[Footnote 214: The only thorough discussion of the use of the Old Testament by an Apostolic Father, and of its authority, that we possess, is Wrede's "Untersuchungen zum 1 Clemensbrief" (1891). Excellent preliminary investigations, which, however, are not everywhere quite reliable, may be found in Hatch's Essays in Biblical Greek, 1889. Hatch has taken up again the hypothesis of earlier scholars, that there were very probably in the first and second centuries systematised extracts from the Old Testament (see p. 203-214). The hypothesis is not yet quite established (see Wrede, above work, p. 65), but yet it is hardly to be rejected. The Jewish catechetical and missionary instruction in the Diaspora needed such collections, and their existence seem to be proved by the Christian Apologies and the Sybilline books.]

[Footnote 215: It is an extremely important fact that the words of the Lord were quoted and applied in their literal sense (that is chiefly for the statement of Christian morality) by Ecclesiastical authors, almost without exception, up to and inclusive of Justin. It was different with the theologians of the age, that is the Gnostics, and the Fathers from Irenaeus.]

[Footnote 216: Justin was not the first to do so, for it had already been done by the so-called Barnabas (see especially c. 13) and others.

On the proofs from prophecy see my Texte und Unters. Bd. I. 3. pp.

56-74. The pa.s.sage in the Praed. Petri (Clem. Strom. VI. 15. 128) is very complete: [Greek: Hemis anaptixantes tas biblous tas eichomen ton propheton, ha men dia parabolon ha de dia ainigmaton, ha de authentikos kai autolexei ton Christon Iesoun onomazonton, euromen kai ten parousian autou kai ton thanaton kai ton stauron kai tas loipas kolaseis pasas, hosas epoiesan auto hoi Ioudaioi, kai ten egersin kai ten eis ouranous a.n.a.lepsin pro tou Hiersoluma krithenai, kathos egegrapto tauta panta ha edei auton pathein kai met' auton ha estai; tauta oun epignontes episteusamen to theo dia ton gegrammennon eis auton.] With the help of the Old Testament the teachers dated back the Christian religion to the beginning of the human race, and joined the preparations for the founding of the Christian community with the creation of the world. The Apologists were not the first to do so, for Barnabas and Hermas, and before these, Paul, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and others had already done the same. This was undoubtedly to the cultured cla.s.ses one of the most impressive articles in the missionary preaching. The Christian religion in this way got a hold which the others--with the exception of the Jewish--lacked. But for that very reason, we must guard against turning it into a formula, that the Gentile Christians had comprehended the Old Testament essentially through the scheme of prediction and fulfilment. The Old Testament is certainly the book of predictions, but for that very reason the complete revelation of G.o.d which needs no additions and excludes subsequent changes. The historical fulfilment only proves to the world the truth of those revelations. Even the scheme of shadow and reality is yet entirely out of sight. In such circ.u.mstances the question necessarily arises, as to what independent meaning and significance Christ's appearance could have, apart from that confirmation of the Old Testament. But, apart from the Gnostics, a surprisingly long time pa.s.sed before this question was raised, that is to say, it was not raised till the time of Irenaeus.]

[Footnote 217: See [Greek: Didache], 8.]

[Footnote 218: See the Revelation of John II. 9; III. 9; but see also the "Jews" in the Gospels of John and of Peter. The latter exonerates Pilate almost completely, and makes the Jews and Herod responsible for the crucifixion.]

[Footnote 219: See Barn. 9. 4. In the second epistle of Clement the Jews are called: [Greek: hoi dokiountes echein theon], cf. Praed. Petri in Clem., Strom. VI. 5. 41: [Greek: mede kata Ioudaious sebesthe, kai gar ekeinoi monoi oiomenoi ton theon gignoskein ouk epistantai, latreuontes angelois kai archangelois, men kai selene, ka ean me selene phanei, sabbaton ouk agousi to legomenon proton, oude neomenian agousin, oude azuma, oude heorten, oude megalen hemera]. (Cf. Diognet. 34.) Even Justin does not judge the Jews more favourably than the Gentiles, but less favourably; see Apol I. 37, 39, 43, 34, 47, 53, 60. On the other hand, Aristides (Apol. c. 14, especially in the Syrian text) is much more friendly disposed to the Jews and recognises them more. The words of Pionius against and about the Jews, in the "Acta Pionii," c. 4, are very instructive.]

[Footnote 220: Barn. 4. 6. f.; 14. 1 f. The author of Praed. Petri must have had a similar view of the matter.]

[Footnote 221: Justin in the Dialogue with Trypho.]

[Footnote 222: Barn. 9 f. It is a thorough misunderstanding of Barnabas'

position towards the Old Testament to suppose it possible to pa.s.s over his expositions, c. 6-10, as oddities and caprices, and put them aside as indifferent or unmethodical. There is nothing here unmethodical, and therefore nothing arbitrary. Barnabas' strictly spiritual idea of G.o.d, and the conviction that all (Jewish) ceremonies are of the devil, compel his explanations. These are so little ingenious conceits to Barnabas that, but for them, he would have been forced to give up the Old Testament altogether. The account, for example, of Abraham having circ.u.mcised his slaves would have forced Barnabas to annul the whole authority of the Old Testament if he had not succeeded in giving it a particular interpretation. He does this by combining other pa.s.sages of Genesis with the narrative, and then finding in it no longer circ.u.mcision, but a prediction of the crucified Christ.]

[Footnote 223: Barn. 9. 6: [Greek: all' ereis, kai men peritetmetai ho laos eis sphragida].]

[Footnote 224: See the expositions of Justin in the Dial. (especially, 16, 18, 20, 30, 40-46); Von Engelhardt, "Christenthum Justin's", p. 429, ff. Justin has the three estimates side by side. (1) That the ceremonial law was a paedagogic measure of G.o.d with reference to a stiff-necked people, p.r.o.ne to idolatry. (2) That it--like circ.u.mcision--was to make the people conspicuous for the execution of judgment, according to the Divine appointment. (3) That in the ceremonial legal worship of the Jews is exhibited the special depravity and wickedness of the nation. But Justin conceived the Decalogue as the natural law of reason, and therefore definitely distinguished it from the ceremonial law.]

[Footnote 225: See Ztschr fur K.G. I., p. 330 f.]

[Footnote 226: This is the unanimous opinion of all writers of the post-Apostolic age. Christians are the true Israel; and therefore all Israel's predicates of honour belong to them. They are the twelve tribes, and therefore Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, are the Fathers of the Christians. This idea, about which there was no wavering, cannot everywhere be traced back to the Apostle Paul. The Old Testament men of G.o.d were in a certain measure Christians. See Ignat. Magn. 8. 2: [Greek: hoi prophetai kata Christon Iesoun ezesan].]

[Footnote 227: G.o.d was naturally conceived and represented as corporeal by uncultured Christians, though not by these alone, as the later controversies prove (e.g., Orig. contra Melito; see also Tertull. De anima). In the case of the cultured, the idea of a corporeality of G.o.d may be traced back to Stoic influences; in the case of the uncultured, popular ideas co-operated with the sayings of the Old Testament literally understood, and the impression of the Apocalyptic images.]

[Footnote 228: See Joh. IV. 22, [Greek: hemeis proskunoumen ho oidamen].

1 Clem. 59. 3, 4, Herm. Mand. I., Praed Petri in Clem., Strom. VI. 5. 9 [Greek: ginoskete hoti eis theos estin, hos archen panton epoiesen, kai telous exousian echon]. Aristides Apol. 15 (Syr) "The Christians know and believe in G.o.d, the creator of heaven and of earth." Chap. 16 "Christians as men who know G.o.d pray to him for things which it becomes him to give and them to receive." Similarly Justin: "From very many old Gentile Christian writings we hear it as a cry of joy 'We know G.o.d the Almighty, the night of blindness is past'" (see, e.g., 2 Clem. c. 1).

G.o.d is [Greek: despotes], a designation which is very frequently used (it is rare in the New Testament). Still more frequently do we find [Greek: kurios]. As the Lord and Creator G.o.d is also called the Father (of the world) so 1 Clem. 19. 2 [Greek: ho pater kai ktistes tou sumpantos kosmou]; 35. 3 [Greek: demiourgos kai pater ton aionon]. This use of the name Father for the supreme G.o.d was as is well known familiar to the Greeks, but the Christians alone were in earnest with the name.

The creation out of nothing was made decidedly prominent by Hermas, see Vis. I. 1. 6 and my notes on the pa.s.sage. In the Christian Apocrypha, in spite of the vividness of the idea of G.o.d, the angels play the same role as in the Jewish, and as in the current Jewish speculations. According to Hermas, e.g., all G.o.d's actions are mediated by special angels, nay the Son of G.o.d himself is represented by a special angel, viz. Michael, and works by him. But outside the Apocalypses there seems to have been little interest in the good angels.]

[Footnote 229: See, for example 1 Clem. 20.]

[Footnote 230: This is frequent in the Apologists, see also Diogn. 10.

2; but Hermas, Vis. II. 4. 1 (see also Cels. ap Orig. IV. 23) says [Greek: dia ten ekklesian ho kosmos katertisthe] (cf. I. 1. 6 and my notes on the pa.s.sage). Aristides (Apol. 16) declares it as his conviction that "the beautiful things, that is, the world are maintained only for the sake of Christians," see besides the words (I. c.), "I have no doubt that the earth continues to exist (only) on account of the prayers of the Christians." Even the Jewish Apocalyptists wavered between the formulae, that the world was created for the sake of man and for the sake of the Jewish nation. The two are not mutually exclusive.

The statement in the Eucharistic prayer of Didache, 9. 3 [Greek: ektisas ta panta heneken tou onomatos sou] is singular.]

[Footnote 231: G.o.d is named the Father, (1) in relation to the Son (very frequent) (2) as Father of the world (see above) (3) as the merciful one who has proved his goodness, declared his will and called Christians to be his sons (1 Clem. 23. 1, 29. 1, 2 Clem. 1. 4, 8. 4, 10. 1, 14. 1, see the index to Zahn's edition of the Ignatian Epistles, Didache, 1. 5, 9.

2, 3, 10. 2). The latter usage is not very common, it is entirely wanting for example in the Epistle of Barnabas. Moreover G.o.d is also called [Greek: pater tes aletheias] as the source of all truth (2 Clem.

3. 1, 20. 5 [Greek: theos to aletheias]). The ident.i.ty of the Almighty G.o.d of creation with the merciful G.o.d of redemption is the tacit presupposition of all declarations about G.o.d in the case of both the cultured and the uncultured. It is also frequently expressed (see above all the Pastoral Epistles), most frequently by Hermas (Vis. 1. 3. 4) so far as the declaration about the creation of the world is there united in the closest way with that about the creation of the Holy Church. As to the designation of G.o.d in the Roman Symbol as the "Father Almighty,"

that threefold exposition just given, may perhaps allow it.]

[Footnote 232: The present dominion of evil demons or of one evil demon, was just as generally presupposed as man's need of redemption, which was regarded as a result of that dominion. The conviction that the world's course (the [Greek: politeia en to kosmo], the Latins afterwards used the word Saeculum) is determined by the devil, and that the dark one (Barnabas) has dominion, comes out most prominently where eschatological hopes obtain expression. But where salvation is thought of as knowledge and immortality, it is ignorance and frailty from which men are to be delivered. We may here also a.s.sume with certainty that these, in the last instance, were traced back by the writers to the action of demons.

But it makes a very great difference whether the judgment was ruled by fancy which saw a real devil everywhere active, or whether, in consequence of theoretic reflection, it based the impression of universal ignorance and mortality on the a.s.sumption of demons who have produced them. Here again we must note the two series of ideas which intertwine and struggle with each other in the creeds of the earliest period, the traditional religious series resting on a fanciful view of history--it is essentially identical with the Jewish Apocalyptic, see, for example Barn 4--and the empiric moralistic, (see 2 Clem. 1. 2-7, as a specially valuable discussion, or Praed. Petri in Clem, Strom. VI. 5, 39, 40), which abides by the fact that men have fallen into ignorance, weakness and death (2 Clem. 1. 6 [Greek: ho bios hemon holos allo ouden en ei me thanatos]). But perhaps, in no other point, with the exception of the [Greek: anastasis sarkos] has the religious conception remained so tenacious as in this and it decidedly prevailed, especially in the epoch with which we are now dealing. Its tenacity may be explained, among other things, by the living impression of the polytheism that surrounded the communities on every side. Even where the national G.o.ds were looked upon as dead idols--and that was perhaps the rule, see Praed. Petri. I. c, 2 Clem. 3. 1, Didache, 6--one could not help a.s.suming that there were mighty demons operative behind them, as otherwise the frightful power of idolatry could not be explained. But on the other hand, even a calm reflection and a temper unfriendly to all religious excess must have welcomed the a.s.sumption of demons who sought to rule the world and man. For by means of this a.s.sumption which was wide-spread even among the Greeks, humanity seemed to be unburdened, and the presupposed capacity for redemption could therefore be justified in its widest range. From the a.s.sumption that the need of redemption was altogether due to ignorance and mortality there was but one step, or little more than one step, to the a.s.sumption that the need of redemption was grounded in a condition of man for which he was not responsible, that is, in the flesh. But this step which would have led either to dualism (heretical Gnosis) or to the abolition of the distinction between natural and moral, was not taken within the main body of the Church. The eschatological series of ideas with its thesis that death evil and sin entered into humanity at a definite historical moment when the demons took possession of the world drew a limit which was indeed overstepped at particular points but was in the end respected. We have therefore the remarkable fact that, on the one hand, early Christian (Jewish) eschatology called forth and maintained a disposition in which the Kingdom of G.o.d, and that of the world, (Kingdom of the devil) were felt to be absolutely opposed (practical dualism), while, on the other hand, it rejected theoretic dualism. Redemption through Christ, however, was conceived in the eschatological Apocalyptic series of ideas as essentially something entirely in the future, for the power of the devil was not broken, but rather increased (or it was virtually broken in believers and increased in unbelievers), by the first advent of Christ, and therefore the period between the first and second advent of Christ belongs to [Greek: houtos ho aion] (see Barn. 2. 4; Herm. Sim 1; 2 Clem.

6. 3: [Greek: estin de houtos ho aion kai ho mellon duo echthroi; houtos legei moicheian kai phthoran kai philargourian kai apaten, ekeinos de toutois aposta.s.setai], Ignat. Magn. 5. 2). For that very reason, the second coming of Christ must, as a matter of course, be at hand, for only through it could the first advent get its full value. The painful impression that nothing had been outwardly changed by Christ's first advent (the heathen, moreover, pointed this out in mockery to the suffering Christians), must be destroyed by the hope of his speedy coming again. But the first advent had its independent significance in the series of ideas which regarded Christ as redeeming man from ignorance and mortality; for the knowledge was already given, and the gift of immortality could only of course be dispensed after this life was ended, but then immediately. The hope of Christ's return was therefore a superfluity, but was not felt or set aside as such, because there was still a lively expectation of Christ's earthly Kingdom.]

[Footnote 233: No other name adhered to Christ so firmly as that of [Greek: kurios]; see a specially clear evidence of this, Novatian de trinit. 30, who argues against the Adoptian and Modalistic heretics thus: "Et in primis illud retorquendum in istos, qui duorum n.o.bis deorum controversiam facere praesumunt. Scriptum est, quod negare non possunt: 'Quoniam unus est dominus.' De Christo ergo quid sentiunt? Dominum esse, aut illum omnino non esse? Sed dominum illum omnino non dubitant. Ergo si vera est illorum ratiocinatio, jam duo sunt domini." On [Greek: kurios--despotes], see above, p. 119, note.]

[Footnote 234: Specially instructive examples of this are found in the Epistle of Barnabas and the second Epistle of Clement. Clement (Ep. 1) speaks only of faith in G.o.d.]

[Footnote 235: See 1 Clem. 59-61. [Greek: Didache], c. 9. 10. Yet Novatian (de trinit. 14) exactly reproduces the old idea, "Si h.o.m.o tantummodo Christus, cur h.o.m.o in orationibus mediator invocatur, c.u.m invocatio hominis ad praestandam salutem inefficax judicetur." As the Mediator, High Priest, etc., Christ is of course always and everywhere invoked by the Christians, but such invocations are one thing and formal prayer another. The idea of the congruence of G.o.d's will of salvation with the revelation of salvation which took place through Christ, was further continued in the idea of the congruence of this revelation of salvation with the universal preaching of the twelve chosen Apostles (see above, p. 162 ff.), the root of the Catholic principle of tradition. But the Apostles never became "[Greek: hoi kurioi]" though the concepts [Greek: didache (logos) kuriou, didache (kerugma) ton apostolon] were just as interchangeable as [Greek: logos theou] and [Greek: logos christou]. The full formula would be [Greek: logos theou dia Iesou Christou dia ton apostolon]. But as the subjects introduced by [Greek: dia] are chosen and perfect media, religious usage permitted the abbreviation.]

[Footnote 236: In the epistle of Barnabas "Jesus Christ" and "Christ"

appear each once, but "Jesus" twelve times: in the Didache "Jesus Christ" once, "Jesus" three times. Only in the second half of the second century, if I am not mistaken, did the designation "Jesus Christ", or "Christ", become the current one, more and more crowding out the simple "Jesus." Yet the latter designation--and this is not surprising--appears to have continued longest in the regular prayers. It is worthy of note that in the Shepherd there is no mention either of the name Jesus or of Christ. The Gospel of Peter also says [Greek: ho kurios] where the other Gospels use these names.]

[Footnote 237: See 1 Clem. 64: [Greek: ho theos, ho eklexamenos ton kurion Iesoun Christon kai hemas di' autou eis laon periousion doe, k.t.l.] (It is instructive to note that wherever the idea of election is expressed, the community is immediately thought of, for in point of fact the election of the Messiah has no other aim than to elect or call the community; Barn. 3. 6: [Greek: ho laos hon hetoimasen en to egapemenoi autou]). Herm. Sim. V. 2: [Greek: eklexamenos doulon tina piston kai euareston] V. 6. 5. Justin, Dial. 48: [Greek: me arneisthai hoti houtos estin ho Christos, ean phainetai hos anthropos ex anthropon gennetheis kai ekloge genomenos eis to Christon einai apodeiknuetai].]

[Footnote 238: See Barn. 14. 5: [Greek: Iesous eis touto hetoimasthe, hina ... hemas lutrosamenos ek tou skotous diathetai en hemin diatheken logoi]. The same word concerning the Church, I. c. 3. 6. and 5. 7: [Greek: autos eauto ton laon ton kainon etoimazon] 14 6.]

[Footnote 239: "Angel" is a very old designation for Christ (see Justin's Dial.) which maintained itself up to the Nicean controversy, and is expressly claimed for him in Novatian's treatise "de trinit." 11.

25 ff. (the word was taken from Old Testament pa.s.sages which were applied to Christ). As a rule, however, it is not to be understood as a designation of the nature, but of the office of Christ as such, though the matter was never very clear. There were Christians who used it as a designation of the nature, and from the earliest times we find this idea contradicted (see the Apoc. Sophoniae, ed. Stern, 1886, IV. fragment, p 10: "He appointed no Angel to come to us, nor Archangel, nor any power, but he transformed himself into a man that he might come to us for our deliverance." Cf. the remarkable parallel, ep. ad. Diagn. 7. 2: ...

[Greek: ou, kathaper an tis eikaseien anthropos, hypereten tina pempsas e angelon e archonta e tina ton dieponton ta epigeia he tina ton pepisteumenon tas en ouranois dioikeseis, all' auton ton techniten kai demiourgon ton holon. k.t.l.]). Yet it never got the length of a great controversy and as the Logos doctrine gradually made way, the designation "Angel" became harmless and then vanished.]

[Footnote 240: [Greek: Pais] (after Isaiah): this designation, frequently united with [Greek: Iesous] and with the adjectives [Greek: hagios] and [Greek: egapemenos] (see Barn. 3, 6; 4, 3; 4, 8; Valent. ap.

Clem. Alex., Strom. VI. 6. 52, and the Ascensio Isaiae), seems to have been at the beginning a usual one. It sprang undoubtedly from the Messianic circle of ideas, and at its basis lies the idea of election.

It is very interesting to observe how it was gradually put into the background and finally abolished. It was kept longest in the liturgical prayers: see 1 Clem. 59. 2; Barn. 61. 9. 2; Acts iii. 13, 26; iv. 27, 30; Didache, 9. 2. 3; Mart. Polyc. 14. 20; Act. Pauli et Theclae, 17, 24; Sibyl. I. v. 324, 331, 364; Diogn. 8, 9, 10: [Greek: ho hagapetos pais]

9; also Ep. Orig. ad Afric. init; Clem. Strom. VII. 1. 4: [Greek: ho monogenes pais], and my note on Barn 6. 1. In the Didache (9. 2) Jesus as well as David is in one statement called "Servant of G.o.d." Barnabas, who calls Christ the "Beloved", uses the same expression for the Church (4. 1. 9); see also Ignat ad Smyrn. inscr.]

[Footnote 241: See the old Roman Symbol and Acts X. 42; 2 Tim. IV. 1; Barn. 7. 2; Polyc. Ep. 2. 1; 2 Clem. 2. 1; Hegesipp. in Euseb. H. E.

III. 20, 6: Justin Dial. 118]

[Footnote 242: There could of course be no doubt that Christ meant the "anointed" (even Aristides Apol. 2 fin., if Nestle's correction is right, Justin's Apol. 1. 4 and similar pa.s.sages do not justify doubt on that point). But the meaning and the effect of this anointing was very obscure. Justin says (Apol. II. 6) [Greek: Christos men kata to kechristhai kai kosmesai ta panta di autou ton theon legetai] and therefore (see Dial. 76 fin.) finds in this designation an expression of the cosmic significance of Christ.]

[Footnote 243: See the Apologists: Apost. K.O. (Texte. v. Unters. II. 5, p. 25) [Greek: proorontas tous logous tou didaskalou hemon], ibid, p. 28 [Greek: ote etesen ho didaskalos ton arton], ibid. p. 30 [Greek: proelegen ote edidasken], Apost. Const.i.t. (original writing) III. 6 [Greek: autos ho didaskalos hemon kai kurios], III. 7 [Greek: ho kurios kai didaskalos hemon eipen], III. 19, III. 20, V. 12, 1 Clem. 13. 1 [Greek: ton logon tou kuriou Iesou hous elalesen didaskon], Polyc. Ep. 2 [Greek: mnemoneuontes hon eipen ho kurios didaskon], Ptolem. ad Floram 5 [Greek: he didaskalia tou soteros].]

[Footnote 244: The baptismal formula which had been naturalised everywhere in the communities at this period preserved it above all. The addition of [Greek: idios prototokos] is worthy of notice. [Greek: Monogenes] (= the only begotten and also the beloved) is not common, it is found only in John, in Justin, in the Symbol of the Romish Church and in Mart. Polyc. (Diogn. 10. 3).]

[Footnote 245: The so-called second Epistle of Clement begins with the words [Greek: Adelphoi outos dei hemas phronein peri Iesou hos peri theou, hos peri kritou zonton kai nekron] (this order in which the Judge appears as the higher is also found in Barn. 7. 2), [Greek: kai ou dei hemas mikra phronein peri tes soterias hemon; en to gar phronein hemas mikra peri autou mikra kai elpizomen labein]. This argumentation (see also the following verses up to II. 7) is very instructive, for it shews the grounds on which the [Greek: phronein peri autou os peri theou] was based H. Schultz (L. v. d. Gottheit Christi, p. 25 f.) very correctly remarks. In the second Epistle of Clement and in the Shepherd the Christological interest of the writer ends in obtaining the a.s.surance, through faith in Christ as the world ruling King and Judge that the community of Christ will receive a glory corresponding to its moral and ascetic works.]

[Footnote 246: Pliny in his celebrated letter (96) speaks of a "Carmen dicere Christo quasi deo" on the part of the Christians. Hermas has no doubt that the Chosen Servant, after finishing his work, will be adopted as G.o.d's Son, and therefore has been destined from the beginning, [Greek: eis exousian megalen kai kurioteta], Sim. V. 6. 1. But that simply means that he is now in a Divine sphere and that one must think of him as of G.o.d. But there was no unanimity beyond that. The formula says nothing about the nature or const.i.tution of Jesus. It might indeed appear from Justin's dialogue that the direct designation of Jesus as [Greek: theos] (not as [Greek: o theos]) was common in the communities, but not only are there some pa.s.sages in Justin himself to be urged against this but also the testimony of other writers. [Greek: Theos], even without the article, was in no case a usual designation for Jesus.

On the contrary, it was always quite definite occasions which led them to speak of Christ as of a G.o.d or as G.o.d. In the first place there were Old Testament pa.s.sages such as Ps. XLV. 8, CX. 1 f. etc. which as soon as they were interpreted in relation to Christ led to his getting the predicate [Greek: theos]. These pa.s.sages, with many others taken from the Old Testament, were used in this way by Justin. Yet it is very well worth noting that the author of the Epistle of Barnabas avoided this expression in a pa.s.sage which must have suggested it (12, 10, 11 on Ps.

CX. 4) The author of the Didache calls him "[Greek: o theos Dabid]" on the basis of the above psalm. It is manifestly therefore in liturgical formulae of exalted paradox or living utterances of religious feeling that Christ is called G.o.d. See Ignat. ad Rom. 6. 3, [Greek: epitrepsate moi mimeten einai tou pathous tou theou mou] (the [Greek: mou] here should be observed), ad Eph. 1. 1 [Greek: anazopuresantes en aimati theou], Tatian Orat. 13 [Greek: diakonos tou peponthotos theou]. As to the celebrated pa.s.sage 1 Clem. ad Cor. 2. 10 [Greek: ta pathemata autou]

(the [Greek: autou] refers to [Greek: theos]) we may perhaps observe that that [Greek: o theos] stands far apart. However, such a consideration is hardly in place. The pa.s.sages just adduced shew that precisely the union of suffering (blood, death) with the concept "G.o.d"--and only this union--must have been in Christendom from a very early period, see Acts XX. 28 [Greek: ten ekklaesian tou theou hen periepoiesato dia tou haimatos tou idiou], and from a later period Melito, Fragm (in Routh Rel Sacra I. 122), [Greek: ho theos peponthen hupo dexias Israelitidos], Anonym ap Euseb H. E. V. 28 11, [Greek: ho eusplanchnos theos kai kurios hemon Iesous Christos ouk ebouleto apolesthai martura ton idion pathematon], Test XII. Patriarch. (Levi. 4) [Greek: epi to pathei tou hupsistou]; Tertull. de carne 5, "pa.s.siones dei," ad Uxor. II. 3: "sanguine dei." Tertullian also speaks frequently of the crucifying of G.o.d, the flesh of G.o.d, the death of G.o.d. (see Lightfoot, Clem. of Rome, p. 400, sq.). These formulae were first subjected to examination in the Patripa.s.sian controversy. They were rejected by Athanasius for example in the fourth century (cf. Apollin.

II. 13, 14, Opp. I. p. 758) [Greek: pos oun gegraphate hoti theos ho dia sarkos pathon kai anastas, ... oudamou de haima theou dicha sarkos paradedokasin hai graphai e theon dia sarkos pathonta kai anastanta].

They continued in use in the west and became of the utmost significance in the christological controversies of the fifth century. It is not quite certain whether there is a theologia Christi in such pa.s.sages as t.i.t. II. 13, 2 Pet. I. 1 (see the controversies on Rom. IX. 5). Finally [Greek: theos] and Christus were often interchanged in religious discourse (see above). In the so called second Epistle of Clement (c. 1.

4) the dispensing of right knowledge is traced back to Christ. It is said of him that like a Father, he has called us children, he has delivered us, he has called us into existence out of non-existence and in this G.o.d himself is not thought of. Indeed he is called (2. 2. 3) the hearer of prayer and the controller of history, but immediately thereon a saying of the Lord is introduced as a saying of G.o.d (Matt. IX. 13). On the contrary Isaiah XXIX. 13 is quoted (3. 5) as a declaration of Jesus, and again (13. 4) a saying of the Lord with the formula [Greek: legei o theos]. It is Christ who pitied us (3. 1, 16. 2), he is described simply as the Lord who hath called and redeemed us (5. 1, 8. 2, 9. 5 etc). Not only is there frequent mention of the [Greek: entolai] ([Greek: entalmata]) of Christ, but 6. 7 (see 14. 1) speak directly of a [Greek: poiein to thelema tou Christou]. Above all, in the entire first division (up to 9. 5) the religious situation is for the most part treated as if it were something essentially between the believer and Christ. On the other hand, (10. 1), the Father is he who calls (see also 16. 1), who brings salvation (9. 7), who accepts us as Sons (9. 10; 16. 1); he has given us promises (11. 1, 6. 7.); we expect his kingdom, nay, the day of his appearing (12. 1 f.; 6. 9; 9. 6; 11. 7; 12. 1). He will judge the world, etc.; while in 17. 4. we read of the day of Christ's appearing, of his kingdom and of his function of Judge, etc. Where the preacher treats of the relation of the community to G.o.d, where he describes the religious situation according to its establishment or its consummation, where he desires to rule the religious and moral conduct, he introduces, without any apparent distinction, now G.o.d himself, and now Christ. But this religious view, in which acts of G.o.d coincide with acts of Christ, did not, as will be shewn later on, influence the theological speculations of the preacher. We have also to observe that the interchanging of G.o.d and Christ is not always an expression of the high dignity of Christ, but, on the contrary, frequently proves that the personal significance of Christ is misunderstood, and that he is regarded only as the dependent revealer of G.o.d. All this shews that there cannot have been many pa.s.sages in the earliest literature where Christ was roundly designated [Greek: theos]. It is one thing to speak of the blood (death, suffering) of G.o.d, and to describe the gifts of salvation brought by Christ as gifts of G.o.d, and another thing to set up the proposition that Christ is a G.o.d (or G.o.d). When, from the end of the second century, one began to look about in the earlier writings for pa.s.sages [Greek: en hois theologeitai ho christos], because the matter had become a subject of controversy, one could, besides the Old Testament, point only to the writings of authors from the time of Justin (to apologists and controversialists) as well as to Psalms and odes (see the Anonym. in Euseb. H. E. V. 28. 4-6). In the following pa.s.sages of the Ignatian Epistles "[Greek: theos]" appears as a designation of Christ; he is called [Greek: ho theos haemon] in Ephes. inscript.; Rom.

inscr. bis 3. 2; Polyc. 8. 3; Eph. 1. 1, [Greek: haima theou]; Rom. 6.

3, [Greek: to pathos tou theou mou]; Eph. 7. 2, [Greek: en sarki genomenos theos], in another reading, [Greek: en anthropo theos], Smyrn.

I. 1, I. Chr. [Greek: ho theos ho outos humas sophisas]. The latter pa.s.sage, in which the relative clause must he closely united with "[Greek: ho theos]", seems to form the transition to the three pa.s.sages (Trall. 7. 1; Smyrn. 6. 1; 10. 1), in which Jesus is called [Greek: theos] without addition. But these pa.s.sages are critically suspicious, see Lightfoot _in loco_. In the same way the "deus Jesus Christus" in Polyc. Ep. 12. 2, is suspicious, and indeed in both parts of the verse.

In the first, all Latin codd. have "dei filius," and in the Greek codd.

of the Epistle, Christ is nowhere called [Greek: theos]. We have a keen polemic against the designation of Christ as [Greek: theos] in Clem.

Rom. Homil. XVI. 15 sq.; [Greek: Ho Petros apekrithae ho kurios haemon oute theous einai ephthenxato para ton ktisanta ta panta oute heauton theon einai anaegoreusen, huion de theou tou ta panta diakosmaesantos ton eiponta auton eulogos emakarisen, kai o Simon apekrinato; ou dokei soi oun ton apo theou theon einai, kai ho Petros ephae: pos touto einai dunatai, phrason haemin, touto gar haemeis eipein soi ou dunametha, hoti mae haekousamen par' autou.]]

[Footnote 247: On the further use of the word [Greek: theos] in antiquity, see above, -- 8, p. 120 f.; the formula "[Greek: theos ek theou]" for Augustus, even 24 years before Christ's birth; on the formula "dominus ac deus", see John XX. 28; the interchange of these concepts in many pa.s.sages beside one another in the anonymous writer (Euseb. H. E. V. 28. 11). Domitian first allowed himself to be called "dominus ac deus." Tertullian, Apol. 10. 11, is very instructive as to the general situation in the second century. Here are brought forward the different causes which then moved men, the cultured and the uncultured, to give to this or that personality the predicate of Divinity. In the third century the designation of "dominus ac deus noster" for Christ, was very common, especially in the west (see Cyprian, Pseudo-Cyprian, Novatian; in the Latin Martyrology a Greek [Greek: ho kurios] is also frequently so translated). But only at this time had the designation come to be in actual use even for the Emperor.

It seems at first sight to follow from the statements of Celsus (in Orig. c. Cels. III. 22-43) that this Greek had and required a very strict conception of the G.o.dhead; but his whole work shews how little that was really the case. The reference to these facts of the history of the time is not made with the view of discovering the "theologia Christi" itself in its ultimate roots--these roots lie elsewhere, in the person of Christ and Christian experience; but that this experience, before any technical reflection, had so easily and so surely subst.i.tuted the new formula instead of the idea of Messiah, can hardly be explained without reference to the general religious ideas of the time.]