4. The common confession did not go beyond the statements that Jesus is the Lord, the Saviour, the Son of G.o.d, that one must think of him as of G.o.d, that dwelling now with G.o.d in heaven, he is to be adored as [Greek: prostates kai boethos tes astheneias], and as [Greek: archiereus ton prosphoron hemon] [as guardian and helper of the weak and as High Priest of our oblations], to be feared as the future Judge, to be esteemed most highly as the bestower of immortality, that he is our hope and our faith. There are found rather, on the basis of that confession, very diverse conceptions of the Person, that is, of the nature of Jesus, beside each other,[250] which collectively exhibit a certain a.n.a.logy with the Greek theologies, the naive and the philosophic.[251] There was as yet no such thing here as ecclesiastical "doctrines" in the strict sense of the word, but rather conceptions more or less fluid, which were not seldom fashioned _ad hoc._[252] These may be reduced collectively to two.[253] Jesus was either regarded as the man whom G.o.d hath chosen, in whom the Deity or the Spirit of G.o.d dwelt, and who, after being tested, was adopted by G.o.d and invested with dominion, (Adoptian Christology);[254] or Jesus was regarded as a heavenly spiritual being (the highest after G.o.d) who took flesh, and again returned to heaven after the completion of his work on earth (pneumatic Christology).[255]

These two Christologies which are, strictly speaking, mutually exclusive--the man who has become a G.o.d, and the Divine being who has appeared in human form--yet came very near each other when the Spirit of G.o.d implanted in the man Jesus was conceived as the pre-existent Son of G.o.d,[256] and when, on the other hand, the t.i.tle, Son of G.o.d, for that pneumatic being, was derived only from the miraculous generation in the flesh; yet both these seem to have been the rule.[257] Yet, in spite of all transitional forms, the two Christologies may be clearly distinguished. Characteristic of the one is the development through which Jesus is first to become a G.o.dlike Ruler,[258] and connected therewith, the value put on the miraculous event at the baptism; of the other, a naive docetism.[259] For no one as yet thought of affirming two natures in Jesus:[260] the Divine dignity appeared rather, either as a gift,[261] or the human nature ([Greek: sarx]) as a veil a.s.sumed for a time, or as the metamorphosis of the Spirit.[262] The formula that Jesus was a mere man ([Greek: psilos anthropos]), was undoubtedly always, and from the first, regarded as offensive.[263] But the converse formulae, which identified the person of Jesus in its essence with the G.o.dhead itself, do not seem to have been rejected with the same decision.[264]

Yet such formulae may have been very rare, and even objects of suspicion, in the leading ecclesiastical circles, at least until after the middle of the second century we can point to them only in doc.u.ments which hardly found approbation in wide circles. The a.s.sumption of the existence of at least one heavenly and eternal spiritual being beside G.o.d, was plainly demanded by the Old Testament writings, as they were understood; so that even those whose Christology did not require them to reflect on that heavenly being were forced to recognise it.[265] The pneumatic Christology, accordingly, meets us wherever there is an earnest occupation with the Old Testament, and wherever faith in Christ as the perfect revealer of G.o.d, occupies the foreground, therefore not in Hermas, but certainly in Barnabas, Clement, etc. The future belonged to this Christology, because the current exposition of the Old Testament seemed directly to require it, because it alone permitted the close connection between creation and redemption, because it furnished the proof that the world and religion rest upon the same Divine basis, because it was represented in the most valuable writings of the early period of Christianity, and finally, because it had room for the speculations about the Logos. On the other hand, no direct and natural relation to the world and to universal history could be given to the Adoptian Christology, which was originally determined eschatologically.

If such a relation, however, were added to it, there resulted formulae such as that of two Sons of G.o.d, one natural and eternal, and one adopted, which corresponded neither to the letter of the Holy Scriptures, nor to the Christian preaching. Moreover, the revelations of G.o.d in the Old Testament made by Theophanies, must have seemed, because of this their form, much more exalted than the revelations made through a man raised to power and glory, which Jesus constantly seemed to be in the Adoptian Christology. Nay, even the mysterious personality of Melchisedec, without father or mother, might appear more impressive than the Chosen Servant, Jesus, who was born of Mary, to a mode of thought which, in order to make no mistake, desired to verify the Divine by outer marks. The Adoptian Christology, that is, the Christology which is most in keeping with the self-witness of Jesus (the Son as the chosen Servant of G.o.d), is here shewn to be unable to a.s.sure to the Gentile Christians those conceptions of Christianity which they regarded as of highest value. It proved itself insufficient when confronted by any reflection on the relation of religion to the cosmos, to humanity, and to its history. It might, perhaps, still have seemed doubtful about the middle of the second century, as to which of the two opposing formulae "Jesus is a man exalted to a G.o.dlike dignity", and "Jesus is a divine spiritual being incarnate", would succeed in the Church. But one only needs to read the pieces of writing which represent the latter thesis, and to compare them, say, with the Shepherd of Hermas, in order to see to which view the future must belong. In saying this, however, we are antic.i.p.ating; for the Christological reflections were not yet vigorous enough to overcome enthusiasm and the expectation of the speedy end of all things, and the mighty practical tendency of the new religion to a holy life did not allow any theory to become the central object of attention. But, still, it is necessary to refer here to the controversies which broke out at a later period; for the pneumatic Christology forms an essential article, which cannot be dispensed with, in the expositions of Barnabas, Clement and Ignatius, and Justin shews that he cannot conceive of a Christianity without the belief in a real pre-existence of Christ. On the other hand, the liturgical formulae, the prayers, etc., which have been preserved, scarcely ever take notice of the pre-existence of Christ. They either comprise statements which are borrowed from the Adoptian Christology, or they testify in an unreflective way to the Dominion and Deity of Christ.

5. The ideas of Christ's work which were influential in the communities--Christ as Teacher: creation of knowledge, setting up of the new law; Christ as Saviour: creation of life, overcoming of the demons, forgiveness of sins committed in the time of error,--were by some, in conformity with Apostolic tradition and following the Pauline Epistles, positively connected with the death and resurrection of Christ, while others maintained them without any connection with these events. But one nowhere finds independent thorough reflections on the connection of Christ's saving work with the facts proclaimed in the preaching, above all, with the death on the cross and the resurrection as presented by Paul. The reason of this undoubtedly is that in the conception of the work of salvation, the procuring of forgiveness fell into the background, as this could only be connected by means of the notion of sacrifice, with a definite act of Jesus, viz., with the surrender of his life. Consequently, the facts of the destiny of Jesus combined in the preaching, formed, only for the religious fancy, not for reflection, the basis of the conception of the work of Christ, and were therefore by many writers, Hermas, for example, taken no notice of. Yet the idea of suffering freely accepted, of the cross and of the blood of Christ, operated in wide circles as a holy mystery, in which the deepest wisdom and power of the Gospel must somehow lie concealed.[266] The peculiarity and uniqueness of the work of the historical Christ seemed, however, to be prejudiced by the a.s.sumption that Christ, essentially as the same person, was already in the Old Testament the Revealer of G.o.d. All emphasis must therefore fall on this--without a technical reflection which cannot be proved--that the Divine revelation has now, through the historical Christ, become accessible and intelligible to all, and that the life which was promised will shortly be made manifest.[267]

As to the facts of the history of Jesus, the real and the supposed, the circ.u.mstance that they formed the ever repeated proclamation about Christ gave them an extraordinary significance. In addition to the birth from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin, the death, the resurrection, the exaltation to the right hand of G.o.d, and the coming again, there now appeared more definitely the ascension to heaven, and also, though more uncertainly, the descent into the kingdom of the dead. The belief that Jesus ascended into heaven forty days after the resurrection, gradually made way against the older conception, according to which resurrection and ascension really coincided, and against other ideas which maintained a longer period between the two events. That probably is the result of a reflection which sought to distinguish the first from the later manifestations of the exalted Christ, and it is of the utmost importance as the beginning of a demarcation of the times. It is also very probable that the acceptance of an actual _ascensus in coelum_, not a mere _a.s.sumptio_, was favourable to the idea of an actual descent of Christ _de coelo_, therefore to the pneumatic Christology and vice versa. But there is also closely connected with the _ascensus in coelum_, the notion of a _descensus ad inferna_, which commended itself on the ground of Old Testament prediction. In the first century, however, it still remained uncertain, lying on the borders of those productions of religious fancy which were not able at once to acquire a right of citizenship in the communities.[268]

One can plainly see that the articles contained in the _Kerygma_ were guarded and defended in their reality ([Greek: kat' aletheian]) by the professional teachers of the Church, against sweeping attempts at explaining them away, or open attacks on them.[269] But they did not yet possess the value of dogmas, for they were neither put in an indissoluble union with the idea of salvation, nor were they stereotyped in their extent, nor were fixed limits set to the imagination in the concrete delineation and conception of them.[270]

-- 7. _The Worship, the Sacred Ordinances, and the Organisation of the Churches._

It is necessary to examine the original forms of the worship and const.i.tution, because of the importance which they acquired in the following period even for the development of doctrine.

1. In accordance with the purely spiritual idea of G.o.d, it was a fixed principle that only a spiritual worship is well pleasing to Hun, and that all ceremonies are abolished, [Greek: hina ho kainos nomos tou kuriou hemon Iesou Christou me anthropopoieton echei ten prosphoran].[271] But as the Old Testament and the Apostolic tradition made it equally certain that the worship of G.o.d is a sacrifice, the Christian worship of G.o.d was set forth under the aspect of the spiritual sacrifice. In the most general sense it was conceived as the offering of the heart and of obedience, as well as the consecration of the whole personality, body and soul (Rom XIII. 1) to G.o.d.[272] Here, with a change of the figure, the individual Christian and the whole community were described as a temple of G.o.d.[273] In a more special sense, prayer as thanksgiving and intercession,[274] was regarded as the sacrifice which was to be accompanied, without constraint or ceremony, by fasts and acts of compa.s.sionate love.[275] Finally, prayers offered by the worshipper in the public worship of the community, and the gifts brought by them, out of which were taken the elements for the Lord's supper, and which were used partly in the common meal, and partly in support of the poor, were regarded as sacrifice in the most special sense ([Greek: prosphora, dora]).[276] For the following period, however, it became of the utmost importance, (1) that the idea of sacrifice ruled the whole worship, (2) that it appeared in a special manner in the celebration of the Lord's supper, and consequently invested that ordinance with a new meaning, (3) that the support of the poor, alms, especially such alms as had been gained by prayer and fasting, was placed under the category of sacrifice (Heb. XIII. 16), for this furnished the occasion for giving the widest application to the idea of sacrifice, and thereby subst.i.tuting for the original Semitic Old Testament idea of sacrifice with its spiritual interpretation, the Greek idea with its interpretation.[277] It may, however, be maintained that the changes imposed on the Christian religion by Catholicism, are at no point so obvious and far-reaching, as in that of sacrifice, and especially in the solemn ordinance of the Lord's supper, which was placed in such close connection with the idea of sacrifice.

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

As regards the Lord's Supper, the most important point is that its celebration became more and more the central point, not only for the worship of the Church, but for its very life as a Church. The form of this celebration, the common meal, made it appear to be a fitting expression of the brotherly unity of the community (on the public confession before the meal, see Didache, 14, and my notes on the pa.s.sage). The prayers which it included presented themselves as vehicles for bringing before G.o.d, in thanksgiving and intercession, every thing that affected the community; and the presentation of the elements for the holy ordinance was naturally extended to the offering of gifts for the poor brethren, who in this way received them from the hand of G.o.d himself. In all these respects, however, the holy ordinance appeared as a sacrifice of the community, and indeed, as it was also named, [Greek: eucharistia], sacrifice of thanksgiving.[288] As an act of sacrifice, _termini technici_ which the Old Testament applied to sacrifice could be applied to it, and all the wealth of ideas which the Old Testament connects with sacrifice, could be transferred to it. One cannot say that anything absolutely foreign was therewith introduced into the ordinance, however doubtful it may be whether in the idea of its founder the meal was thought of as a sacrificial meal. But it must have been of the most wide-reaching significance, that a wealth of ideas was in this way connected with the ordinance, which had nothing whatever in common, either with the purpose of the meal as a memorial of Christ's death,[289] or with the mysterious symbols of the body and blood of Christ. The result was that the one transaction obtained a double value.

At one time it appeared as the [Greek: prosphora] and [Greek: thusia] of the Church,[290] as the pure sacrifice which is presented to the great king by Christians scattered over the world, as they offer to him their prayers, and place before him again what he has bestowed in order to receive it back with thanks and praise. But there is no reference in this to the mysterious words that the bread and wine are the body of Christ broken, and the blood of Christ shed for the forgiveness of sin.

These words, in and of themselves, must have challenged a special consideration. They called forth the recognition in the sacramental action, or rather in the consecrated elements, of a mysterious communication of G.o.d, a gift of salvation, and this is the second aspect. But on a purely spiritual conception of the Divine gift of salvation, the blessings mediated through the Holy Supper could only be thought of as spiritual (faith, knowledge, or eternal life), and the consecrated elements could only be recognised as the mysterious vehicles of these blessings. There was yet no reflection on the distinction between symbol and vehicle; the symbol was rather regarded as the vehicle, and vice versa. We shall search in vain for any special relation of the partaking of the consecrated elements to the forgiveness of sin. That was made impossible by the whole current notions of sin and forgiveness. That on which value was put was the strengthening of faith and knowledge, as well as the guarantee of eternal life, and a meal in which there was appropriated not merely common bread and wine, but a [Greek: trophe pneumatike], seemed to have a bearing upon these. There was as yet little reflection; but there can be no doubt that thought here moved in a region bounded, on the one hand, by the intention of doing justice to the wonderful words of inst.i.tution which had been handed down, and on the other hand, by the fundamental conviction that spiritual things can only be got by means of the Spirit.[291] There was thus attached to the Supper the idea of sacrifice, and of a sacred gift guaranteed by G.o.d. The two things were held apart, for there is as yet no trace of that conception, according to which the body of Christ represented in the bread[292] is the sacrifice offered by the community.

But one feels almost called upon here to construe from the premises the later development of the idea, with due regard to the ancient h.e.l.lenic ideas of sacrifice.

3. The natural distinctions among men, and the differences of position and vocation which these involve, were not to be abolished in the Church, notwithstanding the independence and equality of every individual Christian, but were to be consecrated: above all, every relation of natural piety was to be respected. Therefore the elders also acquired a special authority, and were to receive the utmost deference and due obedience. But, however important the organisation that was based on the distinction between [Greek: presbuteroi] and [Greek: neoteroi], it ought not to be considered as characteristic of the Churches, not even where there appeared at the head of the community a college of chosen elders, as was the case in the greater communities and perhaps soon everywhere. On the contrary, only an organisation founded on the gifts of the Spirit [Greek: charismata], bestowed on the Church by G.o.d,[293] corresponded to the original peculiarity of the Christian community. The Apostolic age therefore transmitted a twofold organisation to the communities. The one was based on the [Greek: diakonia tou logou], and was regarded as established directly by G.o.d; the other stood in the closest connection with the economy of the church, above all with the offering of gifts, and so with the sacrificial service. In the first were men speaking the word of G.o.d, commissioned and endowed by G.o.d, and bestowed on Christendom, not on a particular community, who as [Greek: apostoloi, prophetai], and [Greek: didaskaloi] had to spread the Gospel, that is to edify the Church of Christ. They were regarded as the real [Greek: hegoumenoi] in the communities, whose words given them by the Spirit all were to accept in faith. In the second were [Greek: episkopoi], and [Greek: diakonoi], appointed by the individual congregation and endowed with the charisms of leading and helping, who had to receive and administer the gifts, to perform the sacrificial service (if there were no prophets present), and take charge of the affairs of the community.[294] It lay in the nature of the case that as a rule the [Greek: episkopoi], as independent officials, were chosen from among the elders, and might thus coincide with the chosen [Greek: presbyteroi]. But a very important development takes place in the second half of our epoch. The prophets and teachers--as the result of causes which followed the naturalising of the Churches in the world--fell more and more into the background, and their function, the solemn service of the word, began to pa.s.s over to the officials of the community, the bishops, who already played a great role in the public worship. At the same time, however, it appeared more and more fitting to entrust one official, as chief leader (superintendent of public worship), with the reception of gifts and their administration, together with the care of the unity of public worship, that is, to appoint one bishop instead of a number of bishops, leaving, however, as before, the college of presbyters, as [Greek: proistamenoi tes ekklesias], a kind of senate of the community.[295] Moreover, the idea of the chosen bishops and deacons as the ant.i.types of the Priests and Levites, had been formed at an early period in connection with the idea of the new sacrifice. But we find also the idea, which is probably the earlier of the two, that the prophets and teachers, as the commissioned preachers of the word, are the priests. The hesitancy in applying this important allegory must have been brought to an end by the disappearance of the latter view. But it must have been still more important that the bishops, or bishop, in taking over the functions of the old [Greek: lalountes ton logon], who were not Church officials, took over also the profound veneration with which they were regarded as the special organs of the Spirit. But the condition of the organisation in the communities about the year 140, seems to have been a very diverse one. Here and there, no doubt, the convenient arrangement of appointing only one bishop was carried out, while his functions had not perhaps been essentially increased, and the prophets and teachers were still the great spokesmen. Conversely, there may still have been in other communities a number of bishops, while the prophets and teachers no longer played regularly an important role. A fixed organisation was reached, and the Apostolic episcopal const.i.tution established, only in consequence of the so-called Gnostic crisis, which was epoch-making in every respect. One of its most important presuppositions, and one that has struck very deep into the development of doctrine must, however, be borne in mind here. As the Churches traced back all the laws according to which they lived, and all the blessings they held sacred, to the tradition of the twelve Apostles, because they regarded them as Christian only on that presupposition, they also in like manner, as far as we can discover, traced back their organisation of presbyters, i.e., of bishops and deacons, to Apostolic appointment. The notion which followed quite naturally, was that the Apostles themselves had appointed the first church officials.[296] That idea may have found support in some actual cases of the kind, but this does not need to be considered here; for these cases would not have led to the setting up of a theory.

But the point in question here is a theory, which is nothing else than an integral part of the general theory, that the twelve Apostles were in every respect the middle term between Jesus and the present Churches (see above, p. 158). This conception is earlier than the great Gnostic crisis, for the Gnostics also shared it. But no special qualities of the officials, but only of the Church itself, were derived from it, and it was believed that the independence and sovereignty of the Churches were in no way endangered by it, because an inst.i.tution by Apostles was considered equivalent to an inst.i.tution by the Holy Spirit, whom they possessed, and whom they followed. The independence of the Churches rested precisely on the fact that they had the Spirit in their midst.

The conception here briefly sketched, was completely transformed in the following period by the addition of another idea--that of Apostolic succession,[297] and then became, together with the idea of the specific priesthood of the leader of the Church, the most important means of exalting the office above the community.[298]

_Supplementary._

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

The doc.u.ments which have been preserved from the first century of the Gentile Church are, in their relation to the history of Dogma, very diverse. In the Didache we have a Catechism for Christian life, dependent on a Jewish Greek Catechism, and giving expression to what was specifically Christian in the prayers, and in the order of the Church.

The Epistle of Barnabas, probably of Alexandrian origin, teaches the correct, Christian, interpretation of the Old Testament, rejects the literal interpretation and Judaism as of the devil, and in Christology essentially follows Paul. The Romish first Epistle of Clement, which also contains other Pauline reminiscences (reconciliation and justification) represents the same Christology, but it set it in a moralistic mode of thought. This is a most typical writing in which the spirit of tradition, order, stability, and the universal ecclesiastical guardianship of Rome is already expressed. The moralistic mode of thought is cla.s.sically represented by the Shepherd of Hermas, and the second Epistle of Clement, in which, besides, the eschatological element is very prominent. We have in the Shepherd the most important doc.u.ment for the Church Christianity of the age, reflected in the mirror of a prophet who, however, takes into account the concrete relations. The theology of Ignatius is the most advanced, in so far as he, opposing the Gnostics, brings the facts of salvation into the foreground, and directs his Gnosis not so much to the Old Testament as to the history of Christ.

He attempts to make Christ [Greek: kata pneuma] and [Greek: kata sarka]

the central point of Christianity. In this sense his theology and speech is Christocentric, related to that of Paul and the fourth Evangelist, (specially striking is the relationship with Ephesians), and is strongly contrasted with that of his contemporaries. Of kindred spirit with him are Melito and Irenaeus, whose forerunner he is. He is related to them as Methodius at a later period was related to the cla.s.sical orthodox theology of the fourth and fifth centuries. This parallel is appropriate, not merely in point of form: it is rather one and the same tendency of mind which pa.s.ses over from Ignatius to Melito, Irenaeus, Methodius, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa (here, however, mixed with Origenic elements), and to Cyril of Alexandria. Its characteristic is that not only does the person of Christ as the G.o.d-man form the central point and sphere of theology, but also that all the main points of his history are mysteries of the world's redemption. (Ephes. 19). But Ignatius is also distinguished by the fact that behind all that is enthusiastic, pathetic, abrupt, and again all that pertains to liturgical form, we find in his epistles a true devotion to Christ ([Greek: ho theos mou]). He is laid hold of by Christ: Cf. Ad. Rom. 6: [Greek: ekeinon zeto, ton hyper hemon apothanonta, ekeinon thelo ton di'

hemas anastanta]; Rom. 7: [Greek: ho emos eros estaurotai kai ouk estin en emoi pur philoulon]. As a sample of his theological speech and his rule of faith, see ad. Smyrn. 1: [Greek: enoesa humas katertismenous en akineto pistei, hosper kathelomenous en to stauro tou kuriou Iesou Christou sarki te kai pneumati kai hedrasmenous en agape en to haimati Christou, pepleroph.o.r.emenous eis ton kuriou hemon, alethos onta ek genous Dabid kata sarka, huion theou kata thelema kai dunamin theou, gegenemenon alethos ek parthenou, bebaptismenon hypo Ioannou, hina plerothe pasa dikaiosune hup' autou, alethos epi Pontiou Pilatou kai Herodou tetrarchou kathelomenon huper hemon en sarki--aph' hou karpou hemeis, apo tou theomakaritou autou pathous--hina are sussemon eis tous aionas dia tes anastaseos eis tous agious kai pistous autou eite en Ioudaious eite en ethnesin en heni somati tes ekklesias autou]. The Epistle of Polycarp is characterised by its dependence on earlier Christian writings (Epistles of Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John), consequently, by its conservative att.i.tude with regard to the most valuable traditions of the Apostolic period. The _Kerygma_ of Peter exhibits the transition from the early Christian literature to the apologetic (Christ as [Greek: nomos] and as [Greek: logos]).

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

_Literature._--The writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers. See the edition of v. Gebhardt, Harnack, Zahn, 1876. Hilgenfeld, Nov. Test.

extra Can. recept. fasc. IV. 2 edit. 1884, has collected further remains of early Christian literature. The Teaching of the twelve Apostles.

Fragments of the Gospel and Apocalypse of Peter (my edition, 1893). Also the writings of Justin and other apologists, in so far as they give disclosures about the faith of the communities of his time, as well as statements in Celsus [Greek: Alethes Logos], in Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian. Even Gnostic fragments may be cautiously turned to profit. Ritschl, Entstehung der altkath. Kirche 2 Aufl. 1857.

Pfleiderer, Das Urchristenthum, 1887. Renan, Origins of Christianity, vol. V. V. Engelhardt, Das Christenthum Justin's, d. M. 1878, p. 375 ff.

Schenkel, Das Christusbild der Apostel, etc., 1879. Zahn, Gesch. des N.-Tlichen Kanons, 2 Bde. 1888. Behm, Das Christliche Gesetzthum der Apostolischen Vater (Zeitschr. f. kirchl. Wissensch. 1886). Dorner, History of the doctrine of the Person of Christ, 1845. Schultz, Die Lehre von der Gottheit Christi, 1881, p. 22 ff. Hofling. Die Lehre der altesten Kirche vom Opfer, 1851. Hofling, Das Sacrament d. Taufe, 1848.

Kahnis, Die Lehre vom Abendmahl, 1851. Th. Harnack, Der Christliche Gemeindegottedienst im Apost. u. Altkath. Zeitalter, 1854. Hatch, Organisation of the Early Church, 1883. My Prolegomena to the Didache (Texte u. Unters. II. Bd. H. 1, 2). Diestel, Gesch. des A.T. in der Christi. Kirche, 1869. Sohm, Kirchenrecht, 1892, Monographs on the Apostolic Fathers: on 1 Clem.: Lipsius, Lightfoot (most accurate commentary), Wrede; on 2 Clem.: A. Harnack (Ztschr. f. K. Gesch. 1887); on Barnabas: J. Muller; on Hermas: Zahn, Huckstadt, Link; on Papias: Weiffenbach, Leimbach, Zahn, Lightfoot; on Ignatius and Polycarp: Lightfoot (accurate commentary) and Zahn; on the Gospel and Apocalypse of Peter: A. Harnack: on the Kerygma of Peter: von Dobschutz; on Acts of Thecla: Schlau.

[Footnote 162: The statements made in this chapter need special forbearance, especially as the selection from the rich and motley material--cf. only the so-called Apostolic Fathers--the emphasising of this, the throwing into the background of that element, cannot here be vindicated. It is not possible, in the compa.s.s of a brief account, to give expression to that elasticity and those oscillations of ideas and thoughts which were peculiar to the Christians of the earliest period.

There was indeed, as will be shewn, a complex of tradition in many respects fixed, but this complex was still under the dominance of an enthusiastic fancy, so that what at one moment seemed fixed, in the next had disappeared. Finally, attention must be given to the fact that when we speak of the beginnings of knowledge, the members of the Christian community in their totality are no longer in question, but only individuals who of course were the leaders of the others. If we had no other writings from the times of the Apostolic Fathers than the first Epistle of Clement and the Epistle of Polycarp, it would be comparatively easy to sketch a clear history of the development connecting Paulinism with the old-Catholic Theology as represented by Irenaeus, and so to justify the traditional ideas. But besides these two Epistles which are the cla.s.sic monuments of the mediating tradition, we have a great number of doc.u.ments which shew us how manifold and complicated the development was. They also teach us how careful we should be in the interpretation of the post-Apostolic doc.u.ments that immediately followed the Pauline Epistles, and that we must give special heed to the paragraphs and ideas in them, which distinguish them from Paulinism. Besides, it is of the greatest importance that those two Epistles originated in Rome and Asia Minor, as these are the places where we must seek the embryonic stage of old-Catholic doctrine.

Numerous fine threads, in the form of fundamental ideas and particular views, pa.s.s over from the Asia Minor theology of the post-Apostolic period into the old-Catholic theology.]

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

[Footnote 164: "Corpus sumus," says Tertullian at a time when this description had already become an anachronism, "de conscientia religionis et disciplinae unitate et spei foedere." (Apol. 39: cf. Ep.

Petri ad Jacob. I.: [Greek: eis theos, eis nomos, mia elpis]). The description was applicable to the earlier period, when there was no such thing as a federation with political forms, but when the consciousness of belonging to a community and of forming a brotherhood ([Greek: adelphotes]) was all the more deeply felt: See, above all, 1 Clem ad Corinth., the Didache (9-15), Aristides, Apol 15: "and when they have become Christians, they call them (the slaves) brethren without hesitation ... for they do not call them brethren according to the flesh, but according to the spirit and in G.o.d;" cf. also the statements on brotherhood in Tertullian and Minucius Felix (also Lucian). We have in 1 Clem. I. 2, the delineation of a perfect Christian Church. The Epistles of Ignatius are specially instructive as to the independence of each individual community: 1 Clem. and Didache, as to the obligation to a.s.sist stranger communities by counsel and action, and to support the travelling brethren. As every Christian is a [Greek: paroikos] so every community is a [Greek: paroikousa ten polin] but it is under obligation to give an example to the world, and must watch that "the name be not blasphemed." The importance of the social element in the oldest Christian communities, has been very justly brought into prominence in the latest works on the subject (Renan, Heinrici, Hatch). The historian of dogma must also emphasise it, and put the fluid notions of the faith in contrast with the definite consciousness of moral tasks. See 1 Clem.

47-50; Polyc. Ep. 3; Didache 1 ff.; Ignat. ad Eph. 14, on [Greek: agape]

as the main requirement Love demands that everyone "[Greek: zetei to koinopheles pasin kai me to heautou]" (1 Clem. 48. 6, with parallels; Didache 16. 3; Barn. 4. 10; Ignatius).]

[Footnote 165: 1 Clem. 59. 2. in the Church prayer; [Greek: hopos ton arithmon ton katerithmenon ton eklekton autou en holo toi kosmo diaphulaxe athrauston ho demiourgos ton hapanton dia tou egapemenou paidos autou Iesou Christou].]

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

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

[Footnote 168: See Hermas Vis. I-III. Papias. Fragm. VI. and VII. of my edition. 2 Clem. 14: [Greek: poiountes to thelema tou patros hemon esometha ek tes ekklesias tes protes tes pneumatikes, tes pro heliou kai selenes ektismenes.... ekklesia zosa soma esti Christou legei gar he graphe epoiesen ho theos ton anthropon a.r.s.en kai thelu. to a.r.s.en estin ho Christos, to thelu he ekklesia].]

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

[Footnote 170: See Valentinus in Clem. Strom. VI. 6. 52. "Holy Church", perhaps also in Marcion, if his text (Zahn. Gesch. des N.T.-lichen Kanons, II. p. 502) in Gal. IV. 21, read: [Greek: hetis estin meter humon, gennosa eis hen epengeilametha hagian ekklesian].]

[Footnote 171: Barn. 3. 6.]

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

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

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

[Footnote 175: Herm. Mand. I. has merely fixed the Monotheistic confession [Greek: proton panton pisteuson, hoti eis estin ho theos, ho ta panta ktisas kai katartisas k.t.l.] See Praed Petri in Clem Strom VI.

6, 48, VI. 5, 39. Aristides gives in c. 2 of his Apology the preaching of Jesus Christ but where he wishes to give a short expression of Christianity he is satisfied with saying that Christians are those who have found the one true G.o.d. See e.g. c. 15.

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

[Footnote 176: Very instructive here is 2 Clem. ad Corinth. 20, 5 [Greek: to mono theo aorato, patri tes aletheias, to exatosteilanti hemin ton sotera kai archegon tes aphtharsias, di' ou kai ephanerosen hemin ten aletheian kai ten epouranion zoen, auto he doxa]. On the Holy Spirit see previous note.]

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

[Footnote 178: See the collection of pa.s.sages in Patr. App. Opp. edit.

Gebhardt. 1. 2 p. 133, and the formula, Diogn. 11: [Greek: apostolon genomenos mathetes ginomai didaskalos ethnon, ta paradothenta axios hupereton ginomenois aletheias mathetais]. Besides the Old Testament and the traditions about Jesus (Gospels), the Apocalyptic writings of the Jews, which were regarded as writings of the Spirit, were also drawn upon. Moreover, Christian letters and manifestoes proceeding from Apostles, prophets, or teachers, were read. The Epistles of Paul were early collected and obtained wide circulation in the first half of the second century; but they were not Holy Scripture in the specific sense, and therefore their authority was not unqualified.]

[Footnote 179: Barn. 5. 6, [Greek: hoi prophetai, apo tou kuriou echontes ten charin, eis auton epropheteusan]. Ignat. ad Magn. 8. 2. cf.

also Clem. Paedag. I. 7. 59: [Greek: ho gar autos houtos paidagogos tote men "phobethese kurion ton theon elegen, hemin de agapeseis kurion ton theon sou" tarenesen. dia touto kai entelletai hemin "pausasthe apo ton ergon humon" ton palaion hamartion, "mathete kalon poiein, ekklinon apo kakou kai poieson agathon, egapesas dikaiosunen, emisesas anomian" haute mou he nea diatheke palaoi kecharagmene grammati].]

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