The church history of the first three centuries / Dr. Ferdinand Christian Baur

Srom f ^e &i6rarg of

(pxofcBBox ^iffiam ^tnx^ (Breen

QBequcaf^e^ fig ^im fo
f^e feifimrp of

(prtnceton J^eofo^tcaf ^eminarg

BR 165 .B3 1878 v.l i
Baur , Ferdinand Christian,!

1792-1860. !

The church history of the '

first three centuries / DJ

THEOLOGICAL
TRANSLATION FUND LIBRARY.

THE CHURCH HISTORY

THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

VOL. I.

THE CHURCH HISTORY

OF

THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

DE. FERDINAND CHRISTIAN BAITR,

Sometime Professor of Theolooy in the University of Tubingen.

r II I It I) K 1)1 r lo X.

%ht "ITvaneihitictn from the ©crman cbitcb bij

THE REV. ALLAN MENZIES, B.D.

Minister of Abernyte.

VOL. I.

WILLIAMS AND NORGATE,

14 HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN, LONDON ;

AND 20 SOUTH FREDERICK STREET, EDINBURGH.

187 8.

COINTTENTS.

PART FIRST.

PAGE

The Entrance of Christianity into the World :

Primitive Christianity, . . . . 1-43

The Universalism of the Roman Empire as a --

preparation for Christianity, ... 1-5

Christianity and the old Religions, . 6-10

Greek Philosophy, 10-17

Judaism, 17-23

Primitive Christianity : The Gospels, 23-26

The original Christian Principle, . . . 26-33

The Kingdom of God, 33-36

The Person of Jesus — The Messianic Idea, 37-41

The Death and Resurrection of Jesus, . . 41-43

PART SECOND.

Christianity as a universal principle of Salvation :
the conflict between Paulinism and Judaism, and
its adjustment in the idea of the Catholic Church,

i: The Conflict,

The Church of Jerusalem and Stephen, .
Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles, and the olilor

Apostles, ....••
b

44-183
44-98
44-46

46-55

CONTENTS.

The Apostle Paul and his opponents,

In Galatia, .....

In Corinth, .....
The Epistle to the Eomans, .
The last journey to Jerusalem,
The height of the ConHict, .

Tlie Gospel of Luke,

The Paulinism of Marcion,

The Judaism of the Apocalypse,

Papias and Hegesippus, .

The Ebionites of the Clementines,

Simon Magus, ....

II. The lieconciliation, ....

Different vie\ys on the subject,
Points of the Eeconciliation,
Baptism in place of Circumcision, .
Peter the Apostle of the Gentiles, .
Influence of Jewish Christianity on the forma-
tion of the Church,
Mediating tendency of the post-apostolic work
included in the Canon, .

The Epistle to the Hebrews,

The Epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians
and Philippians,

The Pastoral Epistles, ...

Tlie^Epistle of James and the First Epistle
of Peter, .....

The Acts of the Apostles, .
The Apostolic Fathers,
Justin Martyr, .....
Peter and Paul united,

PAGE

56-65

56-60

60-65

65-73

73-76

76-98

77-82

82-84

84-87

87-89

89

90-98

99-152

99-104

105-106

106-109

109-111

112-114

114-136
114-121

122-128
128

128-131
131-136
137-142
142-147
147-152

CONTENTS. vii

PAGE

III. Johannine Christianity, . .... 153-183

The Apostle John. The writer oi' the Apocalypse

and the Evangelist. . .... 153-155

The Gospel of John 155-181

The complete rupture with Judaism, . 155-159

Christ the true Passover, . 159-163

The Paschal Controversy, 163-177

The higher form of the Christian consciousness, 1 77-1 80

Ptetrospect. The Ebionites, . 180-183

P A Pt T T H I E D.

Christianity as an ideal principle of the world ; and
as a real phcnome^ion existing under historical
conditions ; or, Gnosticism and Montanism, and.

their Antithesis, the Catholic Church, 185

Gnosticism and Montanism, 185-255

I, Gnosticism, ..... 185-244

Notion and Essence of Gnosticism, 185-190

Its Origin, 190-193

Its main elements : spirit and matter, the

Demiurgus and Christ, . . . 193-199
Different sects, forms, and systems of Gnos-
ticism, 199-236

Cerinthus, Simon iNIagus, the Ophites, the

Pcrates, 199-204

Valentinus, 204-213

Basilides, 213-222

Marcion, 223-228

The Pseudo- Clementine Homilies, 228-235

The Three Types, . 236-236

Docetism, . . 237-244

CONTENTS.

PAGE

11. Montanisiu, . . . . ,

245-256

Gnosticism and Montanism,

245

The Belief in the Parousia,

246-248

Chiliasm and Prophecy, '.

248-250

Eeactionary Tendency,

250.-255

Origin of Montanism,

255-256

PEEFACE TO THE FIEST EDITION.

A DESIKE lias existed for some time and in various quarters to
have the results which have been emerging from the most recent
critical investigations in the field of primitive Church History
brought together in a compendious form. And such a work cannot
fail to promote the success of these investigations. On this field of
historical inquiry, which requires to be again and again, and more
and more thoroughly, discussed, there are many points which, when
looked at in themselves, appear unimportant or of doubtful certainty,
and which can only be seen in their true light when placed in
their proper connection in the history, where the unity of the
whole supports and holds fast the parts.

This is the chief object of the following work. But this is not
its only ol)ject ; it is by no means a mere repetition of views which
have already been put forward. Even in those sections where, from
the nature of the case, little more was necessary than to recapitulate
and sum up the main points of my earlier investigations into
particular questions, I have not only examined and sifted the
materials afresh, and placed the questions under new points of view,
but I have also enriched the discussion by the new contributions
afforded both by recent examinations of the sources, and by sources
wliich have been recently discovered. Of these latter I have chiefly,
to mention the Philosophoumena, known under the name of Origen
which are of great importance in connection with the history

X PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.

of Grnosticism and of the earliest Christian doctrine ; and extensive
use is here made of them for the first time in the discussion of these
subjects. Another Gnostic work to which little attention has
hitherto been paid, but which is also a very remarkable one, is Pistis
Sophia ; and it also has been used hei'e. The principal thing to be
mentioned, however, is, that in addition to the work of arrangement
and completion which had to be done for these earlier parts, I have
in the two last sections of this work advanced beyond the line of
my previous works on the apostolic and post- apostolic age. There
are certain other sides of the genesis of the Church which have to
be taken into consideration in a general description of the Christian
Church of the first three centuries, and without which such a
description must fall short in completeness and comprehensiveness,
as well as in clearness and vividness ; and these sides of the subject
have also been set forth in this work.

The standpoint which I have occupied for a long series of years
is well knoAvn. I adhere to it still as firmly and with as sincere
conviction as I have always done ; and there is no need at this time
to enter into explanations on the subject. In my work which
appeared last year, Die Epochen der Kirchlichen Geschicht-
schreibung, Tubingen, 1852, I have stated my view regarding the
treatment of Church History in general, and the leading principles
by which writers of Church History have to be guided. That work
may thus be regarded as an introduction to this one, in which
accordingly these general considerations are omitted. My stand-
point is in one word the purely historical one : namely, that the
one thing to be aimed at is to place before ourselves the materials
given in the history as they are objectively, and not otherwise, as
far as that is possible. How far I may have succeeded in this is
not for me to say ; but I am not conscious of having followed any
other aim, and this consciousness sufliciently protects me against

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. xi

all insinuations, against those perverted and ill-natured judgments
which are unfortunately the fashion of a time which cannot see
beyond its own limited party interests. It is needless to refer to
writings which bear the most evident marks of one-sidedness, and
in which the shallow treatment of history is imperfectly concealed
by arrogance of tone. No one can possibly ignore the demands
wliich this, the most important period of the history of the Chris-
tian Church, still puts forward for historical investigation. It is
confessed on all hands that a great task still confronts us here,
and that many questions still await a more satisfactory solution
than has hitherto been found for them. Even if we take the belt
and most accepted works on the history of primitive Christianity,
and examine them with a view to see how far they succeed in com-
bining the historical materials which are of so heterogeneous a
nature, and have to be collected from such different quarters, to the
unity of a whole, how isolated and fragmentary, how destitute of
inner principle and motive, how vague and dim do they appear in
many respects ! And, as we miglit expect, this want of unity
becomes tlic more apparent the further we go back to those points
with regard to which it is first of all required of the historian that
he should have made up his mind and formed a definite opinion ;
since, without definite views with regard to them, no historical
conception of the way in which Christianity grew into the Church
is possible at all. Every attempt to obtain accuracy and depth in
the foundation, which is the first requirement of the historian, and
which no one can lay otherwise than as history herself has laid it
in her own unchangeable truth, to bring connection, proportion,
and unity into the whole woof of the narrative ; to separate, accord-
ing to their different character, the various elements which here
co-operate, and the moving forces and ])rinciples, the product of
wliich is the result of the first throe centuries ; to trace the action

xii PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.

of these forces and principles upon each other, and to unite, as fixr
as possible into one harmonious picture, all the individual features
which belong to the character of a time so rich in life and movement,
— every attempt to do all this must, if it at all fulfils the first require-
ments for the discharge of such a task, derive its justification from
no other source than from itself It is from this point of view
that I would have this work judged by those who are sufficiently
impartial, and sufficiently acquainted with the subject, to appre-
ciate the importance of the attempt here made.

Whether I shall afterwards go further on the road I have here
begun, I cannot yet distinctly say. It is possible that I may,
while not attempting a detailed history, yet indicate the points
which my studies and investigations, so far as they have gone,
lead me to think most important, in order to follow the general
course of the development of the Christian Cluirch. In any case
the present work forms a history in itself

Tubingen, Sept. 1853.

I.v, '"►.

PART FIRST.

THE ENTEANCE OF CHKISTIANITY INTO THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD :
PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY.

In no field of historical study are the whole scope and charac-
ter of the successive events of which the history is composed so
largely determined by the starting-point from which the move-
ment issues, as in the history of the Christian Church : nowhere
therefore does so much depend on the conception which we form
of tliat first point with which the whole historical development
begins. The historian who approaches his subject imbued with
the faith of the Church finds himself confronted at the very out-
set with the most stupendous of miracles, the fact which lies at
tlie root of Christianity being in his eyes that the only-begotten Son
of God descended from the eternal throne of the Godhead to the
earth, and became man in the womb of the Virgin, He who
regards this as simply and absolutely a miracle, steps at once out-
side of all historical connection. Miracle is an absolute beginning,
and since as such it must needs qualify all tliat follows, the M'hole
series of phenomena which fall within the range of Christianity
must bear the same miraculous character. Historical connection
having once been severed at the outset, the same interruption of
the historical process is equally possible at any furtiier point.
Thus, on the part of those who are interested in the scientific study
of history, the desire has naturally arisen to show how the miracle
of the absolute beginning may itself be regarded as a link of the
chain of history, and to resolve it, sq far as the case admits, into

2 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

its natural elements. This has often been attempted, and the
attempts made in this direction have been subjected to many and
various criticisms ; but whatever our judgment on this point may
be, it cannot really alter the nature of our task. Though we go no
further than to ask, why the miracle with which the history of
Christianity begins was brought to bear on the world's history at
this particular point of time, yet we have raised a series of questions
which can only be answered by historical treatment. Our first task,
then, in a history of Christianity or of the Christian Church, must be
to place ourselves at the point where Christianity enters into the
stream of the world's history, and to gain a general idea of its
relation to the other elements of the history of the time. With this
end we have first of all to ask, whether there is anything in Chris-
tianity which we may recognise as, on the one hand, belonging
to the essence of that religion, and, on the other, expressive of the
general character of the age in which it appeared ? If any such
points of contact can be distinctly recognised, a ray of light will at
once be shed on the historical origin of Christianity.

Now some of the early Christian apologists considered it to be
a fact of great significance tliat their religion had appeared pre-
cisely at the time at which the Eoman empire arrived at the
summit of its power, and came to embrace the whole world in its
dominion. All that they inferred from this was, that even in the
eyes of the heathen a religion could not but appear auspicious
whose epoch coincided with the culmination of the prosperity of
the Roman empire.^ Even on this ground the coincidence of Chris-
tianity with the universal empire of Eome appeared to them too
remarkable to be ascribed to chance. ^The true point of contact,
however, between Christianity and the Empire is the universal
tendency which is common to both. It is a consideration of real
significance for the history of the world, that the epoch which saw
the Eoman empire complete the union of all the nations of the
world as it then was in a universal monarchy, also witnessed the

^ Cf. the Fragment of the Apology of Melito of Sardes, given by Eusebius, Eccl.
Hist. iv. 26 ; and Origen, contra Celsum, ii. 30.

POLITICAL UNIVERSALISM. 3

beginning of the religion in which all religious particularism
disappeared and gave way to universalism. Christianity thus stood,
in respect of its universalism, at the stage which had already been
attained by the power and genius of Eome in its world-wide
monarchy.J In fact we may say that the time had come when the
human spirit was to make this momentous advance. As the
barriers and divisions between different countries and nationalities
were dissolved before the ever- advancing power of the Eomans,
and their general subjection to a common head caused men to be
aware of the unity in which their differences disappeared, the whole
spiritual consciousness was proportionately enlarged, and found
itself led more and more to disregard the distinctions and exclusive-
ness w^hich separated men from each other, and to lay hold of
what was universal. The general tendency of the age towards an
all-embracing unity, in which all that was separate and exclusive
might be taken up and disappear, found its greatest and most
imposing expression in the universalism of the Roman empire.
But this universalism was the very goal to which the history of
the world had been tending for centuries before. The conquests
of Alexander the Great had opened to the West the portals of the
East, and the new routes to the East had developed an active
traffic which brought men of all races in contact with each other,
and thus diffused the Greek language and culture over the whole
of the known world. It was but another step in the same path
of historical development when the dominion of the Eomans cast
over the nations of the world the new bond of political unity.
The forms which made this unity possible had never existed
before : it arose on the broad basis of Eoman civilisation and law,
and operated through the vast and well-articulated organism of
the Roman state. The nations thus found themselves placed in
relations to each other which tended inevitably not only to melt
away the stiff'ness and unsociableness of their previous attitude to
one another, but even to obliterate all merely national or indivi-
dual distinctions, and to produce a broad sense of universality in
which minor differences ceased to be felt. The union was not a

4 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

merely political one : it also bound the different races of the world
together in a new bond of mental sympathy. The influence which
was working to this end was not to be escaped even by that race
which had always been most broadly distinguished from the rest by
its peculiar national character, and which had always maintained
its own national peculiarities most obstinately and persistently. By
the double destruction of their state the Jews were cast out among
other nations throughout the wide world. When the successors of
Alexander founded their kingdoms, the Jews became an important
element of the new population which arose in these new towns,
which were to be the chief centres of the political and intellectual
intercourse of different races. Here they became Hellenists, and
assimilated all the various elements of Greek culture. Finally they
were drawn into the ever- widening net of the Eoman dominion :
and so it came about that Christianity, arising as it did on Jewish
soil, stood even at its birthplace in contact with the power that was
destined to be its forerunner on the road to the conquest of the
world.

Thus the universalism of Christianity necessarily presupposes
the universalism of the Eoman empire. But in considering how
these two great powers now came into contact with each other, we
must not rest content with the ordinary view, which starting from
the standpoint of teleology, considering merely the outward circum-
stances and relations amidst which Christianity entered into the
world, sees in them the special favour of divine Providence, which,
it is thought, could have selected no fitter time than this for the
accomplishment of its designs. In this view the great fact in
connection with the subject is thought to be nothing more than
that the opening up of so many new routes for traffic facilitated
the diffusion of Christianity throughout the provinces of the Roman
empire, and tliat the protection of the Eoman police and civil
order removed many hindrances which might otlierwise have
obstructed the progress of the messengers of the gospel.^

' Cf. Origen, in Joe. cit. To the objection of Celsus, that the sun first displays
himself by ilhiminating all other things, and that the Son of God ought to have

POLITICAL UNIVERSALISM. 5

But the bond of connectiou between the religion and the
polity is a much deeper and more intimate one than this, and is
to be looked for in the general spiritual movement of the time of
which both are manifestations. What we have to keep in mind
is, that Christianity never could have been that general form of
the religious consciousness w4iich it is, had not the whole develop-
ment of the world's history, up to the time when it appeared, been
preparing for it. First came the general intellectual culture which
the Greeks made the common property of the world, and then the
Eoman rule uniting the nations, and introducing political institu-
tions, which served as a basis for universal civilisation. By these
agencies the barriers raised by national sentiment had been broken
down, and many differences softened which had tended to keep
the nations apart from each other, not only in their outwartl
relations, but in the inner sphere of thought and feeling. The
universalism of Christianity could never have become a part of
the general consciousness of the nations, had not political univer-
salism prepared the way for it. The universalism of Christianity
is essentially nothing but that universal form of consciousness at
which the development of mankind had arrived at the time when
Christianity appeared.

displayed himself ia the same way, Origen answers, that such had been his mani-
festation. " Eighteousness arose in his days, and the fulness of peace was at
hand from the moment of his birth : while God was preparing the nations for
his doctrine, and providing that all men should obey the one Komau emperor :
lest, if there were a number of kings and nations strange to each other, it might
be more difficult for the Apostles to do what Jesus commanded them, saying. Go,
teach all nations. It is well known, however, that Jesus was boru under the
reign of Augustus, who had bound together in one empire the great multitude
of the dispersed inhabitants of the world. A i)lurality of kingdoms would have
been a hindrance to the free dissemination of the doctrine of Jesus throughout
the whole world ; both from what we have said above, and especially because
men would have been obliged to make wars for the defence of their particular
countries : as had been the case before the times of Augustus and even earlier,
when war was unavoidable between tlie Peloponnesians and the Athenians, and
in the case of other nations also. How then could this peaceful doctrine which
does not even allow men to revenge the injuries of their enemies, ever have made
way, had not the affairs of the world been composed, at the time of the advent of
Jesus, to a more peaceful state? "

6 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

Thus, when we place ourselves at the point at which Christianity-
enters into the world's history, and inquire into its general his-
torical bearing, we find that it is a universal form of the religious
consciousness which answers to the spirit of the age, and for which
the history of the nations had long been preparing. But how
comes Christianity to be this universal form of religion ? Its claim
to be so called is founded on the fact, that it has more and more
pressed back the other religions, resolving them into itself, and
has risen above them to the most wide-spread dominion over the
world. As against those special forms of religion it is therefore
the absolute religion. But what is it in Christianity that gives it
its absolute character ? The first and obvious answer to this
question is, that Christianity is elevated above the defects and
limitations, the one-sidedness and finiteness, which constitute the
particularism of other forms of religion. It is not polytheistic
like Paganism : it does not, like Judaism, attach itself to outward
rites and ordinances, nor identify itself with the positive authority
of a purely traditional religion. To speak broadly, it is a more
spiritual form of the religious consciousness than these are, and
stands above them. This, however, is saying very little : this
is self-evident as soon as we begin to compare Christianity with
the two other religions which it had to encounter. When Christi-
anity first made itself felt as a power of permanent importance,
Judaism and Paganism had long fallen into decay. They had lost
their deeper application to the religious life of their peoples, and
had become mere external forms, devoid of substance and vitality.
Paganism had sunk into the mindless religion of the vulgar.
AVith all educated men belief in the old gods had become more or
less disconnected with the religious feelings. The myths in which
the simpler faith of the earlier world had found expression for its
fairest religious intuitions, seemed now mere fables, in which there
was no spiritual bond to join form and contents in harmonious
union : or they were mere symbols to represent ideas which had
arisen on a totally different soil. What alone continued to engage
men's interest in the maintenance of the national religion, was,

THE OLD RELIGIONS. 7

that as the religion of the State it was closely intertwined with
all the functions of the national life, and could only with great
difficulty have been separated from them. Judaism, no doubt, had
a deeper religious foundation to rest on. To the Jew the religion
of his fathers was never a mere name : there was no failure of the
veneration with which the worship of the temple, with its vast
array of elaborate ceremonies, was regarded. But the appearance
of numerous sects and parties, at variance with one another on
the most fundamental questions, showed unmistakably tliat here
also the national religion was tending to dissolution. These two
religions had thus been making way for a new religion ; and if we
look at the subject from the teleological point of view, we cannot
but hold it to have been by the special arrangement of divine
Providence that Christianity appeared precisely at the time at
which there was so great a void to be filled up in the religious life
of the ancient world. But this view fails, as much as that to
which we formerly referred, to give us any further insight
into the connection in which Christianity, as a new form of
the religious consciousness, stands to the previous development of
religion.

Now the main connection between the old religions and Chris-
tianity has generally been taken to consist in the absence from
the former of what Christianity supplied. In many respects, it
is said there is a positive antagonism between it and them. But
apart from this, we may find the point of connection in the
religious feelings and cravings which the old religions failed to
satisfy. The unbelief and superstition which were present in
Paganism and Judaism were certainly opposed to Christianity;
yet there were elements present in that unbelief and superstition
which facilitated a transition to Christianity, arising as they did
from a state of feeling which was very favourable to its reception.
There were various kinds of unbelief. There was an unbelief
which sprang from a craving for belief which received no satisfac-
tion from all that the philosophy and religion of the old world
gave. The human heart has a desire which will not be denied

8 cnrncTi history of first three centuries.

to know and to have intercourse with the supernatural. The
prevalence of an all-denying scepticism does not quench the desire,
but rather intensifies it. The same was the case with the correla-
tive of unbelief, superstition. At the root of much of it there
lay a need wliich looked for satisfaction, and which could find it
only in Christianity, the need of deliverance from the deep-felt
schism within, and of atonement with an unknown God. This was
what men were seeking, whether or not they were consciously
aware of it.^

Here we are referred to the immediate religious sense as the
ground why men were prepared to receive Christianity. Now
Christianity indubitably has its roots, as every other religion
has, in this primary ground of all religious life. But to refer
Christianity to nothing but this is no explanation at all of the
general question : this is merely a vague and general speculation
how individuals might be affected. The question is not what
peculiar frame of mind or position of circumstances might dispose
this or that individual to adopt Christianity. We have to regard
Christianity not as it affected individuals, but objectively, as an
influence affecting the world. It must have had some connection
with the previous religious development of the world, not merely
in the way of difference, but also in the way of similarity and of
adopting what it found. And we have to inquire what this
connection was. We have seen that the universal tendency of
Christianity presupposed the universalism to which the general
consciousness of the age had broadened out under the influence
of the lioman empire. Now, if this be the case, it must be no
less true that those elements of Christianity which make it an
absolute as well as a universal religion stood in the same vital and
necessary connection with the previous religious and spiritual
development of the world. Here, however, it is of the first
importance not to take up any narrow or one-sided notion of
what the absolute character of Christianity consists in. Some

' Compare Neander's General History of the Christian Keligion and Church,
i. 5, xfj. and 46. (Bohn's translation.)

THE OLD RELIGIONS. 9

have thought to find it in the fact that Christianity gives so full
and welcome a satisfaction to man's longing for belief, or in the fact
that it is a supernatural revelation, a system of universal efficacy
for the reconciliation of man with God, or in the fact that it places
before us in the person of its founder one who is the Son of God
and the God-man, in the sense in which the Church uses these
words. But this only leads to the question what there is in these
features of Christianity to place it so high above the old religions.
For in one way or another these elements of religion were believed
to be present in them all. Every religion claimed to be a super-
natural revelation ; there was no want of aiTangements for bringing
about the reconciliation of man with God, and the communion of
man with God was believed before Christianity to be provided for
by beings whose functions were nearly the same as those of the
Christian Son of God, What is it, then, that gives Christianity its
peculiar and specific superiority above all that more or less resembled
it in the ancient world ? Again, Christianity may be regarded
under various points of view, each of which will only exhibit to us
one of its various sides. But what is Christianity itself ? What
common unity underlies these different aspects, and combines them
into a whole ? We answer in a word, its spirituality. We find
Christianity to be far more free than any other religion from every-
thing merely external, sensuous, or material. It lays its foundations
more deeply in the inmost essence of man's nature and in ,the
principles of the moral consciousness. It knows, as it says of itself,
no worship of God but the worship in spirit and in truth. When
we inquire what constitutes the absolute character of Christianity,
we must point to its spirituality. In this wide view of the absolute
nature of Christianity, let us inquire wliat points of contact it pre-
sents with the movement prior to or contemporary with its appear-
ance. What features do we find in the general advance of the
human mind during those ages that may be said to be akin to
Christianity, and to have been essentially preparing the way for
its reception ?

Decay and dissolution, as we have said, had completely seized

10 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

on the old religions. At the time when they came in contact
with Christianity, no one who had become aware of their imper-
fection and finiteness, or who had seen them as they really were,
could escape the sense of an infinite void, or fail to feel a
craving for a contentment which nothing in the whole range of
these religions could give, and a need for something positive -to
which the religious instinct might attach itself. But what had so
thoroughly broken up the old faiths ? They were crumbling into
ruins before Christianity came to touch them. Some other power
must have been at work on them which was stronger than they.
It is a mistake to think that ages of transition, like that
immediately preceding the appearance of Christianity, are simply
times of decay and disintegration, when all spiritual and religious
life is completely moribund. At such a time the old forms in
which religion used to move do indeed decay. "What used to fill
them with life and reality departs from them, till the hollow
forms alone are left. But the very cause of this process is, that
the spirit, whose religious feelings the forms once served to express,
has expanded and risen beyond them. Where an old system
decays we may be sure it is because the new truth which is
to succeed it is already there ; the old would not decay if the
new had not arrived, be it but in germ, and been long labouring
to undermine and eat away the existing structure. It may be long
before a new kind of spiritual life takes such shape as to arrest
the notice of the world. But the plastic spirit is active all the
while, though unobserved ; the leaven is working deep out of
sight, and the unresting vital process cannot be stayed, but goes
evenly and regularly forward, in its successive stages, until it has
produced a new creation.

The decay of Paganism is not to be dated from the time when
Christianity appeared, and can in no way be said to have been
brought about by Christianity. It had been in course of progress
ever since Greek religion began to be accompanied by Greek
philosophy. Not only did this philosophy deal M'ith the popular
mythical beliefs in the way of critical reflection, and so place itself

GREEK FHILOSOPIIY. H

above them, but it created a new world which arose in total
independence of the popular faith, in the realm of pure thought.
In this world the spirit which could no longer find its adequate
expression in the myths of the popular religion, found a new sphere
for its thought and intuition. Thus, next to the religious teaching
of the Old Testament, Greek philosophy forms the most important
spiritual antecedent of Christianity. And its relation to Cliris-
tianity has always been one of chief points taken up in the attempts
that have been made to estimate the true position of Christianity
in history. But here also it has been customary to urge the
negative rather than the positive side of the relation ; and only in
the case of Platonism is it perceived that along with much which
was defective and one-sided it possessed elements which prepared
the way for Christianity. It spiritualised religious thought; it
turned away from the many gods of Paganism, and pointed to a
certain spiritual Divine unity above them ; it struck out many
ideas which are akin to Christianity, as that of a redemption, in
the sense of deliverance from the blind power of nature which
opposes the divine ; it gave the elevating conception of a divine
life which stood above the influence of the Nature-powers. Much
more unfavourable judgments are passed not only on Epicureanism
but even on Stoicism. It is self-evident, we are told, that a
system like the former, offering atheism for theology, and making
happiness the highest good, is utterly alien to Christianity. And
it is urged that there is the strongest possible contrast between the
humility of the believing Christian and the proud self-sufficiency
of the Stoic sage. Such indeed must be our judgment, so long as
we confine our attention to the points where the contrast is most
evident and extreme. But our task is not to attend to mere parti-
culars. "VVe have rather to attempt to interpret all the plienomena
in question as parts of the great historical development. The
question we have to ask is, how Greek philosophy, such as it M'as
from its principal epoch downwards, was related to Christianity ?

In how difierent a light does this question appear when we call
to mind the well-known parallel drawn by so many writers between

£

12 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

Socrates and Christ ! The parallel is certainly not without justice.
Christianity closes a movement which arose upon the soil of Pagan
religion and philosophy, and the seed of which was sown by
Socrates. And if this be the case, then each of the principal
forms assumed by Greek philosophy during this interval must
have been a step in the preparation for Christianity. An investi-
gation of the course taken by Greek thought during this most
important period will contribute much to make it clear to us
why Christianity entered into the world at this particular time
and at no other. Those who hold the essence of Christianity to
be its character as a supernatural revelation, can see little need for
expatiating over so wide a field in inquiring after its origin. To
go back to the epoch of Socrates must seem to them superfluous.
But in any case Christianity must be acknowledged to have a
genuinely human side ; and when we try to form a distinct con-
ception of its first beginnings, of the manner in which it made its
way into the world and souglit to win an entrance to men's hearts,
its genuinely liuman character comes clearly before us. The words
in which it first announces itself to the world, its call for fierduoia,
its bidding men go into themselves, this at once defines the
relation which it takes up towards man, and the stand -point from
which it interprets the relation between man and God. It begins
with an earnest call to man to direct his gaze within, to turn in to
himself, to become acquainted with himself in the deep places of
his own self-consciousness. In this way he is to learn what his
relation to God is, and what it ought to be, and to become aware of
those needs in his moral nature out of which the cry for redemption
proceeds, in all their depth and intensity. Looking away from all
that is unessential, and asking what is the element in Christianity
which makes it a religion in the absolute sense, we find that it
rests on man's knowledge of himself as a moral subject. Had not
man's moral consciousness been already fully developed in all
those bearings which lend it its profouuder interests, Christianity
could not have gained a footing in the world in its peculiar
character as an essentially moral religion.

GREEK PniLOSOPHY. 13

Now when and how was it that man first recognised himself as
a moral being ? It was when he awoke to the idea of himself as a
subject, a being essentially distinct from and independent of the
world without : when he first grasped the principle of subjec-
tivity, that the true standard of thought and action is in the inner
life. Socrates marks an epoch, because this step of progress is due^
to him.^ He first urged, that man should come back to himself^
and search his own being : the mind was to withdraw from the| J/
outward world, and to concentrate itself on the world withinj
Thus, occupying himself with the contents of pure thought, man
would find himself face to face with the only real and true
existences. In the same way, in the practical sphere, by referring
virtue to knowledge, by following the command ' know thyself,' and
turning the moral consciousness back upon itself, man was to find
in the conviction which arose out of his own nature his rule of
action. From this point forward we have a long and uninterrupted
series of philosophical developments. First the Platonic and
Aristotelian theories of knowledge, which aimed at determining
the general nature of things, then the ethical systems of the Stoics
and Epicureans, and following on the last, the Sceptical and
Eclectic movements, in all of which practical interests were more
and more preferred to theoretical, and the moral nature of man was
regarded in the same light as Christianity regards it, and made the
chief object of philosophical reflection. More directly and earnestly
than any other schools, the Stoics and Epicureans applied them-
selves to discover man's moral end, and the conditions under wliich
it is attained. All those questions to which so many discussions
were devoted, concerning the idea of the good, the highest good,
the relation of virtue to happiness, the value of moral action, etc.,
are but the ethical expression of the problem laid before man by
Cliristianity as a question of religion. Divergent as the two
systems were, the very opposition between them served to rouse

J Cf. my Essay : Das Christliche d. riatonismus, odcr Socrates und Cliristiis,
p. 20 ; in the Drei Abhandlungen, Leipzig:, 1875, 247 •"/• Zellcr : die Tliilos. d.
Griechen, 2d edition, ii. 78 ; p. 100 in Keichel's translation.

14 CHURCE HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

moral thought. The moral consciousness of the age was so enlarged
and educated in every direction by these discussions, that Chris-
tianity found the ground prepared on which its higher moral and
religious task could be accomplished.

Stoicism, on the ground of the strictness and purity of its prin-
ciples, may seem to claim an unquestionable superiority over
Epicureanism. But it has justly been acknowledged^ that the
latter system, leading man away from the outer world, and bidding
him seek his highest happiness in the fair humanity of a cultivated
mind content with itself, did a useful work ; that by its mildness,
no less than Stoicism by its austerity, it contributed to develop
and diffuse a free and universal morality. Both schools started
from the common leading idea of the post-Aristotelian philosophy
— the postulate, that man should withdraw himself within the
sphere of his inner consciousness, and seek for his perfect content-
ment there. The vocation and happiness of man, according to
the one, are found in that submission of the individual to the
reason and the law of the universe, which is virtue. According
to the other, they consist in independence of all external things,
in consciousness of this independence, in the undisturbed enjoy-
ment of the life a man has to live, in freedom from pain. Thus,
although by different ways, both sought to reach the same goal,
namely, the freedom of the conscious self: and this led them at
once to a position which is quite inconsistent with the fundamen-
tal religious sentiment of Christianity. The wise man of the
Stoics, and the wise man of the Epicureans, are ideals equally
strange to Christianity. The common endeavour of the two sys-
tems to make man free by bidding him rest on nothing but him-
self, to confer upon him, in tlie idfiniteness of his thought and
self-consciousness, complete independence of all without him, in-
volves both in the same contrast with the Christian feeling of
dependence. But even the Stoic saw himself compelled to descend
from the height of his moral idealism, and to recognise its limita-

1 Zeller : die Philos. d. Griechen, ii. 263 ; Stoics and Epicureans (Dr. Reicliel's
translation), p. 445 *vjr.

GREEK PHILOSOPHY. 15

tions in the presence of practical needs. And as we mark how
Scepticism was the next stage at which Greek philosopliy arrived in
its development out of these systems, we see that that unbounded
freedom of the inward consciousness which they claimed led to
nothing but the discovery of the essential limits of knowledge.
The opposing tendencies were found to be mutually destructive,
knowledge was despaired of, and the mind withdrew into itself.
But though drawing back into itself and seeking to suffice for
itself without the support of outward positive truth, the mind
could not remain so entirely inactive as not to turn to one alterna-
tive or another as the more probable. Thus Scepticism in its turn
gave birth to Eclecticism. This mode of thought escaped from
the harshness and one-sidedness of the earlier schools by choos-
ing the best that it could find, and removing the features that it
desired to retain from their logical connection in the systems to
which they originally belonged. And we are concerned to notice
that Eclecticism readily lent itself to promote the union of religion
with practical interests. At the Christian era it was more widely
diff'used than any other way of thinking, and had grown into a
popular philosophy and natural theology. The writings of its chief
representatives, Cicero, Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius,
contain many elements allied to Christianity. Indeed, so much
is this the case that their views and doctrines might appear
to be something more than merely the approved result of all the
ethical discussion that had gone before, as it had learned to meet
the practical wants of the age. In reading their writings we
seem to be upon the ground of Christian moral and religious
teaching. We come upon sentences the Christian tone of which
surprises us.

The fixed first principle of Eclecticism (which, like other systems,
required a standard whereby to test different opinions) is with
Cicero, the best known and most popular writer of the school, the
immediate consciousness of man, his inner self-assurance, the
natural instinct for truth, or innate knowledge. The germs of
morality are implanted in us. Nature has not only given us the

16 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

moral faculty, but has bestowed on us the fundamental ethical con-
ceptions, as an original endowment, and prior to any instruction ;
our task is merely to work out these innate conceptions. The
nearer a man stands to nature the more clearly will these original
ideas be reflected in liini : it is from children that we learn what
is in conformity with nature. The belief in God rests on a like
foundation. By virtue of the affinity of the human spirit to God,
the knowledge of God is given to us along with the knowledge of
ourselves. Man need but recollect his own origin, and he is_led
to his Creator. Nature itself, therefore, tells us of the existence
of God : and the strongest proof of this truth is its universal
recognition.^ In these few sentences we see clearly traced the
outlines of a natural theology, tlie construction of which was after-
wards continued within Christianity and on a genuinely Christian
foundation. The view wliich declares that the consciousness of
self is also, and at once, the consciousness of God, will naturally
arrive at the conclusion that man's orininal knowledfje is a thinsr
given liim from without, and will look to receive in the immediate
consciousness itself, but from some source of knowledge higher
than our finite selves, the revelation of Deity. It was in such a
longing for a higher communication of trutli and an immediate
revelation that Greek philosophy finally terminated its course in
Neo-Platonism.

^ Cf. Zeller ii. 585. The iicatural theology which arose upon the foundation of
Stoicism appears in its purest form, and attains its closest analogy to the doctrines of
Cliristianity, in the writings of Seneca. Cf. my dissertation, Seneca and Paulus :
das Verhaltniss dcs Stoicismus zum Christenthuin nach den Schriften Seneca's ;
(originally in Hiigenfeld's Ztschr. 1858, p. 161, 441 — now re published in the
" Drei .\l>handliingen" cited above). I have there pointed ont a pecidiar char-
acteristic of Seneca's Stoicism, viz., his tendency, in proportion as be departs from
the old system of the Porch, to approach the Christian religious position. I have
considered this tendency under the following heads : 1. God and the feeling of
dependence. 2. Man and his need of salvation. 3. The relation of man to his
fellow-men. 4. The belief in a future life. 5. The difference of principle be-
tween the Stoic and the Christian views of the world. I have tried to show the
gr()un<llessness of the conclusion, that the above-mentioned tendency must be
ascribed to Seneca's having made acquaintance with Christianity as it was preached
in his neighbourhood.

JUDAISM. 17

Thus our survey of the progress of Greek thought shows us
that Christianity, which we are considering in its relation to
Paganism, entered the general stream of history at an epoch
when preparation had been made for it in many and important
ways. It came at a time when the heathen world had come to
feel the profound significance of the moral consciousness, and all
that was most spiritual and most practically important in the
results arrived at during the whole long course of Greek ethical
speculation had become the common belief, the essential contents
of the mind of the age. All men now recognised the truth that
man was a moral being called to devote his life to fulfilling a
definite moral task. In Christianity the various tendencies which
had hitherto been seeking the same end by different ways meet
together to be fixed in definite notions and presented in the fullest
and richest expression. Such, when approached from the side of
Paganism, is the position of Christianity in the chain of history.
As the absolute religion, however, it unites both the older religions.
Let us therefore consider that element in it which lies towards
Judaism, and observe how on this side also it embraces in itself y
the highest spiritual attainments which Judaism had made. /'*

Christianity arose on Jewish soil, and it is connected with
Judaism far more closely and directly than with Paganism. It
professes to be nothing more than spiritualised Judaism : it strikes
its deepest roots into the soil of the Old Testament religion. In
Paganism, Greek philosophy had developed the moral consciousness
till it reached a stage at which Christianity could combine with it :
in Judaism religion arrived at the stage at which Christianity
could adopt it. The special superiority which distinguished the
Hebrew religion from all the religions of the heathen world was
the pure and refined monotheistic idea of God, which from the
earliest times had been the essential foundation of the Old Testa-
ment faith. In its consciousness of God, therefore, Christianity
feels itself at one with Judaism as with no other faith. The God
of the Old Testament is the God of the New, and all the teaching
of the Old Testament concerning the essential distinctness of God

B

18 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

irom the -world, and the absolute majesty and holiness of his nature,
is also an essential part of Christian doctrine. But on the other
hand the Old Testament conceived God as the God, not of the
human race, hut of a particular nation. And the particularism, the
limitation of the blessings and hopes of religion to the Jewish
race, which was partly the cause and partly the effect of this con-
ception of God, stood in the strongest contrast to the spirit of
Christianity. If the Old Testament notion of God was ever to be
a sufficient form for that consciousness of God which belonged to
the universal and absolute nature of Christianity, it was necessary
that it should first be freed from this national one-sidedness and
defectiveness. It was necessaiy that it should discard all that
belonged only to the narrow range of vision of the Jewish theocracy,
and that it should no longer, in accordance with the conceptions
of antiquity, ascribejto God a human form and human passions.

The historical experiences of the Jews had an important influence
on their religion. Not only did their religious conceptions undergo
various modifications, their religious consciousness itself did not
stand still, but became gradually wider and more spiritual On the
other hand, however, the hard fortunes of the people only made them
cling more strongly to their belief that they alone were the people
of God, and to their national prejudices and traditional observ-
ances. In this respect the circumstances by which the Jews were
surrounded in the kingdoms founded after the death of Alexander,
especially in Eg}^pt, and in such a city as Alexandria, first brought
a radical change. Here first took place that transformation of
Judaism by which it passed beyond the barriers of its national
and political exclusiveness, and accepted the influence of new and
formerly alien and repugnant ideas.^ The dispersion of the Jews
among foreign nations had before this brought into existence a
new class in whom Judaism was mixed, as the circumstances
would have led us to expect, with Greek culture and manners.
These formed a link, such as had hitherto been wanting, between Jew

' Cf. Gcorgii : die neuesten Gegensivtze in Auffassung der alexandrinischen
Religions philosophie, insbesondere des jiidischen alcxandrinismus. Illgen's
Ztscbr. fur hist. Theologie, 1839, Nos. 3 and 4.

JUDAISM. 19

and Gentile, a circumstance which could not fail to have the most
important bearing on the intellectual and religious development of
mankind. But the Hellenism which had thus arisen only acquired
its full significance when it gave birth to an entirely new form of
thouglit in the Graeco-Jewish philosophy which sprang up at
Alexandria. At such a place the Jews experienced the full power
of tlie Greek spirit, and the desire to gain a closer acquaintance
with the ideas and doctrines of Greek philosophy was not to be
resisted. The mere existence of such an interest implied that
they had advanced beyond the standpoint of pure Judaism ; and
the more they occupied themselves with Greek philosophy, and
became conscious of its charm, the more did they necessarily find
themselves in conflict with the religious views and feelings of
their race. On the one hand, they could not shake off their
interest in the new ideas ; on the other, their ancestral faith affirmed
its old indefeasible authority. How was the contradiction to be
overcome ? The reconciliation was accomplished, as is well known,
by allegorical interpretation applied to the Scriptures. According
to the Jew's view of his sacred books, nothing could be true which
was not to be found in them. They were the source of all truth :
they must, therefore,, be the source of the ideas which he had now
adopted. All that was necessary was to find the right key for the
explanation of the books of the Old Testament, and then exegesis
could bring forth out of those books the ideas which the commen-
tator himself had unconsciously put into them. In this way
there arose an entirely new form of Judaism. Men fancied that
they were keeping a firm, hold of the old faith, but in reality they
had. substituted entirely new ideas in its place ; and while it was
supposed that the new matter was contained in the Old Testament,
tlie woixls of the text were turned into mere vehicles of a doctrine
of which the writers had never dreamed. The peculiar character
of this Alexandrine Judaism consisted in this, that the limits of
the old Jewish particularism were broken through and set aside,
as far as this could possibly be done without completely abandon-
ing the standpoint of the Old Testament religion. The doctrines

20 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

of tliis religion received a form, modified in many respects, and
generally freer and more spiritual ; new ideas were introduced
which involved an entirely different theory of the world from that
of Judaism ; and above all, the Old Testament conception of God
was freed from all those elements which belonged merely to the
narrow sphere of the Jewish theocracy, and raised to a much higher
plane of thought. The profound influence which the Alexandrian
l)hilosophy of religion came afterwards, in its highest and most
elaborate form as it appears in the writings of Philo, to exercise on
Christian theology, shows distinctly that the mode of thought on
which it was based must have had great affinity with the spirit of
Christianity.

Our task, however, merely requires us to trace its influence in
that narrower sphere where it came into close contact with the
very earliest Christianity. From this point of view the two sects
of the Therapeutae and the Essenes, especially the latter, are a
very noteworthy phenomenon.^

The Therapeutae are the intermediate link between the
Hellenistic Judaism of Alexandria and the Essenes of Palestine.
The latter however, closely as they are related to the Egyptian
Therapeutae, cannot be classed with them, but must be reckoned
among the sects into which the Judaism of Palestine was divided.
They represent Judaism in the form which it assumed when the Jew
of Palestine came to find in the Graeco-Alexandrian doctrine, what
his brethren abroad had already found in it, a deeply religious
conception of life. This is what places the Essenes in so close a

^ On the Essenes, cf. Zeller, iii. 235, Ritschl.Theol. Jahrb. 1855, p.3l5, sq.,and die
Entstehung der alt-kathol. Kirche, 2d ed., 179, sqq., traces Essenism to an endea-
vour to realise the ideal of the ])riestly kingdom held up before the people of Israel,
Exod. xix. 6, and to form a society of priests answering to it. Zeller opposes this
view, and argues (Theol. Jahrb., 1856, p. 401, sq.) for the common supiKjsition of
a connection between Essenism and the Orphico-pythagorean discipline and view
of life which were so widely difTused in the ancient world, and were not without
inlluence upon the Jews. Tlie considerations which he adduces are cnoiigh to
confute Hilgenfeld's view, that Essenism owed its origin to the apocalyi>tic pro-
jihf-cy which was so rife at the time (Die judische Apokal3'ptik in ihrer geschicht-
lichen Entwickelung ; Jena, 1857, p. 245, sq.), and are likely to assert themselves
against any similarly eccentric theories which may yet be put forth.

ESSENISM. 21

relation with Christianity. Of course it cannot be thought for a
moment that Christianity itself sprang from Essenism ; yet it is
impossible not to see that the religious view of life held by the
Essenes is far more closely allied to the original spirit of Christianity
than any of the peculiar doctrines or practices which distinguished
the sects of the Pharisees and Sadducees. They certainly attached
great value to certain outward practices, yet they were not
entangled either in the ordinances and traditions of the Judaism
of the Pharisees, or in the purely external forms of the Levitic
temple worship. Their religious feeling was more spiritual and
inward than that of the other sects, and had a thoroughly practical
tendency. The highest object of life was to them to elevate them-
selves above the material and sensuous, and to turn their whole
activity into a constant exercise of all such practices as could bring
them nearer to this great end. The name Essenes indicates that
they claimed to be physicians of souls. As such they proceeded
on the principle of making use of all means which seemed adapted
to promote the soul's healthy and vigorous life, and to keep it ever
open to receive the influences and revelations of the higher world.
Essenism has many features which remind us of the spirit of
primitive Christianity ; such as its prohibition of oaths, the zeal
it encouraged in the practice of the duties of benevolence, and its
community of goods. A peculiarly characteristic trait, however, is
its principle of voluntary poverty. The view taken of poverty is,
that it is better to be poor and possess as little as possible in this
world, in order to be so much the richer in the good things of the
world to come.^ This is the same love of poverty which we find
in Christianity when its first disciples are called blessed because
they are poor in spirit. "We may very reasonably assume that in
addition to those who carried out all the outward practices which
appear in the description of the sect, Essenism had many friends

^ Cf. my Commeut. tie Ebionitarum origine, et doctrina ab Essenis repetenda,
1831. Notice the passages which I have there quoted from Philo, Quod omuis
probus liber, ed. Maag. ii. 457, de vita contemi)!. p. 473 ; and from .Tosephus,
de Bello Jud. ii. 8. 3. See also Diihne : die judischalexandrinische Religions-
philosophie, i. p. 476.

22 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

and sympathisers who did not think it necessary to declare their
adherence in this way. It was not only a sect, but a widely dif-
fused way of thinking and a view of life which was carried out with
various modifications, in one case with more and in another with less
of the element of discipline. We may say that all those who shared
in the deep and general tendency of the religious spirit to leave what
was outward and concentrate itself upon the inward, were touched
more or less by the Essene spirit. If this be so, then Essenism is
undoubtedly one of the deepest and most truly spiritual points of
contact between Judaism and Christianity. And even when we
look at merely outward relations, how near do these allied pheno-
mena of the religious life lie to each other. The Essenes had their
settlements in those same Jewish border-lands inhabited by a
population mixed with Gentiles, in which Christianity first began
, to preach the blessedness of the poor. Where else could the gospel
I which was preached to the poor have found hearts so ready to
/ \ receive it, as among those meek ones of the land, whose style of
'• piety was in so many ways akin to the attitude of mind out of
which Christianity itself proceeded ?

Thus we find that all these various movements, starting as they
do from such widely different quarters, meet each and aU at the
same point. When placed in its position as connected with the
history of preceding times, Christianity appears as the natural
unity of all those elements. Various and manifold as they are,
they belong to one and the same process of development. As this
process moves gradually forward, and eliminates more and more
completely all that bears the stamp of particularism and subjec-
tivity, we see that it can have no other issue than at the point
where the origin of Christianity is found. On what grounds then
can we regard Christianity itself as a phenomenon purely super-
natural, as an absolute miracle introduced into the world's history
without the operation of any natural causes, and tlierefore incap-
able of being comprehended as belonging to any historical connec-
tion, when we find in every direction, wherever we turn, numerous
points of counectiou and affinity in which it is linked with the

PREPARATIONS FOR CHRISTIANITY. 23

most intimate bonds to the whole history of the development of i
mankind ? It contains nothing that was not conditioned by a series
of causes and effects going before ; nothing that had not been long
prepared in different ways, and carried forward towards that stage
of development at which we find it in Christianity ; nothing that
had not been previously recognised in one form or another, as a
necessary result of reasoned thought, or as a need of the human
heart, or as a requirement of the moral consciousness. What room
is there then to wonder that that which had so long been in differ-
ent ways the goal of all the endeavours of the human reason, and
had. been forcing itself upon the opening and growing human con-
sciousness as its proper and necessary contents, which could not
be denied, should at last have found its simplest, purest, and most
natural expression in the form in which it appeared in Chris-y
tjanity ?

When, however, we go on to consider the nature of Christianity
itself, we find it presented to us under many very different aspects, |
which do not admit of being all placed under the same point of view.
The question thus arises, whether what has been said holds good of
Christianity in its whole scope and extent, or only of one particular
side of it, and if it applies to that which we must regard as the
true core and centre of its organism ? When Christianity is con-
sidered from the point of view which we have set forth, it is of
course obvious that the side of it which is meant is that on which
all those points of connection and of afiinity are to be found which
bring it into so intimate and vital a relation with the whole pre-
ceding history of human development. But, it may well be asked,
is it on this side that we find the original and substantial essence
of Christianity? is it not rather a secondary and subordinate
feature of it on which we have been dwelling ? Is it possible to
speak in any real sense of the essence and contents of Christianity
without making the person of its founder the main object of our
consideration ? Must we not recognise the peculiar character of
Christianity as consisting in this, that whatever it is, it is simply
on account of the person of its founder ? And if this be so, is it

24 CnURCff HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

not a matter of very slight importance to seek to understand the
nature and contents of Christianity in the light of the connection
it may have had with the history of the world ? Is not its whole
meaning and significance derived from the person of its founder ?
Can our historical consideration of it set out from any other point
than this?

To answer these questions we require to go back to the sources
'^J of the gospel history. The most recent critical investigations
declare that a great distinction has to be drawn between some of
these sources and others.^ The sources of the Evangelical history
are the four gospels. Now the great question is, in what relation
we are to place the fourth to the first three. It is impossible to
ignore the fact that the conception we form of Christianity will be
radically and essentially different, according as we on the one
hand take it for granted that the four gospels agree with each
other throughout, or on the other recognise the divergences
between the Johannine gospel and the three Synoptics as amount-
ing to a contradiction which renders a historical unity impossible.^

^ Cf. my work : Kritische Untersuchungen iiber clie kanonischen Evangelien,
Tub. 1847. Kustlin : der Ursprung und die Composition der synoptischen
Evangelien, Stuttgart, 1853. Hilgenfeld: die Evangelien nach ihrer Entstehung
und geschichtlichen Bedeutung, Leipzig, 1854.

' The question which has to be dealt with at this stage is not the authenticity
of the Johannine gospel ; whoever the writer of the gospel may have been,
whether the Apostle John or some other man, it is a plain matter of fact and
cannot be denied, that the evangelical history of the fourth gospel is an essenti-
ally different one from that of the first three. Now as this historical differ-
ence must either be admitted or denied, and no third alternative is possible,
we have here the parting of two roads which lead in totally different directions,
and issue in totally different conceptions of the whole of Church history. The
student who in the strength of dogma overlooks this difference will read the
whole history of the Church with other eyes than he who does not regard the
interests of dogma as supreme, but makes it his principle that the materials which
history has to deal M-ith are to be treated in a strictly historical way. As for
the question of authorship, the more the critical dilemma of the Johannine
authorship of the gospel and of the Apocalypse is insisted on (as is well done by
Lucke in the second edition of his Introduction to the Revelation of John, 1852,
p. 059-744), the less will any sophistry be able to prevent the great pre]>onder-
aiicc of evidence from inclining to the side of the Apocalypse, when the external
tcstimonlLS for the Johannine origin of the two works are fairly and impartially
weighed.

THE GOSPELS. 26

If it be assumed that tlie four gospels agree with each other and
are capable of being harmonised, then the absolute importance
which the gospel of John assigns to the person of Jesus must
determine our whole view of the gospel history. We must then
regard Christianity as consisting in the fact of the incarnation of the
eternal Logos : it is a miracle in the strictest sense, and absolutely.
The human is lost in the divine, the natural in the supernatural.
Whenever the first three gospels disagree with the fourth, the
authority of the latter must be held to be decisive. This, however,
amounts to a complete abandonment of all historical treatment of
the gospel history. The history is so determined and absorbed by
the element of miracle, as nowhere to afford any firm footing for the
scientific inquirer. And more than this : to uphold the claim of
the absolute miracle of the one gospel, the historical credibility of the
other three is brought down to so low a level that they virtually
forfeit their position as historical sources. The only way of escape |
from all these difficulties is to admit the conviction that the gospel
of John stands in quite a different relation to the Synoptics from
that which is generally assumed. Whether we look to its differ-
ences from the Synoptics, or to its general spirit and character, we
see that it is impossible to allow to such a gospel as the Johan-
nine the character of a historical narrative, even in the limited
sense in which the Synoptics can be called historical. When the
different accounts disagree we shall accordingly take our stand on
the side of the Synoptics. In this way we escape the consequences
which follow inevitably when John is placed on the same level
with the Synoptics ; namely, that difficulties and objections are
raised on each side, and with equal right, and the whole gospel
narrative brought into suspicion. We now obtain a firmer histori-
cal basis. But even here we are warned by criticism that the
ground on which a trustworthy history can be constructed is
narrower than we thought. Eecent investigations into the rela-
tions of the gospels to one another show us that the Synoptics can-
not simply be placed side by side as of equal value. The gospel
of Mark is so largely indebted to the other two that we cannot

26 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

regard it as an independent source at all.^ The gospel of Luke is
coloured by tlie Paulinisni of its author, and cannot be regarded as
an impartial narrative. We are thus thrown back on the gospel
of Matthew as comparatively the most original and trustwortliy
■ source of the Evangelical history.

An examination of the contents of this Gospel shows us that
there are two distinct elements present in it : the doctrine, and
the purely historical narrative. The early tradition about
Matthew states that he wrote down the \o<yi,a, the sayings and
discourses of Jesus, for the Hebrews, and in the Hebrew language.
Now the Greek Gospel of Matthew which we have answers to this
description. The great bulk of its contents, the body of the work,
consists of the discourses and sayings of Jesus. His public
ministry opens very significantly with the Sermon on the Mount.
"We may justly conclude from this that the author's original and
leading idea was to treat the life and the whole manifestation of
Jesus from this point of view. There is another narrative which
deals largely in the discourses of Jesus. The discourses of John's
Gospel, however, turn as well as the rest of that work on the
person of Jesus and his superhuman dignity, as the theme which
they all help to illustrate. Such is not the case here. The
whole scope and spirit of the Gospel are different. What the
discourses of this Gospel present to us is the human and familiar
element of Christ's teaching, the direct appeal to the moral and
religious consciousness, the simple answer to the question which
naturally came up first of all — in what state of mind he must be,
and what he must do, who would enter into the kingdom of God.
We do not mean to deny that the gospel of Matthew also ascribes
its full significance to the person of Jesus. Even in the Sermon
on the ]\Iount there are some hints of such a doctrine. But in
the thought and imagery of the Sermon on the Mount the personal
element remains as it were in the background of the scene ; the
discourse does not derive its importance from the person; it is

^ Cf. my work : das Markus-evangeliura iiach seinem Ursprung und Character ;
Tub. 1851. Theol. Jahib. 1853, p. 54, sq. Kiistlia, op. cit. p. 310, gq.

THE ORIGINAL CHRISTIAN IDEA. 27

rather tlie profound and weighty discourse that reveals to us the
true character and greatness of the speaker. It is the thing itself
that speaks here ; it is the inner force of truth making its way
straight to men's hearts, which here announces itself in all its
significance for the history of the world.

Now what does this direct and original element, this principle
of Christianity, consist in, as we find it expressed both in the
Sermon on the Mount, and in the parables, and in the whole of
the doctrinal contents of the Gospel of Matthew ? It may be
shortly summed up under the following heads : —

It is in the beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount that we
obtain the deepest and most comprehensive insight into the
fundamental way of looking at things, the fundanaental mood, out
of which Christianity proceeded. What is it that finds expression
in all those utterances in which blessedness is said to belong to
the poor in spirit, to those who mourn, to the meek, to those who
hunger and thirst after righteousness, to the pure in heart, to the
peacemakers, to those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake?
It is religious consciousness which is penetrated by the deepest
sense of the pressure of the finite and of all tlie contradictions of
the present, and yet is infinitely exalted, and knows itself, in spite
of this, to be far superior to everything finite and limited. The
most pregnant expression for this, the original Christian con-
sciousness, is the poverty of the poor in spirit. They are rightly
placed at the head of all the different classes who are called
blessed.-^

But the poor here spoken of must not be taken to be, as the
ordinary interpretation has it, merely those who feel themselves
inwardly poor and empty from a sense of their spiritual needs.
We shall have an inadequate idea of what this poverty denotes
if we do not take outward bodily poverty as an essential
part of the conception. We are not at liberty to overlook this
feature of it, since, in the first place, the parallel passage in Luke
(vi. 20) gives us not the tttoo'^^oI tu> Trvev/naTt of Matthew, but
^ Cf. mj" Kritistlie Untcrsuchuiigeu, p. 447, sq.

28 CHURCH HISTORY OF IIRST THREE CENTURIES.

simply iTTOixol ; and in the second place, the history of the Gospel
shows us that it found its first adherents almost exclusively among
the poor. This being so, we see that this poverty of spirit is
a poverty which, when looked at in a spiritual way, is exactly the
opposite of what it appears to be outwardly. Since these poor
ones accept their poverty gladly and voluntarily, and of their own
free-will elect to be just what they are, their poverty becomes to
them a sign and evidence that, though outwardly poor, they are
not poor in reality. Here they are the poor and those that have
nothing ; but there they are all the more certain to be the opposite
of what they are here. They are the poor who have nothing, and
yet possess all things. They have nothing, since their bodily
poverty consists in having none of the goods that go to make
property in this world ; and what they may regard as their posses-
sion in the world to come is for them a thing entirely in the
future. They having nothing, they live and move in an atmo-
sphere of longing and desire for that which they have not ; but, in
this longing and desire, they virtually possess that to which their
yearning and desire are going forth. Their having nothing makes
them to be those who have all things; their poverty is their
riches ; the kingdom of heaven is even now their sure and peculiar
possession, because as surely as they have nothing here, so surely
they have all things there. In this contrast of having and not
having, poverty and riches, earth and heaven, the present and
the future, the Christian consciousness attains its purest ideality ;
it is the ideal unity of all the contradictions which force them-
selves upon the consciousness, as long as it confines itself to visible
objects. All that the most developed dogmatic consciousness
can comprise is already present here; and yet the whole sig-
nificance of the early Christian idea consists in the fact that it
has not ceased to be the immediate unity of all antitheses. All
the beatitudes, variously as they sound, are but different expres-
sions of the same original idea and mood which lie at the root of
the Christian consciousness. "What they express is the simple feel-
ing of the need of redemption, which contains in itself implicitly,

THE ORIGINAL CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLE. 29

though as yet undevelopedy'the antithesis of sin and grace, and is
its own sufficient evidence of the reality of the redemption which
it longs for. It is because all antitheses are here held together!
in their unity that this original Christian consciousness is so j
vigorous and rich in thought. It is not only a deep and intense
self-consciousness ; it is also a lofty and commanding world-
consciousness. We see this from the words which Jesus uses
immediately after the beatitudes, where He calls his disciples the
salt of the earth, which must never lose its savour if the world is
not to be deprived of the power which, in deed and truth, holds
it together, and preserves it from decay ; and the light of the
world which must not be set under a bushel, but must shine
before the whole world, that men may see the good works of those
who let their light shine, and may glorify their Father which is
in heaven.

The beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount express, in an
absolute manner, what constitutes the inmost self-consciousness
of the Christian, as it is in itself, and apart from external rela-
tions. The original and radical element of Christianity appears
further in the form of absolute moral command in the con-
troversial part of tlie discourse which is directed against the
Pharisees, and in other parts of it. In the Sermon on the Mount
Jesus insists emphatically on purity and singleness of heart, on
a morality which does not consist merely in the outward act,
but in the inner disposition ; and upon such an earnest and moral
observance of the law as can admit of no arbitrary exception or
limitation, nor tolerate any false hypocritical pretences, or any
dividedness or want of singleness of heart. Here, however, the
question may arise whether this principle be new or peculiar to
Christianity. Jesus declared at the outset that he was not come
to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfil them, and might
thus appear to have taken up an entirely affirmative position
towards the Old Testament, It might be said^ that the difference

'iCf. Pvitschl, die Entstehung der alt-katliolischon Kirclic, Bonn IS.tO, p. 27, fiff.
E '*|5C^1 changed bis views in the second edition, but this fact does not invalidate

30 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

between the teaching of Jesus and the law, or the Old Testament,
is one not of qiialit}'', but of quantity. On this view no new
])rinciple is advanced in his teaching; all that is done is to
widen tlie application of the moral precepts which the law con-
tained, and assert their authority over the whole extent of the
moral sphere to which they are capable of referring. That is
given back to the law which should never have been taken away
from it. The law is declared to be capable of expansion in its
meaning and its range of application, and this is said to be done.
This interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount appeals to the
fact, that in the further discussion of the subject, individual
injunctions of the law are taken up, and each of them brought
back to the original meaning of the law, or interpreted in a sense
which satisfies the moral consciousness. But though there is no
enunciation of a general principle which is to apply to all cases
alike, yet when we consider what is said to be the true fulfilling
of the law in each separate instance, and see how in each instance
M'liat is done is to contrast the outward with the inward, to
disregard the mere act as such, and lay stress on the disposition
as that which alone confers any moral value on a man's acts, we
cannot but recognise in this a new principle, and one which
djffers essentially from IMosaism. What the law contained, it is
true, but only implicitly, is now said to be of most importance,
and enunciated as the principle of morality. The expansion of
the law quantitatively amounts to a qualitative difference. The
inner is opposed to the outer, the disposition to the act, the spirit
to the letter. This is the essential root-principle of Christianity ;

, and, in insisting that the absolute moral value of a man depends
simply and soldy on his disposition, Christianity v.^as essentially

, original.

In this way the affirmative relation which Jesus assumed
towards the law involves in itself the opposite relation of
antithesis to the law. If this be so, it is certainly difficult to

the accuracy of the position described in the text as one which has been and ir'*4y
be held. /^^

THE ORIGINAL CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLE. 31

understand how Jesus could say that not the least jot of the law,
not one of its least commandments, should be taken away. How
could he say this, when the very opposite came about so soon
afterwards, and the whole law was declared to be abolished?
How can we imagine him to have affirmed the permanent validity
of all the injunctions of the law, when we think, for example, of
the one injunction of circumcision ? It is impossible to think
that Jesus was so little aware of the principle and spirit of his
own teaching as this would indicate ; and the only choice left to
us is, either to suppose him to have spoken exclusively of the
moral law, and not to have had the ceremonial law before his
mind at all, or to suppose that it was only later that his words
received their strong Judaistic colouring. But it was not only
to the Old Testament that Jesus took up as affirmative as possible
an attitude. Even with respect to the traditions of the Pharisees,
and their additions to the law, he did not carry his opposition to
the point of encouraging open disregard of them. He paid no
heed, it is true, to their exaggerations ; against these he asserted
what was reasonable in itself, as having indefeasible and incon-
trovertible authority. This was his position with regard to the
acts which were impugned as breaches of the Sabbath law,
Matt. xii. 1-14, and in defending himself against the charges
of opponents, as at Matt. ix. 11 ; xv. ]. Yet he recognised the
Pharisees as the legitimate successors of Moses. It is they and
the Scribes, he says, who sit in the cathedra of Moses, the seat
of the teacher and legislator, and the people are bound to follow
their precepts, if not their example. Nor does he reject out and
out even the pettiest regulations which the scrupulous spirit of
Pharisaism had devised for the keeping of the law, Matt, xxiii. 1,
sq., 23. It is none the less true, however, that he declares their
requirements to be heavy and intolerable burdens, a mode of expres-
sion which shows that he would not have allowed the oppres-
sion under which the people suffered to continue, INIatt. xxiii. 3.
He also said, when speaking against the Pharisees, that every plant
which his heavenly Father had not planted should be rooted up.

32 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

Matt. XV. 1 3. And his actions were in a great measure directed
to this end. One of his chief tasks was to contend against the
influence and tendencies of Pharisaism as often as any occasion
for doing so arose. This shows how wide the difference really
was, and enables us to understand how Jesus could feel that it
was unnecessary for him to set forth the antagonism of principle
expressly, in all its length and breadth, or to show what it led to,
and could be sure that, as the spirit of his teaching came to
be understood and realised, it would be worked out to all
the results which it necessarily involved. That he himself was
thoroughly aware not only of the antagonism of principle, but of
the consequences to which it could not fail to lead, appears very
distinctly in the saying. Matt. ix. 16, where he not only declares
the spirit of the new teaching to be incompatible with that of the
old, but also intimates that though he himself had held as far as
possible to the old traditional forms, thus putting the new wine
into the old bottles, he had done this with a distinct consciousness
that the new contents would soon break up the old form. But
what was there in the new principle to make it break through the
old forms, and supersede all that had gone before ? What but its
going back to the inward disposition, to that in the consciousness
of man which declares itself as its self-existent and absolute
contents. As the disposition is to be pure and simple, free from
all self-seeking ; and as it only is the root from which the fruit
of good can spring, so man's consciousness is to be directed to that
alone which it recognises as its absolute contents. This is the
fundamental idea which runs through the whole of the Sermon on
the Mount, The sayings in it which strike us as most significant
are, when we examine them, just those which express most directly
this absolute character of the Christian consciousness. This
consciousness rejects — so the sayings at Matt. vi. 19-24 require
— all half-heartedness and dividedness, all sense of separation and
limitation ; and in tlie light of it alone does the requirement at
vii. 12, in which so many have looked for the root of Christian
morality, receive its meaning as a principle. If the Christian is

THE ORIGINAL CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLE. 33

conscious of his absolute standpoint, he must be able to abstract
from himself, from his own ego, and to know himself as so much
one with all others, that he regards each other man as one who
possesses equal rights with himself. And this is what Jesus means
when he says of the requirement we are speaking of, that it is the
law and the prophets, or equivalent to the Old Testament com-
mand, " Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." He who loves
his neighbour as himself must renounce everything egotistical,
subjective, or peculiar to himself; above the purality of separate
subjects, each of whom now is the same as we are, there comes
to stand the objective universal, where everything particular and
subjective is done away. This universal is that form of action in
accordance with which we do to others what we wish that others
should do to us. The morally good is thus that which is equally
right and good for all, or which can be the object of action for all
alike. Here then we meet again the characteristic feature of the
Christian principle. It looks beyond the outward, the accidental,
the particular, and rises to the universal, the unconditioned, the
essential. It places a man's moral value only in that region of
his life where he is in the presence of absolute considerations, and
his acts possess absolute value. The same energy of conscious-
ness which refuses to find the substantial essence of morality
anywhere but in the inmost core of the disposition, asserts itself
in the demand to do away with the individual ego by raising it up
to the universal ego, the general self, that humanity which is
present and is identical with itself in every separate individuah
All the difference between this requirement and the commandment
of Christ is, that in the latter the former appears in its simplest
and most practical expression.

Thus do the absolute contents of the Christian principle find *
their expression in the moral consciousness. What gives a man
his highest moral value is simply the purity of a disposition which
is genuinely moral, and rises above all that is finite, particular, or
merely subjective. Now, this morality of disposition is also the
determining standard of man's relation to God. That which gives

34 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

him his highest moral value also places liim in the adequate relation
to God wliich answers to the idea of God. When man is regarded
in his relation to God, the supreme task of the moral consciousness
appears in the requirement to be perfect as God is perfect (Matt.
V. 48). In this requirement the absolute nature of the Christian
principle comes to its most direct expression. Christianity has
no other standard for the perfection of man than the absolute
standard of the perfection of God. If man is perfect as God is
perfect, then, in this absolute perfection, he stands in that adequate
relation to God wliich is expressed by the notion of righteousness.
Righteousness in this sense is the absolute condition for entering
into the kingdom of God. In the connection in which righteous-
ness is spoken of in the Sermon on the Mount, it can mean nothing
but the perfect fulfilment of the law ; a fulfilment of the law,
however, in that sense only in wliich Jesus considers the law to
possess permanent validity. If it be asked how man can attain
this righteousness, we find it to be a peculiarity of the teaching
of Jesus, that it simply takes for granted that the law can be
fulfilled, and the will of God done on earth as it is in heaven, so
as to attain that righteousness which places man in his adequate
relation to God, It appears, however, that a forgiveness of sins
on God's part, by which the shortcomings in man's conduct may be
balanced and made good, is an essential element of this adequate
relation ; for in the Lord's Prayer the forgiveness of sins is the
object of a separate petition. Man must have his faults and sins
forgiven, else he cannot enter into the relation which God'^ will
requires. And as the doctrine of Jesus is led by its fundamental
principle to estimate a man's whole position as a moral being, not
by what he does outwardly, but by what he is in his heart, it can
place this righteousness, in which consists the adequate relation
of man to the will of God, nowhere but in his inner disposition.
Man has this righteousness when he comes into sucli a frame of
mind that he entirely renounces his own will, and devotes himself
unreservedly to the will of God. This is worked out in the doctrine
of the kingdom of God, which is to be found principally in the

THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 35

parables. In the kingdom of God the will of God is, in the first
place, what every individual feels himself required, with the force
of an absolute command, to fulfil ; and, in the second place, the
common task of a certain definite association. All the members
of tliis association are to co-operate to realise the object which the
will of God sets before them, and the more closely they are united
with each other the more will that object be realised among them.
The_social element, which is an essential part of religion, is also
the leading and essential feature of the kingdom of God. In the
doctrine of Jesus we find the Old Testament notion of the theocracy
in a spiritualised form ; the relation of man to the kingdom of God
is based upon none but moral conditions. So exclusively do moral
considerations here prevail, that we hear nothing whatever of any
of those external means which afterwards came to be considered as
the doors which alone could give admission to the kingdom of God
or to communion with him. It is taken for granted here that a
man's partaking of all the blessings of God's kingdom depends
simply on himself, on his own choice, on his own susceptibility to
moral influences. How clearly and vividly is this simple truth
presented to us in the parable of the sower ! What makes a man
fit for the kingdom of God is the Word, a term which comprises
all those doctrines and precepts, by attending to which a man
comes to realise the will of God. The Word is given to man ; he
can hear and understand it, but everything depends on the recep-
tion which he accords to it. And on this point what does ordinary
experience show ? That as the scattered seed cannot spring up
nor bear fruit unless it fall on soil that is suited for it, so men are
very differently constituted in respect of their capacity to receive
the Word of God. There may be few who receive the Word in a
right spirit ; yet it is the fault of man himself if the Word
does not produce in him all the effects which, for its own part, it
is capable of producing. The reason lies simply in the want of
a disposition to receive the Word, and this can only be corrected
by man's own will. Nothing else is necessary than his will ; so
simple is man's relation to God. Whether or not he will enter

36 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

into the kingdom of God depends entirely on himself, on his own
will, on his own natural capacity and readiness to receive. This
being so, the whole relation of man to the kingdom of God can
only be conceived as a moral one ; and it is of the first importance
that man should recognise this, and not think that any but purely
moral conditions can avail to admit him to a part in the kingdom
of God. The first requirement, then, which is made upon him is
that he renounce every pretension on which he might rely as giving
him an outward claim upon God's kingdom — that he should simply
<lo back into himself, and seek nowhere but in himself, in his
inner nature, in his moral consciousness, the evidence of his
fitness for the kingdom of God. If he thus renounces everything
that might place him in a merely external relation to God's
kingdom, and takes up this humble and unpretending attitude
towards it, which he cannot but assume when he retires simply
into his own soul, then he will be fit for the kingdom. His fitness
will consist in this, and this alone, that he is entirely receptive for
what the kingdom has to give him. This is the meaning of the
words in which Jesus deals with pretensions, such as the ideas the
Jews held about the kingdom of God frequently led them to
put forth — Matt, xviii. 3 : " Except ye be converted, and
become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the
kingdom of God." To become like a little child is to cease wishing
to be independent, and to remain in that purely natural relation
out of which the sense of dependence and need at once arises.
The less a man has in himself that which he ought to have, the
purer is the longing for that which only the kingdom of God can
give, and the more surely will the kingdom of God be recognised
as possessing transcendent and absolute value. This truth is
symbolised in the parable of the pearl, for the sake of which the
merchant parts with all his other property. Matt. xiii. 45, sq.
iThere can be no doubt that the parables which deal with the
/ attitude men take towards the kingdom of God, and which set
/ forth tlie moral conditions of participation in it, are, together with
\ the Sermon on the Mount, the most genuine and original remains

which have come down to us of the teaching of Jesus.

TEE ORIGINAL MORAL CHARACTER OF CHRISTIANITY. 37

If the ideas on which we have been enlarging are the earliest
a_nd most essential element of the teaching of Jesus, it appears to
be purelj_and entirely moral in its tendency, and what it aims at
is simply to throw men back on_their own moral and religious
consciousness. A man has only to become clearly aware of that
which announces itself in his own consciousness as his highest
moral end, and he can realise it by his own efforts. When we
thus look back to its earliest elements, Christianity appears as a
purely moral religion ; its highest and most peculiar distinction is
that it bears an essentially moral character, and is rooted in the \
moral consciousness of man. The Gospel of John insists on faith
in the person of Jesus as the indispensable condition of the new
relation with God to which man is introduced by Jesus ; faith in
the person of Jesus is there the first and most essential requirement
of the gospel. In the original Christian doctrine no such require-
ment is put forward. There are other elements which belong to
the character and the contents of Christianity, and the relation
which these bear to its original and simple beginnings may be
variously determined ; but there can be no question that the
purely moral element which lies at its first source has ever been
its unchangeable and substantial foundation. Christianity has
never been removed from this foundation without denying its true
and proper character. To this foundation it has always been
forced to return as often as it went astray in that exaggerated
dogmatism, whose logical conclusions were found to undermine
the very foundations of moral and religious life. The element
which appears at the outset with all the significance of far-reaching
principles, which has always remained the same though other parts
of the religion changed, and which contains in itself the evidence
that it is true, — this surely must be held to be the proper substance
of the whole.

And yet had^ Christianity been nothing more than such a /
doctrine of religion and morality as we have been describing,
what would it have amounted to, and what would have come
of it? True though it be, when we regard Christianity in this

38 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

aspect, that it comprised and summed up those pure and simple
truths which utter themselves in man's moral and religious
consciousness, and that it opened up these truths to the common
mind in the plainest and most popular style, yet more than this
was needed. A form was needed for the religious life to grow up
in as a concrete structure. A firm centre was required, around
which the circle of its disciples might rally, so as to grow into a
fellowship which should be able to win dominion over the world.
' When we consider the way in which Christianity grew up, it is
plain that it could have had no place nor significance in history
but fpr the person of its Founder. How soon must all the true
and weighty precepts of Christianity have been numbered with
the faint echoes of words spoken by many a friend of humanity
and philosophic sage of ancient times, had not its doctrines been
made words of eternal life in the mouth of its Founder ? But we
cannot help asking, with regard to the person of Jesus, what is to
be considered as the secret of the importance it has attained for
the whole of the world's history? However powerful we may
conceive his personal influence to have been, it must have acted
from a certain point or fulcrum supplied by the circumstances of
the place and time. Without this it could not have produced that
effect on the mind of the age, which enabled the work and influence
of an individual to set on foot a movement so extensive and pro-
found, and exercising such an influence on the whole history of
mankind. Here, then, is the point where Christianity and Judaism
belong to each other so closely, that the former can only be under-
stood in the light of its connection with the latter. Tg_put it
shortly : had not the Messianic idea, the idea in which Jewish
national hopes had their profoundest expression, fixed itself on the
person of Jesus, and caused him to be regarded as the Messiah
who had come for the redemption of his people, and in whom the
promise to the fathers was fulfilled, the belief in him could never
have had a power of such far-reaching influence in history. It was
in the Messianic idea that tlie spiritual contents of Christianity were
clothed on with the concrete form in which it could enter on the

THE MESSIANIC IDEA. 39

path of historical development. The consciousness of Jesus was
thus taken up by the national consciousness, and enabled to spread
and become the general consciousness of the world.

The Gospel history supplies us with abundance of evidence to
show that, at the time of Jesus, the Messianic expectations had
not only engaged the attention of pious souls here and there, but
become a prominent feature in the belief of the people at large.
As the political position under which the people was suffering at
the time was flagrantly inconsistent with the theocratic idea which
enters into the whole history of the Jewish race, men were led to
gaze intensely into the past. There they discerned one point at ,
least at which the theocratic ideal appeared to have been realised,
though but for a short time. From that point downwards the
history of their nation had been very different in fact from what
it should have been. Yet they did not despair, but expected with
all the greater confidence that the near or distant future would
bring what the past had so long failed to realise, — that promise
given to the fathers, which generation had long handed down to
generation as the object of their yearning. It is an important and
peculiar characteristic of Judaism that, by the constant and ever-
M'idening contrast between the i^pa and the reality, and as the
belief in the ]\Iessiah was a belief in one who was still to come, it
came to be mainly a religion of the future. Thus no important
movement could take place upon the soil of the history of the
Jewish people and religion without either being introduced by the
Messianic idea or becoming involved with it at a later stage. The
way which Chi*istianity had to take was thus foreshadowed.
The synoptic account of the Gospel history brings Jesus before us
accompanied by all the miracles which were to announce him to
tlie world as the long-promised Messiah who had now appeared,
and as the Son of God, according to the Jewish notion of that
dignity.

From the standpoint of historical criticism we can only ask
how it came to be an established fact in Jesus' own mind that he
was called to be the Messiah ? There are three points in the

40 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

Gospel history which seem to offer light upon this point and
deserve attention, the name of i;io<? rov dvOpwirov which Jesus
applies to himself; the group of narratives comprising the con-
fession of Peter, the scene of the transfiguration, and the first
announcement by Jesus of his approaching death ; and his appear-
ance in Jerusalem. The manner in which Jesus applies the
i^me vto9 ToO dv6pu)TTov to himself is so peculiar that whatever
account of its precise meaning we accept, we must suppose him
to have intended some reference to the Messianic idea when he
used it.^ Such a reference is, however, more evident in the second
particular which we spoke of. If we follow the Gospel history
up to the point where we find those narratives (which are not only
placed together by the evangelists, but are intimately related to
each other in matter and import), we see distinctly that a very
important crisis has here been reached in the progress of Jesus'
cause. Both he and his disciples have now arrived at the clear
conviction that he is actually the Messiah." It is certainly
quite incomprehensible how this belief could still require further
confirmation, when the Gospel history has already narrated a
\ multitude of indisputable proofs of Jesus' Messiahship. This,
however, only makes it the more remarkable, and for the historian
the more gratifying, that even in such a narrative as that of the
synoptics there should have been preserved the steps which led to
a belief which was not yet at that time fully formed. The most
unequivocal proof, however, of Jesus' belief in himself as the
!5^Messiah is furnished by his appearance at Jerusalem. Even had
the triimiphal entry been wanting, the significance of his going to
Jerusalem remains. After his long and uninterrupted ministry in

^ It is very doubtful if this expression was a current name for the Messiah at
the time of Jesus. Witli regard to the use of it by him, the most likely explana-
tion is tliat it indicated an antithesis to the Jewish vlos 6(ov, and tiie ideas associ-
ated with that title, and an emphatic assertion of the truly human character of
Jesus' coming and vocation. L'f. Baur die Bideutung des Ausdrucks 6 vius rov
dvBpunov, in Hilgeufeld's Zeitsclir. fur histor. Theol. 18G0, 3, p. 274).

2 Cf. Theolog. Jahrbucber, 1853, p. 77, sq.

JESUS' DEATH AND BESURRECTIOX. 41

Galilee,^ and after all the experience he had gained of the accept-
ance of his doctrine among the people and the opposition made
to it by his adversaries with whom he had already come in
contact, he comes to the resolution to leave Galilee and go to
Judea, to appear in the capital itself, at the seat of those rulers,
against whose whole system and traditions his ministry up to that
time had been the most distinct and outspoken protest. Such a
momentous step can only have proceeded from the conviction that
it was absolutely necessary for his cause, now ripe for decision, to
be at once decided. The time had come for his doctrine and person
to be either accepted or rejected ; the whole nation must be called
on to declare whether it would persist in that traditional Messianic
belief which bore the stamp of selfish Jewish particularism, or if
it would accept such a Messiah as he was, and had shown himself
in his whole life and influence to be. This was the question
which could receive no answer but one ; the answer to which he
had long ago made up his mind with all the calmness of assured'.
conviction.

Never was that which bore the outward appearance of ruin and
annihilation turned into such signal and decisive victory and so
glorious a passage into life, as in the death of Jesus. Up to this
time there was always a possibility that he and the people might
come to agree on the ground of the Messianic faith : the people
might acknowledge him to be the person to whose advent the
national expectations pointed ; the disagreement between his
idea of the Messiah and the Jewish Messianic faith might still

1 The duration of the Galilean ministry is one of the many unsettled points in
a life of the outward outlines of which we kuow so little. The usual assumption
that it continued for three years has no other basis but the number of the
festival journeys mentioned in John, and this depends on the way in which the
Johannine question is settled. The great weight of the tradition of the early
church is to the effect that Jesus taught only one year. This one year, however,
is the (vuivTus Kvpiov denroi of the prophet Isaiah Ixi. 2, cf. Luke iv. 19, and
is doubtless nothing more than a dogmatic assumption. It is not in itself
probable that the public ministry of Jesus extended over so short a period. Com-
pare Hilgenfeld die clementinischeu Kecognitionen und Homilien, 1848, p. 160, w/.
Kritische Untersuchungen liber die Evangelieu Justins', 1850, p. 337. My
Kritische Uuters. iiber die Kanon. Evang., p. 303, nq-

42 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

be peaceably adjusted. But his death made a complete and
irreparable breach between him and Judaism. A death like his
made it impossible for the Jew, as long as he remained a Jew, to
believe in him as his JMessiah. To believe in him as the ^Messiah
after his dying such a death involved the removal from the con-
ception of the Messiah of all the Jewish and carnal elements
which w^ere associated with it. A Messiah who died, and by his
death put an end to all that the Jew expected his Messiah to
accomplish — a Messiah who had died to the life in the flesh — was no
longer a Xpto-ro? Kara crdpKa (2 Cor. v. 16) such as the Messiah
of the Jewish national faith was. Even to the most faithful
adherent of the cause of Jesus, what could a Messiah be who had
fallen a prey to death ? Only two alternatives were possible :
either with his death the faith which had gathered round him
must be extinguished, or this faith, if it were firm and strong
enough, must break through the barrier of death itself, and force
its way from death to life. Nothing but the miracle of the
resurrection could disperse these doubts which threatened to
drive away the faith of the disciples after its object into the
eternal night of death. The question as to the nature and the
reality of the resurrection lies outside the sphere of historical
inquiry. History must be content witb the simple fact, that in
the faith of the disciples the resurrection of Jesus came to_ be
regarded as a solid and unquestionable fact. It was in this faith
that Christianity acquired a firm basis for its historical develop-
ment. What history requires as the necessary antecedent of all
that is to follow, is not so much the fact of the' resurrection of
Jesus, as the belief that it was a fact. The view we take of the
resurrection is of minor importance for the history. We may
regard it as an outward objective miracle, or as a subjective
psychological miracle ; since, though we assume that an inward
spiritual process was possible by which the unbelief of the disciples
at the time of the death of Jesus was changed into belief in his
resurrection, still no psychological analysis can show what that
process was. In any case it is only through the consciousness of

JESUS' DEATH AND BESUBBECTION. 43

the disciples that we have any knowledge of that which was the ^
oliject of their faith ; and thus we cannot go further than to say-
that by whatever means this result was brought about, the
resurrection of Jesus became a fact of their consciousness, and
was as real to them as any historical event.

Great, however, as was the importance of this fact, and certain
as it seemed to bring the minds of the disciples who believed in
Jesus into direct conflict with Judaism, the idea was still too
narrow to accomplish much. Had the belief in the risen one
continued to be what it was at first, that he had passed from death
to life and risen from earth to heaven, to return after a short
interval, the same as he had been before, only seated on the clouds
of heaven and clothed with all the power and majesty that
belonged to the Son of man, to realise at last what his early and
violent death had left unaccomplished, — had the belief not risen
above this form, what, could it have achieved? As the first
disciples conceived that the very next step after the departure of
the Lord from the earth was to be his second coming which was
to be the consummation of the whole of the world's history, their
faith in the risen one was simply a new and stronger form of the
old Messianic expectations. Had no new development taken
place, the only difference between the believing disciples and
their unbelieving fellow-countrymen would have been that to the
former the Messiah would have been one who had come already,
and to the latter one whor was still to come. The Christian faith
would have become the faith of a mere Jewish sect, in whose
keeping the whole future of Christianity would have been
imperilled. What was it then that invested the belief in the!
risen one with a higher significance, and made it possible for the
principle which had entered into the world in Christianity to
develop itself in the great and imposing series of phenomena in
which its history was unfolded, and to triumph over every influencel
wliich opposed it and threatened to hinder or obscure the all-j
commanding universalism of its spirit and aims ?

PART SECOND.

CHRISTIANITY AS A UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLE OF SALVATION : THE CON-
FLICT BETWEEN PAULINISM AND JUDAISM, AND ITS ADJUSTMENT
IN THE IDEA OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

I.— THE CONFLICT.

It is a proof of the strong faith of the disciples, and of the great
confidence they had already gained in the cause of Jesus, that
during the period immediately succeeding his . death they neither
dispersed about the country nor agi-eed to meet at any more
distant spot, but made Jerusalem itself their permanent centre.
Here it was that the first Christian church was formed, and the
Church of Jerusalem continued to be regarded by all Jewish
believers in Jesus as the headquarters of their religion. Eecent
critical investigations show that the statements given in the Acts
of the Apostles afford but a dim and confused picture of this early
community of believers, and yield little to the historian in the way
of trustworthy or consistent materials. It is not till we come to
the appearance of Stephen and the persecution of which he was
the occasion (Chap. vi. and vii.) that we stand on firmer historical
ground. Here there are two things to be remarked. The charge
brought against Stephen, which is strikingly similar to that brought
against Jesus at his trial, and cannot in the latter case any more
than that of Stephen have been an entirely baseless statement on
the part of the false witnesses, shows us the early beginnings of
an opposition which could only find its further development in
Paulinism. The more spiritual worship of God which Stephen

STEPHEN. 45

opposed to the externalism of the existing temple worship, could
not fail to lead beyond Judaism. The whole appearance of Stephen
suggests that the cause he pleaded was one which would justify us
in calling him the forerunner of the apostle Paul. It is important,
however, to notice, that this opposition to Judaism to which
Stephen was the first to draw public attention, seems to have
existed in the Church of Jerusalem for some time, and to have
divided the church into two different parties. Stephen was a
Hellenist, and it cannot be thought accidental that this more
liberal tendency appeared in one who was a Hellenist. The fact
of which he is an example, that the primitive church at Jerusalem
numbered Hellenists among its members, is confirmed by the
express statement of the Acts (\lii. 4, xi. 19, sq) When the
members of the Church fled from the persecution to which Stephen
fell a martyr, and were scattered abroad throughout the regions of
Judea and Samaria, not only did these fugitives carry Christianity
to Samaria, to the towns of the sea- coast, and even to Cyprus and
Antioch, but at Antioch some of them, men from Cyprus and
Cyrene, and of course Hellenists, took the important step in
advance of preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles. Antioch thus
became the seat of the first church of Gentile Christians, as .
Jerusalem was the mother church of the Jewish Christians. It is
stated in the Acts (viii. 1) that only the apostles stayed in Jerusalem
at this persecution ; but this is improbable. If we may judge
from the occasion out of which it arose, this persecution was not
aimed at the Church as a whole, but rather at the Hellenists who
sympathised with Stephen in his more liberal views and his
consequent hostility to Judaism. Thus the history of Stephen
affords clear evidence to show that the Church of Jerusalem
had all along consisted of two parties, the Hebraists and the
Hellenists, who now effected a complete separation from each
other. From this time forth the Church of Jerusalem consisted
entirely of Hebraists. The Hellenists, however, were widely
diffused even before this time ; and though the more liberal
tendency only found its first expression in Stephen, yet we cannot

46 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

be wrong in thinking that it had been at work before, and that
it was due to its influence that Hellenism was already giving birth
to Gentile Christianity. It was the apostle Paul, however, in
whom Gentile Christianity found in the course of these same
movements, of which the proto-martyr Stephen is the centre, its
true herald, and logical founder and expositor.^

The history of the development of Christianity dates of course
from the departure of Jesus from the world. But in Paul this
history has a new beginning ; from this point we are able to trace it

not only in its external features, but also in its inner connection.

[ ■

What the Acts tell us of the conversion of the apostle can only

be regarded as the outward reflection of an inner spiritual process.
The explanation of this process is to be found in the apostle's own
individuality as we have it set before us in his epistles. In speak-
ing of the period immediately preceding the great turning-point of
his life, he says that he was a great zealot for the traditions of the
fathers, and that he went beyond many of his contemporaries in
the Jewish religion. The reason of this must have been simply
that he saw more clearly than many others how completely the new
doctrine would undermine Judaism if it prevailed. The charac-
teristic feature of Christianity appeared to him no doubt to be what
the main charge brought against Stephen, and against Jesus him-
self, had indicated, namely, its refusal to regard true religion as a
thing bound down to special ordinances and localities. This refusal
naturally and at once impressed on the religious consciousness a
tendency to detach itself from the ground of traditional Judaism.
Thus it arose out of the natural logic of his character that as when
a Jew he had thrown all the vigour of his intellect into the perse-
cution of Christianity, so when converted to Christ he shoidd
become the most trenchant opponent of the very principle of Juda-
ism. Accordingly the history of his conversion, as he himself gives
it to us (Gal. i. 15, 16), presents us with the remarkable circumstance
that the revelation in which God revealed his Son in him, and the

' Cf. Baur's Paul, his Life and Works, his Epistles and his Doctrine. T. T. F. L.
Williaina and Norgate, 1875-76.

PA UL THE APOSTLE OF THE GENTILES. 47

call which he then received to preach the Gospel among the Gen-
tiles, were to his mind one and the same spiritual act. He did not
merely become a disciple of Jesus, like other converts to the Chris-
tian faith : the consciousness sprang up in him that he was an
apostle of Christ such as the older apostles were ; and yet quite
different from them, since he felt that it was only in the Gentile
world that his apostolic mission could be accomplished. Thus,
not only was he the first to lay down expressly and distinctly the
principle of Christian universalism as a thing essentially opposed
to Jewish particularism. From the first he set this Christian prin-
ciple before him as the sole standard and rule of his apostolic
activity. In his Christian consciousness his own call to the apo-
stolic office and the destination of Christianity to be the general
principle of salvation for all people were two facts which were
bound up inseparably in each other, and could not be disjoined.
We cannot call his conversion, his sudden transformation from the
most vehement opponent of Christianity into its boldest preacher,
anything but a miracle ; and the miracle appears all the greater
when we remember that in this revulsion of his consciousness he
broke through the barriers of Judaism and rose out of the particu-
larism of Judaism into the universal idea of Christianity. Yet
great as this miracle is, it can only be conceived as a spiritual pro-
cess ; and this implies that some step of transition was not wanting
from the one extreme to the other. It is true that no analysis,
either psychological or dialectical, can detect the inner secret of the
act in which God revealed his Son in him. Yet it may very
justly be asked whether what made the transition possible can have
been anything else than the great impressiveness with which the
great fact of the death of Jesus came all at once to stand before
his soul. From the moment of the revelation in which tlie Son of
God was revealed in him, he lives only in contemplation of the
Crucified One : he knows no other, he is crucified with him, his
whole system of thought turns on this one fact. The death which
was to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness,
for him contains and expresses all salvation, and that as no ideal

48 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

death, Lut in its most obvious and material aspect as a fact, as the
death on the cross from which Christianity itself is named the
word, the preaching of the cross. In what other way can he have
overcome his hatred and repugnance towards Christianity but by
being plunged, almost against his will, in a liigh-wrought and in-
tense frame of spirit, into contemplation of this death ? To the
Jewish imagination a crucified Messiah was the most intolerable of
ideas. His mind, however, accustomed as it was to deeper thinking,
came to see that even what was most repugnant to man's natural
feelings might yet prove to be the most profoundly and essentially
true, and so the idea ceased to be intolerable. Death, he came to
see, can be transfigured into life. A Messiah who has died in the
flesh cannot indeed be a Xpia-TO<i Kara adpKa in the sense of the
Jewish national ideas. Yet all the more surely may he be discerned
as one who has died to the flesh and been transfigured to a higher
life and stands as a Eedeemer high above all the limitations of
Judaism. A death which ran so directly counter to all the facts
and presuppositions of the Jewish national consciousness, could not
be confined in its significance to the Jewish nation, it must have a
scope far transcending the particularism of Judaism. There can be
no doubt that this was the thought in which the apostle first dis-
cerned the truth of Christianity. It was certainly the thought
which lay at the root of his view of the person of Christ, and from
whicli the whole dialectical development of Pauline Christianity
proceeded. Now the Christian universalism which thus became a
certainty to the apostle before any other of the disciples had reached
it implied from the first a much deeper breach witb Judaism than
we might have supposed. This is the only possible explanation of
the fact, that from the time of his conversion the apostle Paul went
his own independent way, and avoided intentionally and on prin-
ciple all contact with the older apostles.^ He made a short visit to

* Cf. the work of Dr. A. Holsten, Inlialt und Gedankengang des Briefs an die
Galater, Rostock 1859, p. 4, sq., 17, sq. This work is markedly superior to ordi-
nary commentaries in its logical precision, and its luminous development of the
apostle's thought. See also Holsten on Galatians in the Protestanten-Bibel,
Leipzig, 1S72, p. 700, sqq.

PAUL TEE APOSTLE OF THE GENTILES. 49

Jerusalem, during which he was with Peter, but he leaves us with-
out any clear information as to his intercourse with him beyond
what may be gathered from the certainly significant expression that
he only came there to make Peter's acquaintance. After this short
visit he seemed to turn his back on Judaism for ever (Gal. i. 17-24).
But the apostle takes up an attitude of so great freedom and
independence not only towards the older apostles, but towards the
person of Jesus himself, that one might be inclined to ask whether
a view of his relation to the person of Christ can be the right one
which would make the apostle Paul the originator and first expo-
nent of that which constitutes the essence of Christianity as dis-
tinguished from Judaism. Is there not too great a distance between
the founder of Christianity and one who made his first appearance
altogether outside the circle of the first apostles ? The difficulty is
great if we are to suppose that this apostle derived no assistance
from the original apostles, but did of himself what no one had done
before, — introduced Christianity to its true destination as a religion
for the world, and enunciated, with a full sense of its vast signi-
ficance, the principle of Christian universalism. Here, however,
we shall do well to attend to the two elements which we found in
the person of Jesus, and to their relation to each other. First, there
was the moral universal in him, the unconfined humanity, the
divine exaltation, which gave his person its absolute significance.
On the other side there was the cramping and narrowing influence y
of the Jewish national Messianic idea. The latter was the form
which the person of Jesus was obliged to assume if the former ele-
ment was to have a point of vantage from wdiich to go forth into
the stream of history, and to find the way on which it could pass
into the general consciousness of .mankind. What, then, could be
more natural than that one set of his followers should hold to the
national side of his appearance, and attach themselves to it so firmly
as never to surmount the particularism of Judaism at all, while
tlie other of the two elements, which in the person of Jesus were
combined in a simple unity, found in another quarter a much more
distinct and energetic expression than the first set of his followers

D

50 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

ever could have given it ? ^ In this way the natural starting-point
of each party is found in the life and work of the founder. The
only question comes to be how the apostle Paul appears in his
Epistles to be so indifferent to the historical facts of the life of
Jesus. He seldom appeals to any traditions on the subject, though
his apostolic activity, as well as that of the other apostles, would
have been meaningless without them. He bears himself but little
like a disciple who has received the doctrines and the principles
which he preaches from the Master whose name he bears. But
tins only shows us how large and how spiritual his conception of
Christianity was. The special and particular vanish for him in
the contemplation of the whole. Christianity stands before him
as a great historical fact which can be understood and grasped only
in its unity and its immediateness as a divine revelation. The great
facts of the death and resurrection of Jesus make it what it is.
Around these facts his whole Christian consciousness revolves ; his
whole Christian consciousness is transformed into a view of the
])erson of Jesus which stands in need of no history to elucidate it.
Why should he go to eye-witnesses and ear- witnesses of Christ's life
to ask what he was according to the flesh, when he has seen him-
self in the spirit ? Why should he ask whether what he is teach-
ing agrees with the original teaching of Jesus, and with the dis-
courses and sayings which have been handed down from him, when
in the Christ who lives and works in him he hears the voice of the
Lord himself? Why should he draw from the past what the Christ
who is present in him has made to be the direct utterance of his
own consciousness ? ^

' Cf. my work, Die Tubinger Schule, 1 859, p. 30, sq.

2 Nothing could be more paltry than the attempts some scholars have made to
fill up the sui>posed ga]> in the evidence of the apostle's legitimation. This is
done by collecting from his works as many quotations as possible of the words
of Jesus. It is also asserted that the confidence the apostle expresses that he
had not run in vain must mean that he had an accurate acquaintance with the
teaching of the historical Christ. Otherwise, it is said, he must have been pro-
claiming himself as a second and better Christ, a sUrt of Montanist Paraclete.
See Paret, Jesus und Paulus. Einige Bemerkungen liber das Verhiiltniss des
Apostels Paulus und seiner Lehre zu der Person, dem Lebcn und der Lehre des

PAUL AND THE OLDER APOSTLES. 51

Fourteen years had passed since the apostle's conversion ; he had
entered into his sphere of apostolic activity, had planted churches
of Gentile Christians, and founded at Antioch a metropolis for the
whole body of Gentile Christian believers, when a question which it
appears had never yet been stirred, and with regard to which Jesus
had had no occasion to declare himself, all at once rose into the
most serious practical importance. Up to this time Paul and his
apostolic fellow-labourers had not scrupled to invite the Gentiles
to the Gospel. Nor had they thought of making it a condition of
their participating in the Messianic blessings that they should
submit to circumcision, and in so doing become bound to observe
the law. But as the number of converts from heathenism
increased, and as the efforts of those who carried the Gospel to the
Gentiles diffused it more and more widely throughout the Gentile
world, the Christians of Jerusalem became alarmed. They could
not look on with indifference, when they saw a Gentile Christian
Church arising over-against the Church of Jerusalem in utter dis-

geschiclitliclien Christus. Jahrb. d. deutschen Theol. 3, 1858, p. 1, sq. The
attempt to make out quotations is very defective and unsatisfactory, and it is im-
possible to help thinking that had the apostle himself felt the need of such cre-
dentials for his teaching, he would have expressed himself quite differently in his
epistles. Nor would it be easy to understand, on such a hypothesis, how at the
very time at which it mast have been his chief concern to gain as accurately as
possible a knowledge of the teaching of Christ, he could maintain an attitude of
such indifference towards the older apostles. The teaching of Jesus was to be
found nearest its source with them, and if he wished to have the best and most
trustworthy information on the subject he should have frequented their company.
Now Gal. i. 1 ] , sq., shows us distinctly that he recognised no obligations to the older
apostles with regard to his gospel. He would have regarded their communications
as a purely human medium, and could not have brought them into connection with
the immediate aTroKcikv^is ^Irjaov Xpia-rov which had taken place in his own con-
sciousness. From this we cannot but conclude that we shoidd have a totally false
notion of what his apostolic consciousness was if we supjjosed that he reached it
by the processes on which our own historical information is dependent, and which
render it so limited and so uncertain. We have only to consider what is involved
in the claim he advanced to be not merely a disciple of Jesus, but an apostle,
with the full autonomy of the apostolic authority. Compare the discussions
(which the author of the above-named dissertation has left quite unnoticed) which
1 gave in my contributions to the explanation of the Ejiistle to the Corinthians,
on the apostle's principle of authority. Theol. Jahrb. 1852, p. 32, sq., and on the
ecstasies of the apostle, 1850, p. 182, sq.

52 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

regard of the ordinances and privileges of Judaism, and yet putting
forth a claim to equal place and dignity with themselves. Members
of the Church of Jerusalem came to Antioch, as the apostle
himself tells us (Gal. ii. 1, sq.) He calls them false brethren,
intruders, who jealously spied out the liberty that was enjoyed
and claimed as a Christian right at Antioch, and made it their
aim to bring the Christians there into bondage under the law.
The matter appeared so important to the apostle that he felt he
must himself go to Jerusalem^ and have the question discussed
on the spot where it had arisen, and where alone it could be
decided. The direct practical issue of the question which had
been raised was whether or not Gentile Christians required to
be circumcised. The apostle therefore took with him not only
Barnabas but also Titus, an uncircumcised Gentile Christian, that
tliere might be a case before the Church at Jerusalem, in which the
strength of the resistance to the demand that had been made there
might be visibly demonstrated. But who were the opponents to
whom Paul and Barnabas had to offer so strenuous a resistance ?
Who else than the elder apostles themselves ? We should have a
strange conception of the Church at Jerusalem and the position
the apostles occupied in it, if we thought that a question of such
importance as this could arise in it, and that the apostles took no
part in the discussion, the originators of the dispute being merely
certain extreme Judaists, with whose assertions and demands the
apostles themselves did not agree. Had such been the case, how
easy would it have been to arrive at an understanding ! This view
is clearly contrary, not only ta the nature of the case, but to the
plain meaning of the apostle^s own words. It has often been
repeated,^ but it can never amount to anything more than an un-

^ 'Ai/f'Sr;!/ Kara anoKtiXv^iv, says the apostle. Gal. ii. 2. Here we see very
distinctly into the psychological background of such dnoKdX.i)yl/(is, in which
Christ himself appeared to him.

- A principal authorit}"^ for this view, which is so totally opposed to sound
historical insight, is Lechler's Prize Essay, which was crowned by the Teyler
Tlicologieal Society, Das apostolische und nachai)ostolische Zeitalter mit EUcksicht
auf Unterscliied und Einiheit zwischen Paulus und den iibrigen apostein, zwischen
lleidenchristen und Judeuchristen. Haarlem, 1851. In the second and revised

PA UL AND THE OLDER APOSTLES. 53

warrantable claim to set aside the original account, which bears the
direct impress of the facts as they occurred, and to set above it a
narrative which is inconsistent with it, and is manifestly governed
by the writer's desire to give a new version of what had occurred.^
We need only consider the phrases which Paul selects to describe
his opponents, and which are carefully designed to indicate only
their own view of the position which they held. He calls them
ol BoKOvvra, BoKOvvTe<i eivac tl, ol BoKovme<; arvKoi elvai, thus show-
ing us that the older apostles themselves were the authorities for the
view with which he had to contend. Then we may remember how
deliberately and with how full a sense of the independence of his own
position he confronted the apostle Peter himself (ii. 7, sq), and lastly,
what the result of the whole conference was. The three principal
representatives of the Church of Jerusalem did indeed give to Paul
and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, but the agreement which
was arrived at consisted simply in recognising that each party had a
right to go his own way, separate from, and independent of the other.
Thus there were now two Gospels, a Gospel of the circumcision and
a Gospel of the uncircumcision, a mission to the Jews and a mission
to the Gentiles. The two were to go on side by side, separate and
independent, without crossing each other's paths. The only bond to

edition (Stuttgart 1857), Lechler has simply repeated his former assertion, as
was to be expected ; he has brought forward no better evidence or arguments in
its support. Cf . Hilgenfeld, der Oalaterbrief tibersetzt, in seinen geschichtlichen
Beziehungen untersucht und erklart (1852), p. 128. Zeitschr. fiir wissensch.
Theol. i. 1858, p. 54, sq. 317, sq. No recent writer has exposed the unPauHne
view of the passage with greater logic and acumen than Holsten, in the work
mentioned, p. 48.

1 This is one of the points where the question of the relation between the
narrative in the Acts and the apostle's own statements is of most importance.
On this subject there is nothing to be added to what will be found in my work
on the apostle Paul and in Zeller's work on the Acts. Here if anywhere there
is a conflict of principles, which cannot be carried further. The two views simply
confront each other as the critical view and the uncritical. The former is based
upon differences which lie actually before our eyes. The latter seeks, in the
interests of the apostles, to adjust these differences. But the adjustment will
only be satisfactory to those who can accept the implied assumption that the
interests of the apostles constitute a standard of historical truth. See my Paul,
his Life and Work, i. p. lUo, sqq. Zeller, Acts o£ the Apostles, ii. p. S, sqq.

64 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

connect the Gentile with the Jewish Christians was to be the care
for the support of tlie poor of the parent Church. So decided an
attitude of opposition did the two standpoints now assume : on the
one side was the apostle Paul refusing with immovable firmness to
be shaken even for a moment in any pomt which his principles
required him to maintain, or to yield any compliance to the pro-
posals addressed to him : on the other side were the older apostles
clinging tenaciously to their Judaism. During the long period
of years which had elapsed they had not made a single step that
would have carried them beyond their Jewish particularism. They
were still asserting the principle of the indispensableness of cir-
cumcision as a qualification for the Messianic community. They
could not shut their eyes to the success which had attended the
preaching of the Gospel to the heathen, nor deny, what the event
had proved, that God's blessing rested on that enterprise. This,
and the cogent arguments of the Pauline dialectic, left them without
any reasonable objection to bring forward against the prosecution
of the mission to the heathen. Yet the concession which they
thus appeared to make did not arise from any root of conviction
in their minds, and was out of harmony with their religious feelings.
In fact the relations of the two parties to each other were now
such that the line of demarcation which had been drawn between
them could not possibly be long observed. This was proved to be
the case in the encounter between Peter and Paul at Antioch,
which took place soon after the right hand of fellowship had been
given. On this occasion a very outspoken declaration of quite a
different character was made. When Peter came to Antioch he at
first ate with the Gentile Christians, But some persons came there
from James, and by the mere fact of their presence reminded
Peter so strongly of the principles which were so rigorously upheld
at Jerusalem, that he gave up sitting at the same table with the
Gentile Christians as he had hitherto been doing. In drawing this
distinction between the Jewish and the Gentile Christians he
Itractically declared that he no longer recognised the latter to be on
the same level with the former. The apostle of the Gentiles felt

PAUL AND THE OLDER APOSTLES. 55

this double-faced couduct to be au attack upon his principles, and
took up the matter so warmly that he confronted the chief of the
older apostles with a very pointed remonstrance before the assem-
bled church. The apostle Peter's action showed that the alter-
natives left open to Jewish Christians by the treaty of Jerusalem
were either to do away with the distinction between Jewish and
Gentile Christians altogether, or to continue to be Jews, and deny
to the Gentile Christians any privilege which would place them
on the same level with the Jewish Christians. The apostle Paul
also took a step which could not fail to have further consequences.
With incisive energy he pointed out to Peter how his inconsistent
and halting Jewish Christian position, which sought to hold both
faith and the law at once, was a logical as well as a moral blunder,
a contradiction in which he stood self-condemned. He then went
on to demonstrate his own position, and showed what the Christian
principle led to, when followed out consistently. Though the law
is taken away, Christ is not the minister of sin, and he, the apostle,
instead of building up what he had himself destroyed, was through
the law dead to the law, that he might live to God.-^ The words
and the whole tone of the apostle bear witness how sharp the
personal collision between him and Peter must have been, and we
are not surprised to find that the scene at Antioch made a deep
impression on the mind of the age, and left very lasting effects
behind. Throughout all the Epistles of Paul we do not find the
slightest indication that the apostles ever drew nearer to each other
in after years. The Acts passes over the occurrence at Antioch
with a resolute silence, which shows clearly enough how far what
was remembered of the subject was from harmonising with the
reconciling tendency of this work. Prom a work written in the
second half of the second century, the pseudo-Clementine Homilies,
we gather that even then the Jewish Christians had not yet learned
to forgive the harsh word which the apostle Paul had spoken of
the man whom they regarded as the chief of the apostles.^

1 For the exegesis of the passage, Gal. ii. 15, sq., cf. Holsten, op. cit. p. 22, sq.

2 Horn. 17-19. El Kartyvwa-fiivov fie Xeyttf, Q(ov dnoKoXvylravros fioi rov
Xpia-Tov KaTrjyopfU, Peter says to Simon Magus, with an obvious allusion to the

56 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

We have seen that at the very outset of the controversy,
as soon as the question of circumcision had arisen, men once
and again appeared on the scene who had come from the Church
at Jerusalem, and openly sought to bring about a reaction
(Gal. ii. 4, 12). We meet with tlie same phenomenon in the
Gentile Christian Churches planted by Paul. Judaists of the
same stamp appeared in these churches, and made it their business
to bring Pauline Christianity into discredit, and to destroy what
the apostle had founded and built up as his own work, without
the law and in opposition to the law, in order to rear it uj) again
on the basis of the law. The first actual proof of this systematic
opposition to the apostle Paul appears in the Epistle to the
Galatians, which was occasioned by that very opposition. It
was written a few years after the occurrence at Antioch, after
the apostle had made his second missionary journey. The whole
arrangement and tendency of the Epistle show that the apostle
deemed the matter to be of great importance, and saw that his
principles were at stake in the contest. He therefore thinks it
necessary to give a circumstantial account of his whole relation to
Christ and to the earlier apostles, from tlie time of his conver-
sion onward. He simply narrates the facts, and in this way
he considers that he furnishes an irresistible proof, that from
the very outset he has asserted distinctly, and in various ways,
the independent right of the Gospel which he preached, and that
his claim has been allowed. The opponents who had taken the
field against him in the Churches of Galatia were but a new
detachment of the opposition with which he had had to contend
before. They had perplexed the conscience of tlie Galatian
Christians by asserting tliat the work of their salvation was built

words of Paul, Gal. ii. 10, Kara TTpoaanrov ai'TM avTecrrqv, on naTtyvuicrixevos rju.
The tradition of the church which brought the apostles together again places
the final reconciliation of the two at the end of a long period of separation. Post
tanta tcnipora, the Predicatio Pauli says in the passage which has been preserved
in the treatise de Rebaptismate, appended to the works of C3'prian (Cypr. 0pp.
Ed. Baluz. p. 3G5, S(j.) Petruni et Pauhini post conlatiouem evangelii in Jerusalem
et nuituani cogitationem et altcrcatioiieni et rerum agendarum dispositioncm
postreino iu urbe quasi tunc priinum, invicem sibi esse coguitos.

TEE GALATIAN CONTEST. 57

upon a totally wrong foundation if it did not include the ob-
servance of the law ; and the Galatians were on the point of
falling away from the teaching of the apostle, and suffering the
whole yoke of the law, circumcision and all, to be imposed on
them (v. 2). So great an impression did those Judaists produce
even in a church which was mainly composed of Gentile
Christians, and which, the apostle declares, had received his
gospel of freedom from the law with the most lively interest and
the warmest expressions of affection for him personally (iv. \2,sq)
No other Epistle affords us so deep an insight into the grave
significance of the rapidly widening struggle, and into the religious
motives which operated on each side. The Judaists maintained
it to be the absolute privilege of Judaism that only by the law
and circumcision could any man be saved; while the apostle
Paul set up the counter-proposition, that whoever was cir-
cumcised, Christ would profit him nothing (v. 2). According to
the former it is in vain to be a Christian without being a Jew
also. According to the latter it is in vain to be a Christian if,
as a Christian, one chooses to be a Jew as well. And as it
is impossible to be a Jew without accepting circumcision, and
with circumcision the obligation to keep the whole law in all its
particulars, it is evident at once how the man who takes this road
must contradict himself, and be divided in his own mind. But
the apostle is not content with exposing this contradiction to the
Galatians, and showing them how unjustifiable and irrational
the step was which they were about to take. He goes to the root
of the matter, and attacks Judaism itself, showing that its being
a religion based on law, far from giving it any distinction, reduces
it to a subordinate and secondary place in the history of the
religious development of mankind. Even within the sphere of
Jewish religious history, the law is not the primary and original
element. Above it stands the promise given to Abraham, which
points forward to a time when the S£^e faith which was counted
to Abraham for righteousness will become the blessing of all
nations. This promise can only be fulfilled when the law, whose

58 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

curse passes upon all who do not continue in all things that are
written in the law to do them, gives way to faith. By faith, faith
that is to say in him who has redeemed us from the curse of the
law, we receive that which was the object of the promise made to
Abraham, namely, the spirit. Thus the apostle has placed the
law and the promise in such direct opposition to each other, that
he is obliged to ask what the law is, what purpose it serves, when,
owing to its want of power to give life, righteousness could not
come by it. The answer which he gives to this question is that
the law was interposed between the promise and the time when
/ faith should come, because of transgressions, not to prevent them,
but that in them sin might attain to its full manifestation and
reality. This was the interval of the schoolmastership of the law,
when mankind, being concluded under sin, was to be detained
in wa;rd till it had become of full age, being set free from the law
to receive the sonship of God through faith in Christ.

Thus Judaism is nothing more than the religion of the law in
contradistinction to Christianity, which is the religion of the spirit.
Both its position in the world and its inner constitution declare
that the function of Judaism is that of effecting a transition, of
filling up an inters^al. The object it is there to serve is to
exercise the stern severity of a watcher set to mark transgressions,
and to keep the promise and the fulfilment apart, till the period
which God has fixed for this event in the order of the world arrive
(the 7r\ripa)/j,a rov '^pdvov, Gal. iv. 4), and the promise reach its
fultilmeut. Nay, the apostle places Judaism even lower. Not
only does it make men liable to the yoke of the law. Like Pagan-
ism, it has its religious institutions and forms of worship which
are bound to particular times, to days, and months, and years.
Thus it makes man dependent on the same elemental and material
nature-powers, the adoration of which is characteristic of Pagan
nature-religion ; and on this side at least stands on no higher stage
of religious development than Paganism does.^ As surely then as

'The ai)ostle's object in this passage is simply to define the position which is
due to the law iu the divine govurumeut of the world. Cf. the very acute and

THE GALATIAN CONTEST. 59

it is a law of the divine government of the world, that there is a
progress from the minority and the restriction of boyhood to the
majority and the maturity of manhood, from bondage to freedom,
from the flesh to the spirit, so surely does Christianity stand high
above Judaism ; and it can only be regarded as an irrational
inversion of the relation which God has ordained, to fall back
from Christianity into Judaism. So lofty is the standpoint on
which the apostle here appears to us when we see him for the
first time setting forth in logical order the arguments with which
he resisted the claims of his Judaising opponents ! Not only
does he repudiate, as utterly unjustifiable, the demand which
they had made with regard to circumcision, he denies that the
law possessed that absolute right which the Jew ascribed to it.
He places Judaism and Christianity together under the light of
a great religio-historical contemplation, and of a view of the
course of the world before the universal idea of which the
particularism of Judaism must disappear. The demand of cir-
cumcision which was made upon the Gentile Christians amounted
to a claim that, in submitting to that rite, they should acknow-
ledge the absolute superiority which the Jewish nation as God's
chosen people possessed over all the other nations of the world.
This claim the apostle's wide and comprehensive view of history
sufficiently disposed of. The cardinal point of his dialectical
polemic, however, is to be found in the passage where he draws
the conclusion from the previous discussion regarding the law and
the promise, that all who are baptized into Christ enter at once,
in that very act, into a new community, in which all the causes
of division between man and man, which are to be found in the
outward circumstances of life, are at once removed, so that there

accurate analysis of the course of the apostle's thought here, iu Holsten, op.
cit. p. 30, S'/., where the result is summed up as follows : — The law caimot be
considered as the absolute purpose of God, but it is a relative purpose : it is
taken up into his absolute purpose as a means. Thus, while it is distinguished
from the promise, its unity with the promise is maintained. In God's purpose
of salvation the vojjlos is distinguished from the fnayyeXia, but in the economy
of salvation they are in unity with each other. (6 fXfa-iTrjs ovk icrriv evos — 6 vofios
t)VK i(TTiv Kara twv (TrayytXiSip tov Qfoi.)

60 CHUIiCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

is no difference any longer between the Jew and the Greek,
|between circumcision and uncircumcision, but all may regard
themselves as children of Abraham. All are one in Christ, in the
same faith which manifests itself by love.

The inner force of truth and the acuteness of his logical
demonstrations give the apostle an unquestionable superiority
over his Judaistic opponents. But what could all this avail, if
the evidence of the truth of Christian teaching was to be sought
for, not in the teaching itself, but in the apostolic authority of the
teacher? and if, when Paul was compared with the earlier
apostles, they were seen to be the immediate witnesses of the
truth declared by Jesus, while his apostolic authority was founded
on no external warrant or commission whatever, but simply on
the assurance of his apostolic consciousness in his own mind ?
Accordingly, we can discern plainly enough, even in the Epistle to
the Galatians, that he was well aware of the intimate and
inseparable connection between these two things — the truth of
his Gospel, and the assertion of his apostolic authority. He could
only maintain the former by securing his position with regard to
the latter : by establishing his right to the position of an apostle
as against the older apostles. What then are his apostolic
credentials ; and if he affirmed that he alone was the true apostle
of Jesus Christ, how stood the case with the older apostles who
put forth the same claim for themselves? The dispute which
had arisen about the necessity of circumcision and the permanent
validity of the law, necessarily opened up further issues.

Whatever may have been the result of Paul's Epistle to the
Galatians, and of his controversy with his opponents in the
Galatian Churches, the dispute did not end there. Not long after
that Epistle was written, we meet with opponents of the apostle in
a different quarter of his sphere of labour, whose attacks upon him
seem to be dictated by the same motives, and to be carried on in
the same spirit. There can be no doubt that the Epistle to the
Galatians was written in the earlier period of the apostle's
residence at Ephesus, which is to be placed in the years 54-57.

THE CORINTHIAN CONTEST. 61

The composition of our first Epistle to the Corinthians belongs to
the latter part of his residence there. It was occasioned by news
from Corinth which showed him that he had to expect a renewal
of his Galatian experiences in the Corinthian Church. Judaizing
teachers had made their way into this Church also, and had
unsettled the faith of the apostle's converts in his Gospel.
Several divisions and parties had arisen ; but the main con-
troversy about which they were ranged originated in a party
which bore the name of Peter, although there can be no doubt
that Peter never was at Corinth at all, and set itself in opposi-
tion to those members of the Corinthian Church who remained
faithful to the principles of Pauline Christianity.^ The party-
interests which now came to operate in various ways on the
Corinthian Church arose undoubtedly out of the same great con-
troversy which forms the subject of the Epistle to the Galatians.
It is very remarkable, however, that in the two Corinthian
Epistles the subjects of the law and of circumcision, which
formerly occupied the forefront of the battle, have completely
disappeared. A very personal question has now come to the front,
a question w^hich could not fail to be raised sooner or later, namely,
the apostolic authority of Paul. "What authority could he claim ?
in whatever way he had come to his present position, it certainly
could not be said of him that he had become an apostle in the
same way as the older apostles ; was it not doubtful whether he
could be regarded as a true and genuine apostle at all ? The
apostle does not address himself directly to this most important
question till the end of the second Epistle ; but it can easily be
perceived that, throughout the whole course of the two Epistles,
he never loses sight of it, and that he takes advantage of every
opportunity to clear the ground, and give all the explanations
necessary for the proper understanding of what he had to say for
his own personal interest ; so that when he takes up the personal

1 1 am still of opinion that the only view of the Corinthian parties which will
explain Paul's Epistles and the nature of the parties at Corinth generally, is that
the party of Cephas and the so-called party of Christ were essentially one and
the same. See Paul : vol. i. 257, sq'l-

62 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

question he can meet his adversaries with all the force of a direct
and outspoken denial of their charges. He asserts in the most
emphatic way that he is an apostle as well as any other, and not
a whit behind the so-great apostles whose authority was held up
against him. Of the outward advantages of Jewish race he will
only speak in irony, though in these also he can measure him-
self with them ;^ but the arguments on which he rests his case
are very real and substantial ones. They are the actual results
to which he can point, in the ever-widening sphere in which he
had preached his Gospel, then all those painful experiences, in
which he had approved himself as a servant of Christ, and finally,
the visions and revelations of the Lord, of which he could boast.
Tlie apostle could not leave this last point unnoticed, when once
the question of his apostolic calling had been so pointedly raised.
He might appeal with the greatest justice to the success of his
missionary activity ;^ that was a thing which could not be denied ;
yet it was evident that no one could be an apostle of Christ who
had not been called to that office by Christ himself In the first
Epistle he had insisted emphatically on the fact that, as he was
an apostle, he had also seen the Lord (ix. 1). The visions and
revelations of the Lord, of which he speaks at the close of the
second Epistle, are intended in like manner as a proof of his
apostolic calling. They are to him what the direct call addressed
to the older apostles by Jesus himself during his life on earth is
to them. To the apostle himself this was the most direct and
most convincing proof of his apostolic calling. But, on the other
hand, he could have brought forward no evidence inore subjective
or with less force for others. He spoke of ecstasies, of things that
lie had seen in his own spirit, facts of his consciousness which
could not possess the same objective reality for any one else as
they had for him who was the immediate subject of them. And

12 Cor. xi. 5, 21, 22.

^Cf. especially such passages as 1 Cor. ix. 1, sq. ; xv. 10 ; 2 Cor. ii. 1-4, sq. ;
iii. 2, Kij. ; X. 13, ,«7. ; xi. 23. In the same way in the Epistle to the Galatians he
cites it as a proof of the actual reality of his apostolic calling, that 6 fvepyf/aas
llfTpo) (IS aTTO(TTn\f]v TvepiTOfxriSy ivipyqae Koi ffxol (Is ra fdvt].

TEE CORINTHIAN CONTEST. 63

we cannot wonder that opponents who could never bring them-
selves to grant the truth of the apostle's doctrine, should also have
refused to grant the premisses on which it was based. It was at
this point that they chiefly directed their attacks : and here the
apostle could not but feel the poison of their darts, as he could
not conceal from himself that on this side his attitude towards his
opponents was somewhat peculiar. The excitement and irritation
which he betrays when writing against them on this subject is to
be interpreted as arising mainly out of his uneasiness in having to
do a thing which was impossible, namely, to prove as an objective
matter of fact a thing which was purely subjective in its nature.
Tliis impossibility confronted him most painfully just at the point
where his dearest personal interests were involved.

"When we look at the matter from this point of view, the case
of the apostle's opponents appears in a very different light from
that in which it has generally been regarded. They have generally
been judged entirely by the very unfavourable description which
tlie apostle gives of them. Now it may well have been that
human passion and party spirit did contribute an element of
baseness and selfishness to the opposition they carried on against
the apostle ; but why should we judge that all the wrong was on
their side in opposing the claim which Paul put forward, when we
remember that he not only claimed to be an apostle himself, but
in carrying out his argument to its logical issue, placed his own
apostolic autliority above that of all the older apostles together ?
If he appealed to the inner certainty which he possessed regarding
his vocation by Christ, and to his apostolic consciousness, they, on
the other hand, stood on the historical ground of their actual
connection with C'hrist. Thus principle stood opposed to prin-
ciple ; and only the future development of Christianity could
decide which of the two principles would acquire the predominance
over the other. In the meantime, the attacks made upon the
person of the apostle, and on his apostolic authority, form a new
and a noteworthy epoch in the controversy in which Judaism and
Paulinism had now come to be engaged. The deep earnestness which

64 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

the apostle throws into his contendings with these opponents is
enough to show the importance they had in his eyes. We should
have a very mistaken notion of them did we hold their movement to
have been a mere isolated phenomenon, the undirected and arbitrary
action of certain individuals who were stirred up by merely fortuitous
and personal motives to create disturbance a*nd throw obstacles in
the apostle's way in his own sphere of labour. Everything combines
to show that they had a great party behind them, and knew them-
selves to have a right to appear as the agents and emissaries of that
party. Not only was the name of the apostle Peter the standard
under which their efforts were carried on, — a name which showed
what spirit they were of, and made their cause appear to be the
common cause of all Jewish Christians. We learn from the apostle
himself (2 Cor. iii. 1) that they had brought letters of recom-
mendation with them, which left no doubt as to the party they
belonged to. From whom could such letters of recommendation
proceed but from men who had such a position in the mother
Church, that they could, count on their authority being recognised
in foreign Churches too ? These letters prove to us how party
spirit was growing, how the two parties were being ranged in a
position of antagonism to each other, how efforts were being made
by each party to counteract the other locally. They also represent
to us, in a new and striking way, the radical difference between the
two principles which are here contending with each other. They
exhibited to the Corinthians the contrast between the two conflict-
ing principles of authority. The authority of the one party having
been outwardly communicated, was capable of being delegated by
such credentials. Against this outward authority the apostle had
nothing to affirm when it came to the point but his own indepen-
dent self- consciousness. This is his position in the passage where
he speaks of these letters of commendation of his opponents
(2 Cor. iil 1-18).

In dealing with his opponents at Corinth, he takes up, as he
did in the Epistle to the Galatians, the standpoint of the higher
religio-liistorical contemplation. Judaism and Christianity are

THE CORINTHIAN CONTEST. 65

related to each other as the old and the new BcadrjKr] ; the old one is
antiquated and extinct, but the new one is bright and luminous.
In this distinction between the two dispensations, and in the
spirit as the principle of the Christian consciousness, is to be
found the justification of his apostolic authority. The character
of Judaism is that of a religion of concealment and restraint, the
religious consciousness which belongs to it is narrow and finite,
but Christianity is the opposite of this ; in it the religious conscious-
ness has opened up to perfect clearness and self-certainty, and
does not need to rely on any material aids. And this is the
principle of his apostolic authority too. With those who refuse
to recognise him as an apostle he can use no other argument than
that their religious consciousness is imperfect, that they are at a
standpoint at which the veil, the symbol of Mosaism, still lies upon
their Jewish consciousness, and does not allow them to perceive
the fact that the end of the old religion is now come. The prin-
ciple of Paulinism could not be expressed more simply and
accurately than is done by the apostle in this same passage, when
he sums up his argument against the old covenant and those who
had gained the Christian consciousness, and yet remained standing
under it, in the words (2 Cor. iii. 1 7) : The Lord is the spirit :
and the spirit is liberty. That is to say, the principle and
essence of Paulinism is the emancipation of the consciousness
from every authority that is external or exercised through human
means, the removal of all confining barriers, the elevation of the
spirit to a standpoint where everything lies revealed and open in
luminous clearness to its eye, the independence and immediateness
of the self-co'nsciousness..

Thus the apostle meets the opponents of his doctrine and of his
apostolic authority by demonstrating the imperfection, the narrow-
ness, the finiteness of the religion of the Law. But to get rid
altogether of that particularism which was so closely interwoven
with Judaism, that national pride which led the Jew to think that
because he was a Jew he was better and more highly privileged than
all other men, it was necessary to attack it more directly, to lay

E

66 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

the axe more sharply to its root. This could not be done without
a profounder and more searching appeal to the moral consciousness
than could be made by a discussion which after all belonged to
the sphere of abstract and theoretical contemplation. It is in the
Epistle to the Romans that we see the apostle proceed to this, the
third and most important stage of the long and hard struggle
which his principle had to support as it forced its way through all
the forms of opposition it encountered. Regarded from this point
of view, the Epistle to the Romans appears in the light not merely
of a compendium of Pauline dogmatics, but as a historical source
of the first importance.^

What was it that led the apostle to write to the Roman Church,
.and to address that Church in such an epistle as this ? As a rule
he wrote only to Churches which he himself had founded. The
Roman Church was not one of his, but neither is it known that
any of the other apostles was directly concerned in its foundation.
What naturally suggests itself as the probable account of its
formation is, that it grew up of itself in consequence of the
frequent intercourse which the Jews in Rome, long before this a
numerous body, maintained with Judea and Jerusalem." It was
not even a Gentile- Christian Church, it was at least mainly com-
posed of Jewish Christians, and its prevailing character was
Jewish Christian. It has indeed been generally supposed that the
Christians at Rome to whom the apostle wrote must have been
Gentile Christians ; but when we look at the whole tendency of
the Epistle, at the aim to which it is directed, and at the nature of
the greater part of its contents, it should be impossible any longer
to question, that the apostle is dealing mainly with Jewish Chris-

' Cf. my essay on the object and the line of thought of the Epistle to the
Romans, in the Theol. Jahrb., 1S57, p. 60, sq., 184, sq. See also Paul, etc.,
i. 308, «77.

^ A clear ]>roof of the impulse wliich was inherent in Christianit}' to communi-
cate and propagate itself. With regard to the spread of Christianity locally, we
should not ascribe too much to the personal exertions of the apostles. There
seem to have been a great number of Christian Churches at a very early date in
countries which there is no evidence that any of the apostles ever visited.

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 67

tians. This very fact must have been the immediate occasion of
the Epistle to the Eomans : the apostle addressed himself to them
because they were Jewish Christians, and because he saw in them
the Church which both in virtue of its position in the metropolis,
and from the number and influence of its members, stood at the
head of all the Churches out of Palestine, and might be taken
as representative of all the Jewish Christians who lived among
the Gentile races. And another circumstance which may have
helped to fix the apostle's attention on this Church for some time
back, and even made him wish to visit it, as he says i. 1 3, was the
unembarrassed position which he occupied towards it. He had
not come into any such personal conflict with opponents in it as
in the controversies he had waged in the Galatian and Corinthian
Churches. The discussions in his earlier Epistles had been disturbed
by a great deal of personal matter, which added nothing to the
argument, but, on the contrary, introduced irritation. But in
writing to the Eoman Church he could take up the same questions
again, and deal with them calmly and with an objectivity which
had not been possible before. He could place the great argument
in new points of view, so as to add immeasurably to the profound-
ness, and suggestiveness, and thoroughness of the discussion, and
bespeak for it a much more favourable judgment on the part of
those whom he was seeking to convince. Even at the cardinal
points of his argument we find him expressing himself in a much
milder, more conciliatory, more sympathetic tone than had hitherto
been the case. This, certainly, is only one side ; the other side,
apparently very different and yet intimately connected with the
first, in the thought on which the whole is based, is a keenness of
dialectical polemics which presses deeper than in any of the
previous Epistles, and seems bent on severing once for all the very
roots from which Jewish particularism derived its justification.
These two features, the kind spirit with which he comes to meet
his opponent, and seeks to place himself at his point of view,
and not to judge him too severely, and the keenness with which
he confutes him, are what give the Epistle to the Eomans its

68 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

peculiar interest. Hence moreover it comes, that this Epistle con-
tains the deepest and most comprehensive argument for Pauline
universalism as against Jewish particularism. For this, and
nothing else, is the true theme of the Epistle.

There might be many who no longer clung with the old tenacity
to the privilege which attached to the circumcision of the Jews
as against the uncircumcision of the Gentiles, who could no longer
conceal from themselves the insufficiency of the law for salvation, who
were not offended at the admission of the Gentiles to the Messianic
blessings, and who could even dismiss from their minds the scruples
and objections with which the apostolic calling and authority of
the apostle had formerly been regarded. But even for them there
was still a point which could not but give rise to some uneasiness.
What a disproportion was arising, since the conversion of the Gentiles
had come to be on such a scale and went on with still increasing
strides, between the heathen and the Jewish world ! How was it
to be explained that though the Jewish people was the ancient
and chosen people of God and the object of God's promises, yet
a great part of that people had no part in the salvation which
had appeared in Christ, and the Gentiles were pressing in to
occupy the place which God's own people had left empty? This
question sums up the claim to which Jewish particularism still
clung, and which it imagined to be indefeasible. It was not a
qu.estion of material rights so much as a question of faith, and the
apostle would have been stifling his own feelings of patriotism
in an unnatural way, had not this question moved him to the
very depths of his heart. The question appeared to him to be
so important that he made the attempt not merely to remove
the hindrance which it presented to the frank reception of the
universalism of Christianity, but also to come to an understanding
on the subject with his fellow-countrymen. He goes into the
question with the deepest interest in the salvation of his own
people, but the deeper he goes into it the more does he become
aware that what he is dealing with is simply another form of
that old claim of a national privilege which is the general assump-

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 69

tion of Jewish particularism. Is it really the case, he asks, when
the question is considered from the moral -religious point of view,
that the Jew as such is better and entitled to higher privileges
than other men ? Or do not all the advantages he has had over
others in the history of his nation rather increase his responsibility
before God ? This is the point from which the apostle sets out in
his Epistle ; at the forefront of his argument he places as his
guiding thought the contrast between the righteousness of God
and the unrighteousness of men, which appears on the very surface
of history as a notorious fact among Jews and Gentiles alike. In
this respect, Jews and Gentiles are on the same level If what
makes the immoral actions of the Gentiles inexcusable and worthy
of punishment is, that they did those actions against their own
better knowledge and conscience (i. 19, sq.), the same is true in the
case of the Jews. If there be any difference, it must arise out of
the different degree of light men have when they do what they
ought not to do ; but this difference does not turn out to the
advantage of the Jews. The Gentiles are not without a law ; they
have the law of their conscience ; and if the Jew has the advantage
of another law in addition to this, all the distinctions of which he
boasts in reliance upon it only tell against himself. He is not
better than the Gentiles are : he is only so much the worse, so much
the more worthy of punishment, in proportion as his knowledge
places him above them, and as he knows clearly and perfectly out
of his law what he ought to do, while all the time he does the
contrary. Since then the true moral worth of man consists in his
doing that which he feels that he ought to do, this one considera-
tion makes an end of the distinction between Jew and Gentile. Un-
circumcision is as circumcision, and circumcision as uncircumcision.
The important matter is not what the Jew is outwardly, but what he
is inwardly in his heart before God (ii. 25-29). Should the Jew still
seek to have some advantage over the Gentile, he must be referred
to the Scripture, which itself attests that Jews and Gentiles are
under sin ; and what the Scripture or the law says, it says to them
that are under the law. All the passages of Scripture which speak

70 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

of the depravity of men are applicable to the Jews first of all, and
all combine to prove that no one can be justified before God by
the deeds of the law. What comes by the law is only the know-
ledge of sin. If then there be a righteousness, it is only the
righteousness of God by faith in Jesus Christ, by which all boasting
is excluded. Faith alone corresponds to the universal idea of God.
If it were possible to be justified and saved by the deeds of the
law, as the Jews suppose, then none but the Jews would have this
righteousness, and God would be the God of the Jews only. But
he is the God not of the Jews only, but of the Gentiles also
(iii. 21-31). In faith then, the distinction between circumcision
and uncircumcision disappears, and as certainly as the universal
sinfulness of mankind makes it impossible that there can be any
other way of salvation than the righteousness of God by faith, so
certainly is the universalism of Christianity established in its full
significance, as the apostle expresses it in the words, that God is
not the God of the Jews only, but of the Gentiles also. This uni-
versalism is founded deep in the fact of the moral consciousness
which will not be gainsaid, that Jew as well as Gentile knows
himself to be a sinner, and under the judgment of God.

Now the whole force of the apostle's argument depends on the
assumption of the objective truth of that new way of salvation
wliich he announces. His Epistle has therefore to address itself
to the further task of adjusting this way of salvation to the religious
consciousness of Jews and Jewish Christians, and removing the
scruples and objections which still stood in the way of its reception
in their ininds (iv. 1 — viii. 39). There are three steps in this
argument : 1. The Jewish religious view of the world contains in
itself all the positions on which the apostle's doctrine is based.
The history of mankind from Adam to Christ divides itself into
two great periods. These periods form a contrast with each other ;
each has its own peculiar principle, by which every separate part
of it is determined. It thus appears as an absolute postulate of
the history of the world and of revelation, that there is not only a
condemnation to death, but also a justification to life (iv. 1 — v. 21).

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 71

2. It is uot the case, as the opponents of the doctrine of faith
assert (cf. iii. 8), that it takes away the force of the moral require-
ment of the law. The believing Christian and sin have nothing
whatever to do with each other : the death of Christ has severed
absolutely the bond which connected man and sin, and as
absolutely is man dissevered from the law through which sin comes
to life (vi. 1 — vii. 6). 3. At the same time sin and law are not
identical. The law is in itself good and holy, in its inmost essence
it is spiritual, and only in its relation to nature and to the human
consciousness does it give rise to a conflict between flesh and
spirit. In this conflict the religious ego of Judaism remains in the
condition of an unhappy consciousness, and cannot break through
the barrier which separates Judaism from Christianity. Only in
Christianity is the flesh encountered by the spirit, the principle
which has power to overcome the flesh. Thus only when he
receives the spirit is man placed in the relation of sonship to God ;
and here, in his unity with Christ, there is an end of all that
holds man apart from God, so that nothing can separate him
from the love of God in Christ. Delivered from the dominion of
the powers which ruled in the pre-Christian world, the flesh, sin,
and the law, and set free to live the life of the spirit, man can now,
by reason of the spirit which dwells in him, know himself as spiri-
tually one with God (vii. 7 — viii. 39).

It is at this point (ix. 1, sqq.) that the apostle, looking back
on all the blessed and saving effects of faith which he has been
describing, turns to consider the case of his own fellow-country-
men. On the one hand, he uses the tenderest expressions of
sympathy towards them, and labours with all his heart to show
them that the participation of the heathen in the kingdom of God
does not take place at the expense of Israel. But on the other
hand, he cannot do this without denying out and out that primacy
of the Jews over the Gentiles with which he has all along had to
contend. He meets it at every point on which it relies, and dis-
allows it even in its mildest aspect, in that purely theocratic form
where it appeals simply to the faithfulness and truthfulness of God.

72 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

For what advantage has the Jew over the Gentile, if there is no
such thing as righteousness by the deeds of the law ? It is true
that the promises of God cannot remain unfulfilled ; yet they are
fulfilled without any human co-operation. What claim can man
assert against God, if God can do what he will according to his
pleasure, and can make of man either a vessel of mercy, or a vessel
of wrath ! Apart from faith, man can only be reminded of his
absolute dependence on God, and if faith be taken into account, it
is faith that is the stone of stumbling for Israel. All guilt consists
simply in unbelief; and though the apostle expresses a hope that
finally, after the fulness of the Gentiles has been gathered in, the
promises will be fulfilled by the conversion of Israel, yet he
grounds this hope, with which, as a born Israelite, as a descendant
of Abraham and of the tribe of Benjamin (xi. 1), he finds it hard
to part, not upon Jewish nationality and what is connected with it,
l3ut on the general truth that sooner or later all things must return
to that God from whom and through whom all things are, and in
whom all things have the final purpose of their being and sub-
sistence (chap, ix.-xi.).^

So utterly is Jewish particularism devoid of every justification,
outward or inward. The absolute nuUity of aU its claims is the
great idea which pervades the whole discussion, and which forms
the connection between the two great sections of the Epistle (i.-viii.
and ix.-xi.) : a connection which is not merely external, but
internal. From the analysis of its contents which we have under-
taken it at once appears, that its great significance lies not so much
in its doctrinal discussions about sin and grace, as in its practical
bearing on the most important controversy of these times, the
relation between Jews and Gentiles. How could the two elements
ever have been combined in the unity of one Christian Church,

^ This is a part of the universalism through which the apostle looks upon the
world. The rJTrrjfia of the Jews ami the irXrjpco^a of the Gentiles arrive at the
same end, because each has its own jjcriod, and as God has concluded all in
unbelief, so he will have mercy upon all (xi. 32). The apostle can imagine no
consummation but the salvation of all. The doctrine of eternal punishment
belongs only to Judaism.

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 73

had not the work been done which this Epistle was designed to
do ? It was necessary that the particularism of Judaism which
opposed to the heathen world so repellent a demeanour- and such
offensive claims, should be uprooted, and that the baselessness of its
prejudices and pretensions, of the privilege and the superiority it
asserted, fully exposed to the world's eye. This was the service
which the apostle did to mankind by his magnificent dialectic.

We do not know what impression this Epistle produced upon
the Eoman Church, nor whether any practical result was at once
attained. But we can scarcely be wrong in assuming that, in a
Church in which, as we may infer from the Epistle itself, the
antagonism between the two parties had already been in some
degree softened down, an Epistle of so weighty and comprehensive
a character did not fail to produce the fruit which the apostle
desired to see.-^ It must also have helped to impress upon the
Eoman Church that freer, more conciliatory, and mediating
tendency in consequence of which it afterwards attained so com-
manding a position. In spite of its controversial keenness the
Epistle has unmistakably a conciliatory character : it bears upon
its face not only the deep interest the apostle felt in the salvation
of his fellow-countrymen, but also the profound desire which con-
strained him to try to approach them in every possible way, both
of the reason and the affections, and to clear away completely, if it
might be, everything that continued to estrange them from him.
It is as if the apostle had turned to the Eoman Church in the
conviction that it was peculiarly fitted to undertake the part of a
mediator, as it were, in the great question of his apostolic calling,
in which he was still confronted by so many bitter opponents and
persecutors. It appears the more likely that the apostle was
occupied with thoughts like these, and was seeking to do every-
thing that lay in his power, to get the cause for which he was

1 Tlie two last chai)ters of the Epistle are not genuine, but an addition by a later
hand. Thus the long list of i)ersous to whom questions are addressed in the last
chai)ter affords evidence that the Epistle of the apostle did not fail to attain its
end.

■74 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

working looked at in a conciliatory and loving spirit, and so
brought nearer to a final decision, when we consider the circum-
stances in which the Epistle was written. It was during his last
residence at Corinth that he wrote it. He was on the point of
setting off for Jerusalem once more — a journey which was under-
taken in connection with a piece of business in which he had for
some time taken a deep interest, as he saw in it a means fitted to
draw the Gentile and Jewish Christians closer to each other, and
to make his peace with the Church at Jerusalem, In the Epistle
to the Galatians he states (ii. 10), that ever since the assembly
at Jerusalem he had never lost sight of a work by which the
Churches now divided might be reunited, namely, the support of
the poor in Jerusalem. In the period during which the two
Epistles to the Corinthians were written, he had given special
attention to this undertaking (1 Cor, xvi. 1, sqq., and 2 Cor, chap,
viii. and ix.). As the subsidy was important for the object of his
journey, he naturally desired that it should be as large as possible.
It must have been his uncertainty on this point that made him
think at first of sending the contributions by delegates to be chosen
by the Corinthians, who should carry an Epistle from him to the
Christians at Jerusalem. He adds, however (1 Cor, xvi, 4), that
if the affair be worth while, that is, if the contributions prove to be
so considerable as to be likely to help him with the end he had in
view, he would go with them himself. That the object he thought
of was not merely the material sustenance of the poor, that he had
another aim much more closely connected with his own apostolic
calling, he himself states very distinctly in the Second Epistle,
ix. 12, sq., where he says that the undertaking of this service is not
only one that supplies a want, there is also a surplus in it by
reason of the many thanksgivings which are offered to God for it.
The Christians of Jerusalem praise God that the confession of the
Gentile Christians is so entirely subject to the Gospel of Christ,
that tliey seek to be nothing but the confessors of the Gospel of
Christ. And as they recognise in this gift the heartiness of the
jfellowship which the Gentile Christians bear to them, their heart

THE APOSTLE'S LAST JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM. 75

turns to them, their prayers for them express the yearning that
tliey feel towards them, because the grace of God has been mani-
fested in them in so superlative a way. An attempt was to be
made, then, to remove the wall of partition which still subsisted
between the Jewish and the Gentile Christians, and to win for
Pauline Christianity that recognition which was still denied to it.
The apostle believed that the mistrust and prejudice which the
Jewish Christians still felt were due entirely to the old relations,
which had now passed away, and that the love-offering which the
Gentile Christian Churches were now to send to the Church of
Jerusalem in token of brotherly unity, would produce such an
impression as to remove these feelings altogether. It was no doubt
in furtherance of this design, and with the contribution which had
been collected, that he soon afterwards set out on his journey to
Jerusalem. But how painfully was he disappointed in these hopes !
It is not necessary to enter in detail into the circumstances
under which the apostle met his well-known fate at Jerusalem.
There is one question, however, which possesses special interest,
namely, who were the authors of those tumults in which the
Roman military authorities had to interfere in order to rescue the
apostle from the rage of his opponents? Were these tumults
caused by Jews, or by Jewish Christians ? They were zealots for
the law, men who saw in the apostle a transgressor of the law, an
apostate, a declared enemy of the national religion. But not only
the Jews were zealots of this description, the Jewish Christians also
shared this spirit, and carried it even further than the Jews. In
their case the mission to the Gentiles had raised the question of
the law into a matter of the keenest party interest. And accord-
ingly we can discern, even in the narrative of the Acts, in which
the true state of the case is as far as possible concealed, that the
Jewish Christians were by no means so unconcerned in the out-
breaks of hatred to which the apostle fell a victim, as is generally
supposed. Protected by his Eoman citizenship the apostle was
removed to Rome, after two years' imprisonment at Caesarea.
According to the Acts his imprisonment at Rome lasted for a

76 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

further period of two years : but we are not told when or how it
terminated. Even assuming the genuineness of the Epistles which
profess to have been written by the apostle during his captivity at
Eome, we have no certain or noteworthy information about this
period. The most remarkable fact is that the termination of
these two years coincides with the date of the great Neronian con-
flagration, and the persecution of the Christians to which it led.
Nothing can be more probable, than that the apostle did not
survive this fatal period.

Up to the time when the apostle disappears from the scene of
the history, we have before us nothing but differences and opposi-
tions, between which no certain way of compromise or reconcilia-
tion yet appears. It was vipon that side, from which the great
division had proceeded, which broke in upon the common religious
consciousness, which Jews and Jewish Christians had hitherto
enjoyed together, that a certain need was first felt for approxima-
tion and reconciliation between the two parties. But the advance
did not meet with such a response as might have been expected
from the other party. There were as yet only Jewish Christians
and Gentile Christians, with divergent tendencies and interests.
There was no ecclesiastical association to combine the two. Nor
has history been able as yet to point to any considerable cause
which can be said to have effected the filling up of the great gulf
which since the events at Antioch had continued to exist between
Peter and Paul, the heads of the two parties. All we can say is,
that there must have been reconciling elements in the Church of
Rome. This was the case before, and the influence which Paul had
over this Church, both by his Epistle and by his personal residence
there afterwards, must have strengthened this tendency. And how
could the martyrdom with which the great apostle of the Gentiles
certainly in one way or another finished his work in that city, fail
to leave behind it a healing influence for the future of the Church ?
A legend of much significance, which however arose at a much later
time, connects the brotherly unity of the two apostles with this death.
This is accordingly a fixed point in the history of the further

THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 77

development of these relations. But the interval which elapsed
between the death of the apostle Paul and that point contains
many movements in many different directions, and the develop-
ment of the history will conduct us to that goal by a longer road
than might have been supposed.

The main tendency of the period must have been, as we may
infer from the result which we have mentioned, to bring the two
opposing parties nearer to each other, by a process of smoothing
down their differences, and finding the mean between their opposing
principles. This tendency must, from the very nature of the case,
have become more and more general and predominant. But if we
are to follow it in its whole range, we must first of all obtain a
clear view of those points where the existing antagonism is most
extreme. This is of course the case, where the antagonism is
conscious and designed : there it is most bitter : each of the two
parties makes it its chief end to assert that in which it differs from
the other. The antithesis is wilful and resolute, and the goal of a
possible union is removed to a distant future. Are there then, we
have to ask, phenomena of such a kind after the death of the
apostle Paul? Do we find instances in which Paulinism takes
the offensive against Jewish Christianity ? do we find instances in
which Jewish Christianity keeps up the same keen opposition
against Paulinism with which the Jewish Christians had originally
set themselves against the apostle Paul ?

Next to the Epistles of Paul, the Gospel of Luke^ is the purest
and most important source we possess for the knowledge of Paul-
inism. It contains special reference to the destruction of Jeru-

^ Cf. my Krit. Untersuchungen liber die kanon. Evangelien, p. 427, and my
■work on the Gospel of Mark, p. 191, sq. Kostlin, Ursprung und Composition
der synopt. Evang., p. 132, sq. Hilgenfeld: die Evangelien, p. 220, sq. Kiistlin
does not see in this Gospel the sharp and outspoken op{)osition to the Judaism of
the Gospel of Matthew that I do. I consider this to be a defect in his view of
that work. On the other hand, the iinknown author of the work : Die Evan-
gelien, ihreVerfasser und ihre Verhaltniss zii einander, Leipzig, 1 84.5, appears to me
to have stated this antithesis too broadly. But the merit belongs to him of
having been the first to put the question clearly and in the full light of the issues
it involves.

78 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

salem, so that its composition must at any rate be later than the
year 70. From the earliest times it has been held to be a Pauline
Gospel, but it is only very recently that the Pauline character
which distinguishes it from the other two synoptic Gospels has
been clearly and accurately recognised. This point is so closely
connected with the question as to the composition of the Gospel
that we can only touch on its more general aspects ; yet, even here,
we shall find umistakable evidence of its Pauline tendency. The
spirit and tendency of the Gospel of Luke can only be understood
by the light of its relation to the Gospel of Matthew ; and so the
Judaism of the latter supplies a good standard for judging of the
Paulinism of the former. Here Jesus is not merely the Jewish
]\Iessiah of the Gospel of Matthew : he is the Eedeemer of man-
kind in general, and, in this sense, the Son of God. In accordance
with this his universal mission, the whole representation of his
personality which this Gospel gives us is a higher and more com-
prehensive one than that of Matthew. In all his works, in his
teaching, in his miracles, especially in the power he exercises over
demons, and in the whole of his revelation of himself, his person-
ality appears to be superhuman. And herein lies the reason of
the well-marked advance which this Gospel has made in the view
which is taken of the Gospel history, and in the execution of its
plan. The conception of the Gospel 'history which we find here is
a long way beyond the views on which the Gospel of Matthew is
based, and a long way towards the views of the Gospel of John.
The Galilean ministry is very much shortened, while that in Judea
and Jerusalem is proportionately extended : the announcement of the
death and resun-ection of Jesus as the final issue and consumma-
tion of his wliole earthly activity, appears much earlier in the
narrative (ix. 22, 51). In his struggle with his adversaries he
takes the offensive, and the struggle is more pronounced and un-
compromising. The demonic power whose instruments these
adversaries are, interposes at definite crises in the course of the
history (iv. 13, x. 18, xxii. 3, 53). By this means, and by repeated
declarations, the great truth is clearly set forth, that Judaism is

THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 79

not the true or appropriate field for the accomplishment of the
work of Jesus.

But to restrict ourselves here to the main point we have to do
with : the features of the Gospel, from which we see that Pauline
universalism is the theory which underlies it, are the following.
Not only do we not find those utterances of Jesus in the Gospel of
Matthew which savour of particularism,^ but there are several
stories and parables which are expressly meant to set forth the
universalism of Christianity. The Jews reject the Gospel ; it is
the Gentiles who frankly and willingly receive it. Though Jesus
himself does not proclaim the Gospel in heathen lands, yet he
virtually inaugurates the mission to the Gentiles by his travels in
Samaria, which, according to Luke's Gospel, he twice entered from
Galilee (ix. 52,xvii. 1 1). The choice of the seventy, moreover, showed
that the Gospel was intended not merely for the twelve tribes of
Israel, but for the whole of the Gentile races. It is equally
indicative of the Pauline character of the Gospel that it knows
nothing of the identity which is asserted in the Gospel of Matthew
between the teaching of Jesus and the law and the Old Testament.
The Gospel of Luke does not contain the utterance, which is so
characteristic of the Gospel of Matthew, about the fulfilment of
the law and its permanent validity. What the Gospel of Matthew
says of the law, that not one tittle of it shall fail, the Gospel of
Luke, according to the original reading, applies to the words of
Jesus himself (xvi. 17).^ It even makes Jesus declare that, with

^ Cf. Kostlin, op. cit., p. 178, sq.

2 The investigations as to the Marcionite Gospel have been taken up again by
Schwegler, Theol. Jahrb. 184.3, p. 575, sq., Nacbaport. Zeit., 1846, i. p. 260, sq.,
and by Eitschl, Das Evangelium Marcions imd das Kanonische Evangelium des
Lukas, Tub. 1846. Thorough discussions of the question have also been contri-
buted by Volkmar in the Theol. Jahrb., 1850, p. 110, sq. ; and in the work, Das
Evangelium Marcions, Leipjcig, 1852 ; and by Hilgenfeld in the Theol. .Jahrb.,
1853, p. 194, sq. The result to which all this has led is, that the Marcionite
Gospel contained not only alterations which Marcion introduced designedly, but
also, and certainly, readings which there is every reason to think more original
than those of our canonical text. I think there is good reason for adding to these
passages that which I have mentioned in the text, xvi. 17, and accordingly read
with Hilgenfeld, p. 2,31, Av/.,'_Die Evangelien, p. 201, twv \o-yu>v fxov. On the Gospel
of Marcion see Das Markus-evangelium, p. 191, sq.

80 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

the appearance of John the Baptist, the Mosaic law has come to an
end, and that, since that time, the law has been superseded by the
preaching of the kingdom of God (xvi. 16). Again, this Gospel
speaks of the older apostles in a way which can only be explained
b}'- supposing that it was desired to place them in an unfavourable
light so as to exalt, at their expense, the authority and the apostolic
qualifications of the apostle Paul. A very significant instance of
this is, that the Gospel of Luke entirely ignores the declaration of
Jesus, given in the Gospel of Matthew, which was the principal
evidence for the claims of Peter. Here Peter is called blessed on
account of the confession he had made ; he is declared to be the
rock on which the Church of Jesus is to be built, so that the gates
of hell shall not prevail against it ; and the keys of heaven are
given to him, with power to bind and loose. The Gospel of Luke,
of course, could not for a moment admit such a primacy of Peter.
In the same way Luke omits the power given to the twelve
(Matt, xviii. 18) to forgive and retain sins, with the context in
which it occurs. And besides this, in many passages it presents
the older apostles in a very unfavourable light, so as almost to
suggest to the reader, that if Jesus had no more capable disciples
than these, the true and proper disciples were still wanting, such
an apostle, i.e. as Paul.^ We cannot suppose that the Gospel of

^ Cf. iny Kritisclie Untersuchungen, p. 435, sq. According to Kostlin, the
author of the Gospel of Liike harl no intention to lower the authority of the
twelve ; he only wished to bring out as strongly as possible the exalted nature
of the Christian revelation, and for this purpose he dwelt so frequently upon their
incapacity to undei stand Jesus. The claim which he opposes is the claim put
forward by the twelve of being the only persons commissioned to preach Jesus.
But what purpose do the new set of preachers of the Gospel serve, if those who
were there before were quite fit for the oflSce, and the new ones were merely so
many more of the same kind? Kostlin even thinks (p. 267) that the introduction
of the seventy points to a Gospel of Peter as the source of our Gospel of Luke.
The writing in which the seventy originally appeared, he is of opinion, must have
been one which sought to assign the Jewish and the non- Jewish mission to differ-
ent disciples, in order to secure the whole services of the twelve for the people of
Israel, and at the same time to show that care had been taken for the instruction
of £he (i entile world. But when we consider that, after the idea of the mission
to the Gentiles had entered the minds of the Jewish Christians (even Peter had
not entertained the idea at first, Gal. ii. 7), they set to work to make Peter an

THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 81

Luke rests on a purer historical tradition than that of Matthew, or
that, where such considerable differences occur between it and the
other two Gospels, it gives the more true and faithful presentation
of the Gospel history. When, therefore, we find that history treated
from this peculiar point of view even in its reports of the words
and acts of Jesus, we must conclude that this was done in order
to provide a historical justification for Pauline universalism. The
Gospel of Luke thus testifies to the vigorous self-consciousness
with which the Pauline spirit lived on in his faithful adherents
after the death of the apostle himself. It makes no secret of that
which so much care was afterwards taken to conceal, of the per-
sonal relation to the older apostles which was implied in Paulinism,
of which it was a necessary assumption that, as Paulinism was
higher than Judaism, so the older apostles stood at a lower stage
than Paul. The markedly Paulinising tendency of this Gospel has

apostle of the Gentiles, we cannot consider it likely that it was a Petrine Gospel
in which the seventy were first introduced into the evangelical tradition. But from
whatever source the Gospel of Luke derived its seventy disciples, the antithesis to
the twelve which the 10th chapter presents is perfectly clear, and it is impossible
to ignore the Pauline interest on which it is based. This conclusion is not weak-
ened by what is pointed out by KiJstlin, that the evident distinction here paid to
the seventy makes it the more striking that so very little is related about them, and
that when they came back, x. 20, they receive from Jesus a somewhat severe
exhortation to humility. Notwithstanding this admonition, how could they be
exalted more highly than when they are told that their names are written in
heaven (comp. Rev. xxi. 12) ? The very fact that nothing more is said aljout them,
when we regard it in the light of what is the only possible meaning of the words
of Jesus, x. 20, viz., that the important point concerning them is not the result
of their activity which is open to the eye here, but what Heaven sees to be con-
nected with their names, clearly shows them to be the representatives of an idea
which has still to be brought to light in them, which, accordingly, was to be
realised in Paulinism as opposed to Judaism. In dealing with passages like this,
where the antitheses are pointedly expressed, it is by no means in the interests of
the criticism of the Gospels to labour to remove the antitheses, and show them to
be softer than they are, especially if this be done with a view to getting a show
of support for a new hypothesis about the possible sources of a Gospel. On the
contrary, these are the passages, in the light of which the passages where the
tendency is less evident are to be explained. With regard to Luke viii. 54,
I cannot but think it an arbitrary proceeding to except the apostles from the
ndvTfs whom Jesus orders to leave the room. Who is left to be the irdvTfs, if,
as we are told in ver. 51, there was no one there but the three apostles and the
parents of the damsel? KiJstlin, op. cif., p. 19G.

F

82 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

given it great importance, for whenever the Pauline spirit mani-
fested itself afterwards with special power, it turned to this Gospel
to find there its own purest expression. So much had it the
reputation of being the Gospel of the apostle Paul, that Church
fathers like Eusebius (iii. 4) thought that when Paul spoke in his
Epistles of his Gospel, as at 2 Tim. ii, 7, he must be referring to
the Gospel of Luke.

No one placed it higher than Marcion did. In the early history
of Paulinism he is, next to the author of the Gospel of Luke, the
most characteristic representative and champion of the pure Pauline
principle.^ Marcion is by no means a mutilator and falsifier of
tlie Gospel of Luke in the sense in which the Fathers so regarded
him. In many passages there can be no doubt that his text is the
genuine and original one. Even in cases where he has undeniably
permitted himself to abbreviate or to change in the interests of his
Paulinism and of his Gnostic system, it is a mistaken judgment
which is generally passed on his procedure. He must be judged
according to the analogy of the relations in which the authors of
our canonical Gospels stand to one another. Each successive evan-
gelist takes the body of the Gospel history, which he supposes to
be a thing continuing in the Church unchanged, puts it under a
new point of view, and clothes it in a new form of representation.
Still there can be no question that the negative, antithetical, criti-
cal tendency of Marcion's Gospel bears witness to a distinct and
vigorous Paulinism. His aim was to excise from the Gospel, as
far as possible, everything that bore the stamp of Judaism, and to
exhibit the whole breadth of the contrast between the Gospel and

^ This is not to be understood in the sense which Ritschl, Entstehiing, etc. ,
2d ed., 311, imputes to me, as if PauUnism had developed into Marcionitism, and
the pure root-principle of Paul had been preserved in this heresy. This is clear,
and Kitschl might have spared himself the further remark, that Monotheism and
the recognition of the unity of the Old and New Testaments, which is connected
with the idea of the promise, are such inseparable elements of the purely Pauline
view as to make Marcion's agreement with Paul, even though intended by him,
more superficial and apparent than real. It is notorious that Marcion was not only
a Paulinist, but a Gnostic, but this does not hinder his antinomism from being
genuinely Pauline, and he is entitled to a place in the history of Paulinism.

MARCION. 83

the law and the Old Testament. The work which accompanied his
Gospel under the title " Antithesis " had a similar object, which
indeed is plainly indicated in its name. It consisted of a juxta-
position of sentences of the Old Testament and sentences of the
Gospel of Luke, in such a way as to place at once before the reader's
eye the contrast between the law and the Gospel, and was intended
as an introduction to his Gospel, to indicate the point of view from
which the latter should be read.^ It was not without wood reason
that he placed the Epistle to the Galatians first in his collection of
the Pauline Epistles, not from chronological reasons, though they
would have justified the arrangement, but as the principalis adversus
Judaismum Epistola.^ He held Paul to be distinctively and even
exclusively the true apostle, and had none of the scruples which
were felt in some degree by other Gnostics in bringing up again the
strife at Antioch as the most trenchant argument against the Juda-
ism of the older apostles. The Marcionites were wont to quote
this scene as showing that in separating the law and the Gospel
Marcion had not set up a new principle, but had simply gone back
to the pure and original Gospel.^ His Gnostic dualism necessarily
led him to a much more pronounced antithesis to the Old Testa-
ment than that of the apostle Paul. His position with regard to
the Old Testament did not permit him to resort to allegorical inter-
pretation, since the purpose which it served was to connect the old
and the new together, and to reconcile antitheses. Even the apostle
Paul made use of allegory for this purpose, which makes it the
more remarkable that Marcion rejected it on principle.^ But while
his Paulinism led him to insist on the breadth and reality of the
distinction between the law and the Gospel, it was inconsistent

1 Cf. Tei-tuUian adv. Marc. iv. 1 ; Ut fidem instrueret (Marcion evangelic), dotom
quandam commentatus est illi (antitheses praestruendo iv. 6) opus ex coutrarieta-
tum oppositionibus antitheses cognominatum et ad separationem legis et evangelii
coactum. Cf. my work, Die Christliche Gnosis, Tubingen, 1835, p. 249, sq.

^Tertull. adv. Marc. v. 2.

3 TertuU. adv. Marc. i. 20 : Ajunt, Marciouem non tarn innovasse regulam,
separatione legis et evangelii, quam retro adulteratam recurasse.

* Orig. Comment, in Matth. xv. 3. MapKi'coi/ (j)urKu)v fx!] Bdv dWrjyopuv rfjv
ypa(f)j)v.

84 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

with his ideas to admit distinctions wliich would introduce division
within the sphere of the Gospel itself. We can only regard it as
another instance of Marcion's logical application of Pauline univer-
salism, as it led him back to the common evangelical consciousness,
wliich was before all divisions, that he refused in any way to
countenance that separation of catechumens from believers, that out-
ward distinction of ranks and classes, in which the foundations of
an ecclesiastical constitution moulded after tlie spirit of the Jewish
hierarchy were already beginning to appear.^ All these features
of ]\larcionitism taken together show it to have been that pheno-
menon in the early Church in which Paulinism developed its anti-
Judaic tendency with the greatest energy. Marcion seems from
all accounts to have exercised a remarkable influence upon the
Christian Church of the second century. His adherents were
widely diffused, and some of them formed Churches of their own
not in Rome and Italy alone, but even in the East, and even so late
as in the fourth and fifth centuries.^ All this is to be attributed to
the Pauline element which Marcionitism contained. In proportion
as Judaism asserted itself, it was necessary for Paulinism to gather
itself together and collect itself in the depths of its own self-con-
sciousness. The expression, however, which it found in Marcion-
itism was extreme, and it was here brought into association with
Gnostic heresy. The inevitable result was that it lost with Mar-
cionitism the position of a great opposition which it had occupied,
and forfeited more and more of its importance.

With regard to the opponents against whom Paulinism had to
contend after the death of the apostle Paul, one of the earliest
writings of the New Testament Canon gives certain indications
from which further conclusions may be drawn. Who are the
Balaamites or Nicolaitanes whom the Apocalypse attacks so
vigorously in its letters to the seven Churches of Asia Minor,
and especially in those to the Churches of Pergamos and Thyatira ?
P>esides fornication, they are charged with eating meat offered to

' Jerome in his Commeutary on Galatians, vi. 6. Cf. Tert. de Praescr. Haer.,
c. 41.

^ Diu Cluistl. Gnosis, p. 297, fq.

THE APOCALYPSE. 85

idols, Eev. ii. 14-20. Now the question of the lawfulness for
Christians of eating such meat had first arisen when members of
the Church of Corinth propounded it to the apostle Paul. He had
discussed it in its various aspects, and had applied to the question
the standard of Christian freedom, and of the enlightened views of
a Pauline Christian. His decision on the merits of the question
was against the use of such meat, but he allowed of exceptions in
certain cases, in which a thing which was in itself inconsistent
with Christianity might yet not be regarded as a sin, in considera-
tion of the views or circumstances of the individual. It is
extremely probable that many Pauline Christians were led by
their more liberal views (the question put to the apostle by the
Christians of Corinth shows what the tendency was, 1 Cor. viii,
1, sq.) to go further than Paul contemplated, and observed no very
strict rule on the point in their intercourse with Gentiles. Thus,
in the eyes of Jewish Christians who regarded the apostle Paul
with hostility, the eating of meat offered to idols might come to
be a distinctive mark of that lax Pauline Christianity which was l
on such good terms with heathenism. If this was the case, we
might see in the above-named passages of the Apocalypse a hostile
reference to Pauline Christians generally, without their alleged
abuse of their Christian freedom being laid to the door of the
apostle himself. But there can be little doubt that the writer had
the apostle Paul himself before his eye as the originator of the
doctrine out of which this spurious Christianity had sprung, and
that he regarded him as a teacher whose apostolical authority was
by no means made out. The Judaistic character of the Apocalypse
might of itself lead us to this conclusion, but direct evidence is
not wanting. In the passage xxi. 14 the author speaks of the
twelve apostles, and of their names, corresponding in number
to the twelve tribes of Israel, which are written on the twelve
foundations of the heavenly Jerusalem ; and the context is such as
necessarily to exclude the apostle Paul from the number of the
apostles. And to whom can the author be referring but to the
apostle of the Gentiles and liis apostolical assistants, when lie /

86 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

commends the Church of Ephesus, ii. 2, because it could not bear
those who said they were apostles, and were not, but tried them
and found them false apostles ? When we consider the locality to
wliich this passage applies, we see that it gives us important
evidence as to the Judaistic reaction against Pauline Christianity.
Ephesus, as well as Corinth, had been the residence of the apostle
for a considerable time. Here a wide door had been opened to
him for his apostolic labours (1 Cor. xvi 9), and it might have
been thought that nowhere was Pauline Christianity established
more firmly than in the Churches of Asia Minor, in the midst of
which the apostle had lived so long. But at the close of his
residence there he had already begun to complain of the many
adversaries by whom he was opposed (in loc. cit). There were
no doubt Judaistic partisans of the same sort as those at Corinth,
and here they had found a still more favourable field for their
operations. Not long after the apostle Paul left the sphere of his
labours at Ephesus, we meet the apostle John at the same place.
The Apocalypse was written, according to its own statement, at
or near Ephesus. The tradition of the Church was that he lived
here for a long series of years, and presided over the Churches far
and near, who looked up to him with the deepest reverence, until
he died in an advanced old age. Tradition traced to his teaching
those ecclesiastical usages which were peculiar to the Church of
Asia Minor. Now when we consider all that we know about the
apostle John, the position of antagonism to Paul which he had
formerly held as one of the pillar-apostles at Jerusalem, and what
the Apocalypse tells us of the character of its writer, and when we
take into account that he took up his residence in a quarter where
Paul had been before him, can we think it improbable that he
came to Ephesus with a view to exercising an influence over the
whole district of which it was the centre, and upholding the prin-
ciples of the Christianity of Jerusalem against the encroachments
of the Christianity of I'aul ? If he hated everything that savoured
(tf heathenism, he would naturally try the Paulinising Churches of
the district by this standard; he would ask first of all how far

THE APOCALYPSE. 87

they were tainted with heathen views or practices. The words of
praise or blame which he metes out to them in proportion as they
are warm and active, or lukewarm and indifferent in their zeal
for pure and genuine Christianity, have but a vague and general
meaning, till we see their point and application in the circum-
stances we have mentioned. Nothing can show more distinctly
the wide difference there is between Pauline views and the
Johannine views of the Apocalypse, than the conception which
the Apocalyptic writer entertains of the whole Gentile world.
Heathenism and Judaism are far as the poles asunder in his eyes ;
heathenism is simply the kingdom of Antichrist, the Gentiles exist '
only to share the fate of Antichrist ! The apostle Paul places side \
by side with the positive enactment of the Mosaic law, as possessed \
of equal importance and validity, that law of nature, which is J
derived from man's natural knowledge of God, and from the moral I
consciousness whose voice speaks in the conscience. In the one /
God he sees the God of the Gentiles as well as of the Jews. The
Apocalyptic writer, on the contrary, recognises no such religious
instinct or susceptibility as might lead the Gentiles to Christianity :
with him each successive plague God sends upon them only makes
them more hostile to him, and more blasphemous.^ With Paul
the fulness of the Gentiles enters into the kingdom of God before
Israel is converted and receives the fulfilment of the promises.
But in the scheme of the Apocalypse all possibility of a historical
development is cut off; the catastrophe of the world is to take
place in the immediate future, and Judaism is then to celebrate
its triumph upon the ruins of the heathen world. After such
a proof of Jewish particularism, can we think it strange that
John, the writer of the Apocalypse, should, as superintendent
of the Churches of Asia Minor, have made war upon Pauline
Christianity?

In any case the Christianity which now prevailed in that part
of Asia Minor was no longer Pauline, but exclusively Johannine.
The Church writers of the period after this belong for the most
part to this district ; and they either do not mention the name of

1 Rev. ix. 20; xvi. 9, U, 21.

88 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

the 4postle Paul at all, or they speak of him in a hostile sense.
Pajnas, who took so much interest in the immediate successors
of the apostles, nevertheless does not mention in the celebrated
passage where he speaks of these men,^ either the apostle Paul
or any one of his circle. Even in Justin's writings, in many
passages of which we should so naturally expect to hear of the
apostle Paul, the name never occurs. There can be no doubt that
the apostle's writings were widely known when Justin wrote ; the
Apocalypse of John was well known to him, and he has by no
means neglected to speak of it. His strange silence about the
apostle Paul and his Epistles certainly suggests to us very forcibly
that he meant to ignore them. The first reference to the apostle
Paul which we find after this does not testify to a friendly feeling
towards him. Hegesippus, a Jewish Christian writer, who lived
about the middle of the second century, while not mentioning the
apostle's name, refers to the words used by him in 1 Cor. ii. 9, and
says they are untrue, and in conflict wdth divine Scripture,
opposing to them the words of Jesus, Matt. xiii. 16. Here he
gives utterance to a view regarding the apostolic qualifications of
the apostle Paul, which compels us to number him among the
apostle's most pronounced opponents. According to the words of
Christ in the passage cited, those only are to be called blessed who
have seen with their eyes and heard with their ears. This cannot
be said of Paul, and accordingly he cannot have been called to be
an apostle." What we know in other ways of the character of this
representative of the Jewish Christian party fully bears out this
view. Between the years 150-160, he visited foreign Churches as
the envoy of tliat party, and conversed with a number of bishops,
among whom those at Corinth and Eome are specially mentioned.
Prom this journey lie brought back the satisfactory report that
the doctrine prevailed everywhere, according to what was declared
by the law, the prophets, and the Lord.^ From this we may con-
clude, that even in such a Church as that of Corinth the Jewish
Christian or Petrine party had gained a decided ascendency over

1 Euseb. Eccl. Hist. iii. 39. 2 cf. Paul, etc., i. 225.

a Euseb. Eccl. Hist. iv. 22.

HEGESIPPUS. 89

the Pauline. In another passage of the same work, all our know-
ledge of which is derived from the fragments preserved in Eusebius,
Hegesippus seems to have spoken of the apostolic age as the time
when the Church was still a pure and uncorrupted virgin, and to
have dated the entrance of impious error from the time when, after
the extinction of the sacred choir of the apostles, the generation
of those who had been privileged to hear their divine wisdom with
their own ears had passed away.^

But when we look into this passage we see that it by no means
excludes the possibility of there having been even during the life-
time of the apostles such a false teacher as the apostle Paul was
in the eyes of these Jewish Christians. What it declares to have
ensued upon the death of the apostles was the open appearance of
false teachers, with unveiled head, in the Gnosis falsely so called,
which opposed the preaching of the truth. But Hegesippus also
says that, even during the lifetime of the apostles, there were men
who sought indeed to remain in dark concealment, but still were
aiming at the perversion of the sound canon of saving doctrine.
This seems to be meant for Paul more than any one else. He was
not one of those who had heard the heavenly wisdom with his own
ears : and little as his mode of action resembled a heresy, which
is seeking for concealment, Hegesippus may have applied these
terms to it, both because it vanished as it were in darkness before
the brightly shining sun of the holy choir of the apostles, and
because it did not appear in its true light, as he conceived, till it
produced its heretical Gnostic development. The hints of Hege-
sippus cover a scarcely mistakable personal reference to the apostle
Paul. But what he had hinted, others plainly expressed in so
many words; we learn that the Ebionites considered him an
apostate and false teacher, rejected all his Epistles, and slandered
his memory.^ The open and outspoken hatred with which the
Ebionites regarded him is the extreme point reached by that
Jewish Christian opposition to him of which we see the beginnings

1 Euseb. iii. 32.

- Ireuaeus adv. Haer. i. 26. Eusebius, Eccl. Ilist. iii. 27. Epiplianius Haer.,
30. 25.

90 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

in his own Epistles. Tlie Ebioiiites are generally regarded as mere
heretics, but their connection with the original Jewish Christianity
is unmistakable. Thus their view of the apostle Paul is no mere
isolated phenomenon.

An important source for our further knowledge of these rela-
tions is the pseudo-Clementine writings, the Homilies and Eecog-
nitions.-^ In these works we become acquainted with the doctrine
and spirit of a party which flourished at and after the middle of
the second century, and even then presented the most outspoken
opposition to Pauline Christianity. The apostle Paul is not
mentioned by name, but the reference to him is unmistakable, and
the careful reticence of the work on this point only makes its
polemical tendency the more marked. In the Epistle which is
prefixed to the Homilies, in which Peter sends his sermons to
James the bishop of Jerusalem, and recommends him not to
communicate them to the Gentiles, but only to the members of
the people who adhere firmly to the doctrine of the unity of God,
after the mysterious manner of delivery which Moses had followed
with regard to the seventy who afterwards sat in his seat, Peter
continues : " If this is not done, our doctrine of truth will be
divided into a multitude of opinions. I know this not only as a
prophet, but because I already see the beginning of the evih For
some of the Gentiles have rejected the lawful preaching which
was delivered by me, and have received the lawless and worthless

^ The relation of these writings to each other and to an older work, a monu-
ment of the Petriue party, the Kfjpvy^ia Hirpov, has lately been the subject
of very thorough and elaborate discussion, in which, however, the results of
different scholai-s travel widely apart. See Hilgenfeld, Die Clementinischen
Recognitionen und Homilien nach ihrem Ursprung und Inhalt, Jena 1S48. After
him Ritschl took up the subject in his Entstehung der altkatholischcn kirche,
1st ed. 153, sq. Lastly Uhlhom, die Homilien und Recognitionen des Clemens
Romanus nach ihrem Ursprung und Inhalt, Giittingen, 1854. Hilgenfeld, Theol.
Jahrb. 1854, p. 483, sqq. Cf. his Apostolische Vater Halle, 1853, p. 287, sq. It
is specially noteworthy how, as Hilgenfeld has pointed out, the Roman Clemens
is introduced at a later stage, on the basis of the original pseudo-Clementine
writing. We have here the remarkable fact that this Clemens represents in his
own person the progress of that .Tudaism of the earliest writing, which is so
narrow and so exclusive towards all Gentile Christians (Ep. Petri ad Jac. c. 1.
Contest. Jac c. 1.) to a more advanced stage.

SIMON MAGUS. 91

doctrine of the enemy. And even in my lifetime some have
attempted to pervert my words by cunning interpretations to the
abolition of the law, as if I myself held such opinions, and did not
teach sincerely or honestly ; which be far from me. To do this
is nothing else than to act against the law of God, which was
given by Moses, and attested by our Lord when he said of its
permanent duration : ' Heaven and earth shall pass away, but one
jot or one tittle shall not pass away from the law.' But those
who profess to set forth, I know not how, my thoughts, and think
they can interpret the meaning of the discourses they have heard
from me better than I can myself, say to those who have been
instructed by me, that my doctrine and opinion is so and so, a
thing which never entered into my mind. If they venture to tell'
such lies against me while I am still living, how much more will
they do so when I am gone ? " Who can this enemy have been,
whose law^less doctrine is being accepted among the heathen, but
the apostle Paul ?

It is a curious phenomenon, moreover, that in the Homilies
and the Eecognitions, Paul appears in the character of Simon
Magus, and as a Samaritan. Peter obviously refers to the same
person as above, when he says that Simon went to the Gentiles
before him, and that he followed and came after him as light comes
after darkness, knowledge after ignorance, healing after sickness.
As the true Prophet said, it was necessary that the false Gospel
should come first, by a false teacher, and that afterwards, after the
destruction of the holy place, the true Gospel should be sent forth
•ecretly, for the refutation of future heresies.^ Still plainer is tlie
reference to the apostle Paul, when we find the apostle Peter
arguing with Simon Magus as follows : " Even though our Jesus
appeared to thee in a vision, made himself known to thee, and
talked with thee, he was wroth with thee as an adversary, and
therefore spoke to thee through visions and dreams, or it may be
by outward revelations. 13ut can any man be commissioned to the
office of a teacher by a vision ? And if thou sayest it is possible,
why did the teacher go about constantly for a whole year with men

1 Horn. ii. 17.

92 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

who were not dreaming but awake ? And how can we believe
that he revealed himself to thee ? How can he have appeared to
thee, who hast opinions which are contrary to his doctrine ? If
thou really didst become an apostle by his appearing to thee and
instructing thee for one hour, then expound his sayings, preach his
doctrine, love his apostles, and dispute not with me who was with
liim ! For thou hast striven against me as an adversar}^, against
me, the strong rock, the foundation of the Church ! If thou wert
not an adversary, thou wouldst not vilify and abuse me and my
preaching, so that men will not believe me when I say what I
heard from the Lord himself when I was with him ; while it is
clear that I who am condemned am worthy of praise. If thou
callest me worthy of condemnation, thou accusest God who revealed
Christ to me, and attackest him who called me blessed on account
of this revelation. " ^ Here we meet the same charges which the
Jewish Christians had brought against Paul from the very first.
The great cause of offence is here as it always was, Paul's doctrine
of the law. It is said to be a lawless doctrine ; it does not bind
the Gentiles to observe the law ; it asserts that it is possible to
be saved without the law. But he who opposes the true apostles
by teaching anything so false cannot be a genuine apostle. Thus
tlie attack is directed against the apostle's person. Not only is
his apostolic authority expressly denied ; but the evidence to
which alone he appealed in support of his claim is declared to be
radically worthless. It is impossible not to see a pointed reference
to the apostle Paul in this sweeping denial of the value of revela-
tions such as he asserted that he had received, conveyed in visions,
ecstasies, and dreams, and in the doctrine advanced on the other
side, that immediate personal intercourse with Jesus during the
whole period of his public ministry is the only way of entrance
into the apostolic office, the only criterion of apostolic authority.
"VVe see here how liard the Jewish Christians found it to forgive
tlie apostle Paul his conflict with the apostle Peter : for the scene
at Antioch is called up again, and the expression turned over
wliich the former had applied to the latter on that occasion.

1 lloni. xvii. 19,

SIMON MAGUS. 93

But how are we to explain this identification of Simon j\Ia"U3
with the apostle Paul? The simplest explanation seems to be
that the narrative, Acts viii. 9, of the encounter of the two apostles
Peter and John with Simon Magus, received a new application to i
the apostle Paul. Such a transference would be a very striking '
proof of the bitter hatred of the apostle which animated the
Jewish Christian party, from which the Homilies proceed ; though
it would not tell us at what time this hatred arose, nor how
widely it was diffused among the Jewish Christians. But when
we take into consideration the well-known character of the Acts
as a historical work, and the likelihood that it was written at a
.comparatively late period, we are led to ask if the identification
may not be accounted for in another way. Instead of the story of
Simon having been transferred to Paul, may not the converse have
taken place, in which case the magician of the Acts is not the
original v/ith whom the apostle was afterwards identified, but we
have to look for the source and occasion of the whole legend in
the apostle's own history. The historical existence of the Magus
must on independent grounds be deemed very doubtful; and a
careful consideration of the facts shows him to be nothing but a a
caricature of the apostle Paul. This theory at once explains to
us as nothing else does, both the greatness and the motives of the
hatred with which the Jewish Christians pursued the apostle from
the very first. All the distinctive features of the Simon of the
Acts, and of the legend as afterwards elaborated, answer to definite
facts of the apostle's history ; and thus not only afford us a
glimpse of the process by which the legend first arose, but also
furnish us with evidence as to the early times to which the hatred
expressed in it is traceable, and the care that was taken to turn
everything to account that could serve to give it point.

What the opponents of the apostle considered to be his first
and most grievous offence was, as we might have expected, his
assertion that the Lord himself had appeared to him, and called
him, directly and in a peculiar manner, to be an apostle. This
statement appeared to them to be entirely unreasonable and sub-

94 CnURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

jective ; and at the best, they could only deem it to be a self-
delusion, unattested by any objective criterion of truth. It is
obviously this charge against the apostle that is represented in
the ecstatic, visionar}^, and fantastic character which is attributed
to the Magus. The reference is the same when the Magus is
made to express the opinion, that communication by words can
produce only an imperfect conviction, because one does not know
whether the man who is before one's eyes may not be lying. But
a vision, as soon as it is seen, affords the conviction to him who
sees it, that it is something divine. In answer to this, the apostle
Peter declares, that personal intercourse and continuous instruction
by doctrine and example are the true criterion that what is com-
municated is divine, and asserts the direct opposite of Simon's
view, namely, that he who puts his faith in a vision, or an appari-
tion, or a dream, has no certainty, and knows not in whom he is
putting his faith. "For it may be that a wicked demon or a
deceiving spirit makes that to appear which is not, and if the man
asks who it is that has appeared to him, the spirit can answer
whatever he pleases. He remains as long as he pleases, and
vanishes like a flash of lightning without giving the questioner
the information he desires. In a dream one cannot even ask what
one wishes to know, since the sleeper has no power over his own
mind. It cannot therefore be concluded from a man's seeing
visions, dreams, and apparitions, that he is a good man. To receive
communications from without by visions and dreams is not the
character of revelation at all, but a proof of the divine anger, as
it is written in the law (Numbers xii. 6) ; or else, when a man
sees a vision, he must consider that it proceeds from an evil
demon." — (Hom. xvii. 13, sq.) "What had the apostle Paul to urge
against all this but the assurance of his own self-consciousness ?

But the apostle contended that by the supernatural appe;arance
which had been vouchsafed to him he had not only been converted to
faith in Christ, but had also been called to be an apostle. This is
a further coincidence between the Magus and the apostle, and
indeed the chief one. What the apostle affirmed that he was, the

SIMON MAGUS. 95

Magus wislied to become. His proposal to the two apostles was
simply that they should bestow on him the apostolic office. He
desired to have the power of communicating the Holy Ghost, in the
same way as the apostles did so, according to the narrative of the Acts,
where the communication of the Holy Ghost always follows on
the laying on of the apostles' hands. We might have thought that
no one could be less suspected than the apostle Paul of having taken
this road to the attainment of the apostolic dignity. But what is
not possible to the malice of such adversaries as his were ? The
notion is that he felt his pretensions to be baseless, and as he was
determined to be an apostle at any price, tried to obtain the dignity
through the older apostles. The facts out of which this charge
arose must have been the two conferences which, according to the
apostle's own narrative, he held with the older apostles at Jeru-
salem (Gal. i. 18, and ii. 1), as if his object in coming to
Jerusalem had been to smuggle himself into the apostolic college.^
But this was not enough. The great crime of the Magus, with
which the general voice of the Church has aptly identified his
name, as the father of simony, was that he sought to procure for
himself from the apostles by money and purchase the gift of the
Holy Ghost and the spiritual function connected with it, of
imparting the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. This Paul
was represented to have done. At this point the whole of the
cunning web of hateful charges which the apostle's Judaistic oppon-
ents had from the first been concocting and disseminating lies clearly
revealed to us. The narrative of the Acts does not enable us to
form any clear idea of these effects of the apostolic imposition of
liands with which the Magus was so much struck, and which led
him to seek to obtain the same power. But the history of the
apostle gives us the key by which the whole fiction may be
explained. The only occasion on which a question of money
entered into his relations with the older apostles was when he . ^ ^
was leaving them, and promised that he would try to do what he
could for the support of the poor of Jerusalem in the Gentile
Christian Churches in which he was to labour. When he wrote his

96 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

Epistle to the Galatiaus lie was already able to say that he had
not neglected this : and his Epistles to the Corinthians contain
most interesting evidence of his exertions in the cause. Now
is it not clear that when, at the expense of much labour and
with the kindest intentions, the apostle had collected this sub-
sidy for the Church at Jerusalem from the Churches of Galatia,
Macedonia, and Achaia, his opponents put the construction upon
his efforts that his object was simply to purchase with this money
the favour of the older apostles, and thus to attain at last what he
had hitherto sought after in vain, his recognition as an apostle on
the same level with the others ? Thus we find the figure of Simon
/ Magus, characteristic and striking as it is, to be nothing but a
' picture of the apostle, distorted in the true spirit of Judaism by
his opponents' hatred. There can be no doubt that it was the
same spirit which attached the name of Simon Magus to the person
of the apostle. He was said to be from Samaria, and to be addicted
to magic ; this is to be understood in the same sense as a passage
in John's Gospel (viii. 48), where, when the hostility of the Jews
against Jesus has reached its climax of bitterness, the worst they
can find to say of him is that he is a Samaritan, and has a devil.
There was no stronger way of saying that Pauline Christianity
was heathenish and hostile to the law, than to say that it came
from Samaria. The Ebionites regarded the apostle as a Gentile.^
The Samaritans were not, it is true, actually heathens, they were
only half- heathens ; but this made the strict and orthodox Jews
hate them all the more, seeing in them, as they continually did, not
only what was false and perverted in heathenism, but the falsification
and defacement of divine truth by heathen errors. Now it is said
of Simon Magus in the Homilies, ii. 22, that he denied Jerusalem
and set up Mount Gerizim instead. And Hegesippus speaks of
the Marcionites, Carpocratians, Valentinians, Basilidians and Satur-
nilians, as having come forth from the seven Jewish heresies, to

' According to Epiphanius, Haer. xxx. 10, thej' affirmed of him that be -n-as
not a Jew by birtli, but a Greek or a heathen ; that he was born of heathen
parents, and became a proselyte to Judaism afterwards.

SIMON MAGUS. 97

M'liich the Samaritans also belonged, with Simon Magus at their head,
to be false Christs, false prophets, false apostles, and to break up
the unity of the Church into sects by their mischievous doctrines.^
Heathenism was held to be essentially demonic ; and where ecstasies
and visions played so great a part as in the case of the apostle
Paul, it was natural to trace the operation of demonic magic. Kow
as the undivine puts on the form of magic in order to encounter
the divine, so when the magician attempted to get himself made
an apostle by impure means, this was the false Simon in contrast
with the true, with that Simon Peter who stood at the head of the
apostles. But the latter at once saw through his arts, and exposed
his hypocrisy publicly and incontestably ; just as Paul was said to
have exposed Peter at Antioch.

When the fundamental conception of the Magus had thus arisen,
it received manifold accretions. Simon became the great father
of heretics ; to the fantastic imagination of the early writers of
the Church he in his own person represented the highest con-
ceptions and views of heathen Gnosticism. In a short time no
one had any idea who this Simon Magus had originally been ;
yet it was not without some reason, it was a theory not at variance
with the nature of the case, which used the legend of the Magus
to represent Paulinism and Gnosticism as nearly related to each
other.^ The wanderings of the Magus come to an end in Eome,

1 Euseb., Eccl. Hist. iv. 22.

^ The e\'idence for the assertion that the Simote Magus of the Clementine
Homilies is not only Marcion but the apostle Paul has already been set forth by
me in my essay on the Christ-party in the Corinthian Church, Tub. Zeitschr. fiir
Theol. 1S31, iv. 136, sq. For the further criticism of the Simon-legend I may
refer to Hilgenfeld, die Clem. Recogn. und Horn. p. 319, and to Zeller's Acts,
T. T. F, L., i, 245, sq. Zeller not only gives a critical analysis of the unhistorical
narrative in the Acts, but has also strikingly summed up the meaning of the
legend in the following words : "If in Acts viii. 18, sq., we substitute the name
of Paid for that of Simon, we have a narrative which says in an historical form
what, according to 2 Cor. xi. 4, S'/., xii. 11, sq. ; 1 Cor. ix. 1, .''7., the anti-Pauline
Judaists affirmed as a general truth." But it was Volkmar who first completed
the identification by recognising in the magician's offer of money the apostle's
subsidy from the western Churches. Cf. Theol. Jahrb. 1856, p. 279, sq. : The
Simon IMagus of the Acts and the origin of simony. Zeller remarks very correctly,

98 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

and he himself is represented as having there met with strange
adventures which proved to be the close of his career. The reflec-
tion is a faint one ; but here also there is a reflection of the history
of the apostle of the Gentiles.

p. 2GG, that "the author, still aware of the meaning of the legend, wished to
forestall any application of it to his apostle even by the position in which he
placed it" (prior to the conversion of Paul). Here we have another and a very
striking proof of the peculiar way in which the author of the Acts made his
materials subserve his apologetic designs. • He adheres to what is historical, but
he places it in a new light, and it receives another form vmder his hands. He
could not ignore the Simon-legend : if he had passed over it in silence, that would
have been to leave it in its original meaning, without saying anything against it.
He therefore prefers to mention it ; but he gives it such a turn as to make
it impossible to think of any reference to the apostle Paul. Originally he was
Simon ; but Simon is now quite a different person, and has nothing to do with
Paul. The author of the Acts treated the notorious dispute between the two
apostles at Antioch in a similar way. This was a tender spot which it was
desirable to avoid. But he did not merely wish to preserve silence on the subject ;
he wished to draw off attention from it altogether, and so he substituted for it
another incident to suggest that something of the sort had happened at the place,
but that it was far from being so important as was generally supposed, as Peter
had had nothing to do with it : namely, the dispute between Paul and Barnabas,
Acts XV. 38. Cf. Gal. ii 13. This, he suggests, was what happened, not the
other ; he knows of a Trapo^vcr/xos of apostles at Antioch, and his historical sense
does not pei-mit him to ignore it altogether ; and yet he does ignore the occurrence
as it actually was, and throws a veil of darkness over it.

In this connection it is impossible to avoid thinking of the apostle's journey
to Jerusalem, Acts xi. 20, sq. On chronological and other grounds it is impossible
to assume that the apostle was at Jerusalem during the period in which the Acts
places this journey, that is between Gal. i. IS and ii. 1. On that occasion he
is said to have brought a subsidy from the Christians at Antioch to their brethren
at Jerusalem. But why does the author of the Acts speak of this subsidy, and so
studiously ignore the much more important one which the apostle prepared for
his last journey to Jerusalem, and which there can be no doubt that he did carry
there ? For what other reason than that the latter was the origin of the hateful
calumny that was raised against the apostle, which it was now thought desirable
to forget ? Thus a subsidy was mentioned, because such a thing was notoriously
a feature of the apostle's history ; and yet it appeared without any of its evU
associations ; the latter might be forgotten along with the former.

(5>

THE RECONCILIATION. 99

IL— THE RECONCILIATION.

When we survey the series of phenomena which liave now been
set forth, we are led to ask how it was that the tendencies which we
have seen to be so divergent came at last to make terms with each
other, and to be embraced in a reconciling unity. Some process
of this sort there must have been : otherwise we could not under-
stand how a Catholic Church, a Church which cut off from itself
everything extreme, and which united opposites within itself, ever
came to exist at all. This result cannot have been reached without
a greater or less relaxation, on one side as well as on the other,
from the strictness of the antithesis. So much is generally allowed :
but a numlier of questions remain behind, which are by no means
settled. How was the process accomplished, on which of the two
sides have we to look for the moving principle which led to the
reconciliation, what was the attitude of the other party, and in
what way are we to group and to classify the different phenomena
which form the materials we have here to consider : such are the
various elements of the problem to which many scholars who are
interested in a deeper investigation of primitive Christianity have
recently devoted a large amount of laborious study in various
directions. Nor have objections been raised only by those who
habitually confront modern criticism with a stiff and lifeless asser-
tion of traditional and obsolete views. Even among those who see
that the only hope of obtaining new light upon the obscure relations
of this period lies in a keener and more searching criticism, there
is still a considerable difference of opinion. Schwegler was the
first to make the attempt to construct a new and continuous account
of the post-apostolic age on the basis of the new critical theory,

100 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

and he did so with great ingenuity and acuteness.^ Eitschl came
forward as a thoroughgoing opponent of Schwegler's views.^ To
Schwegler's statement of the question, as being to trace the gradual
development of Ebionitism into Catholicism, he brought forward
the objection that no clear definition was given either of Ebionitism
or of Paulinism. He declared that Schwegler "placed Jewish
Christianity so low and Paulinism so high as to make it incom-
prehensible how the belief they had in common could hold the two
tendencies together, even outwardly. The mental process by which
the religion of the law passed with Paul into the religion of liberty,
and the confined and unhappy consciousness was changed dialec-
tically into the assurance of reconciliation, all this has a merely
outward connection with the history of Jesus of Nazareth. And
thus it is a mere accident that the history of Paulinism and tliat
of Jewish Christianity run together. And this view of the original
relation between the two tendencies of early Christianity is fully
supported by the very external construction which is given as the
historical account of their reconciliation. No inward impulse is
recognised, such as would tend to produce communion : and the
only account that can be given of the gradual softening of the
antithesis is, that unity was seen to be outwardly desirable, and
that the literary spokesmen of the parties abandoned one antagonistic
element after another, in order to attain it." After this criticism
of Schwegler's views, Ptitschl of course claims for his own tlie merit
of greater depth and a more correct grasp of the inner connection

^ Da3 nach-apostolische Zeitalter in den Hauptmomenten seiner Entwick-
liiug. Tubingen, 1846.

2 Die Entstehung der alt-katholischen kirche, Bonn, 1850. At the same time
with Ritschl Kiistlia published an essay on the history of primitive Christianity
in the Theol. Jahrb. He adopts Planck's Essay on Judaism and Primitive Chris-
tianity, Theol. Jahrb. 1847, p. 258, sq., and enters into a new investigation of the
historical jjrocess and the character of the first two centuries with s])ecial
reference to Schwegler's account of the period. In this essay he declares himself
unable to agree with llitschl in those results on which the latter lays the greatest
stress in his controversy with Schwegler, viz., the assertion that Jewish Chris-
tianity contained no element of Christian development. This he says is merely
the abstract antithesis to Schwegler's view.

THE RECONCILIATION. 101

of the development. On closer examination, however, it becomes
apparent that if we disregard minor differences the two views are not
so far apart from each other as might at first appear. Pdtschl as
well as Schwegler proceeds on the assumption that the development
of post-apostolic Christianity is in the main to be referred to the
Pauline principle. With Schwegler the reconciliation came to pass
by the gradual softening down of the two principles as they acted
on each other, and the growth of an inward relation between them.
With Eitschl a change takes place in Paulinism which leads to the
same result. " The doctrine of the apostle Paul," Ritschl asserts,
" presents certain aspects which rendered it inevitable that this
principle should be developed in a one-sided way. We must of
course take into account the decline of the original religious energy
of Christianity among the Christians of the second century ; but
making all due allowance for this we cannot but conclude that the
one-sided development of the Pauline principle was due to a one-
sidedness in the expression originally given to it by its author.
The confusion of opinion as to the post- apostolic development of
the Christian idea is traceable in great part to the fact that no
account has been taken of the certainty that the Pauline tendency
would pass beyond the form in which its author had given it its
original dogmatic expression, and would assume a very different
and less dogmatic character. The purer motive which led to this
change is to be found in the need which was felt to develop the
Pauline principle so as to have it in a form in which it might be
a clear, direct, and generally applicable rule of life. With this
two outward motives co-operated ; one negative, namely, the dif-
ficulty and unpopularity of the Pauline dialectic ; the other positive,
namely, the influence of the evangelical tradition or of the doctrine
of Jesus, which had exerted no influence on the formation of the
Pauline system." ^ " The change through which Paulinism lost its
original form consisted in this, that faith ceased to be subjective
faith in the atoning death of Christ apart from the law ; it was faith
in a wider sense, in its relation to God ; to it was added the observ-

1 Kitsclil, op. cit., 23, 280, sq.

102 CHUIWH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

ance of the divine will, or of tlie law of Christ, as a means of
justificatiou, redemption, and salvation in a legal sense : and in
spite of the original Pauline formula, this factor came largely to
preponderate over faith. Thus we no longer hear of redemption
through the death of Christ in Paul's sense : we hear of love, of the
disposition for good works, as the means of obtaining the forgive-
ness of sins." Now this is essentially the same as the formula
irlcTTKi Koi dydirr} which Schwegler regards as the term of the
development of Paulinism and the basis of the reconciliation of the
two parties. ■ But, according to Eitschl, Paulinism is so radically
one-sided that the direct and generally applicable rule of life which
came in place of it could not have proceeded out of it by inner
development, but only per saltum. Thus we find with him the same
outward relation of the elements of the two tendencies wliich he
blames in Schwegler. Again, Eitschl asserts that the Pauline sys-
tem was formed quite independently of the teaching of Jesus ; and
we scarcely see what right he has to condemn Schwegler for having
"■given a reading of Paulinism according to which it is not derived
from the inner spirit of the life of Jesus, or, in fact, from any
idea whatever that the influence of Jesus had brought before the
world." ^ Nor can Eitschl's assertion be sustained, that the evan-
gelical tradition or the doctrine of Jesus influenced the later modi-
fication of Paulinism of which he speaks through the Gospel of
Luke. He himself assumes,^ that the representation of the Gospel
history given in Luke is merely the reflection of original Paulinism.
The more closely Eitschrs account of the history is analysed, the
more does it appear to resolve itself into antitheses which are with-
out any thread of connection to explain their development. On
the one side stands Jewish Christianity with the assertion, Chris-
tianity is the old law. On the other side stands Paulinism with
the contrary assertion, Christianity is subjective faith in Christ
without the law. In Jewish Christianity it is said there was
no inner power of development ; the motive principle is to be found
in Paulinism. But neither can the latter develop itself by a
1 Page 20. - Page 300.

THE RECONCILIATION. 103

natural process ; it is too hard and one-sided to produce out of
itself a direct and generally applicable rule of life. Paulinism is, it
is true, the tendency which stands higher : but we must not shut
our eyes to what can be said for Jewish Christianity. " For the
assumption that Paulinism is perfect in the orthodox sense, and
that there is no gap in the system, is one we cannot adopt, were it
only out of respect for the Christianity of those apostles who re-
mained Jewish." ^ Thus neither of the two tendencies is absolutely
true ; each has its justification as against the other. Now Eitschl
asserts that " Jesus neither intended to declare, nor actually did de-
clare any opposition to Mosaism in essential points, and his doctrine
was, in virtue of this very feature, the immediate basis of Jewish
Christianity as differing in principle from Paulinism." ^ If that be
so, then Eitschl gives us little help towards understanding how the
dogma and the wide-branching organism of the Catholic Church
can have arisen out of the thought that Jesus was the IMessiah,
a thought which could appeal to none but Jewish minds. Nor,
when we come to the point, can we surmount the doubt whether
Jesus or Paul was the true author of Christianity.^ We are told
that in the view of Christianity as a law, in the conception of the
new law in which those who are universally allowed to be the
representatives of the early Catholic Church, Irenaeus, Tertullian,
Clemens of Alexandria, and Origen agree with Justin Martyr, there
is exhibited to us the relation of the Catholic Church to the apos-
tolic types of doctrine, the Jewish Christian and the Pauline ; and
the result is said to be that this side of Catholicism is based, not
on Jewish Christianity, as itxim its direct opposition to Pauline
principles we might have expected, but on the Pauline tendency.*
But if the altered form of the latter was due simply to the external
motive which we have mentioned, and did not arise out of the
essence of Paulinism itself, then we cannot say tliat the develop-
ment into Catholicism was based mainly on the Pauline tendency ;
it may equally well have arisen on the basis of Jewish Christianity.
What is said to be the characteristic of Catholic Christianity, viz.,
1 Page 23. ^ p^ge 300. ^ Page 19. * Page 327.

104 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

the co-ordinateness of faith and practical activity or the doing of
works, stands in a very natural connection with the character of the
Old Testament religion. And finally, Kitschl's account of early
Christianity takes no notice of the personal relations between the
apostles Peter and Paul. But it was on this ground that the anti-
thesis of the two tendencies first appeared, and came to the sharpest
and directest expression which it ever had ; and it was on this
ground that an accommodation was arrived at, which serves as the
clearest landmark we can have to show the complete transition of
the divergent tendencies into that unity where all antitheses and
extremes were at last atoned.^

In what we have said of Eitschl's work we have briefly indicated
the principal points with which we have now to deal, and without
due attention to which our discussion would fail to accomplish its
object, which is to follow the historical development of the differ-
ent antitheses as they act and re-act upon each other.

^In the second edition (Bonn, 1857), Ritschl's work has been entirely recast.
This edition appears as a recantation of the first. The author announces that he
has now reached a position so far removed from that of the Tubingen school as to
make him an opponent of their whole system on essential points (Preface, p. 5).
But the difference between him and that school is not so radical and thorough as
he asserts : nor can the entire recast of the work be deemed a step in advance.
His new position merely produces a larger array than formerly of contradictions
and inconsistencies in his conception and delineation of early Christianity. The
new view of the rela,tion of Jesus to the law is the direct opposite of his former
view, and this is an improvement ; but the great defect of the original work
remains uuchanged ; namely, the entire externality with which the antitheses
confront each other, end their want of any inner and vital development. There
is no fundamental difference, it is said, between the original apostles and Paul :
and yet there does remain between them the fundamental difference of Jewish
particularism and Pauline universalism. So little is there any living jirinciple of
historical movement, that Jewish Christianity and Paulinism are actually declared
to be equally incapable of any further development, p. 271, sq., 282. On this
and on other works bearing on this question which have recently appeared, com-
pare my work : Die Tubinger Schule und ihre Stellung zur Gegenwart, Tubingen,
1859. It was occasioned by Uhlhorn's essay in the Jahrb. fiir deutsche Theo-
logie, 1858, p. 280, sqq. ; Die alteste kirchengeschichte und die Darstellung der
Tubinger Schule. See also Hilgenfeld in the Zeitschr. fiir wisseusch. Theol. 1858.
Das Christenthum und seine neuesten Bearbeitungen von Lechler und Ritschl.
He says very correctly, j). 381, that with Ilitschl as with Lechler the development
of Gentile Christianity and Jewish Christianity into Catholicism appears to be
the work of blind chance.

CIRCUMCISION AND BAPTISM. 105

The point of departure lies in the antitheses already pointed
out : the result is that they are accommodated to each other, and
disappear. In the interval between these two extremes, there
must be steps of reconciliation ; and from the nature of {he case
nothing is more probable than that the movement towards unity
proceeded, not from one side only, but from both, of course in
different ways. We should expect to find that both parties, feeling
more or less distinctly that they belonged together, act upon each
other in the living process of development, each party modifying
the other, and being modified by it in turn. Without such a pro-
cess, the result, as it lies before us in history, the appearance of a
Christian Catholic Church, could never have come to pass at all.
But would this process have been possible if the two parties,
Gentile jOhristiaas. and Jewish Christians, had continued to present
to each other an attitude of unyielding and repellent opposition, if
Jewish Christianity in its various forms had been incapable of
further development, and if, on the side of Paulinism, what bridged
over the gulf between Catholic and Apostolic Christianity had
been simply the incapacity of the Gentile Christians to understand
Paul ? Can this have been what led them to Catholic Christianity,
that the fundamental conceptions of the apostles as to the new
basis of the religious relation which God hath provided in Christ
were only intelligible by the help of the Old Testament, and that
they could not reproduce them to themselves in a correct and living
way ? It is a complete mistake, and will altogether prevent us
from seeing these relations as they were, if we suppose that the
point at issue between the two opposing parties was one of differ-
ence in doctrine ; that the question was whether the relation
between the Jewish doctrine of the law and the Pauline doctrine
of faith should be formulated in this way or in that. It is in vain
to seek for the principle of the movement within the sphere of
abstract ideas, as if union would ensue when they came to regard
each other with indifference. From such a combination no new or
vigorous life could possibly proceed. The principle of the move-
ment is to be sought in the concrete centre where questions were

106 CniTRCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

arising which pressed for an answer: where Christianity, set in the
midst of the great forces of the age, had still to struggle for a place
among them and assert its own right to exist, and had, at the same
time, to create the forms within which its historical development
was to proceed.

When Panlinism and Jewish Christianity first came to stand in
open opposition to each other, we find the motive power in those
Judaists who met the apostle Paul with an uncompromising resist-
ance at every point of his sphere of labour. There is no stronger
proof of the capacity for development which was inherent in Juda-
ism, than the undeniable fact that it found no difficulty in giving
up even those positions which it had defended with the greatest
zeal, as soon as it became apparent that such a course would help
it to a more effective assertion of its preponderance over Paulinism.
\ ' 1 This is tlie only possible explanation of the fact that baptism all at
T I once appears in the place of circumcision. At first the Jewish
pChristians of Jerusalem asserted in absolute terms the necessity of
rj^ j circumcision, and demanded that the Gentiles also should submit
f to that rite, and we have no reason to assume that the older apostles

did not originally share this view.^ Juthe EjDistle to the Galatians

the apostle's Jewish Christian opponents are still insisting on cir-
cumcision as the absolute condition without which there can be no
salvation. But after this where do we hear of the Jewish Christian
party as a whole continuing to make this demand, as a matter of
principle? Even the pseudo-Clementine writings do not mention
circumcision as an essential article of Judaism, Only here and
there is there a hint of the importance which had been attached to
it formerly, as in the directions given in the Contestatio about the
writings sent by Peter to James, that they should only be com-
municated to a good and pious believer who was prepared to teach,
and circumcised. Prom this we may justly infer that the Jewish
Christians themselves gave up the necessity of circumcision, a fact
wliich can only be explained by supposing that, as they saw large
and increasing numbers of Gentiles converted without submitting
to circumcision, they came to feel it to be simply impossible to

CIRCUMCISION AND BAPTISM. 107

insist upon a point which the history of Gentile Christianity had
practically settled. How they reconciled this with their view of
tlie necessity of the observance of the law, we need not now \
inquire ; in any case, we cannot but regard it as a concession made I
by them to Pauline universalism. And it seems to be closely
connected with this, that, as circumcision ceases to be mentioned,!
baptism^ow becomes invested with a religious significance siinilarj
to that of circumcision. It was, of course, necessary to have some
form or other for the admission of Gentiles to the Messianic com-
munity, and what form could be more suitable for the purpose than
baptism ? There can be no doubt that its general introduction and
its higher religious significance are very closely connected with the
conversion of the Gentiles. Even the apostle Paul seems to indi-
cate as much, when, writing at a time at which circumcision was
made an indispensable condition of salvation, he declares baptism
to be the condition of communion with Christ (Gal. iii. 27). "Who-
ever," he says, " has been baptized into Christ, has put on Christ,
and there is no longer any difference between Jew and Gentile."
Xbus,-^s circumcision makes a Jew, so baptism makes a Christian.
Again in Matt, xxviii. 19, the commandment of baptism which
there can be no doubt belongs to the last recension of the Gospel,
stands in the closest connection with the injunction to convert all
nations. Prom the nature of the case, baptism would originally
bear this meaning only for the Gentiles ; but we see from the
pseudo- Clementine Homilies how Jewish Christians came to look
upon it in the same light. That work only calls baptism the means
ordained by God for the putting off of heathenism (d(f)e\X'r]vi(T6rjvai),
but at the same time regards it as the necessary condition on which
alone man can attain the forgiveness of his sins and future blessed-
ness.^ Thus circumcision was given up by the Jewish Christians
as soon as there came to be another form of attaining the assurance
of salvation which they could allow to be equally significant. In
the case of the Gentile Christians, baptism Avas naturally and at
once regarded as a substitute for circumcision. Jewish Christians

1 Hoin. xiii. 9, 11, 13.

108 c nunc II history of first three centuries.

were Jews by birth, and did not need any such substitute, but the
number of born Jews who adopted Christianity was constantly
decreasing, and so baptism came more and more to be the universal
form of making the Christian confession, and to be considered the
characteristic mark of the Christian, as circumcision was of the
Jewish, religion.-^ We see then that it was on the question of cir-
cumcision that the absolute power of Judaism first gave way. It
is true that there still continued to be Jewish Christians, who not
only continued to regard the law as absolutely binding on them-
selves, but even declined all fellowship with Gentile Christians
who did not observe the law as they did. But this was the more
rigid type, and there was another class of Jewish Christians, holding
less extreme opinions, who made no such demand on Gentile Chris-
tians, and who nevertheless recognised them as Christian brethren.^
Yet even this class of Jewish Christians could not altogether release
the Gentile Christians from the observance of the law. The obliga-
tion of the law must not be cast off altogether ; and so those ordi-
nances, at least, were to remain in force, which the author of the
Acts gives as the decrees of his alleged apostolic council. It has
long been shown,^ that the apostles cannot have drawn up these

^ According to the Recognitions baptism came in the place of the sacrifice,
which bad now been discontinued (i. 39). Ut tempus adesse coepit, quo id, quod
deesse Moysis institutis diximus, impleretur, et propheta quem praecinuerat,
appareret, qui eos prinio per misericordiam Dei moneret cessare a sacrificiis, et
ne forte putarent, cessantibus hostiis remissionem sibi non fieri, baptisraa eis per
a(juam statuit. In this view baptism acquired religious significance for the Jewish
Christian also, who from his Jewish birth required no compensation for the loss of
circumcision. This view is, there can be no doubt, of Essenic-Ebionitic origin.
The religious washings of the Essenes, to which they attributed power to purify
and to release from sin, rested on their rejection of the Mosaic sacrificial worship:
which exi)lain3 in a very natural way how, among the Elkesaites, the baptism
which procured the forgiveness of sins was capable of repetition. Cf. Ritschl
Zeitschr. fur Hist. Theol. 185.3, p. 582, sq. ; altkath. Kirche., 2d ed., p. 188;
Hilgenfeld, Zeitschr. fiir wissensch. Theol., 1858, p. 422, sq. The fact that baj)-
tism is here connected with sacrifice (see on the passage of the Recognitions
Uhlhorn, op. cit., 251 ; Ritschl, altkath. Kirche, 2d ed., 239) is in any case per-
fectly consistent with the assumption that baptism was what actually came in the
l)lace of circumcision.

^ Cf. Justin Dial. c. Jud. Tryph. c. 47.

3 See my "Paul, etc.," i. 131. Zeller's Acts, ii. 27, sfiq.

CIRCUMCISION AND BAPTISM. 109

decrees as we now have them ; and that what they contain is that
minimum of the demands of the law, which the Jewish Christians
required from the Gentile Christians, when experience had shown
what was practicable, and might be asked. The conditions are the
same as those on which the Israelites admitted proselytes of the
gate into their communion. (Leviticus xvii. 8, 16 ; xviii. 26.)^
This shows us how the Jewish Christians adhered to tlie standpoint
of the law in this matter, and recognised no other standard for their
relations towards the Gentile Christians than that provided in the
law for the regulation of the intercourse of Jews with Gentiles.
But, on the other hand, they had now conceded the very utmost
that could be conceded to Gentile Christians by Jewish Christianity.
If the Gentile Christians would only observe these provisions, there
was no further obstacle to prevent that free intercourse of Jewish
and Gentile Christians, which the question of circumcision had
formerly threatened to render quite impossible. As soon as they
could look upon the Gentile Christians as proselytes of the gate,
the Jewish Christians felt that their objections to them were re-
moved. And this is an instance of how all that Jewish Christi-
anity required, in order to enter into friendly relations with Paul-
inism, was frequently nothing more than a way of putting the case,
so as not to jar upon the religious susceptibilities of the Jewish
Christian. In fact, when there had come to be a new Christian
world outside of Judaism, and quite independent of it, when this
had become a matter of fact, which could not be questioned or
undone, the Jewish Christians would gladly have laid claim to
the whole of Pauline universalism, had its originator only been
Peter instead of Paul. Indeed Pauline universalism was actually
taken from Paul and given to Peter. This is the only possible
reading of the fact, that in the pseudo-Clementine writings Peter
is the apostle of the Gentiles, whose mission it is, "to travel to
the nations who say that there are many gods, and to preach and
teach them that there is only one God, who has made heaven and
earth, and all that in them is, that by loving Him they might be

1 Cf. Kitschl, op. cit. 117, sq., 2cl. ed., 129, sq.

110 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

saved." ^ The same circle in which Paul travelled as a missionary
among the nations is in the pseiido- Clementine Homilies described
by the apostle Peter : lie also, as an apostle to the Gentiles, must
go on from city to city, from land to land, and can finish his career
nowhere but at Eome.^ It is true that in his mission to the Gen-
tiles Peter is here represented as undoing the mischief wrought by
an adversary : he follows on the steps of Simon Magus, to confute
his false doctrine, and convert the nations from it to the doctrine
of the true prophet : he is merely labouring to repair the ravages
which the false apostle has made before him. This, however, is
only the external form to cover the claim which the Jewish Chris-
tians put forth on behalf of their apostle to the work and merit
of the apostle of the Gentiles. They are perfectly willing to
accept the facts such as they had now come to be : they are well
aware that the time is now past when a demand could be made
on the Gentiles which would render it impossible, or even difficult,
for them to enter into the Messianic kingdom. The conversion of
the Gentiles is an accomplished fact, and it is useless to dispute it ;
it must be accepted, since it has so come about. But it could not
be allowed that this was due to the labours of an apostle not
recognised by the authority of the Jewish Christian apostles. It
was desirable to show that the condition had been complied with
which those opponents of the apostle, with whom we are acquainted
from his own Epistles, had at the very outset declared in their
doctrine and their acts to be indispensable before the conversion
of the Gentiles could be held to have been lawfully accomplished.
To accomplish this end, and at the same time to set aside the true
apostle of the Gentiles, and bring him into utter oblivion, so that
not even his name should go down to posterity, he is supplanted
by another, a man who could not fail to be the object of universal
hatred and detestation. For the name of Paul there is substituted

' Horn. iii. 59. Cf. Recogn. iii. 56 ; vii. 7 ; x. 16.

2 Cf. the Epistle of Clement to James, c. 1, where it is said of Peter that he ttjs
fiv(r€a>s TO (TKOTeivoTfpov tov KoiTfxov fiepos «$■ 'Travrav iKavaiTepos ((j)aTi(Ta' Kf\ev(r-
6()i Koi KaTop6(ocrai bvvrjdfls — p€x.pis ivraxiOa rrj 'P<i/x»; ytvofievos Ofo^ovKr^rcd
bibacTKoXia (TiJo^aiv ui/dpanrovi, avrus tov vvv ^tov /3taia)r to ^rjv neTT]Wa^ev.

PETER THE APOSTLE OF THE GENTILES. Ill

that of a false teacher ; and the victory obtained over this false
teacher secures to the legitimate apostle the credit of what the
illegitimate and false apostle was formerly supposed to have done.
The bitter and deadly hatred with which the pseudo- Clementine
Homilies reproduced and exaggerated the old odious charges against
the apostle Paul testifies unmistakably to a desire to extinguish
his name from the memory of men. In no other way can we
explain why such charges should be dwelt on at a period when to
tlie greatest part of the Christian world the w^hole dispute had
become a thing of the past. And this is the more remarkable,
when we consider the character and position of Clement, the
important personage of these writings. He is of Gentile birth, and
the first-fruits of all the Gentiles converted by the apostle Peter •}
and as such he is the natural mediator between Jewish and Gen-
tile Christians. But he is also thoroughly versed in Hellenic
culture -^ it is in this way that the religious interest has been
awakened in him which leads him to Christianity, and brings him
into the closest relations with the apostle Peter. Thus he repre-
sents that more spiritual Christianity which took up into itself all
the better elements it found in Paganism. Nay, even in the his-
torical narrative in which these writings are framed we find Christi-
anity presented to us as the religion which brings about the union
of everything that is noble in human nature, where the separated
and those who have wandered on the most widely different paths,
meet again, find themselves to be members of one and the same
family, and in virtue of their common human nature akin to one
another ; so that they at once attain peace of soul, and the most
perfect assurance with regard to all the dispensations of life.^ How
does all this agree with the irreconcilable antipathy manifested in
these writings towards the apostle Paul ? *

^ Ep. Clem, ad Jac. c. 3.

^ Horn. i. .3 ; iv. 7- KXij/xr;? — Tvatrr^s fWrjviKrjs TraiSf/a? i^riKT]afj.(vos.

^ Cf. Die Christliche Gnosis, p. 372, sq. Hilgcufeld, die apost. Viitcr, p. 297, sq.

* From the account we have given of the origin of the legend of Simon, it is
evident that this keen antipathy to the apostle Paul is not to be accounted for
by saying that it is a curious feature of these writings, and peculiar to them. In

112 CUURGR HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

In any case the circumstance proves the energy of Jewish Christi-
anity. It left no expedient untried ; it would use any means in
order to maintain its claim of superiority against Paulinism, and
not suffer the supremacy over the Gentile world to pass to other
hands. And in fact, were we to disregard this episode altogether,
and to judge by the historical results alone, we could not estimate
too highly the influence of Jewish Christianity on the formation of
the Christian Church. It is indeed in the renewal of its youth,
when it developed into Jewish Christianity, that Judaism appears
before us in the full splendour of its historical significance. For
whence were all those theocratic institutions and aristocratic forms
derived, in which the Catholic Church found ready to her hand the
elements of her future organisation, and which contained in them-
selves all the conditions of a power that should conquer the w^orld,
whence but from Judaism ? The true centre and living pillar of
Catholicism, the organising and animating principle of the whole
body corporate, is the episcopate. Now the early idea of the epis-
copate was, that the bishop was to be to the individual community
of Christians, concretely and visibly, what the Jewish Messianic
idea in its Christian development represented Christ as being for the
Church general in his heavenly dignity. And thus in the first
beginnings of the episcopal constitution we see before us the whole
papal hierarchy of the middle ages. Here is the boundless capa-
city for development which belonged to Jewish Christianity, the
impulse inherent in Judaism towards a theocratic empire of the
world. This impulse displays the same energy inwardly in the
tenacity with which it adheres to its own peculiar principle, and
outwardly in its vigorous expansion and assertion of its place as a
great power in the world. It was Paulinism that conquered the

marked contrast with their exclusiveness and one-sidedness towards the apostle
Paul are the breadth and liberality with which the Homilies insist on the
l)ractical side of Christianity as the most important. Indeed, the universalism of
Christianity is here flattened out into a doctrine, according to which there is no
difference between Jewish and Gentile Christians, or even between Jew and Gen-
tile, if only they do what is commanded them, and do not hate him whom they
do not know. Horn. viii. 4 ; xi. 16. Die Chr. Gnosis, p. 363, sq.

INFLUENCE OF JEWISH CHRISTIANITY. 113

soil for Catholic Christianity : it was the Pauline mission to the
Gentiles which added to the original congregation of the sealed
the great multitude of those who came from all nations, and kin-
dreds, and people, and tongues.^ But it was Jewish Christianity
which supplied the forms of organisation and erected the hier- '
archical edifice upon this basis.

But great as the influence of Jewish Christianity was in this
direction, Paulinism was able to assert on its side the right it had
won, and even the superiority of its principle. When Paulinism
rebutted the aristocratic claims of Jewish particularism, and
destroyed the very root from which these claims sprang, it made
the principle of Christian universalism an integral element of the
general Christian consciousness. It thus secured for itself, for the
whole future of the Church, the power to step forward again and again
with all its original keenness and decision, whenever hierarchi-
cal Catholicism should again overgrow evangelical Christianity,
and offend the original Christian consciousness in its most vital
element. In every case of this sort men were driven back to those
simple and fundamental truths by which the apostle Paul, taking
his stand upon the moral consciousness itself, had shown that there
was no difference between Jew and Gentile before God. In the
transition to the CathoHc Church Paulinism, as has been justly
said,^ developed into a universal rule of life, in which the doctrine
of justification receded more and more into the background, while
faith began to go hand in hand with works. This, however, is not
to be regarded as a renunciation of the Pauline principle ; it is not
a declension or a reaction, if we understand rightly the relation in
which the apostle himself placed faith and works to each other.^
Paulinism only presents its sharp doctrine of justification by faith i
in its most incisive mode of statement when it has to contend with '
Jewish Christianity for the ground of its existence, and for its

^ Rev. vii. 9. — Here in a genuinely aristocratic and hierarchical spirit the Jews
are arranged according to the twelve tribes of Israel, and each has his own num-
ber and place : the Gentiles are merely the great uncounted multitude.

2 P. 101.

3 Cf. my AbhandluDg iiber den Romerbrief, p. 1S4 : Works and Faith.

114 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

warrant on grounds of principle. It was the energy with which
the apostle fought this battle which alone enabled Paulinism to
assert itself against the still overwhelming power of Jewish Christi-
anity. But as soon as this end had been attained, Paulinism was
quite at liberty to concede to works their proper place by the side
of faith. The apostle had himself recognised the moral value of
works, and had spoken not of a mere abstract faith, but of a faith
working through love. The mistake' was only that Paulinism did not
at once come forward to assert its doctrine of justification as out-
spokenly as before, whenever Jewish Christianity began to threaten
new encroachments in any direction. Even in the post-apostolic
age such a case had arisen, when the Church was proceeding to
assume its hierarchical constitution.

We have now indicated the principle, in the light of which we
have to conceive the inner relations of those elements of Christi-
anity during this period of its historical development, elements
which certainly differ from each other essentially, and yet are
essentially connected. Our further task is now to place under
this point of view those canonical writings which stand nearest to
the apostolic age, and to inquire what relation they bear to the one
side or the other of this process of reconciliation ; whether their
conciliatory tendency bears a more Pauline or a more Judaistic
character ; and whether the ideas and views which they contain
are such as refer to special and subordinate parts of the great
question, or such as look away from particulars, and seek to
establish on broader grounds the necessity of a reconciliation in
which all differences should be united and harmonised.

Among the writings which we have here to consider, the Epistle
to the Hebrews is undoubtedly entitled to the first place, both in
point of chronology, and from its subject-matter.

A great part of the early Church reckoned this work among the
Pauline Epistles, and this testimony makes it exceedingly probable
that the Epistle, though not composed by the apostle himself, is
yet a product of Paulinism. The author himself seems anxious to
create this impression ; his express mention of the brother Timothy

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 115

(xiii. 23) must be intended to mark his Epistle as one proceeding
from the apostle Paul's immediate circle. The author's style of
thought, however, is that of one holding firmly to the standpoint
of the ancient chosen people ; and when we consider the spirit and
the tendency of the Epistle, we cannot doubt that it is a product
not of Paulinism, but of Jewish Christianity. This statement,
however, requires to be modified, inasmuch as it is not the old,
harsh, and exclusive Jewish Christianity, to which this Epistle
owes its origin, but a Jewish Christianity more free and spiritual,
wliich is broad enough to have Paulinism itself as a pre-supposi-
tion. Though we nowhere find in the Epistle the specifically
Pauline ideas and doctrinal formulas, yet it contains nothing
antagonistic to them. It does not expressly identify itself with
Pauline universalism, but neither does it do so with Jewish par-
ticularism ; on the contrary, it is quite at one with the apostle
Paul in the view that Judaism belongs to a very subordinate,
imperfect, and transitory stage of religious development, and is to
be succeeded by a higher and more perfect dispensation which will
last for ever. Thus the antitheses here are, generally speaking, the
same as those in which the apostle Paul feels himself placed.
There is this remarkable difference, however, that the author of
the Epistle to the Hebrews at once proceeds to give a mode of
reconciling the antitheses, in which he seems to take up a higher
position than Paul. This is not altogether the case : what he
does is simply to find in Judaism itself the broader conception in
the light of which the antitheses may be reconciled. This concep-
tion is in a word the priesthood. Christ is essentially a priest,
Judaism has also its priesthood ; and thus everything that either
distinguishes Judaism from Christianity, or unites them togetlier,
may be referred to the nature of the priesthood. This view at once
blunts the edge of the antithesis which has to be adjusted. It is
no longer an antithesis of things directly opposite and excluding each
other, such as that of faith and the works of the law, but one which,
notwithstanding the deep significance that lies in it, yet admits of
being approached as a relative opposition and one of degree. The

116 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

two members of the antithesis are merely the perfect and the
imperfect priesthood : Judaism is essentially the same as Chris-
tianity : it contains imperfectly and defectively that which arrives
at perfection in Christianity.

But tlie author of the Epistle to the Hebrews does not stop here.
He has something to place above both the imperfect and the perfect
priesthood, which embraces both the members of the antithesis in
a higher unity. This is the priesthood of Melchisedek. The
priesthood of Melchisedek stands above the Levitical priesthood,
and the difference between the priesthood of Christ and the
Levitical priesthood is simply that Christ is a priest after the order
of Melchisedek.^ In thus reverting to an Old Testament stand-
point which lies beyond Levitical and Mosaic Judaism, the author
of the Epistle to the Hebrews seems merely to be following the
example of the apostle Paul. Paul placed the faith of Abraham
above the law and the righteousness of the law, and saw in the
faith which Christians now had the fulfilment of the early promise
given to Abraham. But here there is a great difference between
the two writers. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews places
the priesthood of Melchisedek, the Levitical priesthood, and that
of Christ all in one line : here it is evident that continuity is a part
of the idea which runs through his scheme. The apostle Paul, on
the contrary, interposes the law between the promise given to
Abraham on the one side, and its fulfilment in Christ on the other,
and it is hard to see why the law should come in in this way. It
appears to be there for no end but to keep the promise and the
fulfilment apart. The apostle himself speaJvs of it as a thing quite
adventitious. He says that the law was given because of trans-
gressions, that sin might have its full course (Gal. iii. 19), and this
appears to amount to declaring a complete rupture with the
Judaism of th^ law. From the point of view of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, there is no opening for any such idea. It is completely
excluded by the notion of the priesthood : a notion which was
quite outside the apostle Paul's circle of ideas. To the apostle

1 Heb. iv. 14; v. C; vi. 20; vii. 1.

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 117

Judaism is essentially law, and what he sees in the law is chieHy
its negative relation to Christianity. What the author of the
Epistle to the Hebrews advances against the law, for he does call
it fleshly, weak, and unprofitable, because it brings nothing to
perfection (vii. 16, sq.), acquires quite another meaning from the
fact that the idea of the priesthood underlies all that he says. He
himself marks very happily the difference of his point of view from
that of the apostle Paul, when he says, vii. 1 2, that " the priest- j
hood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the i
law." The priesthood is thus in his eyes the primary element, the
starting-point in considering the whole subject : the law is a
secondary thing, and the latter must adjust itself to the former.
The idea of the priesthood has so high and absolute a significance
for him, that it determines his whole view of the world and con-
ception of Christianity.

But we shall fail to see the full and solid significance which this
idea had for our. author, if we do not regard it as discovering to
us that relation of type and antitype which is one great condition
of his thought. The priest after the order of Melchisedek and his
identity with Christ are the principal instance of type and anti-
type, but everything belonging to the sphere of the Old Testament
religion has an ideal, typical, symbolical meaning with reference to
Christianity. In the typical, however, we have again to distinguish
between the archetype and the copy. Actual Judaism is merely
the copy, the shadow, the reflection, of an archetypal religion
standing above it, from which such primary types as the high
priest Melchisedek project into it. What Christianity is in its
true essence, what distinguishes it from Judaism, is ideally and
essentially present in those archetypes. Thus Judaism, the actual,
legal, Levitical Judaism, standing as it does between the Old
Testament religion, which is ideal Christianity, and historical
Christianity, can only be regarded as the declension from the idea,
as the shadow of the idea, the provisional and untrue form of the
true religion which is still concealed ; the form through which the
idea has to move before it can attain to its true historical realisa-

118 CnUBCH HISTORY OF FIRST TEHEE CENTURIES.

tiou, its consummation in Christianity. Thus the whole history of
the world and of religion is the process of the idea of religion,
wliich, moving through Judaism and Christianity as its steps, in
Christianity is filled with its concrete contents. In the apostle's
view of the world, Adam and Christ, or the first and second Adam,
possess in "the man from heaven" (1 Cor. xv. 47) an archetypal
unity in a region above the antithesis. This unity bears some
analogy to that found in Melchisedek. Other antitheses through
which the process moves in the apostle's view are those of sin and
grace, death and life. From the standpoint of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, this process is represented as that of the archetype,
realising itself by means of its type or copy. The distinction
between the two views may thus be said to be that the tendency
of the one is ethical, and that of the other metaphysical. In
seeking to comprehend the relation between Judaism and Chris-
tianity from the standpoint of a higher and more comprehensive
view of the world, Paul and the author of this Epistle are entirely
at one ; but in all the principal points they take up they follow
different paths. A matter which to the apostle Paul's mind has
the profoundest inward and subjective importance, and reaches
down to the very depths of the moral consciousness, is to the
author of this Epistle a purely theoretical question, which he is
able to sum up in tlie reflection that it is a contradiction of the
objective view of tlie world wdiich he has set forth to prefer the
imperfect to the perfect, the mere shadow to the substance of the
thing itself. With all the moral conceptions which belong to the
Pauline anthropology, the power of sin which renders the fulfil-
ment of the law impossible, the power of the flesh over the spirit,
and the consequent universality of sin, the author of the Epistle to
the Hebrews is entirely unacquainted. The death of Christ is
indeed a sacrifice for atonement, but Christ is not the one who has
died for all, inasmuch as all died in liim. With the apostle there
are no other sacrifices of atonement for sins ; he even reckons the
sacrifices of the Old Testament among the works of thejaw. The
Epistle to the Hebrews, on the contrary, thinks it all-important to

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 119

compare the sacrilicial institutions of the Old Testament with the
sacrificial death of Christ, with a view to show that although
Judaism did in its own way contain every essential element of
religion, yet Christianity possesses the same in a much better and
more perfect way. The symbolism being carried out in this spirit,
the two worships are brought so near each other that though the
difference in quality cannot from the nature of the case be mistaken,
yet in each instance it nearly disappears and leaves the quantita-
tive difference in the foreground.-^ This effort to prove an analogy
and show that the one cultits contained already all that is in the
other, has of course the result of generalising and flattening out
the specific Pauline ideas. This is most notably the case with the
conception of faith, when we find that the same saving faith
existed under the old covenant as under the new, xi. 1, sq., and
that the contents of faith are simply that God is, and that he is a
rewarder of them that seek him, xi. 6. 2G.

Thus the relation of type and antitype, on the basis of the
genuinely Jewish idea of the priesthood, is the determining prin-
ciple of the view of the world set forth in this Epistle. A further
and most important point in his peculiar conception of Christianity
is that the relation of type and antitype is equivalent to the
relation of the present and the future world. It is a part of the
fundamental conception of the Epistle, that in the present world
of time there is nothing true or lasting, that only in the future
world does everything come to perfection. But as only that can
be perfected which has in itself the principle of perfection, every-
thing may ultimately be reduced to the antithesis of the heavenly
and the earthly. The heavenly is the perfect, the self-existent, the
true, archetypal being, ix. 11, 24, x. 1 ; and since the type is now
in possession in place of the archetype, and the present world is
but the reflection of the archetypal, it is only in the future world

^ Hence the constantly recurring comparatives, Christianity is an (irdaayayr)
KpfiTTOvos eXTTifioy, a KpeirTaiu tiaOrjKT], vii. 19, 22. Christ has a bia<f)opu>Tipa
XfiTovpyia, etc., viii. 6, he came 8ta rfjs fiel^ovos kuI TtXtioTfjjas aKrjvfjs, ix. 11,
his sacrifices are Kpfirroves, ix. 23, etc.

120 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

that all things can attain to reality. Christianity also has no
reality but there : it is identical with the future world (ii. 5, vi. 5),
and so far is the author of the Epistle from allowing it to obtain
any firm footing on the quaking ground of this transitory world of
time, xii. 27, that he even transfers the act of the atonement from
the present world to the future, and represents Jesus as having
died here merely in order to have the blood which he requires
in order to enter heaven as the great high priest. This is not
Paulinism : but it is Alexandrinism. The Alexandrine idealism
obviously governs the whole style of thought of the Epistle. All
the antitheses to which this view of the world gives rise are at the
same time statements of the relation between Judaism and Chris-
tianity. They are related as archetype and type, as the heavenly
and the earthly, as the absolute and the finite, or, since the
absolute itself must enter into the finite, and can only be through
the mediation of the finite, that which it is to be — as the present and
the future world. From the standpoint of Alexandrine idealism,
the temporal earthly world is only a vanishing momentum of the
essential ideal world. Such accordingly is the relation of Judaism
and Christianity to each other. Judaism being the religious con-
stitution of this actual finite world, is advancing towards the
dissolution which is appointed for it : it is from its very nature
that which is decaying and waxing old and ready to vanish away,
viii. 13. Christianity exists in the present world only in so far as
it reaches over from the ideal and future world into this one, and
manifests itself to subjective perception in the powers of the world to
come, vi 5. In the death of Christ the two worlds are separated, but
as Judaism still subsists, and Christianity with its true being has not
yet come, the present world is a mixed state of Judaism and Chris-
tianity. In each of them the other also is seen, but only figuratively,
in a more or less dim reflection, such as is characteristic of the whole
of the symbolical, allegorical way of looking at things which is
common to the author of our Epistle with Alexandrine Judaism.

It is this feature of the Epistle which enables us to define its
relation to Pauline universalism. That doctrine is not directly

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 121

excluded, in fact it is rather presupposed, though it is nowhere
explicitly indorsed. But if the Epistle had undertaken to define
the place of heathenism in its theory of the world, it must
necessarily have placed it in the same negative and preparatory
relation to Christianity as Judaism. And if Judaism itself, not-
withstanding its close relation to Christianity, is yet but a shadow
of the true substance of things, how little could have been said in
a positive way of heathenism ! This accordingly is another
instance of the Jewish Christian character of the Epistle, that it
says nothing of heathenism, and tacitly comprehends it in Judaism.
On the other hand, however, all the defectiveness and unsubstanti-
ality of Judaism had not prevented it from serving in this transitory
order of things to prepare the way for the ideal and essential which
should come after it : and why should not this be true of heathenism
as well ? Thus, in the transcendental view of the world which the
Epistle takes, Judaism and heathenism are comprehended in one.
The universal principle of Christianity which breaks through
Jewish particularism is also to be recognised in the Christology of
the Epistle. Christ, the priest after the order of Melchisedek, is
also the Son of God, who is exalted above all, and comprehends
all things by his power.^

' Cf. on the Epistle to the Hebrews Kiistlin in the Theol. Jahrb. 1S53, p.
410, sq., 1854, p. 366, sq., 463, sq. Kostlin has demonstrated the Alexandrine
origin and character of the Epistle with great thoroughness. In one point, how-
ever, I cannot agree with him, viz. : that he pronounces the Epistle to be a simple
polemic against Jewish Christianity which adliered closely to the ritual law, and
says that it has a mediating tendency only in so far as it takes the trouble to give
a detailed proof of the transitory nature of the law and of the dissolution of the old
covenant from the Old Testament records themselves. Kostlin also declares that
he finds in the Epistle no trace of any attem2)t to bring about an approximation
between Jewish Christianity and Paulinism. Now the Epistle cannot be said to
be a direct attempt at mediation ; its Alexandrinism, however, is neither Judaism
nor Paulinism, but stands between the two, and limits both of them, and thus
l)laces itself above them. It assumes the character of mediation unconsciously in
the same way in which Alexandrinism in general has a tendency to mediation in
favour of Judaism, Ritschl continues to maintain that the premisses to the
leading idea of the Epistle can be traced to the original apostles (oji. cit., 2d ed.,
p. 169, sq.), but in this particular also his view appears to be a very one-sided and
contracted one. Compare against it Hilgeufield, Zeitschrift ftir wissensch. Theol.
1858, p. 104, sq.

122 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

The Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians, which stand in
the series of the Pauline Epistles, are to be considered from the
same point of view ; only with this difference, that as the Epistle
to the Hebrews represents the standpoint of Jewish Christianity,
these Epistles take up their position on the side of Paulinism.
They also are striving after a conception of Christianity, in which
the difference between Jewish and Gentile Christians shall retire
before the concrete vision of a unity standing above the antithesis,
and so fade imperceptibly into a vanishing momentum of the
common Christian consciousness. Universal reconciliation, reunion
of the severed and divided, is the dominant idea which runs
through the contents of both the Epistles, and in which everything
centres. This idea reaches its highest expression in the Christ-
ology of the Epistles. All things in heaven and earth are to
be made one in Christ. This is the decree formed by God
from eternity, which is fulfilled and realised in Christ at the
time appointed for that end (Eph. i. 10). Especially is this the
object of his death upon the cross. God purposed to reconcile
all things in him and in reference to him, i.e. so that everything
has its final cause in him, and so in the blood of his cross
God has made peace through him for all things that are in earth
and in heaven (Col. i. 20). This is brought about in various
ways. The two Epistles regard the death of Christ as a contest
with a power which is hostile to God. The lofty and all-embrac-
ing view which is taken of the person and the work of Christ
intensifies the idea of the contest. The death of Christ is the
defeat of the hostile principalities and powers : he has disarmed
them and led them in triumph, Eph. ii. 2, iii. 10, vi. 12; Col. ii.
15. Thus the ap^ovre^ tov alwvo'i tovtov of whom the apostle
spoke in a vague and indefinite way, 1 Cor. ii. 8, have developed
into a supersensuous power, and the conflict with and victory over
these principalities and powers is an act which affects both the
visible and the invisible world.

We have a nearer approach to the Pauline doctrine when we
find the removal of the law spoken of as specially belonging to the

THE EPHESIAN AND COLOSSIAN EPISTLES. 123

atoning work of Christ. God nailed the law, the book of the
reckoning against man, to the cross, in order thus to take it away
out of the world, Col. ii. 14, and by this men are reconciled to God.
The means of the atonement was the fleshly body of Christ, which
was slain. In the death of Christ the fleshly body, the seat of sin,
was taken off' us and borne away. The consequence of this atone-
ment is that we stand before God in the consciousness of freedom
from the law, and of the forgiveness of the debt of sin, holy and
unblameable, and not subject to condemnation. Col, i. 20, sq., ii. 11.
One special feature of the universal process of reconciliation which
is accomplished in the death of Christ is the union of Jews and
Gentiles in one and the same religious communion. This indeed
must be regarded as the practical end which these Epistles have
in view. The death of Christ is an arrangement made by God for
the purpose of removing the wall of partition between Gentiles and
Jews, of making peace between them, and thereby reconciling them
both together to God. The absolute privilege of Judaism is taken
away from it by the removal of the Mosaic law. In this way all
national distinctions and divisions are removed, as well as every
other cause of separation which arises out of the different relations
of life ; and in Christianity a new man appears, who is not
indeed quite disengaged as yet from the old man, but has to put
off the old man more and more by practical conduct. Col. iii. 9 ;
Eph. ii. 10, 15, iv. 22. The two parties. Gentiles and Jews, being
thus united in one body, are reconciled with God, and have access
to the Father in the same Spirit, Eph. ii. 16-18, As the distinction
between Gentiles and Jews disappears in the unity of the new man,
so Christianity stands above Paganism and Judaism as the absolute
religion, according to the description of the absolute superiority of
Christianity in the Epistle to the Ephesians, iii. 5, sq., as the
mystery preordained before the beginning of the world, which
extends infinitely beyond all other things, which was hid in God
from eternity, which had never before been made known to men,
but had at last been declared by Christ and revealed through the
Spirit to his apostles and prophets.

124 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

If Christianity is the absolute religion, then Paganism and
Judaism must stand in the same negative relation towards it.
Yet we hear of a certain identification of Judaism with Christianity.
The Epistle to the Colossians, like the Epistle to the Hebrews,
regards the Old Testament as a shadow of something else, ii. 1 7.
If the ordinances of the Old Testament religion are but a shadow
of things to come, while the reality is to be found in Christianity
alone (to a-cofia tov Xpiarov), it is only a small measure of truth
and reality that is conceded to the Old Testament religion. Yet
the relation of type and antitype being there, that religion, weak
and imperfect as it is, has so much connection with Christianity
as the type must have. And in this sense the Epistle to the
Colossians seeks to demonstrate analogies between Judaism and
Christianity. Judaism has lost, it is true, that absolute claim
which it used to put forward in its commandment of circumcision,
but Christianity has a circumcision of its own to replace that one,
not a fleshly one indeed, or made with men's hands, but a spiritual
one, consisting in the putting off of the fleshly body ; the circum-
cision of Christ which takes place in baptism, and in which Christ
quickens those who are dead in uncircuracision of the flesh, by
this, that they renounce all sensual lusts and desires, and are
dedicated to a morally holy life, ii. 11, sq. This statement at once
involves that Judaism and Christianity are drawn near each other,
and regarded as essentially one. This is done still more unmis-
takably in Eph. ii 11, sq. Here it is said of the Gentiles that
they being called uncircumcised by the so-called circumcision in
the flesh, had been during the whole period of paganism without
Christ, aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, strangers to the
covenants of promise, without hope and without God in the world ;
but that now they who sometime were afar off have been brought
near in the blood of Christ. But all that is said here is that the
Gentiles have received a share in that which the Jews had pos-
sessed before, and thus Christianity is not the absolute religion in
which Judaism and Paganism are alike absorbed, but Judaism
itself is the substantial contents of Christianity, and there is only

THE EPHESIAN AND COLOSSI AN EPISTLES. 125

this change, that through the death of Christ Judaism has been
extended to the Gentiles in the universalism of Christianity,
From this point of view the Gentiles hold no higher position than
that of liaving come in afterwards and been admitted to participa-
tion ; but on the other hand it is stated with the greatest emphasis
that they have now been introduced to the full enjoyment of the
same rights of citizenship ; they are no longer strangers and aliens,
but fellow-citizens of the saints and of the household of God. The
author of the Epistle to the Ephesians can find no words strong
enough to set forth this equalising of the Gentiles with the Jews ;
he says of the eOvq that they are avyKXripovo/xa koL (rvaawfia koI
aufM/j,eTo-)(^a T779 e7ray'yeXLa<i ev ru) Xptarcp Sea rov evayyeXiov, ii. 19,
iii. 6. Thus, though it cannot be denied that the Jewish Christians
had the priority of possession, yet they have no longer any advantage
over the Gentile Christians : the relation of the two parties to each
other is a very different one from that laid down by the author
of the Apocalypse, who is unwilling to regard the Gentiles as
excluded from the Messianic community, but is unable to conceive
of their admission on any other footing than that of being brought
under the legal title of the old twelve tribes of Israel. Only in
this way could they in his view be taken up into the number of
the qualified members of the Church of God : Eev. vii. 4.

The fundamental conception of the two Epistles is the body of
Christ, in which the two parts are to become one body (Eph. ii. 1 6) ;
the arcofia Xpiarov, as the Christian Church in which Jews and
Gentiles are united in one and the same community. Eeeling as
they do the power of the antitheses which hold Jews and Gentiles
asunder, and the necessity of removing them, if there is to be a
Christian Church at all, the writers insist with the greatest earnest-
ness and emphasis on the unity of the Church. Unity is the very
nature and essence of the Church ; this unity is provided by Chris-
tianity with all the momenta which belong to it ; there is one
body, one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, etc. (Eph. iv. 4).
This unity was founded by the death of Christ : in him the enmity,
the wall of partition, everything positive by which the two were

126 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

divided, is put au end to (Eph. ii. 14, sq.). Starting from this
point the writer rises higher, to where the ground of all unity is to
be found. Tiie power of the death of Christ to unite and to found
a universal communion can only be understood when it is con-
sidered that Christ is the central point of the whole universe, sus-
taining all and holding all together. The Christian consciousness,
as it contemplates the Church in the process of self-constitution,
and is filled, in this contemplation, with the absolute contents of
Christianity, feels more and more the impulse to regard this abso-
lute as an existence above the world and time. The Christology
of the two Epistles is therefore intimately connected with that
need which arises out of the circumstances of the immediate pre-
sent, of union in the idea of the one Church which absorbs into
itself all distinctions and antitheses. When we place ourselves
within the mode of view of these Epistles, we find that the con-
sciousness to which they give utterance is a genuinely catholic
one. Comparing them on the one side with the Epistle to the
Hebrews, and on the other with the pseudo-Clementine Homilies,
we have three different interpretations of Christianity, in all of
which the same impulse towards unity is seeking to find its highest
expression and its dogmatic starting-point. In the Epistle to the
Hebrews Christ is the high priest, in the pseudo-Clementine
Homilies the prophet of tlie truth, and in the Ephesian and Colos-
sian Epistles the central being of the whole universe ; but in each
of these forms the Christian consciousness beholds the principle of
the same unity, the idea of which was to be realised in the anti-
theses of the different contending parties.

Another point in which the catholicising tendency of the two
Epistles to the Ephesians and the Colossians is distinctly to be
recognised is, that in them works, the practical realisation of the
moral, take up a very independent position over against faith. It
is true that the Epistle to the Philippians, M'hich belongs to the
same category with the two of which we have been speaking,
appears to lay great and studied emphasis on the Pauline doctrine
of justification by faith as opposed to justification by the law (iii. 9),

THE EPHESIAN AND COLOSSIAN EPISTLES. 127

but this is done in a purely external way. We fail to see that
profound interest at work which Paul had, to establish it as a
general truth that faith and not works was the principle of justi-
fication. In the Ephesian and Colossian Epistles we only hear of
forgiveness of sins, redemption, atonement : it is ascribed to faith
that we are saved by grace (Eph. ii. 8) ; but along with faith great
stress is laid upon works, which are even included in God's fore-
ordination (Eph. ii. 10). In the transcendent Christology of these
Epistles everything that bears upon tlie salvation of man lies
beyond the sphere of temporal existence, and is connected with the
eternal decree of God which is realised in time. And in this
view man's salvation and all that belongs to it can only be
regarded as a free gift of the grace of God. Grace is the principle
which creates man anew by faith in Christ. For man must be-
come something new by Christianity : the old man is to be put off,
and the new man put on, who, as compared with the former, is
another man (Col. iii. 9; Eph. iv. 21, sq.). Yet there is but renewed
in man the image according to which he was originally created by
God. As the apostle Paul sets most value upon faith as the prin-
ciple which brings about union with Christ, these Epistles fix their
attention chiefly on that moral perfection of man which proceeds
from faith, and the history of which process moves through the
same antithesis of death and life which is represented in Christ
(Col. iii. 1, sq.).^

The numerous echoes of Gnosticism and its peculiar doctrines
which are to he found in the three Epistles to the Ephesians, Colos-
sians, and Philippians are sufficient, had ^ve no other ground to
go upon, to fix the position of these works in the post-apostolic
age. Still more directly and indubitably do the Pastoral Epistles
carry us to the period of the Gnostic heresy. These Epistles
occupy, like the others, a well-marked place in the series of the
efforts after unity which proceeded from the Pauline side. They
belong to a period in the history of the development of the nascent
Church, when danger had begun to threaten from the heretics, and

1 Cf. my Paul, T. T. F. L. ii. 1-44 : Schwegler das nachap. Zcitalter, ii. 325, sq.

128 CEURCE HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

it was felt necessary to resist them. This could not but make it
appear very desirable to confirm the unity of the Church, to draw
the different members of the ecclesiastical community closer
together, and to obtain an organisation which should extend to all
the relations of the Church's life. The tendency of these Epistles
is the same as that of the pseudo-Ignatian Epistles and of the
pseudo-Clementine writings. Now the efforts which were made
to give the Church a firm constitution resting on definite principles,
appear to have proceeded originally from the Jewish Christian
party, and thus the Pastoral Epistles are evidence of the readiness
with which these advances were taken up on the Pauline side, and
of the willingness of Paulinists to co-operate for the end proposed.
They place in the mouth of their apostle Paul a series of pastoral
instructions which he cannot possibly have thought of, but the
inculcation of which was now in the interest of Paulinism as well
as of Jewish Christianity.'^

The equally pseudonymous Epistles, that of James and the first
of Peter, are to be placed somewhat earlier than the Pastoral
Epistles. Our discussion of them must be confined to the question
how the two members of the antithesis which is now being adjusted
are here related to each other, and in what direction we can recog-
nise in them a more definite formation of Catholic Christianity.

It is impossible to deny that the Epistle of James presupposes
the Pauline doctrine of justification. And if this be so, its tendency
is distinctly anti-Pauline, though it may not be aimed directly
against the apostle himself. The Epistle contends against a one-
sided conception of the Pauline doctrine, which was dangerous to
practical Christianity. The expressions in which this is done go
straight to the principle ; against the Pauline formula of justifica-
tion there is set up another formula, according to which, in the
relation of faith and works, works are as distinctly the real and
substantial element as faith is with Paul.^ On the other side,

* Cf. my work : Die sogen. Pastoralbriefe des Apostels Paulus, 1S35.
■•* The chief i>oiat of the diflference lies in the notion of nia-Tis- In contrast to
the ideaUty of the Pauline faith the author of the Epistle of James ©ccupies the

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 129

however, the author is not unacquainted with the Pauline idea of
making the law an inward thing. Not only does he speak of the
commandment of love as a royal law ; he also speaks of a law of
liberty. The law can only have become such a law of liberty for
liim by his standing over against the outwardness of the law and
knowing himself inwardly free from it, as the apostle Paul was
from his standpoint. The same endeavour after inwardness is to
be seen in the fact that he places the principle of salvation, not
indeed in faith, as Paul does, but in the word of truth as a principle
of regeneration immanent in man. For the X0709 ak7]6ela^ can
only be a ^,0709 e/jL(j>vTO';, a living impulse of fruitful activity im-
planted in man, on the supposition that there is an inner conscious-
ness, of truth which answers to the outward revelation. The Epistle
proceeded from the endeavour to counteract an impractical tendency
which was declining into doctrinal formalism, and to produce such
an impression upon the Christian consciousness, now settling into
the form it was to wear, as was in the interest of Jewish Christi-
anity. Accordingly the author of the Epistle, who has to represent
Jewish Christianity, is the highest authority on the Jewish Chris-
tian side, James, known to us in other ways, writes to the twelve
tribes in the dispersion, i.e. to the Jewish Christians who lived
among Gentile Christians, and thus figures here as elsewhere, as
the head of the mother- church at Jerusalem. The author by no
means intends his Epistle to be a mere polemic against the Pauline
doctrine of justification ; he places before himself the general task
of giving, from the standpoint of his more liberal and spiritualised
Jewish Christianity, a comprehensive view of the whole field of
the Christian life as it manifests itself in its essentially practical
nature, in suffering and in action. He aims at delineating the
Christian as he ought to be, as a perfect man in the perfection of

standpoint of genuine Jewish realism, and considers a faith without woiks to be
as good as nothing, a dead and lifeless thing (ii. 17, 26), which, in fact, has not
arrived at existence at all, since in its pure ideality it can give no empirical proof
of its reality (ii. IS). Faith, even when existing in itself, only comes to its full
reality in works. In any case, it does no more than co-operate with diKaiovtrdai
(^ epytov (ii. 22).

130 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

the Christian life, which can only be properly conceived as a perfect
work. This shows us how well the writer was aware of his position
in the ase. and of the significance of his Jewish Christian stand-
point. His contention was perfectly justified from his side, and
yet was free from any personal polemic, and in the doctrine of
works and of the practical behaviour of the Christian which he
thus upheld, he made a by no means unimportant contribution to
the formation of catholic Christianity which was now going on.
Whatever is opposed to one-sided tendencies, and seeks to adjust
one thing with another, and to place the contraries in their proper
position of equilibrium, is essentially and at once in the spirit of
catholic Christianity ; and it would be doing an injustice to the
Epistle in this respect to ascribe to it a harsh anti-Pauline ten-
dency.

The characteristics of the Epistle of James, then, are, that it
expressly takes up a Jewish Christian standpoint, and that the
author writes to the Christian Churches of the Diaspora, while on
the other hand the Epistle bears unmistakable traces of the
influence of Paulinism, and of the need that was felt to come to
an understanding with it. In other ways also the Epistle betrays
the circumstances of a later age. All this applies to another
Epistle also which is closely allied with that of James, the First of
Peter. A comparison of the supposed doctrine of Peter with that
of Paul shows a very striking affinity between the two. This is
not denied by such scholars as believe both in the authenticity of
the Epistle and in the existence of a peculiar and independent
Petrine doctrine, and the only explanation they can give is,
that the apostle Paul read and used the Epistle of Peter. But
those who are convinced that the Epistle carries them to the time
of Trajan's measures against the Christians, and to a time when the
legend of the apostle Peter's residence at Pome had already become
current, have an equal riglit to adopt the opposite interpretation.
They will see in the parallels of this Epistle with that to the
Romans and that to the Ephesians an accommodation to Pauline
ideas, which proves, if nothing more, how strong an inclination

THE FIBST EPISTLE OF PETER. 131

there was upon the Jewish Christian side to look favourably upon
a system which adopted such ideas as the Pauline doctrine of the
death of Christ, 1 Pet. iv. 1, and turned them to the uses of
practical Christianity. The aim and tendency of the Epistle are
clearly disclosed by the author himself when at the close (v. 12),
he names Silvanus, the well-known companion of the apostle Paul,
as the bearer of his Epistle, calls him a faithful brother, and says
that the object of his writing is to give his readers a confirmatory
testimony of the truth of their Christian faith, and to show that
whether they be Jewish or Gentile Christians, if they only are
agreed and stand fast in what he has expounded to them as the
true contents of the Christian faith, they are to be regarded as
orthodox Christians. In the Petrine Epistle also the practical
interest predominates, and the circumstances of the time are seen
to be establishing the conviction that the essence of Christianity
consisted above all in the righteousness of a good conversation ;
so that the differences of the first age of the Church are more and
more left out of sight.^

In spite, however, of all these advances on one side and the
other to an approximation and a compromise, there was still, as the
close of the Petrine Epistle reminds us, one great obstacle which it
was necessary to remove if the work of unification was not to fall
to pieces again for the want of a sufficiently secured foundation.

How could Jewish and Gentile Christians draw closer to each

other and join in one and the same religious and ecclesiastical

community, how could the Christian Church which arose out of

^ Cf. on the Epistle of James, the time to which it is to be assigned, and its
contents and character, my Paul, ii. 297 ; and on the First Epistle of Peter, my
Dissertation in the Theol. Jahrb. 1856, p. 193, sq., where I have stated at length
my opinion on Weiss's work on the Petrine doctrine : Berlin, 1855. It is
difficnlt to understand how any one can continue to defend the alleged apostolic
authorship of writings which hear the marks of pseudonyrnity so plainly on their
face, by snch random and loose assertions as are to be found only too often in
the pages of Ritschl and Weiss. One would say that an apologetic like this was
bent on blocking up the way to a sound and living conception of the history of
the earliest age of the Christian Church. It is not worth while to discuss vague
hypotheses which have no support in history and no coherence in themselves.
Cf. Hilgcnfeld, oj). cit. p. 405, sv/.

132 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

their union regard itself as a Church built on the foundation of
the apostles, if it could not get rid of the consciousness that the
two apostles who had stood at the head of the two great parties
had held such antagonistic views and principles, and if it was
impossible to think of these apostles without remembering the
conflict which had arisen between them, and which had never been
reconciled ? It is evident that any agreement which Jewish and
Gentile Christians might desire to form could only be regarded as
well founded, if the relation now actually subsisting between them
could be regarded as one which the two apostles had themselves
contemplated, and could be traced to their mutual agreement.
This is the point where the Acts of the Apostles not only finds its
place as a literary product, but also plays its part as an indepen-
dent factor of the history in the development of these relations.
It has been shown incontrovertibly by recent investigations,'^ that
the Acts is not to be regarded as a purely historical work, but
only as a presentation of the history following a certain definite
tendency. The true aim of the work, then, must have been to
carry back the solution of the questions which were then the
object of universal interest to the point of the discussion of the
apostle Paul's position relatively to the older apostles. If Paul-
inism appears in this work in a form greatly modified from the
original, — and looking at the work from the point of view we have
indicated we cannot but judge this to be the case, — it yet very
decidedly asserts its Pauline character in two particulars. It holds
fast as the essence, the principle of Paulinism, the universal scope
of Christianity, the right of a Gentile Christianity, free from the
law, by the side of Jewish Christianity. It carries this universalism
through all the stages of the history which it deals with, beginning
with the words which it puts in the mouth of the Lord before his
ascension (i. 8), when the disciples ask him about the restoration
of the kingdom of Israel, and he answers them by directing them
to preach the Gospel in Jerusalem and in the whole of Judaja and

' Cf. Schneckenburger, iiber den Zweck der Apostelgeschichte, 1841. My
Paul, i. p. 4, sq., and Zeller, Acts, vol. ii. p. 139, s/]., 173, sq.

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 133

Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the earth, and ending with
the decharation which closes the missionary activity of the apostle
Paul when he says to the Jews that the message of salvation is
sent to the Gentiles, and that they will hear it (xxviii. 18). As
decidedly does it insist on the conditions without recognising
which it was impossible for Christianity to fulfil its universal
mission. It leaves it open to the Jewish Christians to be subject
to the law as much as before, but it absolves the Gentile Christians
from the law, and merely imposes upon them the obligation to abstain
from those habits which were most offensive to the Jewish Chris-
tians, and stood most in the way of a brotherly union, xv. 28, sq.

We must take up our position at this central point of the Acts,
its Paulinism, in order to appreciate aright the aim and character
of the work. In the two points we have mentioned it compromises
nothing of the Pauline principles. In everything relating to the
person of the apostle Paul, however, it is lax and full of conces-
sions. If we compare the account which the Acts gives us of his
character and conduct with the picture which he gives us of
himself in his own writings, we find a very remarkable contrast
between the Paul of the Acts and the Paul of the Pauline writings.
According to the Acts he made concessions to the Jewish Chris-
tians which, according to his own clear and distinct enunciation of
his principles, it is impossible that he should have made. On the
other side we find the same phenomenon. The Acts presents
Peter to us in a light in which we can no longer recognise him as
one of the chief representatives of the Jewish Christianity of
Jerusalem. We are thus obliged to think that the immediate
object for wldch the Acts was written was to draw a parallel
between the two apostles, in which Peter should appear in a
Pauline, and Paul in a Petrine character. Even in respect of the
deeds and the fortunes of the two men we find a remarkable
agreement. There is no kind of miracle ascribed to Peter in the
first part of the work which does not find its counterpart in the
second. It is even more striking to observe how in the doctrine
of their discourses, and in their mode of action as apostles, they

134 CHURCH HISTOEY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

not only agree with each other, but appear to have actually changed
parts. In the discourses of the apostle Paul we find him setting
forth monotheism as against pagan polytheism, preaching the
resurrection and the Messiahship of Jesus, and exhorting to
repentance and good works ; while only in one place, and there but
I'ixintly, do we hear a word of the peculiar Pauline doctrine of the
law and of justification, xiii. 38, sq. The older apostles, on the
other hand, Peter and even James, deliver themselves in a much
more Pauline spirit. There is no difference before God, says Peter,
XV. 9, between Jew and Gentile, for even the Gentiles, the unclean,
are purified by faith: he calls the law, xv. 10, a yoke which
neither they nor their fathers were able to bear ; he declares that
Jews as well as Gentiles can only be saved through the grace of
Christ, and that in fact God accepts in every nation, without respect
of persons, every one that fears him and works righteousness, xv. 11,
x. 34. Even James makes a confession of Pauline universalism,
XV. 17. It is the same with the rest of the conduct of these two
apostles. Before Paul appears at all, Peter is made to baptize the
first Gentile, Cornelius, with the consent of the Church at Jeru-
salem, while Paul performs the rite of circumcision on Timothy,
the Gentile Christian, out of regard for his Jewish fellow-country-
men, and in general conducts himself as an Israelite pious in the
law. Even amidst the most pressing business of his apostolic
office, he does not neglect to make the customary journey to
Jerusalem : he undertakes a vow and becomes a Nazarite, with the
express object of refuting the calumny that he taught people to
abandon tlie law ; he has so high a respect for the theocratic
privileges of his people, that from first to last he always preaches
first to the Jews, and only turns to the Gentiles when compelled by
their unbelief, and constrained by divine commands to do so. The
two apostles are even made parallel with each other in respect to
their call : Peter as well as Paul has a vision in which he is
charged with the apostolate to the Gentiles.

The only possible explanation of all this is, that the facts of the
case were deliberately altered in accordance with a certain tendency.

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 135

This, however, cannot have been done for a merely apologetic object,
referring only to the person of the apostle Paul. We cannot doubt
that the tendency of the Acts is conciliatory or irenical. The work
aims not merely at a personal vindication of the apostle Paul from
the charges and prejudices of the Judaists, but also at opening up
a way for them to be reconciled with Pauline Christianity. With
this end not only were Paul and his cause to be recommended to
Jewish Christians, but such a conception of Christianity and such
a representation of the character and of the doctrine of Paul were
to be made current upon the Pauline side, as should remove or at
least conceal the most offensive aspects of Paulinism, and render it
more fit for that union with Jewish Christianity to which the author
aspired. The Acts is thus the attempt at conciliation, the over-
ture of peace, of a member of the Pauline party, who desired to
purchase the recognition of Gentile Christianity on the part of the
Jewish Christians by concessions made to Judaism by his side, and
sought to influence both parties in this direction. It thus gives us
a very clear idea of the efforts made at that time with a view to a
catholic Christianity. But for all his deliberate and systematic
arrangements for this end, the author could not fail to be aware what
the real point was on which the attainment of his object ultimately
depended. A union of the tv/o parties could only be attained
practically in so far as their knowledge of the persons of the two
apostles enabled them to feel that the union was possible. This is
the real point of the delineation of the Acts, pervaded as the whole
work is by its tendency. In this respect it deserves to be specially
noticed how carefully it refrains even from touching the irritating
element which was present in the history of its apostle. How
striking it is to find that it passes over the conflict at Autiocli, of
which the Clementines had so lively a remembrance, in complete
silence ; that it does not even mention Titus, the companion of the
apostle, who, according to Gal. ii. 1, caused such great offence to
the Christians of Jerusalem ; and that, instead of these two scenes,
it mentions the strife with Barnabas, as if this much less important
incident had been all tliat was wrong at that time ! It looks as if

136 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

the writer felt it necessary to make up in some way for his silence
about the refusal to circumcise Titus, when, in place of that inci-
dent, he gives the circumcision of Timothy, with regard to which
the apostle was so ready and wilhng to meet the wishes of the
Jews. In these particulars is there not a distinct attempt to throw
a veil over the past in order to bury it for the future in the night
of oblivion ? And how careful the Acts is, on the other side, to
bring the apostle in contact with the older apostles on every
opportunity ; thus suggesting, of course, that a truly brotherly re-
lation had subsisted between him and them. AVliat the Acts
desired people to believe did actually come to be believed, and the
belief never afterwards wavered. This proves how well the author
of the Acts understood the age he lived in, and how accurate an
estimate he formed of what it was necessary for the general good
of the Cliurch to keep a hold of.^

^ The considerations which made the author of the Acts think it essential in
his labours with a view to unity to go back to the personal history of the apostles,
were also at work in the production of a number of those Epistles which bear
apostolic names, but which we are obliged to pronounce pseudonymous. Nothing
could pass into the general consciousness that did not rest on apostolic authority ;
and thus it was necessary, even with what was addressed to the special circum-
stances of the later age, to go back to an ajwstolic name, or even to place it in
the mouth of the apostle to whose party the writer belonged, in the shape of an
Epistle which he was said to have written. Thus, when we have satisfied our-
selves that many of the writings of that age are tendency-writings, their pseudo-
nymous character becomes perfectly natural. Pseudonymity, i.e. the use of a
name long familiar to the public and representing a particular tendency, is the
means by which a writer obtains the ear of his age with a view to exerting an
influence upon others. In an age which moved in such strong antitheses, we are
not surprised to find such a number of tendency-writings. It is important to
bear this in mind in seeking to arrive at a correct appreciation of the extensive
pseudonymous literature which is a characteristic feature of that age ; and we
shall thus escape from the mistake, possiljle indeed only to men of prejudiced
minds and with a limited knowledge of antiquity, that pseudonymity and literary
deception are equivalent terms. On this question cf. Schwegler, Nachap. Zeitalter
i. p. 79, S'j. ; my Paul, ii. 110 ; Theol. Jahrb., 1S44, p. 548; Ritscbl, Entstehg. d.
alt-kath. Kirche, 1st ed., p. 195, fiq. The most comprehensive and thorough discus-
sion of the question is that l)y KiJstlin in his Dissertation on the pseudonymous
li^rature of the primitive Church, a contribution to the history of the formation
of the canon: Theol. Jahrb., 1851, p. 149, sq. No other New Testament book
allows of so convincing a demonstration of the tendency under which it was
written, as the Acts of the Apostles.

THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 137

Tlie works of the apostolic Fathers form a group by themselves
after the canonical writings. The idea that these writings are
separated from the whole body of the canonical books by as wide
a gulf as that which divides from each other two wholly different
periods of Church history, is only possible to those who hold the
most extravagant view of the inspiration of the whole canonical
collection. Several of the canonical works belong to the post-
apostolic age, and at a first view the only thing to indicate to us
that we are passing from one class of writings to another, is that
the pseudonymous titles are not from the circle of the apostles, but
from that of their disciples. The latest investigations^ have placed
it finally beyond question that pseudonymity prevails here as well
as in the canon, and that the names of Barnabas, Clement, Ignatius,
do not indicate the real origin, but only the character and tendency
of these works. Here again, then, the chief question comes to be as
to the relation in which the two factors of the historical movement,
Paulinism and Jewish Christianity, stand to each other in these
writings, and in how far we can trace in the growth of that relation
the development of these two factors into catholic Christianity.
In this respect also the line of division between these writings and
the canonical ones is not clearly marked, but fluctuating ; yet the
former certainly take up their position on the one side of the
antithesis or on the other in a more decided manner than the
character of canonical writings permitted. Yet this does not dis-
pose of the question as to their position, nor prevent it from being
still a matter of controversy. Thus Schwegler has taken up a view
of them which brings out chiefly the Ebionitic element which they
contain, and allows Pauline elements only in so far as they may
be credited with the object of a capitulation between the two
parties. Eitschl, on the other hand, has been carried so far by his
disagreement with Schwegler's conception of the post-apostolic age,
as to reckon even the Shepherd of Hermas and Justin Martyr as
adlierents of the Pauline tendency.

1 Cf. Hilgenfeld, die apostolischen viiter, Untcrsncliungen liber luhalt uud Ur-
sijrung der unter ibrem Namen erhaltenen Schriften : Halle, 1853.

138 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

The Epistle of Barnabas and the pseudo-Ignatian Epistles stand
most distinctly upon the Jewish Christian side. The Epistle of
Barnabas holds the typical allegorical view of the relation of
Judaism to Christianity which we find in the Epistle to the
Hebrews, with the distinction that it looks at that relation not in
the objective but entirely in the subjective aspect. The two are
related to each other as type and substance, but the important
point is to have the consciousness of this relation. Christianity
is not so much Judaism completed and come to its full reality, as
Judaism unveiled and made manifest. That which lay concealed
in Judaism under types and allegories, but from the beginning had
reference solely to Christianity, is now disclosed to the conscious-
ness, and known in its true significance as that which it really is.
Christianity then is essentially this knowledge : it is a Gnosis in
that sense of the word in which it denotes a knowledge arrived at
through allegorical interpretation. Erom the objective point of view
of the Epistle to the Hebrews the idea which is realised in Chris-
tianity is at least discernible in Judaism as in a shadowy reflection :
according to the subjective view of the Epistle of Barnabas
Judaism and Christianity are related to each other simply as not
knowing and knowing. Moses spoke so entirely in the spirit, and
the meaning of his ceremonial law is so entirely allegorical, that
the law virtually did not exist for the Jews at all, since they were
ignorant of this sense, and so entirely misunderstood it. Moses, it
is true, gave the covenant to the Fathers, but by reason of their
sins they were not worthy to receive it, and Moses accordingly
broke the tables of the law. W^e are now the heirs of the Jews,
and as such we have received the covenant of Jesus ; for Jesus
was appointed to deliver us from darkness, and to institute us into
the covenant by his word (cap. 14). Circumcision cannot have
been meant to have that carnal significance which the Jews attribute
to it, for it is practised by other nations as well, by the Syrians,
the Arabians, the Egyptians, and by all the priests of the idols.
It was only with a spiritual reference to Jesus that Abraham
introduced circumcision (cap. 9). All this at once falls away as

PSEUDO-IGNATIAN EPISTLES. 139

soon as it is understood in its true meaning, and so Christianity is
a new law, which imposes no yoke of compulsion, but asks man to
f)resent himself as a sacrifice to God (cap. 2). In fact the writer
comes so near the Gnostic degradation of Judaism as to explain the
failure of the exhortations of the prophets to raise the Jews
out of their carnal mind to more spiritual conceptions, by
saying that the people was bewitched by an evil angel (cap. 9).
Here then we find an utterance of the feeling that there was
something new in Christianity, something that Christianity had
revealed for the first time ; and this is spoken of in a way which,
to say the least, strongly reminds us of Paulinism.-^

In this antagonism to Judaism the pseudo-Ignatian Epistles
stand next that of Barnabas. The author of these Epistles expressly
acknowledges the apostle Paul as his model, and applies this name
to Christianity itself in contrasting its newness and autonomy
with Judaism. As disciples of Christ, the author of these Epistle^
reminds his readers, they must live according to Christianity
{kutu XpiariavLo-fjiov) ; he who is called with another name than
this, does not belong to God. It is a contradiction to call Jesus
the Christ, and yet to adhere to Judaism, for Christianity did not
believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity. What truth
there was in Judaism belonged not to Judaism but to Christianity :
the prophets of the Old Testament and the Jews before Christ

^ The Epistle is founded upon the basis of Paulinism, but its true charactei" is
Alexandrine, as is that of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Cf. Hilgenfeld, die a])ost.
viiter, p. 37, sq. ; and Zeitschr., fur wissensch. Theol., 1858, p. 569, sq. In the first
edition of the Eutstehung d. alt-kath. Kirche, p. 276, Ritschl characterised the
standpoint of the Epistle as an evolution of the Pauline principle ; but in his
second edition, p. 570, he no longer recognises the Pauline standpoint of the author,
but holds that his view bears all the marks of Gentile Christianity at the time when
it was becoming catholic. Against this view Hilgenfeld justly observes (Zeitschr.
p. 570) that what is said of the original apostles is enough to demonstrate the
pure Paulinism of the author. Who but a Paulinist could have not merely placed
the twelve apostles in the closest connection with the twelve tribes of the Jews,
but also represented them in the most unfavourable light as having been beyond
conception sinful (cap. v.) ? As for the date of the Epistle, I see nothing in the
remarks which Hilgenfeld has made upon the other side, to induce me to change
the view I have expressed in my Lehrhuch der Dogmengesch., 2d. ed., p. 80.

140 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

who hoped for his coming were even then not Jews but Christians.
So decided is the author of these Epistles in his anti-Jewish spirit,
and so anxious is he to remove everything Jewish from the
Christian society, and to create a fixed outward distinction between
the two, that he can allow no name to be applied to the Church
but Xpiariavoi, Xptariaviafio^} In spite, however, of this com-
plete breach with everything Jewish, he was working towards the
foundation of a catholic Church under forms which involved that
the Gentile Christians should attach themselves to the Jewish
Christians. We shall have to return to this feature of the Epistles
at a later part of this work. , /

In the first Epistle of Clemens Eomanus to the Corinthians and
in the Epistle of Polycarp there are clear indications of Paulinism.
It is remarkable how Clement not only names the two apostles,
Peter and Paul, together, but even represents the fame of the latter
as outshining that of the former (cap. 5). And in the Epistle of
Polycarp there is an eulogium upon Paul which would leave no
doubt as to the Pauline character of those writings, even had we
nothing else to judge by. He is called the blessed and glorious
Paul, whose wisdom no other can equal, who by his own presence
founded the Philippians accurately and firmly in the word of truth,
and in his absence also wrote Epistles to them, which can build
up those who read them in the faith which is the mother of all.
It cannot, however, be denied that faith as the means of justifica-
tion in the Pauline sense is very evenly balanced by an emphatic
exhortation to good works and to love. The two tendencies
resolve themselves into a neutral form of Christianity in which
faith and works stand side by side without any attempt to bring
them together.^ The Ignatian Epistles go so far as to place
love above faith. The first Epistle of Clement does not forget to
insist upon the other side ; it asserts that we are not justified by
ourselves, nor by our wisdom, intelligence or piety, or by works

^ Cf. ray Dissertation liber den Ursprung des Episcopate, p. 179, sq. j Schwegler,
Nachaport. Zeit. ii. 163, sq.

^ Of. Kostlin, 0/). cit. p. 247, sq. The characteristics of the Epistle which Kiistlia
dwells on most are the interest it shows for the law and for the Old Testament
revelation.

THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS. 141

which we have accomplished in holiness of heart ; but it has
equally emphatic exhortations not to be weary in well-doing, nor to
let love be wanting, but to work out every good work with zeal and
cheerfulness, and to follow the divine will in the work of righteous-
ness. The Epistle of Polycarp places edification in faith, which as
the mother of all is preceded by love and followed by hope.^

The Shepherd of Hermas, which belongs to the same class of
writings, is unquestionably a product and a monument of Jewish
Christianity. The strict monotheistic Judaism of this work
appears in the proposition which it puts prominently forward as
being the fundamental article of the commands communicated to
Hermas by the Shepherd, and as the whole substance of faith,
namely, that there is one God who has created all things. The
requirement which naturally follows from this is to follow the
will of God. Attention has been drawn to the facts that the
Shepherd of Hermas does not declare the law of Christ to be
identical with Mosaic law, and that it contains no reference to
the specific Jewish Christian duties, neither to circumcision for
the Jews nor to the laws of the proselytes for Christians of
Gentile birth; and it has been argued that a work marked by
such omissions must have proceeded from a circle of Chris-

1 Cf. Schwegler, op. cit., p. 129, 157, 168. As against Eitscbl and Lipsius (de
dementis Romani Ep. ad. Cor. priore diquisitio, Lips., 1855), Hilgenfeld, loc. cit.
p. 572, sq., considers Clemens Romanus to be a thorough Paulinist, only he says
it cannot be overlooked that this Paulinism is an advance towards a milder and
more conciliatory attitude towards Jewish Christianity than we find in the
Epistle of Barnabas. In following the inner development of Paulinism we here
come to a more conciliatory spirit, and find a view of the apostolic decree jjre-
vailing which was entirely unknown to the apostolic age. There is also satisfac-
tory proof of the existence of a similar conciliatory disposition on the part of the
Jewish Christians of Rome, in the Gospel of Mark, also Roman, and belonging to
the same period. On internal grounds Hilgenfeld thinks there is every probability
that in Christian Rome, which even at that period was able to assert a certain
degree of independence of the Jewish Christian mother-Church at Jerusalem, and
was predestined to be the new centre of the catholic Church, the two original
opposing elements of Christianity first came into a certain equilibrium with each
other. I agree with this view. We see from the Epistle of Barnabas that the
Epistle of Clemens Romanus cannot be placed at a very early period (cf. p. 139).
The exact determination of its date depends on the result yet to be arrived at
from the investigations set on foot by Hitzig and Volkmar on the book of Judith,
as the earliest citation of that work occurs in the Epistle of Clement.

142 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

tiaiiity which occupied au independent position with regard to
Judaism, i.e. from the Pauline circle.^ But all that these facts
prove is that Jewish Christianity had by this time advanced to a
much more liberal spirit. The fundamental idea of the work is,
as in the Apocalypse, the number of the twelve tribes. To the
twelve peoples of the Church of God the believing Gentiles have
been added, so as to make good the gaps which had been produced
by the unbelief of the Jews. The people of God who before the
earthly appearance of Christ stood under his immediate superin-
tendence and guidance was the Jewish people, and so when Christ
blots out the sins of the people and gives it a new law which leads
to life, it is the Jewish people that is meant, the old people of God,
not a new people from among the Gentiles. So the number of the
twelve tribes corresponds to the number of the twelve apostles ;
yet while this number is retained as it is in the Apocalypse, Paul
is not included in it, but stands, as in that work, among the subor-
dinate teachers and preachers of the Son of God. The author's
mode of view is strongly marked with the stamp of legalism.
Everything depends on the observance of the divine command-
ments and the meritoriousness of works. Faith itself stands at
the head of the commandments. In two points the Shepherd
cannot deny the universalism of Christianity, The law communi-
cated by Christ is with him the preaching of the Son of God to
the ends of the earth ; and the righteous men of the Old Testament
do not enter into the kingdom of God until they have been baptized
by the apostles and evangelists in the under world.^

These writings contain in greater or less degree the elements out
of which catholic Christianity arose. Of the period of transition
we have no more fiiithful representative than Justin Martyr. He
stands equally near to the apostolic Fathers, on the one hand, and
to the catholic doctors of the Church, on the other. Like the
author of the Epistle of Barnabas, he sees in Christianity a new

1 Ritschl, op. ciL, 1st ed., p. 297, .sq. ; 2d ed., p. 288, sq.

2 For evidence to support these statements see Hilgcnfeld, Zcitscbr. fiir
wissenscli., Theologie, p. 423, sq. ; and die apost. vliter, p. IGl, sq.

JUSTIN MARTYR. 143

law ; and he further agrees with that writer in the reason he assigns
for this, that the Jews misunderstood the ceremonial laws and
religious institutions which constitute the true essence of Judaism,
by interpreting them in a carnal way, so that the true understanding
of them has only been reached in Christianity.^ Circumcision
had not that carnal significance which the Jews assigned to it.
The true meaning of it is to be found in that spiritual circum-
cision in which the foreskin of the heart is taken away. Even the
patriarchs had this spiritual circumcision, and Christians now
receive it in baptism, in which as sinners they receive forgiveness
of sins through the mercy of God.' And everything of this kind,
such as the Sabbaths and festivals, the prohibitions with regard to
food, the sacrifices, and the temple-worship, had only a spiritual
meaning, which had reference to Christianity. The intention of
all these institutions was merely transitory, they were given merely
on account of the hardness of the people's hearts, and were simply
to serve to keep the thought of God, in this external way at least,
close to the people's minds. That they had no inner religious value
of their own is clearly apparent from the fact that at the time of
the patriarchs they did not exist : the patriarchs obtained the
favour of God without them, as for instance Abraham, as every
one is aware, obtained from God the testimony that he was
righteous, not on account of his circumcision, but on account of
his faith. And since God is always the same, and was no other
at the time of Moses than at the time of Enoch, the scope of all
these institutions of the Jewish religion must have been limited
to a particular period.^

^ Dial, cum Jud. Tryph. c. 14. ^ Op. cit. chap. 43.

3 Justin clistiuguishes three elements in tlie Old Testament — a moral, a typical,
and a directly positive element. No one, he says (Dial. cap. 44), can receive
anything of the blessings bestowed through Christ, except those who in their dis-
position are like the faith of Abraham, an<l know all mysteries, X/yw be on
t\s fi(v fVToXr] (Is dio(Tf(i(iav kcu biKaionjui^'uiv burtraKTo.^ t\s de fvroXi) koi Trpd^ts
Ofxoiois ('ipi]TO, fj (Is yLV(TTi]j)iov Tov Xpicrrov tj 8ia to aK\ripoK(ip8iov tov XaoC vfi(ov.
The moral contents of the Old Testament Justin calls tu ({}v(T(i koXu koi eva-e^TJ
Koi biKaia, or ra KadoXov kol (jivaa kol alwvia Ka\a, cap. 45 : this is the chief
substance of the religion of the patriarchs, and from this the npos a-KXTjpoKapSiav
TOV Xaov biaraxOevra are distinguished, as the purely positive element.

144 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

Of circumcision Justin has but a low estimate : he declares it
to be the sign by which the Jews were to be made recognisable
among all other nations, as those who deserved to suffer all that
was inflicted on them at the hands of others. What we see in this
instance is characteristic of Justin. To his way of thinking, things
and institutions, which had a religious significance in Judaism,
were all turned into prophecies, types, and allegories, the true
nature of which could only be discerned from the standpoint
of Christianity. Thus his religious consciousness assumed an
attitude of repulsion towards Judaism, but this by no means pre-
vented it from turning towards the Old Testament. It was only
by means of the Old Testament, in the contemplation of its
prophetical and allegorical meaning, that he could reach the
deeper, richer contents of his Christian consciousness. With all
its afl&nity to Paulinism, his attitude towards the Old Testament
is essentially different from the Pauline one : it is, as in the case of
the Epistle to the Hebrews, rather Alexandrine than Pauhne, The
stress laid upon the typical, symbolical, allegorical, interpretation
of the Old Testament (and this is the great characteristic of
Alexandrine Judaism) tends to preserve the position of the Old
Testament as the absolute source of truth. Thus, while Judaism
is very greatly lowered in comparison with Christianity, and the
difference between the two brought out in all its breadth, yet from
this point of view it is felt to be all-important to maintain the
identity of Christianity with the religion of the Old Testament.
Paulinism finds the absolute contents of Christianity immediately
in itself, in the spiritual consciousness which is awakened by faith,
and for this consciousness everything connected with the Old
Testament has only a very secondary importance. The other
view loses itself so completely in the Old Testament way of
thinking as to consider that there is no way of arriving at the
truth of Christianity but through the Old Testament. Everything
Christian was in the Old Testament before. The newness of
Christianity is merely the newness of the consciousness which has
arisen as to the contents of the Old Testament. The absolute

JUSTIN MARTYR. 145

antagonism which Paulinism set up between hiw and gospel thus
became more and more relative and subjective. Still, so long as
the view that historical Judaism was only meant for a certain
period was not supported in a more thorough way than it is by
Justin, it remained wavering and unfixed. The idea by which the
relation of Christianity to the Old Testament revelation was more
definitely fixed, and which arose principally out of this, namely,
the idea of the Logos, is certainly to be found in Justin, but this
also is a mere point of connection. This want of fixedness in his
idea of the Christian consciousness is what makes Justin's position
as a whole so wavering and uncertain. This appears notably in
his judgment on the Jewish Christians of his time. Considering
his low estimate of Judaism we should expect a severer verdict
upon those Christians who were nearer Judaism than Christianity.
But with regard to those who, while they believe in Christ,
at the same time observe the Mosaic law, Justin is not disposed
to deny to them the hope of salvation, provided only they do not
seek to bind Gentile Christians to observe it. He has no censure
to express except for those Jewish Christians who declined to have
any sort of association with Gentile Christians. But as for those
whose opinion was weak, and who thought it necessary to add to
hope on Christ and the observance of the commands of eternal and
natural righteousness all the ordinances given by ]\Ioses on
account of the hardness of the people's hearts, while, however,
living together with Christians without demanding from them that
they should be circumcised and keep the Sabbaths and other such
things, he has no hesitation in acknowledging them as true
brethren of the Christian community.^ This view shows a liberal
way of thinking in the direction of Judaism ; but in the other
direction Justin repels with the greatest strictness whatever does
not harmonise with his opinion, so that our commendation of his
liberalism is somewhat modified. The freer Pauline view of the
use of meat offered to idols is so little to his taste, that he
declares it to be no less abominable than heathenism, and will hold

1 Op. cit. caj). 47.
K

146 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

no kind of communion with those who allow themselves the use
of such meat.^ This judgment is not directed against Pauline
Christians, but only against Gnostics, yet it is expressed in broad
and general terms ; and if we compare it with the judgment he
passes on Jewish Christians, we can see that with Justin, when all
is considered, the scale dips rather on the side of Jewish than on
that of Pauline Christianity. In other respects, Justin presents us
with the same type of doctrine which is now to be regarded as the
most prevalent expression of the Christian consciousness. On the
one hand, Christ has taken upon himself, according to the will of
God, the curse to which all men had made themselves liable by
the transgression of the law, and has cleansed by his blood those
who believe in him ; but the condition of forgiveness of sins is not
faith in the Pauline sense, but repentance, change of mind, observ-
ance of the divine commandments. Justin insists emphatically
on this last point ; man is to put forth in action his own moral
power.^ Christ is thus less the Eedeemer than the Teacher and
Lawgiver, as Justin expressly calls him.^ After all this it is
superfluous to discuss the question whether Justin belongs to the
Jewish Christian or to the Pauline tendency, whether his dogmatic
standpoint is to be termed Ebionitism or Paulinism. He cannot be
placed distinctly either on one side or on the other ; his general
position is too undefined and uncertain to allow of a definite place
being assigned to him. He marks himself off from the Jewish
Christians, and declares that his agreement wuth them is more
outward than inward ; but a much more striking thing than this
is, that he nowhere gives any express recognition of Pauline
Christianity. It is said to be beyond a doubt that he borrowed his
view of the faith of Abraham from the Epistle to the Piomans, and
wished, by laying stress on the righteousness that is by faith, to
represent himself as a Pauliuist.* If this be so, it is certainly
remarkable that he never once mentions even the name of the
apostle Paul, a fact which can scarcely be explained from his

1 Op. ril. cap. 35. 2 rvitsclil, 1st ed., p. 310, sq.; 2cl ed., p. 304.

3 '0 Kaivos vofiodfTT}!. Dial. cap. IS. * Ivitsclil, p. 309 j 2d ed., p. 303.

PETER AND PAUL. 147

consideration for the Jews. If he be a Paulinist in fact, he does
not wish to he one in name. What we have in him, though not
expressly and openly declared, is just Catholic Christianity with its
adjustment of those differences and party tendencies which had
hitherto stood opposed to each other. The phenomenon we have
before us here is entirely analogous to that which we have to deal
with in the question as to Justin's Gospels. It may be beyond a
doubt that Justin was acquainted with one of our Gospels or another,
but he has named none of them. The thing is there, but there is
no expression or name for it as yet, and as long as this is wanting,
the fixity and definiteness which the conception of Catholic Chris-
tianity requires are still in the future. What we have in Justin
is the transition to Catholic Christianity.^

We have now to see how this transition was accomplished.
Looking back to the commencement from which we started, we see

^ In the second edition of his work, p. 310, Ritschl calls in question the position
which I have assigned to Justin. With Justin, so Ritschl asserts, we have to
recognise the predominant influence of Pauline ideas, though in a broken form,
because this doctor is the first to bring to completeness the Pauline idea of the
new law. "With regard to Justin's Paulinism, I have to add the following re-
marks: — Justin distinguishes only two classes of Christians (Dial, cum Trj'ph.,
caj). 35 and 80 ; cf. Theol. Jahrb., 1857, p. 219, sq.) : first, true orthodox Chris-
tians, disciples of the true, pure doctrine of Jesus, who believe in a resurrection
of the flesh and a millennial reign ; and second, those who confess Jesus and call
themselves Christians, but eat flesh offered to idols, and assert that this does not
comin-omise their Christianity, i.e. Gnostics ; Justin afterwards calls them by this
name. Now, in which of these two classes did he include the Pauline Christians?
On this point it is asserted that Justin's judgment on the use of meat offered to
idols cannot have been directed against Paul or against a party of Paul, because
Paul himself rejected tliis license, and directly forbade participation in heatlien
sacrificial meals (1 Cor. x. 20, 21). But is not this a very one-sided interpreta-
tion of the passage in which Paul deals with the question (1 Cor. viii.-x.) ? Tlie
apostle not only forbade the use of meat offered to idols, but also permitted it,
and declared it to be a thing indifferent both in itself and for the man who prac-
tised it. He certainly expressed himself in such a way as to justify an appeal to
his authority on this side. On this question Paulinism and Gnosticism approach
each other very nearly. And a Christian like Justin, who was filled with the
idea of the demonic nature of heathenism, might easily come to doubt how he
ought to regard Paulinism. This explains in a very natural way his silence on
the subject, without requiring us to infer anything more about Justin than that
his opinion was still wavering and undecided.

148 CHURCII HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

that what determined the course of the development was not only
the opposition of two radically different tendencies, but also the
division of tlie two apostles who stood at the head of them. The
two tendencies have now gradually approached each other ; the
original sharpness of the antithesis has been softened down ; from
both sides there is an effort to find a middle position in which the
antitheses may be as far as possible united. But it was still uncer-
tain how the apostles, whom their strife divided from each other,
came to be reconciled and to adjust their differences. And till the
assurance could be had that the founders of the Church held out to
one another the hand of peace, and mutually recognised each other
as brethren, there could be no firm foundation for the union of the
two parties, nor any guarantee for the continuance of the ecclesias-
tical unity which had now been brought about. It was impossible
to remain in doubt upon this point. And the fact that every doubt
that might still be entertained upon this question disappeared just
at the time when the Catholic Church came fully into existence in
her chief representatives, is the clearest proof that this was the
point in which the final completion of the Church was arrived at.
In Irenaeus we find the first declaration of what by his time had
come to be a standing fact, that the Eoman Church, the greatest
and the oldest, and the universally known, had been founded and
ordered by the two most glorious apostles ;^ and TertuUian speaks
of the Church, cui totam doctrinam apostoli cum sanguine suo
profuderunt, ubi Petrus passioni dominicae adaequatur, ubi Paulus
Johanuis exitu coronatur.^ From this time forward we find that
with Irenaeus and TertuUian, with Clement of Alexandria and
Origen, and with all the Church Fathers of the period, whose entire
agreement in doctrine and tradition, and in all the principles of
the work of the Church, shows that the Catholic Church was now
actually existing, every recollection of a dispute or of a difference
of opinion between the two apostles has completely vanished, and
the authority of the one is as firmly established as that of the other.
During this period the canon of the New Testament writings, which
' Adv. Haer. iii. 3. - De Praescr. Haer. c. 36.

PETER AND PAUL. 149

was the essential basis of the Catholic Church now constituting
itself, was gradually being settled. And the writings of the apostle
Paul are those of whose canonical character there is the least doubt.
This equalisation of the two apostles is no longer merely an object
to be kept in view and worked out, as it was for the author of the
Acts. What he aimed at is now actually attained, and has passed
into the general belief of the Church. Indeed the idea of the
Church, which was now coming to be realised, necessarily presup-
posed their equality. In the Eoman Church itself it was held as a
historical tradition that the tw^o apostles had suffered martyrdom
at Eome together, and at tlie time of the Eoman Presbyter Caius,
at the beginning of the third century, the places were pointed out
where they had died as martyrs and were buried.-^ If this were a
matter of pure historical fact, we should simply have to accept
it as a piece of history. But the story, whether we consider its
matter or its form, is opposed to all historical probability ; indeed,
there are good grounds to doubt whether Peter ever was at Eome
at all ; so that the historical interest of the story lies precisely in
its unhistorical character. A tradition so entirely devoid of his-
torical foundation must have been designed to serve some particular
interest.^ After what has been said, there is no need to discuss
further what that interest was. It was felt desirable to bring the
apostles as near as possible to each other — each was to have a part
in the merit and the glory of the other ; and as they had worked
harmoniously together in life, so their death was to testify and seal
the brotherly communion of their apostolic career. If we try to
pick up the traces of the formation of the story, we sliall at once
see the efforts which were made to remove the various hindrances
which stood in the way of the desired result. The two Petrine
Epistles contain some remarkable data for such an investigation.
The writer of the second Epistle, which is not only distinctly
spurious, but one of the latest books of the canon, makes the apostle
Peter, in drawing his Epistle to a close, speak of the apostle Paul
as his beloved brother, who, according to the wisdom given unto
1 Euseb. Eccl. Hist. ii. 25. « Cf. Paul, i. 239, sq.

150 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CEI^TURIES.

him, has written of the subject now under consideration, namely,
the approaching catastrophe, in tlie same sense, — as also in all his
Epistles, when he speaks of these things ; in which there are some
things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable
wrest, as tliey do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction
(iii. 15, IG).-^ In what a brotherly spirit Paul is recognised here as
an apostle, and what pains does his apostolic brother take to
remove the prejudice which might still exist in some quarters against
his writings, and the misinterpretations they were exposed to !
Nay, the Epistles of Paul are here spoken of in the same category
with the canonical Scriptures ! There are other marks of a medi-
ating tendency to be found in the Epistles ; but this direct and
pointed testimonial to the apostle Paul's apostolic authority is
quite sufficient to prove the specific object which the writer had in
view. He is merely giving utterance to a sentiment which the
great majority of Christians must long have felt, that there was no
reason for refusing to the apostle that recognition to which his
writings and all that was remembered of his apostolic activity gave
him the justest claim.^ Even in the first Epistle of Peter we may
discern this tendency : and the probability that this is so rises in
direct proportion to the improbability of the apostolic origin of that
Epistle. Peter cannot possibly have written an Epistle which the

^ It is doubtful whether in 2 Pet. iii. 1 6 we ought to read ev ols or ev als. But
even if we read ev ois, the expression which follows, as Kai ras XoiTras ypa(f)as,
shows that the things to which the relative refers must be these things as they
are spoken of in the Epistles of the apostle Paul ; so that Svavor^ra refers exclu-
sively to those Epistles. What was the writer thinking of when he spoke of
dva-vor^ral Probably of Gal. ii. 11, sq., as well as of other passages.

^ Fellow-apostle of Peter is now the highest official predicate which is given to
Paul from tlie Petrine side. Thus, for example, in the Apostolic Constitutions,
6, 8, whore Peter says of Clement the 'Vconaicoi' eTTicTKOTTos re koi iroXirrji, that he
was fiadr]Tfvdf\s koX IlavXa (the disciple not only of Peter but also of Paul), tc5
(TvvaiToaTtiXa fjixwv Kai avvepya ev tw fiayyfXito. At the beginning of the
Epistle, the Gentile Christians are addressed by the author, speaking in the name
of the Jewish Christians, as those whose faith had the same value and rested on
the same foundation as that of the others. The Jewish Christian aathor, how-
ever, who writes in Peter's name, and puts forth this recognition as his parting
declaration (i. 1.3, sq.), still lets Peter's superiority appear as an ej'^e-witness of the
glory of Christ : Paul is only extolled for his aocpia, iii. 15.

PETER AND PAUL. 151

general opinion of scholars declares to be so Paulinising and so
strikingly dependent upon the Epistles of the apostle Paul. This
writing can only be regarded as an additional evidence of the
general desire to obtain positive demonstrations of the agreement
of the two apostles. This is the motive of the explicit statement
at the close of the Epistle (v. 12), that it is written by the faithful
brother Silvanus. It is quite in the style of such pretended apo-
stolic Epistles to betray the tendency in which they are written
by weaving in such minor incidents, and using the names of well-
known assistants of the apostles. In this way Peter writes this
Epistle by Silvanus, the well-known companion of the apostle
Paul ; while, on the other side, the Petrine Clemens is associated
with Paul (Phil. iv. 3), and the same Mark whom Peter here calls
his son also appears in Paul's company (Col. iv. 10). These com-
panions and assistants seem to be meant as a kind of go-between
from the one apostle to the other. How could there be any doubt
as to the good understanding which prevailed between the apostles,
if their friends and companions were equally intimate with one of
them as with the other ? The Babylon from which the apostle
dates his Epistle can only mean Piome ; and we are led to suppose
that the interest-making for unity which gave birth to these Epistles
existed mainly in the Eoman Church. It was in this Church that
the apostle Paul placed his hope of a better understanding, and
many works which were intended to promote the same end, the
Acts of the Apostles for one, were probably composed at Ptome.
In no other church were there such powerful motives to seek such
a reconciliation as here, where the high claims of the two great
apostles confronted each other ; the weight of historical recollection
enforcing those of the apostle Paul, while those of Peter derived
equal weight from the respect with which he was early invested as
the supposed head of the Poman Church. It also consists with
the character of the Pvoman Church, where the Jewish Christian
element preponderated from the first, that, with all the efforts that
were made to equalise the two apostles, the apostle Peter still re-
tains a certain precedence. In the fifteenth chapter of the Romans,

152 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

which there can be no doubt was added to the Epistle by a later
hand, we find a carefully designed division of territory. On the
one side, on the east, the apostle Paul only comes as far as lUyria ;
and on the other, the western side, he at once turns his eye to
Spain ; so that he appears in Eome only as one passing through
(15-24). The only satisfactory explanation of this is that the
writer designed to draw a geographical line, as it were, between the
two apostolic fields, and reserved to another apostle what lay
between Illyria and Spain, namely, Eome and Italy and the neigh-
bouring Gaul.^ Peter must be in every way the special apostle of
the Eoman Church ; but, if this is conceded by the other side, the
bond of brotherly unity between the two apostles is drawn the
closer.^ In no other Church was the consciousness of Catholicity
developed so early, or carried out so consistently, as in the Church
of Eome. And to that Church the great merit is due of having
first made good this essential condition of Catholicism.

1 Cf. Theol. Jahrb., 1S49, p. 493, sq.

'^ The two apostles act together in instituting the first bishops at Antioch and
iit Rome : Apost. Const, vii. 46. It is clear that it is only for the sake of an
equal adjustment that Linus is placed between Peter and Clemens. The true
successor of Peter at Rome is Clemens. Cf. the Ep. Clem. adv. Jac. ii. 19; Tert. de
Praescr. Haer. c. 32 ; Hieron. ad Jovin. i. 7, de viris illustr. cap. 15. According to
an acute surmise of Volkmar, Theol. Jahrb., 1856, p. 309, sq. ; 1857, p. 147, sq.,
the key to the elucidation of the enigmatical passage, Phil. iv. 2, is to be found
in the relation of the two apostles and their parties.

THE JOEANNINE GOSPEL. 153

III.-JOHANNINE CHRISTIANITY.

Fkom the spliere in which that great antithesis was developed
which found its final adjustment in the co-ordination of the names
of the two apostles, Peter and Paul, in the unity of the Catholic
Church, historical thought turns to another side, on which the idea
of the Catholic Church approached its realisation in a different way.
How was it, we have now to ask, with the third pillar-apostle ?
Peter is now connected in fraternal union with the apostle Paul,
and James belongs to the Church of Jerusalem alone. We liave
still to consider the apostle John and the circle of phenomena
which culminate in the Johannine Gospel. We have already seen
how he stands opposed to the apostle Paul in various relations, as
one of the pillar-apostles, as the successor of the apostle in his
sphere of labour at Ephesus, and as the author of the Apocalypse.
Where we now are, however, it is the Johannine Gospel which
forces itself on our attention as a new nodus of development.^ It
is here that the well-known critical questions regarding this Gospel,
its apostolic origin and its relation to the Apocalypse, appear in
their great historical significance. The appearance of such a Gospel
as this would be inexplicable at any other point of the historical
development, but that which we have now reached, namely, the

' Cf. my Krit. Unters. iiber die Kaiion. Evang., 1847, p. 77, sqq. ; Kijstlin,
Theol. Jahrb., 1850, p. 277, sq. ; 1851, p. 183, sq. ; Hilgenfeld, die Evangelien
nach ihrer Entstobung uiul geschichtlichen Bedeutung, 1854, p. 229, 57.; my
essay : die Johanneiscbe Fragc und ibre neuesten Beaatwortungcn (by Lutbardt,
Delitzsch, Briickuer, Hase) Theol. Jabrb. 1854, p. 196, sq. ; Hase, die Tiibinger
Scbule, Sendscbreiben an Dr. Baur, Leipzig, 1855, 1, sq. ; my answer to tbis
Seudscbreiben, Tubingen, 1855, 8, S7. ; Hilgenfeld, das Urcbristcntbum in den
Hauptwendepunkten seines Entwicklungsgauges, Jena, 1855, p. 6, sq. ; my
essaj% 2ur Jobanneiscben Fragc, iiber Justin den Marty rer Theol. Jahrb. 1857,
p. 209, and Die Tiibinger Scbule und ibre Stellung zur Gegenwart, Tubingen,
1859, p. S3, sq.

154 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

transition to the Catholic Church, marked in the Eoman Church by
tlie legend of the two apostles, Peter and Paul. The more closely
we trace the progress of the historical development, the more must
■we be persuaded of the great difference, and in fact opposition, that
exists between the Ai:)Ocalypse and the Gospel, and feel that even
the long life attributed to the apostle 'John is insufficient to bridge
over the gulf between them. The argument for a Johannine author-
ship admits, by what is said of the long life of the apostle, that
from the contents and the character of the Gospel itself, it cannot
have entered into the progress of the historical development at an
earlier period. But should not this argument lead a step further ?
What reason is there for assuming the early existence of the Gospel,
when there is not the slightest historical trace of it for so long
after ? It would be an equally grave mistake, however, on the
other side, to let the difference and opposedness of the two works
blind us to the close connection which exists between them. That
connection is entirely independent of the question of authorship.
It is impossible to assume that the author of the Gospel was one
and the same person with the author of the Apocalypse, but it is
equally impossible to ignore the fact, that the evangelist conceived
himself in the place of the Apocalyptic writer, and meant to use
the weight of John's name for the purposes of his Gospel, since as
apostle, as the author of the Apocalypse, and as the head who had
presided for so many years over the Churches, John had become the
highest authority for the Church of Asia Minor. Indeed there is
more than a merely outward appeal to a venerable name ; inner
points of connection are not wanting between the Apocalj'pse and
the Gospel ; and we cannot but admire the breadth of true feeling
and the delicate art with which tlie evangelist has seized tliose
elements Avhich led from the standpoint of the Apocaly[)se to the
freer and higlier standpoint of the Gospel, so as to spiritualise the
Apocalypse into the Gospel. It is only from the standpoint of
the Gospel that the attitude whicli its author took up towards the
Apocalypse can be rightly apprehended. The author of the Gospel
felt his standpoint to be a new and peculiar one, and essentially

THE JOHANNINE GOSPEL. 155

distinct, both from the Pauline and the Jewish Christian ; but this
very fact forced upon him the necessity of giving a genuinely
apostolic expression to the new form of the Christian conscious-
ness. The names of Peter and Paul were already in current use
to denote certain tendencies of the contemporary Christian world,
and what name could suit the purpose of this writer better than
that of the apostle John ? Not only did this name possess the
highest authority in the district in which the Johannine Gospel is
generally assumed to have come into existence, but the apostle
John was held in Asia Minor to be the author of the Apocalypse,
a work presenting many points of connection for a higher concep-
tion of Christianity. If this is the only account that we can give
of the connection of the name of the apostle with this Gospel, then
the name denotes a new and peculiar form of the Christian con-
sciousness, distinct from the two other tendencies, the Jewish
Christian and the Pauline. We have now to consider in what its
difference from these two tendencies consists.

The most characteristic difference lies in the idea of the Logos,
in which the evangelist expresses most distinctly and immediately
the absolute contents of his Christian consciousness. But this
idea is only the unity of the different relations and antitheses
amidst which the evangelist finds himself placed. His mode of
view completely transcends the two other tendencies, and compre-
hends them, and with them Judaism and heathenism, in a higher,
universally human unity. It is in his view of Judaism that the
evangelist is furthest removed from the Apocalyptic writer. With
the latter the name Jerusalem is of the first importance ; the whole
absolute significance of Christianity is bound up in that name.
With the evangelist, on the contrary, the hour has already come
when men are to worship the Father neither on jNIount Gerizim
nor at Jerusalem, but the true worshippers of God are those, and
those only, who worship him in spirit and in truth (iv. 21).
Heathenism and Judaism are thus alike negatively related to
Christianity, as the one tme and absolute religion. Judaism has,
it is true, the advantage over heathenism, that in worshipping

156 CUUECII HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

God it knows what it worships, i.e. it is directed to the true
object of the religious consciousness (iv. 22) : in the knowledge of
the one true God it has eternal life (xvii. 3). Thus the Messianic
salvation can only come from the Jews (iv. 22), and there is, more-
over, in the Scriptures of the Old Testament a progressive prophecy,
and pointing forward to the Eedeemer of the world (v. 46, vi. 45,
viii. 56, xii. 41, etc.). But heathenism has also a certain share in
the light of the Logos, which from the beginning shines in dark-
ness, and gives light to all men (i. 9). If, as the evangelist
emphatically asserts, Jesus was to die, not only for the Jewish
people, but also that by his death he might gather together in one
the children of God that were scattered abroad (xi. 52), there must
have been such scattered children of God in the Gentile world too.
The greater the unbelief of the Jews, the more does the evangelist,
in the true Pauline spirit, see what was unfulfilled with the Jews
fulfilled in the Gentile world. He attributes to the latter a much
greater receptiveness for the AVord of God and for faith in Jesus, and
in several passages (cf. cli. iv. ; xii. 20) he expressly recognises the
superiority of the Gentiles over the Jews in this respect. The one
fold of the one shepherd points to the same idea. If the fold is
not made up of Jews alone, but other sheep were to come to it,
then the negative attitude of the Jews in their unbelief of the
Gospel will leave the Gentiles to form the greater proportion of
the fold. In fact, the unbelief of the Jews, which is worked out in
all its phases, is one side of the great theme of the Gospel That
they did not believe in Jesus, in spite of all the manifestations of
his glory, this is the result with which the evangelist brings his
account of Jesus' public ministry to a close (xii. 37), An unbelief
like this, increasing in all its forms from stage to stage, could only
result in a catastrophe such as the death of Jesus was. The death
of Jesus is thus the work of the Jews alone : all the grievous guilt
of it falls upon them. The fact that this unbelief, in which the
whole power of darkness is revealed, is the expression of the
character of a whole nation, invests the crisis which follows in the
death of Jesus with the deepest significance. In the Johannine

THE JOHANNINE GOSPEL. 157

representation the Gosj^el narrative moves in the antithesis of the
two principles, light and darkness, and in the death of Jesus these
two powers finally join issue, and take up their proper relative posi-
tion to each other. In the moment of this death, accordingly, the
whole period of the Old Testament religious history reaches its
conclusion. In order to make the death of Jesus appear in the
full significance of such a crisis, the evangelist is careful to intro-
duce all the Old Testament passages which may be taken as
referring to the event. All the types and prophecies of the Old
Testament which are still awaiting their accomplishment are now
at last to be accomplished, in order that the Scriptures may be
fulfilled (xix. 24, 28, 36, 37). The leading idea of the evangelist
in connection with this scene is expressed in the last word of the
dying Jesus, the word rereXea-Tai (xix. 30) — " It is finished ;" that
is to say, everything is finished that had to happen to Jesus as the
Messiah, in order to the fulfilment of the Old Testament (xix. 28).
We must place ourselves at the point of view of this great historical
contemplation, if we are to understand the evangelist aright in his
description of the death of Jesus. What we have to recognise in
the moment of the death of Jesus is the turning-point between the
two religious economies, the passage from the Jewish consciousness
of the Old Testament to the Christian consciousness of the New.
The old is run out and has reached its end : the new has come into
existence. With his last word on the cross he who was sent by
the Father has finally discharged all the claims which Judaism
and the Old Testament had a right to make upon him as the
promised Messiah, and placed himself in a completely free relation
towards them. Judaism and the Old Testament now belong to a
period that has run its course. We cannot but regard it as an
indication of the late origin of the Gospel, that the author sees
Judaism so far behind him, and that the opposition of Judaism to
Christianity is with him so entirely a standing and settled historical
fact. At the standpoint at which the evangelist stands, everything
positive in Judaism, such as the Sabbath and circumcision (vii. 22, sq.)
has become completely indifferent. Even of the Mosaic law he

158 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

speaks in a very significant way as a thing that only concerns the
Jews, that only they can call their law (viii. 17 ; x. 34). The law
is given by Moses, but grace and truth have come through Jesus
Christ (i. 1 7). The law is thus superseded by the Gospel ; and
since its grace and truth have been so decidedly and openly rejected
by the unbelief oi" the Jews, Judaism has condemned itself. So
entirely has the consciousness of the evangelist become detached
from all connection with Judaism, that he is quite untouclied even
by that national interest which we find in the apostle Paul, and
which, if there was little comfort in the present position of Judaism,
yet opened up to it the hope of comfort and reconciliation in the
future. Having placed Judaism and heathenism in opposition to
each other, and expecting as he does that the glorification of the
Son of Man which was wanting in Judaism is to take place in the
Gentile world, he has to make the penalty of unbelief fall heavily
upon the Jews, as with the writer of the Apocalypse it falls upon
the Gentiles. With the apostle Paul the breach of Christianity
with Judaism appears in the form of a dialectical process, the
discussion is still going on, and the final position of parties is not
yet decided ; in the Johannine Gospel this breach has come to be
an accomplished fact, and here we have to notice a further point
in the apostle's view of Judaism, namely, that he defined more
accurately than any one had done before the relation of the
prophecies and types of the Old Testament to Christianity. This
historical Judaism had certainly been greatly lowered and depre-
ciated by previous writers, yet it had always been held that the
Old Testament contained the archetypal idea of Christianity ; and
great stress liad been laid on the prophecies, types, and symbols of
the Old Testament ; it was only through them that one could learn
what Christianity really was ; it was in contact with them that the
truly Christian consciousness emerged. In this way of thinking
Judaism and Christianity are so closely interwoven with each
other, both in substance and form, that neither can exist witliout
the other ; only in the form which is contained in the Old Testa-
ment could the contents of Christianity be truly known. The

THE PASCHAL LAMB. 169

Johanniiie Gospel takes an important step in advance. The type
is no longer held fast for the sake of what it signifies, and regarded
as essentially one with it. On the contrary, so soon as the thing
signified by the type has come, so soon as the reality appears of
that which was typically present before, the type is declared to be
quite extinct and done away, to be a form now quite destitute of
meaning.

The weightiest and most significant of all the Old Testament types
and symbols is for this evangelist the Paschal lamb. The writer's
religious leaning nowhere declares itself so directly and emphati-
cally as in the passage xix. 35-37. The supreme significance of
the crisis of the death of Jesus is found in the fact that blood and
water flowed from his wounded side. The reason why blood and
water flowed from his side was that his side was pierced, and it
was pierced because piercing was substituted for the breaking of
the bones. With him there might be no breaking of bones, because
the word of Scripture about the Paschal lamb was to be fulfilled
in him, xix. 36. He himself then is the Paschal lamb. But if
he is the Paschal lamb, he must be the true and real one, as
distinguished from the merely typical one of Judaism, which has
fulfilled its purpose, in accordance with the rule that the type
ceases to be what it is as soon as the substance to which it refers
has come. The point at which the typical Paschal lamb passed
into the real and actual one in the crucified Christ is the turning-
point at which Judaism ceased to be what it had hitherto been,
its absolute importance came to an end, and Christianity took its
place as the true religion. The water and blood which flowed
from the side of Jesus as the true Paschal lamb is the symbol of
the spiritual life which through the death of Jesus is communicated
in all its fulness to mankind. We see how important it was for
tlie evangelist to find in Christ the true and real Paschal lamb
from the influence which this idea exercised on his representa-
tion of the Gospel history. We find liere the only possible
explanation of the well-known difference between him and the
Synoptics with reference to the day on which Jesus died. If Christ

160 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

is the real and true Paschal lamb he must have died on the same
day, and at the same time when the Paschal. lambs of the Jews
were killed according to their legal custom : i.e. not on the 15th
Nisan, as the synoptic writers report, following no doubt a histori-
cal tradition, but on the 14th. If he died as the Paschal lamb on
this day it follows further that he cannot have kept the feast of the
Passover on this day with his disciples. If he ate a meal with his
disciples before he died, it must have been on the preceding day, on
the 13th ; and so this cannot have been the Passover. This, as every
one knows, is also one of the features of the Johannine narrative
in which it differs from the Cynoptics. Thus Christians have
nothing whatever to do with anything relating to the Passover.
The whole institution is extinct and done away, by the fact
that Christ died himself as the Paschal lamb on the eve of that
Passover. By this fact Christianity has now completely disengaged
itself from its connection with Judaism. It is true that in this
point as in others, Judaism and Christianity are related as type and
antitype. But what end is to be served by going back to the type
and poring into the images and symbols of the Old Testament
when the substance has come, that which is absolutely real, and
besides which nothing else has any real significance ?

With the idea of Christ as the true and proper Paschal lamb
auotlier controversy is connected. It is noteworthy, that the
greater the repulsion of the Christian consciousness toward Judaism,
the more firmly does it hold to this idea : while on the other hand
where it lives in Judaism and regards Judaism and Christianity
as essentially one, the feeling on behalf of this idea diminishes :
Christ may be held to be the Pasclial lamb, but just in the
same way as otlier types and symbols are said to apply to him.
The first to call Christ the Pasclial lamb of Christians is tlie
apostle Paul. When exhorting the Corinthians, 1 Cor. v. 7, to
purify themselves from all leaven that they may be a new lump,
he gives as a reason, " For Christ is slain for us, as our Passover."
Perhaps it was nothing more than a casual association of ideas
that led lum to tliis notion : he M'rote the Epistle as it happened.

THE PASCHAL LAMB. 161

shortly before Easter, and may have meant nothing more by calling
Christ the Paschal lamb than he meant by applying the figure of
leaven to Christians. Yet he was the first to give utterance
to the idea : and from his view of Judaism, the figure cannot have
carried the meaning in his mind that Christianity was to be
held in Judaism, but that it was to be separated from Judaism.
He draws no further conclusions from the idea ; the only passage
in his writings where we mio-ht think there is some reference to
his notion of the Paschal lamb is his description of the last supper.
In describing the institution of the last supper he gives not the
slightest indication that it was the Passover which Jesus and his
disciples were celebrating ; he speaks simply of the night in which
the Lord Jesus was betrayed, 1 Cor. xi. 23. If then the tradition
to which he appeals informed him that the meal was a Passover,
the fact had no further interest for him. The main point was not
the connection of the action of Jesus with the old Jewish festival
custom, but only the new act with which Jesus was engaged, the
institution of a new covenant. The apostle did not approve of
that iraparripelv T]/iiepa<; Kai /iirjva<; kuc Kaipov<; Kac eviavrovi
(Gal. iv. 9) which was so closely connected with the observance
of the Jewish festival customs : he repudiated it as a bondage to
the powers of nature which still clung to Judaism, and was
unworthy of the true religion. He could not then desire to con-
nect the commemoration of the Lord, which was the object of the
Lord's supper, with the annual return of the Jewish Passover.
The Pauline author of the third Gospel agrees with the other two
Synoptics in describing the last meal of Jesus with his disciples
as the Passover : indeed he makes Jesus express a heartfelt desire
to eat this Passover with his disciples before he suffered (Luke
xxiL 1 5). But as if he felt this to be a sufficient fulfilling of all
righteousness with regard to Judaism and the older apostles, he
lays the more emphasis on the other side of the action of Jesus, and
makes the institution of the supper (v. 19, 20) follow after the cele-
bration of the Jewish Passover (v. 15-18), in such a way as to indicate
that the former has now taken the place of the latter. The institu-

L

162 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

tion of the supper is a new act of Jesus, and is quite apart from
the Passover. This is the first step of the transition from the
synoptic representation to the Johannine, where the Jewish
Passover meal is entirely excluded.^ Thus the Johannine idea of
Christ as the true and proper Paschal lamb has points of contact
with Paulinism, so that we can scarcely doubt the existence of an
inner connection. On the other side, however, the idea is com-
pletely strange to the two other Synoptics. Careful as these
writers are in other cases to point out the fulfilment in Jesus of
Old Testament types and prophecies, they quote no passage of the
Old Testament referring to the Paschal lamb. The idea is also
strange to the writer of the Apocalypse, and the difference is one
which can only be explained from the deeper divergence of the two
great tendencies. There may still, it is true, be some difference of
opinion as to the sense in which the apocalyptic writer calls Jesus
the apvLov eacfiayfievov. The view that he meant the expression to
designate Jesus as the Paschal lamb, has again found a resolute
supporter.^ But a careful consideration of the data which require
to be considered for answering the question must lead to a different
result. In no other passage of the Apocalypse is there the slightest
allusion to the Paschal lamb : this single expression apviov
ea^ay/xevov is the only one in which such a reference is possible ;
and it can be referred equally well to the passage of Isaiah liii. 7.
This passage is applied to Jesus in the Acts (viii. 32, 33), and this
application of the words of the prophet was common and habitual.
Even where Christ is called the Passover he is not termed the
Paschal lamb, but the " lamb led to the slaughter " (w? irpo^aTov
eVt cr<j)ay^v ayo/xevov) of the prophet. It is therefore unquestion-
ably much more natural to think of the latter in the Apocalypse.^

^ Cf. HilgenfeM, Kritische Untersucliungeu iiber die Evangolien Justin's,
p. 472, sq. ; Kustlin : die synoptiscben Evaugelien, p. 177; Hilgenfeld : die
Evangelien (p. 213, sq.)

2 llitschl: 1st ed., p. 146, 2d ed., p. 121, sq.

3 Cf. the passages quoted by Ritschl from the Test. xii. Patr. Test. Benj. c. 3 ;
Justin : Dial. c. iii. 72, and the fragment of Clement of Alexandria in the Chron.
pasch. (ed. Bonn. p. 14.) There is little force in the argument that the opyr]
rov apvLov, Rev. ix. 16, would be out of keeping with the Jesaianic picture of the

J

THE PASCRAL CONTROVERSY. 163

The predicate eacpayf^evov, moreover, is given to the apvlov in the
Apocalypse with such emphasis, that it evidently implies more
than is included in the idea of the Paschal lamb. The Paschal
lamb dould not be regarded as a propitiatory sacrifice at all ; the
slaying of it had no special meaning, and did not require to be
mentioned ; it wasunderstood. The slaying spoken of here, on the
other hand, must be one which can be combined with the full concep-
tion of suffering, quietly and self- devotedly endured for the sins of
men, which is the leading thought in the passage of the prophet.

The idea, then, that Clirist is the real and true Passover lamb is
not to be ascribed to the apocalyptic writer, but to the evangelist.
If this is so, we are at once placed in a position to observe a differ-
ence in which these two Avriters are very distinctly opposed to each
other. In the second half of the second century there was a very
active controversy in Asia INIinor about the Christian celebration of
the Passover. Not only was the Church of Asia Minor divided
into two parties on this question, but the majority which repre-
sented the Church of Asia Minor found an opponent in the Church
of Pome. The controversy reached its height when the bishop
Polycrates of Ephesus and the Eoman bishop Victor stood against
each other on opposite sides of the question. The occasion thus
arose which has provided us with our sources of information as to
the remoter commencement and occasion of the controversy. The
question first came to be discussed when Polycarp, the bishop of
Smyrna, came to Pome, about the year 160, for the purpose of con-
ferring with the Eoman bishop Anicetus on various ecclesiastical
affairs. One of these affairs was the question of Easter. The two
bishops found it impossible to agree upon this point; Anicetus
could not prevail upon Polycarp to refrain from observing that
which he had observed with John the brother of the Lord, and
with the other apostles with whom he had associated ; nor could

meek and gentle lamb. If meekness and wrath were exclusive of each other, an
opyr] Tov apvlov could not bo spoken of at all. Nor does the passage from
Jeremiah, xi. 19, which was doubtless present to the mind of the apocalyptic
writer, where the prophet calls himself an apvlov "iKaKov (pepopevov tov Ovtadai,
point to the Paschal lamb.

164 CEUIiCn HISTORY OF FIEST THREE CENTURIES.

Polycarp induce Anicetus to observe it ; the latter appealing to the
consideration that the custom of his predecessors must be main-
tained. Still they parted in peace, and the peace of the Church
in general was not disturbed, although it was divided into two
parties (into Tr}povvre<i and fxrj rrjpovvTe^;)} It was otherwise, how-
ever, a few 5'cars afterwards. About the year 170 a violent con-
troversy broke out at Laodicea, during the very days when the
festival was being celebrated. The Church of Asia Minor was
now divided in opinion, and controversial pamphlets appeared on
both sides of the question. On the one side, Melito, bishop of
Sardis, came forward; and on the other, Apollinaris, bishop of Hier-
apolis, from whose work two fragments are preserved in the Chro-
nicon Paschale. Clemens of Alexandria also wrote, on the occasion
of the work of Melito, and therefore, as his opponent, on behalf of
the view which Apollinaris supported.^ This, however, was only
the prelude of the controversy which broke out about the year 190,
and now no longer confined itself to the Church of Asia Minor,
It extended to Churches in other countries as well, and the Church
of Asia Minor now found its great opponent in the Church of
Eome. Eusebius tells us^ that many synods were held and
many synodical writings composed. The Churches of Asia believed
that their tradition bound them to observe the fourteenth day
of the month (Nisan) as the festival of the ao)T7]piov 7rda')(a, the
day on which the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb.
Fasting was always to be discontinued on this day, they held,
without reference to the day of the week on which it might fall.
The other Churches, on the contrary, observed, according to apos-
tolic tradition, the rule which afterwards came to prevail, that fast-
ing was to be discontinued only on the day of the Redeemer s resur-
rection. On the side of the Eoman Church, of which Victor was
then bishop, stood Palestine, Pontus, Gaul, Osrhoene, Greece. The
Church of Asia Minor, on the other hand, held firmly to its old

^ Cf. the letter which Trenaexis sent to the Roman bishop Victor in the name
of the brethren of Gaul — Eusebius, E. H. v. 24, 25.

2 Euseb. E. H. iv. 26. 3 E. H. v. 23.

THE PASCHAL CONTROVERSY. 165

custom. What high importance this custom had for the inhabi-
tants of Asia Minor may be seen from the letter which Polycrates,
bishop of Ephesus, sent to the Eoman bishop Victor in the name
of the Asiatic bishops. He appealed to all the authorities of his
Church, to the great princes of the Church who had fallen asleep
in Asia, and who would rise again at the day of the coming of the
Lord ; to the apostle Philip, who fell asleep at Hierapolis, with his
two daughters, one of whom rested at Ephesus ; to the apostle
John, fallen asleep at Ephesus, who lay on the Lord's bosom, and
bore the emblem of the high-priestly office, and was a martyr and
doctor ; to Poly carp in Smyraa, bishop and martyr, and many
others, — all of w^hom observed the fourteenth day of the Passover
according to the Gospel. Nor would he, who had grown grey in
the service of the Lord, who was versed in all the Holy Scriptures,
depart from this day, or suffer himself to be intimidated by threats :
greater men than he had said that we ought to obey God rather
than men. In spite of this the Ptoman bishop Victor at once
attempted to cut off at one stroke the Churches of Asia Minor and
the neighbouring countries from the union and communion of the
Church. He stigmatised them as heterodox in epistles in which
he excommunicated all the brethren in these districts from the
fellowship of the Church. But this act met with the disapproval
even of those who, like Irenaeus in Gaul, agreed with the Eoman
Church upon the merits of the question, and afiirmed, as that
Church did, that the mystery of the resurrection should only be
completed on the Lord's day.

The question as to the actual subject of the controversy has
always been considered to be a very difficult one, and has accord-
ingly received only very unsatisfactory answers. Nor is the view
which is the only correct one, completely established even now ;
it has still to be defended against its opponents. It might seem
natural to suppose that the party of Asia Minor, as a strictly Juda-
izing party, kept the Passover just in the Jewish fashion. But
this was not the case ; and there is nothing in the polemic of their
opponents, who could not have passed over such a fact in silence,

166 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

to suggest that it was so. To the inhabitants of Asia Minor, as
well as to other Christians, the Passover was the Trdaxa rov crw-
Trjpo<i or the acorripiov iraa-'x^a, i..c. a Christian festival, the Jewish
Passover transformed into a Christian festival in consequence of
the way in which Jesus had kept it with his disciples before his
passion. The characteristic of the Quartodecimans, as they were
called, was simply that they adhered to the fourteenth day of the
Jewish month Nisan in the same way as the Jews did, for whom
that day was the day of the actual Passover, from which the fol-
lowing days were distinguished as the feast of a^v/xa. This is the
meaning of the term rTjpelv, which is a standing phrase in the
history of this controversy. The complete form, as we find it in
the Epistle of Polycrates, is rrjpelv ttjp rjixepav rrj^ reaaapeaKui-
heKdrri<i rov Tracr^a. This, however, does not make it clear what
the exact significance of the day was to them. We find further
light upon this point in the fact that they considered it necessary
to bring the fast to an end on this day, while their opponents
desired to carry on the fast which was customary before Easter to
the Sunday on which the resurrection of Christ was celebrated.
What, then, the day of the resurrection, Sunday, a fixed day, was
for the one party, the fourteenth day of the month was for the
other, on whatever day of the week that day might fall. But
what was the 14th of Nisan to them, that they observed it in
this way ?

It is a too hasty conclusion to suppose that the contrast must
be between the time of the resurrection and the time of the death,
and that the whole question was simply at what point of time the
boundary-line was to be drawn between the joy of the festival and
the mourning of the fast, whether at the fourteenth, though it was
earlier, or at Easter Sunday. According to this view, to the Chris-
tians of the West the day of the resurrection was the infinitely-
important, never-to-be-forgotten day on which the little flock of
believers had first been freed from all their fears, and saw the
reality of redemption placed in the brightest light before them after
the dreadful doubts and darkness of the fatal days preceding. This

TEE PASCHAL CONTROVERSY. 167

day removed a crushing weiglit from the disciples, and was to them
the true day of deliverance. For the Christians of the East, again,
the day of the crucifixion had the prerogative ; this day possessed
the deepest significance in their eyes. Up to the point of death
the sufferings of the Lord had been a painful and mournful thing,
but with the moment of death the Lord's sufferings were at an end,
the great work of atonement was completed, the eternal redemp-
tion was accomplished, and the glorification of Christ began. This
may not have been clear at the moment to the minds of the dis-
ciples, but nevertheless it was the case. According to this view,
the Western observance is to be characterised as more subjective,
personal, individual, as more closely adhering to fixed and stereo-
typed historical traditions, and seeking to reproduce as closely as
possible the whole of the outward features of the original Passion-
week. The Eastern standpoint, on the contrary, appears to be more
objective, dogmatic, universal, free and plastic ; the Eastern observ-
ance seems to proceed from an endeavour to express the essence,
the inner meaning of the act of salvation, and not merely a his-
torical form of consciousness regarding it. What this observance
looks to as the regulating principle in fixing the term of the cele-
bration of the death, is not the outward outline of the first Passion-
week, but an ideal consideration of religious history which lay in
the events of that week,-^

This is without any historical foundation, and the whole question
is too much removed from solid ground, and taken into the sphere of
a priori presuppositions and abstractions. It cannot even be affirmed
that the fasting could only have a meaning where the thought of the
death of Jesus was the leading idea ; and that the conclusion of the
fast on the 14th must necessarily have involved the assumption
that Christ died, and brought about the atonement, not on the 15th
of Nisan, but on the 1 4th, as the Paschal lamb.^ It is true that the
customary fasting before Easter — and there was a difference about

^ Weitzel: die ChristHclie Passahfeier der drei ersten Jalirliunderte, 1848, pp.
101, 110, 131.

2 Ritschl : 1st ed., p. 250 ; 2d ed., p. 2G9.

168 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

this too, since, as Irenaeus says in his Epistle, some fasted one day,
others two, others still longer, some forty hours during day and night ^
— could only refer to the sufferings and death of Jesus. But it is
an erroneous conclusion to think that because fasting is the sign of
mourning, the end of the fasting, the eating which came in place
of the fasting, necessarily expressed the opposite mood of mind,
and that the eastern Christians therefore kept the day of Jesus'
death as their day of rejoicing, instead of the day of the resurrec-
tion, which was the day of rejoicing kept by the Christians of the
West.^ Even if the death of Jesus brought up no other idea than
that of the accomplishment of the atonement, still the sentiment
of grief must have been uppermost, and it would be incomprehen-
sible how the Christians of the East, if they meant their breaking

^ Oi Se TeacrapaKovra wpas rjfxepivas re kui vvKzepivhs crvp-fifTpovai ttjv rjpepav,
Euseb. 5. 24. This can only mean : they make forty hours by day and night
equal to the measure of their day : they thought themselves obliged to have a
period of fasting of forty hours, but counted these forty hours only as one day.
Gieseler (K-g. i. 1, p. 240) proposen to read t§ f]p.ipa avTutv, and to interpret the
passage thus : they measure out forty hours together with their day ; i.e. they
fast on the day which they keep as the Passover, or the day of the death of
Clirist, and with the hour of the death they begin a new fast of forty hours to
the resurrection. This is clearly wrong ; the Christians of Asia Minor left off
fasting on the evening of the 14th.

2 Steitz's observation (Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1859, p. 728) on this fasting is but
one proof more of the wrongness of his whole view of the Easter celebration of
Asia Minor. Steitz thinks that if the Church of Asia Minor intended its solem-
nity to be a commemoration of the Lord's last meeting with his disciples, their
fasting on this day is quite incomprehensible. Why should they receive fasting
what the disciples received from their Master during or after the meal on that
evening ? This would no doubt be exceedingly strange ; but who asserts that
this was the case ? The main point of the view which Steitz is contesting is
simply that the Easter festival of Asia Minor refers not to the Communion or
Eucharist as such, but to Jesus' last meeting with his disciples. It is therefore
quite beside the mark to bring in here the Church canon of fasting before the
Communion ; and it is in the highest degree natural to take this fasting as the
expression of the mournful state of mind in which the disciples were on that
day, which was the beginning of the time in which njionsiis aUattis tat. This
coincides with what Steitz himself says of this fastmg, p. 733, only that the
object it has in view is not the death of Jesus, but the Lord, still sojourning in
the circle of the disciples, but now going to meet his nados. Steitz might have
saved himself many superfluous words, had he taken the trouble to understand
his opponents' views more thoroughly.

THE PASCHAL CONTROVERSY. 169

off the fast as an expression of joy, could have chosen to do so on
the day of the Passion. There must unquestionably have been
some particular reason for the practice, and we have to ask what
led them to celebrate this particular day, the 14tli, not fasting
but eating ? And if they did not fast but ate on this day, must
we not ask if the presumption is well founded that they kept this
day as the day of Jesus' death ? The answer to this question is not
to be sought in the way of ingenious combinations ; it lies plainly
enough before our eyes in the fragments preserved in the Chronicon
Paschale.^ The reason of the difference is most distinctly expressed
in a fragment of Hippolytus, who, speaking as a champion of the
Western custom, puts into his opponents' mouth the following
words : " What Christ did on that day was the Passover, and he
suffered at that time. For this reason I likewise must do as the
Lord did." To this Hippolytus answers : It is a mistake if one
does not know that at the time the Lord did not eat the legal
Passover when he suffered, for he was the Passover spoken of by
prophecy, which was fulfilled on the appointed day. In another
fragment also Hippolytus says : " As the Lord had already said
that he would no more eat the Passover, he ate this meal before
the Passover, but the Passover itself he did not eat ; for it was not
the time for him to eat it." From this it is as clear as possible, that
the orientals kept the 14th, not as the day of the death of Jesus,
but as the day on which he kept the Passover with his disciples.
The question between them and their opponents was that between
a doing or a suffering on the part of Jesus, or more distinctly,
between ^ayelv and iraOelv. If Jesus ate the Passover on the 1 4th,
he cannot have died on that day. His followers cannot therefore
commemorate his death on that day ; they must feel it incumbent
on them to do what he did ; not to fast, but to eat a meal in com-
memoration of the Passover observed by him. This meal naturally
formed the conclusion of the fast that was customary before Easter.
The western Christians again reasoned in the opposite WAy. Since

1 Chronicon Paschale, iu the Bonn edition of the Corpus Scr. Hist. Byz. ; vol. i.
1832, p. 13, sq.

170 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

Jesus suffiered and died on the 14th, he cannot have eaten the
Passover on tliat day ; and so there is no reason for concluding the
fast on the day on which the Jewish Passover was held, or to take
the 1 4th of Nisan into account at all in connection with the Chris-
tian celebration of Easter.

Tlie fragments of Apollinaris of Hierapolis yield just the same
result. He states the position of his opponents, the orientals,
exactly as Hippolytus does : they say that the Lord ate the lamb
with his disciples on the 14th, and himself suffered on the great
day of the feast of unleavened bread. They read Mattliew in such
a way as to make him say exactly what they take to be the case.
But the consequence of this is simply that their view does not
agree with the law, and that they make the Gospels appear to be in
conflict with the law. This conflict with the law that Apollinaris
speaks of must mean that contradiction which the other party
declared must arise between the Gospel and the law, if it appeared
from the Gospels that Jesus did not die on that day on which as
the Paschal lamb he needs must die, to fulfil the directions of the
law about the slaying of the Passover. To the AVestern Christians
then the meaning and importance of the controversy were derived
from the idea of Christ as the Paschal lamb. This idea is distinctly
expressed in the second fragment of Apollinaris, in such a way as
to leave no doubt as to the nature of the argument supporting the
Western view.^

^ Op. cit. p. 14. 'H tS' TO aXrjdivov Toii Kvpiov irdaxa, 17 dvcria fj fieyaKrj, 6 dvTi
Toil afivov irais Geov, 6 df6e\s 6 drjaas tov laxvpov ', Koi 6 Ta(j)f\s iv rjfiepq t^ tov
ndarxa. The proofs are of this nature. To those drawn from Hippolytus and
Apollinaris we have to add that of Clemens of Alexandria. In a fragment which
is also preserved in the Chronicon Paschale, 0^). cit. p. 14, he says that in the pre-
ceding 3'ears the Lord ate the Passover with the Jews, but that on this occasion
he announced himself as the Passover on the 13th, and then suffered on the
following day (6 a/xfoy tov Qfov, a>s npoj^aTov eVt crcpnyrju dyofiivoi, avTos &v to
TTcicrxa ica\\t€pi]6i\s inro 'lov8aia)p). In all these jiassages the point at issue is
clearly presented to us, and we see also the important bearing which the data of
the Paschal controversy have upon the question of the apostolic origin of the 4th
Gospel. In order to get rid of this inevitable inference Weitzel asserts, op. cit.
p. 16, sq., that we have to distinguish between Catholic and heretical Quarto-
decimaus, and that the evidence of Hippolytus and the others only refers to the

THE PASCHAL CONTROVERSY. 171

What tlie opponents of the Christians of Asia ]\Iinor regarded
as fixed before everything else was that Christ was the true and
real Passover. From this it necessarily followed for them, since
it was necessary that type and antitype, prophecy and fulfilment,
should agree as closely as possible, that Christ died on the same

heretical party of them. There is thus an important difference between the
Paschal controversy as it was in the year 170, and as it was in 190. In the year
170 Church did not stand against Church, the great representatives of the Church
stood against an isolated party, against certain Judaizing Laodiceans, who appeared
with their Judaizing Passover ritual in the year 170. But these pretended
heretical Quartoilecimans are a pure fiction. Ko proof of their existence can he
brought forward ; on the contrary, the whole character and history of the con-
test entirely excludes such a supposition. How clearly does the Epistle of
Irenaeus show us that it is one and the same controversy from the very beginning !
1 n this Epistle we find Polycarp and Anicetus at issue about the same alternative,
TTjpflu or fif] T-qpelv, as formed the subject of dispute between Polycrates and
Victor, as we gather from the Epistle of the former. Had the Quartodecimans
in question been a heretical, i.e. a Judaizing party, we should have had some
clearer 2)roof of their Judaizing tendency. But the dispute was not about the
Passover as such, it was not proposed to keep it with the Jews as a Jewish
festival. The dispute was about the action of Jesus in connection with the Pass-
over, whether it was at a Passover that he ate his last meal with his disciples.
The 14th was to be kept, not for the sake of the Passover, but in remembrance
of Jesus and what he had done. This is the plain meaning of the passages which
we have quoted. What was there here that was specifically Judaistic, and that
was not to be found with the Catholic Quartodecimans as well ? The Church
knew nothing of heretical Quartodecimans in the sense here assumed. This may
be seen from a passage in the newly discovered Philosophoumena of Origen (vii.
18, ed. Miller, p. 274, sq.), where he speaks of those who keep the Passover on
the 14th day of the first month, Kara ttjv tov v6p.ov 8iaTayr]v, and justify the
practice by referring to the curse of the Mosaic law, but do not consider the
significance of the true Paschal sacrifice in Christ and the words of the apostle
Paul, Gal. v. 3. In the same way as Apollinaris and Hippolytus accused their
opponents of contentiousness and ignorance, these persons are called (jyiXoveiKoi
T^v (})vaiv, Ibiwrai rfjv yvSxriv ; but not as Judaistic heretics ; on the contrary,
the testimony of perfect orthodoxy in other respects is expressly accorded to
them : iv be to'is irepois ovtoi (rvficpcavoxJai tt/jos irdvTa rti rrj eKKKriaia vtto tuiv
aTTO(TTQK(jiv TTapabedofxfva.

Of. on the Paschal controversy my Krit. Unters. iiber die kanon. Evang. p. 269,
334, sq., 353, sq., and the essays in the Theol. Jahrb. 1847, p. 89, sq.; 1848, p. 264,
sq.; Hilgenfeld : der Paschastreit und das Evangelium des Johannes niit llucksicht
auf Weitzel's Darstellung ; Theol. Jahrb. 1849, p. 209, sq., and Der Galaterbrief,
'Leipzig, 1852, p. 84, sq. In spite of its evidently incorrect assumption, Weitzel's
view is a very convenient sanction for refusing to accept the results of recent
criticism ; and it is repeated by Lechler in the work quoted, p. 52, who how-

172 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

day oil which the Jewish Passover was slain. But if the 14th was
only distinguished as the day of the death of Jesus, and if what
■was meant by Jesus dying as the Passover was that He finally and
for ever removed the old, that had reached its fulfilment, by placing
in its stead the new, that had now come into being, then there
could be no need to retain the 14th as the standing anniversary of
the death of Jesus. To the Christian festival-calendar the only
possible fixed day was the Sunday of the resurrection. Thus, wdiile
for the Easterns the 14tli was the day of a standing festival, and
everything else had to be arranged with reference to that day, with
the Westerns the days of these yearly festivals were fixed on the
opposite principle : the day of the death depended on the day of the
resurrection, and as the latter was always a Sunday, the former was
always a Friday. Though the Eoman custom more and more gained
the upper hand, yet the difference continued to exist even in later
times, and was in fact one of the causes of the Council of Mce, for
even at that time there were several ecclesiastical provinces in the

ever fails to apprehend correctly the point at issue. In his second, thoroughly
revised, edition of 1857, Lechler brings forward only what is quite famihar, and
was refuted long ago. For the literature of the question cf. Steitz : die Dififereuz
der Occidentalen und der Kleinasiaten in der Passahfeier, auf's Neue kritisch
untersucht und im Zusammenhang mit der gesammten Festordnung der alten
Kirche entwickelt, in the Theol. Stud. u. Kritikeu, 1S5G, p. 721. Against this
my Dissertation on the Johannine question in the Theol. .Tahrb. 1857, p. 242, sq.,
and Hilgenfeld, p. 523, sq. In defence of his view or of Weitzel's hypothesis,
Steitz gave certain further observations in the Stud. u. Krit. 1857, p. 741, which
I did not neglect to answer; see Zeitschr. fiir wissensch. Theol., 1858, p. 298, sq.
The question has been so long the subject of investigations and so thoroughly
discussed on both sides that two points may now be regarded as established results
against which it is not likely that any new argument of importance will be adduced.
These are — (1.) The Passover on the 14th was not consecrated to the Redeemer
dying or already dead, but to the Lord now entering into his sufferings (his Traces),
and still sitting in the midst of his disciples. (It was this, as I pointed out when
I last wrote on the subject, that fdled these last moments with recollections of
such infinite tenderness. Hence it was that for the Christians of Asia Minor,
everything was wrapped up in that one day, and that they would know nothing
of any consideration that would have detached them from the sentiment so
intimately connected with that day. Everything was concentrated on the few
hours of the Passover held after the fast in memory of Jesus' last supper. Far
from being a festival of joy, the aesthetical antithesis to the fast just brought to a
conclusion, as some think it must have been, it must have been kept in the solemn

TEE PASCHAL CONTROVERSY. 173

East in which the Passover was kept at the time when the Jews
kept it.^ The Judaism of the Quartodecimans had given offence
from the first ; and the same anti -Jewish feeling still finds expres-
sion in the declaration of the Council of Nice, that it was improper
to be guided by the custom of the unbelieving and hostile Jews.
All the Christians of the East, who had hitherto been keeping the
Passover with the Jews, were in future to celebrate it in conformity
with the usage of the Eoman Church. Indeed, so strong was the
desire to have nothing in common with the Jews in this festival,
that when the Easter full moon fell on a Sunday, Easter was to be
celebrated not on the day of the full moon, but on the following
Sunday.

So lively and universal was the commotion aroused by this ques-
tion not only in Asia, but among the Christian Churches of the
age in general. And this makes it impossible to disregard the
attitude of the Gospel of John with regard to the dispute. It
takes its stand most decidedly upon the side of the Western tradi-

mood appropriate to a supper of farewell, but a mood lifted above mere sorrow
by the deepest sentiment of piety.) (2.) The pretended heretical Quartodecimans
are utterly unvouched for by any historical evidence ; in fact they are simply a
makeshift of apologetics. In his "last words," in which he (Steitz) finally wound
up his investigation into the Paschal controversy viewed aesthetically and other-
wise (der asthetische Charakter der Eucharistie und des Fastens in der alten Kirche,
Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1859, p. 716 sq.), he sums up his result as follows, p. 737 :
' ' There is every reason not to set too high a value on the statements of Polycarp
and Polycrates about John. The Church of Asia Minor will have received from
the beloved disciple the fact attested by the fourth Gospel, that Christ died on
the 14th of Nisan, and perhaps also the usage of celebrating this day as the
standing anniversary of his death ; but there is no doubt that the manner of
celebration belongs to a later age, and was formed by a process of historical
development, though probably upon the basis of the fourth Gospel (cf. xvi. 0, 7 ;
xix. 30.)" This is a view of history dominated and limited by the "beloved
disciple ; " and it ends in simply denying the value of historical evidences, such
as those of Polycarp and Polycrates, which do not suit the writer's purpose, while
the question under discussion is no nearer a solution at the conclusion of the
argument than it was at the beginning.

^ Cf. Athanas. de Syn. .5, where there is special mention of oj niro t»)? Supi'ar
Koi KtXtKtaj, Koi ^UaoTTOTa^ias, as those who €x<j)\tvov irtpl ti)v iapTr]v Ka\ fiera
Toiv 'lovSaioji/ (TTolovv TO nd(Txa. Cf. Eusebius, de vita Const, iii. 5. IS. Socr.,
H. E., i. 9.

174 CnURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

tion. It is evidently with deliberate purpose that it arranges its
account of the death of Jesus in such a way as to preclude the idea
that his last meal was the Passover.

In xiii. 1 it says expressly, that before the feast of the Passover
Jesus ate a supper {helirvov, not ro helirvov) with his disciples,
which, notwithstanding its difference in many respects from the
supper of the Synoptics, yet coincides with theirs in being the last
he ate. The repeated allusions, again, to the festival as still
approaching, as xiii. 29, xviii. 28, seem to be designed to prevent
all doubt upon the point that this meal was the same meal eaten
by Jesus with his disciples on the night of his arrest, as that
which is described by the Synoptics, only with the difference that
it was not the Passover. On this point especially, there is such a
radical discrepancy between the synoptical and the Johannine
narratives, that there is scarcely another exegetical result so firmly
established as the utter futility of all attempts to interpret the one
account into the other.

And yet this same apostle John is represented as one of the
chief witnesses to the genuinely apostolic origin of the tradition
of Asia Minor — the apostle to whose authority the venerable Poly-
crates, bishop of Ephesus, appealed. That bishop calls to witness
his grey hairs and all that was holy and worthy of reverence to
him, in such a way as to make it as impossible to question the
historical trustworthiness of his testimony as it is to impugn the
above-mentioned exegetical result. In what other way can this
obvious contradiction be overcome than by supposing that the
author of the Gospel was a different man from the apostle John,
the author of the Apocalypse ?^

1 According to Gieseler, Lehrb. der K.G., 4th cd., i. 1, p. 241, sq., this contradic-
tion admits of an easy solution. He says : "xVt the outset the Jewish Passover was
kept up in the Christian Churches only with the difiference that it was referred
to Christ, the true Passover (1 Cor. v. 7). John found tliis practice existing at
Ephesus, and left it unchanged. He corrected it in his Gospel only so far as to
preclude the belief on which it may have proceeded that Christ ate the Passover
with the Jews on the day before his death : he made it appear distinctly, that
Christ was crucified on the 14th of Xisan. But this did not make it necessary to

THE PASCHAL CONTROVERSY. 175

The historical datum which is given to us in the information
we have about the Paschal controversy does but confirm the result
which rests on so many other incontrovertible grounds. These
all combine to place the origin of the Gospel of John at a later
date, and we now conclude, that it can only have arisen within
the circle of those movements which were called forth by the
Paschal controversy, and must have proceeded from the same
interest which caused the Church of Eome to take up more and
more an attitude of opposition to the Churches which still adhered
to the original Jewish-Christian tradition. There is no doubt that
historical tradition was on the side of the Quartodecimans of Asia
Minor, and that in this view they were right. "We have no reason
for doubting the trustworthiness of the testimony to which they
appealed in proof of the apostolic origin of their tradition; and
the synoptic account of the death of Jesus, which coincides with
this tradition in every respect, produces the impression that it is
the oldest transmitted record. All the testimony is agreed upon
the point that Jesus died on the 15th of Nisan, and kept the
Passover on the 14th with his disciples.

The other tradition, according to which Jesus died on the 14th,
the day of the Passover, and his last meal was not the Passover,
proclaims itself as of a later origin. It is true that in the Church
of Pome Anicetus appealed against Polycarp to the tradition of his

change the celebration at Ephesus ; on the contrary, the 14th of Nisan was now
shown to be the true Passoverday for Christians as well : the fulfilment of the
type fell on the same day with the type itself." As if the contradiction did not
lie in this very point, that he laid the utmost stress on the 14th, as the day of
Christ's death, and yet was so indifferent as to the mode in which the day was
celebrated ! How could he allow the contradiction of the ^ayelv and naOe'iv on
the same day to remain unremoved ? How could he sanction that contradiction
by personally taking part in the Passover of Asia Minor, while in his Gospel he
did all in his power to oppose it ? And what brought him to correct the belief
he found existing in Asia Minor, and thereby to run counter to the universal
tradition, confirmed by the Synoptics, according to which Christ died on the
15th? One who supposes that the self-contradiction into which the apostle
John would thus have been involved can be got rid of in this easy way, must
have failed entirely to see how radical a difTerence was involved iu the question
of the day of the death of Jesus.

176 CnURCE HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

predecessors. But the Epistle of Irenaeus to Victor, the bishop of
Eome, shows that the line of bishops of Eome, whom Irenaeus
designated as fi^ r7)povvT€<; (though at the same time they stood in
friendly relations to the Tripovvre<;), could not be traced further
than Anicetus, Pius, Hyginus, Telesphorus, and Xystus. The last of
these, Eusebius tells us (E. H. iv. 4), was bishop of Eome during the
time of Hadrian from the third to the twelth year of the reign of
that emperor (cir. 120-129), Whatever the causes may have been
which combined to give the Church of Eome a more and more
anti- Jewish tendency during the course of the second century, there
is no doubt that the inner reason was the freer development of
the Christian consciousness. The principal expression of this
tendency was in connection with the Old Testament typology, the
relation between type and antitype coming to be more exactly
defined. Justin, though he holds the Passover of the Old Testament
to be a type of Christ, yet agreed with the synoptic version with
regard to the day of the death of Jesus.^

But when it was emphatically maintained against opponents that
Jesus did not keep the Jewish Passover, it became necessary to
look for grounds to justify this assertion. And the only way to
justify it was to define the relation of type and antitype more accu-
rately. The more completely the type and antitype coincide, the
less is it possible for the type to retain any importance, when once
the full reality of the antitype has taken its place. This became the
fundamental and guiding thought upon the subject : we find this
thought also in the Gnostic writers of the period, when they attempt
to define the exact significance of the types and symbols of the
Old Testament.^ Allegorical interpretation being regarded as

^ Dial. c. Tryph. c. iii. ; cf. c. 40. lu the latter passage the manner in which
Justin considers the Passover to be a type of Christ is especially deserving of
notice. He sees the typical element only in the blood which was put upon the
houses, and in the form of the cross, which the Iamb presented when it was being
roasted. He thus leaves quite unnoticed that sign to which the evangelist, xix.
36, attaches the highest importance. How could he have done so if he had been
acquainted with tlie Gospel of John ?

* Cf. iu particular tlie E2)istle to Flora of the Gnostic Ptolemaeus in Ejtiphauiua,
Haer. xxxiii. 5. Havra ravra, Ptolemaeus says of the Old Testament types,

TEE JOffANNINE GOSPEL. 177

the key to the Scriptures, and as the highest knowledge, those
who occupied this point of view, and thought it enabled them
to gain a deeper insight into the relation of type and antitype,
considered themselves to be standing at a higher stage of Chris-
tian knowledge than others. This is the point of the charge
which we find in the fragments of ApoUinaris and Hippolytus,
where they speak of the ignorance and contentiousness of their
opponents, since being destitute of that true insight into the
subject which is possible only to those who know how to dis-
tinguish correctly between type and antitype, and to place them
in their true relation to each other, they yet obstinately adhere
to their alleged tradition, and contend against their opponents
with regard to that which the latter believe themselves to under-
stand far better.

In this view of it the Paschal controversy is one of the most
important stages in that series of endeavours which the Church put
forth in the second century to indicate the positions which had
been attained in the freer development of the Christian principle, by
purifying and disengaging itself from the elements of Judaism that
still adhered to it. The Gospel of John is essentially a product of
these movements, and is the purest expression of that higher form
of the Christian consciousness which issued out of this process of
development. It regards the breach of Christianity with Judaism
as an accomplished fact, and the attitude which it takes up to
Jewish Christianity is a similar one. Since Christ has been
sacrificed as the Passover, the Passover no longer concerns Chris-
tians. The Passover is now a purely Jewish festival : for Chris-
tians it is abrogated (to Trda^a twv 'lovZalcov, ii. 13, vi. 4, xi. 55).
This is part of the general view of this Gospel, according to the
language of which even the law is merely the law of the Jews.
Wliat led the author of the Gospel to identify himself in this way

among which the Passover is specially named, (Ikovh kui <TVfi^o\a oura rfjj
(ikrjSfias (fmvfpcodeicrrjs fX(TfTi6r], Kara fxtv to (fxiivofifvov Koi cTOifiaTiKMS fKTeXds-
6ai dvrjpfSj], Kara be to nvevfiaTiKov (\vfXT](p6ri, tuv fifv ovofiarav tS)v aiiTuiv
fj.ev6i>T(jL>v, ivr]XKayfiev(t}V 8i ratv npayfidrav.

M

178 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

with tlie apostle John can have been nothing but his conscious-
ness that he had reached a higher stage of development, where all
particularism was left far behind. John alone — but only John
as spiritualised in the sense of this Gospel — is for the author
the highest expression of the Christian consciousness. In the
Johannine Gospel, then, John is distinguished as the most intimate
disciple, as the beloved disciple who was nearest to Jesus — a thing
which is quite peculiar to this Gospel. Indeed this is carried
so far as to assign to John a position in which Peter himself
has need of his mediation, and is designedly represented in a
subordinate position to him. This is a most obvious protest
against the primacy attributed to the apostle Peter by the Jewish
Christians.-^ The John who thus claims a position above Peter
himself is not a historical but a merely ideal person. The
evangelist's conception of the Spirit tends in the same direction.
The Spirit only comes in his fulness after the close of the earthly
life of Jesus, and thus stands, as the universal Christian prin-
ciple, high above the personal authority even of the apostles.
In the difference which existed between Paulinism and Judaism
on this subject, the Johannine Gospel goes a step beyond
even Paulinism.^

The same is the case with his doctrinal system. The Jewish-
Christian and the Pauline doctrine are here blended together in a
higher unity. Faith has the same inwardness in which its value
consists with Paul ; but its object is not the death of Jesus with its
efficacy for the forgiveness of sins, but the whole person of Jesus as
the incarnate Logos ; or, since Jesus as one sent cannot be thought

1 Cf. my Krit. Untersuch. p. 320, sq., 377, sq.

' The Spirit is sent forth to operate unrestrictedly after the glorification of Jesus,
and represents the 2)erson of Jesus himself. He who believes on him, the Jesus
of John says, out of him flow rivers of living water (vii. 38). It is the sphere
of pure spirituality into which this Gospel transports us. As Paul by his vocation
broke in upon the old apostolic circle, so the bearers and possessors of the
apostolic spirit are now said to be the believing disciples in general : cf. xvii.
20, sq. According to the Johannine view, therefore, it is by no means an essential
condition with regard to the origin of such a Gospel as that of John, that its
author should be an apostle.

THE JOHANNINE GOSPEL. 179

of apart from his intimate oneness with him who sends him, the
object of faith is God himself. The relation of Jesus, as the Son to
the Father, is the absolute type for the whole relation of man to God.
What the Son is absolutely, those who believe on him are to
become through his mediation. In the same relation in which the
Son stands to the Father believers also stand not only to the Son,
but through his mediation to the Father also. The ruling prin-
ciple of the relation is love actively manifesting itself by unreserved
devotion, and by following the Divine will. The highest absolute
principle of this love is the love of the Father to the Son, and of
God to the world. Love is thus the dominant conception from
which the Johannine mode of view sets out ; and this is the point
at which the Johannine doctrine diverges from the Pauline. Lofty
as is the apostle Paul's conception of the love of God, yet it results
from his view of the law, that love always has righteousness stand-
ing over against it. Man cannot get away from the law without
satisfaction being rendered to the claim which the law is entitled
to put forward against him, without his debt being cancelled, his
ransom paid. From the standpoint of the Gospel of John we see
that, on the one hand, the law has come to be at such a distance
from the present field of vision, that its claims may as it were be
regarded as antiquated — there is no occasion for trying to arrive at
a definite understanding with the law. On the other hand, the view
taken of the whole person of Jesus does not admit of any one
feature of his work or personality being insisted on so much more
than the rest, as that the whole work of redemption should centre
in his death. That death is redemptive only to the same extent
as the whole manifestation of Jesus is redemptive. What the fact
of the death is with Paul the simple personality of Jesus is here —
the person of Jesus in its absolute significance. To gain a correct
idea of the relation of the Johannine standpoint to that of Paul, we
must consider that all those antitheses, through which Pauliuism
was obliged to fight its way, were to the author of the Johannine
Gospel a part of a far distant past. Faith and works are merged
in love, their higher unity. Jewish particularism, with all the

180 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

antitheses connected with it, disappears in that general antithesis
which forms the background of the Johannine view of the world
— the antithesis of the two principles, light and darkness, which
exercise a determining influence on the moral as well as the
religious world.

At this stage the development of the Christian principle has
reached its definite goal within the sphere which we are at present
considering. Christianity is established as a universal principle of
salvation ; all those antitheses which threatened to detain it
within the narrow limits of Jewish particularism are merged in
the universalism of Christianity. This has come about at two
different points, at each of which a series of phenomena has
run its course, each independent of the other. The one point is to
be found in the Church of Eome ; the other in the Gospel of John.
At both these points the Christian consciousness is working out its
freer development, and in both it has the same goal before it, the
realisation of the idea of the Catholic Church. In the Gospel of
John this process of development presents itself to us on its ideal,
in the Church of Eome on its practical side. In the former the
development of the Christian consciousness already bears the char-
acter of a Christian theology : in the latter the great question is
to realise the practical idea of the Church. On the one side the
movement proceeds from a definite point : we stand upon the firm
ground of historical reality ; there are definite antitheses which it
is sought to reconcile : on the other side the whole mode of thought
floats in the sphere of a transcendental idealism. "We do not even
know where the Gospel of John came into existence. It is true
that it is connected in many ways with the Church of Asia Minor
and with the controversies which during the course of the second
century made that Church the centre of the ecclesiastical move-
ment ; yet both as a whole and in many of its individual features
it exhibits such a decidedly Alexandrian stamp, and so close an
affinity to the later Alexandrian theology, that we cannot avoid the
conclusion that it represents the Alexandrian tendency, and that
in whatever part of Christendom it may have come into existence.

LATER EBIONITISM. 181

we have to seek the root out of which it grew chiefly in this
direction. In spite of its ideal and theological character it does
not lose sight of the practical task involved in the idea of the
Church, as when it speaks of the one fold and the one shepherd.
It agrees with the Eoman Church in its broad anti-Judaistic
tendency ; its most direct point of contact with that Church, how-
ever, lies in the common opposition of the Church and of the Gospel
to the Judaism of the Quartodecimans of Asia Minor. The endea-
vour after unity had already been manifested in the Church of Eome
in the brotherly agreement effected between the two apostles Peter
and Paul ; and the same spirit imposed it on that Church as a
necessary task to work out its views of Catholic unity against this
relic of the old tenacious adhesion to Judaism. There must no
longer be any such declared Judaists as the Quartodecimans still
were ; and thus another element, which originally formed a link
of connection between Christianity and Judaism, but in regard to
which Christianity desired no longer to be associated with Judaism,
was now eliminated from the Christian Church. Thus it was
declared that whoever should cling with the old tenacity to any
one of the Jewish elements from which the Christian consciousness
in the course of its development had gradually disengaged itself,
placed himself thereby outside of the pale of the Catholic Church
at least, if not of Christianity. This is the idea which now, from
the end of the second century onwards, came to be connected with
the term Ebionites. Ebionites at this part of Church history are
those Jewish Christians who at this later period, even after a
Catholic Church had come into existence, exhibited all those char-
acteristics which had originally found their own place within the
Christian community, and had even been regarded as an essential
part of Christianity, but which the Catholic Church at a later time
no longer sanctioned.^

The Ebionites, when we find them as a sect disowned by the
Catholic Church, are just what the Jewish Christians were
originally, as distinguished from the Pauline Christians. Irenaeus,
1 Cf. Lehrbuch der Dogmengesch., 2d ed., p. 64.

182 CHUBCE HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

■who is the first to speak of the Ebionites as a sect not
belonging to the Catholic Church,^ and Epiphanius, who gives
a description of such remainders of the party as still survived at
his time,^ specify the same features as were originally charac-
teristic of Jewish Christians generally. The account given of
them by Irenaeus they worship Jerusalem as if it were the house
of God, is a very pointed indication of their view of the absolute
importance of Judaism. The Ebionites of Epiphanius held firmly
to circumcision ; they went so far as to regard it as the seal and
characteristic mark not only of the patriarchs and of the just men
who lived according to the law, but of the followers of Christ, who
(they said) was himself circumcised.'

By their hatred toward the apostle Paul and their express
rejection of his Epistles, the Ebionites were afterwards distinguished
from the more tolerantly disposed Kazarites, of whom at least this
is not stated. The accounts we have of the Ebionitic Passover
imply that they observed the Jewish festival in the same manner
as the Quartodecimans. Epiphanius asserts that the Ebionites did
not arise till after the destruction of Jerusalem. This statement,
however, is completely unhistorical, and is a mere inference from
the assumption that nothing afterwards deemed heretical could have
been an original part of orthodox Christianity. The Ebionites did
not become a sect till later ; even Justin does not regard them as
a sect. But an examination of their principles, doctrines, and
usages, while it shows us in many points the harsh sectarianism of
their attitude, points at the same time to a very close identity and
connection with Jewish Christianity. So much is this the case
that it cannot be deemed an unjustifiable use of the name to say
that Jewish Christianity in general was a kind of Ebionitism. In

* Adv. Haer. i. 26. ^ Haer. xxx. 1, sq.

3 Against Ilitschl, who (op. cit., 2d ed. p. 172) regards the Testament of the
Twelve Patriarchs as a product of Nazaraism, Hilgeufeld maintains (Zeitschrift
fiir wissensch. Theol. 1858, p. 287, sq.) that the Nazarites and Ebionites are not
so much two separate sects of Jewish Christianity as rather different modifications
of the old hostility against Paulinism as it softened down to a more tolerant
attitude towards Ckntile Christianity.

LATER EBIONITISM. 183

the ordinary and narrower sense of the name, however, it denotes
that form of primitive Christianity which by no other action
than its own came to be detached from the community of the
Catholic Church, because its adherents were unable to keep
pace with the development of the Christian consciousness in its
advance beyond Jewish Christianity.

PART THIRD.

CHRISTIANITY AS AN IDEAL PRINCIPLE OF THE WORLD; AND AS A
REAL PHENOMENON EXISTING UNDER HISTORICAL CONDITIONS ; OR,

GNOSTICISM AND MONTANISM, AND THEIR ANTITHESIS,
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

I._GNOSTICISM AND MONTANISM.

I. GNOSTICISM.

With the name and the notion of " Gnosticism " (the reason for
coupling it with Montanism in the title cannot be explained till
afterwards) we enter upon a totally different field of the history of
the early Church from that which we have hitherto been discussing.
The question is no longer whether Christianity is a particular or a
universal principle of salvation, or as to the conditions on which
the Christian salvation is to be obtained. The practical interest is
no longer merely that of breaking through and putting aside the
barriers that impede the free and more universal development of
Christianity. The circle of vision is completely changed. God
and the world, spirit and matter, absolute and finite, the origin,
development, and end of the world : these are the conceptions and
antitheses into the sphere of wdiich we are now transferred. In
I a word, Christianity is now to be apprehended not as a principle
jof salvation, but as a principle of the world. The phenomena
with which we have now to deal have their own point of com-
mencement, form a circle by themselves, and have a character
of their own. So much is this the case, that in fact it is merely

GNOSTICISM. 185

the name of Christianity that connects them with the rest of the
phenomena which form the history of the early Church. Yet on
the other hand they are not without weighty significance for the
history of the development of the Catholic Church. It is involved
first of all in the very idea of the Catholic Chiirch that she should
seek to rise above everything particular, and merge it in the uni-
versality of the Christian principle ; but on the other hand it is
a not less essential part of her ofl&ce to maintain and hold fast the
positive elements of Christianity. In fact, what constitutes her a
Catholic Church is that she stands in the middle to harmonise all
tendencies together, and rejects the one extreme as much as the
other. Had not the idea that developed itself out of Christianity,
the idea of the Catholic Church, overcome the particularism of
Judaism, Christianity itself would have become a mere sect of
Judaism. But on the other side, on the side where it came in
contact with heathenism, it was threatened by a danger no less
serious, viz., that ideas would come to operate upon the Christian
doctrines, under the influence of which they would fade away into
vague and general abstractions, so that the Christian consciousness
spreading out in limitless expansion would entirely lose its specific
historical character. Now this was the tendency of Gnosticism, I
and the general account which we have to give of Gnosticism in |
view of this tendency is, that it regarded Christianity not in the
first instance as a principle of salvation, but as the principle that
determines the whole development of the world. Thus the interests
out of which it arose were those of speculation and philosophy
rather than religion; and it points back to philosophy as the
highest outcome of the human spirit in the Gentile world.

This suffices for a general indication of what Gnosticism is.
But when we attempt to give a more particular account of the
nature and development of the conception, we find that, even after
all the discussion that has taken place on the subject, especially of
recent years, this is by no means an easy or simple task. It is still
an unaccomplished task, to seize, amidst so much that is indefinite,
vague, merely circumlocutory, and only partly true, those points

186 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

that furnish a clear conception of the thing itselt The most usual
course is to conceive Gnosticism as being in the first instance theo-
logical speculation. This is Gieseler's^ account of it. He finds
the philosophical basis which serves to e:3^1ain it partly in the old
problem of the origin of evil, and partly in the development of
philosophical thought with reference to God, In working out the
idea of the Supreme Deity, he says, philosophy found it more
and more difficult to regard him as the creator of the world, and
became more and more inclined to derive the imperfect good in
the world from inferior beings, and the evil from an evil principle.
These ideas found support in the Christian view of Christianity,
Judaism, and Paganism, as the perfect, the imperfect, and the evil.
Neander^ starts from the aristocratic spirit of the ancient world,
from the distinction drawn between those who know and those who
believe, and from the eclectic character of Gnosticism, and goes on
to say that, " as soon as Christianity entered into man's intellectual
life, it could not fail that a need should be felt to attain to a clear
consciousness as to the connection of the truths given by revelation
with the previous intellectual possessions of mankind, and also as
to the inner connection of Christian truth as an organic whole.
Where such a need, instead of being satisfied, was forcibly sup-
pressed, there the one-sided tendency of Gnosticism found its
justification." But this is obscure, and Neander's favourite cate-
gory of reaction is here inapplicable. We look for the solution of
the riddle therefore in what follows — "The speculative element
in the Gnos-tic systems is not the product of a reason divorced from
history, and resolved to draw everything from its own depths.
The void into which a merely negative philosophy invariably sinks
had set the human spirit, which ever craves for reality, to seek for
a more positive doctrine. In the Gnostic systems we can discover

1 elements of Platonic philosophy, Jewish theology, ancient Oriental

theosophy, blended together ; but they by no means admit of being
explained by the mere mixture and combination of these elements.
There is a peculiar living principle which animates most of these
1 K. G. L 1, p. 179, 8q., 4. N. 2 Church Hist, vol. ii. p. 1.

GNOSTICISM. 187

combinations. The time in which they appeared stamped them
with a peculiar character. In any age there are certain tendencies
and ideas which exert a wonderful influence upon everything con-
temporary with them. Such, in the present case, was the dualistic
principle whose influence harmonised with, and, as it were, reflected
the prevailing temper of the age. The underlying tone in many
of the more earnest spirits of this time was a consciousness of the
power of evil ; and Christianity operated in a peculiar way upon
this feeling." According to this, the origin and nature of Gnosti-
cism are to be explained by the influence of the dualistic principle.
Now, unquestionably dualism is an essential feature of the charac-
ter of the Gnostic systems. But it cannot suffice to explain the
nature of Gnosticism ; for the influence of this principle is not seen
till it becomes apparent in Gnosticism itself. Neander's most
pertinent contribution to the understanding of Gnosticism comes
to this : " Gnosticism sought to make the doctrine of religion de-
pendent on a speculative solution of all those questions which
speculation had been vainly labouring to solve. In this way
it was to lay for doctrine a firm foundation, and to provide for the
correct understanding of it ; so that this was to be the way in which
men were to arrive at an understanding of Christianity, and attain
to a true conviction, independent of anything external. In a word,
then, Gnosticism was a philosophy of religion ; but in what sense
was it this?^

The name of Gnosticism — Gnosis — does not belong exclusively
to the group of phenomena with whose historical explanation we
are here concerned. Gnosis is a general idea ; it is only as defined
in one particular manner that it signifies Christian Gnosticism in

* Cf. on the notion of Gnosticism my Inaugural Dissertation de Gnosticorum
christianismo ideali, Tub. 1827 ; and my work die Christliche Gnosis oder die
christliche Religionspliilosophie in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung, Ttib. 1835.
Also my Essays : Kritische Studien liber den Begrifif der Gnosis, Theol. Stud. u.
Krit. 18.37, iii. p. 51 1, sq. Ueber den Begriff der christlichen Religionsphilosophie
ihren Ursprung und ihre ersten Formen ; Zeitschr. fur speculative TlieoL, edited
by Lie. Bruno Bauer, ii. 2, Berlin, 1837, p. 354, sq. Also my Lehrb. d. christ-
lichen Dogmengeschichte, 2d ed., Tiib. 1858, p. 69, sq. ; and "Die Tubinger
Schule," p. 50, sq.

188 CnURCE HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

a special sense. Gnosis is higher knowledge, knowledge that has
a clear perception of the foundations on which it rests, and the
manner in which its structure has been built up ; a knowledge that
is completely that which, as knowledge, it is called to be. In this
sense it forms the natural antithesis to Pistis, Faith : if it is desired
to denote knowledge in its specific difference from faith, no word
will mark the distinction more significantly than Gnosis. But we
find that, even in this general sense, the knowledge termed Gnosis
is a religious knowledge rather than any other ; for it is not specu-
lative knowledge in general, but only such as is concerned with
religion. Thus the apostle Paul uses the word yvcoai<; to charac-
terise that view of the eating of meat offered to idols, which claimed
acceptance as more liberal than any other, as more enlightened,
more strictly in accord with the essence of the matter in question.
In 1 Cor. xii. 8 he speaks of a X0709 'yvwaew'i which, moreover, he
distinguishes from the Xoyo'^ a-o(f)la<;.

The distinction must lie in the greater depth of thought put for-
ward in the former style of address. It is especially noteworthy
for our purpose that we find the word <yvo)cn<i, in its more particular
sense, used of such religious knowledge as rests on allegorical inter-
pretation of the Scriptures.^ Gnosis and allegory are essentially
allied conceptions; and this affords us a very marked indication
of the path which will really lead us to the origin of Gnosticism ;
for ^ve shall find that allegory plays an important part in most of
its systems, especially in those which exhibit its original form.

It is well known that allegory is the soul of the Alexandrian re-
ligious philosophy. Nothing else, indeed, can enable us to under-
stand the rise of the latter ; so closely is allegory interwoven with its
very nature. Allegory is in general the mediator between philosophy
and the religion which rests upon positive tradition. Wherever it
is seen on a large scale, we notice that philosophical views have
arisen side by side with, and independently of, the existing religion ;
and that the need has arisen to bring the ideas and doctrines of
philosophy into harmony with the contents of the religious behef.
^ Cf. Jie cbristliclie Gnosis, p. 85, sq.

GNOSTICISM, THE ORIGIN OF. 189

In such circumstances allegory appears in the character of media-
tor. It brings about the desired conformity by simply interpret-
ing the belief in the sense of the philosophy. Religious ideas and
narratives are thus clothed with a figurative sense which is entirely
different from their literal meaning. It was thus that allegory
arose before the Christian time among the Greeks. The desire was
felt first by Plato, and afterwards still more strongly by the Stoics,
to turn the myths of the popular religion to account on behalf of
their philosophical ideas, and so to bridge over the gulf between
the philosophical and the popular mind ; and with this view they
struck out the path of allegory, of allegorical interpretation of the
myths. It is well known what extensive use the Stoics made of
allegory when they wished to trace their own ideas of the philo-
sophy of nature in the gods of the popular belief and the narratives
concerning them.^ But in Alexandria this mode of interpretation
assumed still greater importance. Here it had to solve the weighty
problem how the new ideas that had forced their way into the
mind and consciousness of the Jew, were to be reconciled with his
belief in the authority of his sacred religious books. Allegory
alone made it possible to him, on the one hand, to admire the
philosophy of the Greeks, and in particular of Plato, and to make
its ideas his own ; and, on the other, to reverence the Scriptures of
the Old Testament as the one source of divinely revealed truth.
The sacred books needed but to be explained allegorically, and
then all that was wished for, even the boldest speculative ideas of
the Greek mind, could be found in the books themselves. How
widely this method was practised in Alexandria may be judged
from the writings of Philo, in which we see the most extensive use
made of allegorical interpretation, and find the contents of the Old
Testament blended intimately with everything that the systems of
Greek philosophy could offer. But it would be quite erroneous to
think that it was nothing but caprice and the unchecked play of
fancy that called forth this allegorical explanation of the Scrip-
tures, which came to exercise such influence. For the Alexandrian

^ Zeller, Philosophie der Grieclien, iii. p. 123, sq.

190 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

Jew at the stage of spiritual development which he had now
reached, with his consciousness divided between his ancestral
Hebraism and modern Hellenism, this allegorising was a neces-
sary form of consciousness ; and so little did he dream that the
artificial link by which he bound together such diverse elements
was a thing he had himself created, that aU the truth which he
accepted in the systems of Greek philosophy seemed to him to be
nothing but an emanation from the Old Testament revelation.

Now the Gnostic systems also, for the most part, make very
free use of the allegorical method of interpretation ; and this is
enough to apprise us that we must regard them under the same
aspect as the Alexandrian religious philosophy. As far as we
are acquainted with the writings of the Gnostics we see them to
have been full of allegorical interpretations, not indeed referring,
as with Philo, to the books of the Old Testament (for their
attitude towards the Old Testament was entirely different trom
his) ; but to those of the New, which were for the Gnostics what
the books of the Old Testament were for Philo. In order to sive
their own ideas a Christian stamp, they applied the allegorical
method, as much as possible, to the persons and events of the
(Jospel history, and especially to the numbers that occur in it.
Thus for the Valentinians the number thirty in the New Testa-
ment, especially in the life of Jesus, was made to signify the
number of their Aeons ; the lost wandering sheep was for them
their Achamoth ; and even utterances of Jesus which contain
a perfectly simple religious truth, received from them a sense
referring to the doctrines of their system. The lately discovered
Philosophoumena of the Pseudo-Origen,^ who undertook the task
of refuting all the heresies, show us even more clearly than before
what an extensive use the Gnostics made of allegory. They
applied it not merely to the books of the Old and New Testaments,
but even to the products of Greek literature, — for instance, to the
Homeric poems. Their whole mode of view was entirely allego-

^ 'flpiytVov? (f)i\oao({)oviJ,(i>a, *] Kara naaaiv alpea fcov tX6y;(oy. E codice Parisino
nunc i)rimum edidit Euiuianuel Miller. Oxonii, 1S51.

GNOSTICISM— ALLEGORY. 191

rical. The whole field of ancient mythology, astronomy, and
physics was laid under contribution to support their views. They
thought that the ideas that were the highest objects of their
thought and knowledge were to be found expressed everywhere.^

The allegorical mode of thought may be described as being simply
the means by which a matter composed of various elements receives
a form not unsuitable for itself — a form which makes it easily
approachable from a side with which it would naturally have least
in common. In trying to understand Gnosticism, then, we have
first to ask what is the inner nature of that matter for which
allegory provides no more than the outward form of expression.
In this respect too. Gnosticism stands in a relation of the closest
affinity to the Alexandrian religious philosophy, and must be pro-
nounced to be essentially a mere continuation and development of
the latter. Both derived their principal contents from Greek philo-
sophy. The system of Philo may be called a speculative system
of religion ; and the character of the Gnostic systems is closely
similar. Such was indeed the light in which the early doctors of
the Church regarded Gnosticism. They declared it to be a different
thing from Christianity, to be a purely worldly wisdom, and (for
instance TertuUian) reproached philosophy with being the author

^ Cf. the Philos. v. 8. p. 106. Tovrots Koi toIs toiovtois fivofifvoi o[ davfiaaioi-
TOTOi Tvaa-TiKol, ffPtvpfrai Ktvrjs Tfxvrjs ypafi^ariKiis, top eavrcoi' ■npo(f)r]Tr]u"OfiT]pov
ravra TrpocpalvovTa app^rays do^d^ova-i koi tovs dfivrjrovs ras ayias ypa(j}as (Is
Toiavras ivvoias crvvdyovTfs evv^pi^ovcri- iv. 46, p. 81. "ipa 8i aacpeartpa to7s
evTvyxuPov(Ti ra pi]6t](r6p€pa c^ac ij, 8oKfl Koi to. tco 'Aparco TTfCppovTiapipa nepl Tijs
Kara tcop ovpaviav aarpuip 8ia6f(T€aii e^dirdv, ws rivfs fls ra iino tHhp Ypa(^a>v
elprijjLiPa drrfiKOPi^opTts avrd dWrjyopovai, ptTo. (leg. dnarap orrrXapap) top poOu Tutv
■iTpo(T€xdPTu>p TTfipwpepoi, Tn-Bapols \6yois TfpocrdyoPTfs avTovs npos a /SouXoj/rat,
^fvop davfjLa ip8eiKPvpepoi 6)s KaTrja-TepicrpepoiP Totp vtt uvtUp Xfyopepap : at v. 20,
p. 143, it is said of the Sethiani : (an de 6 Adyor avToip a-vyndpepos (k (fyvcriKciv
Kol irpos erepa (Iprjpepap pripuTutp, d tts top di^iop \6yop perdyovTes SirjyoiiPTai,
p. 144. E(TTt 5« aiiTo'is rj ndaa 8iSao"KaXia tov Xuyov iino tcop TTuXaiaip dfoXuyap,
Movcraiov koi AIpov, koi tov tus TeXfrur kuI tci pv<jTi]pia KaTabei^avTOi 'Op0t'tos. Of
the Gnostic sect of the Peratai it is said v. 13, p. 127, that tliey fVtx/'euo-ci^ei/oi
Tw TTjs dXrjddas oPopaTi cos XpiCTOV Xuyop KaTrjyyfiKap aloipmp (rrdaip koi
dnocrTacrias dyadiop 8vpdp(a>p (Is kuko, etc. The w hole of the fancies of astrologers
about the stars are interpreted by them in their own sense, and from this it may
be seen that their Xdyot tS>v daTpoXoyav onoXoyovpepois flcriv ov XpiaTov.

192 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

of tlie heresies.^ Nor did tliey derive Gnosticism merely from
philosophy in general ; they sought also to prove in detail from what
philosophical systems the Gnostics had borrowed the main ideas
and principles of their own. Irenaeus and Tertullian opened up
this line of argument, but it was the author of the Philosophoumena
who gave the most thoroughgoing demonstration of it. This is the
design of his whole work The refutation of the Gnostic heresies
which the author proposes to give, consists merely in showing that one
Gnostic writer followed one Greek philosopher, and another another ;
e.g. Simon Magus followed Heraclitus the Obscure, Valentinus
Pjrtliagoras and Plato, Basilides Aristotle, Marcion Empedocles.
With a view to as accurate as possible a demonstration of this agree-
ment, the author of the Philosophoumena sets forth the doctrines
of the Greek philosophers in order from Thales downwards. His
demonstration is not very convincing, since he deals chiefly with
detached points of agreement and with external analogies ; but on
the whole, he lays before us enough to confirm the general view,
that the basis of Gnosticism was the philosophical thought of
antiquity : that this was transplanted by Gnosticism into Christi-
anity, with which it was then blended into a system consisting of
various elements, but resting on one and the same conception of the
universe. In its form and contents Christian Gnosticism is the

^ De praescr. liaer. c. 7. Hae sunt cloctrinae hominum et daemoniorum, prurien-
tibus auribus uatae de ingenio sajiientiae secularis, quani Dommus stultitiaui
vocans stulta mundi in confusionem etiam ])bilosoph ae ipsius elegit. Ea estenim
materia sapientiae secularis, temeraria interpres divinae naturae et dispositionia.
Ipsae denique haereses a philosophia subornantur. Inde aeones et formae nescio
quae infinitae, et trinitas hominis apud Valentinum : Platonicus fuerat : inde
jMarcionis Deus melior a tranquillitate ; a Stoicis venerat ; et uti anima interior
dicatur, ab Epicureis observatur ; et ut carnis restitutio negetur, de una omnium
pliilosophorum schola sumitur ; et ubi materia cum Deo aequatur Zeuouis dis-
ciplina est, et ubi aliquid de igneo Deo allogatur, Heraclitus intervenit. Eadem
materia apud haereticos et philosophos volutatur, iidem retractatus implicantur :
unde malum et quare, et iinde homo et quomodo ? et quod proxime Valentinus
proposuit, vmde Dens ? scilicet de enthymesi et ectromate. Miserum Aris-
totclem ! qui illis dialecticam instituit, artificem struendi et destruendi, versi
pellem in sententiis, coactam in coujecturis, duram in argumentis, oi)erariam
oontentionum, molestam etiam sibi ipsi, omnia retractantem, ne quid omnino
tractaverit.

GNOSTICISM— SPIRIT AND MATTER. 193

expansion and development of Alexandrian religious philosophy ;
which was itself an offshoot of Greek philosophy. But if we are
to gain a more accurate notion of what Gnosticism was, we must
analyse its main ingredients, and ask with regard to each of
its characteristic conceptions whether it belongs to pagan or to
Christian thought.

The fundamental character of Gnosticism in all its forms is
dualistic, ^ It is its sharply-defined, all-pervading dualism that,
more than anything else, marks it directly for an offspring of
paganism. Pagan antiquity never got past the antithesis of spirit
and matter, and was unable to conceive a world produced by the
free creative activity of a purely personal will. In the same way
in Gnosticism the two principles, spirit and matter, form the great
and general antithesis, within the bounds of which the systems
move with aU that they contain. Now these two principles cannot
merely confront each other in an abstract antithesis. Accordingly
the main substance of the systems is the process of world-develop-
ment which is brought about by the action of the principles upon
each other. The world is constituted by, and is the sum-total of
the relative and restricted antitheses which proceed from the
limitation of the absolute antithesis. The fixed path which every-
thing is to pursue in the world is determined on this side or on
that according as the shifting balance dips on the one side or the
other of the universal antithesis. The activity which initiates
this process comes either from the one side or the other. If from
matter, matter in its self- originated activity is the principle of
evil, and the process of the world-development therefore takes the
form of a continuous antagonism, in which two hostile powers act
and react on one another. For matter, as the kingdom of dark-
ness, has a natural instinct of enmity to the principle of light.
But if the first impulse of the world-development is on the side
of the spiritual principle, then this impulse also must be of a
spiritual kind. The moving principle is then the process of the
spirit with itself: the natural tendency of spirit is to differentiate
itseK from itself, and in the differentiation of the several momenta

N

194 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

which are posited by the thinking activity, to become self-conscious
spirit — spirit reflected into itself. From this highest height in the
purely spiritual process, the world- development goes forward to the
sphere of physical and material life. Matter is itself but the limit
of the spiritual being, spirit become objective and external to itself.
The conception of matter is thus a very negative one ; but the
dualistic mode of thouglit does not fail to maintain here also the
absolute antithesis of its two principles ; the principle of matter is
posited in the very impulse of the spirit to go forth from itself and
objectivate itself; the principle of matter lies in the tendency from
above downwards of the spirit materialising itself, a tendency which
admits of no ulterior explanation. Again, it is an equally essential
attribute of the spiritual principle, that spirit frees itself again from
the dominion that matter has obtained over it, and rises absolutely
victorious over every limitation and obscuration that matter can
make it suffer. Thus the whole course of the world- development
ends only with the return of spirit into itself as pure spirit. Yet
the absolute antithesis of the two principles is not at an end even
here. The same process of world-development may at once begin
afresh, and again follow the same course. The principle of matter
can never be so completely removed, the opposing principles can
never be so abstractly conceived, that the possibility or necessity
should cease to exist for spirit to be drawn again, in an endless
series of worlds, into the same process of world- development.
Matter cannot raise itself to spirit, but spirit can always externalise
itself into matter, and sink down into matter ; and accordingly it
is by the emanations and projections (Trpo^oXal) of the spirit that
the infinite abyss between spirit and matter is filled up and the
transition from spirit to matter provided for as far as may be.
Thus in most of the Gnostic systems an important position is
occupied by the Aeons, as the forms of the spirit objectivating
itself. In fact it is this conception, that of the Aeons, more than
anything else, that identifies these systems with the ancient mode
of thought. The Aeons are but the personified ideas, the arche-
types of the finite world : in them we are presented with that
antithesis of the ideal and the real, or of the upper and the lower

GNOSTICISM— THE DEMIURGUS. 195

world, which also enters into the very substance of the Gnostic
systems.

A further leading Gnostic conception is the Demiurgus. The
two highest principles being spirit and matter, and the true con-
ception of a creation of the world being thus excluded, it follows
in the Gnostic systems, and is a characteristic feature of them, that
they separate the creator of the world from the supreme God, and
give him a position subordinate to the latter. He is therefore
rather tlie artificer than the creator of the world. But where did
the Gnostics get their notion of a Demiurgus ? From the fact
that he is identified with the God of Judaism, we might be led to
think that he simply came from Judaism into their systems, and
that the notion was one which belonged only to the standpoint of
the Jewish religion. But Platonism also had its Demiurgus, who
held the same position as the Demiurgus of Gnosticism.^ On the
one hand indeed the Platonic Demiurgus stands above the 6eol
Oeoiv, the gods of the mythical nature-religion, as the one God and
the father of works, which have been made by him, and will not
be destroyed as long as he so wills it. But, on the other hand,
there is a higher principle above him. The Platonic God can only
accomplish his creative work by looking to that which ever remains
the same with itself, the ideas, and by taking them for his arche-
types, and he must be said to be dependent on the ideas. Now since
the Demiurgus holds with Plato the same subordinate position as
with the Gnostics, the conception must be fundamentally the same
in each case. The Platonic Demiurgus is a mythical form. With
Plato the mythical contains an element of truth, in so much as
mythus is a necessary form for the setting forth of the abstract
philosophical idea ; and so the Demiurgus is a mythical personi-
fication of the creative power of the ideas. This personification
is the form by which alone the mythical view is adjusted to the
philosophical consciousness. In the Platonic Demiurgus mythical
polytheism passes into a kind of monotheism, the highest truth of
which is simply this, that the place of the indeterminate j\Iany is
taken by the simple One. This unity on the one hand stands to

^ See my Essay in the Stud. u. Krit., referred to, p. 187.

196 CITURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

express the absolute idea, but the mythical element still asserts
itself in the assumption that the creator of the world is a personal
being free to act, and of the same nature as the gods of the popular
mythical belief. "We must regard the Gnostic Demiurgus in the
same liccht. Wlien it is said that Gnosticism derived the substance
of its thought from Greek philosophy, this is only one side of the
matter ; the other is that the form in which it sets forth that
thought is a reflection of the mythical mode of view of the Greek
popular religion. Not only Greek philosophy, but Greek mythology
as well, is an essential ingredient of Gnosticism. All the beings
that compose the world of Aeons, and present the idea of the abso-
lute in its various relations, are mythical forms. The only distinc-
tion between them and the Demiurgus is that the latter stands at
a lower stage, and therefore appears in a more concrete mythical
form. He reflects and represents the popular mythical conscious-
ness of God. The immediate reason why the Gnostics identified
the Demiurgus with the God of Judaism was, that the God of the
Old Testament is described for the most part as the Creator and
Lord of the world ; but the identification serves to indicate to us
the view the Gnostics took of the Old Testament religion. They
assigned it to a stage of development at wdiich the religious con-
sciousness had not yet risen above an idea so full of sensuous
1 elements as that of the Demiurgus. The Demiurgus proves more
than anything else that the contents of Gnosticism were religion
rather than philosophy. The distinction between religion and
philosophy is, that in religion the philosophical idea, originally
abstract, is presented in a more concrete and material form.
Now Gnosticism measures the rank which is due to such ideas
in proportion to their sensuousness, and reduces them to a lower
rank according as they are more material in their character.
It thus places its own thinking consciousness above the sphere
occupied by the mythico-religious way of thinking, and so is
neither purely philosophy, nor purely religion, but both together.
The relation in wliich it places its two elements, philosophy and
religion, towards each other, is such that the only way in which we
can describe its general character is to call it a religious philosophy.

GNOSTICISM— CHEIST. 197

The Gnostic Demiurgus exemplifies the principle that the relation
of religion to philosophy varies according as the two are conceived
as more or less identical in form and in substance. When, as we
see in Platonism, the Demiurgus is closely united with the
absolute idea of God, the mythical personality appears as a neces-
sary form of presentation, inseparably bound up with the matter
presented. 'When, on the other hand, as in the Gnostic systems,
the Demiurgus is placed far beneath the absolute God, and sharply
distinguished from him, this is a distinct indication that philo-
sophical reflection feels herself to be superior to the concreteness
and materiality of the religious mode of presentation, and able to
discard it. Gnosticism fixed the relation of all these notions,
standpoints, and antitheses to each other, by laying down not merely
two, but three principles, and by regarding the psychical, which
stands between the spiritual and the material, as the peculiar field
of the Demiurgus. These three principles are the elements of all
natural and spiritual being : in particular, they divide men into
three essentially different classes. If a union of the two principles,
spirit and matter, is possible at all, it can only be effected by the
mediation of such a form as the psychical coming in between
them. The psychical is thus, no doubt, a third principle ; but since
there are ultimately only two principles, and the true substance of
the psychical is the spiritual which it contains, it follows from the
constitution of the psychical that it is at last dissolved into the
spiritual. It is the finite, the transitory : the whole world of the
Demiurgus must come to an end again at last. The distinction
between the spiritual and the psychical, into which the distinc-
tion between philosophy and religion may also be analysed, rests
ultimately therefore on the broad fact that there are different
aspects from which our contemplation may set out, so that a
matter identical in itself may yet come to appear in various
forms.

What the Demiurgus is on the one side of the Gnostic systems,
in their direction downwards, Christ is on their other side, in the
direction upwards. There being a descent, there must be an ascent
as well, and we recognise the Christian character of these systems

19S CIIUECII HISTORY OF FIEST THREE CENTURIES.

not only in the fact that they assign this definite place to Christ,
hut also in the great emphasis with which this side is insisted on.
The turning-point of the system as it moves through its various
momenta is found in Christ, All that serves in any way to
adjust the relations of one part with another, to maintain the
connection of the whole, to reunite what has been severed, to bring
back what has wandered, to open up the road from the lower to
the upper world, to bring everything to the point where the con-
summation and completion of the whole world's course is arrived
at — all this is connected with the names Christ and Jesus, and
with the conceptions allied to them. In them is contained the
goal towards which the whole world-development is pressing.
What was originally only a redemption in a moral and religious
sense," becomes in the Gnostic systems the restitution and fulfil-
ment of the whole world-order. Even in the world of Aeons
Christ restores the broken harmony, and acts as a maintaining,
stablishing, uniting principle ; and in the lower world, Jesus who
was born of Mary, the Soter in this peculiar sense, has the similar
task of 8i,op6coai<; or e'7ravop6(oai<i, as the Gnostics term their
notion of redemption.^

Christ is rather a universal cosmical principle than a principle
of salvation. On the one side, where the object to be contemplated
and comprehended is the procession of the finite from the absolute,
the system contained in the Gnostic view of the world takes a
direction from above downwards, and descends deeper and deeper,
till at last it reaches the point where the general reaction must
needs ensue. Christianity comprehends in itself all that lies on
the other and opposite side, in the direction from below upwards.
We may see, indeed, that even before the Gnostic time the doctrine
of Paul contained the suggestions and germs of such a conception
of Christianity. With him, Adam and Christ are placed at the
head of the two great periods of the world, and stand over against
each other as the two principles of the psychical and the spiritual,
of death and life. Through Christ, as the conqueror over sin,
death, and hell, all is at last subjected to God, so that at last God

' riiilos. vi. 19, p. 175, vi. 32, p. 190; 36, p. 195, sq.

GNOSTICISM— CEBINTHUS. ] 99

is all in all. Still more closely allied to Gnosticism is the Christo-
logy which attains such a high and universal range of view in the
two Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians ; though there can
be no doubt that this view is partly owing to the influence of
Gnosticism itself. But only in the Gnostic systems is Christ
placed in suoh a connection that his manifestation and activity,
or Christianity in general, can only be correctly understood in the
light of the great process through which the development of the
world pursues its appointed course as it is conditioned from the
beginning to the end by the conflict of the opposing principles.

Before we can go further in working out the essence of Gnosti-
cism, we must briefly survey its various sects, forms, and systems,
in their historical order.

The earliest known Christian Gnostic is the Jewish Christian
Cerinthus. From the new source of our knowledge of the Gnostic
doctrines,^ as well as from those previously known, we learn that
what may be regarded as the characteristic mark of Gnosticism was
a feature of Cerinthus' teaching, i.e. that he distinguished between
the two notions of God and of the Creator of the world. He is said
to have taught that the world did not come into existence through
the First Being, but through a power separate from the universal
principle, and not knowing the God who is exalted above all. The
Christian element in his Gnosticism appears in the assertion, that
Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary by natural generation, and
differed from other men only in his greater wisdom and righteous-
ness ; that after his baptism Christ, the son of the most high God,
descended upon him in the form of a dove ; that he proclaimed
the unknown Father ;^ but that at last Christ left him again, and
that while Jesus suffered and rose again, Christ remained free
from suffering.

According to the Fathers of the Church, Simon Magus was the
first Gnostic, the forefather of all the Gnostic sects. The ground-
lessness of this assertion is abundantly clear. If Simon was the
originator of all the doctrines which the Fathers ascribe to him, we

^ Philos. vii. 33, p. 256, sq. Comp. Irenaeus, i. 25.

2 The words in Philos., p, 257, are t6v yvaarov nartpa ; but according to
Irenaeus, loc. cit., we have to read ayvcjarov.

200 CHUECH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

should have to date the rise of Gnosticism at a time when according
to all historical indications it was still in the far future. As fore-
father of the Gnostics, the Simon Magus of the Fathers is an
entirely apocryphal and mythical figure, and can only be regarded
as a personification of Gnosticism. His assertion that he himself
is the most high God shows him to be nothing more than a figure
devised to represent the Gnostic idea of the primal Being, of which
indeed he is a personification. But the fundamental idea which
is meant to be mythically symbolised in him and his companion
Helena is the Gnostic idea of syzygy. While seeking to conceive
the primal Being according to the absolute notion of him, and as
abstractly as possible, the Gnostics were compelled to assume the
existence in that Being of a differentiating principle ; else it would
have been impossible to comprehend how the finite could arise out
of the absolute. Accordingly, in their mythical way of looking at
things, they represented the highest Being as at once male and
female. According to the author of the Philosophoumena, Simon
expressed himself with regard to his highest principle in the
following way : ^ — From the one root, which is power, stillness, in-
visible, incomprehensible, proceeded the tw^o branches, which have
neither beginning nor end, of the whole of the Aeons. The one
branch, which is visible from above, is the great power, the under-
standing of the whole, pervading all, and male. The other from
below, is the great eirivoia, female, giving birth to all. The
two come together and form a syzygy, and bring into appear-

* In the ' Air6(f)a(Tis ^eydXrj ascribed to him the words aTro^acrts fieyaXr] are
no doubt to be explained by the sense in which he claimed to be the dvvafiis
HfyaXr). ' Anocfiacris means denial. The great denial is undoubtedly nothing else
than the Gnostic process which, moving through affirmation and denial, between
above and below, between unity and duality, removes and receives back into
itself the forms which have arisen through emanation and projection, and been
set forth into the world of outward presentation. The process is characterised
in this way in the passages contained in the foIloM'ing note. That Simon Magus
is represented as the composer of such a work as the ' ATrocpacris, is but another
aspect of the character given to him of an ideal representative of what were
thought to be the peculiarities of Gnosticism. And if Simon Magus never really
existed, neither were there ever any real Simonians. Those who were called so
were simply those who made use of the works supposed to have been written by
Simon Magus. Of. .Hilgcufeld, Apostol. Vater, p. 242, sij.

SIMON MAGUS. 201

ance the middle space, the infinite air, which has neither
beginnins nor end. In this is the Father, who sustains and
nourishes all that has beginning and end. He is the 'Eo-rco?
Htu^;, l!Tr)ao/u,€vo<;. The original principle is an apa-ev66rfkv<i
SvvafML'i, because, as the highest SvvafiL<i, it contains in itself also
the ewivoia. Thus it is not a simple unity, but such a unity as is
at the same time a duality. But the duality does not extinguish
the unity, since, though a duality, it is yet but the one principle
identical with itself.^ Since the primal Being is conceived as a
spiritual principle, the differentiating principle which it contains
is spiritual also : it is the presentative spiritual activity wdiich
lives and works in all things seen and imagined in the finite
material world. This eirtvoia, as the presentative consciousness
and as the world of presentation, is mythically personified in
Simon's companion Helena : according to the custom of the
Gnostics to borrow from Greek mythology the symbolical forms
in which their own speculative ideas were to be set forth.^
The oldest Gnostic sects are without doubt those whose name is

^ Philos. vi. 18, p. 173. "Ecttiv dpafvodrjXvs di/va^is Koi eViVoia, odev dXXr;Xots
airri(TToix^oii(Tiv, ov8ev yap biacpepet bwafus enivolas, ev ovres. 'Ek pep rav avoi
fvpianfTaL bvvapis, (k Se tS)v Kara) errivoia. "Ecrrco ovv ovtccs, koi to cfyavev drr' avraiv
(V ov hvo fvpiaKfcrdai, dpcrtvodrjXvs ep^coi" Tr]v Brjkeiav iv eauTtu. Ovtos iari. vovs
enivoia, d^uipicrTa ott' dWr]\a>v, (V bvres, 8vo ivpicTKOVTai. Cf. p. 171 : hvrrjy
(prjcrlv, e(TTi bvvapis pia, dLrjprjpem] dVco, Kara), avrrjv yfuvuxra, avrfjv av^ovaa,
aiirrjv ^rjTOvaa, aiirfji/ evpiaKovaa, aiiriis prjTTjp ovaa, avTijs narrip, avTrjs dbf'Kcpfj,
avTijs av^vyos, avTTjS dvyarffp, avTrjs vlos, prjTrjp, Trarfjp, iv ovaa pi^a tSdv oX(ov.
" He that stands triply " is meant to set forth the three stages of the primal being,
which is self -existent, proceeds out of itself and is received back into itself. He
is, as we read, loc. cit., the eo-rwy afw iv tij dy(vvr)TW hvvdpei, the uras Kara iv
Tj] pof] Twv vbdrcov iv (Ikovl ytwrjOels, the (TTrjaopfvos avu), irapa ttjv paKapiav
direpavTov bvvapiv iav i^fiKovidBj) (when he has objectified himself in a real image,
and thus externalised himself, he returns back into the unity of the principle).

'^ In the Philos., vi. 19, it is said of Simon that he o\i povov tu IMoxrecoy kuko-
Tf\vrj(Tas (Is o e/SovXero p(6r]ppr)v(va(v, dX\a Koi ra Ta>v ttoitjtwv. In this feature
also Simon fitly represents the character of Gnosticism, its way of bringing every-
thing into its service by means of allegorical interpretation. Cf. Die christliche
Gnosis, p. 305, s<2. In the following passage of the Philos., vi. 18, p. 175, the two
tigures, Simon and Helena (whose beauty was the occasion of the Trojan war, all
the powers of the world wishing to share her tViVota), are made to furnish a very
characteristic expression of the tendency of Gnosticism to decompose everything
positive, and dissolve into general ideas and views : Tfjv 'EXeVr/v Xvrpctiaupfvds
{^2ipu)v) ovTu>i Tois dvdpuiTTois iTcoTrjpiav nupeax^f Stu rf/y IdUis (Tnyvioaacs. Kukois

202 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

not derived from a special founder, but only stand for the general
notion of Gnosticism. Such a name is that of the Ophites or
Naassenes. The Gnostics are called Ophites, brethren of the
Serpent, not after the serpent with which the fathers compared
Gnosticism, meaning to indicate the dangerous poison of its
doctrine, and to suggest that it was the hydra, which as soon as
it lost one head at once put forth another ; but because the
serpent was the accepted symbol of their lofty knowledge. The
serpent first appears at the Fall as the intelligent being which by its
dialectic weaves good and evil into each other in such a way that
the process of the world's history, worked out as it is from the
antagonism of the two principles, at once begins. The first priests
and supporters of the dogma were, according to the author of the
Philosophoumena,the so-called Naassenes — a name derived from the
Hebrew name of the serpent. They afterwards called themselves
/ Gnostics, because they asserted that they alone knew the things
that are jleepest. From this root the one heresy divided into
various branches ; for though these heretics all taught a like
doctrine, their dogmas were various. According to Irenaeus and
Epiphanius, their system was worked out through several successive
stages, and much resembled the Valentinian.^ In the Philosophou-
mena their doctrine appears simpler. They defined the primal being,
as Simon was said to have done, as both male and female, but called
it man and the son of man, or Adamas (Adam), and distinguished
in it the three principles ; the spiritual, the psychical, and the
material. The Gnostic perfection was said to begin with the know-
ledge of man, and to end with the knowledge of God.^ Jesus was

•yaf) oioiKovi>TU)V Tuiv ayyekav rov Kocrfiov, 8ia to (f)iKap)(^e7v airovs, fls erravopdaxTiP
fXrfKvdfvai axiTov f(f)r] fxfTdixop(l)ovfj.(vov Koi i^ofioiovufvov rais dpxais koi tols
f^ovaiaii Koi rols a-yyeXoi? a>s kuI avOpconov c^aiviadai. avrbv pf) ovra av6p<oTrov,
Kcu naOt'iv re fv rtj 'lov8aia kuX 5f8oKT]Ktvai pfj irtTTOvdoTa, oKKa (pavivra 'lovSaioiy
pfv (lis vlov, ev bi Tj] '2apapfta &)? wuTepa, eV fie toIs Xoinois (dvecriv ois TTvevpa
ayinv. Ynnpfvtiv be avrov KoXfiaOai, olco dv ovopari KoXeiv ^ov\a>i>Tai o'l civdpconoi.
ETTiyvaarii, Gnostic knowledge, would thus be the knowledge and recognition
of the same one religion in all forms of religion, of the same one being in all the
spiritual jtowers of the world.

' Cf. Die christliche Gnosis, p. 171, 37.
1 hilos., V. 0, p. 95. '^PX^ TfXfidxTfcos yvooais dvdpmnov, Qeov 6e yvacris
avtjpTKxpfi'Tj TtXetwo-is.

THE PERATES. 203

the counterpart of the primal man. All that the primal man
nnited in himself, the spiritual, the psychical, and the material,
descended at once, they affirmed, upon the one man, Jesus the son
of Mary. Similar to these are the Perates, of whom hitherto little
has been known. It is only the author of the Philosophoumena who
has contributed to the history of these heretics a clear account of
the doctrine of this sect.^ They assumed three principles : the
first is the unbegotten good, the second the self-begotten good, the
third the begotten. Everything is triply divided, and Christ sums
up in himself all tripartitions. From the two upper worlds, the
unbegotten and the self-begotten, the seeds of all possible powers
descended into this world in which we are. From the unbegotten
realm, from above, Christ came, to save by his descent all that is
triply divided. All that has fallen to the lower from the upper
sphere will return through him. The third world is doomed to
destruction, but the two upper w^orlcls are imperishable. Eupliratcs
the Peratic, and Celhes the Carystian, are named as the founders of
the Peratic heresy ; but the name seems rather to point to the
assertion of the Peratics, that since they alone knew the necessary
law of that which has come into existence, and the way by which
man entered into tlie world, none but themselves were able to over-
come decay .^ They placed the principle of decay in water. This,
they said, is the death that fell upon the Egyptians in the Ped
Sea. Now, all that are without knowledge are Egyptians : there-
fore we should leave Egypt, i.e. the body. Eegarding the body as
an Egypt in little, they required that men should pass through the
Eed Sea, i.e. the water of decay, which is Cronos, and betake them-
selves to the wilderness ; that is, attain to that sphere beyond the
temporal world, where all the gods of perdition and the God of
salvation meet together. The gods of perdition are the stars of the
mutable world, which subject to necessity all that rises into being.

^ Philos., V. 12, p. 123, sq. The Perates were already known from Tlioodoret,
Haer. par. i. 17. But Theodoret in his Heresiology only used the summary given
in the tenth book of the rhilosojjhouniena. This was shown by Volkmar, Hi)i]iolytus
und die romischen Zeitgenossen, 1855, p. 22, sq. ; so that all that we know in
detail of the doctrine of the Perates is derived from the above-cited passage of tho
Philosophoumena.

2 Philos., V. 16, p. 131. hu\d('iv kqi ntpacraL rijv (pdopdv.

2 "4 CHURGR HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

jMoses called them the bituig serpents of the desert, which killed
those who believed that they had left the Ked Sea behind them.
To tliose who were bitten in the desert he showed the true, the
perfect serpent, and whoever believed in it was not bitten in
the wilderness. No one can save those who go out of the land
of Egypt, i.e. this body, and the world, but only the perfect serpent.
He who puts his trust in it is not destroyed by the serpents of the
desert, i.e. by the gods of the temporal world. The significance
which the serpent has in several passages of the Old Testament,
as where it is the sign of salvation in the wilderness, or the wonder-
working rod of Moses in Egypt, Exod. iv. 17, and above all, in the
history of the Eall,^ placed it so high in the eyes of the Gnostics,
that they beheld in it one of their highest principles. The serpent
was the same as the Son was. Between the Father on the one
side, and matter on the other, is the Son, the Logos, the serpent,
ever moving, now towards the motionless Father, and again towards
matter which has motion. Now it turns to the Father, and takes
up his powers into itself ; now it turns with these powers to matter,
and the formless matter receives upon itself the impress of the
ideas of the Son, of which the Son has received the impress from
the Father. And as the serpent mediates between the Father and
matter, in order to bring the powers of the upper world down into
the lower, so the serpent or the Son is the sole saving principle
which enables these powers to return.^ It is tlius, in a word, the
process of world-development, windingits way dialectically through
the antitheses.

The substance of these doctrines, ever concerned with the same
problems — unity, duality, trinity of principles, their antitheses, and
reconciliation, the descent from the upper M^orld into the lower,
and the return from the lower into the upper — is so general, that
they may all very well have been in existence long before specific
Christian Gnosticism arose, and have received their Christian

Philos., p. 133. 6 KadoXiKus o(Pis uvtos icrriv 6 crocpos ttjs Hvas Xoyoy. It is
■^ called Catholic as the universal world-symbol ; a usage somewhat resembling that
in Exc. ex. scr. Theod. par. 47, where the btjfiiovpyos KadoXiKos is the Demiurgus
iji tlie higher, the universal sense, in contrast to the special Demiurgi.
- I'hilos., p. 135, nq.

VALENTINUS. 205

colouring and modification only afterwards, when they expanded
under the allegorical and syncretistic mode of view. This is what
we have before us in the doctrines said to be those of the Simonians,
the Ophites, the^ Gnostici, the Perates, the Sethians (this name
belongs to this series of sects) ; and especially in such a description
of them as that of the Philosophoumena. Here we have Gnosticism
in all its fluidity and disconnectedness, attaching itself to whatever it
can reach, ever seeking, amid the chequered medley of ancient myths
and symbols, a new expression for its general fundamental view.

The Gnosticism of more developed structure, of firmer consistence,
and which does not shrink from the widest application of its prin-
ciples, that Gnosticism in which the Christian element is an essential
part of the organic system, and cannot be separated from it, meets us
first in those systems which are known to us by the names of their
authors. The period on which we now enter is the most important
in the history of Gnosticism. It begins in the first part of the second
century. The chief names which it contains are those of the three
famous heresiarchs, Valentinus, Basilides, and Marcion, whose
appearance is placed by all the most approved testimonies in the
time of Trajan and Hadrian.^ Basilides is said to have lived at
Alexandria about the year 125 ; Valentinus to have gone from
Alexandria to Eome about the year 140. About the same time
Marcion came to Eome from Sinope in Pontus : the period during
which he flourished at Piome is placed in the years 140-50.^ Even
these outward facts, that Alexandria was the native country of

^ Hegesippus in Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. iii. 32. Clem, of Alex. : Strom, vii. 17.

^ As to the chronological statements respecting Marcion and his appearance
at Rome, cf. Volkmar, die Zcit Justin's des MUrtyrers, in the Theol. Jahrb.
1855, p. 270, sq. : "All the older Fathers, when they speak definitely of the date
of Marcion, are perfectly clear that he appeared first in the reign of Antoninus
Pius, and at the earliest in the year 135." The Libellus adv. omnes Haereses,
undoubtedly not by TertuUian, says, cap. 6, upon the alleged cause of Marcion'a
leaving his country, Pontus, aud going to Rome : Post hunc (Cerdonem) discipulua
ipsius emersit Marcion quidam nomine, Ponticus genere, episcopi filius, propter
stuprum cujusdam virginis ab ecclesiae communicatione abjectus. It now seems
to me, comp. Die Christliche Gnosis, p. 296, that the simi^lest way of explaining this
is to suppose, that the "stuprum virginis" was originally nothing but a figurative
way of speaking of his heresy, by which he did violence to tlie Church, the
napSivos Ka6apa (cat <ldiu(f)dopos, according to the expression of Hegesippus,
Euseb. iii. 32.

206 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

several Gnostics, and that two such great heads of sects as Valen-
tinus and Marcion both travelled to Eome, are very noteworthy for
the history of Gnosticism.

The profoundest of these systems is also more accurately known to
us than any another. It is that which bears the name of Valentinus ;
though it would perhaps be more fitly termed the Valentinian
system, since it is impossible to determine how much of it is to be
ascribed to the master, and how much to his disciples. The idea
which governs the whole system is that of mapping out the world
of Aeons according to its numbers and categories. The total num-
ber of the Aeons is thirty ; but they are divided into several leading
numbers, an ogdoad, a decad, a dodecad. Two Aeons, however, are
always connected together, and form an Aeon-pair — for the idea of
syzygy is here also one of the fundamental conceptions on which
the system is based. Only in the case of the highest Being the
followers of Valentinus seem to have given various answers to the
question, whether he should be conceived as associated with a
female Aeon. Some wished to conceive the Father as simply alone ;
others thought it impossible that anything should have proceeded
from a male alone, and therefore assigned to the Father of the all,
in order that he might become a Father, silence {^iyrj) as his
crv<^vyo<;. This silence, however, is only an expression for the
abstract notion of his absolute unity or of his being alone. But as
he was averse to solitude, and was all love, and love is not love if
there is not an object of love as well, the Father felt in himself the
desire to beget and produce what was most beautiful and perfect of
all that he had within him. Alone then as he was, he begot Nous
and Aletlieia, the duad which is the mother of all the Aeons within
the pleroma. Nous and Aletheia themselves gave birth to Logos
and Zoe, and from these two sprang Anthropos and Ecclesia, In
order that the perfect Father might be glorified by a perfect num-
ber, Nous and Aletheia produced ten Aeons ; but Logos and Zoe
could only produce the imperfect number of twelve Aeons. In
whatever way the Valentinians conceived the relation of this decad
and dodecad, the principal series of their Aeons is certainly formed
by the six primal Aeons, Nous and Aletheia, Logos and Zoe,

VALENTINUS. 207

Anthropos and Ecclesia. The further development of the system
turns mainly upon the well-known myth relating to Sophia. Sophia
is the twelfth of the dodecad, the youngest of the twenty-eight
Aeons, and as the weakest and the last member of the whole series,
is a female Aeon. But if she was separated by a wide interval
from the primal principle, she was proportionately conscious of her
great remoteness ; and this produced in her a longing to overleap all
the intervening members, and unite herself immediately with the
primal being. She therefore sprang back into the depth of the
Father, wishing to produce alone and by herself, like the Father,
something not less than what he produced. She knew not that
only the unbegotten, as the principle of the whole, as the root, the
depth, the abyss, is competent to beget alone. Only in the
unbegotten does all exist together : in the begotten the female
produces the substance, but the male forms the substance which the
female produces. So what Sophia produced was only an cKxpco/xa,
as the Valentinians termed it. Within the pleroma there was
ignorance in Sophia, formlessness in her offspring : confusion arose
in the pleroma; the whole world of Aeons was in danger of becoming
formless and defective, and of finally falHng a prey to destruction.
All the Aeons fled to the Father, and besought him to comfort
Sophia, who was plunged in grief for her offspring.

It is easy to see that the myth aims at explaining the procession
of the finite from the absolute. The finite can only derive its
origin from the absolute, and yet the finite is inconsistent with
the idea of the absolute. Now though, by means of the ideas
of syzygy and of begetting, the finite is imported into the absolute
itself ab initio, still in the Aeon series, in which Aeons are begotten
by Aeons, the distinction thus introduced is considered to be one
tliat admits of being reduced again to unity. But at last, if the
finite as such is to come into existence, a breach with the absolute
must ensue which can no longer be adjusted. Thus in the
absolute itself there is a breach, a rent, a division, by which the
absoluteness of the absolute is made doubtful. The task now
arises, on the one hand, to maintain the notion of the absolute
pure and unimpaired, in spite of this breach, and on the other to

208 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

disengage and eliminate the finite from it. Here is the point
where the specific Christian idea of restitution enters to play its
part in the system. The Father, pitying the tears of Sophia, and
regarding the prayers of the Aeons, commanded a fresh proj ection ;
and the number of thirty Aeons was fulfilled, when Nous and
Aletheia produced Christ and the Holy Ghost, in order that
the €KTpcofia might be formed and separated, and Sophia be calmed
and comforted. Christ separated the formless eKrpco/xa from the
rest of the Aeons, that the perfect Aeons might not be disturbed
by the sight of his formlessness. And that it might cease alto-
gether to be visible to them, the Father caused another Aeon to
come into existence, viz., Stauros. He was to be the boundary-
mark of the pleroma, to hold together in himself the thirty Aeons,
and to be a visible representation of the greatness and perfection
of the Father. He is called Horos, because he is the boundary
between the TfKripwfjba and the vareprj/xa which lies w^ithout ;
Partaker (iu,€To^€v<i), because he has part in the vaTeprj/xa ; and
Stauros, because he stands firm and unchangeable, so that no part
of the vareprjua can so much as come into the neighbourhood of
the Aeons who are within the pleroma. External to Horos or
Stauros was the so-called Ogdoad, Sophia, who dwelt outside the
pleroma. Christ, as soon as he had formed her, sprang with the
Holy Ghost back into the pleroma to ISTous and Aletheia, and
peace and unity reigned among the Aeons. Thus harmony was
restored within the pleroma. But outside the pleroma the same
process continued. There Sophia, separated from him who had
formed her but had then forsaken her, lay in great fear. Full
of longing, she directed her prayer to him in her sufferings, and
Christ and the other Aeons all had pity upon her. In the place
of Christ comes now Jesus or the Saviour, who is called the com-
mon fruit of all the Aeons of the pleroma. Christ and the other
Aeons sent him outside the pleroma as the av^vyo'i of Sophia who
was without, to free her from the pains she sulTered in her longing
after Christ. He freed her by divesting her of the various affec-
tions of M'hich this longing consisted, and out of them he made
the Psychical, the kingdom of the Demiurgus. The psychical sub-

VALENTINUS. 209

stance was conceived as fiery. They also called it The Place, the
Hebdomad, the Ancient of Days. The Demiurgus also is of a fiery
nature, and the words of Moses, Deut. ix. 3, are applicable to him,
" The Lord thy God is a consuming fire." The essence of the
Demiurgus is composed of all the elements that distinguish the
psychical from the spiritual. He is destitute of intelligent con-
sciousness. Sophia, hovering over him in the Ogdoad, works
everything in him, while he knows not what he does, and thinks
that he himself of his own power effects the creation of the world ;
as when he says, " I am God, and beside me is no other."
Deut. xxxii. 39. The Demiurgus is the creator of souls ; he has
given them bodies made from material substance, which is diabolic.
The inner man, the psychical, dwells in the material body ; and the
soul is now alone, now in the company of demons, now in that of the
Xoyot. The \oyoi, falling from above, from the common fruit of the
pleroma and Sophia, are scattered like germs over this world. The
Jesus who is united with Sophia outside the pleroma, and is really
the second Christ after the first, is distinguished by the Valenti-
nians from a third Christ, the Jesus born of Mary. As the first
Christ restored order to the pleroma, and the second to the Ogdoad
of Sophia, so the third is to do the same in the present world.
This can only be brought to pass, if Christ, who proceeds not only
from the Demiurgus, but also from Sophia, reveals that which was
concealed even from the Demiurgus. The Demiurgus had been in-
formed by Sophia that he was not the one God, but that there
was a higher above him ; the great secret of the Father and the
Aeons had not remained unknown to him. But he had kept it
hidden, and imparted it to none. Thus the revelation of the
mystery does not occur within the sphere of tlie Demiurgus ; but
when it was time to take away the veil that lay upon the con-
sciousness of psychical man, and to bring all these mysteries to
light, Jesus was born of Mary. Placed in this connection, what
can Christianity consist in, but in the communication of that
knowledge which the Demiurgus possessed indeed, but only
abstractly and for himself, so that it should become a part of the
common consciousness of mankind ? Through Christianity then

0

210 CIIUECH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

does mau first learn that the Demiurgus is not the highest God, that
above him stand the world of Aeons, the pleroma, and the eternal
Father ; only with Christianity accordingly does the consciousness
of the absolute awaken. Now this knowledge is nothing else
than the advance from the psychical to the spiritual. The reason
why the Demiurgus knows nothing of the higher order of the
world above him is that he stands at the stage of the psychical,
and the psychical' cannot comprehend the spiritual. The discovery
through Christ of that which is hidden from the Demiurgus, is
the progress from the period of the psychical principle to that of
the spiritual. A new and higher consciousness dawns upon
humanity : humanity becomes aware of a higher world-order, lying
beyond the order of the earthly, grows conscious of that which
exists before all change, of the absolute, and its relation to the
finite. But it was the spiritual itself that first became the
psychical. We have therefore to distinguish two opposite sides of
the world-development. On the one side, the spiritual goes down
into the psychical ; on the other, the psychical rises into the
spiritual. The psychical is only a stage of transition for the
spiritual; the spiritual divests itself of its own nature and
becomes psychical, in order to return from the psychical back into
itself. The spiritual {irvevfiariKoi;) principle is the spirit as dis-
tinguished from matter ; and the series of steps by which the
spiritual becomes psychical, and the psychical becomes spiritual,
is the process conducted by spirit with itself. Spirit, or God,
as essential spirit, goes forth from itself, and in this self-
revelation of God the world arises, which, while on the one hand
distinct from God, is also on the other essentially one with him.
But in whatever way we regard this immanent relation of God and
the world, whether as a self-revelation of God or as a world-develop-
ment, it is a purely spiritual process, arising out of nothing but
the essence of spirit. In the Aeons which it sends forth out of
itself, spirit produces out of itself and places over against itself its
own essence. But since the essence of pure spirit is nothing else
than thought and knowledge, the process of its self-revelation can
only consist in its becoming conscious of its own essence : the

VALENTINUS. 211

Aeons of the pleroma are the highest conceptions of spiritual
existence and life, the general forms of thought, in which what
spirit is essentially, it is for the consciousness determinately and
concretely. But with the self-knowledge of spirit, with its self-
consciousness as it distinguishes itself from itself, is given not
only a principle of differentiation, but also, since God and the world
are essentially one, of the materialisation of spirit. For the con-
ceptions which spirit uses in order to reach this consciousness are
separate and apart from the absolute principle ; and the wider this
separation, the more is the spiritual consciousness darkened : spirit
divests itself of its own nature ; it is no longer clear and trans-
parent to itself ; the spiritual sinks down to the psychical, the
psychical thickens into the material, and the material is connected
at its further extremity with the notion of the demonic and
diabolical.-'^ But as the psychical belongs in its essence to the

^ The most important point of the whole system is the transition from the spiritual
to the psychical, represented iu the sufferings of Sophia. Here we have before us the
extremest pain and distress of spirit struggling with itself, despairing of itself,
when on the point of being compelled to strip itself of its own nature and to become
something different from what it is. On this point compare the following passage
in the Philosophoumena, p. 191 : — Y^iroir^tTiv ovv wr Tr]ki.KovTos aluiv Kai irapros rov
TrXr/pw/iaTo? tK-yovos (Jesus or the Soter), (KcrTrjvai ra Tradi] an' avriis, Koi fTvolrjVfv
avTci inroaTaTas ovcrias xal top fxev <t>6^ov >|/'v;^tK>jj' ewoiija-fv enidvixlav, ttjv 8e
Xi/nrfv vXiKrjv, ttjv 8e OTTOpiav baijxovcov, rrjp be eiricrTpocfifiP, koi bfrjcriP Kol LKfreiap
686v Kai pLfrdpoiav Ka\ dvpafiiv \//'u;^ik^? ovaias,rjTis KoKflrai Se^ta (cf. Christl. Gnosis,
134), 6 8rifiiovpyos, dno rov (po^ov TovTearip, oXtyei, (f>T]a\p,f] ypa<f)Tj'Ap)(^fi cro(f)las
(f)6^os Kvpiov- AvTTi yap dpxh ^'^'' ^^^ (To(f)ias nado>p- e(j)o^r]dT] yap, eiVa eXvufjOr},
fiTa r]n6pT]af, Koi ovras cttI bfrjcrip Kai iKfTelav KaT((f)vy(P.

This suffering appears then in four states ; from fear arises the psychical, from
grief the material, from despair the demonic ; and a fourth stage follows,
apparently very different from the three others. Spirit can be degraded no lower /
than the point where it is at last changed into the demonic ; and therefore the
fourth stage is the point where all turns and sways round. Arrived at the
extremity of its self-divestment, spirit goes into itself and collects itself iu order
to find a way out of this torture. Can the words 686s, peravoia, bwapis have
any other meaning than this iu a Gnostic work, niaTis So^i'a, published by
Petermann, Berlin, 1851, from a Coptic MS. ? Sophia's sufferings and ptrdpoia form
the chief subject of the first part. Jesus descending again after his ascension, for
no other object than to impart to his disciples the whole truth from first to last,
plain and undisguised, relates the history of the fall of Sophia. When TliaTis ■
2o(f>ia was in the 1 3th of the Aeons, the place of all her sisters, the doparoi who are
themselves the 24 Trpo/SoXal of the great duparos, then it came to pass at the com-

212 CnUECn HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

spiritual, and germs of spiritual life are left everywhere, the
spiritual must again pierce through the material obscuration of
the spiritual consciousness which takes place at the stage of
psychical life : it must throw off the veil that is laid upon it in
the world of the Demiurgus. The whole world-development is the
continuation of the same spiritual process. There must therefore
be a turning-point, at which spirit returns from its self-divestment
to itself, and becomes once more clearly conscious of its own
essential nature. Such is the Gnostic conception of the Christian
revelation. Those who know, in the Gnostic sense, that is to say
the spiritual, who as such have also the truly Christian conscious-
ness, mark a new epoch in the general spiritual life, and are the
highest stage of the self-revelation of God, and of the world-
development. This period of the course of the world begins with
the appearance of Christ, and ends at last when through Christ and
Sophia, all that is spiritual is received back into the pleroma.
Christ in his activity is seen as the principle that re-establishes,
that maintains unity with the absolute. He is thus seen at every

raand of the first mystery that she looked up, and saw the light of the KaTaireracTfia
of the drjcravpbs of light. She longed to go there, but was not able ; and instead
of performing the mystery of the 13th Aeon, she directed her hymns to the
place on high. For this all the archons of the 12 Aeons hated her; because she
ceased from her mysteries, and wished to be above them. The great rpiSuvafios
avdd8r]i hated her most of all ; he who is the third rpLdiivafios in the 13th Aeon.
He sent forth from himself a great power with a lion's face ; and from his vXtj a
multitude of Trpo^oXai vXiKoi, which he sent to the lower parts, into chaos, to lie
in wait for n/trrts '2o(f)ia and take away her strength. When Sophia saw in the
depth the light-power that had come from AidddrfS, thinking that this was the
light she had seen on high, she descended, out of desire for this light, into
chaos, and was there put to sore pain by the 7rpo/3oXai vXtKoi of Aidadrjs. In
her distress she called for help on the light which she had seen at first. She had
trusted it from the beginning, and in her unfailing confidence in the power of
this light— whence she has the name of Uicttis "^of^la — she addressed to it her
fifrdvoia. She bewails her distress and pain in 12 nirdvoiai, and prays for the
forgiveness of her sins. The 12 ixtrdvoiai correspond to the 12 Aeons, in respect
of whom she has erred : and the 12th is followed by a 13th, for the 13th Aeon,
the TOTTor diKaioavvrjs, is the place whence she descended. With the 13th
p-fTavoia, her time is fulfilled, the series of her dXlyjrfis is accomplished : Jesus
is sent by the first mystery to help her, and leads her back on high from
chaos. Cf. Theol, Jahrb. 1854, p., 1 »</•

BASILIDES. 213

stage of the world-development, and in the highest regions of the
world of Aeons, in which everything at last comes to rest, and
which is arranged from the first with a view to this one great result
of the whole. Thus, in the Gnostic view of the world, Christ has
quite the significance of an absolute world principle.-^ The
Valentinian system affords us a clearer view than any other into
the specific character of Gnosticism, its deeper spiritual import,
and the inner connection of its view of the world. JSTor had any
other so large a number of adherents.

The school had many ramifications, and the system was elabor-
ated and developed in various ways by the more eminent disciples
and successors of Valentinus, as Secundus, Ptolemaeus, Heracleon,
Marcus.^

Among the Gnostics contemporary and connected with Valen-
tinus and his disciples, we may mention the two Syrians, Bardes-
anes and Saturninus ; but the most important and the most inde-
pendent were Basilides of Egypt and his son Isidorus. Our
previous knowledge of his system has been much enlarged and
modified by the new source of information discovered in the
Philosophoumena ;^ and we shall therefore do well to give a brief
statement of its main features.

^ In this statement I have been guided chiefly by the new sources of informa-
tion contained in the Philos. vi. 29, sq., p. 184, sq. The principal points of the
system there appear very distinctly : what is wanting may be easily supplied
from the more detailed statement, drawn from other sources, which however
agree with this one in all essential points, given in my Christliche Gnosis, p.
124, sq.

2 Colarbasns, whose name has generally been placed along with that of Marcus,
must in future be struck out of the series of Gnostics. Volkmar is incontestably
right in the result of his dissertation in the Zeitschrift fiir Hist. Theol., 1855, p.
603, sq., viz., that "The Gnosticism of Colarbasus may be reduced to the Valen-
tinian Gnosticism of Kol-Arbas, the highest tetrad of the thirty Aeons, as elabor-
ated by the followers of Marcus, who appealed to an immediate revelation of this
tetrad, or of the mother of secrets, Sige, in the same tetrad." The only remain-
ing question would be, whether, under the word Kol, we should not understand
rather pip, "the voice," i.c. sound in contrast to silence, than 73, "all the four,
all four together."

3 vii. 1 9, p. 230, sq. Compare : Jacobi, Baeilidis philosophi gaostici sentcntias,
etc., Berlin, 1852 ; Bunsen, Hippolytus und seine Zeit, Leipzig, 1852. i. 65 ;

214 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

The Gnostics, unable to devise terms sufficient to express the
idea of the absolute, find themselves obliged to determine it nega-
tively, as that which is exalted above all expression and conception.
Tlius Basilides places simple nothing at the summit of his system,
and thus speaks of God, not as the Being, but as the not-being.
There was simply nothing, — not matter, not substance, not what is
without substance, not simple, not compound, not man, not angel,
not God, simply nothing of all things that can be perceived or
imagined. Still, the not-being God made a not-being world out of
the not-being : yet every positive attribute is denied of this making,
this act of the divine will.^ Basilides was of opinion that as, gene-
rally, the expressions which we use do not really coiTespond to the
■things they signify, this must much more be the case in speaking
of the absolute ; there every positive and negative statement can
be but a sign of what we wish to say. We can see clearly that
Basilides' great difficulty was to get a beginning. God is and is
not, and so the world is and is not ; one cannot tell how it came
into being ; it simply is. In order to get rid of every idea of an
emanation or projection from God,^ Basilides conceived the world,
as in the ]\Iosaic book of Genesis, as brought into existence simply
and only by the word of him who spoke : though sometimes he
did not hesitate to speak of the world as a divine irpo^oXri. Thus
the standpoint of Basilides differs from that of Valentinus, inas-
much as what is principally kept in view in his system is rather the
return to God than the going forth from God. A prominent con-

Uhlhorn, das Basilidianische System mit besonderer Riicksicht auf die Angaben
des Hippolytus, GiJtt. 1855. Hilgenfeld, Das System des Gnostikers Basilides,
Theol. Jahrb. 1S56, p. 8G, sq. Cf. Die jiidische Apokalyptik 1857, p. 287, sq.
My essay : Das System des Gnostikers Basilides iind die neuesten Auffassungen
desselben, Theol. Jahrb. 1856, p. 121, sq.

^ Philos. p. 231 : 'Ai'o^rcor, ai/nKr^ijrwr, d/SoiiXcoy, OTrpoaipiTus, dnadcos, dvfTri-
6viJLT]To>i, Knufjiov T]6eXr)(T( iroirjaai. To Se fj6(\rjcrf X/yo), (f)rj(T\, crrjfiacrias x^piv,
u6(\t)tu>s (cat dvoTjras K.a\ dvaLcrdrjTdiS.

^ Philos. p. 232 : (^ei/yei yap Trdvv kuI btdoiKf ras Kara TTpo^okrjv tu)v ytyovoTUiV
ova-las 6 BaaiXfibr]!. He compared the process of emanation to the act of a
spider spinning its threads out of itself. He took as his beginning the absolute
notion of the not-being, thus opposing the idea of emanation, which assumes the
entire reality of the being.

BASILIDES. 215

ception of his system is the separation of the powers and elements.
Since that alone can be separated which was formerly mingled
and connected, Basilides assumed that those elements which after-
wards came in the course of development to be separated, and to
take up more and more independent positions, were originally mixed,
or existed in each other or side by side. And thus the a-vy^vafi
cipxi-Kri, which Clement of Alexandria attributes to him,^ has always
been regarded as characteristic of his system, though it has not
been satisfactorily shown how it is to be understood. According
to the new source of our knowledge, we are obliged to consider it
as one of the postulates of his system, which it was necessary for
him to make in order to get a beginning of the development.
What he says in the exposition of his system is applicable here.
Everything seeks to rise from below upwards, from the bad to
the better ; but nothing is so senseless as to leave the better and
go downwards. Unable to explain how a av^'xycri'i a/3%t/c^ was
brought about, he was yet obliged to presuppose it, if he wished to
regard the world- development as a process of separation. He
accordingly supposed a cnrepfia rov /coVyLtov, which contains, as in
the smallest germ, all that is comprehended in the whole world.^

^ Cf. Die Cbristliche Gnosis, p. 211, sq.

2 Philos. p. 231. To be a-rrtp^a rov koo-jmov Travra elxtv iv eavTa, u)s 6 tov
(Tivdire<ii9 KOKKOs iV ekaxi(TT<o crvXXajSwi/ e'xet ndcras ofiov ras piCas — ovrcos oi/K u>v
6(6s eTToiri(T€ Koafiov ovk Siv (ovra) ($ ovk oi/twi/, KaTa^aXXopievos Koi vTvoarriaras
(TTTipp-a iv ex"" ^"''■o" ^^ ecLVT^ TTjv TOV Koo-fjiov TTavffiTfppiav. All was in it, but
as yet imcleveloi)ed and formless. He therefore calls this Trapanepfila an dp.op(^ia,
p. 229. The anepfia is an ovk ou, as God is ovk !bv 6f6s, et'xf yap Travra to. crirep-
fiara iv eavra TiOrjo-avpicrjjieva Ka\ KaraKfip-fva, oiov ovk ov, vao re tov ovk ovtos
diov yeviaGai npoj^e^ovXevfieva, p. 2.33. The dominant conception of the system
is the nuity or immanent relation of being and not-being ; there is no being that
does not include in itself a not-being, and no not-being that does not presuppose
a being. This unity, conceived as negatively and abstractedly as possible in the
oi/K i>v dtos, has developed into a notion of something concrete in the <nrfpp.a
ovk ov. The relation of God and the world is viewed as the immanent transition
from the abstract to the concrete, from the ideality of that which is only con-
ceived to the reality of the actual. The moving principle is the tendency to set
forth out of unity the antitheses which, while in unity, are still indifferent, and
cause them to confront one another in their pure opposition. This is done when
the abstract antithesis of being and not-being becomes the concrete antithesis of
spiritual and material.

216 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

When this embryo of the world has been once evolved from God
as the principle of the world, and not till then, the world- develop-
ment enters on its determinate course. The divine germs con-
tained in the primal world are called by Basilides the sonship
{vioT7]<i)} This again is distinguished into three separate con-
stituent parts as soon as the first projection of the (nrepfia has
taken place. The finest part at once returns to the not-being with
a swiftness which Basilides characterises by the poetic expres-
sion ojael TTTepov r/e vorjfia.'^ Every nature in fact strives, one in
one way, another in another, to reach the not-being, attracted by
its exceeding beauty. The denser part strives to follow the finer,
but remains in the airepfxa ; yet it also clothes itself with wings,
after the manner of the soul in Plato. The principle that gives
the wings is the Holy Spirit : the relation in which it stands to
this part of the vloriri is described by saying that the two are as
mutually serviceable as the wing and the bird, neither of which
can soar upward without the help of the other. The Spirit rises,
indeed, and comes near to that finest part of the vloTr]<i ; but it
cannot, from its nature, endure the region of the not-being God
and of the vloTirf, the purest region, exalted above every name. It
therefore remains behind ; but, as a vessel once filled with sweet-
smelHng ointment keeps the perfume even when empty, so the
Holy Spirit has, as it were, a perfume of the vlorrj^;, and this per-
fume descending from the Holy Spirit penetrates to the formless
under-world. After the first and second soaring of the vtoV?;?, the
Holy Spirit remains in the midst between the world and that
which is above the world.^ After these two parts of the being
have been separated by a firmament, the great Archon, the head

^ The fKXoyr) Koa-fiov in Clemens Alex. Cf. Die Christliche Gnosis, p. 223, sq.
The expression vIottjs, denoting the spiritual, might seem to refer to the higher
grade in which the Son stands in this development from below upwards. So the
son of the Archon is more intelligent than the Archon himself. But the exjires-
sion is to be taken in the sense of the phrase viol deoii (Rom. viii. 14, sq.), Philos.
p. 238.

2 Homer. Od. vii. 36.

' Hence the Trvfv^a fxtdopiov. From the same mediating function {ev(py(Tf'iv)
the Spirit is described iu Clemens of Alexandria as irveifxa diuKovovnevav.

BASILIDES. 217

of the world, tears himself away from the a-Trepfia KoafitKov (and
the Travairepfjiia rov aoypov), and knowing not that above him
there is a wiser, mightier, and better than he, he thinks himself
the lord, the sovereign, and the wise architect of the world, and
begins to make all the things the world contains. First, not liking
to be alone, in imitation of the plan which the not-being God
sketched when he laid the foundation of the world in the iravairep-
ixla, he begot, from the matter of the world which he had ready
before him, a son who was far wiser and better than himself.
Surprised by his beauty, he set him on his right hand. By his
help he made the ethereal world, the kingdom of the great Archon,
called by Basilides the Ogdoad. After the completion of this
ethereal world, which extended down to the moon, another Archon
arose out of the iravaireppi.la, who also is greater than all that is
under him except the vlottj'^, which still remains behind. His
place is the Hebdomad, and he too has a son who is more under-
standing and wiser than himself. From these worlds is now dis-
tinguished the region which, as the basis of the whole world-
development, Basilides called the crwpo? and rrravcnrepfiia. It has
no governor, arranger, or Demiurgus of its own ; but the thought
placed in it by the not-being at the creation sufi&ces for it. In it
remains the third vIottj^, which has also to be revealed, and to be
brought up to the region where, beyond the Spirit, are the two first
parts of the vIot7]<; and he who is not- being. This is the creature,
groaning and waiting for the manifestation of the children of God ;
and we, says Basilides, are these children, we are the spiritual still
remaining behind here. When we, the children of God, for whose
sake the creature groaned, were to be revealed, the Gospel came
into the world. It did not come by the descent of the blessed
vl6T7]<i of the inconceivable, blessed, not-being God ; but, as naphtha
kindles a fire at a great distance, so did the son of the great Archon
receive the thoughts of the vloTT}<i by the mediation of the Spirit.
The Son learnt that he was not the God of the whole, but that
there was over him the Ineffable, the not- being. He went into
himself, was affrighted at the ignorance he had been in up to this

218 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

time, and how his son sitting beside him — who is now called
Christ — instructed him who the not -being is, what the uIott^? is,
what the Holy Spirit, how the universe has been disposed and
arranged, and whither it is to return. Basilides also applied to
the fear which seized the Archon the words dpxv cro(/)ta9 ^o^o<i
Kvpiov (Prov. i. 5) ; and to the penitence with which he confessed
the sin of his self-exaltation, the passage Ps. xxxii. 5. The same
instruction was imparted also to the whole Ogdoad, and from the
Ogdoad the Gospel then came to the Hebdomad. The son of the
great Archon caused the light which he had received from above,
from the vldri]^, to rise on the son of the Archon of the Hebdomad.
Thus enlightened, the son announced the Gospel to the Archon of
the Hebdomad ; and the impression it produced on him was not
different from that produced on the Archon of the Ogdoad. After
all these regions with their countless dp'^ai, BwcifieK;, and i^ovalat
and the 365 heavens, whose great Archon is Abrasax, had received
the enlightenment of the Gospel, the light had to descend also to
the dfxop(f)ia in the nethermost world, in which we are ; and the
hitherto unknown mystery had to be revealed to that vldTr)<; which,
like an eKrpco/xa, was left in the dfiop^ta. Thus the light, which
had come from the vloTq^; through the Spirit to the Ogdoad and
thence to the Hebdomad, descended to Mary, and her son Jesus
was enlightened by it. The power of the highest which over-
shadowed Mary is the power of the «p/o-t9, the separation. The
world must continue till all the vIott)^ left behind for the aid of
the souls in the d/jbop(f>la follows Jesus, and returns purified. It
becomes so fine, that, like the first vldrrji:, it soars aloft through its
own nature. This Kpiat^ and the d7roKardaTaat<i, which it is to
])ring about, now come into the foreground of the system.^ The
design of the whole Gospel history from the beginning is to show
liow Jesus separates and divides all that is mixed without form
outside the Ogdoad and the Hebdomad. This separation' and

I nilos. p. 244. oKt) yap avTuiv tj inrodtais, avyxv<Tis oiovd ■navairepfiiai Koi
(pv\oKpivr)a-is Koi otto Kara a-rafrij rcov o-uyKfp^v/xfVtoi' els ra olKfla. Trjs ovv ^vXo-
Kpivi)iTfo)s unapxf] yfynvev 6 'lr](rovs.

BASILIDES. 219

division takes place with regard to all that is still left behind, in
the same way as it had taken place with regard to Jesus himself.
His suffering had no other object than the separation of that which
was mingled. What suffered in him w^as the bodily part which
he received from the dfxopcjiia, and this returned to the dfiopcfiia.
In the same way the psychical element which came from the Heb-
domad returned to the Hebdomad ; what came from the higher
region of the great Archon returned to him ; and what was of the
Spirit remained with the Spirit. But the third and still remaining
uloTTj'i soared through all these elements up to the blessed vIott]^.
Thus all returns to its place ; and when it is there, there it is to
stay, jfor whatever stays in its place is imperishable ; but that
which oversteps its natural bounds is perishable. It was for this
reason that, at the epoch at which Christianity revealed that which
was hitherto a mystery, a great ignorance came over the whole
world, in order that no unnatural desire might anywhere arise.
The Archon of the Hebdomad is prevented from knowing what is
above him, in order that he may not desire the impossible, and so
suffer pain and sorrow. The same ignorance overtakes the great
Archon of the Ogdoad. The universal aTro/carao-racrt?, therefore,
consists in this, that everything arrives, at the time determined,
at the place where, according to its natural constitution, it ought
to be; or in this, that it is recognised as being that which it
essentially is.^

The fundamental idea pervading the system is the same with
Basilides as with Valentinus, The spiritual principle divests itself
of its own nature, and becomes the psychical and material ; and
after this self-divestment, it must again be received back into itself
This is the process of world-development which reaches its accom-
plishment in Christianity. But this accomplishment cannot take
place, unless by the spiritual natures attaining a consciousness of
their true being ; that is, of the spiritual principle which has being
essentially, which is absolute and supramundane, with which the

^ Philos. p. 242. Kai ovtcds fj dTroKaTaaTaa-is eaTai ndvTuv Ti6eyieKiu)y.iva)V ^iv
fv Tco cmep^aTi tSuv oka>v tv ipxfli ^T^OKaTaaTafiivav he iv Kaipois Idiots.

220 CHURCH HISTOBY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

spiritual natures are essentially one, even in that present state in
which they are hidden and obscured by the psychical and the
material. It is this consciousness of that which essentially is, and
is supramundane, that forms the true essence of Christianity. And
so accordingly Basilides defines it.^ Although that which comes
to its accomplishment in Christianity has first been undergoing
preparation in the earlier stages through which the process of
world- development moves, still it does not attain its full reality,
till the absorption of spirit into itself has reached its deepest depth.
As Valentinus distinguished three different Christs, so in the
system of Basilides Jesus cannot appear till after the two sons of
the ruler of the Ogdoad and the ruler of the Hebdomad. These
three are essentially one; in all the three we have the same
principle, which mediates between the several spiritual beings and
the primal principle, maintains and restores their connection with
it, and recalls them to unity. Both with Valentinus and with
Basilides we find the Holy Spirit placed along with Christ, and
subordinate to him in the same capacity. The Sophia of Valen-
tinus coincides with the Christ and the Holy Spirit of Basilides ;
Sophia herself is not found in the doctrine of the latter, since the
more concrete idea of syzygy is altogether absent from his system.
The Gospel only declares universally that which, though it existed
before, existed as a mystery. Before the Gospel, in proportion as
any given time was more remote, the deeper was the concealment of
this mystery.^ What was at first shrouded in thick darkness, and
then, though declared, was yet, as it were, but a glimmering light,

Philos. p. 243. EvayyeXtoj/ ran kot' avrovs fj tS)v vntpKoafiiav yvaxrts.
Only when one knows what is above the world, can one know also what the
world itself is.

- In this sense Basilides said, p. 238, that the Ogdoad was appTfros, the
Hebdomad prjrov, and that the Archon of the Hebdomad said to Moses : " I
am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the name of the God I did not
make known to them " (Ex. vi. 3), i.e. the name of the (ipprjroi; 6(6s, the Archon
of the Ogdoad. In the period from Adam to Moses, the proper period of the
ruler of the Ogdoad mivra rjp (fivXaaa-o puva dTroKpv<pa> a-icoirf]. The two rulers
mark two periods of the world.

BASILIDES. 221

and was only to break through in the creature which was waiting
for the manifestation of the sons of God, — this in Christianity
becomes the broad and full daylight of clear and transparent
spiritual consciousness. And it is just at this time that God caused
a great ignorance to come over the whole world, in order tliat
nothing might strive to overstep the bounds of its nature. The
assertion of this ignorance gives us much help towards character-
ising the standpoint of the system. The ignorance denotes that
progress in the march of the world's history, by virtue of which
each period is deemed the highest, and regarded as absolute, only
so long^s spirit in its development has not gone forward to a
higher stage. In contrast to a higher stage, the stage preceding
appears so subordinate and at so low a level, that all its glory is
veiled as by the darkness of ignorance. The two Archons especially
are overtaken by this ignorance ; but such is the fate also of all
that was great and important in its time, and, like the minds of
those rulers, believed itself to be the power that governed the
world. It is of necessity given over to the darkness of uncon-
sciousness, when the progressing spirit of the world passes beyond
it. Therefore, according to Basilides, everything has its deter-
minate limits, its determinate time. Knowledge is ever changing
into its contrary. As the process of history is carried further and
further, spirit, ever retiring into itself, receives back into itself the
forms which it had sent out as of apparently permanent impor-
tance. The forms dissolve, and there remains at last, as all that is
really before the consciousness, only the abstract notion, the natural
law which is immanent in the subsisting order of the world.^
Here the realism and the idealism of the Gnostic view of the world
so interpenetrate one another, that the process exhibited in it is
rather the phenomenological process of the spirit than the real one
of the world. It is not the real principles of the world's origin in
themselves, that are the highest absolute point whence all proceeds,
and on which all depends. It is these principles only because

^ The present order of the world, Basilides says, has no governor, such as the
Archons were : apKtl 6 'Koyicrixos (Kflvos, ov 6 ovk S)v, ort eiroUv, (Xoyi^tTo.

222 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

they are the object about which the consciousness of spirit, knowing
and thinking, moves, gaining, as it employs itself with these neces-
sary postulates of its own procedure, a clear perception of itself,
and being thus enabled to comprehend the antitheses of the
subsisting order of the world in all their width. And this is
exactly what the genuine Gnostic conception of airoKaTacrraaL^
amounts to. The main point is, not that something which is
not yet, becomes realised in the world of objective existence ; but
that something which already exists in essence becomes firmly
established. That which already has being essentially is to be
made to be for consciousness as well, and to be recognised in the
consciousness of knowing subjects as that which it already is in
essence.^ The more completely the objective being of things
becomes a subjectively known being, and the stricter and closer,
therefore, the unity of being and consciousness, so much the more
fully is the goal of the world's development attained. It appears
plainly from this, that the highest subject with which the Gnostic
systems concern themselves, is ever ultimately knowledge and in-
tuition. Gnosis in its peculiar absolute significance. This is what
gives the system of Basilides, in the form in which it is now known
to us, its distinguished position in the history of Gnosticism. It
affords us a deeper insight than any other system into the inner
nature of Gnosticism, and the intellectual process carried on in
Gnostic speculation.^

^ The a.noKaTu(TTa<ns is the third of the successive connected stages after the
(Tvyxv<Tis and (})v\oKpivT]ais, Philos. p. 244. The Gnostic addresses himself to
his highest task when he determines that the all-important question he has to
seek to answer is tIs eariv 6 ovk ^i/, tIs fj viorr^s, tI to ayiov Trvevfxa, tIs fj twv
v\a>v KaTaaKfvf], nov ravra dnoKaTaaTaOrjafTai, Philos. p. 239. This result is
attained when the rav 6\o)p KoracrAcevi) is known and recognised in the conscious-
ness of knowing subjects as that which it essentially is. In this sense it is
annKaTd(TTa(Tis twv crvyKfxvfJievwv tli ra olKf'ia. All that is comes to stand in its
due and proper place, when that which is various in itself is known and contem-
plated without confusion in its variety of principles. In this indeed all knowledge
and intuition consist. "Ayvoia as above defined is an essential step of the dnoKaTa.-
(TTaais which is thus accomplished.

2 Hilgenfeld (in loc. cit.) affirms that the statement of the system of Basilides
given in the Philosophoumcna is neither fairly consistent M'ith that given by the

MARCION. 223

We have said that the fundamental character of Gnosticism is
its dualistic view of the world. This statement seems at first to
receive but slight confirmation from our inquiry into the two
systems, which we have described at some length as the two chief
representatives of the Gnostic mode of thought. They cannot
indeed entirely conceal the dualistic basis on which they are
founded; yet this element is not prominent in them, and can
scarcely be regarded as their principal distinguishing feature. "We
should thus be led to say that the peculiar nature of Gnosticism was
not fully developed before the appearance of the system of Marciou,
which, on account of its more strictly dualistic form, we must
distinguish from those hitherto set forth, as marking a new stage
of Gnostic thought. Still the distinction is merely relative ; for
none of the systems, however various their modifications, ever get
past the antithesis of spirit and matter. But with regard to this
antithesis itself, strict as it seems to be, we nevertheless are able
to gather from our inquiries up to this point the very character-
istic fact, that the two principles do not form a pure antithesis.
The one principle always contains something derived from the
other. If spirit is unable to resist its longing to materialise itself,
it contains already the principle of matter. And if matter is
moved by the impulse to come into contact with spirit, then it has
in itself a spiritual element. The two are related as two forces

authorities hitherto known to us, nor derived from original knowledge. For
disproof of this position, compare my Abhandlung quoted above, p. 150, sq.
What Hilgenfeld has further laid down in the Anhang zur jiid. Ajiokal. p. 287,
contains nothing really new. It is clear enough that we are equally unable to
determine precisely, in the system of Basilides and in that of Valentinus, how
much is due to the founder and how much to the further elaboration of disciples.
But, with regard to this question, in a general history of Gnosticism, the form
which contains most distinctly the characteristic features of the system is our
surest guide. And this form of the Basilidian teacliing is undoubtedly to be
found in the statement given in the Philosophoumena. The doctrine of Basilides
seems to have assumed various modifications ; his name is connected with
Manichaeism (Das Manich. Rel. Syst. p. 84) and Priscillianism (Gieseler, Eccl.
Hist. i. 2, p. 98). It is likely enough that the trvyxwn apx^i^^t ^s the duality
of principles, appeared more unmistakably at the summit of the system in one
of these forms than in the others. But this need not prevent us from regarding
the statement of the Philosophoumena as composed of genuine Basilidian elements.

224 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

of one and tlie same substance, and are both attracted and repelled
l)y each other. In their general character, then, the Gnostic systems
may as fitly be called pantheistic as dualistic. The antithesis is in
any case tlie same, and all that the difference amounts to is whether
the scale falls on the one side or on the other, or whether an
almost exact equilibrium is maintained : as one or the other of these
alternatives prevails, the system is more or less dualistic. The
least dualistic system of all is that of Valentinus, in which spirit
and matter are in fact related as substance and accident ; spirit is
the being, matter the not-being. The same is the case with
Basilides, only that the two terms change places : here the spiritual
is called the not-being ; the material accordingly is the being.
The subordination of spirit to matter is carried by Basilides to the
furthest point possible. With him they are so immediately one,
that in their unity the antithesis turns into indifference, and there-
fore the development is not from above downwards, as with Valen-
tinus, but from below upwards. It is with Marcion, however, that
we meet with dualism in its most genuine form. Here the
two principles are placed at the summit of the system in their pure
antithesis, although this form too is but a modification of the same
fundamental relation.

It is true that the doctrine on which Marcion laid most stress
was the sharp dualistic separation of the Law and the Gospel.
But it is with perfect justice that he is placed in the series of the
Gnostics, since his view of the Law and the Gospel is based on the
general antithesis of the two principles, which determine his view
of the world. Not only did he assume a matter co-eternal with
the highest God, but he also placed the Creator, whom he as well
as his predecessors distinguished from the highest God, in such a
relation to him and to matter, that he could only be conceived
along with matter, under one and the same fundamental notion.^
The effect of this stricter dualism, however, was to give Marcion's
system an essentially different character from that of the other
Gnostics. It has nothing in common with them except the four

^ Compare Die Christlicbe Gnosis, p. 276, sq.

MARCION. 225

principles, the highest God, matter, the Demiurgus, and Christ.
Marcion has no pleroma, no Aeons, no syzygies, no suffering Sophia.
Now in the other systems where they appear these principles serve
the purpose of setting in motion and helping forward the general
process of world-development till it arrives at the point at which
in Christianity that which was already in existence comes to
full reality and accomplishment. In Marcion's system, therefore,
where these principles are wanting, everything takes place sud-
denly and abruptly, without preparation, without the interposi-
tion of connecting links. Everything is arranged so as to sever
the connection between Christianity and what went before it.
Paganism, according to him, has no affinity with Christianity under
any aspect. Even Judaism stands so far below Christianity, that
the relation of the one to the other is in his eyes that of the
sharpest antithesis. The Demiurgus is not merely a limited and
imperfect being, but one who offers opposition to the highest
God and Christ.^ While with Valentinus and Basilides the
Demiurgus humbles himself before Christ and returns into
himself, with Marcion it is he who compasses Christ's death. It is
true that the chief predicate applied to him is righteousness ; but
in Marcion's view mercy and righteousness stand so far apart, that
the latter is nothing but strictness and hardness. The notion of
righteousness indeed is only introduced to mark the difference and
antithesis between Christianity and Judaism ; and this is but one
instance of Marcion's strong and decided view of the entire newness
and immediateness of Christianity, its incomprehensibleness, and
the absence of preparation for it. The God revealed by Christ is
a completely unknown God, of whom men had not even a presen-
timent before, either in the heathen or in the Jewish world.
Hence it results, that the Gnosticism of Marcion is in tendency
exactly opposed to that form of Gnosticism of which Valentinus
is tlie chief representative. In all the systems that belong to the
earlier form of Gnosticism, the common tendency is to bring as

^ Philos. vii. 31, p. 254. KaKor 8' torii/, ws Xeyftj 6 8r]fiiovpy6s Koi tovtov to

noirjfjMTa.

P

226 CnURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

many intermediate links as possible between the absolute point of
commencement and the point when Christianity appears as a new
stage of development. They deliberately apply themselves to the
task of giving as vivid and concrete a representation as they can
of the whole process of development ; and Christianity enters into
this process in such a way that its whole being and nature can only
be comprehended by means of all that it presupposes. All this
is quite otherwise with Marcion. With a completely opposite
tendency and aim, he seeks to remove from the sphere which those
systems fill with their ideal beings, everything that might be
thought to be a preparation for Christianity. Only the pure
antithesis is to be preserved. And yet, though the two tendencies
seem to be opposed, though it seems to be the essence of the one
to connect and join, and of the other to tear and cut away every
link of connection, still the distinction can be but relative. Such
it must be, if the system of Marcion is to be referred to the
category of Gnosticism as well as those of Valentinus and Basilides :
they are only various forms and modifications of one and the same
mode of view. And this anticipation is confirmed by a closer
examination. Suddenly and abruptly as the God revealed by
Christ appears, and begins to play his part in the history of the
world and religion, yet this is merely the mode of his external
appearance and revelation to the consciousness of humanity.
Even in this appearance the absolute being of the hitherto
unknown God is presupposed. The Demiurgus of Marcion, again,
may differ from that of the two other Gnostics ; but in Marcion's
view too, the God revealed by Christ cannot appear and begin to
act until the kingdom of the Demiurgus, as the lord of the pre-
Christian period, has gone before. The whole history of the world
and religion being thus divided into two periods, one of which
necessarily presupposes the other ; and this relation being incom-
prehensible except by means of a principle in which unity is
bestowed on the antithesis of Christian and pre-Christian : we
find this to be the common element between the tendencies of
Marcion and that of the other Gnostics, that they make all that is

MARCION. 227

of the essence of Christianity, and belongs to the essential Christian
consciousness, dependent on its antithesis to prepare and introduce
it. It is thus neither dualism alone, nor the Demiurgus alone,
that constitutes the essence of Gnosticism, but the relation in
wliich the Demiurgus stands to Christ, viz., such a relation that
Christ himself cannot be, unless the Demiurgus be presupposed.
Here then Marcion is as good a Gnostic as any other. Again it is
to be remembered that the Gnostic Demiurgus himself is only a
mythical personification, one more instance of the general habit
of the thought of the ancient world to set forth its conceptions in
symbols and personifications. Bearing this in mind, we can see
that even when seeking most to assert his Christian consciousness
and to know nothing of the pre-Christian world, Marcion is still
far from escaping from its modes of thought. He too is unable to
conceive the pre-Christian in its distinction from the Christian
world, except by the aid of such a figure as the Demiurgus. He
too holds a standpoint, at which his Christianity is essentially
determined by the general antitheses of his theory of the world.
Still, there is a characteristic distinction between him and the
other Gnostics ; but it is only the consequence of the attitude of
strong opposition he takes up towards everything pre-Christian.
This distinction is, that he is on the point of passing from the tran-
scendental sphere of an objective world-consciousness in which the
world-development moves in tlie antithesis of spirit and matter, or
of the spiritual and the psychical, to that of the subjective conscious-
ness, where the course of the world-development is determined with
reference to the ethical ideas of the Law and the Gospel, righteous-
ness and mercy, fear and love. The general Gnostic antithesis of
spirit and matter is thrown into the back-ground : instead of it,
in order to hold the Law and the Gospel apart in the full width of
their distinction, Marcion bases his view of the world or liis
religious consciousness upon the antithesis of the visible and the
invisible.

The Gnosticism of Marcion discards the Aeons, and retains the
Demiurgus, but on the other hand sharpens the dualistic distinc-

228 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

tion. We are led to ask whether there is not a third form of
Gnosticism : a form in which the Demiurgus, whose separation
from the highest God gives him even with Marcion a heathen
aspect, loses prominence, and in which dualism itself is less
pronounced ; while some at least of the characteristic essence
of Gnosticism still remains in this, that Christianity is still
regarded from the point of view of the general world- development.
Such a system is in fact set forth in the pseudo-Clementine
Homilies, and we have now to consider it. It is indeed very
different from the systems commonly counted under the name of
Gnosticism; and it might quite properly be asked, whether it
should be placed in the same series at all. Yet on the other hand
we find in it a new and peculiar combination of all the Gnostic
notions, and can call it nothing else than a fresh form of Gnosticism.
If we considered that the chief criterion of Gnosticism is to be
found in the separation of the Creator from the highest God, in the
manner in which it is usually understood, then a system which
pronounces against this separation so expressly as the pseudo-
Clementine cannot be regarded as Gnostic. But while fully
recognising this as a criterion, w^e can still affirm that the system
of the Homilies bears a thoroughly Gnostic character. True, there
is not only an antignostic sound, but a really antignostic meaning,
in the emphatic statement that the fundamental truth of all religion
is, that the highest God is also the Creator of the world. It is
the same, when the Homilies carry the idea of the inseparableness
of these two conceptions so far as to say, that even were the
Creator the worst of all beings, all the worship of men would never-
theless be due to him alone, since from him alone does man derive
his existence. Here the two ideas of God and Creator are presented
to us as simply identical for man's religious consciousness.^ But
in spite of the identity of these two conceptions, we see that the
Homilies set up a separation between them again. First of all,
according to them, God is not the creator of matter. A creation
from nothing is unknown to them ; they, like the other Gnostics,

1 Horn, xviii. 22.

GNOSTICISM— THE PSEUDO-CLEMENTINE HOMILIES. 229

assume an original matter, which is together with God as his co-
eternal body, and whence the four elements and primal substances
proceed through the spirit of God, which penetrates the body and
transmutes it into various forms.^ Again, even in so far as God is
the Creator, he is so not immediately, but only through the media-
tion of Sophia. Sophia, always united with God as his soul, is the
world-creating principle, by which God goes out of himself and
the monad becomes the duad. Sophia is, accordingly, expressly
called the Demiurgic hand of God.^ Thus, the only distinction of
the Sophia of the Homilies from that of the Gnostic systems is,
that here she is not separated from God, but is placed in the same
relation of immanence to his being in which matter also stands to
him. A point which contributes still more to establish the analogy
between this and the other systems is to be found in what is said
of the ruler of the world. The true ruler of the world is not God,
but a being holding precisely the place of the Gnostic Demiurgus,
merely with the difference that the creation of the world cannot be
predicated of him. When the four fundamental substances had
come forth from the body of God and had mingled together, there
arose from them a being which possessed the impulse to destroy
the evil beings. This being has no other origin than God, the origin
of all. Its evil nature, however, came not from God, but arose
apart from God, by the will of the mingling fundamental substances
themselves ; yet not against, nay not even without, the will of God ;
for no being, least of all one that has authority, one that is placed
above many others, can come into existence accidentally, without
God's will. To this being, described at least thus far as evil, God
has delegated the rule over the present world, and the execution of
the law, or the punishment of evil. The whole order of the world
is accordingly divided into two kingdoms, the present and the future
world, or the left and the right hand or power of God. Over
against the evil ruler of the present world stands Christ, the good

^ The conclusion of the Homilies, first added in Drcssel's edition of them, Gott.
1853. Horn. xx. 5 gives a more detailed explanation of the relation of matter to
God. Cf. Uhlhorn, op. ciL, p. 179, w/.

^ Horn. xvi. 12. x*'P hrjyuovpyovaa to tiuv.

230 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

ruler of the future world.^ This evil being is thus also one who,
in the punishment of evil, executes the law, and represents in him-
self the conception of righteousness, like the Demiurgus of Marcion.
But with all that separates him, as evil, from God, and makes him
the principle of the demonic, he is not allowed to stand in such an
antithesis to God as the Demiurgus of Marcion. The latter, being
a creator distinct from the highest God, and a second God by the
side of the one and absolute God, is a chief object of the polemic
which the Homilies direct against the older Gnostic systems. The
general tendency of this system is thus to limit and modify, with-
out absolutely rejecting, the Gnostic ideas, even the Gnostic dualism,
in such a way, as to prevent any encroachment upon the funda-
mental doctrine of God's absolute monarchy, and to reduce the
antithesis of two opposite principles till it becomes nothing more
than a duality immanent in the being of God. And its character
is also analogous to that of the Gnostic systems, inasmuch as it
also has a process of world-development : only that it is in the form
of its syzygies that it presents that process. The notion of syzygy
is held by the Homilies in a sense different from that usually
adopted by Gnosticism ; it is in virtue of their antithesis that the
conceptions which form a syzygy are thus related to each other."
The law of the universe is the law of antithesis, or of syzygies.
God being himself one from the beginning, divided everything into
antitheses, right and left, heaven and earth, day and night, light and
fire, life and death. But after man, the order of the syzygies was
reversed. At first, the better preceded, the inferior followed ; now
the worse became the first, and the better the second. Adam, the
man made in the image of God, was followed first by unrighteous

^ Horn. xix. 7, vii. 3, iii. 19. It is only in the conclusion of the Homilies that
we find the doctrine of the devil, as the ruler of this world, completed aud made
clearly intelligible. On the one hand, the devil is not properly an evil, but a
righteous, God-ser\Tng being ; on the other, there is a final transformation of the
devil, of the evil into the good. While by reason of his origin from Kpaa-is he
has an evil Trpoalpfvis, he receives through fKraavyKpaa-is a npoaipea-is uyadov.
XX. 9.

2 God SttiXt everything at its extreme, 5i;^cor koi evapricos. This is the idea of
syzygy, as stated in the chief passage on the subject, Horn. ii. 15.

ONOSTICISM-THE PSEUDO-CLEMENTINE HOMILIES. 231

Cain, and then by righteous Abel. Adam himself was made
according to that first divine order : in the syzygy which he forms
with Eve, he, the better member, precedes, and Eve, the inferior,
follows. The reversal of the syzygies is in this system what the
fall of Sophia from the pleroma is in the Valentinian — a rent
introduced into the whole world- order, which had to come about
sooner or later, but admits of no further explanation. The very
existence of syzygies, the duality of a male and a female principle,
the division into antitheses, all this is an original defect inherent
in the finite nature of the world. This defect, this weak side of
the universe, is brought into prominence and becomes predominant,
when the female precedes the male, and the worse is always the
first, which has to be overcome by the better. Such then is the
order in which the process of the world's history is here developed.
Its moving principle is not the real antithesis of the spiritual and
the psychical, but the ideal antithesis of true and false prophecy.
There are two kinds of prophecy, a male and a female, related as
truth to error, or as the future to the present world. The relation
of the present to the future world is the type of the order in which
the members of the syzygies succeed one another. The little is
first, the great second; it is thus with the world and eternity.
The present world is temporal, the future eternal. First is ignorance,
then knowledge. Those who exercise the prophetic gift are
arranged in the same way. As the present world is female, and,
as a mother of children, gives birth to souls, while the future world
is male, and, as a father, takes up the children ; so in this world
the prophets who appear with true knowledge as sons of the future
world, come not first, but follow after.^ The only application
of this law of syzygies to the history of the world and religion is
the statement about Adam, that he appeared again at various
times under various names, before the flood as Enoch, after it as
Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses. Lastly, he appeared as
Christ. In Christ the syzygy is more definitely presented, being
plainly seen in the contrast which he bears to his forerunner John

1 Horn. ii. 25.

232 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

or Elias. The relation of the two is that of sun and moon. This
relation is seen again in Simon Magns — who was the first dis-
ciple of the Baptist, and succeeded fully to his position after his
death — and the apostle Peter. The same antithesis then which is
exhibited in the relation of the present and the future worlds, is
carried on through the present world itself under various forms.
The worse, the female, ever comes first ; the better, the male, follows
after. If, however, we merely find the same antithesis continually
repeated, if Christ is at last merely what Adam, Adam who is
identical with Christ, was at first, we must ask, what is the general
goal of the development? It can only be the dissolution and
transition of the present into the future world. This, however, does
not take place through such a process of development as that set
forth in the other Gnostic systems. The general form of view
which underlies the system of the Homilies, is not time and motion
in time, so much as space and extension in space. The one true
God, who in the most perfect form presides over the universe, and
who, wherever he is, is as the heart of the universe in the centre
of the infinite, sends forth from himself as centre six dimensions,
upward and downward, to the right and to the left, forward and
backward. It is true, it is said here that, directing his gaze to-
wards these six dimensions, as a number equal on all sides, he
completes the world in six periods of time. Still the fundamental
mode of view is concerned with space, with being which rests in
space. As that in which all existence comes to rest, he has his
likeness, as the beginning and end of all, in future infinite time.
For the six infinite directions return to him, and from him every-
thing takes its extension into the infinite : this is the mystery of
the number seven. He is the point of rest for all ; and if any one
within his small sphere imitates his greatness, him he allows to
attain to rest in himself,^ Here, to say the least, there is no state-

^ Horn. 17, 9. Dualism is lost in the monotheism of this system ; and the
duality of principles becomes a condition immiiuent in the nature of God — matter
being the body which is animated by the sjiirit of God, and Sophia, in her unity
with God, as his soul, being both monad and duad. But this only shows the
more clearly that Gnostic pantheism is the fundamental view of the system. It

GNOSTICISM- THE PSEUDO-CLEMENTINE HOMILIES. 233

ment of a process of world- development carried on in time. And
yet the system of the Homilies is true to the fundamental character
of Gnosticism ; for in this system also it is through antitheses that
the whole process of mediation and reconciliation is carried through.
We have seen that in the system of Marcion the antithesis of the
real world-principles — spirit and matter — merely serves as a
foundation and condition precedent of the contrast between the
Law and the Gospel ; the use of the former antithesis is to render
possible a knowledge of the two latter supreme ethical principles
in their radical distinction from each other, and of what they
actually are in themselves. In the system of the Homilies Me
have the same genuinely Gnostic striving after positive knowledge.
The cosmogony and the metaphysics of the system are subsidiary
to the great end of raising the moral and religious consciousness to
the standpoint of absolute knowledge. False and true prophecy
or religion are here what the Law and the Gospel are with Marcion.
There is a true, and there is a false prophecy ; and together, they
constitute the essence, and they guide the course, of the history of
the world and of religion. Now, since the distinction between them
is so infinitely great, and nothing can be more important for man
than to be acquainted with it, there must be a test by which man
can distinguish the two, and know absolutely what is false in the
false prophecy and true in the true. For this reason, God has
founded the w^hole order of the world upon the law of syzygies.
As a teacher of truth, that the knowledge of that which is mioht
be possible to man, God has clearly revealed the canon of syzygies
in the nature that He has made.^ By this supreme and most
universal test truth may be known and error distinguished. In
accordance with this canon, Simon Magus is known for a false

is simply Gnostic pantheism that we have before us in the immanent relation of
God and the world. The relation of God to the world is that of centre to circum-
ference, oicria to fierovcria, 17. 7.

1 Horn. ii. 15. tvOev yoiv 6 dtos fiiSacTKuXcof rovs dvdpanrovs irpoi tijv twv _
oPTOiv dXT]6fiav, (IS iov aiiros ti)(ci)s kch eVai/ruos 8i('i\fv wdvTa rti tu>i> aKpcov,
dnapx^s avTos (is i)v Koi p.6vos 6(6s, Tvot.Tjuas ovpavov koX yrju, Tjfitpav (cat vvkto,
(pws KoX Trip, fjXiov Kui (T(\r]vr]v, fwr/i' (cat ddvuTov. Cf. iii. 16.

234 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

prophet : for Peter did not come till after him ; Peter follows him
as light follows darkness, knowledge ignorance, recovery sickness.
The false Gospel must first come by a deceiver ; then, and not till
then, the true one can be spread abroad for the refutation of future
heresies. After him again. Antichrist must come first; then only
will tlie true Christ, Jesus, appear; and thereupon eternal light
will dawn, and all darkness disappear.^ Antithesis thus follows
antithesis, that the knowledge of truth to be brought about by
means of the antitheses may more and more be deep and universal.
Now truth is from the beginning one and the same ; there is no
essential distinction even between Mosaism and Christianity, their
contents being really the same; and so the goal of the whole
development must be to make truth known, and to introduce it into
the general consciousness of humanity. The only reason why
Christianity marks an epoch is, that in virtue of its spreading the
Gospel even among the Gentiles, it is the completion of universalism.
Another point in which this system coincides with Gnosticism is,
that Christ is with it a universal world-principle. What gives
unity to the whole process of the world's history, whose moving
principle is the law of syzygies, is this; it is ever the same
one true prophet, the man made by God, and endowed with the
Holy Spirit of Christ, who from the beginning of the world's course
passes through all its periods, changing at each stage both his name
and form, and at last, after times appointed for him, receives his
recompense for the work that he has undertaken, when he arrives,
anointed with the mercy of God, at everlasting rest.

The ultimate distinction between the system of the Homilies
and the older Gnostic systems may be thus expressed. In the
former a strict adherence to the principle of unity makes Gnostic
dualism appear as a thing immanent in monotheism. From the
transcendental metaphysics of the Gnostic cosmogony, we here
descend to the history of the world and religion, there to follow out
the antitheses through which the knowledge of the essentially true
and the seK-existent is rendered possible. In the older systems

1 Horn. ii. 17.

THE THREE FORMS OF GNOSTICISM. 235

there was already some preparation for this transition ; namely, in
the idea of the " spiritual." The element of the spiritual natures
is knowledge ; they are spirit freed from all material or animal
darkening of its consciousness, self-conscious, knowing, ever rising
to the knowledge of that which is essentially true. Gnosticism
in all its forms is the knowledge of the absolute, absolute know-
ledge ; only, the object which it places before itself varies. In
the older systems it is the absolute, generally, with the antitheses
of the principles ; with Marcion it is the antithesis of Christian
and pre-Christian, or of the Law and the Gospel ; in the Homilies
that of true and false prophecy.

The three forms of Gnosticism with which our discussion has
now presented us may also be distinguished according to the three
forms of religion whose multifarious elements go to make up the
Gnostic doctrines. In the earlier systems the symbolic and
mythical mode of view proper to heathen antiquity prevails ; the
pre-Christian is the prelude of Christianity, and the distinction
between the two is wavering and unfixed. The system of Marcion
concerns itself with the pure conception of Christianity, disengaged
from all foreign elements. In the Homilies, Christianity is only
purified and expanded Judaism. While the earlier systems placed
Judaism at a very subordinate stage, and Marcion even denied it
all religious value, in the Homilies it is the absolute religion. In
order to hold this position, however, the Homilies were driven to
employ an arbitrary method of dealing with the Scriptures. The
depreciation of Judaism by the earlier Gnostics was founded on
certain passages of the Old Testament, in which they found the
chief proofs of their assertion that the Demiurgus, as the God of
the Jews, was only a weak and limited being ; the Homilies de-
clared all these passages to be spurious interpolations. Thus one
form of Gnosticism is the denial of the other ; and the opposition
they bear to each other is according to their historical order. The
ancient Gnostics built many of their doctrines on allegory ; Marcion
rejected allegory. His doctrine again was opposed by that of the
Homilies ; for there can be no doubt that the false doctrine, which

236 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

the Homilies comlDat in Simon Magus as a new form of heathen
polytheism, is Marcion's Gnosticism. These several forms, then,
not only succeed one another historically, but are intimately con-
nected with, and supplementary of, one another ; and in these
several stages. Gnosticism has worked out its idea and accomplished
its course. The essence of Gnosticism is the endeavour to com-
prehend the stages of religious history, as that which they are in
their true nature, or philosophically. It could thus take up its
absolute standpoint either in a form of Christianity approaching
as closely as possible to Paganism, or in pure Christianity, or in a
Christianity identical with Judaism.^

1 Another peculiar form of Gnosticism, which without doubt belongs to a later
time, when the influence of Manicheism was felt, is the system of the above-
mentioned (p. 211) Ut'cTTty 2o(f)ia. To establish a clear connection between the
several leading ideas of this work, and to give an intelligible and comprehensive
^■iew of the whole system, was a difficult task, and the manner in which Kostlin
addressed himself to the work, in his Dissertation in the Theol. Jahrb., 1854,
Das gnostische System des Buches Uicrris 2o(f)ia, deserves grateful acknowledg-
ment. The UioTis 2o(f)ia, according to Kostlin, is distinguished from the other
Gnostic systems by its monistic character and its practical religious tendency.
With respect to its fundamental mode of view, it is still occupied with the anti-
thesis of spirit and matter. But matter, though impure, is not originally an evil
jirinciple. The whole universe has arisen by emanation. In the highest region
of the divine realm of light, infinitely exalted above all worlds and heavens, the
Ineffable of his free will sends forth from himself the beings, of luminous nature,
that rest in his bosom and strive to go forth to an independent reality of their
own ; this region is such a purely spiritual realm of perfect law and harmony,
that Sophia is deposed from the seat which she holds iu the Valentinian pleroma
to a more distant sphere. The idea of a fall from the infinite and a return to it
is the subject treated throughout. It is so treated that the fate of Sojjhia, her
fall, penitence, and redemption, become types prefiguring what is afterwards to
be realised in mankind in exactly the same way. The world has been made, i.e.
has come forth from the Ineff'able, by means of the first mystery, only in order
that the latter and the other mysteria purgatores and remissores, i.e. the hidden
powers of the Deity, which preside over the purification of the world by conver-
sion and penitence, may be able to translate into action their tendency to a
purifying activity. Through the whole range of the boundless universe, itself
brought forth by means of these powers, their activity is to extend, overcoming
even the fall and the ojjposition offered to good. The mysteries are finally to
make manifest the eternal exaltation of the divine over all that is finite, the in-
finitely reconciling and blessing power and life of the good principle. A peculi-
arity of the system is its doctrine of mysteries. The idea of the mysteries includes
all on which the welfare and permanence of the world and mankind depend.

D0CETI8M. 237

Another phase of Gnosticism, usually termed Docetism, still
remains to be examined. Docetism involves a question which
goes deeply into the nature of Gnosticism, and is of considerable
moment for our view of the latter. The more universal, compre-
hensive, and transcendent the point of view from which Gnosti-
cism regarded Christianity, the more pressing became the question,
what was the relation of Gnostic to historical Christianity ? did
not Gnosticism cast doubt upon the historical facts of Christianity,

The mysteries generate, rule, reconcile, and save the beings who stand under
them. The whole of Christianity is thus that introduction or leading down of
the mysteries to the world, which, effected by Christ, is to make the world and
the realm of light known to one another, to reconcile them and unite them for
ever. The two fundamental ideas of the system, alike essential, are those of
righteousness and grace. Either through conversion and amendment, or through
utter annihilation, evil is to disappear, and the final goal of the whole world-
process to be reached, viz., the purification of the universe from all that is un-
worthy and perverted. Here, on the one hand, the question of practical religion
is placed first, and the one aim is to bring before man, in all its extent and
gravity, the finiteness of his nature, his dependence on the lower and worldly
powers, his incapacity to raise himself above them without the help of some
higher redeeming power ; and, at the same time, to give him the assurance that
a redeeming power is really present in the universe, and has ajipeared in Christ,
But, on the other hand, the mode of attaining this practical aim is conditioned
by the foundations of the system, which are laid in Gnostic metaphysics. Not
until a view of the infinite exaltation and glory of the supra-celestial region of
light and its principles has been gained, is it possible to comprehend the manner
in which the finite returns to the infinite, or rather, is taken back into itself and
united with itself by the infinite from which it proceeded. This system, there-
fore, bears a very close affinity to those that are classed under the first of the
chief forms of Gnosticism, especially to Ophitism ; but it is raised above them by
its moral spirit and its comparative freedom from dualism and from the s])irit of
particularism. According to Kiistlin, p. 188, sq., the IIiotij ^ocpla affords a
convincing proof, not only that the later epoch of Gnosticism was a })eriod of
decay and dissolution, but also that many attempts were then made to bring
back Gnostic doctrine to greater harmony with the spirit of Christianity and the
demands of the moral consciousness, to maintain interest in it by bold specula-
tions concerning the world beyond the grave, and to combine it with all available
elements of other existing systems. This appears most clearly (says Kiistlin) in
that part of the book from which it derives its name, the passages setting forth
the doctrine of Sophia. Notwithstanding the Ophitic basis of thought, Sophia
is conceived, as with Valentinus (though in a yet more spiritual manner), as the
representative of the finite spirit's longing for knowledge of the infinite ; and
with the addition of the ethical element, she becomes also the type of faith,
penitence, and hope.

238 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

and upon its historical character generally, in a way which the
Christian consciousness could not possibly allow? The name
Docetism, as used to designate the Gnostic view of Christianity
as more or less docetic, informs us that this question really arose.
By this name we understand the assertion that Christ, as it is said
even in 1 John iv. 3, had not really come in the flesh, that is, had
not had a true and real body, like another ordinary man.^ Now
the body is the material basis of human existence. It follows
immediately, therefore, from this assertion, that, Christ having had
no real body, the reality of the facts historically connected with
his person, and the historical character of Christianity, are also
brought into question. All the events in which his body was
supposed to be concerned, and notably his passion, are not any-
thing that really happened : it is merely thought that they so
happened ; they are only something represented, only BoKT]a€t or
Kara SoK7]acv, something docetic.^ The comparative deviations of

^ Compare the Epistles of Ignatius. Ep. ad Smyrn. cap. 5 : tov Kvpiov ^Xacr-
iprjfie'i, fir] ofiokoyav avrov aapKocjiopov.

^ Ignat. loc. cit. cap. 2. ' Attlo-toi TLves \eyov(riv to boKetv avrov neTrovOevai, airoi
TO boKflv ovTes. Though Docetism is a part of the general character of Gnosticism,
the Docetae are sometimes spoken of as a particular Gnostic sect. Clement of
Alexandria mentions (Strom, iii. 13) Cassian, a pupil of the school of Valentinus,
who shared with Tatian the principles of the Encratites, as the e^apxcov t^?
8oKT}(rea)S. The author of the Philosophoumena, without naming a founder, speaks
of the Docetae as a peculiar sect which had of itself assumed that name ; intro-
ducing them in company with Monoimus, Tatian, Hermogenes, the Quartodeci-
mans, the Montanists, and the Encratites. They conceived God as the first
principle, under the figure of a seed, containing the infinitely great in the infin-
itely small. The world grew out of God as the fig-tree from the seed. As the
fig-tree consists of stem, leaves, and fruit, so from the first principle there arose
three Aeons ; and these, by reason of the perfection of the number ten, multi-
plied themselves tenfold to thirty Aeons. The Redeemer is the common product
of all the Aeons, the expression of their unity ; he is the unity of the principle
which, identical with itself, is in all things that have come into being. As there
are thirty Aeons, so the Redeemer assumes thirty forms (Ibtas). Hence it comes
that every heresy has a different idea of the Redeemer, and each takes the
Redeemer, conceived according to its own idea, to be the only true one {8ca tovto
Too-oCrnt a'ipea€is f»7roi)(rt tov 'irja-ovv nfpinaxrjTcos, Koi fcm Trdaais oiKf7os auratf,
itWr) bf (iXXoi 6pu>p.€vos an tiXXov tottov, ((p' ov (KaaTrf (pfpeTai, (prjcrlv, koi ancvSei
doKovaa TovTov 6ii/ai p.6vov, os f(TTLv nvTrjs avyyfvrjs, I'Sioj koi ttoXi'tt;?, etc., 8, 10,
p. 268). This doctrine of the Docetae then is merely an expression of the general

DOCETISM. 239

the Gnostic systems from historical Christianity may therefore be
measured according to their various views with respect to the
nature of Christ's body. The position of Basilides seems to have
been nearest to the common idea of the body of Christ and his
birth from the Virgin Mary.^ Valentinus and other Gnostics, how-
ever, supposed that he was not born of Mary, but only through
{hut) Mary ; that he passed through her as through a channel ;
that his birth was only a birth in appearance.^ The Valentinians
certainly held that Christ possessed no more than a psychical
body, but the question was very much disputed among them, and
was the occasion of their being divided into two schools : the
Anatolian and the Italiot. According to the latter, to which
Heracleon and Ptolemaeus belonged, Jesus had a natural body,
and for that reason the Spirit descended on him at his baptism.
The former, and here we may name Axionicus and Adresianes,
considered that the body of the Soter was spiritual, because the
Holy Spirit, i.e. Sophia and the demiurgic formative power of the
Highest, had descended upon Mary. The most decided Docetism
was taught by Marcion. According to him, Christ's whole mani-
festation was a mere appearance and phantasm. Not even the
slightest contact with the kingdom of the Demiurgus and its
material life was to be admitted. Christ was therefore not even
born in appearance, but descended directly from heaven to earth.^

character of Gnosticism, a fundamental view of which it is that, as opposed to
the one objective absolute principle, all that has come into being is but a sub-
jective idea, fashioned according to the variety of aspect under which it is
imaged in the idea-forming consciousness. In a word, Gnostic Docetism is that
side of Gnosticism which may be called idealism ; and since it speaks of Ibeai,
this term is especially appropriate. While Gnosticism endeavoured to comprehend
the absolute, or to enal)le the consciousness to approach that which is in itself,
there was forced on it the perception that the process on which it was employed
was purely phenomenological ; that its metaphysics could never conduct it beyond
subjective consciousness. Exactly where the elements of its structure should
have met and exhibited concrete reality of existence — as in the pei'son of the
Redeemer — there being was dissolved into a mere boKelv.

^ In the Philos., vii. 2G, p. 241, it is in accordance with the doctrine of Basili-
des that Jesus is directly called 6 vtoy t^j Mapi'as.

2 Comp. Tert. adv. Valent., cap. 27. Theod. Haer. fab. v. 11.

3 Comp. Die chriatliche Gnosis, p. 255, sq.

240 CRUBCE HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

Comparing these various opinions, we see plainly the close con-
nection of the docetism and the dualism of the Gnostic systems.
Redemption, according to Gnostic doctrine, consists in the libera-
tion of the spiritual from the material and psychical ; and thus
it is inherent in the idea of the Redeemer, that he must come as
little as possible into contact with the psychical.^ It is true that
a human body, to be substantial, must contain a material element ;
but the strong repulsion of the two principles of spirit and matter
makes it essential to give such a preponderance to the spiritual
as to exclude everything material. The inevitable conclusion
is, that the body of the Redeemer had not the concrete reality of
human existence. If he nevertheless appeared with a human
body, that body was a mere presentation corresponding to no
reality. And what is true of the body of Christ is true of his
personality in general. The body of Christ has no material sub-
stratum, and so his personality is destitute of the concrete contents
of a human existence. The Gnostic Christ is too immaterial to
plant his foot firmly on the earth, or to be bound up with the
organic system of human life. His self-consciousness has its
centre of gravity in the transcendental region of the world of
Aeons ; and he suddenly floats down from on high, in order to
pass a brief existence in a human form and presence. This cannot
l)e said to be a human being. In addition to this there is nothing
left by Gnostic doctrine that can be regarded as the effect of the
personal activity of the Redeemer. The work of the Redeemer is
redemption ; but what redemption is in the view of the Gnostics
is plainly shown by their well-known assertion of a (fivaei aco^eaOac.
If those who are saved are saved by nature, i.e. because as spiritual
natures they are under a necessity of returning back at last into
the pleroma, then it does not appear how their salvation requires
a Redeemer at all. In the Gnostic view, salvation does not depend
on action and moral performance, but consists simply in a mode of
being. Knowledge as such, the knowledge of the absolute, is itself

^ Philos. vii. 31, p. 254 : 8ia tovto dyivvrjTos KaT7]\6fv 6 'ir/crovy, (prjalv {MapKiav)
lua ji irdoTjs aTTTJWayfxtvos KUKias. ^''

DOCETISM. 241

redemption and salvation.^ When then in spiritual natures the
original spiritual principle, which can never be wholly quenched,
in its gradual development breaks through the material and psychi-
cal elements by which it is obscured, and illuminates the man's
consciousness in such a way that he rises above the world of the
Demiurgus, and becomes aware of his unity with the pleroma,
then is reached the highest stage of spiritual life, which as such is
also the life of salvation ; and redemption is accomplished. It is
true that the Gnostic systems regard the process as the work of
the Eedeemer. But all that this means is that they see in his
appearance and action an outward representation of that which
is in itself an inner process of spiritual life. That which is
constantly taking place in the same way in the endless number
of spiritual beings, that one act of the spirit which in every life,
after going out of itself, goes back into itself, and rises to its
original being, is here summed up in its unity in Christ; Christ
being the universal principle and upholder of spiritual life. The
concrete, the individual, the personal, is in every case lost in the
generality of the idea ; the Gnostic Christ merely represents a
principle, the spiritual principle which underlies all forms and stages
of development. The system of the Homilies is distinguished from
the other Gnostic systems by its greater unity of character. And
the principle which the other systems fail to keep a hold of consist-
ently, so that with them Christ assumes a variety of forms, the
Homilies fix and state distinctly in its unity, when they lay down
that it is the same one prophet of truth who appears in all ages of
the world, only under various forms and various names. Even in
this case, what significance is left for the external manifestation
and human birth of Christ ? It looks as if in the system of the
Homilies, Gnostic supernaturalism was about to throw off the mask
completely, and to declare in so many words, that outward revelation
is nothing but the immanent self-revelation of spirit. The prophet
is a prophet, we are told, through his e/x(l>vTou koI aevvaov irvevfia ;^
and this vvevfia is said to belong not only to the prophet but to

^ Cf. Die christliclie Gnosis, p. 139, sq., 489, sq. ^ Horn. iii. 15.

242 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

all pious men. For, it is laid down generally, truth springs forth
from the pious man's pure indwelling spirit. In this sense the
apostle Peter is made to say, " So was the Son revealed to me by
the Father : therefore I know of my own experience the meaning
of revelation. For as soon as the Lord questioned me (Matthew
xvi. 14), it rose in my heart, and I know not what came upon me,
for I said. Thou art the Son of the living God. He who for this
called me blessed, told me first that it was the Father who had
revealed it to me. After this I perceived what revelation is ; to
learn a thing without outward teaching, without visions and
dreams ; and this is the case, for the germ of all truth is contained
in the truth which God has implanted in us. This truth is con-
cealed or discovered by God's hand alone ; God working according
to his knowledge of the worthiness of each." The place of the
outward revelation, then, is taken by the inward : the former can
only bring to consciousness the germ and principle of truth already
deposited in the spirit of man. Here we obtain some insight into
the deeper connections of a view w^hich lies at the root of, and is
the inner principle of, all the Gnostic systems, however various
their outward forms. If the same divine spirit which was in Adam
appeared also in Christ, then, since after being thus imparted to
Adam it must have passed also to those descended from him, the
divine principle in Christ is not essentially different from the
divine in all other men ; consequently, it is not anything that
positively passes the bounds of the natural. It is the same divine
spirit of man, the holy spirit of Christ, which, in the seven pillars
of the world, goes through all the periods of the world's history,
but which also dwells as an inmost principle in all men. The only
distinction is that while in these two it appears in the strength
and purity of its substance, as the pure archetypal man, in all other
men it is more or less obscured. Yet even in them it is not so
eclipsed and darkened, that it cannot, whether through the inward
energy of the principle or by some incitement from without, break
through the darkness which obscures it, and regain the full light of
its self- consciousness. This Adam-Christ is as it were the male
principle. AVhat obscures and weakens it in particular individuals

DOCETISM. . 243

is only that there is a female principle bound up with it, and that
the latter has obtained the ascendant. The former is the spiritual
and reasonable ; the latter the sensual, and weak side of human
nature, the side subject to error and sin. Hence even the phenomena
wherein false prophecy or demonic heathenism manifests itself, have
their ultimate source, according to the Homilies, in a principle dwell-
ing in man himself. The two principles of reason and sense are
thus for the individual man and for human nature regarded in its
essence, what on a larger scale Judaism and heathenism are for the
world's history. In each case appears the same duality — a male and
a female principle. Thus we have only to strip off the symbolic
mythical clothing in which Gnostic supernaturalism wraps itself,
and to take the forms in which it personifies its conceptions for
what they are in themselves, and we have the true kernel of the
Gnostic view of the world in a very transparent rationalism,
founded on the immanent relations of the self-consciousness of the
spirit. Even if there was no very direct consciousness of this
rationalism, still its principle is essentially involved in the notion
of Gnosticism ; and it thus appears that Docetism was merely the
point at which this rationalising tendency — present, whether more
or less developed, in all Gnosticism — reached its clearest and most
unmistakable outward manifestation. It lies in the nature of the
case and is unavoidable, that, in proportion as stress is laid on
general speculative or religious ideas, the historical reality of the
facts of Christianity should be thrown into the background. In
the presence of the idea the element of fact receives only a
secondary importance, or may even become a mere figurative
reflection of the idea. Such is the true significance of Gnostic
Docetism. It makes an assertion with regard to the body of Christ
which is essentially true of Gnosticism as a whole. The body of
Christ lacks the concrete reality of a human body; and in the
same way, it is the general character of Gnosticism to refine and
generalise away the positive contents of historical Christianity.
Christianity becomes a part of the general view of the world ; it is
interpreted as one stage in the universal process of world-develop-
ment. The Gnostic Christ is a universal principle, which conditions,

244 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

as in the earlier systems, the real process of world-development, or
at least, as in the system of the Homilies, the knowledge of truth
generally. Christianity (according to the Gnostics) is concerned,
not with the mere question of salvation — how is man saved ? but
with one more universal — what is the beginning, the course, the goal,
of the world-development? or, how is it possible to attain to
absolute knowledge of the true, of that which is in itself? When
occupied with tlie question of salvation, Christianity was in danger
of withering away into Jewish particularism. In the same way,
when occupied with the problems raised by Gnosticism, it was on
the point of dissolving into the thin element of a general transcen-
dental view of the world. Both dangers needed to be met by the
catholic tendency of Christianity, as worked out in the realisation
of the Church. But before we turn to this side of the development
of the Church's history, Montanism claims our attention.

MONTANISM. 245

II. — MONTANISM.

Gnosticism and Montanism have this in common that they are
both concerned with questions which go back to first principles,
questions relating to nothing less than the course of the world in
general. The difference between them is, that while Gnosticism
contemplates the point of commencement, whence all proceeds, the
absolute principles that condition the process of God's self-revela-
tion and the course of the world-development, in Montanism the
cardinal point round which everything revolves is the end of things,
the catastrophe towards which the course of the world is moving
on. They also differ widely from each other in respect of the
range of ideas with which they are conversant. Gnosticism enters
into broad views of the universe, such as had been opened up, and
made attractive by the boldest speculative ideas of the philosophy
of the age ; Montanism does not advance beyond the Jewish
Messianic idea. These differences however, do not take away what
the two systems have in common. Indeed, the two phenomena
which we have coupled together may both be traced up into the
primitive Christian mode of view. The elements of both are to be
found there. Paul approaches the Gnostic view of the world, when
in speaking of the two world-periods, the pre-Christian and the
Christian, he regards them in the light of general principles which
determine the development of humanity, and when he distinguishes
separate steps in a course of the world that returns into the absolute
unity of God. Montanism, again, is derived entirely from the \
primitive Christian idea of the immediate coming of Christ, a belief I
which Paul also shared. Before going on to Montanism then, we
may appropriately consider this belief which is so marked a feature

246 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

of the original Christian consciousness. The belief in the second
coming of Christ, and the reaction against a view of the world which
had lost its hold upon this belief, are the two leading momenta
which serve to explain the origin and character of Montanism.

What connected Christianity with Judaism most directly and
most intimately was the Jewish Messianic idea; though from it
also there arose the sharpest antithesis by which the two faiths
came to be separated from each other. It had been thought that
Jesus was the promised Messiah, who had appeared with a view to
the fulfilment of the Messianic expectations. His death seemed
to leave these hopes unfulfilled, and to destroy them for ever : the
disciples, as Jews possessed with the Messianic belief, felt that such
an event made it impossible to apply the belief to him. But the
gulf lying between idea and fact was only too soon filled up. He
had not, as the living Messiah, fulfilled what was hoped of him ;
but as the risen Messiah, exalted to heaven, he might return from
heaven again, now at length to accomplish all that had not yet
come about. The Parousia of Christ became a necessary postulate
of the faith of the first disciples ; the old belief had assumed a new
form, but it was impossible to renounce the substance of it, and it
seemed to be a necessity that it should be fulfilled without delay.
Many passages of the books of the New Testament show with what
power this belief reigned in the minds of the first Christians. So
much was this the case, that in this respect there was no essential
difference between the apostle of the Gentiles and the author of
the Apocalypse. If any of the first publishers of Christianity was
capable of discerning that its destiny — its exaltation into the
universal religion — was only to be fulfilled in the distant future, it
was Paul. Yet even he, as he thinks on Christ's coming, firmly
believes that aU is now approaching its end, and that he will him-
self live to see the great catastrophe. Such a belief, however, too
surely brought its own refutation to last long in all its strength
and vividness. The longer it remained unfulfilled, the more
inevitably it tended to lose its hold on the mind of the age. Even
within the New Testament itself, we can trace the various modifica-

MONTANISM. 247

tions which it gradually underwent. Compare the two books which
vary most widely in their manner of stating it ; what a discrepancy
of tone do we find between the Apocalypse, where it blazes out in
its brightest flame, and takes its most concrete form in the idea of
the millennium, and the Second Epistle of Peter. The author of
the latter speaks of scoffers who shall come in the last days,
walking after their own lusts, and saying, " Where is the promise of
his coming ? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as
they were from the creation ; " and instead of questioning the facts
on which the scoffer proceeded, he merely seeks to refute him by
substituting for the belief itself a recognition of the general truths
that lie at its base. This shows us pretty plainly what the state
of belief on the subject was at this time. But though it had ceased,
at least in its original form, to be a universal article of Christian
faith, still there could not fail to be some, who in contrast to the
increasing worldliness of the Christian mind which was manifested
in the decay of this belief, quickened it in themselves even to a
stronger life, and held it fast with fresh enthusiasm. Such were
the Montanists ; and this is one of their most prominent traits.
Even though it be admitted that millenarianism was at the
time a universal Christian belief, still the Montanists were the
most pronounced of all millenarians. It was this doctrine that
especially kindled their enthusiasm : their prophets announced, in
language like that of men inspired, the judgments which were
impending with the coming of Christ, the reign of a thousand years,
and the end of the world, and depicted all that was coming in the
most vivid colours. How much they were occupied with the
thought of the immediate end of the world, and how real the
thought was to them, is shown by the saying of the prophetess
Maximilla, "After me comes nothing but the end of the world ?"^
Soon as the consummation might come, it could not approach too
quickly for their millenariau spirit. In their daily prayer, to ask
that God's kingdom might come was to give utterance to their
millenarian view of the world; the kingdom of God and the end

^ Mer' ffie ovk(ti TrpocjjrjTis farm, uk\a avvrtXeia.

248 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

of the world were with them the same idea.^ Even then, though
the whole generation for which the coming of Christ was supposed
to have been promised, had hut looked for it in vain, still the belief
itself that in the immediate future Christ would appear, and the king-
dom of God begin, was not abandoned. The Montanists knew the
spot where the heavenly Jerusalem would descend ; they had even
had a vision foreshadowing the descent from heaven. With other
Christians, coldness and lukewarmness had laid hold of millen-
arianism ; but for that very reason it became all the stronger and
livelier with them. And this shows us how close was the connec-
tion between the millenarian belief of the Montanists and another
no less characteristic part of their system, ecstatic prophecy. If
they were living entirely in the thought of Christ's coming and of
the future, and saw close at hand the events that were to introduce
and accompany the impending catastrophe, this contemplation
of the future in the present inevitably gave rise to prophecy.
Prophecy with the Montanists assumed the form of ecstasy ; a fact
very characteristic of the sect, though ecstasy itself was by no
means an uncommon thing. Ecstasy is merely prophecy intensified^
By a natural analogy, as millenarianism among the Montanists
advanced to freshi energy, prophecy also, as the expression of their
millenarian inspiration, soared with a loftier flight, and became
ecstasy. Here the finite subject became absolutely passive under
the divine principle. Hence the saying of Montanus, in which he
compares man to the lyre, the Paraclete to the plectrum, and calls
the former a sleeper, the latter a watcher ; and the belief that the
special organs of the Holy Spirit were women, prophetesses such
as Maximilla and Priscilla. The one belief naturally gained

^ Compare Tertullian, De Orat. c. 5 ; where he says of the veriiat regnumtuum ;
Itaque si ad Dei voluntatcm et ad nostram suspensionem pertinet regni dominici
representatio, quomodo quidam pertractum queudam in seculo postulant (how can so
many ask, that the kingdom of God should further prolong itself into secular time ?
millenarianism was then no longer a universal belief) ; quum regnum Dei quod,
ut adveniat, oramus, ad cousiimmationem seculi tendat ; optamus maturius regnare
et non diutius servire. Etiam si praefinitum in oratione non esset, de j)ostulando
regni adveutu, ultro earn vocem postulassemus, festiuantes ad spei nostrae com-
plex urn.

MONTANISM. 249

strength together with the other. The believers in Christ's coming
did not feel their belief disturbed by the long lapse of time to
which they had now to look back. On the contrary, the longer
the past period, the nearer they thought they must be to the great
catastrophe. For the same reason, since everything was now in
its last stage, in the Kaipo^ avveo-ToXfievof;, the spirit too, the irvevfia
ayiov, the principle of the Christian consciousness, must gather its
energies more powerfully together, must give forth more immediate,
more unequivocal utterances. Both beliefs were involved in the
consciousness of living in the dies novissimi. Thus, Tertullian's
theory of the various periods of development is, that as first the
plant arises from the grain of seed, and lastly the fruit from the
blossom, so justitia was first in the state of nature, then advanced
to childhood under the guidance of the Law and the Prophets, next
through the Gospel blossomed into youth, and now is brought to
maturity by the Paraclete.^ All this is but an analysis of the idea
of the novissima. What is sought to be done is to bring out what
is the last in the last things, by striking out of them all that is
not the last, but must at once be followed by the last. But
according to the Montanist opinion, the more nearly everything
approached its end, the more everything converged in the novissimi
dies, the more concentrated and intense, the more filled with
compressed energy did everything become. Everywhere, says
Tertullian, the later forms the conclusion, and that which goes
before is outweighed by that which comes after. This is a univer-
sal law alike of the human and the divine order of things ; and
especially of the novissimi dies,^ in which the prophecy of Joel
(often cited by Tertullian), that the spirit should be poured out on
all flesh, was to be fulfilled. In this period, when tenipus est in
coUecto, when every force gathers itself together and prepares all
its keenness, the spirit likewise enters into the mind of the Chris-
tian with unwonted power, and fills it with its own divine all-

^ De virg. vel. c. 1.

2 De Bapt. c. 13. Compare the Praef, Act. Felic. et Perp., and Epiphaniua
Haer. 48, 8, in Schwegler's Montan., p. 39.

250 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

illumining essence. The Apocalypse gives virtually the same
account of the relation between the novissima and the working of
the spirit in connection with it. The several stages of the great
catastrophe of the world are the subject of the book ; the author
is merely the instrument of the divine inspiration that has come
upon him ; he too is ev Trvev/xari, i.e., in a state of ecstasy (i. 1 0).
Prophecies and visions form the whole contents of the Apocalypse ;
^prophecy and vision were the shapes assumed by the ecstatic con-
litiou of the Montanists. The spirit which from the first was the
animating principle of the Christians, and awoke their prophetic
inspiration and ecstasy, is also the principle of Montanism. At
this time it was generally termed Paraclete, perhaps because in
the distress and affliction of the last days it was to be not only
the guide that should lead into all truth, but the intercessor, the
support and comfort of all those whom it swayed with its rich and
abundant power ; in any case, this particular name, as applied to
the Holy Spirit, was intended to mark its special and peculiar
function during that last period, in which the Montanist saw
everything pressing towards its end.

It is in the moral sphere that the Paraclete carries on his actual
operations. He speaks with his full energy in prophetic ecstasy
in order that the secrets of the future may be searched, and all
the obscurities of consciousness made light. But he also insists
emphatically on the moral requirements of practical Christianity.
As the spiritus sanctus, ipsius disciplinae determinator, institutor
novae discipUnae, he is the strict spirit of moral severity,
the declared foe of aU laxity and indifference in moral things.
What he is, he is for one end only, viz., that he may in the field
of morals realise that which he is ; thus TertuUian, when he sums
up all the features which belong to the idea of the Paraclete, gives
the first place to his practical task. He opens the Scriptures,
purges the understanding, raises the Christian to a higher stage of
perfection, but above all, his practical aim is to give discipline its
right direction.^ The Montanists increased the severity of Chris-

^ De virg. vel. c. 1.

MONTANISM. 251

tian discipline by several ordinances peculiar to themselves, as by
the xerophagiae, by the extension of the dies stationum to the
evening, and by their requirements with regard to marriage and
martyrdom. But their fundamental idea, the source of all these
regulations, was that the Christian lived in the last times, and
stood at the end of the whole course of the world. This thought
filled the Montanist's mind as a belief, and could not but determine
his behaviour. He lived in the one thought that the end of the
world was at hand, and discerned in all around him nothing but
the signs of the advancing catastrophe. It was necessary then,
that inwardly as well as outwardly he should have completely
broken with the world ; and his outward actions could have no
other aim than that of carrying out this breach with the world in
every direction, and wholly sundering the bonds by which his flesh
still joined him to the world. It has been very correctly observed,^
that in its moral requirements Montanism set up nothing new ;
that it was only new in so far as it was reactionary ; that the only
question between the Montanists and their adversaries in the
Church concerned an increase of strictness in enforcing an old
ordinance which was on the point of becoming obsolete ; that their
laws upon marriage and fasting merely aimed at the carrying out
in practice of that which they recognised as a divine and eternal
command, the old law laid down in both Testaments. Still the
cause of this reactionary tendency was the Montanist's belief that
he understood better than others the time in which the Christian
was living, that he recognised it for what it was, for the last time.
Further, how much must that original Christian frame of mind,
resting on the belief in Christ's immediate coming, have changed and
degenerated, when the duty of martyrdom was so little thought
of, that whole churches purchased exemption from persecution
with money and wholesale, and when bishops and clergy
gave their sanction to the cowardice, and encouraged it by
their example." We may well conclude that in other respects

^ Ritschl, Enstehung der Altkatli. Kirche, 1st ed., p. 513 ; 2d ed., p. 497, sq.
2 Tert. de fuga in persec, cap. ii. 13.

252 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

also there had been a falling off from the strictness of the
]n-imitive custom. The Church had entered into friendship with
the world. The tendency which gave rise to Montanism may
therefore justly be regarded as a reactionary one. For though
it was the ever-growing worldliness of Christianity against which
it fought with such energy, yet its resistance was grounded on the
principle of a return to that primitive standpoint at which the
Christian mind, ])elieving in the coming of Christ and the immediate
end of the world, had cast itself off from all worldly interests.
Accordingly, this motive tendency is continually seen in Tertul-
lian, and appears as the basis of every precept and admonition.^
The same tendency must be borne in mind when we seek an
answer to the question — which could not before be usefully asked —
AVhat is the relation between the Paraclete and the Spirit that
^vorked in the apostles ? The Paraclete attempts to bring in no
dogmatic or moral novelty ; asTertullian says, he is restitutor potius
quam institutor. Nevertheless, his requirements exceed those of
Christ and the apostles ; what they had declared to be morally
allowable he can no longer concede to the weakness of the flesh.
But the reason of this also is to be found in the Llontanist expec-
tation. The nearer the world draws to its end, the less can the
weakness of the flesh be spared. Everything that prevents the
flesh from becoming holy must be utterly rooted out.^ In the age
succeeding the apostles, the spirit comes with stricter requirements
than theirs ; not that the apostles desired anything else ; only their
demands were not so openly and directly made, Tertullian states
it as a general view that strictness is always accompanied by a
certain lenity which only admits of being explained on the prin-
ciple of accommodation. The Paraclete also makes use of this
accommodation as the apostles had done. Christ, if his meaning be
rightly understood, would have prohibited even first marriages.
Only from indulgence, from accommodation to human weakness,
did he refrain from totally forbidding marriage, as properly he

' Compare, e.g., Ad Ux., i. 5.

2 De Monog. c. 3. Caro docetur sanctitatem, quae et in Cbristo fuit sancta.

MONTANISM. 253

should have done. In this view, the whole history of the world is
a progressive accommodation ; what is at first permitted and freely
granted has afterwards to be more and more restricted and with-
drawn. What Moses commanded, Christ disallowed, because from
the beginning it was not so ; and so the Paraclete may now dis-
allow what Paul permitted, if only the new provision is worthy of
God and Christ. Formerly it was worthy of God and Christ to put
down hardness of heart, when its time was past ; it is worthy of
them now to root out the weakness of the flesh, for the time is now
rapidly becoming shorter. Hardness of heart prevailed till Christ
came ; and the weakness of the flesh had its time, till the operation
of the Paraclete began. The Lord had deferred until this period
what could not be borne at that earlier period. Although the
Paraclete does no more than carry out the intentions of Christ and
the apostles, yet, because his action comes after theirs, it is possible
for him at this later period to effect what was impossible before.
Everything has thus, as a general rule, its appointed time. Strictly
speaking, the flesh, the material part of humanity, has no moral
justification ; what is permitted to it is a mere concession — a con-
cession that becomes more and more inappropriate, as with the
approaching end of the world the relation of the spirit to the flesh
inevitably becomes more and more strained, inharmonious, and
repellent. As the present order of the world is broken up, tlie two
principles of the spirit and the flesh diverge to the full breadth of
their opposition. The material principle must give way to the
spiritual, and be unconditionally subordinated to it ; for, from the
beginning it was only allowed to have scope in the world in order
that the spiritual might display upon it its absolute power. It may
be compared to a wood which is allowed to grow only that the axe
may at last be laid to its root,^ The last, the end of things, the
time in which the finite is made manifest in its finiteness — this is
the standpoint. The Paraclete, then, is spirit drawing back into
itself as it becomes aware of the world's finiteness, and coming, in
its self-consciousness, to the knowledge of its power over the flesh

^ Tert., De exhort, castit., chap. vi.

254 CHURCH HISTORY OF FIRST THREE CENTURIES.

and tlie world. In this exaltation of the self- consciousness of
spirit by means of the Paraclete, all deceitful illusion, Avith which
the flesh surrounds it, at once disappears ; rapt from the world, it
sees with clear vision the temporal order of things even now col-
lapsing in its vanity. The moral doctrine of Montanism is thus
summed up in one simple requirement — to break with the world,
as the world itself to the eye of the Montanist is breaking to pieces
and collapsing ; to dissolve the bonds by which the spirit and the
llesh Avere held together, as the world is itself in process of disso-
lution.

Wlien we have once clearly conceived the idea on which
Montanism is based, and so seen what its essential nature is,
we recognise the justness of the parallel that has been drawn
between it and Gnosticism. Each adopts a transcendental mode
of view. Each conceives the true essence of Christianity as lying
far away, beyond the actual present. The Gnostic, however, looks
back to a past whence all derives its first absolute beginning ; the
Montanist looks forward to a future wherein all reaches its end,
and the present world vanishes before the world beyond. For
both Christ is the absolute principle of the world ; but while the
Gnostic uses this principle in order to construct a whole world-
development, its operation with the Montanist is only the destruc-
tion of the world. Christ has appeared as the Messiah only in
order to bring all to an end, and to introduce the great catastrophe
through which the present passes into the future order. In both
systems, Christ, as the principle determining the process of world-
development, is the turning-point, to which everything leads up
in such a way that the end unites with the beginning ; but while
Gnosticism allows all its processes to continue through a limitless
period, Montanism sees the final catastrophe arriving as soon as
possible. As soon as Christ has appeared — and he is to appear in
the immediate future — the world is at its end ; by the mere fact of
his appearance, the present order disappears and makes way for
the future one. The final goal is with each system an diroKara-
a-Tuai^, in which the principles, separating and taking up their

MONTANISM. 255

relative positions, confront each other in their purity; in Gnos-
ticism these principles are spirit and matter, in Montanism
spirit and flesh. Different as the notions were which the Gnostics
and the Montanists associated with the terms spirit and spiritual,
in both systems what was sought after was that Christians
should be pure organs of the spiritual principle. The Gnostics
considered themselves to be pre-eminently the spiritual natures,
and assigned all other Christians to the stage of mere psychical
life. The Montanists found in their distinction of the irveviia-
TiKol and ■y^v)(^LKol a vantage-ground from which they could look
down with disdain on the catholic Christians who did not con-
fess their doctrine of the Paraclete, The same antithesis com-
prises both systems ; but in the case of the Montanists its sphere
is much more limited.

When we know what Montanism is, the question concerning the
external circumstances of its origin becomes of less importance :
its peculiarity is precisely this, that the elements from which it
sprang existed from the beginning of Christianity. Least of all is
any elucidation afforded by its alleged derivation from Montanus.
It is therefore hardly worth while to imitate Neander in his
anxiety to refute those who have even doubted the historical
existence of this apocryphal personage. In the earliest Greek
writers the Montanists are not spoken of under this name, but are
called Cataphrygians {ol Kara 'Ppvyaq) after the place where they
lived and awaited the descent of the heavenly Jerusalem. All that
can be said of Montanus is that he appeared as a prophet in the
time of the two well-known prophetesses, Priscilla and Maximilla,
or even earlier.^ The only ground for the supposition that he
spoke of himself as God the Father, or the Paraclete, is, that accord-
ing to the character of ecstasy, the speaking subject was not the
ecstatic prophet, but God himself, or the Holy Spirit, Montanism
appeared about the middle of the second century, and after that

1 The Philosophoumena do not make him the fouuder of a sect, but merely say
(8. 19, p. 275), icai Tiva npo avriov (Priscilla aud Maximilla), Movravuv oixoiois

256 MONTANISM.

time attracted more and more observation, as the circumstances of
the growing and developing Church, and practical life, were more
deeply affected by the questions which it raised. To follow its
history further, therefore, it is necessary first to consider the
phenomena which occupy the other side of the history from that
hitherto investigated.^

1 What has been said above upon Montanism forms the chief contents of my
dissertation in the Theol. Jahrb. 1851, p. 538, sq. ; Das Wesen des Montanismus
nach den neuesten Forschungen ; in which is also contained a critique of the
recent views on Montanism put forth since the time of Neander and Gieseler.
Schwcgler's work, Der Montanismus und die christliche Kirche des zweiten
Jahrluindorts, Tubingen, 1841, first set the example of more thorough research
into this subject. Neander's view of Montanism is also very one-sided. His
principal source of error is that he allows himself to be misled by the vague
statements we have about the person of Montanus, and consequently explains
the character of Montanism by the nature-elements of the ancient Phrygian
religion, and the Phrygian temperament, as manifested in the ecstasies of the
priests of Cybele and Bacchus. To follow him is only to allow ourselves to be
diverted, at the outset of our inquiry, from the right point of observation.

CDinburgb Hntbcraits iJrcga:

THOMAS AND ARCHIBALD CONSTABLE, PRINTERS TO Hi:U MAJESTY.

DATE DUE

-^yqu-m^-mS

J^^^BfiS^^^

f^^MMktJMtumH*'-

JtPPf*!'

?a^

''■*>«»V«i

11 maiiin— -^t^tmi:.

R*

, rLjp|^li»»«WN« *3"^^

^^^*i5*^**«Nftfc«.

UM^4a9Q^

CAYLORD

rCD IN u s

,;*