History of Dogma Volume I Part 11

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

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

[Footnote 183: Father, son, and spirit: Paul; Matt XXVIII. 19; 1 Clem.

ad. Cor. 58. 2 (see 2. 1. f.; 42. 3; 46. 6); Didache 7; Ignat. Eph. 9.

1; Magn. 13. 1. 2.; Philad. inscr.; Mart. Polyc. 14. 1. 2; Ascens. Isai.

8 18:9. 27:10. 4:11. 32ff;, Justin _pa.s.sim_; Montan. ap. Didym. de trinit. 411; Excerpta ex Theodot. 80; Pseudo Clem. de virg. 1 13. Yet the omission of the Holy Spirit is frequent, as in Paul, or the Holy Spirit is identified with the Spirit of Christ. The latter takes place even with such writers as are familiar with the baptismal formula.

Ignat. ad Magn. 15; [Greek: kektemenoi adiakriton pneuma, hos estin Iesous Christos.].]

[Footnote 184: The formulae run: "G.o.d who has spoken through the Prophets," or the "Prophetic Spirit," etc.]

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

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

[Footnote 187: See Caspari, Quellen z. Gesch. des Taufsymbols, III. p. 3 ff. and Patr. App. Opp. 1. 2. p 115-142. The old Roman Symbol reads: [Greek: Pisteuo eis theon patera pantokratora, kai eis Christon Iesoun (ton) huion autou ton monogene], (on this word see Westcott's Excursus in his commentary on 1st John) [Greek: ton kurion hemon ton gennethenta ek pneumatos hagiou kai Marias tes parthenou, ton epi Pontiou Pilatou staurothenta kai taphenta; te trite hemerai anastanta ek nekron, anabanta eis tous ouranous, kathemenon en dexia tou patros, hothen erchetai krinai zontas kai nekrous. kai eis pneuma hagion, hagian ekklesian, aphesin hamartion sarkos anastasin, amen]. To estimate this very important article aright we must note the following: (1) It is not a formula of doctrine, but of confession. (2) It has a liturgical form which is shewn in the rhythm and in the disconnected succession of its several members, and is free from everything of the nature of polemic.

(3) It tapers off into the three blessings, Holy Church, forgiveness of sin, resurrection of the body, and in this as well as in the fact that there is no mention of [Greek: gnosis (aletheia) kai zoe aionos], is revealed an early Christian untheological att.i.tude. (4) It is worthy of note, on the other hand, that the birth from the Virgin occupies the first place, and all reference to the baptism of Jesus, also to the Davidic Sonship, is wanting. (5) It is further worthy of note, that there is no express mention of the death of Jesus, and that the Ascension already forms a special member (that is also found elsewhere, Ascens. Isaiah, c. 3. 13. ed. Dillmann. p. 13. Murator. Fragment, etc.).

Finally, we should consider the want of the earthly Kingdom of Christ and the mission of the twelve Apostles, as well as, on the other hand, the purely religious att.i.tude, no notice being taken of the new law.

Zahn (Das Apostol. Symbolum, 1893) a.s.sumes, "That in all essential respects the identical baptismal confession which Justin learned in Ephesus about 130, and Marcion confessed in Rome about 145, originated at latest somewhere about 120." In some "unpretending notes" (p. 37 ff.) he traces this confession back to a baptismal confession of the Pauline period ("it had already a.s.sumed a more or less stereotyped form in the earlier Apostolic period"), which, however, was somewhat revised, so far as it contained, for example, "of the house of David", with reference to Christ. "The original formula, reminding us of the Jewish soil of Christianity, was thus remodelled, perhaps about 70-120, with retention of the fundamental features, so that it might appear to answer better to the need of candidates for baptism, proceeding more and more from the Gentiles.... This changed formula soon spread on all sides. It lies at the basis of all the later baptismal confessions of the Church, even of the East. The first article was slightly changed in Rome about 200-220."

While up till then, in Rome as everywhere else, it had read [Greek: pisteuo eis hena theon pantokratora], it was now changed in [Greek: pisteuo eis theon patera pantokratora]. This hypothesis, with regard to the early history of the Roman Symbol, presupposes that the history of the formation of the baptismal confession in the Church, in east and west, was originally a uniform one. This cannot be proved; besides, it is refuted by the facts of the following period. It presupposes secondly, that there was a strictly formulated baptismal confession outside Rome before the middle of the second century, which likewise cannot be proved; (the converse rather is probable, that the fixed formulation proceeded from Rome.) Moreover, Zahn himself retracts everything again by the expression "more or less stereotyped form;" for what is of decisive interest here is the question, when and where the fixed sacred form was produced. Zahn here has set up the radical thesis that it can only have taken place in Rome between 200 and 220. But neither his negative nor his positive proof for a change of the Symbol in Rome at so late a period is sufficient. No sure conclusion as to the Symbol can be drawn from the wavering _regulae fidei_ of Irenaeus and Tertullian which contain the "unum"; further, the "unum" is not found in the western provincial Symbols, which, however, are in part earlier than the year 200. The Romish correction must therefore have been subsequently taken over in the provinces (Africa?). Finally, the formula [Greek: theon patera pantokratora] beside the more frequent [Greek: theon pantokratora] is attested by Irenaeus, I. 10. 1, a decisive pa.s.sage. With our present means we cannot attain to any direct knowledge of Symbol formation before the Romish Symbol. But the following hypotheses, which I am not able to establish here, appear to me to correspond to the facts of the case and to be fruitful: (1) There were, even in the earliest period, separate _Kerygmata_ about G.o.d and Christ: see the Apostolic writings, Hermas, Ignatius, etc. (2) The _Kerygma_ about G.o.d was the confession of the one G.o.d of creation, the almighty G.o.d. (3) The _Kerygma_ about Christ had essentially the same historical contents everywhere, but was expressed in diverse forms: (a) in the form of the fulfilment of prophecy, (b) in the form [Greek: kata sarka, kata pneuma], (c) in the form of the first and second advent, (d) in the form, [Greek: katabas-anabas]; these forms were also partly combined.

(4) The designations "Christ", "Son of G.o.d" and "Lord"; further, the birth from the Holy Spirit, or [Greek: kata pneuma], the sufferings (the practice of exorcism contributed also to the fixing and naturalising of the formula "crucified under Pontius Pilate"), the death, the resurrection, the coming again to judgment, formed the stereotyped content of the _Kerygma_ about Jesus. The mention of the Davidic Sonship, of the Virgin Mary, of the baptism by John, of the third day, of the descent into Hades, of the _demonstratio verae carnis post resurrectionem_, of the ascension into heaven and the sending out of the disciples, were additional articles which appeared here and there. The [Greek: sarka labon], and the like, were very early developed out of the forms (b) and (d). All this was already in existence at the transition of the first century to the second. (5) The proper contribution of the Roman community consisted in this, that it inserted the _Kerygma_ about G.o.d and that about Jesus into the baptismal formula, widened the clause referring to the Holy Spirit, into one embracing Holy Church, forgiveness of sin, resurrection of the body, excluded theological theories in other respects, undertook a reduction all round, and accurately defined everything up to the last world. (6) The western _regulae fidei_ do not fall back exclusively on the old Roman Symbol, but also on the earlier freer _Kerygmata_ about G.o.d and about Jesus which were common to the east and west; not otherwise can the _regulae fidei_ of Irenaeus and Tertullian, for example, be explained. But the symbol became more and more the support of the _regula_. (7) The eastern confessions (baptismal symbols) do not fall back directly on the Roman Symbol, but were probably on the model of this symbol, made up from the provincial _Kerygmata_, rich in contents and growing ever richer, hardly, however, before the third century. (8) It cannot be proved, and it is not probable, that the Roman Symbol was in existence before Hermas, that is, about 135.]

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

[Footnote 189: [Greek: Didache kurion dia ton ib' apostolon] (Did.

inscr.) is the most accurate expression (similarly 2 Pet. III. 2).

Instead of this might be said simply [Greek: ho kurios] (Hegesipp.).

Hegesippus (Euseb. H. E. IV. 22. 3; See also Steph. Gob.) comprehends the ultimate authorities under the formula: [Greek: hos ho nomos kerussei kai hoi prophetai kai ho kurios], just as even Pseudo Clem de Virg. I. 2: "Sicut ex lege ac prophetis et a domino nostro Jesu Christo didicimus." Polycarp (6.3) says: [Greek: kathos autos eneteilato ka hoi euangelisamenoi hemas apostoloi kai hoi prophetai hoi prokeruxantes ten eleusin tou kuriou hemon]. In the second Epistle of Clement (14. 2) we read: [Greek: ta biblia] (O.T.) [Greek: kai hoi apostoloi, to euangelion] may also stand for [Greek: ho kurios]; (Ignat., Didache. 2 Clem. etc.). The Gospel, so far as it is described, is quoted as [Greek: ta apomnemoneumata t. apostolon] (Justin, Tatian), or on the other hand, as [Greek: hai kuriakai graphai], (Dionys. Cor. in Euseb. H. E. IV. 23.

12: at a later period in Tertull. and Clem. Alex.). The words of the Lord, in the same way as the words of G.o.d, are called simply [Greek: ta logia (kuriaka)]. The declaration of Serapion at the beginning of the third century (Euseb., H. E. VI. 12. 3): [Greek: hemeis kai Petron kai tous allous apostolous apodechometha hos Christon], is an innovation in so far as it puts the words of the Apostles fixed in writing and as distinct from the words of the Lord, on a level with the latter. That is, while differentiating the one from the other, Serapion ascribes to the words of the apostles and those of the Lord equal authority. But the development which led to this position, had already begun in the first century. At a very early period there were read in the communities, beside the Old Testament, Gospels, that is collections of words of the Lord, which at the same time contained the main facts of the history of Jesus. Such notes were a necessity (Luke 1.4; [Greek: hina epignos peri hon katechethes logon ten asphaleian]), and though still indefinite and in many ways unlike, they formed the germ for the genesis of the New Testament. (See Weiss, Lehrb. d. Einleit in d. N. T. p. 21 ff.). Further there were read Epistles and Manifestoes by apostles, prophets and teachers, but, above all, Epistles of Paul. The Gospels at first stood in no connection with these Epistles, however high they might be prized.

But there did exist a connection between the Gospels and the [Greek: ap'

arches autoptais kai huperetais tou logou], so far as these mediated the tradition of the Evangelic material, and on their testimony rests the _Kerygma_ of the Church about the Lord as the Teacher, the crucified and risen One. Here lies the germ for the genesis of a canon which will comprehend the Lord and the Apostles, and will also draw in the Pauline Epistles. Finally, Apocalypses were read as Holy Scriptures.]

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

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

The sojourn of John in Asia Minor cannot, I think, be contested.]

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

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

[Footnote 194: The Gentile-Christian conception of the significance of the twelve--a fact to be specially noted--was all but unanimous (see above Chap. II.): the only one who broke through it was Marcion. The writers of Asia Minor, Rome and Egypt coincide in this point. Beside the Acts of the Apostles, which is specially instructive, see 1 Clem. 42; Barn 5. 9, 8. 3: Didache inscr.; Hermas, Vis. III. 5, 11; Sim. IX. 15, 16, 17, 25; Petrusev-Petrusapok. Praed. Petr. ap. Clem. Strom. VI. 6, 48; Ignat. ad Trall. 3; ad Rom 4; ad Philad. 5; Papias; Polyc., Aristides; Justin _pa.s.sim_; inferences from the great work of Irenaeus, the works of Tertull. and Clem. Alex; the Valentinians. The inference that follows from the eschatological hope, that the Gospel has already been preached to the world, and the growing need of having a tradition mediated by eye-witnesses co-operated here, and out of the twelve who were in great part obscure, but who had once been authoritative in Jerusalem and Palestine, and highly esteemed in the Christian Diaspora from the beginning, though unknown, created a court of appeal, which presented itself as not only taking a second rank after the Lord himself, but as the medium through which alone the words of the Lord became the possession of Christendom, as he neither preached to the nations nor left writings. The importance of the twelve in the main body of the Church may at any rate be measured by the facts, that the personal activity of Jesus was confined to Palestine, that he left behind him neither a confession nor a doctrine, and that in this respect the tradition tolerated no more corrections. Attempts which were made in this direction, the fiction of a semi-Gentile origin of Christ, the denial of the Davidic Sonship, the invention of a correspondence between Jesus and Abgarus, meetings of Jesus with Greeks, and much else, belong only in part to the earliest period, and remained as really inoperative as they were uncertain (according to Clem. Alex., Jesus himself is the Apostle to the Jews; the twelve are the Apostles to the Gentiles in Euseb. H. E. VI. 141). The notion about the twelve Apostles evangelising the world in accordance with the commission of Jesus, is consequently to be considered as the means by which the Gentile Christians got rid of the inconvenient fact of the merely local activity of Jesus (compare how Justin expresses himself about the Apostles: their going out into all the world is to him one of the main articles predicted in the Old Testament, Apol. 1. 39; compare also the Apology of Aristides, c. 2, and the pa.s.sage of similar tenor in the Ascension of Isaiah, where the "adventus XII. discipulorum" is regarded as one of the fundamental facts of salvation, c. 3. 13, ed. Dillmann, p 13, and a pa.s.sage such as Iren.

fragm. XXIX. in Harvey II., p. 494, where the parable about the grain of mustard seed is applied to the [Greek: logos epouranios] and the twelve Apostles; the Apostles are the branches [Greek: hup' hon kladon skepasthentes hoi pantes hos ornea hupo kalian sunelthonta metelabon tes ex auton proerchomenes edodimou kai epouraniou trophes] Hippol. de Antichr. 61. Orig. c. Cels. III. 28). This means, as it was empty of contents, was very soon to prove the most convenient instrument for establishing ever new historical connections, and legitimising the _status quo_ in the communities. Finally, the whole catholic idea of tradition was rooted in that statement which was already, at the close of the first century, formulated by Clement of Rome (c. 42): [Greek: hoi apostoloi hemin euengelisthesan apo tou kuriou Iesou Christou, Iesous ho christos apo tou theou exepemphthe. ho christos oun apo tou theou, kai hoi apostoloi apo tou Christou; egenonto oun amphotera eutaktos ek thelematos theou, k.t.l.] Here, as in all similar statements which elevate the Apostles into the history of revelation, the unanimity of all the Apostles is always presupposed, so that the statement of Clem.

Alex. (Strom VII., 17, 108: [Greek: mia he panton gegone ton apostolon hosper didaskalia houtos de kai he paradosis], see Tertull., de praescr.

32: "Apostoli non diversa inter se docuerent," Iren. alii), contains no innovation, but gives expression to an old idea: That the twelve unitedly proclaimed one and the same message, that they proclaimed it to the world, that they were chosen to this vocation by Christ, that the communities possess the witness of the Apostles as their rule of conduct (Excerp. ex Theod. 25 [Greek: hosper hupo ton zodion he genesis dioikeitai houtos hupo ton apostolon he anagennesis]) are authoritative theses which can be traced back as far as we have any remains of Gentile-Chnstian literature. It was thereby presupposed that the unanimous _kerygma_ of the twelve Apostles which the communities possess as [Greek: kanon tes paradoseos] (1 Clem. 7), was public and accessible to all. Yet the idea does not seem to have been everywhere kept at a distance that besides the _kerygma_ a still deeper knowledge was transmitted by the Apostles or by certain Apostles to particular Christians who were specially gifted. Of course we have no direct evidence of this, but the connection in which certain Gnostic unions stood at the beginning with the communities developing themselves to Catholicism and inferences from utterances of later writers (Clem. Alex.

Tertull.), make it probable that this conception was present in the communities here and there even in the age of the so-called Apostolic Fathers. It may be definitely said that the peculiar idea of tradition ([Greek: theos--christos--hoi dodeka apostoloi--ekklesiai]) in the Gentile Churches is very old but that it was still limited in its significance at the beginning and was threatened (1) by a wider conception of the idea 'Apostle' (besides, the fact is important that Asia Minor and Rome were the very places where a stricter idea of Apostle made its appearance. See my Edition of the Didache, p. 117), (2) by free prophets and teachers moved by the Spirit, who introduced new conceptions and rules and whose word was regarded as the word of G.o.d, (3) by the a.s.sumption not always definitely rejected, that besides the public tradition of the _kerygma_ there was a secret tradition. That Paul as a rule was not included in this high estimate of the Apostles is shewn by this fact among others, that the earlier Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles are much less occupied with his person than with the rest of the Apostles. The features of the old legends which make the Apostles in their deeds, their fate, nay even in appearance as far as possible, equal to the person of Jesus himself deserve special consideration (see, for example the descent of the Apostles into h.e.l.l in Herm. Sim. IX. 16), for it is just here that the fact above established that the activity of the Apostles was to make up for the want of the activity of Jesus himself among the nations stands clearly out (See Acta Johannis ed. Zahn p 246 [Greek: ho eklexamenos hemas eis apostolen ethnon ho ekpempsas hemas eis ten oikoumenen theos ho deixas heauton dia ton apostolon] also the remarkable declaration of Origen about the Chronicle of Phlegon [Hadrian], that what holds good of Christ, is in that Chronicle transferred to Peter; finally we may recall to mind the visions in which an Apostle suddenly appears as Christ). Between the judgment of value [Greek: hemeis tous apostolous apodechometha hos Christon] and those creations of fancy in which the Apostles appear as G.o.ds and demiG.o.ds there is certainly a great interval but it can be proved that there are stages lying between these extreme points. It is therefore permissible to call to mind here the oldest Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles although they may have originated almost completely in Gnostic circles (see also the Pistis Sophia which brings a metaphysical theory to the establishment of the authority of the Apostles, p. 11, 14; see Texte u Unters VII. 2 p. 61 ff.). Gnosticism here as frequently elsewhere is related to common Christianity as excess progressing to the invention of a myth with a tendency to a historical theorem determined by the effort to maintain one's own position; cf. the article from the _kerygma_ of Peter in Clem. Strom. VI. 6, 48 [Greek: Exelexamen humas dodeka mathetas, k.t.l.] the introduction to the basal writing of the first 6 books of the Apostolic Const.i.tutions and the introduction to the Egyptian ritual, [Greek: kata keleusin tou kuriou humon k.t.l.] Besides it must be admitted that the origin of the idea of tradition and its connection with the twelve is obscure; what is historically reliable here has still to be investigated, even the work of Seufert (Der Urspr.

u. d. Bedeutung des Apostolats in der christl Kirche der ersten zwei Jahrhunderte, 1887) has not cleared up the dark points. We will perhaps get more light by following the important hint given by Weizsacker (Apost. Age p. 13 ff.) that Peter was the first witness of the resurrection, and was called such in the _kerygma_ of the communities (see 1 Cor. XV., 5 Luke XXIV. 34). The twelve Apostles are also further called [Greek: hoi peri ton Petron] (Mrc. fin. in L Ign. ad Smyrn. 3, cf. Luke VIII. 45, Acts II. 14, Gal. I. 18 f., 1 Cor. XV. 5), and it is a correct historical reminiscence when Chrysostom says (Hom. in Joh.

88), [Greek: ho Petros ekeritos en ton apostolon kai stoma ton matheton kai koruphe tou chorou.] Now as Peter was really in personal relation with important Gentile-Christian communities, that which held good of him, the recognized head and spokesman of the twelve, was perhaps transferred to these. One has finally to remember that besides the appeal to the twelve there was in the Gentile Churches an appeal to Peter and Paul (but not for the evangelic _kerygma_) which has a certain historical justification, cf. Gal. II. 8, 1 Cor. I. 12 f., IX. 5, 1 Clem. Ign. ad Rom. 4 and the numerous later pa.s.sages. Paul in claiming equality with Peter, though Peter was the head and mouth of the twelve and had himself been active in mission work, has perhaps contributed most towards spreading the authority of the twelve. It is notable how rarely we find any special appeal to John in the tradition of the main body of the Church. For the middle of the 2nd century the authority of the twelve Apostles may be expressed in the following statements: (1) They were missionaries for the world, (2) They ruled the Church and established Church Offices, (3) They guaranteed the true doctrine (a) by the tradition going back to them, (b) by writings, (4) They are the ideals of Christian life, (5) They are also directly mediators of salvation--though this point is uncertain.]

[Footnote 195: See Didache c. 1-10, with parallel pa.s.sages.]

[Footnote 196: Cf., for example, the first epistle of Clement to the Corinthians with the Shepherd of Hermas. Both doc.u.ments originated in Rome.]

[Footnote 197: Compare how dogmatic and ethical elements are inseparably united in the Shepherd, in first and second Clement, as well as in Polycarp and Justin.]

[Footnote 198: Note the hymnal parts of the Revelation of John, the great prayer with which the first epistle of Clement closes, the "carmen dicere Christo quasi deo," reported by Pliny, the eucharist prayer in the [Greek: Didache], the hymn 1 Tim. III. 16, the fragments from the prayers which Justin quotes, and compare with these the declaration of the anonymous writer in Euseb. H. E. V. 28. 5, that the belief of the earliest Christians in the Deity of Christ might be proved from the old Christian hymns and odes. In the epistles of Ignatius the theology frequently consists of an aimless stringing together of articles manifestly originating in hymns and the cultus.]

[Footnote 199: The prophet and teacher express what the Spirit of G.o.d suggests to them. Their word is therefore G.o.d's word, and their writings, in so far as they apply to the whole of Christendom, are inspired, holy writings. Further, not only does Acts XV. 22 f. exhibit the formula [Greek: edoxen toi pneumati toi hagioi kai hemin] (see similar pa.s.sages in the Acts), but the Roman writings also appeal to the Holy Spirit (1 Clem. 63. 2): likewise Barnabas, Ignatius, etc. Even in the controversy about the baptism of heretics a Bishop gave his vote with the formula: "secundum motum animi mei et spiritus sancti" (Cypr.

Opp. ed. Hartel, I. p. 457).]

[Footnote 200: The so-called Chiliasm--the designation is unsuitable and misleading--is found wherever the Gospel is not yet h.e.l.lenised (see, for example, Barn. 4. 15; Hermas; 2 Clem.; Papias [Euseb. III. 39]; [Greek: Didache], 10. 16; Apoc. Petri; Justin. Dial. 32, 51, 80, 82, 110, 139; Cerinthus), and must be regarded as a main element of the Christian preaching (see my article "Millenium" in the Encycl. Brit.) In it lay not the least of the power of Christianity in the first century, and the means whereby it entered the Jewish propaganda in the Empire and surpa.s.sed it. The hopes springing out of Judaism were at first but little modified, that is, only so far as the subst.i.tution of the Christian communities for the nation of Israel made modification necessary. In all else even the details of the Jewish hopes of the future were retained, and the extra-canonical Jewish Apocalypses (Esra, Enoch, Baruch, Moses, etc.) were diligently read alongside of Daniel.

Their contents were in part joined on to sayings of Jesus and they served as models for similar productions (here therefore an enduring connection with the Jewish religion is very plain). In the Christian hopes of the future as in the Jewish eschatology may be distinguished essential and accidental fixed and fluid elements. To the former belong: (1) the notion of a final fearful conflict with the powers of the world which is just about to break out [Greek: to teleion skandalon engiken], (2) belief in the speedy return of Christ, (3) the conviction that after conquering the secular power (this was variously conceived as G.o.d's Ministers as that which restrains--2 Thess. II. 6, as a pure kingdom of Satan see the various estimates in Justin, Melito, Irenaeus and Hippolytus) Christ will establish a glorious kingdom on the earth and will raise the saints to share in that kingdom, and (4) that he will finally judge all men. To the fluid elements belong the notions of the Antichrist or of the secular power culminating in the Antichrist as well as notions about the place, the extent, and the duration of Christ's glorious kingdom. But it is worthy of special note that Justin regarded the belief that Christ will set up his kingdom in Jerusalem, and that it will endure for 1000 years, as a necessary element of orthodoxy, though he confesses he knew Christians who did not share this belief, while they did not like the pseudo Christians reject also the resurrection of the body (the promise of Monta.n.u.s that Christ's kingdom would be let down at Pepuza and Tymion is a thing by itself and answers to the other promises and pretensions of Monta.n.u.s). The resurrection of the body is expressed in the Roman Symbol while very notably the hope of Christ's earthly kingdom is not there mentioned (see above p. 157). The great inheritance which the Gentile Christian communities received from Judaism is the eschatological hopes along with the Monotheism a.s.sured by revelation and belief in providence. The law as a national law was abolished. The Old Testament became a new book in the hands of the Gentile Christians. On the contrary the eschatological hopes in all their details and with all the deep shadows which they threw on the state and public life were at first received and maintained themselves in wide circles pretty much unchanged and only succ.u.mbed in some of their details--just as in Judaism--to the changes which resulted from the constant change of the political situation. But these hopes were also destined in great measure to pa.s.s away after the settlement of Christianity on Graeco-Roman soil. We may set aside the fact that they did not occupy the foreground in Paul, for we do not know whether this was of importance for the period that followed. But that Christ would set up the kingdom in Jerusalem, and that it would be an earthly kingdom with sensuous enjoyments--these and other notions contend on the one hand with the vigorous antijudaism of the communities, and on the other with the moralistic spiritualism, in the pure carrying out of which the Gentile Christians in the East at least increasingly recognised the essence of Christianity. Only the vigorous world renouncing enthusiasm which did not permit the rise of moralistic spiritualism and mysticism, and the longing for a time of joy and dominion that was born of it, protected for a long time a series of ideas which corresponded to the spiritual disposition of the great mult.i.tude of converts only at times of special oppression. Moreover the Christians in opposition to Judaism were, as a rule, instructed to obey magistrates whose establishment directly contradicted the judgment of the state contained in the Apocalypses. In such a conflict however that judgment necessarily conquers at last which makes as little change as possible in the existing forms of life. A history of the gradual attenuation and subsidence of eschatologlcal hopes in the II.-IV. centuries can only be written in fragments. They have rarely--at best by fits and starts--marked out the course. On the contrary if I may say so they only gave the smoke, for the course was pointed out by the abiding elements of the Gospel, trust in G.o.d and the Lord Christ, the resolution to a holy life, and a firm bond of brotherhood. The quiet gradual change, in which the eschatologlcal hopes pa.s.sed away fell into the background or lost important parts, was on the other hand a result of deep reaching changes in the faith and life of Christendom. Chiliasm as a power was broken up by speculative mysticism and on that account very much later in the West than in the East. But speculative mysticism has its centre in christology. In the earliest period this as a theory belonged more to the defence of religion than to religion itself. Ignatius alone was able to reflect on that transference of power from Christ which Paul had experienced. The disguises in which the apocalyptic eschatologlcal prophecies were set forth belonged in part to the form of this literature (in so far as one could easily be given the lie if he became too plain or in so far as the prophet really saw the future only in large outline) partly it had to be chosen in order not to give political offence. See Hippol. comm. in Daniel (Georgiades, p. 49, 51. [Greek: noein opheilomen ta kata kairon sumbainonta kai eidotas siopan]), but above all Constantine orat. ad s. coetum 19, on some verses of Virgil which are interpreted in a Christian sense but that none of the rulers in the capital might be able to accuse their author of violating the laws of the state with his poetry or of destroying the traditional ideas of the procedure about the G.o.ds he concealed the truth under a veil.

That holds good also of the Apocalyptists and the poets of the Christian Sibylline sayings.]

[Footnote 201: The hope of the resurrection of the body (1 Clem. 26. 3 [Greek: anasteseis ten sarka mou tauten], Herm. Sim. V. 7. 2 [Greek: blepe metote anabe epi ten kardian sou ten sarka sou tauten phtharten einai]. Barn. 5. 6 f., 21. 1, 2 Clem. 9. 1 [Greek: kai me legeto tis humon oti haute he sarx ou krinetai oude anistatai]. Polyc. Ep. 7. 2, Justin Dial. 80, etc.) finds its place originally in the hope of a share in the glorious kingdom of Christ. It therefore disappears or is modified wherever that hope itself falls into the background. But it finally a.s.serted itself through out and became of independent importance in a new structure of eschatologlcal expectations in which it attained the significance of becoming the specific conviction of Christian faith.

With the hope of the resurrection of the body was originally connected the hope of a happy life in easy blessedness under green trees in magnificent fields with joyous feeding flocks and flying angels clothed in white. One must read the Revelation of Peter the Shepherd or the Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas in order to see how entirely the fancy of many Christians and not merely of those who were uncultured dwelt in a fairyland in which they caught sight now of the Ancient of days and now of the Youthful Shepherd Christ. The most fearful delineations of the torments of h.e.l.l formed the reverse side to this. We now know through the Apocalypse of Peter, how old these delineations are.]

[Footnote 202: The perfect knowledge of the truth and eternal life are connected in the closest way (see p. 144, note 1) because the Father of truth is also Prince of life (see Diognet. 12: [Greek: oude gar zoe aneu gnoseos oude gnosis asphales aneu zoes alethous dio plesion ekateron pephyteutai], see also what follows). The cla.s.sification is a h.e.l.lenic one, which has certainly penetrated also into Palestinian Jewish theology. It may be reckoned among the great intuitions, which in the fulness of the times, united the religious and reflective minds of all nations. The Pauline formula, "Where there is forgiveness of sin, there also is life and salvation", had for centuries no distinct history. But the formula, "Where there is truth, perfect knowledge, there also is eternal life", has had the richest history in Christendom from the beginning. Quite apart from John, it is older than the theology of the Apologists (see, for example, the Supper prayer in the Didache, 9. 10, where there is no mention of the forgiveness of sin, but thanks are given, [Greek: huper tes gnoseos kai pisteos kai athanasias hes egnorisen hemin ho theos dia Iesou], or [Greek: huper tes zoes kai gnoseos], and 1 Clem. 36. 2: [Greek: dia touto ethelesen ho despotes tes athanatou gnoseos hemas geusasthai]). It is capable of a very manifold content, and has never made its way in the Church without reservations, but so far as it has we may speak of a h.e.l.lenising of Christianity. This is shewn most clearly in the fact that the [Greek: athanasia], identical with [Greek: aphtharsia] and [Greek: zoe aionios], as is proved by their being often interchanged, gradually supplanted the [Greek: basileia tou theou] ([Greek: christou]) and thrust it out of the sphere of religious intuition and hope into that of religious speech. It should also be noted, at the same time, that in the hope of eternal life which is bestowed with the knowledge of the truth, the resurrection of the body is by no means with certainty included. It is rather added to it (see above) from another series of ideas. Conversely, the words [Greek: zoen aionion] were first added to the words [Greek: sarkos anastasin] in the western Symbols at a comparatively late period, while in the prayers they are certainly very old.]

[Footnote 203: Even the a.s.sumption of such a remission is fundamentally in contradiction with moralism; but that solitary remission of sin was not called in question, was rather regarded as distinctive of the new religion, and was established by an appeal to the omnipotence and special goodness of G.o.d, which appears just in the calling of sinners.

In this calling, grace as grace is exhausted (Barn. 5. 9; 2 Clem. 2.

4-7). But this grace itself seems to be annulled, inasmuch as the sins committed before baptism were regarded as having been committed in a state of ignorance (Tertull. de bapt. I.: delicta pristinae caecitatis), on account of which it seemed worthy of G.o.d to forgive them, that is, to accept the repentance which followed on the ground of the new knowledge.

So considered, everything, in point of fact, amounts to the gracious gift of knowledge, and the memory of the saying, "Jesus receiveth sinners", is completely obscured. But the tradition of this saying and many like it, and above all, the religious instinct, where it was more powerfully stirred, did not permit a consistent development of that moralistic conception. See for this, Hermas, Sim. V. 7. 3: [Greek: per ton proteron agnoematon toi theoi monoi dunaton iasin dounai; autou gar esti pasa exousia]. Praed. Petri ap. Clem. Strom. VI. 6. 48: [Greek: hosa en agnoia tis humon epoiesen me eidos saphos ton theon, ean epignous metanoesei, panta autoi aphethesetai ta hamartemata]. Aristides, Apol.

17: "The Christians offer prayers (for the unconverted Greeks) that they may be converted from their error. But when one of them is converted he is ashamed before the Christians of the works which he has done. And he confesses to G.o.d, saying: 'I have done these things in ignorance.' And he cleanses his heart, and his sins are forgiven him, because he had done them in ignorance, in the earlier period when he mocked and jeered at the true knowledge of the Christians." Exactly the same in Tertull.

de pudic. so. init. The statement of this same writer (1. c. fin), "Cessatio delicti radix est veniae, ut venia sit paenitentiae fructus", is a pregnant expression of the conviction of the earliest Gentile Christians.]

[Footnote 204: This idea appears with special prominence in the Epistle of Barnabas (see 6. 11. 14); the new formation ([Greek: anapla.s.sein]) results through the forgiveness of sin. In the moralistic view the forgiveness of sin is the result of the renewal that is spontaneously brought about on the ground of knowledge shewing itself in penitent feeling.]

[Footnote 205: Barn. 2. 6, and my notes on the pa.s.sage.]

[Footnote 206: James I. 25.]

[Footnote 207: Hermas. Sim. VIII. 3. 2; Justin Dial. II. 43; Praed. Petri in Clem., Strom. I. 29. 182; II. 15. 68.]

[Footnote 208: Didache, c. 1., and my notes on the pa.s.sage (Prolegg. p.

45 f.).]

[Footnote 209: The concepts, [Greek: epangelia, gnosis, nomos], form the Triad on which the later catholic conception of Christianity is based, though it can be proved to have been in existence at an earlier period.

That [Greek: pistis] must everywhere take the lead was undoubted, though we must not think of the Pauline idea of [Greek: pistis]. When the Apostolic Fathers reflect upon faith, which, however, happens only incidentally, they mean a holding for true of a sum of holy traditions, and obedience to them, along with the hope that their consoling contents will yet be fully revealed. But Ignatius speaks like a Christian who knows what he possesses in faith in Christ, that is, in confidence in him. In Barn. 1, Polyc. Ep. 2, we find "faith, hope, love"; in Ignatius, "faith and love." Tertullian, in an excellent exposition, has shewn how far patience is a temper corresponding to Christian faith (see besides the Epistle of James).]

[Footnote 210: See Lipsius De Clementis R. ep. ad. Cor. priore disquis.

1855. It would be in point of method inadmissible to conclude from the fact that in 1 Clem. Pauline formulae are relatively most faithfully produced, that Gentile Christianity generally understood Pauline theology at first, but gradually lost this understanding in the course of two generations.]

[Footnote 211: Formally: [Greek: teresate ten sarka agnen kai ten sphragida aspilon] (2 Clem. 8. 6).]

[Footnote 212: Hermas (Mand. IV. 3) and Justin presuppose it. Hermas of course sought and found a way of meeting the results of that idea which were threatening the Church with decimation; but he did not question the idea itself. Because Christendom is a community of saints which has in its midst the sure salvation, all its members--this is the necessary inference--must lead a sinless life.]

[Footnote 213: The formula, "righteousness by faith alone", was really repressed in the second century; but it could not be entirely destroyed: see my Essay, "Gesch. d. Seligkeit allein durch den Glauben in der alten K." Ztsch. f. Theol. u Kirche. I. pp. 82-105.]