\npurest which the culture of the ancient world produced. This necessarily\ntook place at the expense of science: for on the soil of polytheistic\nnatural religions, the knowledge of nature must either fetter and\nfinally abolish religion, or be fettered and abolished by religion.\nReligion and ethic, however, proved the stronger powers. Placed between\nthese and the knowledge of nature, philosophy, after a period of\nfluctuation, finally follows the stronger force. Since the ethical\nitself, in the sphere of natural religions, is unhesitatingly conceived\nas a higher kind of \"nature\", conflict with the empirical knowledge of\nthe world is unavoidable. The higher \"physics\", for that is what\nreligious ethics is here, must displace the lower or be itself\ndisplaced. Philosophy must renounce its scientific aspect, in order that\nman's claim to a supernatural value of his person and life may be\nlegitimised.\n\nIt is an evidence of the vigour of man's moral endowments that the only\nepoch of culture which we are able to survey in its beginnings, its\nprogress, and its close, ended not with materialism, but with the most\ndecided idealism. It is true that in its way this idealism also denotes\na bankruptcy; as the contempt for reason and science, and these are\ncontemned when relegated to the second place, finally leads to\nbarbarism, because it results in the crassest superstition, and is\nexposed to all manner of imposture. And, as a matter of fact, barbarism\nsucceeded the flourishing period of Neoplatonism. Philosophers\nthemselves no doubt found their mental food in the knowledge which they\nthought themselves able to surpass; but the masses grew up in\nsuperstition, and the Christian Church, which entered on the inheritance\nof Neoplatonism, was compelled to reckon with that and come to terms\nwith it. Just when the bankruptcy of the ancient civilisation and its\nlapse into barbarism could not have failed to reveal themselves, a\nkindly destiny placed on the stage of history barbarian nations, for\nwhom the work of a thousand years had as yet no existence. Thus the fact\nis concealed, which, however, does not escape the eye of one who looks\nbelow the surface, that the inner history of the ancient world must\nnecessarily have degenerated into barbarism of its own accord, because\nit ended with the renunciation of this world. There is no desire either\nto enjoy it, to master it, or to know it as it really is. A new world is\ndisclosed for which everything is given up, and men are ready to\nsacrifice insight and understanding, in order to possess this world with\ncertainty; and, in the light which radiates from the world to come, that\nwhich in this world appears absurd becomes wisdom, and wisdom becomes\nfolly.\n\nSuch is Neoplatonism. The pre-Socratic philosophers, declared by the\nfollowers of Socrates to be childish, had freed themselves from\ntheology, that is, the mythology of the poets, and constructed a\nphilosophy from the observation of nature, without troubling themselves\nabout ethics and religion. In the systems of Plato and Aristotle physics\nand ethics were to attain to their rights, though the latter no doubt\nalready occupied the first place; theology, that is popular religion,\ncontinues to be thrust aside. The post-Aristotelian philosophers of all\nparties were already beginning to withdraw from the objective world.\nStoicism indeed seems to fall back into the materialism that I prevailed\nbefore Plato and Aristotle; but the ethical dualism which dominated the\nmood of the Stoic philosophers, did not in the long run tolerate the\nmaterialistic physics; it sought and found help in the metaphysical\ndualism of the Platonists, and at the same time reconciled itself to the\npopular religion by means of allegorism, that is, it formed a new\ntheology. But it did not result in permanent philosophic creations. A\none-sided development of Platonism produced the various forms of\nscepticism which sought to abolish confidence in empirical knowledge.\nNeoplatonism, which came last, learned from all schools. In the first\nplace, it belongs to the series of post-Aristotelian systems and, as the\nphilosophy of the subjective, it is the logical completion of them. In\nthe second place, it rests on scepticism; for it also, though not at the\nvery beginning, gave up both confidence and pure interest in empirical\nknowledge. Thirdly, it can boast of the name and authority of Plato; for\nin metaphysics it consciously went back to him and expressly opposed the\nmetaphysics of the Stoics. Yet on this very point it also learned\nsomething from the Stoics; for the Neoplatonic conception of the action\nof God on the world, and of the nature and origin of matter, can only be\nexplained by reference to the dynamic pantheism of the Stoics. In other\nrespects, especially in psychology, it is diametrically opposed to the\nStoa, though superior. Fourthly, the study of Aristotle also had an\ninfluence on Neoplatonism. That is shewn not only in the philosophic\nmethods of the Neoplatonists, but also, though in a subordinate way, in\ntheir metaphysics. Fifthly, the ethic of the Stoics was adopted by\nNeoplatonism, but this ethic necessarily gave way to a still higher view\nof the conditions of the spirit. Sixthly and finally, Christianity also,\nwhich Neoplatonism opposed in every form (especially in that of the\nGnostic philosophy of religion), seems not to have been entirely without\ninfluence. On this point we have as yet no details, and these can only\nbe ascertained by a thorough examination of the polemic of Plotinus\nagainst the Gnostics.\n\nHence, with the exception of Epicureanism, which Neoplatonism dreaded as\nits mortal enemy, every important system of former times was drawn upon\nby the new philosophy. But we should not on that account call\nNeoplatonism an eclectic system in the usual sense of the word. For in\nthe first place, it had one pervading and all predominating interest,\nthe religious; and in the second place, it introduced into philosophy a\nnew supreme principle, the super-rational, or the super-essential. This\nprinciple should not be identified with the \"Ideas\" of Plato or the\n\"Form\" of Aristotle. For as Zeller rightly says: \"In Plato and Aristotle\nthe distinction of the sensuous and the intelligible is the strongest\nexpression for belief in the truth of thought; it is only sensuous\nperception and sensuous existence whose relative falsehood they\npresuppose; but of a higher stage of spiritual life lying beyond idea\nand thought, there is no mention. In Neoplatonism, on the other hand, it\nis just this super-rational element which is regarded as the final goal\nof all effort, and the highest ground of all existence; the knowledge\ngained by thought is only an intermediate stage between sensuous\nperception and the super-rational intuition; the intelligible forms are\nnot that which is highest and last, but only the media by which the\ninfluences of the formless original essence are communicated to the\nworld. This view therefore presupposes not merely doubt of the reality\nof sensuous existence and sensuous notions, but absolute doubt,\naspiration beyond all reality. The highest intelligible is not that\nwhich constitutes the real content of thought, but only that which is\npresupposed and earnestly desired by man as the unknowable ground of his\nthought.\" Neoplatonism recognised that a religious ethic can be built\nneither on sense-perception nor on knowledge gained by the\nunderstanding, and that it cannot be justified by these; it therefore\nbroke both with intellectual ethics and with utilitarian morality. But\nfor that very reason, having as it were parted with perception and\nunderstanding in relation to the ascertaining of the highest truth, it\nwas compelled to seek for a new world and a new function in the human\nspirit, in order to ascertain the existence of what it desired, and to\ncomprehend and describe that of which it had ascertained the existence.\nBut man cannot transcend his psychological endowment. An iron ring\nincloses him. He who does not allow his thought to be determined by\nexperience falls a prey to fancy, that is, thought, which cannot be\nsuppressed, assumes a mythological aspect: superstition takes the place\nof reason, dull gazing at something incomprehensible is regarded as the\nhighest goal of the spirit's efforts, and every conscious activity of\nthe spirit is subordinated to visionary conditions artificially brought\nabout. But that every conceit may not be allowed to assert itself, the\ngradual exploration of every region of knowledge according to every\nmethod of acquiring it, is demanded as a preliminary--the Neoplatonists\ndid not make matters easy for themselves,--and a new and mighty\nprinciple is set up which is to bridle fancy, viz., _the authority of a\nsure tradition_. This authority must be superhuman, otherwise it would\nnot come under consideration; it must therefore be divine. On divine\ndisclosures, that is revelations, must rest both the highest\nsuper-rational region of knowledge and the possibility of knowledge\nitself. In a word, the philosophy which Neoplatonism represents, whose\nfinal interest is the religious, and whose highest object is the\nsuper-rational, must be a _philosophy of revelation_.\n\nIn the case of Plotinus himself and his immediate disciples, this does\nnot yet appear plainly. They still shew confidence in the objective\npresuppositions of their philosophy, and have, especially in psychology,\ndone great work and created something new. But this confidence vanishes\nin the later Neoplatonists. Porphyry, before he became a disciple of\nPlotinus, wrote a book [Greek: peri tes eklogion philosophia]; as a\nphilosopher he no longer required the \"[Greek: logia].\" But the later\nrepresentatives of the system sought for their philosophy revelations of\nthe Godhead. They found them in the religious traditions and cults of\nall nations. Neoplatonism learned from the Stoics to rise above the\npolitical limits of nations and states, and to widen the Hellenic\nconsciousness to a universally human one. The spirit of God has breathed\nthroughout the whole history of the nations, and the traces of divine\nrevelation are to be found everywhere. The older a religious tradition\nor cultus is, the more worthy of honour, the more rich in thoughts of\nGod it is. Therefore the old Oriental religions are of special value to\nthe Neoplatonists. The allegorical method of interpreting myths, which\nwas practised by the Stoics in particular, was accepted by Neoplatonism\nalso. But the myths, spiritually explained, have for this system an\nentirely different value from what they had for the Stoic philosophers.\nThe latter adjusted themselves to the myths by the aid of allegorical\nexplanation; the later Neoplatonists, on the other hand, (after a\nselection in which the immoral myths were sacrificed, see, e.g. Julian)\nregarded them as _the proper material and sure foundation of\nphilosophy_. Neoplatonism claims to be not only the absolute\n_philosophy_, completing all systems, but, at the same time, the\nabsolute _religion_, confirming and explaining all earlier religions. A\nrehabilitation of all ancient religions is aimed at (see the philosophic\nteachers of Julian and compare his great religious experiment); each was\nto continue in its traditional form, but, at the same time, each was to\ncommunicate the religious temper and the religious knowledge which\nNeoplatonism had attained, and each cultus is to lead to the high\nmorality which it behoves man to maintain. In Neoplatonism the\npsychological fact of the longing of man for something higher, is\nexalted to the all-predominating principle which explains the world.\nTherefore the religions, though they are to be purified and\nspiritualised, become the foundation of philosophy. The Neoplatonic\nphilosophy therefore presupposes the religious syncretism of the third\ncentury, and cannot be understood without it. The great forces which\nwere half unconsciously at work in this syncretism, were reflectively\ngrasped by Neoplatonism. It is the final fruit of the developments\nresulting from the political, national and religious syncretism which\narose from the undertakings of Alexander the Great, and the Romans.\n\nNeoplatonism is consequently a stage in the history of religion; nay,\nits significance in the history of the world lies in the fact that it is\nso. In the history of science and enlightenment it has a position of\nsignificance only in so far as it was the necessary transition stage\nthrough which humanity had to pass, in order to free itself from the\nreligion of nature and the depreciation of the spiritual life, which\noppose an insurmountable barrier to the highest advance of human\nknowledge. But as Neoplatonism in its philosophical aspect means the\nabolition of ancient philosophy, which, however, it desired to complete,\nso also in its religious aspect it means the abolition of the ancient\nreligions which it aimed at restoring. For in requiring these religions\nto mediate a definite religious knowledge, and to lead to the highest\nmoral disposition, it burdened them with tasks to which they were not\nequal, and under which they could not but break down. And in requiring\nthem to loosen, if not completely destroy, the bond which was their only\nstay, namely, the political bond, it took from them the foundation on\nwhich they were built. But could it not place them on a greater and\nfirmer foundation? Was not the Roman Empire in existence, and could the\nnew religion not become dependent on this in the same way as the earlier\nreligions had been dependent on the lesser states and nations? It might\nbe thought so, but it was no longer possible. No doubt the political\nhistory of the nations round the Mediterranean, in their development\ninto the universal Roman monarchy, was parallel to the spiritual history\nof these nations in their development into monotheism and a universal\nsystem of morals; but the spiritual development in the end far\noutstripped the political: even the Stoics attained to a height which\nthe political development could only partially reach. Neoplatonism did\nindeed attempt to gain a connection with the Byzantine Roman Empire: one\nnoble monarch, Julian, actually perished as a result of this endeavour:\nbut even before this the profounder Neoplatonists discerned that their\nlofty religious philosophy would not bear contact with the despotic\nEmpire, because it would not bear any contact with the \"world\" (plan of\nthe founding of Platonopolis). Political affairs are at bottom as much a\nmatter of indifference to Neoplatonism as material things in general.\nThe idealism of the new philosophy was too high to admit of its being\nnaturalised in the despiritualised, tyrannical and barren creation of\nthe Byzantine Empire, and this Empire itself needed unscrupulous and\ndespotic police officials, not noble philosophers. Important and\ninstructive, therefore, as the experiments are, which were made from\ntime to time by the state and by individual philosophers, to unite the\nmonarchy of the world with Neoplatonism, they could not but be\nineffectual.\n\nBut, and this is the last question which one is justified in raising\nhere, why did not Neoplatonism create an independent religious\ncommunity? Since it had already changed the ancient religions so\nfundamentally, in its purpose to restore them, since it had attempted to\nfill the old naive cults with profound philosophic ideas, and to make\nthem exponents of a high morality, why did it not take the further step\nand create a religious fellowship of its own? Why did it not complete\nand confirm the union of gods by the founding of a church which was\ndestined to embrace the whole of humanity, and in which, beside the one\nineffable Godhead, the gods of all nations could have been worshipped?\nWhy not? The answer to this question is at the same time the reply to\nanother, viz., why did the Christian church supplant Neoplatonism?\nNeoplatonism lacked three elements to give it the significance of a new\nand permanent religious system. Augustine in his confessions (Bk. VII.\n18-21) has excellently described these three elements. First and above\nall, it lacked a religious founder; secondly, it was unable to give any\nanswer to the question, how one could permanently maintain the mood of\nblessedness and peace: thirdly, it lacked the means of winning those who\ncould not speculate. The \"people\" could not learn the philosophic\nexercises which it recommended as the condition of attaining the\nenjoyment of the highest good; and the way on which even the \"people\"\ncan attain to the highest good was hidden from it. Hence these \"wise and\nprudent\" remained a school. When Julian attempted to interest the common\nuncultured man in the doctrines and worship of this school, his reward\nwas mockery and scorn.\n\nNot as philosophy and not as a new religion did Neoplatonism become a\ndecisive factor in history, but, if I may say so, as a frame of\nmind.[455] The feeling that there is an eternal highest good which lies\nbeyond all outer experience and is not even the intelligible, this\nfeeling, with which was united the conviction of the entire\nworthlessness of everything earthly, was produced and fostered by\nNeoplatonism. But it was unable to describe the contents of that highest\nbeing and highest good, and therefore it was here compelled to give\nitself entirely up to fancy and aesthetic feeling. Therefore it was\nforced to trace out \"mysterious ways to that which is within\", which,\nhowever, led nowhere. It transformed thought into a dream of feeling; it\nimmersed itself in the sea of emotions; it viewed the old fabled world\nof the nations as the reflection of a higher reality, and transformed\nreality into poetry; but in spite of all these efforts it was only able,\nto use the words of Augustine, to see from afar the land which it\ndesired. It broke this world into fragments; but nothing remained to it,\nsave a ray from a world beyond, which was only an indescribable\n\"something.\"\n\nAnd yet the significance of Neoplatonism in the history of our moral\nculture has been, and still is, immeasurable. Not only because it\nrefined and strengthened man's life of feeling and sensation, not only\nbecause it, more than anything else, wove the delicate veil which even\nto-day, whether we be religious or irreligious, we ever and again cast\nover the offensive impression of the brutal reality, but, above all,\nbecause it begat the consciousness that the blessedness which alone can\nsatisfy man, is to be found somewhere else than in the sphere of\nknowledge. That man does not live by bread alone, is a truth that was\nknown before Neoplatonism; but it proclaimed the profounder truth, which\nthe earlier philosophy had failed to recognise, that man does not live\nby knowledge alone. Neoplatonism not only had a propadeutic significance\nin the past, but continues to be, even now, the source of all the moods\nwhich deny the world and strive after an ideal, but have not power to\nraise themselves above aesthetic feeling, and see no means of getting a\nclear notion of the impulse of their own heart and the land of their\ndesire.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_Historical Origin of Neoplatonism._\n\nThe forerunners of Neoplatonism were, on the one hand, those Stoics who\nrecognise the Platonic distinction of the sensible and supersensible\nworld, and on the other, the so-called Neopythagoreans and religious\nphilosophers, such as Posidonius, Plutarch of Chaeronea, and especially\nNumenius of Apamea.[456] Nevertheless, these cannot be regarded as the\nactual Fathers of Neoplatonism; for the philosophic method was still\nvery imperfect in comparison with the Neoplatonic, their principles were\nuncertain, and the authority of Plato was not yet regarded as placed on\nan unapproachable height. The Jewish and Christian philosophers of the\nfirst and second centuries stand very much nearer the later Neoplatonism\nthan Numenius. We would probably see this more clearly if we knew the\ndevelopment of Christianity in Alexandria in the second century. But,\nunfortunately, we have only very meagre fragments to tell us of this.\nFirst and above all, we must mention Philo. This philosopher, who\ninterpreted the Old Testament religion in terms of Hellenism, had, in\naccordance with his idea of revelation, already maintained that the\nDivine Original Essence is supra-rational, that only ecstasy leads to\nHim, and that the materials for religious and moral knowledge are\ncontained in the oracles of the Deity. The religious ethic of Philo, a\ncombination of Stoic, Platonic, Neopythagorean and Old Testament gnomic\nwisdom, already bears the marks which we recognise in Neoplatonism. The\nacknowledgment that God was exalted above all thought, was a sort of\ntribute which Greek philosophy was compelled to pay to the national\nreligion of Israel, in return for the supremacy which was here granted\nto the former. The claim of positive religion to be something more than\nan intellectual conception of the universal reason, was thereby\njustified. Even religious syncretism is already found in Philo; but it\nis something essentially different from the later Neoplatonic, since\nPhilo regarded the Jewish cult as the only valuable one, and traced back\nall elements of truth in the Greeks and Romans to borrowings from the\nbooks of Moses.\n\nThe earliest Christian philosophers, especially Justin and Athenagoras,\nlikewise prepared the way for the speculations of the later\nNeoplatonists by their attempts, on the one hand, to connect\nChristianity with Stoicism and Platonism, and on the other, to exhibit\nit as supra-Platonic. The method by which Justin, in the introduction to\nthe Dialogue with Trypho, attempts to establish the Christian knowledge\nof God, that is, the knowledge of the truth, on Platonism, Scepticism\nand \"Revelation\", strikingly reminds us of the later methods of the\nNeoplatonists. Still more is one reminded of Neoplatonism by the\nspeculations of the Alexandrian Christian Gnostics, especially of\nValentinus and the followers of Basilides. The doctrines of the\nBasilidians(?) communicated by Hippolytus (Philosoph. VII. c. 20 sq.),\nread like fragments from the didactic writings of the Neoplatonists:\n[Greek: Epei ouden en ouch hule, ouk ousia, ouk anousion, ouch haploun,\nou suntheton, ouk anoeton, ouk anaistheton, ouk anthropos ... ouk on\ntheos anoetos, anaisthetos aboulos aproairetos, apathos, anepithumetios\nkosmon ethelese poiesai ... Houtos ouk on theos epoiese kosmon ouk onta\nex ouk onton, katabalomenos kai hupostesas sperma ti en echon pasan en\nheauto tes tou kosmou panspermian.] Like the Neoplatonists, these\nBasilidians did not teach an emanation from the Godhead, but a dynamic\nmode of action of the Supreme Being. The same can be asserted of\nValentinus who also places an unnamable being above all, and views\nmatter not as a second principle, but as a derived product. The\ndependence of Basilides and Valentinus on Zeno and Plato is, besides,\nundoubted. But the method of these Gnostics in constructing their mental\npicture of the world and its history, was still an uncertain one. Crude\nprimitive myths are here received, and naively realistic elements\nalternate with bold attempts at spiritualising. While therefore,\nphilosophically considered, the Gnostic systems are very unlike the\nfinished Neoplatonic ones, it is certain that they contained almost all\nthe elements of the religious view of the world, which we find in\nNeoplatonism.\n\nBut were the earliest Neoplatonists really acquainted with the\nspeculations of men like Philo, Justin, Valentinus and Basilides? were\nthey familiar with the Oriental religions, especially with the Jewish\nand the Christian? and, if we must answer these questions in the\naffirmative, did they really learn from these sources?\n\nUnfortunately, we cannot at present give certain, and still less\ndetailed answers to these questions. But, as Neoplatonism originated in\nAlexandria, as Oriental cults confronted every one there, as the Jewish\nphilosophy was prominent in the literary market of Alexandria, and that\nwas the very place where scientific Christianity had its headquarters,\nthere can, generally speaking, be no doubt that the earliest\nNeoplatonists had some acquaintance with Judaism and Christianity. In\naddition to that, we have the certain fact that the earliest\nNeoplatonists had discussions with (Roman) Gnostics (see Carl Schmidt,\nGnostische Schriften in koptischer Sprache, pp. 603-665), and that\nPorphyry entered into elaborate controversy with Christianity. In\ncomparison with the Neoplatonic philosophy, the system of Philo and the\nGnostics appears in many respects an anticipation, which had a certain\ninfluence on the former, the precise nature of which has still to be\nascertained. But the anticipation is not wonderful, for the religious\nand philosophic temper which was only gradually produced on Greek soil,\nexisted from the first in such philosophers as took their stand on the\nground of a revealed religion of redemption. Iamblichus and his\nfollowers first answer completely to the Christian Gnostic schools of\nthe second century; that is to say, Greek philosophy, in its immanent\ndevelopment, did not attain till the fourth century the position which\nsome Greek philosophers, who had accepted Christianity, had already\nreached in the second. The influence of Christianity--both Gnostic and\nCatholic--on Neoplatonism was perhaps very little at any time, though\nindividual Neoplatonists since the time of Amelius employed Christian\nsayings as oracles, and testified their high esteem for Christ.\n\n\n_Sketch of the History and Doctrines of Neoplatonism._\n\nAmmonius Saccas (died about 245), who is said to have been born a\nChristian, but to have lapsed into heathenism, is regarded as the\nfounder of the Neoplatonic school in Alexandria. As he has left no\nwritings, no judgment can be formed as to his teaching. His disciples\ninherited from him the prominence which they gave to Plato and the\nattempts to prove the harmony between the latter and Aristotle. His most\nimportant disciples were; Origen the Christian, a second heathen Origen,\nLonginus, Herennius, and, above all, Plotinus. The latter was born in\nthe year 205, at Lycopolis in Egypt, laboured from 224 in Rome, and\nfound numerous adherents and admirers, among others the Emperor Galienus\nand his consort, and died in lower Italy about 270. His writings were\narranged by his disciple, Porphyry, and edited in six Enneads.\n\nThe Enneads of Plotinus are the fundamental documents of Neoplatonism.\nThe teaching of this philosopher is mystical, and, like all mysticism,\nit falls into two main portions. The first and theoretic part shews the\nhigh origin of the soul, and how it has departed from this its origin.\nThe second and practical part points out the way by which the soul can\nagain be raised to the Eternal and the Highest. As the soul with its\nlongings aspires beyond all sensible things and even beyond the world of\nideas, the Highest must be something above reason. The system therefore\nhas three parts. I. The Original Essence. II. The world of ideas and the\nsoul. III. The world of phenomena. We may also, in conformity with the\nthought of Plotinus, divide the system thus: A. The supersensible world\n(1. The Original Essence; 2. the world of ideas; 3. the soul). B. The\nworld of phenomena. The Original Essence is the One in contrast to the\nmany; it is the Infinite and Unlimited in contrast to the finite; it is\nthe source of all being, therefore the absolute causality and the only\ntruly existing; but it is also the Good, in so far as everything finite\nis to find its aim in it and to flow back to it. Yet moral attributes\ncannot be ascribed to this Original Essence, for these would limit it.\nIt has no attributes at all; it is a being without magnitude, without\nlife, without thought; nay, one should not, properly speaking, even call\nit an existence; it is something above existence, above goodness, and at\nthe same time the operative force without any substratum. As operative\nforce the Original Essence is continually begetting something else,\nwithout itself being changed or moved or diminished. This creation is\nnot a physical process, but an emanation of force; and because that\nwhich is produced has any existence only in so far as the originally\nExistent works in it, it may be said that Neoplatonism is dynamical\nPantheism. Everything that has being is directly or indirectly a\nproduction of the \"One.\" In this \"One\" everything so far as it has\nbeing, is Divine, and God is all in all. But that which is derived is\nnot like the Original Essence itself. On the contrary, the law of\ndecreasing perfection prevails in the derived. The latter is indeed an\nimage and reflection of the Original Essence, but the wider the circle\nof creations extends the less their share in the Original Essence. Hence\nthe totality of being forms a gradation of concentric circles which\nfinally lose themselves almost completely in non-being, in so far as in\nthe last circle the force of the Original Essence is a vanishing one.\nEach lower stage of being is connected with the Original Essence only by\nmeans of the higher stages; that which is inferior receives a share in\nthe Original Essence only through the medium of these. But everything\nderived has one feature, viz., a longing for the higher; it turns itself\nto this so far as its nature allows it.\n\nThe first emanation of the Original Essence is the [Greek: Nous]; it is\na complete image of the Original Essence and archetype of all existing\nthings; it is being and thought at the same time, World of ideas and\nIdea. As image the [Greek: Nous] is equal to the Original Essence, as\nderived it is completely different from it. What Plotinus understands by\n[Greek: Nous] is the highest sphere which the human spirit can reach\n([Greek: kosmos noetos]) and at the same time pure thought itself.\n\nThe soul which, according to Plotinus, is an immaterial substance like\nthe [Greek: Nous],[457] is an image and product of the immovable [Greek:\nNous]. It is related to the [Greek: Nous] as the latter is to the\nOriginal Essence. It stands between the [Greek: Nous] and the world of\nphenomena. The [Greek: Nous] penetrates and enlightens it, but it itself\nalready touches the world of phenomena. The [Greek: Nous] is undivided,\nthe soul can also preserve its unity and abide in the [Greek: Nous]; but\nit has at the same time the power to unite itself with the material\nworld and thereby to be divided. Hence it occupies a middle position. In\nvirtue of its nature and destiny it belongs, as the single soul (soul of\nthe world), to the supersensible world; but it embraces at the same time\nthe many individual souls; these may allow themselves to be ruled by the\n[Greek: Nous], or they may turn to the sensible and be lost in the\nfinite.\n\nThe soul, an active essence, begets the corporeal or the world of\nphenomena. This should allow itself to be so ruled by the soul that the\nmanifold of which it consists may abide in fullest harmony. Plotinus is\nnot a dualist like the majority of Christian Gnostics. He praises the\nbeauty and glory of the world. When in it the idea really has dominion\nover matter, the soul over the body, the world is beautiful and good. It\nis the image of the upper world, though a shadowy one, and the\ngradations of better or worse in it are necessary to the harmony of the\nwhole. But, in point of fact, the unity and harmony in the world of\nphenomena disappear in strife and opposition. The result is a conflict,\na growth and decay, a seeming existence. The original cause of this lies\nin the fact that a substratum, viz., matter, lies at the basis of\nbodies. Matter is the foundation of each ([Greek: to bathos hekastou he\nhule]); it is the obscure, the indefinite, that which is without\nqualities, the [Greek: me on]. As devoid of form and idea it is the\nevil, as capable of form the intermediate.\n\nThe human souls that are sunk in the material have been ensnared by the\nsensuous, and have allowed themselves to be ruled by desire. They now\nseek to detach themselves entirely from true being, and striving after\nindependence fall into an unreal existence. Conversion therefore is\nneeded, and this is possible, for freedom is not lost.\n\nNow here begins the practical philosophy. The soul must rise again to\nthe highest on the same path by which it descended: it must first of all\nreturn to itself. This takes place through virtue which aspires to\nassimilation with God and leads to Him. In the ethics of Plotinus all\nearlier philosophic systems of virtue are united and arranged in\ngraduated order. Civic virtues stand lowest, then follow the purifying,\nand finally the deifying virtues. Civic virtues only adorn the life, but\ndo not elevate the soul as the purifying virtues do; they free the soul\nfrom the sensuous and lead it back to itself and thereby to the [Greek:\nNous]. Man becomes again a spiritual and permanent being, and frees\nhimself from every sin, through asceticism. But he is to reach still\nhigher; he is not only to be without sin, but he is to be \"God.\" That\ntakes place through the contemplation of the Original Essence, the One,\nthat is through ecstatic elevation to Him. This is not mediated by\nthought, for thought reaches only to the [Greek: Nous], and is itself\nonly a movement. Thought is only a preliminary stage towards union with\nGod. The soul can only see and touch the Original Essence in a condition\nof complete passivity and rest. Hence, in order to attain to this\nhighest, the soul must subject itself to a spiritual \"Exercise.\" It must\nbegin with the contemplation of material things, their diversity and\nharmony, then retire into itself and sink itself in its own essence, and\nthence mount up to the [Greek: Nous], to the world of ideas; but, as it\nstill does not find the One and Highest Essence there, as the call\nalways comes to it from there: \"We have not made ourselves\" (Augustine\nin the sublime description of Christian, that is, Neoplatonic\nexercises), it must, as it were, lose sight of itself in a state of\nintense concentration, in mute contemplation and complete forgetfulness\nof all things. It can then see God, the source of life, the principle of\nbeing, the first cause of all good, the root of the soul. In that moment\nit enjoys the highest and indescribable blessedness; it is itself, as it\nwere, swallowed up by the deity and bathed in the light of eternity.\n\nPlotinus, as Porphyry relates, attained to this ecstatic union with God\nfour times during the six years he was with him. To Plotinus this\nreligious philosophy was sufficient; he did not require the popular\nreligion and worship. But yet he sought their support. The Deity is\nindeed in the last resort only the Original Essence, but it manifests\nitself in a fulness of emanations and phenomena. The [Greek: Nous] is,\nas it were, the second God; the [Greek: logoi], which are included in\nit, are gods; the stars are gods, etc. A strict monotheism appeared to\nPlotinus a poor thing. The myths of the popular religion were\ninterpreted by him in a particular sense, and he could justify even\nmagic, soothsaying and prayer. He brought forward reasons for the\nworship of images, which the Christian worshippers of images\nsubsequently adopted. Yet, in comparison with the later Neoplatonists,\nhe was free from gross superstition and wild fanaticism. He cannot, in\nthe remotest sense, be reckoned among the \"deceivers who were themselves\ndeceived,\" and the restoration of the ancient worships of the Gods was\nnot his chief aim.\n\nAmong his disciples the most important were Amelius and Porphyry.\nAmelius changed the doctrine of Plotinus in some points, and even made\nuse of the prologue of the Gospel of John. Porphyry has the merit of\nhaving systematized and spread the teaching of his master, Plotinus. He\nwas born at Tyre, in the year 233; whether he was for some time a\nChristian is uncertain; from 263-268 he was a pupil of Plotinus at Rome;\nbefore that he wrote the work [Greek: peri tes ek logion philosophias],\nwhich shews that he wished to base philosophy on revelation; he lived a\nfew years in Sicily (about 270) where he wrote his \"fifteen books\nagainst the Christians\"; he then returned to Rome where he laboured as a\nteacher, edited the works of Plotinus, wrote himself a series of\ntreatises, married, in his old age, the Roman Lady Marcella, and died\nabout the year 303. Porphyry was not an original, productive thinker,\nbut a diligent and thorough investigator, characterized by great\nlearning, by the gift of an acute faculty for philological and\nhistorical criticism, and by an earnest desire to spread the true\nphilosophy of life, to refute false doctrines, especially those of the\nChristians, to ennoble man and draw him to that which is good. That a\nmind so free and noble surrendered itself entirely to the philosophy of\nPlotinus and to polytheistic mysticism, is a proof that the spirit of\nthe age works almost irresistibly, and that religious mysticism was the\nhighest possession of the time. The teaching of Porphyry is\ndistinguished from that of Plotinus by the fact that it is still more\npractical and religious. The aim of philosophy, according to Porphyry,\nis the salvation of the soul. The origin and the guilt of evil lie not\nin the body, but in the desires of the soul. The strictest asceticism\n(abstinence from cohabitation, flesh and wine) is therefore required in\naddition to the knowledge of God. During the course of his life Porphyry\nwarned men more and more decidedly against crude popular beliefs and\nimmoral cults. \"The ordinary notions of the Deity are of such a kind\nthat it is more godless to share them than to neglect the images of the\ngods.\" But freely as he criticised the popular religions, he did not\nwish to give them up. He contended for a pure worship of the many gods,\nand recognised the right of every old national religion, and the\nreligious duties of their professors. His work against the Christians is\nnot directed against Christ, or what he regarded as the teaching of\nChrist, but against the Christians of his day and against the sacred\nbooks which, according to Porphyry, were written by impostors and\nignorant people. In his acute criticism of the genesis or what was\nregarded as Christianity in his day, he spoke bitter and earnest truths,\nand therefore acquired the name of the fiercest and most formidable of\nall the enemies of Christians. His work was destroyed (condemned by an\nedict of Theodosius II. and Valentinian, of the year 448), and even the\nwritings in reply (by Methodius, Eusebius, Apollinaris, Philostorgius,\netc.,) have not been preserved. Yet we possess fragments in Lactantius,\nAugustine, Macarius Magnes and others, which attest how thoroughly\nPorphyry studied the Christian writings and how great his faculty was\nfor true historical criticism.\n\nPorphyry marks the transition to the Neoplatonism which subordinated\nitself entirely to the polytheistic cults, and which strove, above all,\nto defend the old Greek and Oriental religions against the formidable\nassaults of Christianity. Iamblichus, the disciple of Porphyry (died\n330), transformed Neoplatonism \"from a philosophic theorem into a\ntheological doctrine.\" The doctrines peculiar to Iamblichus can no\nlonger be deduced from scientific, but only from practical motives. In\norder to justify superstition and the ancient cults, philosophy in\nIamblichus becomes a theurgic, mysteriosophy, spiritualism. Now appears\nthat series of \"Philosophers\", in whose case one is frequently unable to\ndecide whether they are deceivers or deceived, \"decepti deceptores,\" as\nAugustine says. A mysterious mysticism of numbers plays a great role.\nThat which is absurd and mechanical is surrounded with the halo of the\nsacramental; myths are proved by pious fancies and pietistic\nconsiderations with a spiritual sound; miracles, even the most foolish,\nare believed in and are performed. The philosopher becomes the priest of\nmagic, and philosophy an instrument of magic. At the same time, the\nnumber of Divine Beings is infinitely increased by the further action of\nunlimited speculation. But this fantastic addition which Iamblichus\nmakes to the inhabitants of Olympus, is the very fact which proves that\nGreek philosophy has here returned to mythology, and that the religion\nof nature was still a power. And yet no one can deny that, in the fourth\ncentury, even the noblest and choicest minds were found among the\nNeoplatonists. So great was the declension, that this Neoplatonic\nphilosophy was still the protecting roof for many influential and\nearnest thinkers, although swindlers and hypocrites also concealed\nthemselves under this roof. In relation to some points of doctrine, at\nany rate, the dogmatic of Iamblichus marks an advance. Thus, the\nemphasis he lays on the idea that evil has its seat in the will, is an\nimportant fact; and in general the significance he assigns to the will\nis perhaps the most important advance in psychology, and one which could\nnot fail to have great influence on dogmatic also (Augustine). It\nlikewise deserves to be noted that Iamblichus disputed Plotinus'\ndoctrine of the divinity of the human soul.\n\nThe numerous disciples of Iamblichus (Aedesius, Chrysantius, Eusebius,\nPriscus, Sopater, Sallust and especially Maximus, the most celebrated)\ndid little to further speculation; they occupied themselves partly with\ncommenting on the writings of the earlier philosophers (particularly\nThemistius), partly as missionaries of their mysticism. The interests\nand aims of these philosophers are best shewn in the treatise \"De\nmysteriis AEgyptiorum.\" Their hopes were strengthened when their disciple\nJulian, a man enthusiastic and noble, but lacking in intellectual\noriginality, ascended the imperial throne, 361 to 363. This emperor's\nromantic policy of restoration, as he himself must have seen, had,\nhowever, no result, and his early death destroyed ever hope of\nsupplanting Christianity.\n\nBut the victory of the Church, in the age of Valentinian and Theodosius,\nunquestionably purified Neoplatonism. The struggle for dominion had led\nphilosophers to grasp at and unite themselves with everything that was\nhostile to Christianity. But now Neoplatonism was driven out of the\ngreat arena of history. The Church and its dogmatic, which inherited its\nestate, received along with the latter superstition, polytheism, magic,\nmyths and the apparatus of religious magic. The more firmly all this\nestablished itself in the Church and succeeded there, though not without\nfinding resistance, the freer Neoplatonism becomes. It does not by any\nmeans give up its religious attitude or its theory of knowledge, but it\napplies itself with fresh zeal to scientific investigations and\nespecially to the study of the earlier philosophers. Though Plato\nremains the divine philosopher, yet it may be noticed how, from about\n400, the writings of Aristotle were increasingly read and prized.\nNeoplatonic schools continue to flourish in the chief cities of the\nempire up to the beginning of the fifth century, and in this period they\nare at the same time the places where the theologians of the Church are\nformed. The noble Hypatia, to whom Synesius, her enthusiastic disciple,\nwho was afterwards a bishop, raised a splendid monument, taught in\nAlexandria. But from the beginning of the fifth century ecclesiastical\nfanaticism ceased to tolerate heathenism. The murder of Hypatia put an\nend to philosophy in Alexandria, though the Alexandrian school\nmaintained itself in a feeble form till the middle of the sixth century.\nBut in one city of the East, removed from the great highways of the\nworld, which had become a provincial city and possessed memories which\nthe Church of the fifth century felt itself too weak to destroy, viz.,\nin Athens, a Neoplatonic school continued to flourish. There, among the\nmonuments of a past time, Hellenism found its last asylum. The school of\nAthens returned to a more strict philosophic method and to learned\nstudies. But as it clung to religious philosophy and undertook to reduce\nthe whole Greek tradition, viewed in the light of Plotinus' theory, to a\ncomprehensive and strictly articulated system, a philosophy arose here\nwhich may be called scholastic. For every philosophy is scholastic which\nconsiders fantastic and mythological material as a _noli me tangere_,\nand treats it in logical categories and distinctions by means of a\ncomplete set of formulae. But to these Neoplatonists the writings of\nPlato, certain divine oracles, the Orphic poems, and much else which\nwere dated back to the dim and distant past, were documents of standard\nauthority, and inspired divine writings. They took from them the\nmaterial of philosophy, which they then treated with all the instruments\nof dialectic.\n\nThe most prominent teachers at Athens were Plutarch (died 433), his\ndisciple Syrian (who, as an exegete of Plato and Aristotle, is said to\nhave done important work, and who deserves notice also, because he very\nvigorously emphasised the freedom of the will), but, above all, Proclus\n(411-485). Proclus is the great scholastic of Neoplatonism. It was he\n\"who fashioned the whole traditional material into a powerful system\nwith religious warmth and formal clearness, filling up the gaps and\nreconciling the contradictions by distinctions and speculations,\"\n\"Proclus,\" says Zeller, \"was the first who, by the strict logic of his\nsystem, formally completed the Neoplatonic philosophy and gave it, with\ndue regard to all the changes it had undergone since the second century,\nthat form in which it passed over to the Christian and Mohammedan middle\nages.\" Forty-four years after the death of Proclus the school of Athens\nwas closed by Justinian (in the year 529); but in the labours of Proclus\nit had completed its work, and could now really retire from the scene.\nIt had nothing new to say; it was ripe for death, and an honourable end\nwas prepared for it. The words of Proclus, the legacy of Hellenism to\nthe Church and to the middle ages, attained an immeasurable importance\nin the thousand years which followed. They were not only one of the\nbridges by which the philosophy of the middle ages returned to Plato and\nAristotle, but they determined the scientific method of the next thirty\ngenerations, and they partly produced, partly strengthened and brought\nto maturity the mediaeval Christian mysticism in East and West.\n\nThe disciples of Proclus, Marinus, Asclepiodotus, Ammonius, Zenodotus,\nIsidorus, Hegias, Damascius, are not regarded as prominent. Damascius\nwas the last head of the school at Athens. He, Simplicius, the masterly\ncommentator on Aristotle, and five other Neoplatonists, migrated to\nPersia after Justinian had issued the edict closing the school. They\nlived in the illusion that Persia, the land of the East, was the seat of\nwisdom, righteousness and piety. After a few years they returned with\nblasted hopes to the Byzantine kingdom.\n\nAt the beginning of the sixth century Neoplatonism died out as an\nindependent philosophy in the East; but almost at the same time, and\nthis is no accident, it conquered new regions in the dogmatic of the\nChurch through the spread of the writings of the pseudo-Dionysius; it\nbegan to fertilize Christian mysticism, and filled the worship with a\nnew charm.\n\nIn the West, where, from the second century, we meet with few attempts\nat philosophic speculation, and where the necessary conditions for\nmystical contemplation were wanting, Neoplatonism only gained a few\nadherents here and there. We know that the rhetorician, Marius\nVictorinus, (about 350) translated the writings of Plotinus. This\ntranslation exercised decisive influence on the mental history of\nAugustine, who borrowed from Neoplatonism the best it had, its\npsychology, introduced it into the dogmatic of the Church, and developed\nit still further. It may be said that Neoplatonism influenced the West\nat first only through the medium or under the cloak of ecclesiastical\ntheology. Even Boethius--we can now regard this as certain--was a\nCatholic Christian. But in his mode of thought he was certainly a\nNeoplatonist. His violent death in the year 525, marks the end of\nindependent philosophic effort in the West. This last Roman philosopher\nstood indeed almost completely alone in his century, and the philosophy\nfor which he lived was neither original, nor firmly grounded and\nmethodically carried out.\n\n\n_Neoplatonism and Ecclesiastical Dogmatic._\n\nThe question as to the influence which Neoplatonism had on the history\nof the development of Christianity, is not easy to answer; it is hardly\npossible to get a clear view of the relation between them. Above all,\nthe answers will diverge according as we take a wider or a narrower view\nof so-called \"Neoplatonism.\" If we view Neoplatonism as the highest and\nonly appropriate expression for the religious hopes and moods which\nmoved the nations of Graeco-Roman Empire from the second to the fifth\ncenturies, the ecclesiastical dogmatic which was developed in the same\nperiod, may appear as a younger sister of Neoplatonism which was\nfostered by the elder one, but which fought and finally conquered her.\nThe Neoplatonists themselves described the ecclesiastical theologians as\nintruders who appropriated Greek philosophy, but mixed it with foreign\nfables. Hence Porphyry said of Origen (in Euseb., H. E. VI. 19): \"The\nouter life of Origen was that of a Christian and opposed to the law;\nbut, in regard to his views of things and of the Deity, he thought like\nthe Greeks, inasmuch as he introduced their ideas into the myths of\nother peoples.\" This judgment of Porphyry is at any rate more just and\nappropriate than that of the Church theologians about Greek philosophy,\nthat it had stolen all its really valuable doctrines from the ancient\nsacred writings of the Christians. It is, above all, important that the\naffinity of the two sides was noted. So far, then, as both\necclesiastical dogmatic and Neoplatonism start from the feeling of the\nneed of redemption, so far as both desire to free the soul from the\nsensuous, so far as they recognise the inability of man to attain to\nblessedness and a certain knowledge of the truth without divine help and\nwithout a revelation, they are fundamentally related. It must no doubt\nbe admitted that Christianity itself was already profoundly affected by\nthe influence of Hellenism when it began to outline a theology; but this\ninfluence must be traced back less to philosophy than to the collective\nculture, and to all the conditions under which the spiritual life was\nenacted. When Neoplatonism arose ecclesiastical Christianity already\npossessed the fundamental features of its theology, that is, it had\ndeveloped these, not by accident, contemporaneously and independent of\nNeoplatonism. Only by identifying itself with the whole history of Greek\nphilosophy, or claiming to be the restoration of pure Platonism, was\nNeoplatonism able to maintain that it had been robbed by the church\ntheology of Alexandria. But that was an illusion. Ecclesiastical\ntheology appears, though our sources here are unfortunately very meagre,\nto have learned but little from Neoplatonism even in the third century,\npartly because the latter itself had not yet developed into the form in\nwhich the dogmatic of the church could assume its doctrines, partly\nbecause ecclesiastical theology had first to succeed in its own region,\nto fight for its own position and to conquer older notions intolerable\nto it. Origen was quite as independent a thinker as Plotinus; but both\ndrew from the same tradition. On the other hand, the influence of\nNeoplatonism on the Oriental theologians was very great from the fourth\ncentury. The more the Church expressed its peculiar ideas in doctrines\nwhich, though worked out by means of philosophy, were yet unacceptable\nto Neoplatonism (the christological doctrines), the more readily did\ntheologians in all other questions resign themselves to the influence of\nthe latter system. The doctrines of the incarnation, of the resurrection\nof the body, and of the creation of the word, in time formed the\nboundary lines between the dogmatic of the Church and Neoplatonism; in\nall else ecclesiastical theologians and Neoplatonists approximated so\nclosely that many among them were completely at one. Nay, there were\nChristian men, such as Synesius, for example, who in certain\ncircumstances were not found fault with for giving a speculative\ninterpretation of the specifically Christian doctrines. If in any\nwriting the doctrines just named are not referred to, it is often\ndoubtful whether it was composed by a Christian or a Neoplatonist. Above\nall, the ethical rules, the precepts of the right life, that is,\nasceticism, were always similar. Here Neoplatonism in the end celebrated\nits greatest triumph. It introduced into the church its entire\nmysticism, its mystic exercises, and even the magical ceremonies, as\nexpounded by Iamblichus. The writings of the pseudo-Dionysius contain a\nGnosis in which, by means of the doctrines of Iamblichus and doctrines\nlike those of Proclus, the dogmatic of the church is changed into a\nscholastic mysticism with directions for practical life and worship. As\nthe writings of this pseudo-Dionysius were regarded as those of\nDionysius the disciple of the Apostle, the scholastic mysticism which\nthey taught was regarded as apostolic, almost as a divine science. The\nimportance which these writings obtained first in the East, then from\nthe ninth or the twelfth century also in the West, cannot be too highly\nestimated. It is impossible to explain them here. This much only may be\nsaid, that the mystical and pietistic devotion of to-day, even in the\nProtestant Church, draws its nourishment from writings whose connection\nwith those of the pseudo-Areopagitic can still be traced through its\nvarious intermediate stages.\n\nIn antiquity itself Neoplatonism influenced with special directness one\nWestern theologian, and that the most important, viz., Augustine. By the\naid of this system Augustine was freed from Manichaeism, though not\ncompletely, as well as from scepticism. In the seventh Book of his\nconfessions he has acknowledged his indebtedness to the reading of\nNeoplatonic writings. In the most essential doctrines, viz., those about\nGod, matter, the relation of God to the world, freedom and evil,\nAugustine always remained dependent on Neoplatonism; but at the same\ntime, of all theologians in antiquity he is the one who saw most clearly\nand shewed most plainly wherein Christianity and Neoplatonism are\ndistinguished. The best that has been written by a Father of the Church\non this subject, is contained in Chapters 9-21 of the seventh Book of\nhis confessions.\n\nThe question why Neoplatonism was defeated in the conflict with\nChristianity, has not as yet been satisfactorily answered by historians.\nUsually the question is wrongly stated. The point here is not about a\nChristianity arbitrarily fashioned, but only about Catholic Christianity\nand Catholic theology. This conquered Neoplatonism after it had\nassimilated nearly everything it possessed. Further, we must note the\nplace where the victory was gained. The battle-field was the empire of\nConstantine, Theodosius and Justinian. Only when we have considered\nthese and all other conditions, are we entitled to enquire in what\ndegree the specific doctrines of Christianity contributed to the\nvictory, and what share the organisation of the church had in it.\nUndoubtedly, however, we must always give the chief prominence to the\nfact that the Catholic dogmatic excluded polytheism in principle, and at\nthe same time found a means by which it could represent the faith of the\ncultured mediated by science as identical with the faith of the\nmultitude resting on authority.\n\nIn the theology and philosophy of the middle ages, mysticism was the\nstrong opponent of rationalistic dogmatism; and, in fact, Platonism and\nNeoplatonism were the sources from which in the age of the Renaissance\nand in the following two centuries, empiric science developed itself in\nopposition to the rationalistic dogmatism which disregarded experience.\nMagic, astrology, alchemy, all of which were closely connected with\nNeoplatonism, gave an effective impulse to the observation of nature\nand, consequently, to natural science, and finally prevailed over formal\nand barren rationalism Consequently, in the history of science,\nNeoplatonism has attained a significance and performed services of which\nmen like Iamblichus and Proclus never ventured to dream. In point of\nfact, actual history is often more wonderful and capricious than legends\nand fables.\n\n_Literature_--The best and fullest account of Neoplatonism, to which I\nhave been much indebted in preparing this sketch, is Zeller's, Die\nPhilosophie der Griechen, III. Theil, 2 Abtheilung (3 Auflage, 1881) pp.\n419-865. Cf. also Hegel, Gesch. d. Philos. III. 3 ff. Ritter, IV. pp.\n571-728: Ritter et Preller, Hist. phil. graec. et rom. Sec. 531 ff. The\nHistories of Philosophy by Schwegler, Brandis, Brucker, Thilo,\nStruempell, Ueberweg (the most complete survey of the literature is found\nhere), Erdmann, Cousin, Prantl. Lewes. Further: Vacherot, Hist, de\nl'ecole d'Alexandria, 1846, 1851. Simon, Hist, de l'ecole d'Alexandria,\n1845. Steinhart, articles \"Neuplatonismus\", \"Plotin\", \"Porphyrius\",\n\"Proklus\" in Pauly, Realencyclop. des klass. Alterthums. Wagenmann,\narticle \"Neuplatonismus\" in Herzog, Realencyklopaedie f. protest. Theol.\nT. X. (2 Aufl.) pp. 519-529. Heinze, Lehre vom Logos, 1872, p. 298 f.\nRichter, Neuplatonische Studien, 4 Hefte.\n\nHeigl, Der Bericht des Porphyrios ueber Ongenes, 1835. Redepenning,\nOrigenes I. p. 421 f. Dehaut, Essai historique sur la vie et la doctrine\nd'Ammonius Saccas, 1836. Kirchner, Die Philosophie des Plotin, 1854.\n(For the biography of Plotinus, cf. Porphyry, Eunapius, Suidas; the\nlatter also in particular for the later Neoplatonists). Steinhart, De\ndialectica Plotini ratione, 1829, and Meletemata Plotiniana, 1840.\nNeander, Ueber die welthistorische Bedeutung des 9'ten Buchs in der\n2'ten Enneade des Plotinos, in the Abhandl. der Berliner Akademie, 1843.\np. 299 f. Valentiner, Plotin u.s. Enneaden, in the Theol. Stud. u.\nKritiken, 1864, H. 1. On Porphyrius, see Fabricius, Bibl. gr. V. p. 725\nf. Wolff, Porph. de philosophia ex oraculis haurienda librorum reliquiae,\n1856. Mueller, Fragmenta hist. gr. III. 688 f. Mai, Ep. ad Marcellam,\n1816. Bernays, Theophrast. 1866. Wagenmann, Jahrbuecher fuer Deutsche\nTheol. Th. XXIII. (1878) p. 269 f. Richter, Zeitschr. f. Philos. Th.\nLII. (1867) p. 30 f. Hebenstreit, de Iamblichi doctrina, 1764. Harless,\nDas Buch von den aegyptischen Mysterien, 1858. Meiners, Comment. Societ.\nGotting IV. p. 50 f. On Julian, see the catalogue of the rich literature\nin the Realencyklop. f. prot Theol. Th. VII. (2 Aufl.) p. 287, and\nNeumann, Juliani libr. c. Christ, quae supersunt, 1880. Hoche, Hypatia,\nin \"Philologus\" Th. XV. (1860) p. 435 f. Bach, De Syriano philosopho,\n1862. On Proclus, see the Biography of Marinus and Freudenthal in\n\"Hermes\" Th. XVI. p. 214 f. On Boethius, cf. Nitzsch, Das System des\nBoethius, 1860. Usener, Anecdoton Holderi, 1877.\n\nOn the relation of Neoplatonism to Christianity and its significance in\nthe history of the world, cf. the Church Histories of Mosheim, Gieseler,\nNeander, Baur; also the Histories of Dogma by Baur and Nitzsch. Also\nLoeffler, Der Platonismus der Kirchenvaeter, 1782. Huber, Die Philosophic\nder Kirchenvaeter, 1859. Tzschirner, Fall des Heidenthums, 1829.\nBurckhardt, Die Zeit Constantin's des Grossen, p. 155 f. Chastel, Hist.\nde la destruction du Paganisme dans l'empire d'Orient, 1850. Beugnot,\nHist. de la destruction du Paganisme en Occident, 1835. E. V. Lasaulx,\nDer Untergang des Hellenismus, 1854. Bigg, The Christian Platonists of\nAlexandria 1886. Reville, La religion a Rome sous les Severes, 1886.\nVogt, Neuplatonismus und Christenthum, 1836. Ullmann, Einfluss des\nChristenthums auf Porphyrius, in Stud, und Krit., 1832 On the relation\nof Neoplatonism to Monasticism, cf. Keim, Aus dem Urchristenthum, 1178,\np. 204 f. Carl Schmidt, Gnostische Schriften in Koptischer Sprache, 1892\n(Texte u. Unters. VIII. I. 2). See, further, the Monographs on Origen,\nthe later Alexandrians, the three Cappadocians, Theodoret, Synesius,\nMarius Victorinus, Augustine, Pseudo-Dionysius, Maximus, Scotus Erigena\nand the Mediaeval Mystics. Special prominence is due to: Jahn, Basilius\nPlotinizans, 1838. Dorner, Augustinus, 1875. Bestmann, Qua ratione\nAugustinus notiones philos. Graecae adhibuerit, 1877. Loesche, Augustinus\nPlotinizans, 1881. Volkmann, Synesios, 1869. On the after effects of\nNeoplatonism on Christian Dogmatic, see Ritschl, Theologie und\nMetaphysik. 2 Aufl. 1887.\n\n\n[Footnote 455: Excellent remarks on the nature of Neoplatonism may be\nfound in Eucken, Goett. Gel. Anz., 1 Maerz, 1884 p. 176 ff.: this sketch\nwas already written before I saw them. \"We find the characteristic of\nthe Neoplatonic epoch in the effort to make the inward, which till then\nhad had alongside of it an independent outer world as a contrast, the\nexclusive and all-determining element. The movement which makes itself\nfelt here, outlasts antiquity and prepares the way for the modern\nperiod; it brings about the dissolution of that which marked the\nculminating point of ancient life, that which we are wont to call\nspecifically classic. The life of the spirit, till then conceived as a\nmember of an ordered world and subject to its laws, now freely passes\nbeyond these bounds, and attempts to mould, and even to create, the\nuniverse from itself. No doubt the different attempts to realise this\ndesire reveal, for the most part, a deep gulf between will and deed;\nusually ethical and religious requirements of the naive human\nconsciousness must replace universally creative spiritual power, but all\nthe insufficient and unsatisfactory elements of this period should not\nobscure the fact that, in one instance, it reached the height of a great\nphilosophic achievement, in the case of Plotinus.\"]\n\n[Footnote 456: Plotinus, even in his lifetime, was reproached with\nhaving borrowed most of his system from Numenius. Porphyry, in his \"Vita\nPlotini\", defended him against this reproach.]\n\n[Footnote 457: On this sort of Trinity, see Bigg, \"The Christian\nPlatonists of Alexandria,\" p. 248 f.]","title":"History of Dogma, Volume 1","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":162887}