YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE LIBRARY OF THE
DIVINITY SCHOOL

Just published, in Two Vols., 8vo, price 21s.,
NATURE AND THE BIBLE:
LECTURES ON THE MOSAIC HISTORY OF CREATION
IN ITS RELATION TO NATURAL SCIENCE.
By Dr. FR. H. REUSCH.
Revised and Corrected by the Author.
Ctanslattu from tfje Jrmttrj Uoititm
By KATHLEEN LYTTELTON.
'Other champions much more competent and learned might have been
placed in the field ; I will only name one of the most recent, Dr. Reusch,
author of "Nature and the Bible.'" — The Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone.
Will shortly be published, in demy 8vo,
THE JEWISH AND
THE CHRISTIAN MESSIAH.
A STUDY IN THE EARLIEST HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY.
By VINCENT HENRY STANTON, M.A.,
FELLOW, tutor, and divinity lecturer op trinity college,
CAMBRIDGE; LATE HULSEAN LECTURER.
Will shortly be published, in crown 8vo,
BIBLICAL ESSAYS;
OR,
EXEGETICAL STUDIES
ON THE BOOKS OF JOB AND JONAH; EZBKIEL'S PROPHECY
OP GOG AND MAGOG, ST. PETER'S 'SPIRITS IN PRISON,'
AND THE KEY TO THE APOCALYPSE.
By CHARLES H. H. WRIGHT, D.D.,
OF TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN; M.A. OF EXETER COLLEGE, OXFORD.
#

CREMER'S LEXICON.
Just published, in demy 4to, price 14a.,
SUPPLEMENT TO
BIBLICO-THEOLOGICAL LEXICON
OF
NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
BY
HERMANN CREMER, D.D.
(Translates anS arranges from tfje latest ffierman lE&ition
BY
WILLIAM TJRWICK, M.A.
The Complete Work, including Supplement, is now issued at 38s.
GRIMM'S LEXICON.
Will shortly be published, in demy 4 lo,
A GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON
OF THE
NEW TESTAMENT.
BEING GRIMM'S 'WILKE'S CLAVIS NOVI TESTAMENTI.'
Cranslateo, iSeuisco, ano (Enlarges
BY
JOSEPH HENRY THAYER, D.D.,
BUSSEY PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM AND INTERPRETATION
IN THE DIVINITY SCHOOL OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY.

THE APOSTOLIC

POST-APOSTOLIC TIMES.

PRINTED BY MORRISON AND GIEB,
FOR
T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH.
LONDON, . . HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO.
DUBLIN, GEO. HERBERT.
NEW YORK, . . SCR1BNER AND WELFORD.

THE APOSTOLIC AND
POST- APOSTOLIC TIMES;
THEIR DIVERSITY AND UNITY IN LIFE
AND DOCTRINE.

GOTTHAKD VICTOR LECHLER, D.D.,
OEDINAEY PEOFESSOE OF THEOLOGY, PEIVY ECCLESIASTICAL COUNSELLOE IN LEIPZIG.

Third Edition, thoroughly Revised and Re-written.

Cranalateii ig
A. J. K. DAVIDSOJff.
VOL. II.

EDINBURGH:
T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET.
1886.

CONTENTS.

SECOND DOCTRINAL PART.
PAGE
Grace and salvation, ...... 1
FIRST PART.
Jesus Christ and Redemption.
i. jesus christ.
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, .... 2
Precedent assumption : the perception of God, . . 3
The Godhead of Christ, ..... 5
The humanity of Jesus Christ, .... 30
II. REDEMPTION THROUGH THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION OF
CHRIST.
The obedience of Jesus Christ, ... 34
a. Jesus' Death.
He died on account of our sins, . . .36
Atonement, ...... 40
Sacrifice, ...... 47
World-embracing significance of the death of Jesus, . 48
b. Jesus' Resurrection.
Importance of Jesus' resurrection with regard to His person, 51
Importance of Jesus' resurrection to believers, . 53
Jesus' descent into the under-world, ... 56
His ascension, . . 59
SECOND TART.
Salvation and its Realization.
i. the appropriation of salvation bt the individual, . 62
a. Justification by Faith.
Christ our righteousness, . *>3

VI CONTENTS.

PAGE
Appropriation of righteousness by faith, ... 66
6. Sanctification, , . . . . .67
v. The hope of everlasting life, ... 69
A state of grace, sonship to God in the Holy Spirit, . 70
II. THE CHURCH OF GOD.
Its essence, the communion of believers one with another
conditioned by their participation in the life of Christ, 73
Its foundation in God's decree and election, . . . 74
Calling, baptism, and the Lord's Supper, ... 79
III. THE CONSUMMATION, OR THE KINGDOM OF GLORY.
Christ's second coming, ..... 87
The resurrection of the dead, . . .88
The kingdom of glory, . . .95
CHAPTER III.
The Doctrine of the Pastoral Epistles.
Epistles to Timothy and Titus, . . . .103
Their doctrine, ... . 103
THIRD SECTION.
The Doctrine of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
1. Union and distinction between the Old and New Covenant, 120
2. Superiority of the New Covenant, . . . 123
3. The mediator of the New Covenant a high priest without
parallel, ...... 127
4. The covenant people of the New Testament, . . 129
5. Peculiarity of thought by which the Hebrew Epistle is
characterized, ...... 132
FOURTH SECTION.
The Later Doctrine of the Apostle Peter.
The First Epistle of Peter, ..... 135'
Its doctrine, ... ... 137
Peculiarities of the Epistle, ..... 156
The Second Epistle of Peter, ..... 1 53
Comparison of the First Epistle with the Petrine discourses
in the Acts, ...... 159
FIFTH SECTION.
The Doctrine of the Apostle John.
The Gospel together with the Epistles and the Apocalypse, . 163
The Apocalypse, its object, the leading forms of its conception, 166
Doctrine of the Apocalypse, . . . . ' . i gg
Gospel and Epistles : their doctrine, .... 177

CONTENTS. VU

FIRST DOCTRINAL PARI.
What is implied in the Doctrine of Jesus Christ, the Son
of God. PAGE
A. God, ....... 181
B. The world and the prince of this world, . . . 181

SECOND DOCTRINAL PART.
Jesus Christ the Son of God, in whom is Life.
a. jesus christ the only- begotten son of god.
1. His person, ..... 189
2. The work of Jesus Christ, . ... 195
jB. FELLOWSHIP WITH THE FATHER AND THE SON.
1. Its origin, ....... 198
2. Condition and development of this fellowship, . . 199
3. Completion of fellowship with the Father and the Son, . 201
The doctrinal system of the Apocalypse compared with that
of the Gospel and Epistles, . . . .207
SIXTH SECTION.
The Doctrinal System: of the Apostle Paul com
pared WITH THAT OF TEE OTHER APOSTLES, . 213
FIRST LEADING DIVISION.
The Relation between the Pauline Doctrinal System
and the Preaching of the other Apostles in the
Early Apostolic Time, . . . .217
SECOND LEADING DIVISION.
The Relation between the Pauline System of Doctrine
and the Teaching of the other Apostles as shown in
their Writings.
A. James and Paul, .... • 237
B. The relation of Peter to James and Paul, . . 246
C. John and Paul, ..... 250
The whole range of apostolic doctrine, . . .255

VUI CONTENTS.

SECOND BOOK.
THE POST-APOSTOLIC PERIOD, . . 260
FIRST PART.
The Jewish Christians.
PAGE
Their exclusion by insurrections and the hatred of the
Christians, ...... 261
The community of Christians in Aelia Capitolina, . . 262
Internal separation of harsher and milder Jewish Christians, 265
The pseudo-Clementines, the character of their teaching, . 268
Hegesippus, ....... 276
The Ebionites a sect at the time of Irenseus, Hippolytus, and
Origen, . . . . . . .280
Wazaraeans and Ebionites in the fourth century, . . 285
The Ebionites gradually disappear, .... 288
Perpetuation of the Nazarseans in the Nestorians of Assyria, 289

SECOND PART. ,
The Gentile Christians.
Primitive documents, especially the " Teaching of the
Apostles," ...... 293
FIRST SECTION.
Christian Life and its Arrangements.
a. worship and ecclesiastical observances.
The Lord's Supper, baptism, the word of God, . . 298
Holy seasons ; Sunday (the Sabbath), . . . 301
The Christian Passover, Passover disputes, . . , 302
B. CHRISTIAN CUSTOMS AND DISCIPLINE.
Asceticism, ....... 311
Montanism, ....... 314
C. CONSTITUTION AND ORDER OF THE CHURCH.
According to the "Teaching of the Apostles:" apostles,
prophets, and teachers, ..... 317
Bishops and deacon s, . ..... 321
The episcopate above the elders, Ignatius, . . . 326

CONTENTS.

SECOND SECTION.
Development of Doctrine.
a. the apostolic fathers. PAGE
The "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," its doctrine, . 332
Doctrinal character of the Epistle of the Roman Clement, . 340
The so-called " Second Epistle of Clement," . . . 348
The "Epistle of Barnabas," . . . .349
The Epistles of Ignatius, ..... 353
Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians, . . . 356
The " Shepherd of Hernias," .... 358
B. THE APOLOGISTS.
Justin the Martyr, ... . . 360
The Epistle to Diognetus, ... . 363
Retrospect, ....... 366
C. THE GNOSTIC SECTS.
Period of their emergence, ..... 367
The essence of Gnosticism, ..... 370
The work of the anti-Gnostic Church-teachers, . . 373
Conclusion, ....... 376

List of Works referred to,
Indexes,

380
381

APOSTOLIC DOCTRINE.
SECOND DOCTRINAL PART.
GRACE AND SALVATION.
TO the Apostle Paul the gospel is the proclama
tion of the grace of God bestowed on the
sinner, and of the salvation designed for him (Acts
xx. 14: to evayyeXcov Trj<; j^dpnot; tov 0eov; xiii.
26: 6 \6yo<; tjj? crMTijpta? TauTi)?). It was grace
that he himself had undeservedly experienced ; to the
grace of God he owed all the success of his apostolic
work (1 Cor. xv. 10). The glad tidings of grace
and salvation which he proclaimed centred round the
person of Jesus and His atonement. The apostle
has this consciousness : " I serve God in the gospel of
His Son," Rom. i. 9 ; the tow vlov ainov is not the
genitive suhjecti but objecti, giving not the author, but
the object of the gospel : on this point expositors are
almost unanimous.

VOL. II.

2 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
FIRST PART.
JESUS CHRIST AND REDEMPTION.
In a central passage, Paul characterizes the
apostolic calling as the ministry of reconciliation
(f) BiaKovta TTj? /caraWayr}?, 2 Cor. v. 18), which
consists partly in the preaching of the reconciliation
effected, partly in exhortation and entreaty in God
and Christ's stead, "Be ye reconciled to God" (ver. 19,
etc.). This preaching comprehends both, not only
the person of the Mediator Jesus Christ, but also
the work of His redemption. I. Jesus Christ.
Paul writes to the Galatians, i. 16: "It pleased
God to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach
Him among the heathen." Hence he determined
(eicpiva) not to know anything but Jesus Christ (1
Cor. ii. 2) ; in other words, the person of Christ, the
crucified Redeemer, was the sole subject of his
preaching. This is further elucidated by his declara
tion in 2 Cor. iv. 4 and 6 : " The god of the world
hath blinded the eyes of them which believe not,
lest tbe light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is
the image of God, should shine unto them ; for God,
who commanded the light to shine out of darkness,
hath shiued in our hearts, to give the light of the
knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus
Christ." Paul here declares that the glory of God
shines in the face of Christ (i) Boga avrov iv irpo-

JESUS CHRIST. 3
o-cu7rw Xpiorov) ; this divine light which shines in
the face of Christ as the image of God (05 ianv el/cwv
too deov, Col. i. 1 5) is not perceived by all men, but on
the contrary, is hidden and invisible to many; those
alone into whose heart God has put light are able to
see that divine light in the face of Christ. The
servants of Christ on whom this illumination is
bestowed should help others to it, that the percep
tion of the divine glory in Christ may become clear
to them also (77-po? (f>(OTiafx,bv rrj<; yvaaea)<; TJ79
So|tj? airov iv irpoa. Xp.). Although in ver. 6 the
apostle speaks inclusively, yet his profound and
beautifully clothed thought gives the strong impression
that his own experience is immediately in his mind ;
on the one hand, the blindness in which he himself
had formerly been involved, so that he completely
misapprehended the divine light in the person of
Jesus ; on the other hand, the illumination which
through the efficacy of God's almighty grace had
opened his eyes to the glory of Christ. If we assume
that Paul's thoughts were chiefly occupied with him
self and his own conversion, we are reminded in
voluntarily of the light that shone suddenly round
him on the way to Damascus, when Jesus appeared
to him; it is possible that this very splendour of
light was the occasion that led 'the apostle here to
illustrate the divine glory by the image of light. In
any case, here as in Gal. i. 16, Jesus Christ, the Son of
God, in whom the glory of the Father is revealed, is pre
sented as the centre and principal object of the gospel.
In calling Christ the image of God, the Son of
God, the perception of God is presupposed. Paul
addresses himself to readers who are now believers,
even if formerly heathen. He speaks only inci-

4 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTEINES.
dentally of the nature of God, and in such a way as
to show clearly that he takes for granted the doctrine
of God given in the revelation of the Old Testament.
The God of Israel is the one living God, holy and
supramundane, the almighty Creator and Lord of all
the earth ; this is the fundamental truth of the Old
Testament on which, in Paul's view, everything rests.
God is one (eh 6 Sets, Rom. iii. 30 ; Gal. iii. 20), the
so-called gods are nothing (1 Cor. viii. 4—6 ; Gal. iv. 8).
He is eternal and unchangeable (Rom. i. 20); the
living One (2 Cor. iii. 3); invisible (Rom. i. 20).
But He is the Creator of all things (1 Cor. viii. 6 :
e£ ov to ircivra ; Rom. i. 25 ; Eph. iii. 9), the ruler,
almighty (Rom. iv. 17, ix. 8, 21) and wise (xi. 33,
etc.), just and impartial (Rom. ii. 6, etc.; Gal. vi. 7, etc.;
Eph. vi. 9). By virtue of His truth (Rom. iii. 4) His
promise is absolute and His faithfulness everlasting
(Rom. iii. 3, ix. 9 ; 1 Cor. i. 9, x. 13) ; but above all
He is rich in love, grace, and forbearance (Rom. ii. 4,
v. 5 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 11, i. 3). Again we observe that
the apostle comes to speak of the above-named
attributes of God only in the course of developing
and expounding other doctrines, from which circum
stance each of these utterances gains a special refer
ence, a peculiar life and force. These truths, in
Paul's estimation, appear not as worn-out coins, but
fresh from the mint, evidences of a living faith,
clearly imprinted.
The one true and living God has revealed Himself
in the mission of Jesus Christ as the Messiah and
Lord. This fundamental truth of the gospel is
also attached to the Old Testament revelation, espe
cially to the Messianic promise. In the Pauline
discourses of the Acts (see ante, p. 319, etc.) and in

JESUS CHRIST. 0
the Thessalonian Epistles, as well as in those which
are the fruit of a riper experience, the preaching
of Jesus as the Messiah who has appeared and been
accredited by God, of the Lord to whom believers
filled with gratitude and confidence lift their eyes
in adoration (believers are iTrctca\ov/j,evoi to ovofia
too KvpLov, 1 Cor. i. 2), is the centre of his testi
mony and of all his teaching. When in the begin
ning of his Epistles, e.g. Rom. i. 1, Phil. i. 1, Paul
calls himself the servant of Jesus Christ (SoOXos),
he makes an indirect confession that Christ is the
Lord in whom he believes, and to whom he con
secrates his life and strength. But the fundamental
confession of the believing Christian, which can
only be apprehended and expressed by the power
of the Holy Ghost, is simply this : " Jesus is the
Lord" (kv/3io? 'Ina-OhS, 1 Cor. xii. 3). In the
position which Jesus occupies as " Lord," " the Lord
of glory," 1 Cor. ii. 8, lies all His Messianic dignity,
His sovereignty in the kingdom of God, His authority
to command and to require moral obedience which
proceeds from the fear of God.
The apostle, however, confesses Jesus not only as
the Lord possessing Messianic dignity and power, but
also as the Son of God.
Jesus is the Son of God. This simple truth, when
it had become a certainty for Paul by the revela
tion near Damascus, was by him so earnestly and
stedfastly maintained, so faithfully did he turn it
to account, that it became the germ of an enlightened
knowledge of the Godhead of Christ, not for Himself
alone, but for the Church of Christ in every age.
In presenting this developed apprehension of Christ
according to His divine nature, we must, for the sake

6 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
of critical doubts, strictly observe the distinction
between the earlier and later Epistles, and give a
firm and sure basis to the interpretation, instead of a
simple statement of the matter.
In his principal Epistles, where the authorship is
undisputed, Paul lays so great stress on the truth
that Jesus is the Son of God, that his single utter
ances to the same effect acquire additional weight.
When in Gal. i. 16 the apostle says: "God has
revealed his Son in me," without doubt more meaning
attaches to tov vlbv avrov than most expositors
allow, for they pass lightly over the fact that by this
very revelation Paul was brought to the knowledge
of Jesus as He is in truth, and taught to recognise
Him (not merely as the Messiah, but) as the Son of
God.1 In his Epistle to the Romans the apostle lays
special stress on that which is here but indicated,
using the words: 6 debs tov eavrov vlbv Trep,tya<;.
Leaving the ¦jrifi^jrai for a time out of account, it is
clear how close a community of nature between
Jesus and God the Father is implied by the reflexive
pronoun, albeit the simple Pronomen personate w vlbv
avrov, which might stand here as well as in Gal. i.
16, has an important meaning. Still stronger is the
declaration in Rom. viii. 32: o? 76 tov IB tov vlov
ovk itpeiaaro. If we look at the way in which iBtos is
elsewhere employed by Paul, we cannot help perceiv
ing a special significance in its use here, which is
also clearly shown by the immediate context of the
passage. If this be so, the apostle asserts a close,
exclusive community of essence between Jesus and
1 No one has brought this out so well and forcibly as Baur him
self (Pavl'us, p. 513, 2nd ed. ii. 133, etc.), although we are unable to
accept his further conclusions (p. 135, etc.) as they stand.

JESUS CHRIST. 7
God the Father; in other words, he ascribes to
Jesus not merely a theocratic dignity, but the meta
physical sonship of God. Here belongs also the
more difficult passage (Rom. i. 4), where in two
parallel utterances respecting His person (ver. 3, etc.)
Jesus is called the Son of God, viz. (a) tov yevopevov etc
0"7re/3//,aT0? AavelB KaTa adpica ; (b) tov opurOevTOS
vcov deov iv Bwdpiet Kara irvevfia dytayavvr]<; i£ dvaer-
Tao-eo)? ve/cpcav. There is no doubt that adpi; and
irvevfia aytwavvn'; are partly placed in opposition
one to another, and partly as the two sides of His
nature closely joined together in Christ. Hence
irvevfui must belong essentially to Christ and dwell
in Him, and can neither be applied to the spirit of
God in the prophets who foretold the Messiah, nor
to the Holy Spirit poured out upon the disciples of
Jesus, nor to the agency of the Holy Spirit in Christ
(Godet, Comm. translated into German, 1881, p. 86).
When the irveiifia of Christ is more closely defined
by the added ayuoavvns as the " spirit of holiness,"
the parallelism with crap!;, which can certainly not
be understood in a moral sense here, does not in our
opinion admit of a moral interpretation, as proposed
by van Hengel, Interpretatio Ep. Pauli ad Rom. i.
1854, p. 47 , quatenus sanctitatis studio ducebalw ; but
the words rather depict the inner higher element of
His personality, as the lower side of His nature is
expressed by o-dpl;. By virtue of the former side of
His personality Christ is Spirit, holy, exalted Spirit.
That they refer to the mere human spirit, however
pure (Meyer, Comm. 2nd ed. 1854), we cannot admit,
on account of the exalted epithet, and for the very
reason that the sonship of God, which from the
above passages we must assume to include essence,

8 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
is thus proved (vlov 6eov — KaTa tiv. ay.). Under
one aspect Christ is adpg, under another Trvevfia
dyiwo-vvri'i, holy exalted Spirit, and as very Spirit the
Son of God (comp. Riickert, Comm, 2nd ed.; Raebiger,
de christologia paulina, 1852, p. 18, etc.; Weiss,
N. T. Theot. p. 291, etc.). Paul's expression, that
Jesus is optcrOeh vlbs Oeov — eg dvaaraa. veicpwv,
according to the usage of opi^a elsewhere, can only
mean that He has been constituted the Son of God
(constitutus est filius Dei), namely, for us, not in
Himself, whereby opl^eiv in reality approaches the
sense to certify, to prove (comp. Godet, Comm. p. 84,
etc.). The reference of this passage to the resurrec
tion of Christ is touched upon below, p. 51.
Intimately connected with the essential divine
sonship of Jesus is Paul's testimony that He is the
image of God (2 Cor. iv. 4 : o? iaTtv eltcoov tov deoii),
so that those who are not blinded may see the light
of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of
Jesus Christ (ibid. v. 6 : i) Boga aiiTov iv Trpoamiru)
XpiaTov). This from the tense (o? iejTtv) refers to
the present, therefore to the historical, now exalted
Christ; yet the clause: o XpiejTbs eaTiv elicoov tov deov,
seems at the same time to have a wider range, and to
extend to the prehistorical existence of the Redeemer,
as even Zeller, Theot. Jahrb. 1842, p. 59, admits.
The older, undisputed Epistles of the apostle bear
no little testimony to this effect. When in Rom.
viii. 3 Paul says God sent (7re/ii/ra?) His Son, and in
Gal. iv. 4 : igaireaTeikev . 6 6eb$ tov vlbv aiiTov,
this assertion unquestionably presupposes that the
Son already existed, and was with God before He
came into the world, for the connection incontestably
proves that the " sending " refers to an entrance into

JESUS CHRIST. 9
the visible world, into earthly life.1 The Redeemer is
here regarded as a person before He became man, and
was constituted the Son of God before He was born on
the earth (Gal. iv. 4 : yevbptevov etc yvvatKo<;). This
idea plainly lies in the question in Rom. x. 6 : t/?
dvafirjaeTat eh tov ovpavov ; tout' eejTiv XptoTov
KaTayayetv, hitherto but little considered in this
respect. From the connection it refers neither to
the ascension nor to the sitting at the right hand of
God (Reiche, Grimm, Godet, Comm. translated into
German, ii. p. 176, etc.), but to the incarnation of Christ
(de Wette, Meyer, Weiss, Lorenz, ante, p. 115, etc.).
The expression unmistakeably implies that Christ
was in heaven before His incarnation, and as a
person could, as it were, be brought down. More
over, the words of 2 Cor. viii. 9 refer to the
prehistoric existence of Christ. When Paul — to stir
up the Corinthians to help the Church in Jerusalem
— here reminds them that Jesus oV i/ia? ivTorxevae
irK.ovcrto'; a>v, tva vp,eh ttJ iiceivov TTTW^ela ttXovti]-
o-rjTe, he plainly has in view a pre-earthly state of
Christ when He was rich in divine fulness. This
follows from the connection with what goes before ;
for, to use the words of Zeller (Theot. Jahrb. 1842,
p. 59, etc.) : "How could the example of Christ incite
the Corinthians to charity unless the meaning is,
that the Corinthians should renounce their riches for
the sake of their fellow-Christians, just as Christ for
their sakes had renounced His ? " It also follows
from the connection that the condition of Christ's
1 Comp. Weiss,'N. T. Theol. p. 295. Pfleiderer, Paulinismus,
p. 136, etc. ; Rich. Schmidt, paulinische Christologie, 1870, p. 143,
etc. ; Godet, Comm. (translated into German) ii. p. 82 ; Lorenz,
Lehrsystem, p. 111.

10 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
poverty and that of His being rich were not simul
taneous, but must be regarded as successive. If,
therefore, His earthly existence be a irTW)(e.vetv, it
must have been preceded by a state of ttKovctiov
elvat. Taking the words more exactly, it is plain
that the two members are parallel, iirTci>xevo-e
ifkovcnos a>v and "va vp,eh t§ eiceivov TTTCo^eia ir\ov-
Ti]or]Te. The TTTarxevetv answers to the irXovTeiv
as its opposite. Now both verbs, in accordance with
the use of the present tense, denote a being, a state ;
not a becoming, a transition ; but the aorist in verbs
of this kind expresses just the beginning of the state
(comp. Holsten, zum Ev. des Paulus mid des Petrus,
p. 437, note) ; and since it is clear that TfkovTrjo-rjTe in
the object-clause means, ye shall become rich through
His poverty, the corresponding iirTco^evcre can only be
understood as a state of earthly poverty now first
begun, while ifKovato'; &v points correspondingly to a
condition of riches in heavenly glory. It is only
by a misapprehension of the connection that the
states of Christ's poverty and riches can be regarded
as simultaneous, the former being understood cor
poreally, the latter spiritually (Baur, Paulus, 2nd ed.
p. 267; Kostlin, Lehrbegriff des Evang. Joh. p. 310,
note; Beyschlag, Christologie des N. T. 1868, p. 237).
An examination of the words, as well as of the connec
tion, leads us to the conclusion that Christ, before
entering on His poor human life, i.e. in His pre-human
existence, was rich ; and by such riches we Can only
understand fulness of divine life and divine glory.
Later expositors almost all agree in this explanation,
e.g. Riickert, de Wette, Meyer ; comp. Neander, ante,
ii. 801 ; Raebiger, Christol. Paul. p. 38, etc. ; Ernesti,
vom Vrsprung der Silnde nach paulin. Lehrgehalt, i.

JESUS CHRIST. 11
1855, p. 243, etc.; Weiss, N. T. Theot. p. 297; R.
Schmidt, paulin. Christologie, p. 143, etc. ; Pfleiderer,
Pautinismus, p. 138, etc. Accordingly, a prehis-
torical existence of the Redeemer is implied here,
a real personal life capable of action, since His incar
nation as a sacrificing renunciation of self is used as
a type. Further, Paul refers to a personal activity
of Christ in Old Testament revelation, in leading
Israel (1 Cor. x. 4), explaining that the rock giving
forth water in the journey through the desert which
continually refreshed the fainting people was Christ
(fj irerrpa Be -gv 6 Xptenos). The apostle desires to
warn his readers against spiritual security and self-
confidence, by setting before them the fact that the
Israelites in their exodus from Egypt and journey
through the wilderness had received manifestations
of divine grace like the redeemed of Christ, and yet1
many, even the most of them, were destroyed. In
this connection, he says, Christ was the rock that
gave them drink miraculously. Thus the idea is
unmistakeably implied that it was Christ invisible
and yet actual who had been the agent, i.e. that
Christ pre-existed before His historical appearance,
and was acting as mediator of the revelation of God.
This idea appears to Holsten so strange (das Ev. des
Paulus, p. 324, note), and so contrary in principle
to the apostle's view of salvation, that he is inclined
to pronounce the words (ver. 4b) eirtvov yap — XptaTos
spurious, and interpolated in the spirit of the Epistle
of Barnabas. Compare on the other side the thought
ful discussion of R. Schmidt, paulin. Christologie,
p. 145, etc. ; Pfleiderer, Pautinismus, p. 143 ; but
especially Heinrici, 1 Kor. p. 262, etc., with whom
Weiss, N. T. Theot. p. 298, agrees.

12 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
The apostle soars still higher in thought, when in
1 Cor. viii. 6 he says : eh tcvptos, 'Irjcrovs XptcrTos, B t
ov to, -irdvTa ical ¦gp.et'i 6Y aiiTov. The Ta iravTa,
on account of the definite article being used, as well
as from the connection, must refer to all existence, to
the universe : the world came into existence through
Christ. The expression implies not only a pie-
human existence of the Redeemer, but also that He
existed before the world was formed, from eternity,
inasmuch as He is the mediator, the instrument
(6Y ov) of the world's creation, while God is the
primeval cause of all things (it; ov to, iravTa). That
this usual explanation of the words, as referring to the
creation of the world, is correct, has been well shown
by Zeller (Theot. Jahrb. 1842, p. 56, etc.; comp.
1845, p. 91, etc.). When Dr. Baur (Paulus, 2nd
ed. ii. p. 264, etc.), reasserting his former view
that the reference here is only to redemption and the
relation towards the Church (Zehre von der Dreieinig-
keit, i. p. 81, etc.), defends it mainly on the ground
that the words : to, Be irdvTa e'/c tov deov — Bid
,In<rov XpiaTov, in 2 Cor. v. 18, refer only to redemp
tion and reconciliation, we may answer that this
belongs to the category of the abuse of parallels ; and
that each passage must be explained independently,
not from other passages which though allied are
not identical. The interpretation in question has
been justly rejected by all expositors as radically
opposed to the use of language and to the context ;
Baur himself, Christenthum der drei ersten Jahrhun-
derte, 2nd ed. 1860, p. 313, note, has to some
extent taken back his interpretation.1 Hence the
sense is, that the Redeemer was eternal, not only
1 Comp. Hase, Tub. Schule, p. 17.

JESUS CHRIST. 13
before His incarnation, but also before the world and
time, and that the creation of the world, of which
God is the first, absolute Cause, was accomplished by
Christ as the mediator of the divine work.1 If we
take the collective testimonies of the older Epistles,
which we have already considered, we have the
following statements respecting the person of Christ
on His divine side : He is the Son of God exclusively
and essentially, and as such stands in the closest
unity of substance with God the Father, whose image
He is. Before He became man, even before the
world was, He existed (pre-existed), not as an im
personal quality or idea in God, but as a personality
capable of an act such as self-denying entrance into
poor, finite life. He is not a creature of God ; but,
on the contrary, the creation of all that exists is
mediated by Him as the eternal instrument of divine
revelation. We now pass to the later Epistles of the apostle,
i Recent expositors and elaborators of Pauline doctrine unani
mously admit that this is the verbal sense and range of thought,
e.g. R. Schmidt, paulin. Christologie, p. 145, etc. ; Pfleiderer,
Paulinismus, p. 144, etc. ; Heinrici, 1 Kor. p. 228, etc. ; comp.
Beyschlag, N. T. Christol. p. 228 ; Weiss, N. T. Theol. p. 297.
Holsten alone, das Ev. des Paulus, p. 309, etc., declares this to
be a false understanding of Pauline thought. He himself presses
the xifios, and concludes from it that Christ is regarded only
as mediator, as ruler, not of believers alone, but of the universe.
But the limitation of the 2/ d to the supremacy of Christ is not
due to xifim ; it is introduced rather than fairly brought out.
Ii t>S, etc., ver. 6&, is just as little to be regarded as merely explana
tory of the xvfits, as the l| ou rx *£.na., etc., can be supposed to be
simply explanatory of his ; according to the words and the paral
lelism, it is rather to be taken in the sense : By Christ the universe
was created, having proceeded out of God as the absolute ground of
all existence ; and as God is the ultimate aim of the redeemed, so
they are what they are through Christ.

14 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
whose authenticity has been disputed by modern
criticism. It will appear that nothing is to be
found essentially different from the above result,
but a further development and extension of the same
ideas. Col. i. 1 5 is nearly allied to 2 Cor. iv. 4 : Christ
is the image of the invisible God, elicwv tov deov tov
dopaTov. It is true that elicwv has not the article,
which would at once make it clear that Christ is the
image of God in a sense quite peculiar ; but the
whole connection leads inevitably to the idea that
an image is not meant, but the image of God, the
exclusive and fully adequate image of God. Accord
ingly the meaning unquestionably is, that the whole
nature of God is seen in Christ (not this or that
attribute which is invisible in God). Thus far the
question is certainly of " the whole Christ," i.e. of
Christ who became man and is now exalted on high,
and not merely of the divine nature of Christ, for
Paul says o? iaTtv eliccov, not o? fjv; and only the
human Christ is visible, the image of the invisible.
But another question still remains, whether (as
Schleiermacher maintained, "Abh. iiber Kol. i. 15-
20," Theot. Stud. u. Krit. 1832, p. 497, etc.) what
follows in the same connection is also to be under-'
stood of the whole Christ, TrpanoToicof; TracTr)? /merea)?.
He is the first-born of every creature. Paul here
defines the relation of Christ to the creation, to
the world, as formerly His relation to God, and
ascribes to Christ not merely the first place and
dignity, the decided pre-eminence over every creature,
thus placing Him in the same rank with created
beings though at their head, and making Him in
fact a KTcaw, the first among all, however (iraer. ktio:

JESUS CHRIST. 15
gen. part.; so Usteri, ante, p. 315, following the
Arians ; Schwegler, ante, ii. 290; Baur, N. T. Theot.
p. 257). But he attributes to Christ an existence
before every creature (iraex. Krio-ew?, gen. comparat. in
relation to irpmTOT., as John i. 15 : Trp&TO? fiov),
which is plainly implied in irpb irdvTuiv, ver. 17 ;
besides which we must take into account the weighty
expression irpaoTOToicos as distinguished from irpai-
TOKTt<no<$, which is asserted of the Logos by the
Alexandrians. Paul therefore attributes to Christ,
as the first-born, not merely pre-eminence in dignity
above all created beings, not merely existence before
every creature in respect of time, but also an origin
to be distinguished from all ktIo-is, inasmuch as He
was not created but born, begotten of the essence of
God : ov% d>? dBeX<pr)v e%cov tt)v ktictiv, d\X' a>9 irpo
Trdarfi KTtcrea><; yevvndeh, as Theodoret strikingly puts
it. Inasmuch, therefore, as o? ientv elicoov tov 0eov
refers to the Lord who was made man and exalted
on high, and the clause in question is in immediate
connection with it, we must certainly assume that
Paul sets out from the manifested Christ ; but it is
equally clear from irpo)TCToico<; and the following
clauses that attention is chiefly directed to the
divine and eternal in the person of the Redeemer ;
for only in this character, and not as the man Christ,
can eternal generation from the Father and the act
of creation be predicted of Him, as de Wette con
cedes in respect at least of ver. 1 6 ; while Meyer's
interpretation of it as referring to the whole Christ
is somewhat obscure and artificial. In the follow
ing context the leading clause, " He is the first
born of every creature," is unfolded in separate
subordinate clauses, ver. 16 : on iv avrtp iicTia-dr) to.

16 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
irdvTa Ta iv T019 oiipavoh ical to. iirt TJ79 7J79, t<z
opaTa ical rd dbpaTa — Ta irdvTa Bt avTov Kat ei9
aiiTov eKTUTTat ; ver. 1 7 : ical aiVo9 eart irpo
irdvTwv, Kat Ta irdvTa iv ai)T<p crvvkcmnKe. That
the creation of the universe, of the entire nature-
and spirit -world, is actually referred to here, is
shown too clearly by the thrice - repeated words
Ta irdvTa, and the more exact characterization
of this all according to its leading divisions, to
be called in question by any impartial interpreta
tion. Hence the apostle says — 1st, That Christ
is before all (ver. 1 7 : avTo? icniv irpb irdvTwv),
i.e. His existence precedes in time all that is outside
God ; 2nd, All was created through Him (ver. 1 6 :
to irdvTa oV avTov eKTtcrTai), as the mediator, the
instrument of revelation ; similarly, but not synony
mously, iv axiTco . . . iKTtadrj, the act of creation
centred in His person, it took place in the union of
the Father with Him ; 3rd, The universe consists in
Him, the preservation and continued consistence of
all things rest in Him ; 4th, All has in Him its
object, its aim: eh ainbv eKTicrTat. When Baur,
Paulus, 2nd ed. ii. p. 9, maintains that to Christ " as
the creative principle of all that exists" is here
ascribed "absolute pre-existence," he oversteps the
limits thoughtfully laid down by the apostle. For
the conception, " creative principle of all that exists,"
goes decidedly beyond the apostolic statement: iv
avTo> koX Bt avTov Kat et9 avTov iKTitrdrt Ta
irdvTa. We must first note the circumstance that
the passive form only is employed in the passa°-e,
while the active form, " He created," is avoided,
apparently by design. Moreover, the prepositions
irpo, Bid, eh, iv, though pointing to the conceptions of

JESUS CHRIST. 17
existence before the world, of the instrument of divine
creation, of the aim, and, as it were, the place of
creation (iv aiiTw), by no means contain the notion
of the first cause and principle of creation, which
the apostle clearly denotes by e£ ov Ta irdvTa, e.g.
in 1 Cor. viii. 6, when he wishes to express this
meaning, but limits it to God the Father. Let us go
on to ver. 1 9 : on iv aintp evBoKijae irdv to ifKrjpcop.a
KaToiKrjaat. With almost all recent expositors,1 we
take o #eo9 as the subject to evBoKnae : it pleased
God that in Him should all fulness dwell. But what
is the irkrjpasna ? According to many expositors, the
Church, viz. (Schleiermacher) all the fulness of Jews
and Gentiles united in the kingdom of the Son ;
comp. Rom. xi. 12, 25 ; Eph. i. 23. But neither the
wording nor the connection of the passage allows this.
It must be explained by itself; neither by another
Pauline passage nor yet by a Gnostic system.2 Keep-
1 Hofmann alone (Schrifibeweis, ii. 1, p. 242, etc.) disputes the
right to supply o his as the subject, because in ver. 15, etc., all
things are assigned to Christ alone, and the name of God is, inten
tionally as it were, avoided. But in ver. 15, Christ is sJx« to?
6 tov tov tt.opa.TQv, and the words XxTiirSn — 'ixTurrat refer plainly
enough to God as Creator. Besides, it appears to us highly venture
some to take Christ Himself as the subject of ibVoxneti ¦ " Christ
would have all fulness to dwell in Him ; " first, because of the
language, inasmuch as the reference of the pronouns in ver. 20 : olvtov,
xIitos, to Christ is always harsh ; second, in point of fact, inasmuch
as Christ would thus be exclusively named as the ultimate principle
and aim of the work of redemption, contrary to every other repre
sentation given by Paul ; comp. R. Schmidt, paulinische Christologie,
p. 183.
2 It is easy to answer the question, whether it is not safer and
more in accordance with historical truth to derive many Gnostic
thoughts and technical terms from New Testament ideas, supposing
Gnosticism to have given these latter a speculative turn, than to
explain certain passages of the New Testament, or at least isolated
Biblical expressions, by Gnosticism. It is in itself highly probable
VOL. II. B

18 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
ing to the passage itself, it is clear that ir\ijpci)p.a
denotes fulness, perfection, either absolutely or
supplied from the subject 0eo9 which is presupposed.
It denotes therefore the whole fulness of divine
essence and life that dwells in Christ. Let us com
pare the other passage, Col. ii. 9 : 'Ev ainw KaTotnei
¦ndv to TrX^pw/jta tt)9 OeoTnTos cr(op,aTiKa>s. The
¦ir\i]pa>p,a, left undefined in the former passage, is here
expressly declared to be the whole fulness' of divine
being ; 8e6Tn<i signifies God's being, the divine nature ;
but since Paul is elsewhere in the habit of saying
ir\ijpa)p,a tov deov, it must be by design that he
here expresses himself differently ; as Bengel remarks,
he puts vocabulum abstractum signiflcantissimum in
order to bear full and forcible testimony to the fact
that quidquid inest divinitati dwells in Christ. And,
in fact, how can the Godhead of Christ be more
plainly and fully expressed than by the words : " In
that, since Gnosticism had already begun to show life and activity
during the time of the apostle, Paul may have made use of certain
expressions that had come into vogue, as a means of assisting the
apprehension of his readers. But since there are no historical facts
to indicate that a definite terminology of this kind prevailed so
early, apart from the apostolic Epistles and certain words which they
have in common with later Gnostic systems, or the systems with
them ; since, on the contrary, it is an established fact that the
Gnostics of the second century made use of New Testament writings
(the Valentinians, for example, used the Gospel of John), it follows
that that part of the Gnostic terminology which Gnosticism has in
common with the New Testament may, with far more historical
probability, be derived from the apostolic writings than vice versa.
Yet, according to the Refutatio hceresium of Hippolytus, vi. 30 f.
p. 384, ed. Duncker, 1859, Valentine and his school not only used
the Epistle to the Ephesians, but also quoted it formally as ypatbi.
In Baur's attempted explanation {ante, p. 425, etc.) there can
neither be found a correct picture of the Gnostic ideas in question
nor the true sense of the New Testament passage, but only an
obscure mixture of Biblical truth with Gnostic speculation.

JESUS CHRIST. 19
Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily " ?
In opposition to Meyer's assertion, that although
Tr\rjpccp,a is here (ii. 9) used in a metaphysical sense
of the divina essentia, yet. the same word is in i. 19
to be understood as applying to divine gifts, to the
divina gratia (Comm. 2nd ed. p. 196, etc.), we may
remark (1) that we have no reason for limiting i. 19
to fulness of grace, for the historical evBoKvrre does
not necessarily imply this ; (2) that it is customary
with Paul to regard these two, grace in its moral-
religious sense and the real essence, not separately,
but united ; the latter remark is rightly made by
Ernesti, TJrsprung der Silnde, p. 220, etc. The
indwelling of God in Christ, KaTomeiv, is more
definitely described by Paul after his manner by
<ra>[.i,aTiKa>s, a word that, in the unanimous opinion of
modern expositors, means neither actually (realiter,
the opposite of umbraliter) nor essentially (essen-
tialiter), but simply corporaliter, bodily, corporeally, an
expression which refers here only to the glorified body
of the exalted Redeemer (Bahr, Comm. p. 165, etc.;
de Wette, Meyer). We have therefore in Col. i. 15,
etc., ii. 19, two positions : first, Christ is the image
of the invisible God, the fulness of divine essence,
in whom divine life dwells visibly and bodily ;
second, He existed before the world, all things
were created by Him and consist in Him. The
first position is a more exact definition of the
words in 2 Cor. iv. 4 : " Christ is the image of
God," and supplies a fuller explanation of them,
in consequence of errorists having appeared.
The second position is contained in germ in
the statement of 1 Cor. viii. 6 : " All things
are by Jesus Christ," and is more fully developed

20 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
in the Epistle to the Colossians for the same
reason.1 Corresponding to the evidence of 2 Cor. viii. 9,
the passage Phil. ii. 5-11 contains an important con
tribution to the knowledge of the divine dignity of
Christ. In order to incite his readers to humble,
ministering, self-denying love to their neighbour, he
sets before them the example of Jesus, who occupied
a position so exalted, and stooped to so low a depth
of humiliation : 09 iv popcfrf) deov v-irdp^wv, ov%
dpirayfjibv rjyrjcraTO to eivat tera 6eu>, dXK iavTOv
eKevcocre, p,opcprjv BovXov Xaftaiv — xat iTaTretvacrev
eavTov yevofievos vttijkoo';. Here we have the dis
tinction of a twofold state belonging to Christ at
different times. In both states attention is directed
to the mind. Ver. 6 describes the former condition
of Christ and His mind in it. This state consisted
in being in the form of God, living in a divine form
of existence. His mind in this state was such that
" He thought it not robbery to be equal with God."
According to the whole context the latter must have
the general sense, He did not seek His own, His
own honour or enjoyment ; comp. vv. 3, 4. The
1 This christological passage does not lead us to doubt the
genuineness of the Epistle to the Colossians. Baur himself goes
so far as to admit that some indications of a similar kind are to be
found even in those Epistles acknowledged by him as the apostle's ;
only they are mere indications and are never so prominently put
forth as here, where absolute, pre-mundane existence is the prevail
ing idea {Paulus, 2nd ed. ii. 12, 35, 43). But this distinction,
which, moreover, loses some of its importance after the above explana
tions, is certainly not of a kind to justify us in objecting to an
Epistle. Is anything else to be expected in a series of letters from
one man, than that the same thoughts should at one time be dimly
indicated, delineated in hasty sketches ; and at another time be more
fully explained and illustrated, being differently stated and applied
according to the need of the readers ?

JESUS CHRIST. 21
question is, What is the dpirayp,bv ijyijaaTo, and
what ehai lera deep ? Is the latter merely synony
mous with iv p-opepy deov vTrdpyeav, or is it
essentially different ? As far as the words are con
cerned, laa dew appears to be more than iv popepjj
deov, the latter merely designating the form of
appearance, the mode of existence, while Zo-09 de
notes complete similarity of essence. ' ' Apiraypbv ov%
r)yrjcraTo should be translated literally, since the
active signification of dpiraypos = rapiendi actus, is
indubitable ; He did not count it as a robbery, the
object of an attempted robbery, to be equal with God,
i.e. He would not seize upon it, did not think of claim
ing it. If this be the sense of the latter expression,
to etvat taa dem must be something not possessed
by Christ while He was iv rtopcpfj deov virrip^ev.
But what was this ? The connection with what goes
before, ver. 3, etc., where the apostle specially warns
against the seeking of one's own honour, as well as
with what follows, ver. 9, etc., where Christ is spoken
of in His exalted glory as an object for the worship
of all creatures, leads to the idea that divine honour
and worship are mainly implied in taa deep.1 Hence
1 This explanation, which in our opinion is the only correct one, is
implied in Schrader, Der Apostel Paulus, vol. v. p. 215, and is
more fully elaborated and reasoned out in the treatise by Stein,
Theol. Stud, und Krit. 1837, p. 165, and particularly p. 174, etc.
More recently Ernesti, Stud, und Krit. 1848, p. 558, etc., comp.
pp. 851, 595, etc., vom, Ursprung der Siinde, pp. 243, etc., has given
the same interpretation and established it more fully, with this
peculiarity, however, that he finds an allusion to Gen. iii. of which
there is no indication in the passage itself, nor would it result in any
essential gain to the interpretation. Formerly Rabiger, ante, pp. 76,
etc., 60, 82, etc., and Messner, Lehre der Apostel, p. 233, etc.,
agreed with us in the main ; more recently R. Schmidt, paulin.
Christologie, p. 166, etc. ; Pfleiderer, Paulinismus, p. 149 ; Weiss,
N. T. Theol. p. 430, note 5.

22 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
we have the following positions : first, Christ was in
the form of God before He became man, in a divine
form of being; for it has been justly asserted by
Usteri, Meyer, R. Schmidt, ante, p. 163, etc., and
others, that ver. 6 has reference not to the human
life of .Jesus, His visible appearance (de Wette,
Beyschlag), but to the prehistorical existence of the
Redeemer, and that the subject-proper is here the
pre-existing Christ ; second, He was not equal to
God in respect of power, honour, and worship ; third,
He had not capriciously and selfishly striven after
equality with God. There now follows a fourth
position : on the contrary, in becoming man, He freely
renounced His divine form.
The historical state of Christ is discussed in ver. 7,
etc. The transition from the earlier to the later
state was the result of a free act of Christ (eKevcooe),
represented as to its nature as an iavrbv Kevovv, to
divest oneself or to renounce a fulness, a possession,
which leads us involuntarily to think of the irXripaipa,
Col. i. 19, ii. 9 ; the eavrov iKevaae corresponds to
the iTTTco^evae, 2 Cor. viii. 9. The kcvovv is, however,
only one side of the act, the negative ; and this pre
supposes a positive side, expressive of the mode and
manner, the character of the new state, which latter
is described in a threefold way by ptopeprjv BovXov
XaBcbv, iv opoicopart dvdpd>Tra>v yevop,evo<5 and eryrjpaTi
evpedeh &>9 dvdpwTros. The series appears to be an
anticlimax, so that popep-n BovXov is put first by way
of bold antithesis to popepr) deov. It is a striking
circumstance here that the human existence and life
of Christ are described only by such expressions as
form, bearing, likeness, on which account Baur has
asserted that the sense of the passage implies that

JESUS CHRIST. 23
Christ's humanity was not actual and real, but only
apparent, as Docetism teaches, vide N. T. Theol. p.
269. But if we keep in view the entire context we
must reject this hypothesis. If p-opepy BovXov, opoicopa
dvdpd>Tr(ov be docetically understood, the popcpf) deov
must ultimately be regarded as mere semblance, that is
to say, Docetism would be transformed into Ebionism.
The expressions er^ripta, opoicopa, appear to be chosen
with the view that the personality, originally and of
itself divine, should even in its human life and exist
ence be distinctly recognised as such.
The mind of Christ in His human state is described
in the words : iTairelvcoaev eavTov yevopevos virrjKoo?
— cnavpov. In this state He voluntarily submitted
to humiliation, and of His own free will became
obedient to the death of the cross. But from this
state He was again raised up to a divine and glorious
state, a transition, however, which was not accom
plished by His own act, but by the act of God (6 debs
virepv-tycocre, which, contrary to Ernesti, we understand
of the heavenly exaltation of Jesus). Because He
humbled Himself, therefore God hath highly exalted
Him, and given Him a name which is above every name,
a title to the honour and worship of every creature.1
The strongest evidence contained in the later
Epistles, particularly in those to the Philippians and

1 Baur's unsuccessful attempt to employ Gnosticism for the eluci
dation of this passage, and to explain it from the system of Valen
tine, has, in our opinion, been convincingly refuted, not only by
Ernesti in the treatise already quoted, but also by Rabiger, ante,
comp. Meyer, Comm. Phil. p. 61, and others. The difference
between the Pauline and the Valentinian idea is incomparably
greater and deeper than the similarity sought after by Baur. If the
alleged Gnostic tendency of the Philippian Epistle is the chief reason
for doubting its authenticity, the latter is sufficiently assured.

24 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
Colossians, goes to prove that the Redeemer was the
Son of God in a unique sense, the image of the
invisible God, of the same substance with Him ; and
again, that before His historical appearance as the Son
of man, even before the existence of any creature,
He existed in a divine living form, as an actual person,
capable of forming a purpose, and of accomplish
ing a moral act of self-denial ; and, finally, that the
creation of the world and its continuance are mediated
by Him. These are absolute truths which were
already expressed in substance in the Epistles to the
Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians. The distinction
between the two classes of Epistles cannot lie in the
fact that the one sets forth a lower, the other a higher
view of the divine in Christ, but consists solely in
this, viz. that the one presents in a more extended
form and develops more completely what the other
expresses plainly enough but more briefly and in a
more compressed form. This distinction, arising out
of the circumstances in which Paul wrote, partly
from the direction taken by the errors which he had
to combat, p natural enough. The consensus is so
decided that, by means of it, not only the unity of
Paul's doctrine, but also the genuineness of the
Epistles that have been attacked on the ground of an
alleged opposition of doctrine, becomes clear to an
unprejudiced mind.
There is, however, still one point that we must
examine more closely in order fully to understand
the apostle's apprehension of the Godhead of Christ
viz. his view of the definite relation of the divine in
Christ to the Father. The question arises, Is Christ
on His divine side, according to Paul, absolute per
sonality, actual God, or not ? We have already

JESUS CHRIST. 25
pointed out the exalted view contained in the utter
ance that in Christ KaToiKel to TrXr/papa t%
deoTrjTos, quidquid inest divinitati (Col. i. 19, ii. 9),
not divided or limited, but the whole, complete
fulness of the Godhead (irdv to ttX.) in both pass
ages. If all in which the essence of God consists
dwells in Christ, He must for this very reason be
God in a complete, that is, a true sense. If, more
over, we consider that eternity must belong to the
Redeemer on His divine, premundane side (irpcoTo-
toko9 7racr?79 KTicreco<i, Col. i. 15), and that the act of
creation is expressly attributed to Him as its media
tor (1 Cor. viii. 6 ; Col. i. 16), and that in a number
of passages He is represented as sitting at the right
hand of God (Rom. viii. 34 ; Eph. i. 20, etc., and
others), i.e. as taking part in the government of the
world : we cannot consistently refuse to acknowledge
that those very qualities and acts which belong solely
and alone to God as God, belong also to Christ, i.e.
that He is God in a full and true sense.1 Further,
we must place in the scale what Paul says of the
name of Jesus and its invocation : in the letter to the
Corinthian Church, 1 Cor. i. 2, he speaks of Chris
tians as ol iirtKaXovptevoi to ovopta tov Kvpiov
rjpwv 'Irjcrov Xptarov. To call upon the name
of the Lord Jesus Christ is clearly intended as
adoration, actual worship,2 as niiT DE>2 K"ij?. Still
1 Baur rightly maintains, even while opposing the correct inter
pretation of 1 Cor. viii. 6, Paulus, 2nd ed. ii. 265, that the higheht
conception of God is exemplified in the creation. If, therefore, all
things were created by Christ, this would be an assumption that He
is not merely xvpio; but his.
2 This extended meaning of the WixotXci/iiioi, etc., commonly
remains unobserved, as recently by Heinrici, 1 Kor. p. 46, etc., and
Holsten, das Ev. des Paulus, p. 255, etc.

26 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
more conclusive in this respect is the way in which,
in Rom. x. 13, the words of Joel ii. 32 : "i£'« ?3
xbw nirv d^h ay>\, are directly transferred to Jesus,
so that the prayer of believers is addressed to Jesus
in the same sense as in the Old Covenant to Jehovah,
and has the same promise attached. Meyer indeed
defends himself, Comm. 2nd ed., by making this
distinction, that " calling upon Christ is not worship
in an absolute sense, but rather has its seat in the
relativity of the praying consciousness, conditioned
by the relation of Christ to the Father ; " an analysis
which conveys no very clear meaning to our mind,
and has no foundation in the passage itself. There
is no doubt as to the meaning of the confession in
Phil. ii. 9, etc. : " Wherefore God also hath highly
exalted Him, and given Him a name which is above
every name : that in the name of Jesus every knee
should bow, of things in heaven, and things on earth,
and things under the earth ; and that every tongue
should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory
of God the Father." Meyer here justly repudiates
all attempts to explain away the worship of Jesus,
for the whole context has reference to the honour of
Jesus ; and the bowing of the knee in His name in
particular is nothing but a statement of the adoration
and actual worship of Him in the body. In ver. 11,
however, eh Bb^av deov traTpos, Meyer has some
support in asserting the " relative '' and not " absolute "
character of this worship, of which we shall treat in
the following pages. Putting together what goes
before, the impression is overpowering, that in attri
buting to Christ Jesus the absolute fulness of divine
essence, mediation in the creation of all things, and
participation in the divine government of the world ¦

JESUS CHRIST. 27
in presupposing and requiring the full and true wor
ship of Jesus, even making it God's aim in exalting
Him, — Paul acknowledges Christ to be God in the
true sense of the word. Accordingly it can neither
surprise us if he applies even the name deo<; to Christ ;
nor would it have much weight in respect of doctrine,
if, on closer examination, the opposite appeared. We
must decide for the former. The passage most dis
puted is Rom. ix. 5 : ['la-pa^A.mu] ehv ol TraTepes Kal
ii; 3>v o XpierTO<i to KaTa erdpKa, 6 cbv iiii nrdvTCuv
debs evXoyr)To<; eh tov9 almva<s dpnp>. The two lead
ing interpretations opposed to each other are, as is well
known, that of the Fathers and Reformers, which puts
nothing more than a comma after XpicrTos t. k. a.,
referring the words 6 &v — aloovas to Christ ; the other
interpretation being the modern one, first proposed
by Erasmus, which puts a colon after XpiaTos t. k. o\,
and understands the words 6 a>v, etc., to apply to God
the Father. There is an intermediate interpretation
which puts the point after irdvTcov; and this also was
first started by Erasmus ; but it has least in its favour,
because of the abruptness it introduces. As to the
two leading interpretations, two important facts may
be laid down : (1) both are equally just linguisti
cally and logically ; (2) the only important argu
ment that is or can be urged against the old ecclesi
astical reference of the clause to Christ, lies in the
apostle's teaching with respect to Christ and His
relation to God, elsewhere. These two observations
are indisputable, and are universally admitted. An
additional fact is, (3) that the punctuation and inter
pretation of the words adopted by the ancient Church
is more natural and easy than the opposite one, as
even Riickert candidly admits, although he himself

28 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
does not refer the clause to Christ. All, therefore,
that is urged against the interpretation : " Christ who
is God over all, blessed for ever," amounts to this,
that Paul, animated by a firm belief in one God,
nowhere else calls Christ directly 6eb<s, though he
here terms Him "God over all." But what does
this prove, if, taking other passages into account, we
are still forced to admit that Paul, in conformity
with his doctrine of Christ elsewhere, might, like
John, have used debs as a predicate of Christ, in dis
tinction from o debs (Meyer, Comm. p. 84, etc.) ?
Paul does in fact here speak of Jesus not as 6 deos,
but as 0eo9. Having regard, therefore, to Paul's
teaching elsewhere, as shown above, that Christ is
true God, we adhere to the interpretation which
refers the clause in question to Christ. The thought,
in its connection with ver. 4, is the following. The
highest privilege of the people of Israel, the last
crowning mark of favour bestowed upon them, con
sists in the fact that He who is above all, to whom
adoring praise is due in all times, proceeded from
them according to the flesh.1
But although Paul with full conviction recognises
Christ as God, even calling Him by the name of God,
yet we must not conceal the fact that he persistently
makes a distinction between God and Christ, conceiv-
1 We agree with the treatise of Herm. Schultz, Jahrbucher fur
deutsche Theologie, 1868, p. 462, etc., which Godet, Comm. on
Romans (translated into German), ii. 134, has justly termed a " true
classic," for it is methodical, cautious, and convincing. Schultz, pp.
483, etc., 502, etc., lays stress on the fact that the apostle here
speaks of the historical Christ exalted at the right hand of God,
which we are ready to admit, but must, however, observe that the
exalted Christ, according to Phil. ii. 5, etc., is to the apostle the
same who in His pre-existent state lived in divine form, and did not

JESUS CHRIST. 29
ing of Christ as dependent upon the Father, and
placing Him under God the Father. Christ is the
Son of God, His first-born ; God sent forth His Son
(Gal. iv. 4), raised Him from the dead (Gal. i. 1),
exalted Him to the highest glory (Phil. ii. 9 : 1 Cor.
xv. 27). God is 6 6eb<; tov Kvptov rjpmv 'I. X. (Eph.
i. 17); the head of Christ is God (1 Cor. xi. 3);
Christ is God's (1 Cor. iii. 23). It is true — those
who on insufficient evidence deny that Paul calls
Jesus God are so far right — that Paul adheres
strictly to the monotheism of the Old Testament,
knowing only one God, the Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ ; whenever he writes 6 deo<;, he means God
the Father, the absolute First Cause of all created
being, as Christ is the absolute Mediator of the
whole creation (1 Cor. viii. 6) ; the worship of Christ
has its ultimate aim in the honour of God, who is
Himself the absolute aim (Phil. ii. 11; 1 Cor. xv.
27). Two things, however, must here be kept in
view : (1) that Paul invariably starts from the
historical Christ and the historical relation of Christ
to the Father, even when looking back to prehistoric
time or forward to the future ; (2) that the relation
in God between Father and Son is reciprocal. But
Paul also speaks comprehensively of the triad in God :
to aiiTo irvevpa — 6 ai)TO<; Kvpios — o ai>To<; deo<s, the
become God by His ascension into heaven, but only attained divine
glory, being exalted to a place above every creature, so that He is
entitled to divine adoration. We shall only mention, in conclusion,
that the interpretation of Rom. ix. 5, given above, has been preferred
among modern expositors, not only by Tholuek, Olshausen, Hof-
man, Delitzsch, and Philippi, but also by Usteri, paulin. Lehrbegriff,
4th ed. p. 324, etc. ; Ritschl, Entstehung des altkath. Kirche, 2nd
ed. p. 79 ; Weiss, N. T. Theol. 4th ed. p. 281, comp. note 5 ; Schultz
ante; R. Schmidt, paulin. Christologie, p. 141.

30 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God,
and the communion of the Holy Ghost (2 Cor. xiii. 1 3).
Having thus far kept mainly in view the divine
in the person of Jesus, we now turn our attention to
what Paul says of the human in Him : God sent His
Son, born of a woman (i^aireejTeiXe — yevopevov Ik
yvvatKos, Gal. iv. 4 ; comp. Rom. viii. 3). Here the
incarnation of Christ is taken as an act of God the
Father; but, on the other hand, in Phil. ii. 7, etc., as
an act of the pre-existent Redeemer Himself, which
agrees very well with the former. In the birth
from a woman, the apostle admits the true ancl per
fect humanity of Jesus to be a self-humiliation on
His part ; but He has chosen an expression (as Hil-
genfeld himself remarks, Galaterbrief, p. 174) which
suits well the fatherless generation of Jesus, without
expressly attesting it.1 In Rom. v. 15, Paul terms
Christ " the one man, Jesus Christ," tou evb<;
dvdpcoirov, in contradistinction from the one Adam;
also in 1 Cor. xv. 21: oY dvdpmirov dveierTacris veKpav.
On the other hand, the limiting expression employed
in Rom. viii. 3 and Phil. ii. 7 does not throw any
doubt on the perfect humanity of Jesus. In the
former passage o deb'; tov iavTov vlbv 7reym|ra9 iv
bpotcopaTi crapKos dpapTtas does not call in
question the actual humanity of Jesus, but only
1 We acknowledge, with Wieseler, Comm. p. 333, that the words
contain neither affirmation nor denial of the generation of Jesus by
God's miraculous power without the agency of man. Among recent
expositors, Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, ii. 1. 84, maintains the former,
without adequate ground ; Pfleiderer, Pautinismus, p. 152, is in
favour of the latter ; but neither does the silence of the apostle here
prove that he teaches the natural generation of Jesus nor the descent
from David attested in Rom. i. 3, since the Davidic descent of Mary
is by no means excluded ; comp. Weiss, N. T. Theol. p. 289 etc.
and note 3.

JESUS CHRIST. 31
denies that He is tainted with sin, as TertuUian well
remarks in opposition to Marcion, v. c. 1 4, ed. Oehler, ii.
315: " Similitudo " ad titulum " peccati " pertinebit
non ad substantiae mendacium. Paul would not have
applied the term bpoiapa to crdp^ alone, but only to
sinful flesh : crap!; dpapTia<;} Again, Phil. ii. 7: ev
opotdopaTi dvdpdnrcov yevbpevos, mainly with a view
to the Godhead of Christ, represents His birth as like
the birth of other men (the parallel evpedeh does not
authorize us to reject this definite sense, with Meyer),
but (as Lange, Kirchengesch. i. 131, acutely remarks)
we must not overlook the circumstance that the
apostle says opot. dvdpcoircov, not dvdpmirov, which
would be incomparably nearer to Docetism, while
the plural describes men as they are according to
experience. Although Christ is descended KaTa
crdpKa from the patriarchs, especially from David
(Rom. i. 3, ix. 5), although sharing all the weakness
and liability to suffering incidental to the life of the
body (dadeveia, 2 Cor. xiii. 4), and even becoming
subject to death ; yet He is absolutely free from all
sin: 6 prj yvoi><; dpapTiav, 2 Cor. v. 21, in His own
personal experience knew no sin ; i.e. Paul recognises
Christ as actual man, but pure and sinless. In
common with Peter and the other apostles, Paul lays
stress on the fact that Jesus was born of the seed of
1 Holsten, Zum Ev. des Paulus und des Petrus, p. 436, etc.,
and after him Overbeck, Zeitschrift f. wiss. Theol. 1869, 2, p. 200,
etc. ; Pfleiderer, Paulinismus, p. 153 ; Lorenz, Lehrsystem, p. 116,
etc., interpret the oftolupca a-apxos apapTias as if it were identical with
tro\pi, ufiapTias. and do not hesitate to attribute to the apostle the
doctrine that Jesus was tainted with an innate tendency to sin, but
remained free from every act of sin — a thought which is altogether
un-Pauline, and quite at variance with Scripture. The error of this
explanation has been proved impartially and convincingly by Ed.
Zeller, Zeitschrift f. wiss. Theol. 1870, 3.

32 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
David according to the flesh, and came from the
patriarchs (Rom. i. 3, ix. 5), attaching great import
ance to His Davidic descent and to His lineage as
the Messiah from the patriarchs of the people of
Israel. But there is another point of view peculiar
to this apostle ; he regards Christ, whom he presents
to us as the eternal Son of God, born of man, as at
the same time the new man, the second beginner
of humanity, the progenitor, as it were, of a new
spiritually -minded line of the human race. This
point of view is conspicuous in Rom. v. 1 5, etc., 12, etc.,
where Jesus, as the one beginner of favoured humanity,
is contrasted with the one Adam who stands at the
head of the line of sin and death. We find a further
extension of the thought in 1 Cor. xv. 45, etc. : Christ
is the second Adam, the second man coming from
heaven, as the first Adam is of the earth ; the latter
was a living soul, therefore psychic in the lower
sense ; Christ, on the other hand, is irvevpa ^aoirotovv,
i.e. not only Himself irvevpaTiKos, but also the
principle of spiritual life to humanity.1 We must
1 This parallel with Adam, the man who came directly from the
Creator's hand, the first progenitor of the human race, attests on the
one hand the actual humanity of Jesus, showing on the other
hand, in opposition to the view of Usteri, Lehrbegriff, p. 238, note ;
Pfleiderer, ante, note, and others, that a supernatural generation
of Jesus is irreconcilable with the Pauline doctrine. Holsten, Zum
Ev. des Paulus u. Petrus, p. 422, etc., comp. p. 374 ; das Ev.
des Paulus, i. p. 431, etc., esp. 435, note; Pfleiderer, Pautinismus,
p. 131, etc., and Beyschlag, Christologie des N. T. p. 241, etc.,
following the precedent of Baur, ascribe to the apostle the strange
gnostic, docetic idea that Christ in His prehistoric existence was
the typical man, a spiritual form of light. And on what does
this fancy rest? On the simple words of 1 Cor. xv. 47 : o vpuTos
civfywiros ix y'fit y^oix'os, o tiuripos ocvhwros \\ ovpavov, comp. ver. 48 :
i sKQupxiia;, i.e. the first Adam was of the earth (Gen. ii. 7 : JD "13V

JESUS CHRIST. 33
here content ourselves with merely indicating the
point of view of the new beginning of humanity
originating in the person of Jesus the God-man, in
so far as it concerns the person of Christ, since we
have already touched upon it in the discussion of sin
(p. 353, etc.), and must return to it in treating of
the grace of God.
The apostle's teaching respecting the person of
Jesus Christ centres in this, viz. in setting in the
clearest light the glory of Jesus Christ as the incar
nate Son of God. Paul teaches us, on the one hand,
the deity of Christ in whose face the light of God
the Father shines into the illuminated heart, inasmuch
as He was before the world, and the world was
created by Him ; on the other hand, he gives pro
minence to the humanity of Jesus Christ, inasmuch
as the Son of God, out of a free purpose of love,
emptied Himself, was born as man, and as God-man
became the progenitor of a new, favoured, spiritually-
ordered line of humanity.
nplNI"!), therefore earthly, mortal ; the second Adam, Christ, was
of heavenly origin, by nature heavenly, spiritual, able to rise again.
There is no direct reference in ver. 47 to the risen Christ (as Meyer,
R. Schmidt, and Weiss affirm) ; we agree, on the other hand, with
Messner, p. 230 ; Gess, Lehre von der Person Christi, p. 14, etc. ;
and Heinrici, Comm. p. 539. But we are not therefore justified in
ascribing to the apostle the idea that Christ as archetypal man pre
existed in a body of light, which can only be made to look like
truth by means of dialectic arts and indemonstrable hypotheses {e.g.
Holsten, Ev. des Paulus, 432) ; while ver. 46 positively refutes
the conception (comp. Weiss, 4th ed. p. 294, note ; Lorenz, Lehr-
system, 1884, p. 114, etc.).

VOL. II.

34 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
II. Redemption through the Death and
Resurrection of Christ.
Christ is the ground of salvation. All that He is
personally is essential to the reconciliation that He
has accomplished. In Christ, God has reconciled
the world unto Himself, 2 Cor. v. 19 : debs rjv iv
XpiaTaj Koerpov KaTaXXderacov eavTep. The centre
of the revelation of God in Christ is therefore kot-
aXXayrj, reconciliation, the removal of the separa
tion and enmity that exist between the world and
God, God and the world ; world being here taken in
its most comprehensive sense, although the redemption
of sinful humanity stands in the foreground ; Col. i,
20, etc. : it pleased God, Bid Xptarov diroKaTaX-
Xd^at Ta iravTa eis avTov, elpr/voiroirjeras — Kal vpds,
iroTe ovras dirrjXXoTpicopevovs Kal iydpovs —
diroKaTrjXXa^ev. But in what did this work of redemption consist ?
The chief answer that Paul gives to this question
lies in the fact that " He was delivered for our
offences, and raised again for our justification," Rom.
iv. 25 ; comp. 1 Cor. xv. 3, etc. But these two main
points do not contain an explicit statement of the
whole matter. In several passages Paul speaks of
the obedience of Jesus having served the purpose of
redemption ; so in Gal. iv. 4, God sent forth His Son,
made of a woman, made under the law (yevbp,evov
virb vopov, 'Cva tovs iitto vbpov i^ayopderrj), i.e.' by
His birth He was put under the law and made
obedient to it.1 Hilgenfeld's theory, that the reco°ni-
1 The use of w^os without the article prevents our understanding
it here, with by far the greater number of expositors {e.g. Meyer
Hofmatm, ante, ii. 1. 76), as the Mosaic law in an exclusive sense.

REDEMPTION THROUGH CHRIST. 35
tion here of an obedientia activa would be completely
at variance with the Pauline view, since the death
of Christ alone effects reconciliation, is entirely dis
proved by Rom. v. 19, where the obedience of Jesus
(¦g inraKor) Tov'evos) is asserted as the ground of the
justification of many. It is usual, indeed, to limit
the inraKorj, as in ver. 9, to the death of Jesus (Usteri,
Riickert, Meyer, Lorenz, and others) ; but neither the
parallel of Adam's one act of disobedience, nor the
above passage, justifies this ; especially as the concep
tion of the obedience of Christ's life as a whole (of
which indeed His voluntary expiatory death formed
the climax) admirably suits the context.1 It appears
to us that Bengel is quite right when he observes : " ex
quo (verbo viraKotj) egregium de obedientia activa
argumentum fluit." The assumption of Neander
(ante, p. 703, etc.) and Hofmann (ante, p. 78, etc.),
that ev BtKaicopa, v. 18, has reference to the moral
obedience of Christ as the one total result of His life,
appears to us untenable because of the word in ques-
Van Hengel's exposition of Rom. ii. 12 [ante, p. 209, etc.) appears
to us to be well founded, viz. that the Pauline use of language
invariably made a distinction between to/tos and i vopo;, so that the
word with an article denoted the Mosaic law distinctly and exclu
sively, while the word without an article expressed the general idea
of law, no doubt frequently referring to the Mosaic law {e.g. in
the passage in question) ; not, however, by way of distinction from
another law, but in its universal character as law. Bengel observes,
with respect to Rom. ii. 14 : " vi/tos modo sine articulo, modo cum
articu-lo, non sine causa dicitur."
1 Recently Godet, Comm., has given the preference to this inter
pretation, for the reason that in the Levitical service it was necessary
for the animal sacrificed to be without blemish, and correspondingly
the sacrfice of the true offering of atonement must be without sin.
The same expositor establishes that interpretation of the hxa.io>^x to
which we have given the preference, in a convincing manner, by a
consideration of the context, apart from the language employed.

36 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
tion ; for the signification of BiKatoopa, " holy work
according to Neander, or " condition of actual right "
according to Hofmann, does not agree either with the
Pauline use of BtKaiovv and its derivatives or with the
context, so well as the meaning " sentence of right,"
or "justifying judgment." In Phil. ii. 8, on the
other hand, iTairetvcoerev eavrov, yevopevos virrjKOOs
pexpt davaTov, where (contrary to Hofmann, p. 80)
pi%pt davdrov refers equally to eTaireivaaev and
yevbpevos {nn]Koo<; (for "in morte humiliatio maxima et
obedientia maxima," Bengel), the whole life of Jesus
is conceived as the proof of an obedience to God, of
which the highest step was acceptance of death on
the cross. Thus Paul considers the whole human
life of Jesus, in its moral completeness, as laying
the foundation of salvation. For this reason the
death and resurrection of Jesus are with him always
the two poles of Christ's work.
a. Jesus' Death.
Among the irpcoTa, the fundamental facts and
truths of the gospel, as well as of his own apostolic
preaching, Paul enumerates in 1 Cor. xv. 3, first : <m
XpiaTos diredavev inrep tcov dpapTiwv rjpSiv, Kara
Ta9 ypaepds. In all his writings he sets forth the
death of Jesus with the greatest emphasis. The
redemptive significance of death on the cross is one of
the fundamental ideas which have prominence in his
gospel. Already does the Epistle to the Galatians
open up deeper views of the importance of the death
of Christ, in opposition to the errorists who wished
to insist on the substance of the law as necessary to
salvation. In the very first greeting, i. 4, Paul says

REDEMPTION THROUGH CHRIST. 37
of Jesus : 6 Bow; eavTov irepl twv dpapTtcbv fjpwv.
He purposes to put before his readers, from the
beginning, the great redemptive act of Christ, lest
they should fall back into the legal way which
makes the death of Jesus superfluous. In ii. 20 we
have the indication of a new thought, where Paul,
looking back to his former life, says : " The life which
I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith Xpiarov
tov dyairgaavTOS pe Kal TrapaBovTos eavrov xnrep
ipov." Here, as in 1 Thess. v. 10, the relation of the
death of Jesus to sin is not made emphatically pro
minent, but on the contrary, light is thrown on that
sentiment of love which led to His dying for the
salvation of men. The cross of Christ is mentioned
repeatedly ; Christ is set before the eyes of the
Galatians by Paul as the Crucified One, iii. 1 ; Christ
hanging upon the tree is made accursed for us, to
deliver us from the curse of the law, iii. 13 ; " If I
preach circumcision (as necessary to salvation) . . .
then is the offence which many take at the cross of
Christ ceased," to crKavBaXov tov enavpov, v. 11;
comp. vi. 12—14. In the same way, in his First
Epistle to the Corinthians, he calls the cross the
chief subject of apostolic preaching. The one thing
that he knows, that he recognises as the source of
salvation, is the crucified Christ : r/peh Be Kvpvcreropev
XpicrTov icrTavpcopevov, i. 23; comp. 17, 18, o
crTavpos ; ii. 2. Recommending his readers to spare
the conscience of a brother, he terms this latter :
d aSeXo5o9 . . . Bt' bv XpiaTos diredave, viii. 1 1. In
calling Jesus the Passover Lamb : Kal yap to Trdcrxa
ripwv . . . iTvdv, XpiaTo% 1 Cor. v. 7, Paul employs
a new designation (probably in view of the approach
ing Easter -tide ; comp. Wieseler, Chronol. des apost.

38 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
Zeitalters, 1848, p. 327, etc., and almost all recent
expositors). The apostle had previously spoken of
the fornicator, who was to be cast out of the Church,
and to this he attaches the exhortation to moral
purity and renovation. Paul's exhortation to his
hearers to purge out the old leaven, i.e. to put all evil
away (alluding to the Old Testament custom of care
fully ridding the houses of every remnant of leavened
bread at the beginning of the Passover, Ex. xii. 15,
etc., xiii. 7), that they might become a community of
morally-renewed men, is supported by the assurance :
"Ye are unleavened (i.e. cleansed as believers), for
Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us." Two
thoughts and images are here blended together with
respect to the feast of the Passover, which must
itself be regarded as a double feast.1 From the words
of the apostle we see clearly, first, that he connects
the Passover sacrifice with what is unleavened in such
a way that the former is not only antecedent in time,
1 According to Ewald {Die Altertiimer des Voiles Israel oder
Ceschichte Israels, Appendix to vol. ii. 1848, p. 358, etc.), with
the spring feast of Unleavened Bread, as the principal one, was
associated a preparatory propitiatory feast on the previous evening,
viz. the Passover, the eating of the paschal lamb, which remained a
family sacrifice offered up by each house for its own exemption from
death. " The more completely this unleavened bread lost its
original, natural significance (as an offering of the first-fruits of the
very earliest barley harvest), the more freely could it be employed in
a higher spiritual sense not incommensurate with the charpcter of
this particular feast. For while the Passover feast, as strictly pro
pitiatory, was more and more closely connected with this principal
feast, only being separated from it by one night, its meaning as an
earnest cleansing and purification passed over more completely to the
latter ; thus the unleavened bread soon ceased to be merely a token
in keeping with the solemnity of the time, and became also a type of
that perfect household purity to be restored in the beginning of a
new year" (p. 366, etc.).

REDEMPTION THROUGH CHRIST. 3 9
but actually conditions the latter, corresponding to
the historical relation of the feast from which the
imagery is drawn. Hence it is plain that he employs
what is unleavened with its antithesis leaven, like the
Passover lamb, as a figure. He himself explains the
former ; by the " leaven " he understands wickedness
and sin, the nature of the old man, vv. 7, etc. ; by
" the unleavened " he understands moral integrity,
inward purity and truth. Since therefore Christ, the
Passover Lamb, is described as the condition of this
purification from wickedness and sin, as the ground
and cause of elevation to moral purity, the meaning
of the apostle unquestionably amounts to this, viz.
the death of Jesus Christ is the condition and cause
of a purity and righteousness belonging to the Christian
(Kadox; iejTe d^vpoi) which should be distinguished
from the progressive, spontaneous purification, the
continuous work of sanctification (iKKaddpare . . ,
^vpbrjv, eopTagwpev . . . iv d^vpois). In other words,
the death of Jesus Christ is the condition and cause
of justification and the forgiveness of sins. What
closer connection there is between the death of Christ
and justification, cannot be seen from the words and
their context, unless the signification of the Easter
lamb as a sin-offering be implied in to irdtrxa
i]pmv, and the death of Jesus be conceived not merely
as a reconciling, but also as an atoning act (comp.
2 Cor. v. 18, etc.).1
1 This interpretation is upheld by Meyer, Pfleiderer, Paulinismus,
p. 98 ; Heinrici, Comm. 166, note 1 ; Holsten, das Ev. des Paulus,
p. 287 ; while Weiss, N. T. Theol. p. 305, note 10 ; Ritschl,
Rechtfertigung u. Versohnung, ii. p. 176, etc., fail to see the
objective saving power of the death of Christ in this passage, because
they refuse due weight to the expression Io-ti a.7v^oi, with its founda
tion in fact: xa) yap to <jra.<r^a. bp.wv Wufa XpttrTOS. To the Passover

40 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
According to Paul, the death of Jesus is an act of
atonement, KaTaXXayij (Rom. v. 11; 2 Cor. v. 18,
etc.), i.e. of reconciliation between God and humanity
estranged from Him by sin, and at enmity with Him ;
moreover, the apostle teaches in close connection
with this, that the death of Jesus is an expiation,
a reconciliation, by vicarious suffering and sacrificial
death. The idea is most fully set forth in 2 Cor. v. 18,
etc., comp. ver. 15, a passage whose practical aim is
to prove the divine character not only of the act of
reconciliation itself, but also of the word of recon
ciliation. Paul asserts that all which is accomplished
by redemption has its origin in God, who has
reconciled us to Himself: e'«; tov deov tov KaraXXd-
£oz>T09 i)pd<; eavTcp Bid Xpicrrov Kal Bovtos rjpiv
tt]v BtaKoviav Trjs KaraXXayrjs; ver. 19: o>9 oti
deosfjv iv XptejTcp Kocrpov KaraXXdaaoov eavrep,
ptj Xoyi^opevos avToh Ta TrapairrcopaTa avTcbv, Kal
depevos iv rjplv tov Xoyov ttjs KaTaXXayrjs. Ver. 19,
with co9 oti as particular cleclarantes, is an explanation Of
ver. 1 8 in its entirety, and is not to be limited merely
to KaTaXXayrj, nor to BiaKovia t. KaTaXX. Ver. 19
defines more closely the fact that God has reconciled
us to Himself through Christ — (1) on its negative side
as a not imputing of trespasses ; (2) in its aspect of
positive realization, not as accomplished externally
by Christ's agency, but as an inward union and com
munion with Christ, the atoning act of Christ beino-
in reality an act on the part of God Himself. The
words : debs ?jv iv Xpicnep, cannot from the train of
character of Christ's death the apostle attaches not merely the
requirement to lay aside sin, but also the doctrine : ye are already
clean, because our Passover Lamb has been sacrificed, reconciliation
has been accomplished (against Ritschl).

REDEMPTION THROUGH CHRIST. 41
thought be regarded as an independent clause ; fjv —
KaTaXXdcTcrcov must rather be taken as expressive of
the continuous character of the activity. It is in the
nature of the thing itself that both thought and act
of reconciliation proceed from God and not from man.
But we learn from ver. 21 in what the divine act of
reconciliation in Christ consisted (after the assertion
of the divine character of the apostolic ministry of
reconciliation, the apostles being ambassadors in
Christ's stead) : tov pr) yvovra dpaprlav virep r/pcav
dpaprtav iiroivcrev, Iva rjpeh yevcapeda BiKaioejvvr\
deov ev avTep, " God hath made Him to be sin for us,
who knew no sin" (in His own mental experience),
i.e. has treated Him as if He were personally all sin,
subjecting Him to the violent death of a malefactor;
and the object of this treatment was that we who did
not possess righteousness should by communion with
Christ become personally the whole righteousness of
God. This treatment befell Christ virep rjpwv, i.e. in
the first place, for our salvation, but also in our
stead; for virep XpterTov, ver. 20, only makes
a proper sense, if we understand it as taking the
place of Christ (irpeaBevopev), just as an ambassador
represents his lord, whereas " on behalf of Christ "
(Meyer) has no proper meaning; but if the twice
repeated virep Xptarov has this meaning, the same
sense cannot be denied to virep rjpcov which imme
diately follows it, especially since the relation of
suffering for sin in Christ and righteousness in
believers implies an interchange of persons and their
worth in the sight of God. Thus the atonement is
accomplished by the vicarious sufferings of Christ.
Ver. 15 (et9 virep irdvTiov diridavev dpa ol iravres
diredavov) is in harmony with this; here, too, the

42 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
death of Jesus was effected " for the salvation " of
all ; but the inference that all were then dead points
to substitution, unless intermediate ideas be inserted
in a very artificial way (Meyer, Hofmann, ante, ii. 1.
217, etc.).
The second leading passage respecting recon
ciliation by Christ's death, Rom. v. 6, etc., also
testifies that the KaraXXayri (ver. 11) of men who
formerly occupied a relation of enmity to God
(v. 10) was accomplished by the death of Jesus,
which He suffered on behalf of the ungodly (virep
daeBSiv, ver. 6). But the words of ver. 7 : pbXis
virep BiKalov tis dirodaveiTac virep yap tov dyadov
Tap Tt9 Kal ToXpa dirodaveiv, prove that the idea
of substitution is also implied here. If one die for
his benefactor (6 dyadbs, according to Tholuck's
persuasive proof), nothing is more obvious than the
conclusion that it is a vicarious death, a result that
is hard to escape. But if in this case there be sub
stitution, it is certainly to be found in Jesus' death
for us, since we were sinners (vv. 6, 8) ; this follows
from the chain of thought, though not from the word
virep, which is always distinguished from dvri. The
death of Jesus is here set forth as an act of love on
the part of God, especially in ver. 8 : crvvLerTncri tijv
eavrov dydiryv — d debs, in opposition to bpyg, ver. 9;
i.e. the hostile relation of God towards us as sinners
is removed by the KaTaXXayr/, as well as the hostile
relation of sinners towards Him. Hence ixdpoi, in
ver. 10, has not a one-sided meaning, but is used
reciprocally ; and in the same way KaraXXayri nmst
be taken as a change of the mutual relation of
enmity into one of peace (ver. 1 : elprjvrf), which does
not explain the manner of the restoration of our

REDEMPTION THROUGH CHRIST. 43
BiKaiwdrivai, KaTaXXayr)vat through the " blood " of
Christ, vv. 9, 10. The manner is more clearly
shown in Gal. iii. 13, a passage allied to 2 Cor. v. 21 :
Xpicrros ripds i^r/yopaoev eK ttjs Kardpas tov vbpov,
yevbpevos virep riptibv Kardpa. Paul here defines
the power of the death of Jesus with regard to the
Mosaic law (comp. ver. 10, etc.). The law promises
life to him who fulfils it, and pronounces a curse on
all transgression and non-fulfilment (ver. 10) ; Christ
redeemed us from the curse of the law under which
the Israelites had fallen, suffering death for us, being-
made in fact a curse for us. Tevbpevos Kardpa, like
dpaprta in 2 Cor. v. 21, is naturally more than
iiriKardpaTos, for He who is personally a curse by
means of His death on the cross unites in His
person every curse; whereas the yevbptevos would be
weakened by adopting Bahr's explanation, Stud, und
Krit. 1849, p. 917, etc., viz. that Christ was set
forth as a curse, and appeared as such to all, which
is purely subjective, while yevbpevos is objective.
But if Christ became a curse for the benefit of Israel,
in order that the people might be redeemed from the
curse of the law by His death, a vicarious relation, as
Meyer himself admits, cannot be evaded by the
requirement of more definite expressions (Hofmann,
ii. 1, 223, etc.). The mediation of the redemptive
power of Jesus' death lies therefore in the curse of the
divine law, which Jesus took upon Himself when He
was crucified as a malefactor, and which was worked
out in His own person ; so that Israel, though subject
to the law and its curse, was exempted from the curse.1
1 With respect to Gal. iii. 13, Ritschl, Rechtfertigung u. Ver
sohnung, ii. pp. 244, etc., 252, etc., denies a reference to God,
maintaining that the curse of the law, and not the curse of God, is

44 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
The significance of the death of Jesus for all
humanity is more fully developed in the important
passage, Rom. iii. 24, etc.: "Christ Jesus, whom
God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith
in His blood, to declare His righteousness for the
remission of sins that are past, through the forbear
ance of God, — to declare at this time His righteousness,
that He might be just, and the justifier of him which
believeth in Jesus." Paul here distinguishes two
periods of the world, the present and the earlier or
pre-Christian. He asserts that a declaration of the
righteousness of God (evBeii;is Tr)s BtKatoavvvs deov)
was necessary, because the righteousness of God
appeared to be denied at the time of the forbearance
in respect to former sins, when God's long-suffering
was exercised.
We cannot here concede to the Dutch interpreter
van Hengel that BtKatoavvy deov means nothing else
but probitas hominis a Deo proficiscens, both on account
of the contrast formed by irdpecris, and on account of
the words that explain the idea indirectly, ver. 26 :
els to elvat ainbv BtKatov, etc. Neither can we
in question ; and that the death of Christ thus explained has a, far
deeper religious significance than when regarded in the light of a
sacrifice. As if the line of thought in the Epistle to the Galatians
did not regard the Mosaic law as God's appointment and His revela
tion, and the curse of the law as implied in the fact of God's curse
(Weiss rightly makes this observation, N. T. Theol. p. 303,
note 6). Besides, the following clause in ver. 14 (Israel's redemp
tion from the curse was effected by the cross of Christ, in order that
the blessing of Abraham might be imparted to the Gentiles in Christ)
proves that the whole economy of salvation, even to the atonin"
death of Christ and the pouring out of the Spirit upon Jews and
Gentiles, rests upon God's decree. The latter is made prominent by
Holsten, Ev. des Paulus, i. 93, note. It is not "a doctrinal " but
in fact "an exegetical judgment" (against Ritschl, p. 245), if we
identify the curse of the law with the curse of God.

REDEMPTION THROUGH CHRIST. 45
find in the expression the definite conception "judicial
righteousness," with Tholuck, Comm. 5th ed. p. 146,
etc.. de Wette, Philippi, Pfleiderer, Pautinismus, p.
95; Bonifas, t'enseignement, ap. p. 104, etc.; Godet,
Comm. (German translation) i. p. 171, etc., because
et'9 to elvat avrbv . . . BiKatovvra demands a more
comprehensive and fuller conception. In attributing
to this " judicial righteousness " a justifying power,
Meyer again drops the " strict sense." Godet, too,
p. 171, advocates the meaning, " retributive righteous
ness," but seems to us to expand it as he goes on, at
least to some extent, even in the Excursus, p. 178,
etc. Hofmann, Schriftbeiveis, interprets BiKatoavvt]
quite too abstractly when he takes it to mean " the
self-likeness of God, by virtue of which He is what
He is." When Ritschl, Rechtfertigung und Versohnung,
ii. 216 (1st ed. 1884), explains the BiKaioavvr/ of
this passage as " the conduct of God adequate to the
salvation of men," he touches a point which is near
the aim of the apostle's line of thought, but does
not correspond to its starting-point, which is wider.
It appears to us that the apostle in iii. 25, etc., in
agreement with Old Testament usage and the doctrinal
ideas of prophetism,1 understands by BiKaiocrvvn that
quality of God by virtue of which He righteously
upholds and administers the sacred order of the world.
This righteousness, attested by the apostle, ver. 25,
etc., God has not only maintained, but also shown in
1 Comp. Sam. Lutz, bibl. Dogmatik, p. 136, etc.: "The righteous
ness of God, according to the religion of the Bible, is neither judicial
in its character nor didactic, but is rather a manifestation of His
nature, to wit, that He is holy ; it is the energy of His holy essence,"
etc. Herm. Schultz, A. T. Theol. ii. 104 (lsted.). Lorenz, Lehr-
system im Romerbrief, 1884, p. 123, etc. The denial of the idea of
expiation in face of ikurnput is, however, inadmissible.

46 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
operation (evBeigis), by setting forth Christ as IXacrTij-
piov irpoedero, after He had exercised forbearance in
the pre-Christian time. To understand 'IXaarrjpiov
as meaning " the cover of the ark," after the example
of the Fathers and the Reformers, in conformity with
the usage of the Septuagint, appeared to modern
exegesis an interpretation so artificial and sub
stantially incorrect, that Rtickert in his Commentary,
1831 and 1839, judged that the time had come at
length to pass it by in silence. Nevertheless Ritschl
himself has taken it up again, and explains IXacrrrjpiov
as the Kapporeth. This interpretation, however, has
been so convincingly refuted by the counter argu
ments of van Hengel, Interpret, p. 326 ; Godet, ante,]).
168 ; Weiss, p. 305, note 9, that further proof would
be superfluous. On the other hand, the use of
language is less favourable to the explanation of
iXaoTr/piov as a masculine adjective, " he that serves
to expiate " (van Hengel), than to its interpretation as
a neuter substantive [iXaarijpiov), a means of expia
tion, which corresponds to the teaching of the apostle
elsewhere, and to that of the New Testament generally
(vid. Rtickert, Usteri, Weiss, bill. Theol. u. Comm. ;
Godet, Lorenz), and suits the context God hath set
forth Jesus Christ to be a propitiation in His blood,
set forth before Himself as it were (reflexive, on
which Schmid, N. T. Theol. 2nd ed. p. 547, and Hof
mann, ii. 1. 226, lay stress), so that by means of
faith in His propitiation we find remission of our sins
and justification in the shedding of His blood. But
in this atoning work of His Son, God has shown Him
self to the whole world as the Just and the Justifier.
The righteousness which God confers and effects in
Christ is the foundation of that righteousness which

REDEMPTION THROUGH CHRIST. 47
in Christ is imparted to the believer. In other words,
the objective and the subjective righteousness of God
are inseparably united.
If in this important passage of the Epistle to the
Romans the death of Christ be represented as a means
of reconciliation, the same thing is still more definitely
expressed in the later Epistle to the Ephesians, v. 2,
where the apostle admonishes them, " Forgive one
another, and walk in love, as Christ also hath loved
you," Kal irapeBcoKev eavrov virep r/pcov irpoaepopdv
Kal dverlav rep deep els baprjv evwBias. While
irpocrepopd is an offering, a sacrifice generally, the
explanatory dvcria denotes essentially a bloody sacrifice,
particularly an expiatory one. It is true that no
word expressly points to the idea of expiation of
guilt. But the mention of blood belongs essentially
to the idea of sacrifice. The blood of the victim was
the most sacred part of the sacrifice, as involving the
surrender of life and soul ; and according to the
classic passage, Lev. xvii. 11, was the true means of
reconciliation with God. Hence Paul too lays the
greatest stress on the blood of Jesus shed in His
atoning death, well-pleasing to God, Rom. iii. 25 :
lXaeTTr\piov . . . iv Tep avrov aipart ; comp. v. 9 ; Col.
i. 20 : elpr/voironjcras Bid Toil aiparos tov erravpov
avTov; Eph. i. 7, ii. 13 ; comp. 1 Cor. x. 16. Just
as corporeity is essential to the humanity of Christ,
so that the fulness of the Godhead dwells in Him
bodily, and the glory of God shines in His face, so
too the essence of the work of atonement effected by
His sufferings and death lies in the fact that He
actually shed His blood on the cross, surrendered the
life of the body for our sins. Herein culminates the
moral act of personal obedience, of His redeeming

48 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
love ; herein is fully revealed the love and reconciling
righteousness of the Father, accomplishing the holiest
justice. The world-embracing view of the apostle sets forth
in a clear light the power of the death of Christ as a
means of reconciling and uniting discordant humanity
with itself, and reveals the cosmic significance of this
atoning death. These thoughts are particularly
worked out in the Epistles to the Ephesians and
Colossians ; the former in the Epistle to the Ephe
sians, the latter in the Epistle to the Colossians. In
the Epistle to the Ephesians, ii. 11, etc., the Gentile
apostle addresses those who had been heathen, remind
ing them of what they formerly were, and of what
they had now become in Christ. He discusses the
meaning of Jesus' death and its efficacy in reconciling
and uniting divided humanity with (God and there
fore) itself, raising the separated elements to a higher-
unity, into one new humanity, making of them one
new man (ver. 15 : eh eva Katvbv dvdpcoirov), forming
them into a holy building of God (ver. 20, etc.), and
a habitation of God in the Spirit (ver. 19). This
grand consolidated new creation (KTiarrj, ver. 15) has
its root in general not only in the one person of Jesus
Christ (vv. 13—21: iv Xpicrrm . . . avrbs iernv r)
elprjvr) f]pa>v, etc.), but in particular in His true corpo
reity, subject to suffering, and entirely in the surrender
of His body, in His death on the cross, in the pouring
out of His blood (ver. 13: iv ™ a" pan tov Xpicrrov ;
ver. 15 : iv rfj crapKt avrov ; ver. 16 : iv evl ampart
. . . Bid tov erravpov, diroKTeivas ttjv e^dpav iv avrm).
The apostle means to say : those far and near, Israel
and the heathen, are reconciled to God by the body of
Christ that was given up to death, being brought into

REDEMPTION THROUGH CHRIST. 49
intimate communion with God. By virtue of this
union with God in Christ they are united amongst
themselves by one body into one body. In the
Epistle to the Colossians, Paul, having the errorists in
view, goes a step farther, and opens out a view into
the power and efficacy of the death of Jesus, em
bracing not only humanity but the whole world, Col.
i. 20, etc.: it pleased God that all fulness should
dwell in Christ, Kal oY avrov divoKaraXXd^at Ta
irdvra eh avrov, etpvvoirotijoas Bid tov aiparos tov
cnavpov avrov, Bi avrov, e'tre rd iirl rrjs 7% etVe rd
iv toIs oipavoh, etc. As Christ was formerly repre
sented, in conformity with His divine being, as exist
ing before the whole world, the instrument of the
creation and preservation of all created beings, so now
Paul speaks of the work of atonement accomplished
by Jesus' death on the cross as embracing everything
absolutely (rd irdvra), the universe, things in earth,
and things in heaven. Here again prominence is
given to the fact that the atonement is accomplished
ev rep aej&paTi rrjs crapKos avrov Bid tov davdrov,
ver. 22, i.e. in the weak fleshly body of Jesus, subject
to suffering (in opposition to the pseudo-spiritual
nature maintained by the Colossian errorists), by the
death that He endured (vid. Bahr and Meyer). But
in what does the reconciliation of the world consist ?
Not merely in the peaceable union of a world divided
in itself (Bahr), but in the restoration of all things to
communion with God in Christ, for Christ by the
shedding of His blood on the cross put away sin, and
by this means converted the hostile relation towards
God into a peaceable one (comp. Hofmann, ii. 1. 241,
etc.). That the work of atonement applies to all
creatures outside humanity is not stated in so many
VOL. 11. D

50 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
words, and can therefore only be put forward as a con
jecture with regard to the angel world, earthly nature,
etc. (vid. Meyer on this passage). Besides the blotting
out of the handwriting of ordinances against us by the
death on the cross, Col. ii. 1 4 mentions only the triumph
thus secured over the powers of the spirit-world.
In discussing the death of Jesus, Paul adheres
always to the truth that it is God, the Father of
Jesus Christ, who reconciles the world unto Himself
in the Son, 2 Cor. v. 19, for God gives an active
proof of His love to us in the fact that Christ died
for us, Rom. v. 8 ; God sent His Son, and in His
flesh condemned sin, that the requirements of the law
might be fulfilled in us, viii. 3 ; God gave up His
own Son for us, and as a proof of His righteousness set
Him forth to be a propitiation, Rom. viii. 32, iii. 25.
Lu short, the whole work of reconciliation in the death
of Christ is in origin and essence the act of God, pro
ceeding from His gracious decree and righteousness.
b. Jesus' Resurrection.
According to Paul, the resurrection of Jesus from
the dead is as essential to the work of salvation as
the death on the cross, 1 Cor. xv. 4 ; Rom. iv. 25.
In the very greeting of the Epistle to the Galatians,
the apostle speaks of God the Father as having
raised Jesus from the dead ; and in Eph. i. 2 0 he
says : God proved His mighty power in Christ when
He raised Him from the dead. So important in his
view is the resurrection of Christ, that without it the
apostolic preaching and the faith of Christians would
be destitute of all truth, so that there could be
neither salvation nor forgiveness of sins ; 1 Cor. xv.

REDEMPTION THROUGH CHRIST. 51
14, 17, etc.: Kevbv to Kijpvypa rjpcbv, Kevrj Be Kal ¦g
iriaris vpcbv . . . en iexre iv rais dpaprias vp&v.
In how far is this true '? To this question the
apostle gives many answers, which may be classed
under two heads, the importance of the resurrection
in relation to the person of Jesus, and its importance
to believers.
With respect to the person of Jesus, His resurrec
tion is of the greatest importance, first, because by it
He is proved to be the Son of God, Rom. i. 4 : tov
opiadevTOS vlov deov iv Bvvdpet, Kara irvevpa dyico-
crvv-ns H; dvaerrdaecos veKpcbv. If we take bpl^eiv in
the sense established by usage, viz. to appoint, to
determine, vid. ante, p. 7, etc., in so far as the
appointment of Jesus as the Son of God took place
for our sakes, and not independently, it obviously
means that Christ by His resurrection from the dead
was accredited as the Son of God ; Lorenz in his
Lehrsystem, pp. 113, etc., 178, interprets dvdaTacris
veKpwv of the universal resurrection of the dead at
the last judgment, by unauthorized straining of the
plural veKpoov, which only means that the resurrection
of Jesus is a guarantee for the future resurrection of
the dead, while bpiadevros vlov d. — ii; dvaur. v.
plainly points to a fact in the past, and not to a future
act of God. This attestation took place iv Bvvdpet,
i.e. it was an act of divine omnipotence, characterized
by power and energy ; inasmuch as Bvvap,is is here
not merely subjective, denoting the effect which the
resurrection of Christ exercises upon the mind, but
objective, pointing to the power by which itself is
effected. Paul therefore asserts that in the resurrec
tion from the dead we have the strongest proof that
Jesus is actually the Son of God. The full import-

52 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
ance of this meaning of the resurrection of Jesus
appears when we remember the prominence given
in the Pauline teaching to the dignity of Jesus as the
Son of God, and consider also that personal life which
has its beginning in the resurrection of Jesus. '
This is expressed in Rom. vi. 9, etc. In order to
show the absolute value of life-communion with the
Redeemer, the apostle says : " We know that Christ,
being raised from the dead, dieth no more ; death
hath no more dominion over Him ; in that He liveth,
He liveth unto God." Paul here looks at the resur
rection of Jesus not as that divine act by which He
was accredited to us as the Son of God, but in its
immediate effect on Jesus Himself; by virtue of His
resurrection Christ dieth no more, but lives an eternal,
divine life. The resurrection has therefore for Christ
Himself this meaning, viz. that He now is and
remains the living one absolutely. This truth
becomes still more evident if we recall the incident
at Damascus, and the meaning the revelation had for
Paul : He lives ! Death had no more power over
Him. Now first He fully lives !
As in the latter passage the resurrection of Christ
was made the foundation of the Christian hope of
eternal life with Christ in the future, so in Rom.
xiv. 9, Paul, convinced that every believer lives and
dies not to himself but unto the Lord, supports his
exhortation to spare a brother's conscience by the
argument : " For to this end Christ both died, and rose,
and revived, that He might be Lord both of the dead
and living." The aim and result of the resurrec
tion-life of Jesus are here made to consist in the fact
that He is Lord, and by virtue of His life and death,
Lord of the dead and living. This thought is also to

REDEMPTION THROUGH CHRIST. 53
be found in Phil. ii. 9-11, since the virepv\{rovv Kal
Xapiaacrdai to ovopa to virep irdv ovopa must be
regarded as having actual, though not exclusive
reference to the raising of Jesus from the dead. If
we consider how the essence of Christian faith lies in
the recognition that Jesus is the Lord (e.g. 1 Cor.;
xii. 3 ; Phil. ii. 11), we feel the importance of the
resurrection of Christ, since He is Lord by virtue of
it. Paul therefore apprehends the significance of the
resurrection in relation to the person of Christ Him
self, as consisting in the fact that by it Christ was,
first, attested to be the Son of God ; second, that He
now possesses an absolute, eternal, divine life; third,
that He is now Lord of the dead and of the living.
On the other hand, the resurrection of Jesus has
in Paul's estimation just as important a significance
for believers. In the first place, because it is the
basis of justification, Rom. iv. 25 : -gyepdr) Bid ttjv
BiKalcocriv ripwv, which is negatively expressed in 1 Cor.
xv. 17 : el Be Xpicrrbs ovk iygyeprat, paraia 97 irians
vp,a>v, 'in ierre iv rais dpaprtais vpb&v: if Christ be
dead but not risen, then His death has no reconciling
and justifying efficacy ; in so far faith is without
validity ; but the resurrection is the divine seal of the
work of atonement. The former passage is quite in
harmony with this ; it does not expressly state that
the raising of Jesus from the dead is the efficient
cause of our BiKaicocris, which would be at variance
with other plain testimonies, e.g. Rom. v. 9 : BiKaico-
devres iv to> a'lpan avrov. On the contrary, both
words and context authorize the sense that Jesus was
raised from the dead because God wished to justify
us (by the death of His Son), so that the expiatory
death establishes in itself the BiKalwcris, and the

54 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
resurrection of Christ assures us of the certainty of
grace.1 Again, the resurrection of Christ is the foundation
of the new divine life in believers, Rom. vi. 4 : coairep
rjyepdr) Xpiarbs e'/c veicpeov Bid tt)s Bbt;7]s tov irarpbs,
ovtw Kal rjpeis iv Kaivbrvrt ^wi)s irepiiraTijcrmpev.
Accordingly the new life of the Christian is the
image as well as the fruit of the raising of Christ
from the dead, 2 Cor. iv. 10-12 : iva Kal rj %a>7) tov
'Irjerov iv im crcbpari r/pSyv epavepmdg. Paul's asser
tion that the resurrection-life of Jesus, the divine
life-power of the Redeemer, was revealed and actively
manifested in His life, if understood merely of
invincible spirit-power, is not consistent with ver. 1 0 :
iv rep ejeispari rjpehv, and ver. 11 : iv ry dvr/Trj erapKi
rjp&v ; but his meaning is that the life-power of the
risen and living Christ is revealed in the saving and
preservation of life.
Finally, the resurrection of Christ is beginning,
ground, and pledge of the future resurrection of
believers, 1 Cor. vi. 14: d Be debs Kal tov Kvpiov
rjyeipe Kal r/pds i^eyepei Bid rf/s Bvvdpecos avrov.
1 The statement contained in Rom. iv. 25, if taken alone, might
lead to a false conception of the value of the resurrection of Christ for
salvation, in accordance with Pauline teaching. But it does not
necessitate this. The clause, ver. 15, contains indeed >< parallelism
between offences and justification, the surrender of Jesus to death,
and His raising up again. But the relation is expressed by S;i, with
Ace. in such a way that we are neither bound nor entitled to under
stand it in the sense that the resurrection of Christ is the direct cause
of our justification. An interpretation which does not quite escape
R. Schmidt, paulin. Christol. pp. 69-76. Godet's idea that the raising
up of Christ was the consequence, the effect of our justification, is
also untenable, because artificial and un-Pauline (Comm., German
translation, i. 206). We agree with Meyer, Hofmann, Schrift-
beweis, ii. 1. 383 ; Weiss, N. T. Theol. p. 313, and the 6th edition
of Meyer's Commentary, p. 281.

REDEMPTION THROUGH CHRIST. 55
The unity prominent in this passage lies partly in the
act of raising, partly in the person of Him that
raises, viz. the omnipotent God ; the resurrection of
Christ being at the same time apprehended as co
ordinate with the raising of believers. The resurrec
tion of believers will take place together " with
Jesus" (crvv 'Incrov is the best attested reading),
2 Cor. iv. 14, inasmuch as Jesus in His resurrection
is the first-fruits, and guarantees the future awakening
of believers, as members of whom He Himself is head.
The internal relation is still more exactly defined in
Rom. viii. 11:" But if the Spirit of Him that raised
up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised
up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your
mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in you " (Bid
tov irvevparos being assumed as the right reading).
If we take the preceding context, ver. 9, into account,
from which it is clear that there is no essential dis
tinction between irvevpa deov and irvevp,a Xpierrov, it
follows that the resurrection of Christ is the ground
of the resurrection of His faithful ones so far as the
life and operation of His Spirit, the indwelling of the
Spirit of God which raised up Jesus, is destined to
exercise a life-giving, death-conquering efficacy on the
body of believers also.1 The subject is set in a wide
and large view in Col. i. 18 : 09 icrrtv dpxh irpcoTo-
tokos iK Toiv veKp&v. Christ is the beginning, the
first-born from the dead. In this short sentence
there lies first, the thought that as He came forth
from the dead, so likewise His brethren will come
forth from the dead, will rise again (comp. Hofmann,
1 Lorenz, p. 179, etc., borrowing a thought from the other Epistles,
explains %,avromm as indicating a bodily transformation of those who
are alive at Christ's coming.

56 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
ii. 1. 241) ; and again, the great idea of the resurrec
tion as a birth, the beginning of a new life. That
which is here but briefly indicated, is more fully
developed in 1 Cor. xv. 20; Christ is dirapxv rwv
KeKoipr/pivcov. " They that sleep," as Holsten, Ev.
des Paulus, i. p. 418, etc., justly remarks, are those
for whom death is a sleep, not the dead generally.
But it is clear from the context that the allusion is
not only to Christ as first in point of time, but as
standing in close connection with posterity as a whole.
When we read in ver. 21, " Since by one man came
death, by one man came also the resurrection of the
dead " (Bi dvdpdmov avdcrTaats veKpcov) ; and in ver.
22 : "As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be
made alive ; " and in ver. 23:" Every man in his
order ; Christ the first-fruits ; afterward they that
are Christ's, at His coming," — in these passages
Christ is conceived as the beginner of a new develop
ment of humanity. The resurrection of the dead
came by Him (ver. 21), in Him all are made alive
(ver. 22), that is, all those who closely belong to
Him. If the first Adam was a living soul, the last
Adam is a life-giving Spirit (ver. 45). Hence both
by His appearance and by His resurrection Christ is
the beginner and founder of a new life and resurrec
tion; life-communion with Him (iv avrcp, ver. 22) is
the condition of the new quickening and future
resurrection ; God gives us victory over death by our
Lord Jesus Christ (ver. 57; comp. ver. 55).
Here we must touch upon the question whether
Paul is acquainted with a descent of Jesus into the
under-world. The interpretation of the words, Eph.
iv. 9 : KareBr) eh t« Karcbrepa p,ipr/ Tr/s yi)S, is
as much disputed to-day as ever ; Harless, de Wette,

REDEMPTION THROUGH CHRIST. 57
Rabiger, christol. paid. p. 68, etc.; Hofmann, ii. 1. p.
341, etc.; Weiss, N. T. Theol. p. 429, and R. Schmidt,
paulin. Christol. p. 20, etc., reject the view of a
" descent into hell ;" while Riickert, Olshausen, Baur,
Paulus, 2nd ed. ii. p. 18, etc.; Stier, Holemann, Bibel-
studien, ii. 1860, p. 89, etc., and especially p. 121,
etc. ; Meyer, 4th edition of the Commentary, are in
favour of it. With regard to the words, no one has
yet ventured to assert that it is grammatically inad
missible to connect the comparative rd Karwrepa p.,
the lower parts, with Trjs yrjs as the Gen. possess., and
to understand the depths of the earth, the under
world ; on the contrary, this interpretation, which we
prefer to the comparative (" deeper than the earth "),
is by far the most simple, while it is less in accord
ance with the words to assume a Gen. appos., in the
sense of the deeper parts, viz. the earth. If we are
to depart from the more natural meaning and to
take eh rd KarcJoTepa ttjs yrjs as a paraphrase of eh
Ttjv yfjv, which would then be an unnecessarily affected
and pompous expression, we must be forced to it by
the context. Hofmann with great diligence tries to
prove that the connection points only to Christ's
coming down to the earth, and not to His descent to
the under- world. But the passage in Ps. lxviii. 19,
cited by Paul, ver. 8, cannot serve as a rule for the
interpretation of the words in question, for the
reason that the apostle obviously employs the words
of the text with the greatest freedom, altering them,
and (ver. 9) drawing an indirect conclusion from them.
Hence the assumption that the connection of KareBv
with dviBv, the former of which Paul takes for
granted, involves the necessity of identifying the
locality from whence Jesus came down with that to

58 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
which He ascended, can have no weight unless the
great freedom with which the apostle proceeds be
misapprehended. In any case, Jesus did not ascend
direct from the under-world to heaven, but from the
earth ; nor did He descend to the under - world
immediately from heaven but from the earth. The
apostle is here concerned not with the exact and con
tinuous succession of events in the life of Jesus, but
with a description of the extreme limits or rather the
illimitable presence of the Lord, active and embrac
ing all antitheses absolutely. The other view, put
forward by Hofmann, p. 345, seems to us to have no
greater weight, viz. that Christ must have been in a
state of glory in the place from which He came down,
since the KaraBaiveiv was an act of self-abasement.
We have already disposed of this objection. Hence
we give the decided preference to that interpretation
which makes the words refer to a descent into the
under- world, "ABns.1 Doubtless we must concede
that there is no exact specification either of the
period or the object of this event. The period may
be inferred only in so far as the descent must
precede the ascent. The words fixpaXwrevaev
1 We cannot recognise the explanation of R. Schmidt, paulin.
Christologie, p. 201, etc., as convincing, for two reasons: first,
because too little value is attached to the wording in xaToiTipa tyis
yris, and to the parallelism between x«o-=/3ij with these words on
the one hand and the ccvaf&as iiiripavoj wuvtihv tuv ovpavojv ; and again,
because the dialectic association of ideas, as well of the context as of
the parallel passage, Eph. i. 20, etc., presented by the author, is not
to the point. Doubtless the growth of believers individually and of
the whole Church as the body of Christ, unto the measure of the
fulness of Christ (iii. 19, iv. 12, etc.), is gradual ; this does not, how
ever, exclude, but rather requires as condition and guaranty of its
realization, the filling of all things with the divine-human glory of
Christ, which filling was accomplished on His part from the time of
His exaltation. -

REDEMPTION THROUGH CHRIST. 59
alxpaXcocriav, quoted from the Psalm, can scarcely be
an indication of its object, for usage absolutely for
bids our understanding them of the bringing with
Him of those freed from captivity in Hades (Baur) ;
they refer rather to the taking captive and leading in
triumph of conquered foes, namely, of the powers of
hell; and this victory is not placed in immediate
connection with the descent, but with the ascent
(dvaBds, ver. 8 ; comp. Col. ii. 15). If we must be
content to draw from this passage no positive con
clusion as to the period and object of the descensus
ad inferos, it must at the same time be admitted that
the apostle was only incidentally led to the subject,
and seems not to have attributed to the event itself
essential importance with respect to the work of
redemption, touching upon it elsewhere but slightly
(Phil. ii. 10, Karaxdovtcov ; Rom. x. 7).
In connection with the resurrection of Jesus, and
always intimately associated with it, Paul frequently
mentions the ascension of Jesus and His sitting at the
right hand of God, e.g. Rom. viii. 34 : Xpicrrbs 6
dirodavdiv, pdXXov Be Kal iyepdels, bs Kal eartv iv
Bei;tS, tov deov, bs Kal ivTvy^dvei virep r/pcbv ;
Eph. ii. 4, etc. : d debs . . . ovras rjpas veKpovs tois
irapaiTTcopacri, avve^cooiroirjae rep Xpierrep . . . Kat
crvvgyetpe, Kal ervveKadtaev iv rois eirovpaviois
iv Xpierrep 'Incrov; comp. i. 20, iv. 10: dvaBds
virepdva iravrcov tcov ovpav&v ; Col. iii. 1 : et ervvv-
yepdfjre Tip Xpiarep ra dvm tyiretre, ov o Xpierros
icTTtv iv Bei;id rod deov Kad-qpevos. The second
advent is also brought into connection with it, a
subject to which we shall afterwards return. The
expression : virepdvco iravrcov rSiv ovpavehv, Eph. iv.
10, means unmistakeably that the heavens (i. 20),

60 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
where Christ is after His exaltation, are not to be
imagined as extended in space, as cosmical, having a
created form, but rather as exalted above all space,
above all the limitations of space, which harmonizes
well with the addition : tva irXvpeoo-n ra irdvra, mean
ing, according to Bengel, ut impleret omnia prcesentia
et operatione sua, se ipso. Hofmann, ii. 1. 539, and
after him R. Schmidt, p. 204, etc., differs from this
view. We fully assent to the premiss laid down by
the former, viz., "Just as certainly as the apostle refers
not to a irXvpovv of mere activity, but of personal
presence, so certainly it seems to me, on the other
hand, does he refer not to a mere existence, but to
an active presence." But when Hofmann proceeds
to draw from this premiss the conclusion that the
presence of the Mediator of salvation will be one of
gradual expansion, and supposes that he has thus set
aside the thought of a " universal presence " of Christ,
he has read this limitation between the lines. The
operative presence of the exalted Christ, His all-
embracing dominion and majesty, His participation
in the divine government of the world (1 Cor. xv.
2 7 : irdvra virera^ev virb robs irbBas avrov ; Eph. i.
2 2 ; comp. ver. 2 0, etc., and other passages), his claim
to divine honour and worship (Phil. ii. 9), certainly
form the chief thought which fills the soul of the
apostle when he speaks of the exalted state of Jesus.
He does not thus deny, but, on the contrary, posi
tively asserts (especially in Eph. i. 23, iv. 10) that
the exalted Christ, as a divine-human person, free
from all limitations of space and time, rules every
where. Paul alludes but slightly in Rom. viii. 34,
ivrvyxdvei virep rjpcav, though here his meaning is
plain enough (comp. Diisterdieck^'oA. Brief e, i. 156), to

REDEMPTION THROUGH CHRIST. 61
the fact that in this state Christ also makes intercession
for His own with the Father, i.e. that something pro
ceeds continuously between the exalted God-man and
the Father which operates as a present, actual media
tion (priestly intercession).
In relation to the person of Jesus Christ after His
resurrection and exaltation, we have only to emphasize
one point in addition, viz. that the Redeemer in His
new life is and continues God-man and therefore also
man in particular, that Paul always ascribes to Him
a corporeity glorified ; but not the less real. In this
glorified body Jesus appeared to Paul himself (before
Damascus), on which account the apostle adduces
himself as an eye-witness of the Risen One (1 Cor.
xv. 8 ; comp. ver. 4, etc.) equally with the apostles to
whom Jesus appeared immediately after His resurrec
tion. It is only so far as Jesus is true man in His
new life after resurrection that Paul can call Him
the "first-born from the dead " (Col. i. 18), for as such
He must have brethren, posterity of the same nature
with Himself. The weighty position: "In Him dwells
all the fulness of the Godhead bodily," Col. ii. 9,
refers, according to the tense KaroiKei as well as the
whole context, to the present, consequently to the
exalted Redeemer ; and the apostle says, even of the
glorified Jesus, that the fulness of all that God is
dwells in Him creopaTiKcbs, i.e. has a bodily dwelling-
place in Him. The resurrection-body of Christ, with
which He is continuously clothed in His exaltation, is
indeed no longer crdpi; or ercjopa tTjs crapKos (Eph. ii.
15 ; Col. i. 22 ; comp. Rom. viii. 3), but a aw pa rrjs
Bogws (Phil. iii. 21, comp. Bbi;a deov iv irpoejcoircp
Xpiarov, 2 Cor. iv. 6), a awpa irvevpartKov (1 Cor.
xv. 44, etc.), a glorious, spiritual, undying body.

62 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
We have now considered that side of the Pauline
preaching in which the fundamental view of the Bolja
tov Xpio-rov (2 Cor. iv. 4) is developed, viz. the doctrine
of the person of Jesus Christ the Son of God, and
of His work. This doctrine attaches itself closely
to the simple testimony (Krjpvypia) of the apostle
setting forth the facts of salvation. It may be
regarded as a conceptual development of the convic
tion received by Paul at his conversion, that Christ,
lives, that He is the Son of God, the Lord, and the
ground of salvation.

SECOND PART.
SALVATION AND ITS REALIZATION.
Salvation for the world of sin has been given in
the person of Christ, in His crucifixion, resurrection,
and exaltation. How is it realized in humanity, in
the individual and in the Church ?
I. The Appropriation of Salvation by the
Individual.
The individual is by God's agency placed in a
state of grace, by means of the word and of baptism,
whereby he is grafted into Christ and becomes
partaker of His mediatorial death. Hence arises a
new life, the growth of a new man, a new creature.
On the other hand, the human will must advance to
meet the work of God's grace, receiving, surrendering
apprehending, obeying (the personal KaraXaBeiv,
corresponding to the KaTaXrjp<pdgvai virb Xpicrrov,

SALVATION AND ITS REALIZATION. 63
Phil. iii. 12). The existence of the new creature
then passes through manifold stages of development
closely connected one with another, viz. justification,
sanctification, hope. a. Justification by Faith.
This truth, is the fundamental thought of the
Roman Epistle, standing in fact at its head (i. 16,
etc.), as a theme. After the apostle has shown that
it is impossible of oneself, by means of the works of
the law, to attain to a righteousness that avails
before God, he continues, iii. 21, thus: "But now
the righteousness of God without the law is mani
fested—even the righteousness of God which is by
faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that
believe." This righteousness is one that proceeds
from God : 97 e'w deov Bi/caioavvv, Phil. iii. 9 ; 'Eg
avTov Be vpeis eerie iv Xpiarep 'Irjaou, 09 iyevrjdr/
fipiv — diro deov BiKatoavvr/ (1 Cor. i. 30). It is a
gift, a free bestowment of God's grace : deov to
Bobpov, Eph. ii. 8; comp. Rom. vi. 23, iii. 24.
Righteousness is guaranteed through Christ as the
Mediator, His death and resurrection forming the
condition, Rom. iv. 24, etc., v. 9 : BiKatwdevres iv tu>
a'lpari avrov.
But in what does the BiKatoavvg itself consist ?
It is a condition of righteousness, viz. that state
conformable to the will of God which is at one time
conceived as an operative life-element in man (Rom.
xiv. 1 7, vi. 1 3 ; 2 Cor. ix. 1 0), and again as a
life-power standing above man and dominating him
(2 Cor. xi. 15 ; Rom. vi. 18, etc.), which, however,
makes no essential difference. But the relation to

64 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
God, His judgment, pleasure, and approval is its
invariable, fundamental, and essential characteristic,
whether this is expressly stated (BUatos, BiKaiovadai
irapd rep deep, Gal. iii. 11 ; Rom. ii. 11) or not. To
assume, solely on the basis of Phil. iii. 9, that BiKaio-
ej-uvn deov, with respect to the meaning of which there
is still great uncertainty, means in every passage
" the righteousness which proceeds from God, is
effected by Him," seems to us unauthorized. We
take it to mean the righteousness of God in
which, according to circumstances, the righteous
ness which God Himself has and manifests, or
that which He imparts, has the preponderance.
With respect to the BiKaioavvrj as a human con
dition of righteousness, Lipsius (Paulinische Becht-
fertigungslehre, p. 4, etc.) has endeavoured to prove
that in several passages it is conceived as a state not
yet entered upon, but only in the future. But the
single utterance in which this thought occurs (Gal.
v. 5 : eXirlBa BiKatoavvr/s direKBexppeda) forms so
marked an exception, and in all other passages, even
in those interpreted by Lipsius in this sense, BtKaio-
avvv is so plainly spoken of as a present and accom
plished fact, that we maintain the apostles' teaching
to be that the BiKaioavvv, with those who are in a
state of grace, is an already present condition of
righteousness pleasing to God.
This condition is effected by the BtKaiwais, which
is a divine act. God is the BiKaimv tov daeBfj,
Rom. iv. 5. How is this to be understood ? Does
He make the ungodly man just as righteous as He
had formerly been ungodly ? Or does He only look
upon the ungodly man as justified, pronouncing him
such, while he remains ungodly as before ? Is the

SALVATION AND ITS REALIZATION. 65
BtKaicoats an act merely judicial, or is it communica
tive ? It is sometimes negative ; forgiveness of sins,
removal of condemnation, a not imputing of trans
gressions (Rom. ii. 13,i iv. 2, etc., v. 10, viii. 33 ;
1 Cor. iv. 4 ; 2 Cor. v. 19). This is manifestly a
judicial act. The Pauline use of BiKaiovv, BtKaicoats
is taken from forensic procedure as certainly as are
iyKaXeiv, KaraKptvetv, KaraKpipa (Rom. viii. 33, etc.).
AiKaiovv in New Testament usage unquestionably
means not justum facer e, but justum habere. Lipsius,
ante, p. 17, etc., puts forward the view that the
BtKaicoats is an actus forensis only in its conclusion,
but in its separate stages is a summary of those
divine acts of grace whereby God places man in a
relation in which He habet him justum. But Lipsius
reasons always on the basis of an antithesis between
a judicial declaration and a gracious operation, which
in our judgment is by no means Pauline. The
apostle seems rather to have in view the judicial act
of God in the BiKaiovv as well as an act of grace
communicative in its nature, regarding both latter and
former as an act of the BiKaioavvv of God. And the
divine justifying declaration is undoubtedly repre
sented in Rom. v. 1, 9, viii. 30, as an act of God
already past and accomplished. Only by means of
ingenious, and to some extent audacious inferences
does Lipsius, p. 44, etc., draw from Gal. ii. 16,
Rom. viii. 30, 1 Cor. iv. 4, the conclusion that
BtKaicoats, as the result of endeavour after righteous
ness, stands only at the goal of Christian development;
and where it is represented as already past, must be
conceived only as preparatory, not as finally realized.1
1 That in the Pauline doctrinal system Sixmo™ denotes a divine1 judg
ment, the pronouncing just, has been shown by Ritschl, Rechtferti-
VOL. II. E

66 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
The BiKaioavvv deov is attained and appropriated
by faith (ex iriarecos, Rom. i. 1 7, v. 1 : Bid iriarecos ;
iii. 22, 25). The iriarts with Paul stands in opposi
tion to the epya vopov or simply epya ; the irtareveiv
is opposed to the ipyd^eadat, Rom. iv. 5. But it is
still a matter of dispute as to what is the positive
Pauline conception of faith. Baur (Paulus, 2nd ed.
ii. p. 172) understands it thus: " Faith is — the con
ception, formed in looking to Christ, that what is
not in itself yet is." On the hypothesis of such &
meaning he is certainly quite justified in asking,
" How is it possible that faith as a mere opinion that
a thing is what it is said to be, although it is in
fact the very opposite, could have any mediating
influence in bringing about a relation to God ? "
Bearing in mind, however, the various utterances of
the apostle where he treats of faith, we cannot
approve of this interpretation. With him the iriaris
is rather a moral certainty, an act of the mind, a vira-
Koveiv ix KapBlas in opposition to the aireidetv, Rom.
vi. 17, xi. 31, etc.; comp. x. 10 : xapBta irtareverat
els BtKatoavvvv. If we look to the discussion
respecting the faith of Abraham, which throws much
light on this point, we find that according to Paul
faith is nothing but the divine favour, whether it be
promissory as in the case of Abraham, or whether it
be actual giving, a laying hold on divine grace with
firm trust and lively confidence, acceptance even
when appearances are adverse.
ejimg und VersShnung, ii. pp. 301, etc., 318, etc., who refers both to
the Old Testament and to the apostle's sphere of thought. In like
manner Pfleiderer, Pautinismus, p. 172, etc., and Lorenz Lehr-
system, p. 150, etc., especially p. 155, etc., have clearly set forth
the Pauline conception of " imputed righteousness."

SALVATION AND ITS REALIZATION. 67
Faith, as Pfleiderer (Pautinismus, p. 166) strikingly
puts it, is the most complete fulfilment of the divine
will, not of that will which demands the fulfilment
of the law, but of the will which bestows grace —
trustful acceptance of the gift of grace offered by
God. It is the keynote of religious feeling, not the
normal disposition of the moral will. In faith the
soul lays hold on Jesus, thus entering into life-
communion with Him ; by faith Christ dwells in
the heart, so that He lives in man ; Eph. iii. 1 7 :
KaroiKrjaat tov Xptarbv Bid rr/s iriarecos iv rais
KapBlais vpcov ; 1 Cor. i. 9 : xoivcovia 'Irjaov Xpiorov ;
Rom. viii. 10: Xpiaros iv vptv ; Gal. ii. 20: £oj Se
ovkIti iyeo, £fj ,Be iv epol Xpiaros. The element of
this new life is the irvevpa. Gal. v. 25: ^copev
irvevpari. b. Sanctification.
By God Christ is made unto us — sanctification,
1 Cor. i. 30. What is here predicated of God,
Christ is made unto us the source and power of sancti
fication by God, is elsewhere expressed by the apostle,
beginning with the soul, in the form of an exhortation
to believers " to walk in the spirit ; " Gal. v. 25:
et ^copev irvevpMTt, Kal arotxcopev. The former
statement refers to the condition of the regenerate,
viz. faith ; the latter, to the preservation of the new
life in Christian conduct. The requirements of this
conduct in a state of sanctification are summarized
negatively and positively by Paul, 2 Cor. vii. 1, in
the exhortation : Kadapiacopev eavrovs dirb iravrbs
poXvapov aapKOS xal irvevptaros, iirireXovvres dyico-
avvvv ev cpbBco deov. The negative aspect is also

68 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
comprehended in the requirement addressed to Gentile
Christians not to walk as the Gentiles do in the
vanity of their mind, but to put off the old man,
which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts,
Eph. iv. 17, 22. This refers especially to the bodily
life, in respect of which it is laid down as the duty
of the Christian to mortify through the spirit the
sinful lusts, i.e. the deeds of the body, Rom. viii. 13,
and to avoid all defilement of the flesh (vid. ante,
2 Cor. vii. 1) ; on the other hand, to treat the body
as a member of Christ, to reflect that the body of
the believer is a temple of the Holy Spirit, and
to glorify God in the body, 1 Cor. vi. 15, 19,
etc. ; comp. Rom. vi. 19 : irapaaTtjaare t« pekq
vpcov BovXa rfi Bixaioavvrj eh dyiaap,6v. This idea,
viz. that as sin has taken advantage of the body
and the life of the body to get dominion over it, so
now the state of grace or sanctification should also
be imprinted on the life of the body, is most fully
expressed in the double clause of 1 Cor. vi. 13 :
to acopa rep Kvpito Kal 6 Kvptos tk> acopart. As to
the spiritual, the walking in satisfaction involves
the casting down of imaginations and of every
high thing which exalts itself against the know
ledge of God; the bringing into captivity every
thought to the obedience of Christ, 2 Cor. x. 5.
The apostle delights to include the virtues of the
Christian walk in the conception of love, for it is
only iriarts Bt' dydirvs ivepyovpevv, Gal. v. 6, which
avails in Christ ; and love, according to the mao-ni-
ficent description of 1 Cor. xiii., is greater than faith
and hope. It is walking in the spirit by which the
righteous requirement of the law (to BtKaicop,a tov
vopov) is fulfilled, Rom. viii. 4. The fruits of

SALVATION AND ITS REALIZATION. 69
righteousness in good works are the aim of all
renovation of souls in Christ Jesus (Col. i. 10 ;
Eph. ii. 10; Phil. i. 11.

c. The Hope of Everlasting Life.
" Whom God hath justified, them hath He also
glorified," Rom. viii. 30. In these words the apostle
puts together justification and blessedness. But
justification, sanctification, and redemption are finely
connected in their internal concatenation, 1 Cor. i. 3 0 :
Christ is made unto us BiKaioavvt] re Kal dyiaapbs
Kal diroXvrpcoais ; Rom. vi. 22 : vvvl Be, iXevdepco-
devres dirb t-^9 dpaprias, BovXcodevres Be rep deep,
e^ere rov Kapirbv vpcov eh dyiaapbv, to Be TeXo9
^cotjv alcoviov. Paul invariably takes ^corj in its
full meaning of ftur) alwvios to be the final and
highest goal, the most costly gift of the grace of God
in Christ, Rom. vi. 23 : to Be xdptapa tov deov, %eorj
alcovtos iv Xptarep 'Ivaov rep xvpico rjpcov ; comp. ver.
21. AtKaiwais in its full sense is with him a
BtKaicoats £cof)s. To live with Christ in the future,
and to participate in His glory, is the highest object
of His hope and longing, Rom. v. 5, 17, viii. 17;
2 Cor. xiii. 4. He lays special stress on the redemp
tion and glorification of the body, Rom. viii. 23 ;
Phil. iii. 21 ; 1 Cor. xv. 49, 53, etc.
By the appropriation of salvation in Christ the
individual attains to a state of grace (Rom. v. 1,
^dp it i, iv ¦§ earrjKapev). This state is simply a
being apprehended of Christ, and conversely an
apprehending of Him in faith (Phil. iii. 12), a descrip
tion drawn entirely from the personal experience of
the apostle in his conversion. As this new condition

70 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
is due to unmerited grace, so it remains always a
boon and free gift of divine favour, never becoming
an inseparable property, but requiring to be con
tinually cherished in reverence, humility and faith
(Rom. xi. 20: p.r) vtyvXd eppbvet, dXXd epoBov ; 1 Cor.
vi. 19 : oiiK iare eavrcov). The import of a state of
grace is sonship to God, peace and joy ; believers are
free from sin (ekevdepia as opposed to BovXeta, Gal.
v. 1 ; 2 Cor. iii. 17; Rom. vi. 14, 22: iXevdepm-
devres dirb T979 dpaprias, BovXcodevres Be rep deep),
free from the external letter and dominion of the law
and its commands (Rom. vi. 14 : ov yap iare iiirb
vopov, dXXd iiirb y_dpiv ; vii. 6 : Karvpyrjdvpev diro
tov vopov ; Gal. iii. 2 5 : iXdovavs rfjs iriarecos ovKert
xiirb iraiBaycoybv iaptev). Believers are children of
God (viol deov, Rom. viii. 14; Gal. iii. 26; Phil. ii.
15 ; reKva deov) by virtue of the spirit of adoption,
adoptio (Rom. viii. 1 5 : irvevpia vlodeaias ; Gal. iv. 7 :
ovKert BovXos). By virtue of sonship and freedom,
and the love of God shed abroad in the heart (Rom.
v. 5), which holds man in a firm embrace as it were
(Rom. viii. 3 9), the soul is full of joy (Rom. xiv. 1 7 ;
2 Cor. i. 24, vi. 10; Phil. iii. 1, ii. 18, iv. 24), of
moral strength, the certainty of victory and of life
(Phil. iv. 13: irdvra taxpco iv rep ivBvvapiovvTi pe ;
Rom. viii. 37, etc.: virepvixcopev Bid tov dyairij-
aavros ??/U.a9 ; v. 3 : aXXa Kai Kavxcopeda ev rais
dXfyeat ; 2 Cor. vi. 9, etc.). All these properties and
gifts of the new life are gifts of grace, the fruits of
true life -communion with Christ, inasmuch as the
Lord Jesus, who was crucified and is alive, is in us
(2 Cor. xiii. 5 : 'Ivaovs Xpiaros iv vpiv; Rom. viii.
10) ; that is to say, the divine-human personality of
the Redeemer enters into the personality of man in

SALVATION AND ITS REALIZATION. 71
such a way that the former is the true living (Gal.
ii. 20: £a> Be ovKert iyeo, %fj Be iv ipol Xpiaros),
moving, speaking (2 Cor. xiii. 3 : tov iv ipol XaXovv-
tos Xpiarov) and acting principle ; the personality
of the individual passes into that of Christ (which,
however, is not to be taken in a pantheistic, but in
an ideal and moral sense). The same truth is
figuratively expressed by Paul as a putting on of
Christ (Gal. iii. 27: Xpiarbv iveBvaaade; Rom. xiii.
14: ivBvaaade tov xvpiov 'Ir/aovv Xpiarbv), but with
out a figure by the more adequate expression which
is very familiar with him : iv Xpiarcp (Rom. vi. 11 :
^wvras rep deep iv Xpiarcp 'Irjaov, and elsewhere),
whereby the personality of Jesus is characterized as
that into which human personality enters, so that
Christ is as it were the place, the habitation, in which
believers are and dwell at home — a life-communion
that is not simply one of mind, but of essence (comp.
Lipsius, ante, p. 581, etc.).
The essential power of this community of life
between redeemed persons and the Redeemer, consists
in the Holy Ghost. The origination of a state of
grace in faith and justification, its continuance and
growth in sanctification, its consummation in the
glorification of the body — all is conditioned by the
irvevpa dyiov (faith, above all believing confession,
1 Cor. xii. 3 ; comp. Gal. v. 5) ; prayer (Rom. viii.
15, 26) ; renewal and holiness of walk (Rom. viii. 14 ;
Gal. v. 18, 25) ; future quickening of the body (Rom.
viii. 11). This irvevpa, distinct from the human
irvevpa (ainb to irvevpa in opposition to to irvevpa
¦gpcbv, Rom. viii. 16 ; comp. ver. 9, etc.), is irvevpa
dyiov, i.e. remote from all that is ungodly, morally
pure, belonging to God, effecting moral purity and

72 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
sanctification; in its basis irvevpta deov or e'/c deov
(Rom. viii. 9, etc. ; 1 Cor. ii. 11, etc., xii. 3), wherefore
God Himself dwells in those in whom the Holy Ghost
is present (1 Cor. xiv. 25 : ovtcos 6 debs iv vplv iariv ;
comp. vi. 1 6 ; 1 Cor. iii. 1 6 : vabs deov iare, Kal to
irvevpa tov deov oixei iv vplv). The same spirit is
the spirit of Christ (Gal. iv. 6 : igaireareiXev 6 debs
to irvevpa tov vlov avrov els rds xapBlas rjpcov ;
comp. Rom. viii. 9, etc.). That the Holy Ghost is
to be conceived as a person is clear from the fact
that He has personal volition and may be personally
grieved (1 Cor. xii. 11 : to irvevpa Btatpovv eKaarcp—
Kadcos BovXerat; Eph. iv. 30: pv Xviretre to irv.
to dy. tov deov). Thus the divine Trinity consists in
the three personalities : God, the Lord, and the Spirit,
distinct in the work of salvation and yet One.
If any one have received the spirit (XapBdvetv,
Rom. viii. 15), have been anointed with it, i.e. conse
crated (xpleiv, 2 Cor. i. 21), sealed with it (acppayi^etv,
Eph. i. 13, iv. 30), he is, as said above, free from
the law, for the Mosaic law is in itself abolished by
the atoning death ; for us, for believers, it is for ever
abolished with our entrance into the state of grace
quickened by the Spirit (Gal. iii. 25). On the other
hand, the law remains in the state of grace, first, so
far as in its spiritual import it is verified and keeps
its validity (Rom. vii. 12, 14 : 6 vbpos ayios —
irvevpartKos); again, and chiefly, so far as it is
fulfilled in its spiritual import (Rom. xiii. 1 0 : irX-gpcopa
vopov f) dydirv; comp. ver. 8, etc.; Gal. v. 14), just
as the new spiritual life by virtue of its inner and
free legality is also called a vbp,os (6 vbpos tov
Xptarov, Gal. vi. 2 ; comp. pr} a>v avopos deov, dXX'
evvopos Xpiarov, 1 Cor. ix. 21 ; Rom. viii. 2 : d vbpos

THE CHURCH OF GOD. 73
tou irvevparos rfjs ^cor)s iv Xp. 'I.). Accordingly
there is in the Mosaic law the transient and per
manent, the transient so far as it is done away in its
specific form, as an objective code outwardly expressed
in the letter, meeting man with individual commands
(Rom. x. 4 : t<=Ao9 vopov Xpiaros) ; permanent so far
as in its spiritual, ideal import and essence it is
maintained as a rule of life by grace, and is properly
realized and fulfilled. (Comp. the excellent discus
sion of Lipsius, ante, p. 85, etc. Ritschl, altkathol.
Kirche, 2nd ed. p. 101, etc.) In this sense Paul
rightly answers the question : vopov ovv Karapyovpev
Bid T/79 iriarecos, by prj yevoiro, dXXd vopov lard-
vopev, Rom. iii. 31.

II. The Church of God.
When the exalted Saviour appeared to Saul and
called to him : " I am Jesus whom thou persecutest,"
He bore testimony to His personal life-communion
with believers, to whom nothing can happen without
affecting Him also. When Paul became a disciple
of Jesus he entered the community of His believing
disciples which already existed. The more remote
in feeling his former position with respect to this
community, the deeper and more fully he now appre
hended its character.
The communion of individuals with Christ in faith,
the life of Christ in them, forms the basis, according
to Paul, of the communion of believers one with
another. By faith they are allied one with another,
and are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal. iii. 28) ; through
Christ, the first-born among the brethren, they are

74 the apostolic doctrines.
brethren together, thus forming one family, one
brotherhood. Whoever offends the soul and conscience
of his brother offends Christ Himself, who died for
his sake, 1 Cor. viii. 11-13, vi. 5, etc.; 2 Cor. i. 7,
ix. 13. Believers therefore as brethren form a union,
the Church of God or Christ, v eKKXyala rov deov,
Gal. i. 13; 1 Cor. x. 32, xv. 9. Paul represents
believers as a collective whole under the figure of a
building, particularly a temple, 1 Cor. iii. 9, 16;
Eph. ii. 29, etc. ; but the figure he prefers is that of
a body (1 Cor. x. 17 : ev awpa ol iroXXot eapev), viz.
the body of Christ, a name " infinite in depth and
yet transparently clear, both bodily and spiritual,
objective and subjective, open and mysterious at the
same time " (Delitzsch). This image he carries out
in detail, 1 Cor. xii. 1 2 ; Rom. xii. 4, etc. ; Eph.
i. 22, etc.; Col. i. 18, 24, ii. 19 ; Christ is the head
of the body (comp. Eph. v. 23). He is the soul of
the community, from Him their life-power emanates,
and by Him they are ruled. Again, as the body is
one but has many different members, so believers are
closely and essentially joined together in faith, partly
one with another and partly with the one head.
They serve one another and work together as members
one of another, so that the diversity of spiritual gifts,
the multiplicity of offices in the Church (1 Cor. xii.
4, etc., 14), and the variety of stages with respect to
faith and knowledge (Rom. xiii. 14), do not hinder,
but rather promote that unity.
That this community of Christ, the Church of God,
is dependent in its origin purely on the grace of God,
on His decree before time and the operation of His
grace in time, is a thought which Paul frequently
urges with great emphasis. It was too closely bound

the church of god. 7o
up with his own experience ever to disappear from
his memory or his teaching. The fact that he has
attained to faith in the Son of God, and has become
a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, rests solely on
the good pleasure of God (Gal. i. 15, etc.), who has
chosen and ordained him to this end (d depopiaas pe)
from his birth (ix xoiXias pvrpbs piov), and has in His
own time actually called him by grace through the
word (xaXeaas Bid rrjs ;yaptT09 avrov), having revealed
His Son in him. All this proceeded from free grace
and pity, since he himself had formerly persecuted
the Church of God ; comp. 1 Cor. xv. 9. This per
sonal experience led him to the perception of the
divine choice, the free purpose of grace, so that he
traces back all salvation, the entrance of every
individual into the communion of Christ and His
Church, as well as the incorporation of whole races
and nationalities into the Church of God, to the
eternal decree of grace and of God's good pleasure ;
human agency receding far into the background. The
fact that by the Church " the manifold wisdom of
God " was now to be made known, is ascribed by the
apostle (Eph. iii. 11, etc.) to " the eternal purpose of
God," — to the irpbdeais rcbv alcovcov r)v iirolr/aev ev
Xpiarcp 'Ivaov rep xvplco r/pcbv ; and in Eph. i. 4,
etc., he extols God who blessed us in Christ: xadms
iijeXegaro rjpds iv avrcp irpo KaraBoXris Koapov
— irpooptaas rjpds eh vlodeaiav Bid Ivaov
Xpiarov eh avrbv Kara rrjv evBoKiav tov deXvparos
avrov. This eternal purpose of selection, in its
independence of human agency, of human relations,
and human estimate, is variously expressed (Rom.
ix. 11 : ovk e'£ epyeov, dXX' e'« tov koXovvtos; comp.
1 Cor. i. 2 7 : rd pcopd tov Koap,ov — rd dadevf) —

76 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
rd dyevrj tov Koapov Kal rd il;ovdevypeva igeXegaro
6 debs, rd pr) ovra, "va rd ovra KaTapyr/ay). In the
apostle's view, believers are ol Kara irpbdeaiv kXvtoI,
Rom. viii. 28 ; at the same time he unfolds the divine
decree, as it were in various acts ; in the irpoyiyvcoa-
Keiv and in the irpoopi^etv avppiopepovs rrjs eiKovos
tov vlov avrov (viii. 29), or in the iKXegaadai and
irpoopi^eiv els vlodealav Bta 'Iyaov Xpiarov eis
avrov, Eph. i. 4, etc.1
1 The clause oSs irpo'iytu xx) npoupunv, etc., in Rom. viii. 29, has by
many expositors been made the occasion of introducing into the
doctrine of the apostle the idea of divine prescience of the free deci
sion of each individual for or against the offer of grace, for or against
faith ; by the Church Fathers, for example, even Augustine, and
among recent expositors Tholuck, van Hengel, Weiss, (bibl. Theol.
p. 356, etc.), Meyer {Comm. 6th ed.), Godet. But the exposition
which finds in the irpoyiyiucxw the divine prescience of that disposi
tion on which God has made His selection dependent, whether it be
love to God, or whether it be faith ("quos credituros pravidit,"
Calov.), is doubly at fault. In the first place it destroys the connec
tion. The aim of the apostle is to set forth clearly the assurance of
salvation for those who are called and chosen, consolatory in spite of
all inward sighing. But the firm chain of the divine decrees and
operations of grace would be broken by the above interpretation of
npo'iyai, and everything would be reduced to an unaccountable self-
decision of human freedom. Besides, this interpretation misappre
hends the biblical conception of ^poyiuais, Kpoyiytoiaxiii, which, in
conformity with the usage of j;"p, lovingly to know, to recognise,
denote foreknowledge. In this respect we agree with Pfleiderer
(p. 248, etc.), Lorenz (p. 94, etc.), and can only admit that the
passages adduced as a counter -proof by Weiss (N. T. Theol. p. 366,
note 7), viz. Rom. xi. 2, Gal. iv. 9, 1 Pet. i. 20, speak in favour
of our interpretation. In Peter ¦xpoiyionr^Uos certainly involves the
idea of decree, not of mere prescience. In Rom. xi. 2 the conception
of the gracious choice of Israel can only be set aside by artificial
means ; and in Gal. iv. 9 ywat'vms wi hov corresponds exactly to
the Old Testament jni, used of God as a loving perception and
recognition. In viii. 29 itpoiym is the gracious choice, •spoipun is the
appointment to divine sonship, to the image of Christ, that follows
from it.

THE CHURCH OF GOD. 77
It is in the ninth chapter of the Epistle to the
Romans that the apostle asserts most fully and
decidedly the unconditional character of God's choice.
His object here is to reconcile with the honour of
God, the exclusion of so many Israelites from the
people of God's new covenant, and in particular to
show that neither the veracity and fidelity of God
in the fulfilment of His promise to Israel nor His
justice is thereby impugned. To this end, Paul
emphatically draws attention to the circumstance
that the procedure of God in the promises of the old
covenant and in the establishment of His people, was
absolutely independent of the claims of birth or the
personal conduct of the individual, vv. 6-13, espe
cially ver. 11. He then replies to the objection that
this is an unjust procedure : by no means ! for no man
has any rightful claim to God's mercy and grace ; " He
hath mercy on whom He will, and whom He will
He hardeneth ; " hence there can be no question of
injustice, vv. 14-18. Hofmann (Schriftbeweis, i.
p. 214, etc.) tries to soften the apparent harshness
of the statement borrowed from Ex. xxiii. 1 9 : iXerjaco
bv av iXeco, etc., by contending that the relative 09
av does not imply selection, according to which it is
not God's choice of those on whom He will have
mercy, but the mercy itself which is characterized as
a free act on His part. But this is erroneous ; bs dv
with the conjunction has undeniably the meaning
of quicunque ; Hofmann himself (p. 217) silently
concedes this by attaching importance to the fact that
in ver. 18 the words are not bv dv deXy, but bv
deXei. The attempts to take from Tt'9 dvdearrjKev, in
ver. 19, the meaning: "who can withstand God?" —
and from xaTr/priapeva eh dircoXeiav, in ver. 22, the

78 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
meaning : " fitted (by God) to destruction," and to
attribute to them the sense of being prepared for
destruction apart from divine agency, seem to us to
be equally unsuccessful. Only by far-fetched inter
pretation and much ingenuity can the simple, over
powering fact be set aside that the apostle in this
section, chiefly in vv. 11-15 and 18-22, asserts the
decree of God with respect to salvation and reproba
tion as absolutely unconditioned. Far be it from us,
however, to attribute to the Apostle Paul a doctrine
of election and predestination which would make the
freedom of God appear as arbitrariness, the freedom
of man as a delusion, and human personality as a
mere instrument for the revelation of divine attributes.
Here particularly we must explain one Scripture by
another, and take into consideration the following
circumstances : — (1) That the apostle emphatically
asserts personal freedom, accountability and guilt, not
only in his other Epistles and in remote passages, but
also in Rom. x. in the closest connection with the
matter which occupies him in chap. ix. How grand his
teaching with respect to the value of the individual
in the sight of God, and the importance of the
person ! (2) We must take into account that Paul
when he denies to man all right to the grace and
pity of God (vv. 15, 18), when he asserts the
unlimited power of God (ver. 21, etc.) to make men
vessels of wrath or of grace, assumes that the human
race is infected with sin and guilt, so that destruc
tion is the absolutely just thing, and grace an
unconditional free gift, to which no claim exists ;
comp. J. Miiller, von der Siinde, i. p. 535, etc. (3)
Paul here sets out with the idea, which is absolutely
true, that the individual Israelite has no inviolable

THE CHURCH OF GOD. 79
right to the kingdom of God by virtue of descent
from the patriarchs, nor by virtue of any merit in
himself so that God must be gracious to him. In
order completely to overthrow this perverted notion,
he confronts it with the unlimited right of God to do
as He pleases (comp. Meyer, Comm. 2nd ed. p. 310,
etc.). (4) The apostle is not writing a system of
doctrine, but letters which have a practical aim;
hence although, as occasion arises, occupying various
standpoints apparently inconsistent one with another
(comp. Baur, Paulus, pp. 353, 641, etc., 2nd ed. ii.
p. 282, etc.), he has no interest in carefully fixing
the respective limits of different truths and accurately
defining their relation, especially where the question
is one of ideas such as human freedom, divine infini
tude, etc.,' of which in these days of " piecework " it
is impossible satisfactorily to examine the points of
agreement.1 The sequel of eternal predestination is calling,
Jjtom. viii. 30 : ovs Be irpocopiae, rovrovs Kal ixaXeae.
Hence those who are chosen of God (Rom. viii. 33 ;
Col. iii. 12) are said also to be called xXyrol,
Rom. i. 7. The calling itself, the KaXetv, takes place
through the word, preached by those who are sent out ;
heard and accepted by those whom God has chosen,
and whose hearts He enlightens, Rom. x. 17, etc. :
dpa rj iriaris ii; aKorjs ' r} Be dxorj Bid pyparos deov ;
comp. 1 Cor. xv. 1, etc., i. 21 ; Gal. iii. 2. The
gospel, the " word of Christ," is therefore the means
1 Comp. the excellent observations on Rom. ix.-xi. by Bonifas
{L'Uniti de V enseignement ap. p. 112, etc., e.g. p. 114, etc.) : "Paul
n'est pas ici un philosophe qui deduit scientifiquement des formules
de metaphysique ; c'est un avocat qui plaide la cause de Dieu, et qui,
dans l'entrainement de Paction, rencontre une comparaison hardie
qu'il ne pretend nullement elever a la hauteur d'un principe absolu."

80 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
by which a soul is drawn into communion with God
and Christ. Moreover, KaXelv is not only to be
understood externally, but comprehends the internal
" drawing of the Father to the Son," the whole pre-
venient operation of grace in itself ; comp. Lipsius,
ante, p. 39, etc.
Reception into the communion of Christ, or the
putting on of Christ, takes place through baptism,
which Paul never treats merely as an external act,
but as a spiritual-corporeal act. " By one spirit, are
we all baptized into one body," 1 Cor. xii. 13.
Baptism is a Xpiarbv ivBvaaadai, Gal. iii. 27; a
Xovrpbv rov vBaros iv pijpart, an diroXovaaadai,
dyiaadfjvai, and Bixaicodrjvai, TLph. v. 26; 1 Cor. vi. 11;
and since baptism is immersion into the communion
of Christ, it is especially a baptism into His death,
Rom. vi. 3 ; Col. ii. 12, etc.
The "Lord's Supper" is the communion of the
body and blood of Christ, 1 Cor. x. 16. In its
nature it is not limited to an act of remembrance
(els ttjv iprjv dvdpvyaiv, xi. 24, etc.), in which case
it would be simply a commemoration, inasmuch as
believers show the Lord's death till He come (xi. 26 :
xarayyeXXetv), but it is Kotvcovia tov a'iparos — tov
aooparos Xpiarov, x. 1 6 ; i.e. it brings us into actual
communion with Christ, real participation in His body
and blood. Just as those who offer sacrifice to idols,
and partake of the flesh of the offerings, put them
selves by this means in actual communion with
demons, so the rpdiret,a Kvpiov is an actual com
munion with the body and blood of Christ. For
this reason, whosoever taketh the bread and the cup
unworthily, not discerning the Lord's body, sins
against Christ, eats and drinks condemnation to

THE CHURCH OF GOD. 81
himself, and makes himself guilty of the body and
blood of the Lord. The apostle takes the Lord's
Supper as a sign, and at the same time a means of
promoting the close communion of believers among
themselves, 1 Cor. x. 17: et9 dpros, ev aS>p,a ol
iroXXot iapev ol yap irdvres e'« tou evbs dprov
perexppev} In the Church of believers who have been called
by virtue of the eternal decree, and incorporated by
baptism into the communion of Christ, and who
maintain their connection with the Lord and the
brethren by the Eucharist, all distinctions and oppo
sitions that exist outside the Church are removed
and reconciled. There is neither bond nor free,
neither male nor female, neither Jew nor Greek,
Gal. iii. 28 ; 1 Cor. xii. 13 ; Rom. ix. 24. The latter
in particular, viz. the removal of the opposition
between Jew and Gentile, is a fundamental principle
to which Paul frequently reverts, by virtue of that
peculiar vocation which he had as an apostle of the
1 The fundamental thought in 1 Cor. x. 16, that "the cup of
blessing is the communion of the blood of Christ, the bread which
we break the communion of the body of Christ," is in agreement
with the words of institution in xi. 24, etc. : tovt'o pov io-rh to 0-Hfi.x,
etc. Holsten, indeed, maintains, Ev. des Paulus, i. p. 329, etc.,
note, that the apostle refers "not to the relation of the individual
to Christ, but to the relation of individuals to one another, as brought
about by their common participation of the body and blood of Christ. "
But this itself is a concession that Paul does in fact bear testimony
to a union of believers with the blood of Christ. It is not necessary
either to disturb the traiu of thought in the passage, or to substitute
piTixw for xoivunh, in order to find in the apostle's sacrament the
expression of a real participation in the body and blood of Christ, in
agreement with Heinrici, Kor. brief, p. 271, etc., and Weiss, N. T.
Theol. p. 337. Pfleiderer's assurance, p. 237, that actual participa
tion of the body and blood of Christ is not spoken of, is irrelevant
because of the expression in ver. 16.
VOL. II. F

82 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
Gentiles. He has shown that there is no essential
difference with respect to sinfulness between the two
groups (Rom. iii. 9). To both he preaches Christ the
crucified One, as the power of God and the wisdom
of God, although this preaching in itself is alike re
pugnant to both, for the crucified One is to the Jews
a stumbling-block, to the Greeks foolishness, 1 Cor. i.
23, etc. But he also insists on the experimental fact
that the gospel is the power of God to every one that
believes, to the Jew and to the Gentile, Rom. i. 1 6. The
heathen, who were formerly strangers to the covenant
of God, without hope and without God in the world,
are now made nigh through Christ, by the death of
Him who hath slain enmity and broken down the
middle wall of partition ; are now by the gospel
made partakers in Christ of the promise of Abraham
and Israel, and by the work of atonement united
and reconciled to the Israelites who were formerly
separated from them ; both becoming one new man,
Eph. ii. 11, iii. 6, etc.; Gal. iii. 14. Doubtless the
Jews had, apart from the gospel, many great advan
tages over the Gentiles, for to them the oracles of
God were entrusted, Rom. iii. 2 : "To whom pertaineth
the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and
the giving of the law, and the service of God, and
the promises ; whose are the fathers, and of whom as
concerning the flesh Christ came," Rom. ix. 4, 5.
Abraham is the type of faith, and all believers walk
in his footsteps, Gal. iii. ; Rom. iv. 12. Israel is and
remains the original root of the Church of Christ,
Rom. xi. 16, etc. — Within the Church of Christ,
however, the Israelites have no advantage over the
heathen as regards participation in Christ and the
salvation of the individual (Rom. x. 1 2 : ov ydp iart

THE CHURCH OF GOD. 83
BiaaroXg IovBaiov re Kal ' EXXyvos). The law on
which they prided themselves belongs only to the
weak, beggarly elements of the world, Gal. iv. 2, 9 ;
it was only a taskmaster to bring them to Christ,
iii. 24, but is now done away, for Christ is the
Te\o9 vop,ov, Rom. x. 4. Nevertheless, Israel as a
nation has still a future in the kingdom of God ; if
the mass, through blind error and confidence in their
law, now refuse to believe, their refusal turns to the
salvation of the Gentiles ; but this opposition will
at some future time be done away, and Israel again
be grafted into the olive tree from which it was
broken off, Rom. xi. In this chapter Paul shows
that the partial exclusion of Israel at that time from
the Church of Christ was not the last word, the
final will of God, but rather that in this nation and
by its means a great purpose of grace should be
carried out.
1. In the future, when the fulness of the Gentiles
shall have come into the Church of God, Israel as a
nation will be converted, will be reconciled to God
and saved (ver. 25, etc.; comp. vv. 12, 15, 23, 31).
2. Converted Israel will then be the means of
bringing about the greatest salvation to humanity
(v. 12, 15). — We have taken these two main pro
positions in their widest possible sense ; but one point
of dispute still remains to be more closely defined.
The period of the fulfilment of this event is in ver.
25 characterized as d%pts ov to irXypcopa reov idvcbv
elaeXdy. But what is meant by " until the fulness
of the Gentiles be come in " ? Does it mean that
all individual heathen must be incorporated into
the Church of Christ before the obduracy of Israel
comes to an end ? No; for, judging from the know-

84 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
ledge of mankind shown by the apostle elsewhere,
we cannot credit him with the visionary expectation
that every individual would be converted. irXypcopa
rather denotes the Gentile nations (rd edvy as opposed
to d 'IapayX) as an abstract whole, not the full com
plement of individuals, since the thought contained
in ver. 12, viz. that the conversion of the fulness of
Israel should redound to the salvation of the world,
presupposes the actual existence at that time of a
mass of unconverted heathen individuals. At the
time appointed, known only to God, Israel as a
nation in its totality (77-09 'IapayX, ver. 26) will be
saved, for its obduracy will cease (through grace,
comp. ver. 31 : "va xal axirol eXeyddoatv) ; the nation
will be converted, accepted again by God, and once
more grafted into the Church of God, of which Israel
is in fact the root (ver. 15: irpbaXyp,yfrts ; ver. 23, etc.:
irdXiv eyxevrpiadyaovrat ry IBia eXaia).
With respect to the second proposition, the ques
tion arises — (a) What is to irXr/pcopa of Israel, spoken
of in ver. 11 ? Without doubt this idea forms the
antithesis to irXypcopa r&v edvcov in ver. 25. Just
as this latter denotes the full number of the Gentile
nations (but not the full number of all heathen indi
viduals), so the 77-X. avrwv in ver. 12 denotes the
fulness of Israel as a whole = 77-09 'IapayX, ver. 25,
from which individuals may possibly be omitted.
This is in the main Tholuck's view, while Riickert's
theory of the restoration of Israel to the place belong
ing to it, and Philippi's of the filling up of the gap
in the kingdom of God which has arisen through
the unbelief of the Israelites, are linguistically
inadmissible. The fact that the conversion of the
Israelitish nations will tend to the blessing and salva-

THE CHURCH OF GOD. 85
tion of humanity is confessedly declared in ver. 12,
in the words : iroXXcp pdXXov rb irXypcop,a avreov, as
supplemented by the context (comp. Baur, Paulus,
2nd ed. ii. p. 285, etc.), a conclusion from the less
to the greater. The corresponding question in ver.
1 5 is more disputed : et — • y diroBoXy aireov xaraX-
Xayy Koapov, tis y irpoaXyp-^rts el py %coy ix veKpeov ;
Against the theory that the restoration of Israel
implies the resurrection of the dead in its literal
sense, preferred by most recent expositors (de Wette,
Riickert, 2nd ed. ; Baur, ante, ii. 286; Meyer and
Hofmann, Pfleiderer, p. 253 ; Lorenz, p. 178), we have
two objections to make — (a) a linguistic one, viz. that
if the expression referred to the resurrection of the dead
as an acknowledged fact, the article would not be
omitted; (o) an actual one, viz. that by this means the
parallelism of thought between " the reconciling of
the world," i.e. of the Gentiles standing at a distance
from the kingdom of God, and the resurrection of
the dead, would be completely lost, whereas the
context absolutely requires it. We take the words
in a spiritual sense, with Melanchthon, Bengel, and
Godet; the restoration of the people of Israel will
not only help the reconciliation of the Gentiles, but
will even produce life where all is dead, i.e. awaken
and quicken what is morally and spiritually dead in
humanity. Bengel says : sermo est de vivificatione
totius : ut non sit residua massa mortua. Totius
generis humani sive mundi conversio comitabitur
conversionem Israelis. To Meyer's objection, that
in this case nothing higher than xaTaXXayy is
expressed, we answer : Awakening from spiritual
death, from a state of deadness, is certainly more
than the reconciliation of an enemy, while on the

86 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
other hand xaraXXayr] and £coy form a genuine
Pauline gradation; comp. Rom. v. 10. Hence, when
the period of Gentile Christianity has run its course,
when the people of Israel have been converted and
received into the Church of Christ, a new life of
humanity will burst forth.
Paul rises even above humanity in his concep
tion of the kingdom of Christ (Col. i. 13), and
includes the higher spiritual world also. Christ is
with him the head, not only of the Church, but of all
creatures, of all spirits (Col. ii. 10) : y xecpaXy irdays
dpxfis Kal igovatas. It is God's purpose that Christ
should be ev iraai irpcorevcov. It is His good pleasure
by Christ to reconcile all things unto Himself, whether
things in earth or things in heaven, Col. i. 18, etc.;
comp. Eph. i. 10 : "That in the name of Jesus every
knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in
earth, and things under the earth ; " Phil. ii. 1 0 ; a
further evidence of the apostle's grand, all-compre
hending conception of the kingdom of God.

III. The Consummation, or the Kingdom of Glory.
The apostle's doctrine of last things rests on the
fundamental facts, the death and resurrection of
Jesus. " If we believe (i.e. so certainly as we believe)
that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also
which sleep in Jesus will God bring with Him"
(1 Thess. iv. 14). The apostle here makes these two
fundamental facts, which on all occasions form the
poles of his apostolic preaching (1 Cor. xv. 3, etc.),
viz. the death and resurrection of Jesus, the basis of
the believer's hope. As in this, the earliest of his

consummation, or the kingdom of glory. 87
Epistles, he makes the hope of the Christian rest on
the death and resurrection of Jesus, so does he also
in his later, e.g. 1 Cor. xv. 20, comp. Col. i. 18 ;
2 Cor. iv. 14, comp. ver. 10, etc. The death and future
life of believers are here referred to the death and life
of Jesus as their prototype and cause. Col. iii. 4 is
in harmony with the last of these passages : " When
Christ who is our life shall appear, then shall ye also
appear with Him in glory;" comp. Rom. viii. 11.
While the former passages refer to the death and
resurrection of Jesus, His ascension is associated
with His second coming in Phil. iii. 20, etc.: " From
heaven we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ,
who shall change our vile body," etc. ; comp. Col. i. 5.
From these expressions it follows that the second.
coming of Christ (y irapovaia tov Kvpiov ypcbv 'Iyaov
Xpiarov, 1 Cor. xv. 23) is to be regarded as the
centre of the Pauline doctrine of the consummation
and end. The following questions then arise : When ?
Wherefore ?
With respect to time, Paul constantly refers to the
second coming of Christ as " the day of Christ "
(1 Cor. i. 8, v. 5 ; 2 Cor. i. 14 ; comp. 1 Cor. iii. 13 ;
Rom. xiii. 11, and other passages). The apostle
speaks of this " day of the Lord " as an event which
he himself, with most of his contemporaries, might
probably still live to see, 1 Cor. xv. 52: ypeh
dXXayyaopeda; Rom. xiii. 11; 1 Cor. vii. 29: d
xaipbs avvearaXpevos iariv, the time is short ; comp.
x. 11. In opposition to these words, Usteri (Entw.
des Paulin. Lehrbegriffs, p. 355) quotes two other
passages, viz. Phil. i. 21, etc., where the apostle's
hope of living to see the second coming of Jesus is
already mixed with doubt ; and 2 Tim. iv. 6, etc.,

88 THE apostolic doctrines.
where he regards such a contingency as quite improb
able. But in the former of these passages he has in
view the uncertain issue of his suit ; and in the latter
the end of his life is more immediately present with
him. The circumstance is therefore very easily
explained, and we have no right to assume a change
in the apostle's views. Elsewhere the second coming
is certainly farther removed. According to Rom.
xi. 25, etc., the nation of Israel in its entirety will
not be converted until the fulness of the Gentiles has
first been incorporated in the Church of Christ ; and
without doubt these two events must be regarded as
antecedent to the second coming, according to which
the latter would be far distant, if it did not appear
from Rom. x. 18 and Col. i. 23, that Paul assumes a
wide diffusion of the gospel as having already taken
place (comp. Lohe, Drei Biicher von der Kirche,
p. 38, etc.).
The purpose of the second coming of Jesus is in
general referred only to believers. Believers will be
the gainers by this second coming, for the dead in
Christ shall rise first, then those who are still alive
shall be changed (1 Cor. xv. 52), both being clothed
with a glorified body. In Phil. iii. 21, where the
transformation of the body is ascribed to the efficacy
of Christ, it is referred to both alike, which is not
expressly the case in the other two passages.
In 1 Cor. xv. Paul treats fully of the doctrine of
the resurrection, discussing two leading points : first,
the fact of a future resurrection, vv. 12-34; second,
the manner of it, vv. 35-38. He establishes the
fact or the certainty of resurrection, in opposition
to those by whom it is denied, by the resurrec
tion of Christ; that fundamental fact of salvation

consummation, or the kingdom of glory. 89
in Christ, that leading theme of apostolic preaching
(ver. 14, etc.). From this he concludes that
(a) resurrection, having actually taken place in
Christ's case, is therefore possible in itself, vv.
13-19 ; (b) but now Christ, as the first-fruits of an
era of life and resurrection, is risen from the dead,
wherefore His resuscitation guarantees and involves
the future resurrection of His people, ver. 20, etc.1
The apostle illustrates the manner of the resurrection
by a reference to analogous phenomena in nature, viz.
(a) to the death and quickening of the grain of seed,
vv. 36-38; (b) to the multiplicity and variety of
bodies throughout creation, vv. 39-41. He then
goes on to say that the resurrection body will be
incorruptible (vv. 42, 53, etc.), glorious and power
ful (ver. 43), a spiritual body (vv. 44-46) from
heaven (vv. 47—49); whereas the mortal body is
corruptible, uncomely, weak, psychical, having its
origin in the earth. The fact of the resurrection
body being a spiritual one, means that it does not
consist, like the present body, of matter ; but it has
nevertheless a true corporeal nature, only that it is
homogeneous with the spirit, and is completely
1 Usteri, Paulinischer Lehrbegriff, p. 364, etc., makes the argu
ment turn on the presupposed natural affinity of Christ's nature with
that of man, on "the law of species," which, however, has no founda
tion in the context ; for this, as W. Georgii rightly remarks, rather
points out that in Christ the risen One a new element has by God's
grace entered into humanity, which, as a principle, must continue to
operate and make itself felt in humanity. Comp. Baur, Paulus,
2nd ed. ii. 239 : " The resurrection of Christ is in nowise an act o'
God having reference to Himself alone, the same principle which has
realized itself in Him must also be realized in all other men," etc.
It is not a natural union of life, but one between Christ and
believers, bestowed by God's grace in the new creation, which assures
us of the resurrection, Christ having risen again. Comp. Heinrici,
1 Kor. p. 490, etc.

90 the apostolic doctrines.
penetrated by the spirit.1 This change will be
instantaneous (ver. 52). It is the airoXvrpcoais tov
adoparos, the redemption of the body from its liability
to death and decay. Of the heavenly origin of the
resurrection body, only indicated in 1 Cor. xv. 47,
etc., Paul speaks more fully in 2 Cor. v. 1-4 : " For
we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle
were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house
not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For
in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon
with our house which is from heaven ; if so be that
being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we
that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened :
not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon,
that mortality might be swallowed up of life. Now
He that hath wrought us for the self-same thing is God,
who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit."
In iv. 7, etc., the apostle enumerates those things
by which he himself and other servants of Jesus
Christ are strengthened and comforted under all
oppression from without, as well as in distressing
experiences and the consciousness of decreasing
vitality (ver. 16). The sustaining power in all this
is the constant renewal of the inward man, eternal
glory made only more certain by affliction, the
unseen and eternal on which his gaze was con
tinually fixed (iv. 16-18). He then declares
(v. 1, etc.) his expectation in death, viz. a life by
i When Ernesti, ante, p. 123, etc., note, pronounces this resurrec
tion u tha dark point in Paul's doctrine of immortality, " we shall not
dispute what he says ; though to us it appears rather that a luminous
point lies in the fact of the apostle having constantly in view the
whole man, and not mistaking the spiritual-corporeal nature of life,
but putting the completion of the work of grace in the final
reanimation of the body.

CONSUMMATION, OR THE KINGDOM OF GLORY. 91
which even that which is mortal in his person will
be swallowed up (ver. 4) ; in death he looks for a
heavenly body from God, instead of his present
earthly body ; the longing of the spirit in anticipa
tion of death, and under the burden of the life of the
body, is not to put off the mortal body in death, but
to be able immediately to put on the heavenly
body. The section contains many and important
difficulties, linguistic as well as material. But
nevertheless we feel bound to maintain with firm
ness that the question is not of a body for the inter
mediate state between death and resurrection, distinct
from the resurrection body (Auberlen), for we have
no indication of any such distinction ; but of the
final body, that which is given through transmuta
tion. We therefore reject Hofmann's interpretation,
ante, ii. 2. 439, etc., according to which olxoBopy,
oiKia dxeipoirolyros alcovios ev r. ovp. is not a body,
but the house of God in heaven, as at variance with
the context, for it is quite clear that one o'tKia is
in opposition and parallelism with the other, a aKyvos
with the o'iKoBopy ; it is just as certain that the
o'lKoBoprj, etc., is a body, as that the olxla tov aKyvovs
is a body and not an actual habitation ; moreover, if
Paul had wished to express the meaning attributed to
him, he must have said olxlav — alwviov rmv ovpavcbv
(comp. ver. 5 : dppaBcbva tov irv.), instead of iv tois
ovpavols. Neither the dxeipoir., which is used solely
for the sake of antithesis to axyvos, and bears testimony
to the immediate divine origin of the future body, while
if pressed it is certainly lame; nor yet the e%op,ev (prce-
sens), which expresses the certainty of hope regarding
the presence of the future body with the eternal God,
can compel us to accept that interpretation. But the

92 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
explanation of the iv tovtco arevd&pev, as referring to
the prospect of death (the xaraXvdyvai in ver. 1),
appears to have been rightly conceived by Hofmann, so
that the groanings are forced out here by the certainty
of death, but in ver. 4 by the burden of the life-body;
hence the longings for the new heavenly corporeity
are awakened by the twofold experiences of the
present. On the other hand, we must protest with '
all emphasis against Hofmann's interpretation (p. 442,
etc.) of ver. 3. He and Auberlen, Stud. u. Krit.
1825, p. 710, explain ivBvadpevot of a moral process,
yvpvbs of a moral state, the former of the " putting
on of Christ," the latter of moral nakedness (Rev.
iii. 17) ; without any justification in the context,
where ixBvaaadai, evBvaaadat, eirevBvaaadat, and
consequently yvpvcs, like olxla and kindred words,
are always to be understood of corporeity. The
leading position is (comp. Riickert) : et7rej0 ov yvpvol
evpedyaopeda, we long to be clothed upon with the
house which is from heaven, on the assumption,
namely, that (when the Lord comes) we shall not be
found naked, i.e. without a body, — a thought which
Paul, with his decided spiritual-corporeal view, may
have had cogent reasons for asserting in opposition
to an Hellenic philosophic fastidium corporis. Comp.
1 Cor. xv. 12. Kal evBvadptevot is therefore a more
exact definition of the previous clause, " if so be that
being clothed " (namely, in the new heavenly body).
It is true the evBvais could not be taken for its con
trary the yvpvorys (Meyer), and the addition of Kal
evBvadpevot appears tautological ; yet we cannot ven
ture, with Riickert, to prefer the reading ixBvadpevoi,
in defiance of all established principles of criticism,
but we justify the expression by assuming that the

CONSUMMATION OR THE KINGDOM OF GLORY. 93
apostle wished to emphasize the truth that even
when the great change has taken place, and we are
clothed in another garment of the soul, we shall
never be quite without a body. Consequently, even
under the burden of the body and of life, it is not
our desire to be quite divested of all corporeity, but
to be clothed upon with a garment of the soul that
shall not exclude all corporeity, but only swallow up
that which is mortal. The thought of an inter
mediate state between death and the resurrection is
not expressed here, because Paul hoped to live to see
the second coming, and therefore to experience a
change and to be clothed upon (1 Cor. xv. 52, etc.).
In all the statements which we have hitherto con
sidered, nothing has been said of the state intervening
between death and the resurrection. But when Paul
considered himself near death, he looked also at the
state immediately after death, apart from the resur
rection. In Phil. i. 21, etc., he expresses the desire :
dvaXvaai xal airv Xpiarcp elvai, and in 2 Cor. v. 8
he already confesses it would be his choice : ixBypyaat
eK tov acoparos Kal ivByprjaai irpbs tov Kvpiov. In
both passages he appears to give utterance to his
hope that he would be with the Lord immediately
after death. Weitzel indeed objects (" Urchristliche
Unsterblichkeitslehre," Stud. u. Krit. 1836, p. 954,
etc.) that the association of the dvaXvaai and
ixBypyaat eK tov acoparos on the one hand, with
aw Xpiarep elvai and ivByprjaai irpbs tov Kvpiov
on the other hand, does not imply that one state is
always followed by the other. But the repeated
double formula : ivBypovvres iv rep awpart, eKBy-
povpev dirb tov Kvpiov, ver. 6, and exBypyaat ix
tov adoparos xal IvByprjaai irpos tov Kvpiov, can

94 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
only be understood to mean that absence from the
body implies in itself a presence of the soul with the
Lord, a far closer communion with Christ than the
present life of the body admits; so also Phil. i. 23.
This does not, however, invalidate the fact that the
change of the body into the likeness of Christ's
glorified body (Phil. iii. 21), comp. the irdvrore
avv xvpito elvai, 1 Thess. iv. 17, expected at the
second coming of Jesus, is something more complete
than the communion of the departed soul with Christ
before His return and the resurrection.
Reference is generally made only to the raising up
of believers; but the reappearance of Christ has also
the universal judgment for its object. In relation to
the second coming we frequently find the judgment
of wrath on the ungodly associated with the redemp
tion of the pious by way -of contrast, e.g. Rom.
ii. 5-13, 16, ix. 22, etc. ; 2 Cor. v. 10 ; Gal. vi. 7-9,
where epdopd and ^coy alcovtos are connected with
xaipbs 'iBios, the definite period of the sifting harvest,
viz. the judgment of the world. This judgment
naturally presupposes a universal resurrection includ
ing the ungodly, of whom, however, Paul makes no
express mention ; for where he speaks of the resur
rection, we see plainly from the context that he has
in view those only who belong to Christ and are
asleep iu Him, e.g. 1 Cor. xv. 23, etc. Paul here
distinguishes three stages or divisions (rdypara) —
first, dirapxfi Xpiaros, the resurrection of Jesus as
the first-fruits of the dead ; second, ol rov Xptarov
ev ry irapovala avrov, viz. at His second coming
only those who are His, who sleep in Him, will
rise again ; third, etTa to TeA.09, ver. 24, i.e. not
quite the end of the resurrection (Bengel, Meyer,

CONSUMMATION, OR THE KINGDOM OF GLORY. 95
Osiander) ; for this limitation lies neither in the
expression nor in the context, but to reXos is the
absolute consummation, which presupposes or involves
the universal resurrection and judgment.1 Comp. de
Wette, Ritschl, Altkath. Kirche, 2nd ed. p. 61. Paul
certainly does not state that a period intervenes
(Hofmann, ante, ii. 2. 603) between the resurrection
of believers at the second coming of Jesus and the
end itself (the last judgment) ; but, on the other hand,
he says nothing to exclude this idea. The con
summation takes place (according to vv. 24—28)
when Christ delivers up the kingdom to God the
Father, for Christ must reign until He has subdued
all enemies or destroyed all hostile Satanic powers
in the visible and invisible world (ver. 24, etc.).
This brings us to the important idea of the future
kingdom of glory. The whole connection of the
latter passage, more especially the analogy of the
interval between the resurrection of Jesus and that
of His people, leads to the inference that a certain
space of time intervened also between the second
coming of Christ and the Te'\o9. In this interval
1 Holsten, Ev. des Paulus, i. 420, etc., understands rixos to be the
end of this sinful and corrupt world. He is not just to the positive
and teleologieal aspect of the tiXoi. Heinrici, 1 Kor. p. 500, etc., is
right in emphasizing the fact that in this connection the attention
is directed to the mediatorial office of Christ ; hence he understands
to TiXos of the completion of the whole work of Christ. When
Holsten, p. 420, note *, declares that to understand t'sXos of the
resurrection of non-Christians violates the definite statement of the
apostle, he is only right so far as he has interpreters like van Hengel
in view, who explain riXos directly of the final act of the resurrec
tion ; but he is not right so far as rixos is made to refer simply to the
completion of Christ's work, though admitting that it includes the
general resurrection and judgment (comp. Rom. ii. 5 etc., esp. ver.
16 ; 2 Cor. v. 10).

96 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
Christ reigns (ver. 25) after He has visibly appeared
from heaven on the earth, after He has awakened
His sleeping ones and caught them up into heaven.
His rule, however, is not without strife, but in glory
and might, in and with His own who live hence
forward on the earth. A number of statements in
the Epistles of the apostle point to this " kingdom
of glory," if we simply look for them. On this
eschatological point all the Epistles are likewise most
in harmony. This BaatXela is the final aim of
effectual calling ; 1 Thess. ii. 12: d koXcov vpas els
ryv eavrov BaatXeiav Kal Bbgaii, i.e. to the Boija of
the future Messianic kingdom. It is this " kingdom
of glory '' from which the unrighteous and impure are
shut out (1 Cor. vi. 9 ; Gal. v. 21 ; Eph. v. 5), which
flesh and blood cannot inherit (1 Cor. xv. 50). In
these four passages we constantly find the expression:
exetv KXypovopiav ev ry BaatXela tov Xptarov Kal
deov, or more briefly: BaaiXelav deov KXypovop.eiv.
But even where this twofold expression is divided,
either KXypovopla alone being employed, especially
in connection with B6%a (Eph. i. 14, 18 ; comp. Rom.
viii. 17), or BaaiXeveiv alone (Rom. v. 17, 21), we
believe they refer to that blessed and glorious kingdom
of God and Christ in which believers shall reign
after having suffered with Christ (Rom. v. ' 1 7 : iv
t,coy BaaiXevaovaiv).1
1 The turn which the apostle here takes, not carrying the parallel
strictly through, and making the apodosis : h 'C,my ^xtriXiio-ov^m, follow
the protasis : o Sxvxtos l/ixrrixtvtrsv, has been finely and spiritedly
explained by Godet when he says: " The apostle has too lively a feeling
for spiritual realities to say here : life will reign, death reigns, he is a
tyrant. But life does not reign, it has no subjects ; it makes kings.
It is individuals themselves who have personally appropriated right
eousness, and now reign personally in the luminous region of life."

CONSUMMATION, OR THE KINGDOM OF GLORY. 97
That kingdom of Christ, which begins with His
second coming and the resurrection of His own
(1 Cor. xv. 23), is not yet the consummation itself.
The consummation of the work of Christ (to reXos)
does not take place until Christ delivers . up the
kingdom to God the Father. For since Christ must
reign till He has subdued all His enemies (ver. 25),
it is clear that during the -kingdom which begins
with His second coming there still remain enemies
to be subdued. The fully achieved victory, the pure,
perfect, blessed kingdom of God, begins . with the
general resurrection and the judgment of the world,
frequently mentioned by Paul as ypepa bpyys Kal
diroxaXv-tyeeos Bixaioxpiaias tov deov, Rom. ii. 5,
etc. ; comp. 1 Cor. xi. 32: Karaxpiveadat avv rep
Koapco. The judgment is accomplished by Christ,
Rom. ii. 16: ypepa y xpivei 6 debs — Bid 'Iyaov
Xpiarov ; 2 Cor. v. 10, Bijpa Xptarov; but the
saints of God also will have an active part in the
judgment (1 Cor. vi. 2 : ovk o'iBare, on ol dyioi tov
Koapov Kptvovatv x). The secret thoughts of the heart
will then be brought to light, — an assertion made
more than once by Paul, Rom. ii. 16 ; 2 Cor. iv. 5.
When, by way of argument, he reminds believers,
1 Cor. vi. 8 : on dyyeXovs xpivovpev, this is con
nected, on the one hand, with the idea that Christ
will put an end to all hostile powers (even the
spirit-world) : irdaav dp-^yv xal iraaav i%ovalav xal
Bvvapiv,! Cor. xv. 24; and, on the other hand, it is
again a testimony to the comprehensive view which
the apostle himself takes from his high standpoint,
i This expression is explained by Heinrici (1 Kor. p. 172, etc.),
only it must be said that he is inclined (p. 174) to weaken it ideally,
and to dissipate its realistic form.
VOL. II. G

98 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
and opens up to others. The last enemy that will
then be destroyed is death (ver. 26), which appro
priately supports the assumption that the general
resurrection precedes. In the fulness of the kingdom,
those redeemed by Christ shall enjoy the perfect
freedom of the children of God (Rom. viii. 21, etc.),
and raised above sin and death, shall lead a blessed
life in everlasting happiness (Rom. ii. 7, 10, v. 21,
vi. 22 : rb Be reXos £coyv atcoviov ; 1 Cor. xv. 54—56 ;
Gal. vi. 9, etc., comp. ver. 8 : deplaop,ev (£coyv ateovtov)
py ixXvbpevoi). Then shall the finite, imperfect^
fragmentary nature of present knowledge be. done
away, and in its stead shall come the perfect, actual
form of the thing itself (Bid e'iBovs, 2 Cor. v. 7),
immediate vision face to face. We shall be present
with the Lord; we shall know even as we are
known by God, and love shall never cease (1 Cor.
xiii. 8-12; 2 Cor. iii. 18).
But even this will not be a life of pure spirit;
rather will it consist in the release of the body and a
life of glorified corporeity, consequently a fuller and
more perfect humanity, in the midst of a glorified
corporeal world, freed from its former state of cor
ruption and servitude. Creation also waits for
deliverance in the present time (Rom. viii. 19, etc.);
for it is a tolerably unanimous result of modem,
impartial exegesis, that xriais here means nature as
distinguished from humanity. Accordingly creation
is in a state of corruption and vanity which burdens
it with an oppressing bondage (ver. 20, etc.). This
present state, however, is not the original and necessary
one, but has arisen and been superimposed (virerdyy
ovx exovaa, ver. 20). The release of nature from
the state of corruption imposed on her (in conse-

CONSUMMATION, OR THE KINGDOM OF GLORY. 99
quence of the fall of man), for which she longs and
unconsciously waits, will be effected when the glory
of the sons of God shall appear (ver. 19). When
the bodies of believers are redeemed from the state
of humiliation, all nature too will be raised to a state
of freedom corresponding to this transfiguration of
the sons of God (vv. 23, 21).1
But what will become of the ungodly ? Their lot
will be the epdopd (Gal. vi. 8), the dircoXeia (Rom. ix.
22). What does this mean? According to Fr.
Kostlin, "Lehre des Apostel Paulus von der Aufer-
stehung," Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1877, p. 287, etc.,
its only meaning is hopeless annihilation, irrevocable
destruction; so, too, Lorenz, pp. 80, 83, etc. But this
is absolutely irreconcilable with what the same
apostle says in Rom. ii. 5—9, xiv. 10, 12 ; 2 Cor. v.
10. He here refers not merely to a judgment of
believers for the purpose of determining who is found
worthy and who not, but to a judgment of each and
all without restriction, even of those who do not
obey the truth that is revealed to them, but rather
obey unrighteousness, who remain in unbelief and do
evil. The prospect held out to the latter is indigna
tion and wrath (bpyy xal dvpbs, Rom. ii. 8) on the
part of God ; tribulation and anguish on the part of
1 Umbreit, Der Brief an die Romer auf dem Grunde des A. T.
ausgelegt, 1856, pp. 91, etc., 291, etc., points out that as a matter of
fact xtIo-is is to be understood of the inanimate and animate but irra
tional creation, appealing to the finest proofs of the Old Testament
respecting the pain of. the creature. Tholuck, Comm., justly
remarks — (1) that ver. 19 strictly taken extends no farther than to
the ceasing of the power of death in the xtUis ; (2) that the range
of the xtWis coincides with the material world by which man is
surrounded, consequently — "the new earth;" comp. Lorenz, p. 89,
etc.

100 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
those who are judged (ver. 9), which from its anti
thesis to the glorious, blessed lot of the righteous in
eternity, cannot possibly be regarded as concentrated
into one moment, " the day of wrath " (ver. 5), the
act of judgment, thus making annihilation and
destruction the lot of the ungodly. But if we
assume a permanent state, this presupposes the rais
ing up to judgment. Paul indeed nowhere expressly
mentions a resurrection of the ungodly ; where he
speaks of resurrection, he has only in view the
children of God in whom the spirit dwells as a
pledge (Rom. viii. 11), and their resurrection body,
like the glorified body of Christ. But to conclude
with Weiss, N. T. Theol. p. 407 ; Lorenz, p. 88, that
there is no resurrection for those who are not par
takers of the Christian salvation, we can only consider
a too hasty inference. Heinrici is more cautious
when, in explaining 1 Cor. xi. 24, he remarks
(p. 504, etc.): "The apostle refrains from casting
any further glances at the lot of all who do not
belong to Christ." We find, however, some inti
mations that have escaped notice, which, strictly
followed out, would lead to the diroxardaraais
iravrcov, i.e. to the final reconciliation of all sinful men,
e.g. Rom. v. 18 : oV ei>09 Bixaicoparos els irdvras
dvdpcoirovs eh Bixaicoaiv %coys. Certainly the parallel
et9 irdvras dvdpcoirovs els xaraxpipa seems to justify
the idea that all humanity shall partake of grace as
they were undoubtedly involved in sin ; yet there is
weight in the remark that it is not said ei'9 irdvras
roiis dvdpcoirovs, all without exception ; but et'9
irdvras dvdpcoirovs, men without distinction (Hof
mann, Schrifibeweis, i. 490). This view commends
itself to us rather than Tholuck's, according to which

CONSUMMATION, OR THE KINGDOM OF GLORY. 101
expression is given only to the extent of the work of
redemption in God's purpose and objective power, to
the quantum ad sufficientiam, but not to the quantum
ad efficientiam (Thomas Aquinas), or else the reader
must in thought supply oaoiye XapBdvovat ttjv irepia-
aelav rrjs ^a/atT09, which, as he himself feels, is an
unauthorized limitation. On the other hand, in Rom.
xi. 32 (avvexXeiaev o debs roils irdvras eh direideiav,
iva tovs irdvras iXeyay) ol irdvres plainly denotes
all humanity, without exception ; limitation to the
two classes of Jews and Gentiles (Tholuck and
others) consists neither with this expression nor
with the context. But Meyer justly remarks that
the divine purpose only is in question (iva — iXeyay),
so that its partial non-realization, through the guilt
of individuals, is not excluded. Finally, 1 Cor. xv.
22 : eoairep iv t& ' ABdp. irdvres dirodvyaxovaiv, ovrcos
xal iv rep Xpiarcp irdvres ^cooiroiydyaovrai.
Meyer's expedient in this passage is to understand
%cooiroieiv after Chrysostom's example, not of the
resurrection of the blessed, but of the general one,
which is untenable, because (1) ^cooiroielv in Pauline
usage is not a vox media, but is constantly employed
of the operation of grace; (2) because the expres
sion: iv too Xpiarm ^cooirotyd., presupposes close
communion of those who are to be quickened with
Christ. But we see no reason for objecting to the
inference which Hofmann (i. 490) draws from the
context, viz. Paul does not mean to say, all who shall
be alive in Christ, but that in Christ, i.e. under the
condition of belonging to Him, all shall be alive ; so
that all the spiritual posterity of whom Christ is
head, i.e. all redeemed by Him, are alone referred to;
comp. Heinrici, 1 Kor. p. 495, etc.; Holsten, Ev. des

102 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
Paulus, i. 418, note ***; Weiss, N. T. Theol. p. 408.
After weighing all these passages, we cannot find the
fundamental outlines of the doctrine of restoration
in Paul, as do Weitzel, ante, p. 978, and W. Georgii,
Theol. Jahrb. 1845, p. 25. Rather do we believe that
we must hold fast the doctrine of everlasting con
demnation as his true doctrine regarding the final
destiny of the godless. This, however, does not
exclude the idea that when the Son has subdued all
enemies (consequently when all resistance ceases),
when He gives up the kingdom to the Father, and is
subject to Him who has put all things under Him, —
that then God will be all in all (1 Cor. xv. 24, 28).1
1 The parallelism between itxvtx and irxm in ver. 28 seems to us
to require the latter to be taken as neuter dative, consequently in
its largest and most comprehensive sense. In this we agree with
Heinrici, p. 511, and Holsten, Ev. des Paulus, i. 422, note ***,
against Weiss, p. 408, note 6. From what has been said, it is easy to
estimate the value of Reuss' interpretation, when, in Hist, de la
thiol, chrit. au sUcle apost. 1852, 2nd vol. p. 9, he asserts of the
eschatological teaching : " L'Evangile de Paul ne les comprenait pas,
— ils n'e'taient pas du nombre de ceux dans lesquels Paul faisait
consister l'essence de l'Evangile ; cela est si vrai que dans son epitre
la plus systematique, celle aux~Romains, il les passe completement
sous silence." We may be permitted to remark this much, that his
statement respecting the Epistle to the Romans is completely
groundless ; comp. Rom. ii. 5, etc., viii. 11, xi. 25, xiii. 11, etc.,
and other passages. Our readers may decide whether Weiss, Petrin.
Lehrbegriff, p. 59, does not come nearer the truth in asserting the
opposite, ' ' the doctrine of hope appears in Paul to be carried out
with peculiar fulness." But when Pfleiderer, p. 272, holds that the
Pauline system results in an unsolved antinomy between the monism
of religious speculation (the restoration of all things, the reconcilia
tion of all) and the dualism of moral reflection, by virtue of the legal
standpoint, as if the quondam Pharisee appeared again in the latter,
,this judgment rests on a misapprehension of fact, inasmuch as the
view of a unified world - issue of the xiroxxTao-Tatris is incorrectly
attributed to the apostle.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 103
CHAPTER III.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.
The two Epistles to Timothy along with that to
Titus form a closely connected, inseparable group, in
substance, form, aim, and character. On the other
hand, they are so essentially different from the other
Epistles of the apostle, that they must be separately
considered. Add to this the fact that this triad of
Epistles, in respect to their Pauline origin, are subject
to various doubts, the views of the most earnest
inquirers into the question of their authenticity being
remarkably divided at the present day. Not only
does the historical situation presupposed in the
Epistles, but also the practical aim they pursue, and
the value of the ideas which they express, present so
many riddles that it is the duty of an honest seeker
to approach them with impartiality.
The three Epistles are rightly described as pastoral.
They are much less occupied with the mission and
planting of churches than most of the Pauline
Epistles ; their aim is rather to turn the training
of the Churches into the right path, and to keep them
from error. It is not a process of conquest for
Christ which is put before us, but the striving after
preservation ; a conservative feature runs through the
Epistles. Consistently with this aim the gospel of Christ
takes the form of doctrine (y xaXy BiBaaxaXla, 1 Tim.
iv. 6, vi. 1 ; ol vyiaivovres Xoyot tov xnplov, vi. 3) ;
what this doctrine is intended to effect is in the first

104 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
place knowledge (1 Tim. iv. 3 : eireyvcoxbres ryv
dXydetav; comp. 2 Tim. ii. 25, iii. 7). This doctrinal
direction was produced and strengthened by the
appearance and threatening growth of errorists in the
Churches, and by attachment on the part of some
teachers to strange things (erepoBiBaaKaXeiv, 1 Tim.
i. 3, vi. 3).1 The errorists themselves are first de
scribed with regard to their moral character, as people
who follow after filthy lucre and riches (1 Tim. vi. 5 ;
Tit. i. 11). The strongest delineation of heretical
immorality doubtless refers to the future, and has a
prophetic bias (2 Tim. iii. 1, etc.) ; but even here it
is quite obvious from ver. 5, expvres popepwaiv
evaeBelas, etc., that in no case is there a reference to
non-Christians, but to members of the Church. These
Epistles do not attack moral corruption alone ; as a
matter of fact errors too are dealt with. The BtBaa-
KaX'tai Batpcovtcov, mentioned in 1 Tim. iv. 1, are
not alone prophetic of the future, but false doctrine
must have been prevalent even at that time. The
circumstance that the discourses of heretics are
characterized as pvdot, 1 Tim. i. 4, iv. 7, 2 Tim. iv. 4,
i.e. as mere traditions and fables, shows plainly that
these peculiar doctrines implied a whole train of
thought without foundation. They were of a Judaiz-
1 The usual acceptation of this word, to teach strange things, which
Weiss, JV. T. Theologie, p. 452, note 4, still maintains, appears to
us to have been thoroughly refuted by the searching, linguistic
examination of Kblling, I Tim. untersucht, 1882, p. 251, etc. ;
while the acceptation of Otto, die geschichtlichen Verhaltnisse der
Pastoralbriefe, 1860, p. 45, etc. : "to follow strange teachers," so
that the word is not used of errorists, but of members of the Church
led astray, seems to be proved. Kblling, however, has not adequately
considered the indication of strangeness which lies in 'iTipas (comp.
Gal. i. 6).

THE DOCTRINE OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 105
ing character, for their authors represented themselves
as vopoBiBdaKaXoi, 1 Tim. i. 7 ; comp. Tit. iii. 9 ; what
they adduced were pdyat voptxai; i. 14: 'IovBa'ixol
pvdot; and with this corresponds the fact that accord
ing to Tit. i. 1 0 some at least of those seducers were
actually Jewish Christians. Another origin, indeed,
is indicated in 2 Tim. ii. 18, where two of the errorists,
Hymenaeus and Philetus, are mentioned as maintain
ing that the resurrection is already past, so that
another tendency is here seen, spiritualizing, i.e.
dissipating the reality of salvation. What these men
promised was a higher insight into divine things,
a yvcoats, which was indeed a knowledge falsely so
called (1 Tim vi. 201).
In opposition to such errors as morbid aberrations,
1 Tim. vi. 4, these Epistles now emphasize sound
doctrine (vyiatvovaa, 1 Tim. i. 10 ; comp. vi. 3 ;
2 Tim. i. 13, iv. 3; Tit. i. 9, ii. 1, 8); and this
finds its firm abode only in a heart which has become
sound in sincerity of faith (vytaivetv iv ry iriarei,
Tit. i. 13), a heart consciously good, keeping the
1 The appellation ¦tyivhoivvpos y>Zm; is one of the main props on which
is based the theory that the heretics attacked in the pastoral Epistles
are identical with the Gnostics of the second century, Marcion, etc.
Dr. Baur, Die sogen. Pastoralbriefe, 1835, was the first who tried to
establish this view, and believed he had thus by positive criticism
pointed out the iistorical place of the Epistles. In this he is still
followed by Hilgenfeld, EM. in das N. T. 1875, p. 760 ; Holtzmann,
Die Pastoralbriefe, 1880, p. 126, etc. , and others. But the -^ivIiimpK
y^o-is, 1 Tim. vi. 20, which Baur, p. 26 ; Hilgenfeld, ante ; and Holtz
mann, p. 132, take for a current designation of the heretical yvZcis,
proves nothing at all ; for ymais, as a deeper insight into divine
things, was much sought after in the .time of the apostle ; and the
predicate attached is intended to brand the boasted wisdom of the
errorists as false. To conclude from the fact that Hegesippus and
Irenseus characterize the heretical gnosis of their own time by the
term employed in 1 Tim. , that this passage points visibly to the

106 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
conscience pure (1 Tim. i. 5 ; 2 Tim. i. 3). The
pastoral Epistles are characterized by an unmistake-
able tendency to insist upon honest piety, a heart
morally sound, the only guarantee of genuine faith
and sound doctrine. Hence the author inculcates
on Timothy and Titus, as well as on those who
occupy official posts, the observance of moral duties
above all, e.g. 1 Tim. iii. 1-13, iv. 12; Tit. i. 6.
Consistently with this, Church members themselves
are exhorted to the practice of Christian virtues, such
as have been taught and made obligatory by the
redeeming grace of God in Christ, Tit. ii. 11, etc.;
a practice consisting in turning aside from ungodliness
and worldly lusts, and on the other hand in self-
denial, justice and piety (comp. 2 Tim. ii. 20), waiting
in hope for the second coming of Jesus Christ in
glory. This prevailing moral and practical feature of
the Epistles prevents our finding in them, if disposed
to look for it, an already stereotyped Church doctrine,
a doctrinal orthodoxy. In order to make this view
plausible, isolated expressions must first be strained,
Gnostic system of the second century, would be only an optical '
delusion. We have a striking instance of a similar delusion in Baur's
argument, Paulus, 2 Aufl. ii. p. 110, etc. Holtzmann, p. 131, infra,
has rightly apprehended the true state of the case. But when Baur
finds in 1 Tim. vi. 20 an accurate description of Marcion in particular,
on account of his work ' AvTthtrus, and makes ytvixXoyiat x-xiprnToi,
1 Tim. i. 4, refer to the Valentinian speculations regarding the world
of aeons (Pfleiderer, Paulinismus, p. 465), Mangold is right in saying :
" The species of Gnostics that would bind the two elements (the
dualism of Marcion and the Valentinian speculations) into one doc
trine is still to be found " (Irrlehrer der Pastoralbriefe, 3 859, p. 100).
When Holtzmann finds the solution of the riddle offered by the
different varieties of errorists in the pastoral Epistles in the fact that
the author although writing at tbe time of the incipient gnosis yet
intentionally puts himself back to the time of the apostle (p. 157,
etc.), he cuts the Gordian knot with a bold petitio principii.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 107
and the stamp of a formulated rule of faith be im
printed on them ; e.g. irapayyeXla, 1 Tim. i. 1, 5,
must be conceived as a binding confession of faith ; 1
ivroXy, 1 Tim. vi. 14, must be applied to the Church
creed instead of to the comprehensive duty of Christian
fidelity and obedience ; while xaXy bpoXoyta, 1 Tim.
vi. 12, must be interpreted as a formal, stereotyped
confession,2 instead of the simple confession of Christ
as the Saviour, implied in the context by its reference
to Jesus' confession of His Messiahship before the
procurator. The only element of truth in this view
seems to us to consist in the fact that the gospel of
.Christ is regarded as truth, as doctrine, in a pre
ponderating degree.3
The doctrine itself which incidentally appears in
the pastoral Epistles is simply the preaching of Jesus
Christ the Saviour of sinners, given to us by God
the Author of salvation. Here, as in the recognised
Epistles, universal sinfulness forms the background
of all evangelical preaching. Nor is an indication
wanting even here that p'ersonal experience of God's
mercy in Christ has opened the eyes of the apostle
to his own sin and that of humanity, 1 Tim. i. 15,
etc. : ?)Xdev els rbv Koapov dpaprcoXovs acbaai, cov
irpcoTos elpi iyci). The juxtaposition of Koapos and
dpaprcoXoi points to the universality of sin, corre
sponding to the universality of grace. This agrees
with Tit. iii. 3, where, for the purpose of inculcating on
believers gentleness towards all men, they are reminded
7 Pfleiderer, Pautinismus, p. 468, which even Holtzmann, p. 293,
rejects. 2 Holtzmann, p. 185, etc., after the example of Baur, Pastoral
briefe, p. 134.
3 Comp. Weiss, N. T. Theol. p. 450, etc.

108 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
that believers too were all (ypev — Kal yp,eis) before
their conversion (irore) disobedient, serving divers
lusts and pleasures, envious and full of hatred. We
can certainly corroborate the observation of Weiss,
p. 455, note 1, that nowhere in these Epistles is sin
traced back to the adp%. On the other hand, , the
oft-recurring denunciation of heretical immorality,
together with the warning against sensual desires
which drown men in the abyss of destruction (1 Tim.
vi. 9), prove that the idea of the adp% is present, even
if the specific expression of it be wanting ; nor can it
be denied that the pastoral Epistles contain a profound
insight into the power of sin.
The deliverance of sinners is given in Christ, the
one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ
(1 Tim. ii. 4, etc.) ; dvdpcoiros is particularly em
phasized in connection with the et9 peatrys, probably
in opposition to heretical doctrine, as though angels,
or other higher beings, were mediators of salvation.
The descent of Jesus from David is made prominent
in 2 Tim. ii. 8, in order to point out the fulfilment
of the Old Testament promises and the connection
between the Old and the New Covenant. On the
other hand, the deity of Christ is strongly attested
and intimated in the expression in 1 Tim. iv. 16: bs
iepavepmdy ev aapKi, in which the real pre-existence of
Christ before His incarnation and historical appearance
is unmistakeably involved. His historical appearance
is designated in 2 Tim. i. 10 by eiricpdveia, the same
word which is applied in other passages of the pastoral
1 How Holtzmann comes to discover, p. 494, that the author has
fallen out of his rdle, ' ' the Gentile Christian author has almost
forgotten that he is speaking in the person of a native Jew," — this
passes our comprehension.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 109
Epistles, as well as in 2 Thess. ii. 8, to the Redeemer's
second coming.1 As certainly as the Redeemer lives
personally in glory before His future appearing, so
certainly was He also a person before His historical
appearance. The redemption which Christ has brought us is
attached to His crucifixion and resurrection, for Christ
" gave Himself a ransom for all " (dvTiXvrpov, 1 Tim.
ii. 6 ; comp. Xvrpwaaadai, Tit. ii. 14, which can only
refer to the vicarious atoning death).2 The memory
of His resurrection is commended to the pious, 2 Tim.
ii. 8 (pvypbveve 'I. Xpiarbv eyyyeppevov ix vexpcbv).
The essence of the salvation mediated by Christ con
sists, according to 2 Tim. i. 10, in the fact that He
destroyed the power of death, abolished it (xarap-
yyaas tov ddvarov), and brought life and immortality
to light (epcorlaas %coyv xal dcpdapatav). The con
necting of the ideas £coy and cp&s is not foreign to
Pauline thought.4 In Tit. ii. 14 the aim of the
redemption is said to be that Christ might redeem us
1 That Wiipxnix, according to Baur's assertion, N. T. Theol. p.
348, etc., includes a Gnostic idea, and brings out the sudden un-
mediated fact of the entrance of Christ into the world, cannot be
established by the sense and usage of the word in the classics and
in the New Testament ; comp. Cremer, Bibl. theologisches Wortcrbuch.
2 Holtzmann finds the most important deviation from the Pauline
type in this, viz., that xirpafis, Tit. ii. 14, has no religious reference to
the law with its curse, but merely a moral reference to the conduct
of the Redeemer, Pastoralbriefe, p. 169, etc. But in Rom. iii. 24,
etc., xvroxirpuo-is has no direct reference to the law, but to sin and
the guilt of it.
3 Schenkel, Christusbild der Apostel, p. 358, etc, thinks that neither
the crucifixion of Jesus nor His resurrection assumes a prominent
position as a fact of salvation in the pastoral Epistles. But he must
suppress by artificial means the value of the statements in order to
arrive at that result.
4 Against Pfleiderer, Pautinismus, p. 475, who looks upon this com-

110 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
from all iniquity (as a power under which we had fallen
by guilt), and purify unto Himself a peculiar people,
zealous of good works. To understand this, not of
redemption from guilt, but solely of moral renovation,
is to misapprehend and narrow the range of the
Xvrpcoaaadai, i.e. of the idea of ransom from a foreign
power and yoke of bondage, and in like manner to
mistake the xadapl^eiv Xabv irepiovaiov; for the idea
of moral renovation, the power and desire to walk in
virtue, are only to be found in the last words : ^yXcoryv
KaXebv epycov.
The deliverance of sinners accomplished by Christ
is appropriated to individuals through God's mercy
by means of baptism, which is " a laver of regenera
tion" (Xovrpov iraXiyyevealas, without the tov) and
the renewing of the Holy Ghost, Tit. iii. 5. In these
words baptism is unmistakeably designated as an
actual and operative means of grace, since God
delivers souls through it, and makes them partakers
of salvation (eacoaev ypas Bid Xovrpov iraXtyy.). The
cleansing laver of regeneration is essentially a renew
ing of the inner man by the Holy Spirit (Kal dvaxai-
vcoaecos irv. dy. as epexegesis).
bination as more Johannine. One who describes salvation in Christ
as a shining light, 2 Cor. iv. 4, etc. , and perceives the gracious gift
of God in eternal life, Rom. v. 18, 21, vi. 12, etc., viii. 6, and other
passages, may be allowed to think of light and life together, without
being accused of a puTalZxris into an extraneous circle of ideas.
1 Against Pfleiderer, p. 475.
2 According to Baur, N. T. Theol. p. 340, the association of regene
ration and renewal through the Spirit with baptism, is a, thought
foreign to the apostle. But yet the xyixZfalxi and SixxioZertixi, as the
effect of grace, are in 1 Cor. vi. 11 ascribed to baptism, which is cer
tainly included in xnaXoio-xelxi (comp. Heinrici, 1 Kor. p. 176, etc.).
Similarly in Rom. vi. 3, etc. , we find baptism described as a planting
into Christ, into His death and resurrection ; comp. Gal. iii. 27.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. Ill
The fundamental truth of the Pauline gospel, viz.
that the salvation of man and the good pleasure of
God are not procured by our deeds, but are bestowed
through God's mercy, is attested in the clearest
manner in the statement respecting baptism, Tit. iii. 5.
It comes forth plainly in the three Epistles, wherever
Christ the Redeemer, God the Redeemer, " the mystery
of godliness," and redeeming grace are spoken of
(e.g. 1 Tim. iii. 16 ; 2 Tim. i. 9 ; Tit. ii. 11).
Accordingly faith also is insisted upon, though it
is not put in antithesis to the Mosaic law and the
works of law, as in the Epistles to the Galatians and
Romans. IHans is certainly named here and there
among other virtues as one of them, e.g. 1 Tim.
iv. 1 2 : eV dvaarpoepy, iv dydiry, ev iriarei, iv dyveia ;
comp. vi. 11; 2 Tim. iii. 10. But to assert that
irlans in the pastoral Epistles is deprived of its
central religious meaning, and conceived partly as a
moral virtue, partly as a fides quai creditur, " condensed
into orthodoxy," 1 is to overlook completely the fact
that the author, in greeting Timothy as his " own son
in the faith," 1 Tim. i. 2, designates irians as the
element in which alone the spiritual life of a Chris
tian can originate and continue. Moreover, when
Timothy in 1 Tim. vi. 12 is admonished to fight the
noble fight of faith, and to lay hold on eternal life to
which he is called; and in like manner, when the
author, 2 Tim. iv. 7, says of himself that he has
fought the good fight, finished the course, kept the
faith (ryv irlariv rerypyxa), the idea again is that
faith is the fundamental state of the heart toward
God, to obtain and keep which, in spite of all tempta
tion and hostility, is the life-problem of the child of
1 Pfleiderer, p. 416, comp. p. 468, etc. ; Holtzmann, p. 179, etc.

112 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
God. The same conception of faith manifestly lies
at the foundation of a passage in 1 Tim. i. 5, where
faith unfeigned is joined with purity of heart and a
good conscience.
The pastoral Epistles are distinguished by their
insisting upon the maintenance of a good conscience,
the manifestation of faith in genuine piety, and a pure
virtuous walk. It is not the form but the power of
piety on which stress is laid (2 Tim. iii. 5 : pbpepcoais
evaeBelas — Bvvafjiis). The end of the gospel is love
out of a pure heart (1 Tim. i. 5) ; saving grace teaches
us to walk in soberness, righteousness, and godliness
(Tit. ii. 11). The peculiar people of Christ are
redeemed and purified, to the end that they may
be ZyXcorrjs xaXcov epycov, Tit. ii. 14. The man of
God must be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all
good works (2 Tim. iii. 17 : dpnos — irpbs irdv epyov
dyadbv i^yprtapevos ; comp. Tit. iii. 1) ; the exact
contrary of which is laid to the charge of unbelievers,
those whose hearts are defiled. They deny God in
their works, and are reprobate, dBbxtpoi, i.e. not
approved, unto every good work.
Notwithstanding the great value inherent in good
works, yet the hope of eternal life is based not on
works, but on God's mercy in Christ and on faith
(ol peXXovres irtareveiv iir aiiTep (Christ) et9 ^coyv
aleovtov,! Tim. i. 16 ; comp. 2 Tim. iv. 18), according
to which Christ alone, by the complete deliverance
which He affords, helps to the attainment of His
heavenly kingdom. The hope of receiving the
victor's crown of righteousness, which the Saviour as
a righteous judge will bestow, is attached to the
fighting of a good fight, to the finishing of the course,
and finally to the maintenance of the faith, 2 Tim.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 113
iv. 7, etc. Nor is this at variance with what is
said of the rich in 1 Tim. vi. 17, etc. Timothy is
told to warn them against high-mindedness and trust
in uncertain riches, and to lead them to trust rather
in God whose riches and goodness are everlasting ;
and to be rich in good and charitable works, by
which means they shall have treasure in heaven, and
lay up for themselves a good foundation against the
future, in order to obtain eternal life. Not that
charity and diligence in good works are here specified
as the foundation of the hope of blessedness ; on the
contrary, the rich are exhorted to put their hope in
God. But by becoming rich in good works, and in
readiness to communicate, they heap up treasure for
themselves (comp. Matt. vi. 1 9 of treasures in heaven),
forming a good foundation (combination of two
figures : treasure-house and foundation), from which
as a foothold they may lay hold on, obtain true life
(vita vitalis, y ovtcos %coy, according to the accredited
reading).1 The simplest interpretation of the cognate
statement, that those who have used the office of a
deacon well (ol xaX-os Biaxovrjaavres) purchase to
themselves a good degree (xaXbv Badpbv) and great
boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus (1 Tim.
iii. 13), is that such men gain for themselves a firm
and honourable standing which commands the respect
of the Church, and brings with it great joy in the
1 Pfleiderer, Paulinismus, p. 479, etc., makes hpi\ws refer to "the
foundation of blessedness which they build for themselves by their
meritorious works." He has inserted the idea of merit between the
lines, whereas the words say nothing more than that i ich Christians,
if willing to communicate their wealth, store up a treasure (in
heaven) and secure to themselves the foundation of a good conscience
against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life (to
which by God's grace they are called ; comp. ver. 12).
VOL. II. H

114 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
work of faith.1 A thought which Schleiermacher,
krit. Sendschreiben, p. 47, etc., and Hofmann wrongly
judge to be un-Pauline. This much only can we
admit with Weiss, JST. T. Theol. p. 461, that the
frequent mention of reward recalls the early apostolic
mode of teaching.
An important doctrine of the pastoral Epistles is
that of the Church. The Church of the living God,
1 Tim. iii. 15, or "the house of God," i.e. tbe family
of God, is characterized as arvXos xal eBpaicopa t%
dXydelas, the pillar and ground of truth. God is the
Master of this holy household (Bea-rrorys, 2 Tim. ii. 21);
its stewards (o'tKovopoi deov, Tit. i. 7) are the elders
(iirlaKoirot) ; the members of God's family are all
such and only such as God has chosen and acknow-
1 There are two interpretations of this expression, standing at
opposite extremes, — a realistic, clerical one, and an idealistic one
which makes it refer to a future life ; and between these two a middle
interpretation approved by letter and context. Hieronymus and
Theophylact down to several interpreters of the sixteenth century,
and in recent times Baur and Kblling, 1 Tim. p. 137, understand
the word in a realistic, clerical sense, as referring to the promotion of
deacons to the presbyterial-episcopate. But in this case we should
have the comparative instead of the positive (kx\'os). Later usage in
synodical canons proves nothing for the earlier time of the author
(against Kblling). The idealistic interpretation referring it to a
future life, a higher stage of blessedness (Theodoret, Flatt, Pfleiderer,
p. 479 ; Holtzmann, p. 182), is obliged to bring in the idea of the
next world, as Theodoret has most naively done by adding the words
h t$ piWovTi (Zitp, while Holtzmann's appeal to the Trxpfao-lx iv vtiittu
proves nothing. Consequently Pfleiderer's denunciation of the
un-Pauline doctrine of works as the foundation of blessedness is
disposed of. Pfleiderer does not bring in the idea of expectancy, but
this is done by Wiesinger (against Holtzmann, p. 323). Nothing in
the text leads us beyond the present life ; we hold to Huther's
interpretation, referring it to moral dignity and respect, with cheer
fulness in work and administration, while we cannot consider the
combination of this interpretation with that of future blessedness
(van Oosterzee in Lange's Bibelwerk) a happy one.

THE PAULINE DOCTRINE: LUKE'S WRITINGS. 115
ledged for His own (ixXexrol deov, Tit. i. 1 ; ol ovres
avrov, 2 Tim. ii. 19). It is evident that a distinction
is here drawn within the Church : in it there are true
believers, who actually belong to God by virtue of their
election through grace, but at the same time by virtue
of their own departure from iniquity (2 Tim. ii. 19&);
but it likewise contains such as are guilty of unright
eousness. The latter are indeed members of the Church
externally, for they name the name of the Lord, i.e.
of Christ as their Lord, they profess to be His, but
without any claim, for as a matter of fact they have
not renounced iniquity. In 2 Tim. ii. 20 they are
compared to axevy dnplas, such as are to be found
in a great house, while between the axevy els rtp,yv
there still exists a relative distinction like that between
vessels of gold and silver on the one hand, and vessels
of wood and earth on the other hand, according as
Christians of moral purity and virtue strive to do good
work in the service of God (ver. 21). An unconditioned
universality of grace is therefore not mentioned.
The severe condemnation of errorists and their moral
perversity makes such a view inadmissible.1
The influence of Pauline life-work and teaching
may be perceived in the writings of Luke, in his
Gospel as well as in the Acts of the Apostles, both of
1 First Baur, Die sogen. Pastoralbriefe, 1835, and N. T. Theol.
1864, p. 346, etc., then Hilgenfeld, Einleitung, p. 254, and Holtzmann,
Pastoralbriefe, 1880, p. 169, etc., have tried to find in these Epistles
an un-Pauline universalism of redeeming grace (in opposition to the
aristocratic particularism of the Gnostic system). They appealed in
the first place to 1 Tim. ii. 4, then to Tit. ii. 11, as if the trnxiaas
Z,ms were not also declared in Rom. v. 18 to be destined for att men.
But neither here nor in 1 Tim. ii. 4 do we find the meaning that the
saving gift of justification by faith, actual deliverance by means of a
knowledge of the truth, is bestowed on all without exception.

116 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
which have not very happily been called produc
tions of the Pauline school. The spiritual analogy
between the third Gospel and the Apostle Paul was
already observed by Christian antiquity. Irenseus
expressly designates the Gospel of Luke a copy of the
gospel which Paul preached, Adversus Hmr. iii. 1 : xal
Aovxds Be, 6 axoXovdos LTavXov, to vir' ixetvov
xypvaabpevov evayyeXtov iv fiiBXlco xaredero.
In fact, the universalism of Christianity and the doc
trine of unmerited grace towards sinners, as those who
are justified by faith not by works, are so clearly
imprinted on the third Gospel, that we cannot fail to
recognise in it the Pauline spirit. Universalism, or
the fact that redemption through Christ is intended for
humanity, is indeed already indicated in the genealogy
of Jesus, inasmuch as this is traced back not merely
to Abraham (as in Matthew), but to Adam (iii. 23-
28) ; for not only is the limitation of the Redeemer
and His work to Israel thus indirectly denied, but
Jesus as a second progenitor of humanity is contrasted
with the first (comp. Rom. v. 12, etc.; 1 Cor. xv.
21, etc., 45-49). Moreover, the narratives of the
mission of the seventy disciples as opposed to the
twelve appointed for Israel, and of the merciful and
grateful Samaritan, bear the stamp of a similar view
and of a reference to the heathen mission. On the
other hand, in close connection with the above
characteristic, great prominence is given to the idea
that grace is a free and gratuitous gift to sinners,
justification not being earned by works, but appropri
ated by faith. We call to mind the grateful sinner,
vii. 37-50, to whom Jesus says: y irians aov
aeacoxe ae ; the penitent and believing malefactor on
the cross (xxiii. 40-43) ; as well as the parables of

THE PAULINE DOCTRINE : LUKE'S WRITINGS. 117
the Lost Sheep, the Piece of Silver, and the Prodigal
Son (xv. 1-32); the praying publican as contrasted
with the self-righteous Pharisee (xviii. 9-1 4) ; and
the confession of the servants, who even when they
have done everything, acknowledge themselves to be
unprofitable servants (xvii. 10), and other examples
in addition.
We have, nevertheless, no foundation for attribut
ing to Luke an antinomian and anti-Israelite disposi
tion, nor for accusing him of, a prevailing party interest
with respect to doctrine and history as a leading
motive in the composition of his Gospel. As regards
the former, it is most distinctly contradicted by the
saying of Jesus in xvi. 17 : evKoircorepbv ianv tov
ovpavbv Kat ryv yrjv irapeXdetv rj tov vopov piav
xepaiav ireaeiv, which ascribes a permanent value to
the law, unless, with Hilgenfeld, Theol. Jahrb. 1853,
p. 231, etc.; Baur, Christenthum der drei ersten Jahrb.
p. 69, etc., note 2 ; 2nd ed. p. 75, note, we adopt the
reading of the antinomian Marcion : tcov Xbycov pov,
instead of tov vbptov (comp. Anger, Synopsis, p. 34;
and p. xxxix. etc.). But apart from the fact, in
recent times universally admitted, that Marcion arbi
trarily altered the text in many passages, in the
interest of his system, both wording and context are
against Marcion's reading, and favourable to the usual
text. Where can a passage be found in which the
Redeemer Himself or an apostle speaks of Jesus'
sayings as of a written word ? The word xepala, the
small part of a letter, applies only to Old Testament
writing, but not at all to the words of Jesus, which
are spirit and life. But even the context demands
tov vopov, inasmuch as before and after ver. 17,
reference is made only to the Old Testament, and not

118 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
to the words of Jesus ; for the statement respecting
divorce in ver. 18 also implies the validity of the
divine arrangement in the Old Testament, and not the
abolition of it (comp. Stud, und Krit. 1854, p. 807,
etc.). Moreover, the narrative of the rich man in
xvi. 19, etc., culminates in words that strictly belong
to this connection, ver. 2 9 : e^ovat Mcovaea koX tovs
irpoepyras' aKovadrcoaav avreov ; and ver. 31: et
M.covaea>s Kal rebv irpoepyrcbv ovk aKOVovatv, ovB iav
ns e'« veKpcbv dvaary ireiadyaovrai, whereby the
impression of the resurrection of Jesus is made
indirectly dependent upon obedience to the word and
Scripture of the Old Testament. To impute to
Luke's Gospel a party design as its leading motive is
absolutely forbidden by the preface, i. 1-4. We
must allow the evangelist his own design, viz. to
write history that is authentic and credible, all the
more that sacred history is his subject (comp. Reuss,
ante, pp. 622, etc., 620). But this naturally does not
exclude the idea that the historian narrates things in
the way in which he sees them, corresponding to the
insight into the truth which was given him. The
same remark applies to the Acts as the second part of
one and the same work (Acts i. 1). As certainly as
Pauline uuiversalism stands out in the design of the
book and in a number of individual discourses and
facts, as certainly as the truth of free grace and
justification by faith frequently appear, so also is the
presence of piety towards the law and the people of
Israel unmistakeable ; the form of its manifestation
being truly Pauline. On the other hand, we are not
justified by facts in suspecting party interest through
out, whether of a conciliatory or apologetic nature,
nor yet the invention and conscious falsification of

DOCTRINE OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 119
history ; nor is it consistent with moral obligation
towards the personality of the author to pass over his
reverence towards God's holy word, which cannot be set
aside with impunity even from a scientific standpoint.

THIED SECTION.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
The Epistle to the Hebrews is a jewel in the
New Testament canon, both on account of the in
comparable peculiarity of its doctrine and its practical
life-penetrating aim. To all appearance the writing
is addressed to Palestinian Jewish Christians, especi
ally to the Christian Church at Jerusalem, having
for its object the preservation of Christians of the
Hebrews from the threatening danger of apostasy
from Christ and complete relapse into unbelieving
Judaism (x. 25, etc.: pJg iyKaraXeiirovres ryv iiri-
ervvaycoyyv eavrcbv ; ver. 29: d tov vlbv tov deov
xarairaryaas xal rb alpa rijs Biadyxys koivov
yyyadpevos ; vi. 29: dvaaravpovvras eavrols tov
vlbv tov deov). The author's only aim in unfolding
his thoughts is to meet this danger, and to raise
Christians among the Hebrews to a position of
perfect joyfulness and resolute independence, in
opposition to Judaism.1 Far from renouncing their
faith in Christ and separating themselves from His
1 It leads to a total misapprehension of the value of the doctrine
of the Epistle to the Hebrews, if we follow the example of Baur,
N. T. Theol. p. 230, etc., who treats the doctrinal system of
the Epistle as if it moved solely in a self-sufficing world of ideas,
remote from reality and the actual life of the congregation and the
Church.

120 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
Church, he exhorts them, on the contrary, to go forth
unto Jesus without the camp, bearing His reproach
(xiii. 13); in other words, he calls upon them to
withdraw from communion with the Jewish cult
and national life. He enforces this far - reaching
demand by an abstract, profound, and thoroughly
characteristic view. The central thought of his
doctrine is " Jesus Christ the Mediator of a new
covenant" (ix. 15, xii. 24). Herein is contained a
treasury of important truths ; unity and destruction
between the old and the new covenant ; the defi
ciencies of the old, the advantages of the new ;
and again, the personality of Jesus Christ, who
as the Son of God and true man is the Mediator
of the new covenant ; the Mediator of the new
covenant as its high priest ; its sacrifice and its
agency : the New Testament covenant people, their
growth, life, and final aim.
1. The excellence of the new covenant, its
infinite superiority to the old covenant, is an idea
which runs throughout the whole Epistle. This com
parison presupposes nevertheless a union between
them. A covenant on the part of God with one
people exists in the former as well as iu the latter
(viii. 6, etc., 9, etc. : xpelrrcov Btadyxy). God is the
Author of the covenant between the people and
Himself, a self-revelation of God to men is found
everywhere in it (comp. i. 1 : XaXyaas — eXdXyae).
Every covenant contains the law as well as the
promise of God to its members (vbpos, ivroXy,
ivreXXeadai, ix. 19, etc.; iirayyeXtai, viii. 6, iv. 1,
etc.). Those who follow the call are partakers of
the covenant, and become a family of God (oikos
deov, iii. 6), a nation of God (viii. 10).

DOCTRINE OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 121
The author recognises a double covenant : the one
mediated by Moses, the other by Christ (iii. 1, etc.,
viii. 6, etc.). The distinction rests on the Old
Testament promise of God contained in Jer. xxxi.
31, etc. ; Heb. viii. 8, etc., x. 16, with reference to
the new covenant of the future. They have no
point of similarity ; the new one stands high above
the old. The old covenant was faulty (ovk dpepir-
T09, viii. 7). The divine censure seems directed
only to the human members of the old covenant
(pepepbpevos avrovs, viii. 8); but more closely con
sidered, it points to the imperfection of the divine
institution itself in a threefold aspect: in the first
place, it is not available for all where revelation and
knowledge of God are concerned, and always requires
human mediation (viii. 11) ; secondly, the divine
law is presented to man in a written form, and
remains an external command (viii. 10); in the
third place, the old covenant is still imperfect
with respect to the forgiveness of sin and the mercy
of God (viii. 12). Consistently with this the com
mandment of the old covenant is characterized as
weak and unfruitful (dadevys xal dvcoepeXys), because
it was not able to make a single thing perfect
(oiiBev ireXeicoae, vii. 18, etc.). The revelation of
the knowledge of God which the old covenant
attests, is mediated on the one hand by angels, on
the other hand by prophets : by angels, inasmuch as
the Mosaic law is a " word spoken by angels " (d Bi'
dyyeXcov XaXydeh Xoyos, ii. 2) ; an assumption
which does not rest upon the words of the Old
Testament, but on a tradition current in Israel,
alluded to by the LXX. in Deut. xxxiii. 2, and
directly adopted by Stephen, Acts vii. 53, comp.

122 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
xxxv. 38, and by Paul, Gal. iii. 19: Biarayels oV
dyyeXcov. The law was given by the mediation
of angels, other revelations of God in the Old
Testament by prophets, while the revelation of the
new covenant was communicated by no less a
person than the Son, the image of the Father, who
stands high above the angels (i. 1, etc.). The centre
and essence of the covenant between God and man
is, with the author, the introduction of reconciliation.
The question therefore turns on three points, the
personal mediator, the local sanctuary, and the sin-
offering itself. In all these respects the old
covenant proves itself deficient. The Levitical
priesthood, especially where the high priest who
mediates reconciliation is concerned, is insufficient,
in the first place because the high priest himself is
compassed with infirmity, tainted with sin (irepixeirai
dadeveiav, v. 2 ; ey^ovres dadeveiav, vii. 28), so that
before he can offer up sacrifice for the sin of the
people, he must first offer up sacrifice for his own sin
(vii. 27). In the second place, the Levitical priest
hood is insufficient because the priests are subject to
death, and death puts an end to their priesthood,
their priesthood is not permanent (vii. 23 : Bid to
davdrep xcoXiieadat irapapevetv), so that many priests
are required. Again, the sanctuary in which the
reconciliation takes place is imperfect, because earthly
in its creation, it is a dyiov xoapixbv (ix. 1) ; the
tabernacle, with all its appurtenances, is erected by
men, made with hands (viii. 2, ix. 24 ; comp. ver. 11 :
yeipoirolyra). Finally, the worship itself, with its
centre the sin-offering, is defective, because by virtue
of the ordinances belonging to it (Bixaicopara
Xarpeias, ix. 1) it must be daily repeated, and effects

DOCTRINE OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 123
no permanent reconciliation (x. 11); while in its
holiest functions it is restricted exclusively to the
person of the high priest, and to one day in the
whole year (ix. 7). But the sacrifices themselves
being animals (alpa aXXorpiov, ix. 25 ; alpa
ravpcov, etc., x. 4), can only effect an outward puri
fication, and cannot purge the conscience from guilt
or procure forgiveness of sins (ix. 13, 22). The
final aim of sacrifice, the perfecting, i.e. the liberating
of the conscience, is therefore not attained by the
Levitical sacrifices (xara avveiByaiv reXeicoaai, ix. 9) ;
they tend rather to bring sins to remembrance
(dvdpvyaiv dpaprimv, x. 3). Hence it is not too
much to say that the Mosaic law is weak and un
profitable (dadeves xal dvcoepeXes, vii. 18). The old
covenant has its aim not in itself, but in something
beyond and above it ; it is only a shadow and type
of the new covenant with its good things (inrbSeiypa
xal axid, viii. 5, x. 1).
2. The infinite superiority of the new covenant to the
old rests first and foremost on the person of its mediator.
The old covenant required many priests, because they
were all mortal men (vii. 23);- moreover, they were
subject to weakness and sin. But the Mediator of the
new covenant is one who continues ever, and has
an unchangeable priesthood (vii. 24). Christ is the
perfect, unique Mediator, not only of divine reve
lation (i. 1), but also of the reconciliation and the
fulfilment of all the promises, because He is the Son
of God, the first-begotten (i. 6 : irpcorbroKos), i.e. above
all creatures, infinitely exalted even above the angels
(i. 4, etc.), for He is " the brightness of the glory of
God, and the express image of His person " (ver. 3) ;
i.e. the absolute image of God, in whom His essence is

124 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
fully expressed (comp. Baur, K T. Theol. p. 235;
Riehm, Lehrbegriff des Hebr. p. 279, etc.); in other
words, He is of the same nature with the Father.
This harmonizes with the fact that the Son Himself is
addressed as d debs (i. 8), that all the angels worship
Him (i. 6), and that the very same divine honour is
paid to Him as it is customary throughout the
Scriptures to ascribe to God the Father (xiii. 21: cp r\
Bo^a els tovs aleovas tcov alcovcov). In short, the
Godhead of Christ is attested in this Epistle as clearly
and unequivocally as possible. We cannot wonder
that eternity and pre-existence are attributed to Him.
The very expression : elaep^bpevos els rbv xbapov,
x. 5, used of Christ's incarnation, implies His pre-
existence ; and eternity is still more clearly ascribed
to Him when, as the type of Melchisedec, He is said
to have pyre dp^yv ypepcov pyre £coys reKos. He,
the eternal Son of God, is the instrument not only
of the creation of the world (i. 2), but also of its
preservation (i. 3 : (pepcov rd irdvra rep pypari rrjs
Bwdpecos avrov, He upholds all things by the word
of His power). To Him, by divine appointment,
belongs the sovereignty of the world, the inheritance
of all things (i. 2 : bv edyxev xXypovbpov iravrcov).
But the allegation that " Christ as a purely divine
being is therefore removed to the sphere of the super-
sensuous " (Baur, 2V. T. Theol. p. 236), is refuted by
the testimony of the Epistle to the true humanity of
Jesus Christ. The author emphatically declares that
the Son of God " took not on Him the nature of
angels, but the seed of Abraham, wherefore in all
things it behoved Him to be made like unto His
brethren " (ii. 1 7, etc.) ; i.e. that He had a true
human nature, and partook of flesh and blood like

DOCTRINE OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 125
other children of God, could suffer death (ii. 14), and
feel the closest sympathy with His brethren (iv. 15).
He felt all our weaknesses, and was tempted (to sin)
in all points like as we are (xard irdvra xad'
bpoibryra, iv. 15), but with the one distinction that
He had no sin (^copls dpaprlas). The greater the
stress laid upon the similarity between Christ and
mankind, both quantitatively (xard irdvra) and quali
tatively (xad' bpoibryra), the more decided is the
difference in the complete sinlessness of the Redeemer,
which is designated in another context, ix. 14, by
the Greek word dp,copos. As it was necessary that
a sacrificial animal should be corporeally spotless
according to the Levitical precept, so Christ offered
Himself to God on our behalf as a morally unblemished
sacrifice. It is plain from the context that this
moral purity and sinlessness has reference to the life
of Jesus before His atoning death, and not to His
perfection after the crucifixion and resurrection
(contrary to Bleek, Comm). Christ could only make
this perfect offering through the instrumentality of
the Spirit dwelling in Him, and the living power of
the eternal God vouchsafed to Him on this account
(Bid irvevparos alcovlov in the same passage ; comp.
Riehm, p. 525, etc.). What is here expressed by
apropos, is more fully described in vii. 26 by oaios,
dxaxos, dplavTOS, xeycnpto~p,evos, dirb tcov dpaprcoXrov :
dxaxos, harmless, free from guile ; apblavros, not
having the smallest stain of impurity, completely and
essentially separated from sin, these three predicates
forming in fact a climax, which, however, is nega
tive throughout ; while oo-to9, sanctified by God, is
positive in character. This last includes especially
a God-fearing, pious frame of mind (evXdBeia, v. 7 :

126 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
" and was heard in that He feared "), humility by
virtue of which He took no honour unto Himself
(v. 5 : ovx eavrov iBbgaaev, etc.), fidelity and obedience
which He manifested towards God in His holy
calling (ii. 1 7, iii. 2 : iriarbv ovra rep iroiyaavri
avrov; v. 8: epade t^z/ viraxogv ; comp. x. 7-9:
iroiyaai to deXypd aov). His obedience and fidelity
in His high-priestly calling formed the well-spring of
His compassion toward sinners (ii. 1 7 : iXeypcov ; iv.
1 5 : Bvvdpevos avpiradyaai) ; His endurance of shame
and suffering, His stedfast faith in which He became
our author and finisher (d rys iriarecos dpxyybs xal
TeXetcorys, xii. 2, etc.). In all these respects He is
our truly human exemplar as to religious feeling and
moral conduct ; the more so because He had a
genuinely human origin, a growth and development
in practice and experience, which is consciously and
purposely expressed by pavddvetv iiiraxoyv, dep' &v
eirade, v. 8 : Bid iradypdrcov reXeicoaat, ii. 1 0, etc. ;
comp. ii. 17, where an inner origin and growth of
the merciful, high - priestly sympathy and fidelity
of Jesus as a result of His moral likeness to His
brethren is clearly attested. This was enhanced by
the humiliation and weakness which He suffered in
the ypepat rys aapKos avrov, v. 7, of His own free
will (ii. 16), although even in this state He was and
still remained the Son of God (v. 8: Kalirep cov vlbs).
By this path of discipline, suffering, and obedience
the Mediator attained to reXelcoais, i.e. to internal,
moral perfection (ii. 1 0 : Bid iradypdrcov reXetwaai),
to the perfect fulfilment of His divine calling (vii. 2 8 :
lko9 et'9 rbv alcbva rereXeicopevos), and finally, to the
absolute perfection of a state of participation in
heavenly glory, exalted above weakness and suffering

DOCTRINE OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 127
(according to the context of the same passage). To
this goal the Mediator attained by His resurrec
tion (xiii. 20 : d avayaycov eK vexpmv) and ascension
(vi. 20: etayXdev; ix. 12: elaykdev els rd dyia; comp.
ver. 24: et9 avrov tov ovpavbv). The author manifestly
does not take a sensuous view of the latter, as is shown
by the expressions in iv. 14: BieXyXvdcos robs ovpavovs,
and in vii. 26 : vtyyXorepos rcov ovpavcov yevbpevos.
In conformity with the apostolic preaching, the
author attests with peculiar emphasis the Redeemer's
sitting at the right hand of God, i. 13, after Ps. ex. ;
comp. ver. 3 : ev Bei;ia tt)9 peyaXcoavvys iv v^yXois ;
viii. 1, x. 12, xii. 2. Its repeated description
by peyaXcoavvy, etc., shows that divine honour,
power, and world - dominion are thought of ; comp.
i. 2 : xXypovbpos iravrcov ; ii. 8 : virord^at avrcp rd
irdvra ; ver. 9 : Boijy xal ripy iareepavcopevos. Be
lievers expect His visible second advent to realize
their complete salvation (ix. 28).
3. The Mediator of the new covenant is Jesus
Christ as the High Priest without a parallel (dpxtepevs
piyas, iv. 14; lepevs peyas iirl rbv olxov tov deov).
He is this in two respects, both by virtue of His
mild and merciful disposition toward sinners, His
brethren, for whom He intercedes before God (ii. 1 7 :
eXeypcov, etc., iv. 15, etc.), and also by virtue of His
relation to God who called and appointed Him to the
high-priesthood, v. 5, etc., i.e. as " a high priest after
the order of Melchisedec," v. 10, vii. 1, etc., not as
a Levitical high priest (xard ryv rd^iv 'Aapcov) ; for
He belonged to the tribe of Judah, not Levi (vi. 14),
but as a High Priest of royal dignity and everlasting
priestly atoning power (vii. 16 : xard Bvvapiv ^corjs
dxaraXvTov ; comp. ver. 24: lepcoavvy dirapdBarosj.

128 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
Jesus Christ is the true and absolutely perfect High
Priest — (1) because He is sinlessly holy, so that He
had not, like a Levitical high priest, to present an
offering first for His own sin (vii. 27) ; (2) because
He no longer performs His office on earth but in
heaven, in the invisible sanctuary not made with
hands, of which the Mosaic tabernacle is a mere
shadow x (viii. 2, etc., ix. 24) ; (3) because He did
not offer a sacrifice of animals, but Himself as a
sinless offering, and entered into the sanctuary
through His own blood (ix. 12, x. 10); (4) by His
redeeming death He established the new covenant,
and effected the forgiveness of sins and an ever-
lasting all-sufficient redemption, since He entered for
us into the presence of God once for all (ix. 12 : iepdiral;,
alcovlav Xvrpcoaiv evpdpevos; ver. 23, etc., x. 12, 14);
(5) the heavenly, high-priestly ministration of Christ
(XeiTovpyla, Xetrovpybs, viii. 2, 6) has an infinite
superiority to the priestly performances of a Levitical
kind, because it takes place in the. true sanctuary, the
holy of holies in heaven, and Christ presents Himself
to God for us (ix. 24). The exalted Mediator exer
cises an everlasting, uninterrupted activity on our
1 This point forms a peculiarity of the doctrine of the Epistle to
the Hebrews, which was first recognised by the Socinians, but
exaggerated, as if Christ had not been a High Priest on earth, but
only became a High Priest by His exaltation. This view is still shared
by Messner, Lehre der Ap. p. 297, etc., and Schenkel, Chrislusbild ,
p. 335. But there must be limitation, as Riehm, p. 46, etc., and
Weiss, N. T. Theol. p. 506, etc., have pointed out, so that while
the Epistle to the Hebrews puts the central idea of Christ's high
priesthood in heaven, after His exaltation, His sacrificial death was
already estimated as a priestly performance. This is also recognised
by Baur, N. T. Theol. p. 247, "that the sacrifice of Christ termi
nated at His entrance into heaven." Still the sacrifice offered on the
cross, ix. 26, comp. ver. 14 and viii, 3, x. 12, is an indispensable
and fundamental priestly transaction.

DOCTRINE OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 129
behalf by His intercession (ivrvyxdvetv virep avrcov,
vii. 25) and His love, applying to us full salvation
(aco^eiv eh to iravreXes).
4. The covenant people of the New Testament
become the people of God by divine calling and by
the preaching of the message of salvation to indi
viduals (xXyais eirovpdvios, iii. 1; KeKXyptevoi, ix. 15;
evyyyeXiaptevot, iv. 2, 6). But this is not effected by
the call from without, the hearing of the word alone.
Those who have heard may nevertheless come short,
and lose the promised blessings (iv. 1, etc.) by un
belief (direldeia, iv. 6). A twofold condition is
required for entrance among the people of God ; a
change of mind, i.e. turning away from dead works
(vi. 1 : perdvoia dirb vexpaiv epycov) which are not
actually sinful, but deficient in that true life im
parted by the Spirit of God. That this change of
mind is, on the one hand, a work of God's grace,
transforming and renewing the inmost mind of man,
follows from vi. 6 ; but from what is said respecting
Esau in xii. 17, it may be inferred that it is also an
effect of human seeking and striving. Next to re
pentance and change of mind, faith is a condition of
entrance into the new covenant (ir tarts iirl deov, vi. 1,
i.e. a turning of the mind toward God). The axiom
that it is impossible to please God without faith, is
clearly and unequivocally laid down in xi. 6 ; comp.
x. 38, etc. This already implies that faith is not
mere thought and knowledge, but a moral turning
and attitude of the mind, full of confidence and joyful
trust ; comp. the utterance respecting faith in xi. 1 :
it is iXiri^opevcov virbaraats, stedfast confidence
regarding the things that are hoped for, and irpaypdrcov
eXeyxos ov BXeiropevcov, an evidence, an assurance
VOL. II. I

130 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
of things not seen, therefore a matter of the heart.
Unbelief, on the contrary, is a thing of the mind
and will, diriaria but not diretdeta, disobedience
towards God's holy will, mistrust, infidelity to God,
proceeding from an evil heart (diretdeta, iv. 6 ; xapBia
irovypd dirtarlas, iii. 1 2 ; unbelief is a turning away
from God, diroaTpecpeadat, xii. 25 ; diroaryvat dirb
deov, iii. 1 2 ; viroareXXeadai, x. 3 8 ; axXypvvetv ryv
KapBlav, iii. 8, 13). Because faith has to do with
things hoped for, with the promises of God (xi. 1),
therefore " hope " frequently in this Epistle takes the
place of " faith ; " instead of " profession of faith," the
author speaks of "profession of hope " (x. 23 : bpoXoyla
t»j9 iXirlBos).
If the preaching of the gospel find a willing hear
ing (ii. 1) with change of mind and faith (vi. 1),
there is no further hindrance to entrance into the
new covenant by baptism and the laying on of hands
(in Bairrtapcov BtBaxy, vi. 2, the reference is mainly
but not exclusively to baptism). Both acts, however,
are conceived not as mere ceremonies, but chiefly as
effectual means of grace, purifying the conscience from
the guilt of sin by virtue of the atonement (x. 22),
securing enlightenment (vi. 4 : cpcoriadevres ; comp.
x. 26), the gift of the Holy Ghost (peroxot yevydevres
irvevparos dyiov, vi. 4), and an entrance into the
eternal, unchangeable kingdom of God (BaatXela
dadXevros, xii. 28).
This leads to a direct conclusion as to the blessings
embraced in life in the new covenant, namely, as a con
sequence of an enlightened knowledge of salvation
(x. 26: iiriyvcoats t^9 dXydeias), the blessed enjoy
ment of reconciliation (vi. 4: yevaaadai rijs Bcopeds
rys iirovpavlov), and the foretaste of future happiness

DOCTRINE OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 131
(vi. 5: yevaaadai Bvvdpets peXXovros aleovos). It is
the certainty of reconciliation, through faith, which
assures the heart of God's favour (xi. 6 : evapearyaai)
and of BiKaioavvy (x. 38, xi. 4) ; hence the author
calls the gospel of Christ the A0709 BiKaioavvys, v. 13,
i.e. the word which procures righteousness before
God and bestows true life (e'« iriarecos ^yaerai, x. 38).
In accordance with the promise contained in Jer.
xxxL 33, believers become members of the people of
God (viii. 10), even children of God (xii. 5, 7, etc.).
The author, con amore, describes life in the new
covenant as a joyful approach to God (iv. 16 : irpo-
aepxcopeda perd irappyalas rep dpovcp TJ79 ^o/3iT09 ;
comp. vii. 25, x. 1 : irpoaepxbpevoi ; ver. 22, xi. 6),
a continual service (Xarpeveiv deep ^cbvrt, ix. 14;
Xarpeveiv evapearcov rep deep, xii. 28), with priestly
offering up of sacrifice in word and deed, i.e. in
thanksgiving and praise to God, in joyful confession
(dvaiat alveaecos — xapirbs %et\ec<w opoXoyovvrcov,
etc., xiii. 15) as well as in pious beneficence (einrotia
Kal Kotvcovia, xiii. 16 ; dydiry Kal KaXd epya, x. 24).
The duties of believers are thus indicated, the most
essential of which are constancy of faith, stedfast
trust in God and His promises, enduring strength of
spirit, even under trials, reproaches, and persecutions
(vi. 11: irXypocpopia 7-779 iXirlBos a-xpt reXovs —
paKpodvpiia; x. 36 : viropovy). The practical aim of
the Epistle is to strengthen the minds of the readers,
to fortify them against indolence and moral deadness,
and to preserve them from apostasy and covenant-
breaking, which lead to fearful judgment. Instead of
relapse and apostasy, believers are rather to strive
after moral growth, to change their state of childish
minority for the maturity and perfection (TeXeicoais)

132 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
of manhood, to lay aside the first principles of Chris
tian knowledge (aroixeta rys apx^ t&v Xoycov rov
deov), and to rise to a fuller and more independent
understanding and discernment (v. 12, etc.), to attain
to the full assurance and strength of hope (irXypocpopla
tt79 iXirlBos, vi. 11), and in the power of Christ to
strive after holiness (xii. 10, xiii. 1, etc., 20, etc.).
The ultimate aim of the covenant people of the
New Testament is the perfect realization of the
divine promises to believers (KXypovopovvres ryv
iirayyeXlav, vi. 12, etc., i.e. the acorypia, that perfect
blessedness which we can only attain through the
mediation of Christ the Author and Finisher of our
faith, xii. 2). This aim the author represents in
colours drawn from the old covenant (Ps. xcv. 11) as
the blessed rest of the people of God (iii. 7, etc., iv. 1,
etc. : Kardiravats deov ; aaBBariapbs, ver. 9, the
eternal sabbatism in the heavenly home, the Jerusalem
above, xii. 22 : iroXts deov £wvtos 'lepovaaXyp. iirov-
pdvios; comp. xiii. 14).
5. The foregoing short sketch of the ideas contained
in the Epistle must impress the reader with its
peculiarity. It combines qualities which seem to be
contradictory ; it gives the impression of a treatise,
and is yet a genuine letter drawn from life and
written for life, following definite aims ; it is a prac
tical exhortation (xiii. 22 : X0709 rys irapaKXyaecos).
Its colouring is of the Old Testament cast, and yet
the image which it projects belongs completely to the
New Testament. How varying is the relation pre
sented between the author and the Apostle Paul !
Yet both the Church of Christian antiquity and the
science of modern times have given quite opposite
judgments on this subject. In the first centuries the

DOCTRINE OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 133
tradition of the Alexandrian Church attributed this
Epistle to the Apostle Paul ; while the Western, and
particularly the Roman Church, denied his author
ship. In like manner there is an opposition in the
judgment of modern science respecting the character
of the doctrine contained in the Epistle. Some, as
Messner, Lehre der Apostel, p. 293, etc.; Kostlin,
Theol. Jahrb. 1854, p. 462, etc. ; Pfleiderer, Pautinis
mus, p. 324, etc., declare the doctrinal system of the
Epistle to be Pauline in essence ; others, for example
David Schulz, Comm. 1818; K. Planck, Theol. Jahrb.
1847, Heft 2-14, look upon it as un-Pauline. It is
certain that the spiritual atmosphere which breathes
upon us from the Epistle is thoroughly different from
that of the Pauline Epistles. The latter take their
stand upon religio-moral ground, while this Epistle
has its root in the soil of religious worship. The
correlatives round which, as poles, everything moves,
are in the former the law and the gospel, in the latter
the defective and the perfect priesthood. The author
doubtless recognises the law also as a prominent
pillar, besides the priesthood ; but with him the priest
hood and not the law is prescriptive : " For the priest
hood being changed, there is made of necessity a
change also of the law," vii. 12: peraTidepevys t?}9
lepcoavvys — Kal vopov perddeats ylverai. Conse
quently the law is dependent on the priesthood, not
the priesthood on the law. It is true, Paul gives a
sacrificial meaning to the death of Christ on the cross,
but does not ascribe priesthood to His person ; while,
on the 'other hand, the Epistle to the Hebrews never
applies to the work of Christ the idea of the KaraX-
Xayn, so full of meaning for Paul (vi. 38). Consistently
with this the Epistle to the Hebrews does not, like

134 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
Paul, make Christ's crucifixion and resurrection the
two poles, but His death and heavenly priesthood.
While Paul contrasts law and grace, righteousness by
works and righteousness by faith, this Epistle makes
the new covenant superior to the old, inasmuch as it
possesses the true service of God, the true sanctuary,
the heavenly holy of holies, the one ever-valid offer
ing, the eternal High Priest. Nowhere in this Epistle,
as with the Gentile apostle, do we find evangelical
freedom treated as emancipation from the Mosaic law;
on the contrary, its renunciation is here imposed on
Jewish Christians as a duty, because they are no
longer bound to the Levitical worship. The author
has not in view the coequal universality of grace and
sin, not the calling of the Gentiles into the kingdom
of God, but only the " seed of Abraham," the people
of Israel (ii. 16, etc., xiii. 12), as called to the salva
tion of Christ. Nevertheless, in his judgment of the
Mosaic law he goes even farther than Paul : for Paul
takes the vbpos to be irvevparixbs (Rom. vii. 14),
while the present author calls it a vbpos ivroXys
aapxlvys (vii. 16), which is weak and unprofitable,
and makes nothing perfect (ver. 18, etc.), for which
reason this law is changed and done away (dderyais,
comp. viii. 13 : to iraXaiovpevov xal yy pdaKov eyyiis
depaviapov) ; while the divine kingdom of the new
covenant can never be moved (xii. 28), since Jesus
Christ is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever
(xiii. 8).
All these things being taken into account, it is
inappropriate to represent this Epistle as the produc
tion of a Pauline school, or as being characterized
by Paulinism however modified by Alexandrian
thought (Pfleiderer, p. 325, etc.). But neither can we

THE LATER DOCTRINE OF THE APOSTLE PETER. 135
fully accede to the view of Riehm and Weiss, that
the roots of the doctrinal view given in the Epistle
lie in " early apostolic Jewish Christianity as distinct
from Paulinism." The view and doctrine of the
Epistle by no means belong to the early apostolic
period. We find, on the contrary, a very important
advance, due to the course of events generally, and
in particular to the calling and lifework of the
Gentile apostle. The view of the author presupposes'
not so much the " results of the Pauline doctrinal
system " (Pfleiderer), as the facts of the Pauline
activity. K. Planck's estimate of this Epistle as " the
complete antithesis to the Pauline conception, emanat
ing from Jewish Christianity '' (Zeller, Theol. Jahrb.
1847, p. 158)r seems to us the more correct, inas
much as it recognises the perfect originality of the
mode of thought presented in the Hebrew Epistle.
In conclusion, we must not omit gratefully to acknow
ledge that Riehm's excellent work, der Lehrbegriff des
Hebraerbriefs, etc., 1858, which in its way forms a
worthy counterpart to Fr. Bleek's Classical Commen
tary, 1828, pp. 36, 40, has rendered most essential
service.

FOURTH SECTION.
THE LATER DOCTRINE OF THE APOSTLE PETER.
In order to know the gospel as the Apostle Peter
preached it at a later time, we keep to the first Epistle,
which was formerly acknowledged as genuine and
canonical, and has only recently been disputed, as

136 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
appears to us on insufficient grounds.1 We shall
examine the second separately, which formerly belonged
to the Antilegomena, and compare it with the first.
1 The Petrine authorship of the first Epistle has been denied, partly
because of its lack of individual and personal references with regard
to author as well as readers, and partly on account of its alleged
comparative deficiency in definite and original doctrine, as also its
many Pauline echoes. The former consideration loses in weight if,
in conformity with the superscription, we assume that Peter addressed
the letter not to a single Church, but (since with six others it goes
by the name of s^ritrToXri xxQoXixb olovu \yxvx\ios) to a group of
Churches in several districts of Asia Minor, which, moreover, were
not founded by himself. The doctrinal contents excite suspicion
in proportion to the strength of our prejudice regarding the Ebionite
mode of thought in Peter. With respect to the alleged Pauline cor
respondences, there can be no doubt that Schleiermacher's observation
( Werke, vol. viii. , Einleitung in's N. Test. p. 402, etc. ) is thought
ful and to the point: "We must be very cautious in determining
from the language what is to be regarded as a product of the Pauline
school. It is a necessary but difficult task to distinguish what is
definitely Pauline and what has its basis only in the transition of
Christianity into elements outside Judaism. If we consider how
great a share Paul had in the spread of Christianity in districts
predominantly Greek, that his letters were probably the first writing
of Grceco-Christian import, we must naturally assume that he exer
cised great influence on the formation of the Greek language for
Christian subjects ; and that those who afterwards trod in his foot
steps would find it difficult to depart far from the idiom that had
arisen in this way." Moreover, those who find no sufficient reasons
for doubting the genuineness of the Epistles to the Ephesians and
Colossians must concur in Hug's view (Einl. ii. p. 160), which
Thiersch, Versuch, p. 274, etc., and others follow, that Peter, since
he wrote after Paul to Churches in the same provinces, had his
letters in mind. The idea of inverting the relation, assuming that
Paul, when composing his Epistle to the Romans, etc., wrote some
passages from his recollection of what he had read in Peter (Weiss,
der petrinische Lehrbegriff, 1855, pp. 374-434), is less happy and
convincing than bold. We rather adhere to the view that now and
again words of Paul floated before the mind of Peter, believing this
to be quite consistent, however, with the spiritual independence of
Peter ; for it is rash to make apparent resemblances of this kind a
reason for assuming forthwith a want of independence, or the con
cealment of views, as Baur does, Theol. Jahrb. 1856, p. 236.

THE LATER DOCTRINE OF THE APOSTLE PETER. 137
The doctrine of the Epistle moves round its prac
tical aim, viz. to strengthen the Christian Churches
of Asia Minor 1 in faith and patience under their
sorrows and persecutions, present and future. To
this purpose not only the doctrinal details, but also
the moral maxims of the Epistle are directed, espe
cially the exhortation to keep a good conscience, lest
persecution be just and well merited. This Epistle
is essentially distinct from that of James, in that its
moral maxims are far more closely interwoven with
specifically Christian dogma, though in other respects
there is great affinity between them, especially in the
prevailing Old Testament tone.
The peculiar leading idea of the Epistle appears to
us to be the indissoluble connection and succession
of suffering and glory in the life of the believing
1 Without doubt these Churches were mixed, composed of Jewish
and Gentile Christians, but probably contained a large majority of
converted heathen. The circumstance is not without importance in
estimating the Epistle and the substance of its doctrine. This view
has been the prevailing one since Steiger's Commentary appeared
in 1832 ; while formerly, from the time of the Church Fathers, the
readers were supposed to be Jewish Christians. In the year 1855,
Weiss, petrin. Lehrbegriff, p. 104, etc., again defended the latter
view, assuming that at least the preponderating number of the
Churches of Asia Minor consisted of Jewish Christians, the Gentile
Christians being lost, as it were, in the Jewish Christian majority.
In favour of this view he appeals to the inscription i. 1 : Ix>.ixtc7;
vxptm'iyiin.ois iixtrwopxs TlivTov, etc., and contends that there is no trace
of iixrTapx, the historical designation of the Jews outside Palestine,
ever having been used in a more general sense. But Jas. i. 1 affords
no proof of this, but rather of the contrary, inasmuch as 'hiitixx
ipvkx) xl in t$ lixo-n. contains the limitation to Israel. There is
absolutely nothing against the usual view that Peter — since in the
Epistle he looks at things mainly from an Old Testament point of
view, and regards Christians as the true people of God (ii. 9) — should
also look upon the Holy Land and the city of Jerusalem as the centre
of believers (without distinction of national descent), and should
regard those Christians dwelling outside as the ' ' dispersion of the

138 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
Christian as in that of Jesus. Peter reminds his
readers that the spirit of Christ which was in the
prophets intimated beforehand : rd eh Xpiarbv
iradypara, Kal ras perd ravra Bo^as, i. 11.
" It is better," he exclaims, " if the will of God be
so, that ye suffer for well-doing than for evil-doing.
For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just
for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being
put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the spirit,"
1 Pet. iii. 17, 18. This unity is still more obvious
where by way of encouragement the apostle exhorts
his readers in these words : " But rejoice inasmuch
as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings, that when
His glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with
exceeding joy," iv. 13; comp. v. 10: d xaXeaas vpds
eh tt)i/ aleovtov avrov Botjav iv Xp. 'Iyaov, oXlyov
people of God ; " comp. Huther, Comm. ; Koch, Petri theologia, p.
181, etc. The familiarity of the readers with the Old Testament,
assumed by the Epistle, does not point to Jewish Christian readers
any more than many of the Pauline Epistles which are undeniably
addressed to Gentile Christians, e.<7. the Epistle to the Galatians.
On the other hand, passages such as iii. 6, iv. 3, etc., serve as a
positive proof of its destination for Gentile Christian readers, and
Weiss has not succeeded in weakening their evidence. When in the
former passage Peter tells Christian women : is iytiilnTi Tixm,
iyxhiroiovirxi, referring to Sara, it is quite inadmissible to take
xyxtlowaioUo-xi as the foundation of the iytvrihirB : through good works
ye are children of Sara, i.e. have become morally like her. This
does not hold, for the reason that xyxto*. stands by itself, and like
v^ToTxo-irojXiyxi, ver. 5, belongs to ixotrpovv Eao-ra?, and therefore the
having become is less applicable to native Israelite women. And
why should heathen women have had " no particular interest " in
becoming daughters of the pious ancestress of the people of God ?
Besides, iv. 3 : to {invWr.ua tojv i&vojv xxTtipyxff&xt trvropzvpiivovs iv
tHaXoXxTpiixis, can only by constraint be made to refer to Jewish
Christians, for the assumption that tlo'at.oXxTpsTxi is to be taken in a
wider sense is to no more purpose than the appeal to the Pauline
passages, which stand in quite another connection, Rom. ii. 22 ;
Eph. v. 5 ; Col. iii. 5.

THE LATER DOCTRINE OF THE APOSTLE PETER. 139
iradovras avrbs xaraprtaei. In harmony with this,
he calls himself: pdprvs tcov tov Xptarov iradypd
rcov, 6 xal TJ79 peXXovarjs diroxaXvirreadai Bo^ys
xoivcovos, v. 1.
In this idea of the divinely - ordered union of
suffering and glory in Christ and His members,
closely associated with the main practical object of
the Epistle, is contained an abundant wealth of truths,
both as regards the person of Christ and His redeem
ing work, and respecting the appropriation of salva
tion, Christian faith and Christian hope. It is not,
however, to be supposed that all the ideas and doc
trines of the Epistle can be analytically evolved from
the thought just expressed.
Peter not only makes the general declaration with
respect to Christ, His person and His work, that He is
the Lord, the Son of God, but particularly affirms that
He was foreordained by God from eternity to be the
Redeemer (1 Pet. i. 20); and that His Spirit was
active in the prophets, and testified beforehand of
grace in Christ, of suffering and glory (1 Pet. i. 10).
The latter statement contains more than the former,
viz. that Christ existed not only ideally in the fore
knowledge and eternal foreordination of God, but was
actually present by the indwelling of His Spirit in
the prophets, even before His historical appearance.
Most recent expositors understand the words : to iv
abrois irvevpa Xptarov, as indicating a real pre-
existence of Christ, as the Mediator of all revelation
and spiritual gifts (e.g. Huther, Pfleiderer, Pautinismus,
p. 420, etc.). Schmid, Mutest. Theol. ii. p. 162, etc.,
after careful consideration, does not venture to extract
this doctrine with certainty from the passage, mainly
because the New Testament elsewhere makes the

140 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
Spirit proceed only from the manifested and exalted
Christ. Weiss takes the same view, and declares
the interpretation involving real pre-existence to
be improbable, because " the glory is represented
not as originally belonging to the Messiah, but as
destined for Him in prophecy " (iV. T. Theol. 4th ed.
p. 161). But the iradrjpara are also spoken of in the
very same way. As a second reason, Weiss, p. 162,
urges that in ver. 11, Xpiaros is twice used, and in
accordance with the Petrine doctrine, both times of
the historical Christ, and cannot the first time (to ev
avrois irvevpa Xptarov) be understood of the pre
existing Christ. Consequently he understands the
expression to mean that the eternal spirit of God, iu
which the decree of Messianic salvation was bound
up from eternity, testified in the prophets of the
future salvation, and afterwards enabled the Messiah
Himself to carry out that decree. Beyschlag agrees
in the main with this interpretation, iV. T. Christologie,
p. 121, etc. Other Petrine doctrine is taken by
Weiss from the expression in Acts ii. 36. The
apostle's insight may have grown, however, from
the first Pentecost onwards. But if Xpiaros,
i. 11, both times denotes the personal Christ, first
before then after His historical appearance, the name
is not applied to different subjects. In any case it
is much simpler to suppose that it refers both times
to the person of Christ Himself, and to assume that
Peter ascribes to the Redeemer personal existence
and work as Mediator of the revelations of God, which
thing however is only incidentally mentioned in the
present connection. So also Koch, Petri Theol. p. 163,
etc. Christ appeared, " was revealed," in the last times
for the sake of those to be redeemed (i. 20) in a

THE LATER DOCTRINE OF THE APOSTLE PETER. 141
human, mortal body, subject to suffering (adp!;, iii.
18, iv. 1), and with a spirit capable of higher anima
tion (irvevpa, iii. 18, etc.), consequently in actual
humanity ; which does not, however, exclude the idea
that He is actually the Son of God (comp. i. 3, iraryp),
for a word used of Jehovah in the Old Testament is
transferred to Jesus in ii. 3 (Weiss, petrin. Lehrbegriff,
p. 212). His earthly life was sinless in word and
deed, perfectly righteous and typical (ii. 21, etc.,
iii. 18). His sufferings in particular were a type for
believers ; a point of view peculiar to the Epistle.
Christ suffered, the just for the unjust, as a lamb
without blemish (iii. 18, i. 19), silent, meek, and
patient (ii. 23), enduring death and shedding His
blood for our sins. He bore our sins in His own
body on the tree (ii. 24) that we might be sprinkled
and sanctified by His sacrificial blood (i. 2), and that
He might bring us to God (iii. 18) in order that we,
redeemed from vain conversation received by tradition,
might be freed from sin and live unto righteousness
(i. 18, ii. 24); and that, because He suffered, we
should no longer serve human lusts but the will of
God (iv. 1, etc.). Thus the suffering and crucified
Christ is the Redeemer from guilt and from the
service o( sin ; by His sufferings He has purchased for
sinners not merely reconciliation and the forgiveness
of sins, but also the power of sanctification. Comp.
Laichingen, Jahrb. fiir deutsche Theologie, 1877, p.
289, etc. In almost every instance where Peter
alludes to the efficacy of Christ's sufferings, he associ
ates the reconciling and the sanctifying power, making
them inseparable; and in i. 18, etc., urges the fact
of redemption by the precious blood of Christ from
vain conversation received by tradition as a motive

142 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
to holy living: on ov cpdaprols, dpyvpltp y XPV<T^>
iXvrpcodyre — dXXd rtplco a'tpar t d>s dpvov apcopov
xal dairiXov Xptarov. Christians are delivered and
redeemed from a state of heathen life and conversa
tion (as formerly Israel from Egyptian bondage) ;
the price paid, the ransom (Xvrpov, comp. Matt. xx.
28), is not anything corruptible however valuable,
as silver and gold ; but is something costly and
precious, viz. the blood of Christ (riptov alpa Xpta
rov) poured out in death, which, as compared with
cpdaprd, is incorruptible. The incomparable and
infinite value of the blood of Christ shed in His death
on the cross is confirmed by the addition 019 dpvov,
which points not to a resemblance, but to a founda
tion: utpote qui sit agnus. That this is an echo
from the Old Testament cannot be disputed, though
it is still doubtful whether the apostle had in view
a sacrificial lamb in general, or the Passover lamb in
particular: De Wette, Huther, Schmid, ii. p. 179,
etc., and Weiss, JV. T. Theol. 167, note 6, repudiating
his exposition in petrin. Lehrbegriff, p. 278, etc.,
think that the allusion is to sacrificial victims in
general. This interpretation is certainly favoured by
the context rather than that which assumes a reference
to the Passover lamb. The perfect purity and sinless
ness of Jesus, corresponding to the spotlessness of a
sacrificial lamb, conditions the costliness of the blood
that is shed, and at the same time its efficacy as the
means of redemption from a sinful life. Moral
renovation is unmistakeably the object of the thought.
Accordingly a moral sanctifying power is ascribed to
the death of Christ, though not without the accessory
idea of the atoning offering which conditions moral
remission and deliverance. Still more expressive is

THE LATER DOCTRINE OF THE APOSTLE PETER. 143
the passage, ii. 24, where Peter, as an encouragement
to slaves to be patient, reminds them that Christ
also eiradev virep vpcov, ver. 21, on your behalf (for
the context points to nothing further). The apostle
describes the suffering of Jesus in ascending gradation
< — (1) as innocent, ver. 22 ; (2) as patient, ver. 23 ;
(3) as vicarious and expiatory, ver. 24: 09 rds
dpaprlas ypcbv ai/TOS dvyveyxev ev rep acopan avrov
iirl to ^vXov, 'iva rah aptaprlais diroyevopevoi ry
Btxaioavvy tyjacopev, ov t& p.coXcoirt ladyre. Here, as
in i. 18, etc., deliverance from sin and (positively) a
life consecrated to righteousness, i.e. to obedience
towards God, is designated as the aim of Jesus'
death. Consequently moral renovation and sancti
fication are also attested as the effect of Christ's
death. But this moral effect is conditioned by His
vicarious, atoning death. For when Peter, referring
to Isa. Iiii. 4, etc., esp. ver. 12, expresses himself thus :
to9 dpaprlas ypcov airos dvyveyxev, it is impossible
to mistake the idea of substitution, except by closing
eye and ear to his intentional and emphatic associa
tion of ypcov and avrbs (hence its presence in this
passage is acknowledged not only by Schmid, ii.
p. 178, etc., and Weiss, petrin. Lehrbegriff, p. 265 ;
N. T. Theol. p. 166 ; but also by Koch, Petri theol. p.
171). But while Peter characterizes the vicarious act
of Christ more definitely as dvaepepeiv (rds dp. yp,.) iirl
to ijvXov, he seems at the same time to regard the
wood of the cross on which the body of Jesus was
lifted up, and to which it was fastened (iv rep acopan
avrov), as the altar on which Jesus placed His body
as a sacrifice laden with our sins, consequently
our sins themselves; so that He appears in the
character of a priest, and His death on the cross is a

144 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
priestly act. This is in substance the view of
Hofmann, ante, ii. 1, p. 327, etc.; but he is wrong
in stigmatizing as an arbitrary assumption the view
that dvaepepeiv means simply " to carry " (as Huther,
Koch, ante, and others assert), for in the original
passage in the Old Testament, which even Hofmann
quotes in this connection, dpaprlas irdXXeov uvyveyxe
(LXX.) obviously means nothing more than this :
He bore the sins of many. But the words iirl rb
%vXov always lead up to such expressions as dvaias dva
epepeiv, etc. ; comp. esp. Jas. ii. 21 ; and the supposi
tion of Weiss, petrin. Lehrbegriff, p. 267, N. T. Theol. p.
166, when, in order to evade the idea of sacrifice, he
explains it : " Christ being lifted up on the cross, bore
the punishment of sin," is artificial. The simplest and
most faithful interpretation leads therefore to the con
clusion that in this passage it is not merely a vicarious
suffering and death, but in particular a vicarious sacri
ficial death on the cross, which is represented as that
act of Christ whose aim and operation was the recon
ciliation of sinners, and with it their moral renovation.
In a similar way the reconciling and sanctifying
elements in the death of Christ are put together
in iii. 1 8 : Xpiaros airai; irepl dpapncbv ypcov dire-
davev, Bixatos virep dBixcov, iva ypds irpoaaydyy tco
deep. To bring us to God, i.e. the bringing back
those who were estranged and separated by sin
(reconciliation with God), and their effectual trans
ference into near communion with God, was the
object of the death of Jesus (Bengel has the most
comprehensive explanation of the words). But since
He alone, who is free from sin and holy, may draw
nigh to God, the medium of reunion with God was
the vicarious (Bixatos iirrep dBixcov ; the connectino- of

THE LATER DOCTRINE OF THE APOSTLE PETER. 145
Blx. dBU. indicates the sense of virep), guilt-cleansing
and reconciling death of Christ, endured once for all
(airai;). Even in the inscription of the Epistle where the
readers are called ixXexrol — et? viraxoyv ko,1 pav-
Tiaptbv aiptaros 'Iyaov Xptarov, i. 2, sanctification
(viraKoy) and reconciliatiou are joined together as
effects of the death of Jesus ; and since the reference
to Ex. xxiv. 8 is subject to no doubt, the blood
shed upon the cross is here looked upon as covenant
blood (for Israel was sprinkled with it), as the blood
of the new covenant in fact (comp. Matt. xxvi. 28),
which, appropriated by sprinkling, cleanses souls from
all guilt, reconciles them, and incorporates them with
the people of God ; comp. Huther, Weiss, petrin.
Lehrbegriff, p. 269 ; K T Theol. p. 166; and Hofmann,
ii. 2. 168, who makes the passage refer to baptism,
although the words give no support to that inter
pretation. If we rightly understand the intimation
conveyed in the passage, the atoning death of Jesus
embodies an expression partly of the covenant-offering
and partly of the sin-offering, conceptions and trans
actions of the old covenant being continually in the
apostle's mind while he discusses the meaning of
Christ's death on the cross, having for its purpose the
forgiveness of sins and reconcilation with God, and
as a necessary consequence, moral renovation and
sanctification. The work among the dead mentioned in iii. 19, etc.,
comp. iv. 6, viz. the fact that Christ being put to
death in the flesh, was quickened in the spirit, and
went in the spirit to preach to the spirits in prison,
— is the transition from suffering to glory. The
former passage (iii. 18, etc.) sets out with Christ's
VOL. II. K

146 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
atoning death, and says of Him : davarcodets pev
aapxt, ^cooirotydels Be irvevparf iv cp xai tois iv
(pvXaxy irvevpaaiv iropevdels ixypv^ev, direidyaaaiv
irore ore aire^eBexero y rov deov paxpodvp.ta iv
ypepats Neoe KaraaKeva^optevys t^9 kiBcotov, etc.
The difficulty here lies not in the words but in the
thought; and that only if prejudice or interest stand
in the way ; comp. the history of interpretation in
Weiss, petrin. Lehrbegriff, pp. 216-227. We ask (1)
with whom has Christ here to do ? the answer being
with the irvevpara iv cpvXaKr) — aireidyaavrd irore,
etc., i.e. with the departed souls of those men who
are in prison in the invisible world, because formerly,
before the flood, they were impenitent. Baur, theolog.
Jahrb. 1856, p. 215, etc., puts forward the view that
the irvevpara were those angels who, by their seduc
tions, brought about the depravity of mankind before
the flood; comp. 2 Pet. ii. 4. But he has no proof
to give for this surprising assertion. On the other
hand, the use of irvevpara to denote Yhe departed
souls of men (now saved, now lost) is attested by
Heb. xii. 23 ; the expression diretdetv, as well as the
antithesis to the eight souls that were saved, clearly
proves that the allusion is to the spirits of men,
and not to higher spirits, to whom, moreover,
neither paKpodvpla deov nor direxBexeadai is applic
able. We ask (2) when and in what state had Christ to
do with the spirits of the unconverted contemporaries
of Noah? Hofmann, ii. 1, p. 335, etc., declares it
an error to suppose that this activity took place
between the death and resurrection ; he understands
the words to mean that Christ, before He became
man, went in spirit, without visible presence, and

THE LATER DOCTRINE OF THE APOSTLE PETER. 147
preached to the contemporaries of Noah in their life
time (predicting the judgment of the flood, and calling
upon them to repent), consequently to those who
now since their death await judgment. But Hofmann
can only defend his artificial interpretation by the
exercise of " much ingenuity," e.g. by connecting irore
ore dire^eB. immediately with ixypv^ev and such like
expedients, while' the words, if read without prejudice,
imply something quite different. Special considera
tion is due to the continual succession of time in vv.
18—22: Xpiaros diredavev — davarcodets pev trapxl,
^cooirotydels Be irvevpari, iv 3> — iropevdels iKypv^ev —
dvaardaecos 'lyaov Xptarov, 6s iartv ev Bei;ia tov
deov, iropevdels els ovpavov; iv. 5 : Kpivat ^cbvras Kal
veKpovs, which leads from the death of Christ and
the state of death, through the resurrection, to His
entrance into heaven and His second coming to judge
the world. Ver. 19, etc., refers plainly to an event
occuring not after the resurrection of Jesus (Huther,
p. 134, etc.), but between His death and resurrection.
Weiss, peirin. Lehrbegriff, p. 231, etc.; JSF. T. Theol.
p. 162, etc., while accepting this view, inconsis
tently makes ^tooiroiyde is, ver. 18, synonymous with
eyepdets; here, as elsewhere, the word implies far
more (as Hahn, neutestamentl. Theol. i. 440, note,
correctly observes), viz. to make alive ; when the
body of Christ was put to death, His spirit was
so little affected by this circumstance that He
became partaker at once of a higher life, of the
fulness of life. It was in this condition (ver. 19 :
iv cl>, sc. irvevpari), as spirit, but full of life and
power, that He went to the spirits; Bengel: "Christus
cum viventibus egit in carne ; cum spiritibus in
spiritu."

148 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
Question 3 : In what did the agency of Jesus in
the region of the dead consist ? The answer is given
in a single word, ixypvijev, He announced as a herald.
Peter uses a word which is quite customary in its
application to the apostolic announcement of salva
tion, of the gospel, on which account it is natural
to assume in the present passage also an announce
ment of accomplished salvation "by the Saviour
Himself, so that Christ proclaimed repentance
and forgiveness to those that had died impeni
tent before the time of His appearance. However
" praeconii vocabulum in sua latitudine accipiendum
est, ut intelligatur fuisse quibusdam evangelicum —
ad consolationem, aliis et fortasse plerisque, legale,
ad terrorem," Bengel. Nothing whatever is said of
the result of the xypvaaeiv. We find more in the
cognate passage, iv. 6, which still remains to be
considered. The apostle says of the heathen enemies
and blasphemers of the faithful, that they shall
give account to him that is ready xptvat gtovras
Kal veKpovs, ver. 6 : et'9 tovto yap Kal vexpois
eiiyyyeXiady, iva xptdcbaiv pev Kara dvdpcoirovs
aapKi, %eoat Be Kara deov irvevpari. The words : " the
gospel was preached also to them that are dead,"
cannot properly be taken to mean that it was
preached in their lifetime to those now dead (Bengel,
Hofmann, ii. 1, p. 336, etc.) ; for the twice occurring
vexpoi cannot be applied to xpivat in a sense different
from that in which it is applied to eiiyyyeXiady,
without doing violence to the words, i.e. as certainly
as the vexpoi are dead and must first be waked when
Christ comes to judge them at His reappearance, so
certainly were the vexpoi no longer alive at the time
when the gospel was preached to them (eiiyyyeXiady),

THE LATER DOCTRINE OF THE APOSTLE PETER. 149
but were already dead. On the other hand, iii. 19,
etc., favours the idea that here too allusion is made
to an occurrence taking place after death. Accord
ingly, with Huther and Baur, ante, p. 2 1 7, we take the
word eiiyyyeXiady in its only established sense, as
passive and impersonal, but cannot avoid the con
clusion, looking at iii. 19, that this preaching of the
gospel was the work of Christ Himself. The question
still remains : To vjhat dead was the message of
salvation brought ? De Wette explains vexpoi by
iii. 20, thus limiting its range to the race before the
flood ; but the context implies that the vexpoi, iv.
5, 6, must be understood in an unlimited sense, as in
the same condition and reaching to the same extent.
The article certainly is wanting, and the conception
of totality is not emphasized, but only the idea of
the state after death, " the gospel was preached also
to them that are dead ; " but the want of the article
gives no warrant for the limitation to a portion of
the dead. Accordingly we explain iii. 19, etc. (with
Huther, Weiss, petrin. Lehrbegriff, p. 228, etc.), by
the subsequent passage, maintaining that Noah's
contemporaries are here specially named, possibly
with reference to the words of Jesus in Luke xvii.
26, and in consideration of the exceeding depravity
and obduracy of that race, without any intention of
limiting the iropevdels ixypvijev to them exclusively,
a theory which to some extent explains the omission
of the article before direidyaaat (iii. 19). The two
passages would thus throw light on each other, for
they must be taken in connection, notwithstanding
Baur's objection; the former passage explains the
condition of the dead, left undetermined by the
latter, and the period of the mysterious event, as well

150 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
as the agent, viz. Christ Himself ; the latter passage,
on the other hand, throws light on the former with
regard to the extent (vexpoi generally), essence, and
purport of the preaching activity (an evayyeXi^eadat),
and its aim, viz. that the dead " might be judged
according to men in the flesh (according to their
earthly and sensuous nature, viz. by death, corruption,
and the state in Hades), but live according to God in
the spirit." The aim of the preaching, of whose
result, however, nothing is said, must therefore be
unquestionably salutary, originating in grace. Com
pare the careful disquisition by Schmid, ante, pp.
181, etc., 170, etc., and Messner, ante. The eccle
siastical term " descent into hell " is not happily
chosen, for the words of the apostle contain no
indication of a descent on the part of Jesus in spirit
to hell, to the place of torment for souls that are
finally damned. The reference is merely to Sheol,
the kingdom of the dead in the invisible world,
where departed souls await their final judgment and
destiny, doubtless in a state conformable to their
conduct in the life of the body. It is worthy of note
that by this unveiling, Christ's work of redemption
assumes a relation, absolute in its comprehensiveness,
to humanity as a whole, not only to the world of the
present and the future, but also to the world of the
past. Peter lays special stress on the resurrection of
Jesus : God raised up Jesus from the dead ; His resur
rection is the foundation of faith, for by Christ we
believe in God that raised Him up (i. 21) ; and only
by virtue of His resurrection do we obtain a good
conscience toward God, being reconciled to Him
(iii. 21). By the resurrection of Jesus God has

THE LATER DOCTRINE OF THE APOSTLE PETER. 151
begotten us again unto a lively hope (i. 3). Christ
is gone into heaven, and is now at the right hand of
God, i.e. in possession of divine honour and dominion,
angels and authorities and powers being made subject
unto Him (iii. 22) ; the Father has given Him a glory
(i. 4) that shall be revealed hereafter at His second
coming (iv. 13 ; comp. v. 1, 4, i. 7, 13).
That the salvation effected by Jesus proceeds from
unmerited grace, of which man by reason of sin is
unworthy, but of which he stands in need, is clearly
taken for granted by Peter, for in the passages dis
cussed above he refers the whole atoning work of
Christ immediately to sin, into which mankind had
fallen, led away by transmitted habit and evil prac
tices, becoming estranged from God (e.g. i. 18, ii. 24,
etc., and other passages). The apostle's frequent and
earnest exhortations to morality place human sinful
ness in so strong a light that it is unnecessary to
enter into each passage separately. One circumstance
only may still be mentioned, viz. that Peter looks
upon the world as an ungodly whole, and warns his
readers against the hostile designs of the devil, the
avriBiKOs of believers (v. 8, etc.).
The appropriation of salvation in Christ, and the
treading of the way through suffering to glory, are
the result of calling, regeneration, and continual
growth. We are called by God according to His
mercy (ii. 9, etc., ver. 21), to His marvellous light, to
blessing (iii. 9), to His eternal glory (v. 10). The
new birth into Christian life is effected by God's
power through the gospel, the word of God which
lives and abides for ever (i. 23, etc.: dvayeyev-
vypevoi ovk ix airopds cpdaprys dXXa aepdaprov, Bid
Xoyov ^cjovros deov Kal pevovros). The word of God

152 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
is characterized by Bid as the means of regeneration,
and this itself as a seed which by virtue of its nature
and force is not corruptible but incorruptible, whose
produce and fruit (prep, ex) is tbe new life of the Spirit.
By this interpretation justice is done to the verbal sense
of airopd, as well as to the difference of prepositions,
and we may dispense, on the one hand, with the
reference of the word airopd to the Holy Ghost (dd
Wette, Schmid, ii. 202), which is certainly doubtful;
and, on the other hand, with Huther's less intelligible
statement, that o-7r. depd. is not to be understood of
the audible word of God, but is yet the word of God
according to its inner, divine essence.
Regeneration itself is conditioned partly by human
resolve freely and independently exercised (ii 25 :
iirearpdcpyre vvv eirl tov iroipeva, in a middle sense,
ye have turned yourselves, returned to the shepherd),
partly by divine causality and the efficacy of grace,
which has its basis in the election and predestination
of God (i. 1, etc. : ixXexrol — xard irpbyvcoaiv deov
irarpbs ; ver. 3 : debs 6 dvayevvyads ypds). On the
other hand, Peter traces back even continued unbelief
to the decree of God, ii. 8, where of unbelievers it is
said : ot irpoaxbirrovaiv rep Xoyep diretdovvres, els o xal
eredyaav. That to which they are "appointed," des
tined, is neither exclusively the diretdeiv (Calvin, Koch,
Petr. Theol. p. 184, etc.) nor merely the irpoaxbirretv,
according to which only the punishment of unbelief,
not unbelief itself, would be decreed by God (Bengel,
Huther, Weiss, p. 137, etc.), but most naturally in
cludes both (de Wette, Hofmann, i. 2 1 0). Accordingly
Peter declares that even disobedience to God's word
and the stumbling and fall consequent thereupon are
not accidental or dependent purely on human volition,

THE LATER DOCTRINE OF THE APOSTLE PETER. 153
but are the result of divine preordination and pre
destination. This thought already presupposes the
presence of sinfulness ; *md free choice, far from being
shut out, seems, by the use of xal, rather to be
included ; inasmuch as the thought finds appropriate
place in the context of an exhortation to faith (con
trary to Weiss, petrin. Lehrbegriff, p. 139).
Entrance into a state of grace and salvation is
effected, according to Peter, through baptism. He
mentions it in connection with the flood (iii. 20, etc.)
as that by which a few souls were saved in the ark :
St' vBaros, b xal ipas avrirvrrov vvv aio^ei Bdir-
rtapa, ov aapxos dirodeats pvirov, dXXd avvetByaecos
dyadys eirepcorypa eh deov Bi dvaardaecos 'Iyaov
Xptarov. From this incidental expression we see
clearly — (1) the undoubted aim and efficacy of
baptism ; it saves us (acb&i) from future judgment
and destruction, and makes us partakers of acorypla ;
hence it is not merely a symbolical but an efficacious
act, a means of grace ; (2) the meaning ascribed to
the visible sign in baptism, viz. water, is less clear,
inasmuch as baptism is represented as the antitype
of the deluge ; just as eight souls were saved by water
in the ark, so likewise baptism, its antitype, saves
us. In what sense an antitype ? not by virtue of the
saving power of the water (Weiss, p. 313), for no such
power is attributed to the flood, but by virtue of the
removing, destroying, cleansing, and purifying efficacy
of the water.1 Our greatest difficulty lies in (3) what
the apostle says respecting the moral nature and sig-
1 Hofmann, ii. 2. 165 ; comp. the excellent words of the masterly
and spiritual "Practical Commentary" of Archbishop Leighton
(seventeenth century) on the First Epistle of Peter, vol. ii. p. 257 :
" The waters of the flood drowned the ungodly, — washed them away,

154 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
nificance of baptism. The negative position, that it
is not " the putting away of the filth of the flesh,"
i.e. not a purification from bodily filth, requires no
explanation. Expositors have had all the more
trouble about the positive position. Bengel and after
him Schmid, ii. p. 199, etc., take avvetB. dy. lirep.
eh d. as " the petition of a good conscience to God ; "
de Wette and Huther take it as " the solemn promise
of a good conscience toward God ; " we decide in
favour of the interpretation, earnest wish, request,
prayer addressed to God for a good conscience, i.e.
for the purifying of the conscience, for forgiveness of
sins ; an interpretation permitted by the usage of
eirepcorav, but demanded by the context, especially
by the negative parallel ov aapx. dirod. p. (wherein is
also the genitive of object), Hofmann, ii. 2, p. 166,
etc. ; Weiss, petrin. Lehrbegriff, p. 314, etc. ; N. T.
Theol. p. 147 ; Messner, p. 152, etc. Hence the moral
essence of baptism from a human standpoint, is the
earnest desire for forgiveness of sin. The new-born
children of God must grow (ii. 2) unto salvation, in
faith (i. 5, 8, etc.), in obedience to Christ and to the
truth (i. 2, 14, 22), in sanctification, with a pure,
God-fearing conduct (i. 2, 15). For this purpose
there is required, on the one hand, a laying aside of
all vice (ii. 1, iii. 10, etc.), and abstaining from fleshly
lusts (i. 14, ii. 11, iv. 1-4, 15), self-control and
sobriety (i. 13, iv. 7, v. 8); on the other hand, the
fear of God (i. 17, iii. 14, etc.), love to Jesus, and
communion with Him as the corner-stone and chief
them and their sin together, as one, being inseparable. Thus the
waters of baptism are intended as a deluge to drown sin and to save
the believer, who by faith is separated both from the world and from
his sin ; so it sinks, and he is saved."

THE LATER DOCTRINE OF THE APOSTLE PETER. 155
shepherd (i. 8, ii. 4, etc., v. 4) ; finally, constant
brotherly love, which covers a multitude of sins (of
others), i. 22, ii. 17, iii. 8, iv. 8: dydiry xaXvirrei
irXydos dpapricov; comp. Prov. x. 12 ; Matt, xviii. 22.
The catholic interpretation of God's grace-procuring
love, in recent times defended only by de Wette in a
modified form, cannot be reconciled with the aspect
of the original passages. Reuss (Hist, de la theol. chr.
ii. 584) has no foundation whatever for his assump
tion that " les bonnes ceuvres — sont elles, qui
doivent conquerir la grace de Dieu, ii. 20 ;" for when
Peter, speaking of innocent suffering, says : tovto yap
Xapis irapd deep, he only means that it is pleasing to
God; comp. Koch, ante, p. 191. If we take also into
consideration the moral instructions given respecting
various domestic and social relations, we gain some
little insight into the apostle's earnest and urgent
utterances, directing his readers to careful and pure
conversation in every particular. Mindful of the per
secutions that were threatening, or had already broken
out, he strives to strengthen and preserve them in
faith, patience, and godliness.
Peter looks on the community of believers as the
true people of God, as a royal priesthood, an holy
nation (ii. 9), as a spiritual building, erected on
Christ the foundation - stone, individuals being the
living stones (ii. 4, etc.).
A principal motive with Peter for constancy in
faith and Christian walk is the hope of future glory
after present suffering. An undefiled and incorrup
tible inheritance is reserved for believers in heaven
(i. 4) ; we are called by God in Christ Jesus to
eternal glory (v. 10) ; a crown of glory that fadeth
not away (v. 4), the salvation of the soul (i. 5, 10),

156 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
blessing (iii. 9), are ready to be revealed in the last
time, when Christ will come again and manifest
Himself in His glory, to judge the living and the
dead (i. 7, 13, iv. 5, 13, v. 1, 4). Then shall
His people, after being put to the proof, be rewarded
by blessing and everlasting joy, honour and glory
(i. 7, iv. 13, v. 4, 10). Peter is rightly called
"the apostle of hope," inasmuch as Christian hope
resting upon faith is seen throughout his teaching,
and forms the central motive (Weiss, petr. Lehrbegriff,
pp. 25, etc., 69, etc. etc.; N. T. Theol. p. 172, etc.).
We add some remarks respecting the peculiarities
of the Epistle and its teaching.
First, the most noticeable characteristic is its pre
dominant basis in the Old Testament. Those very
doctrines and moral exhortations which are most
important in the view of the apostle, he supports by
the Old Testament ; e.g. he presents the atoning
death of Jesus as based on sacrificial rites (i. 19,
comp. ver. 2), and the leading chapter of Isaiah, Iiii.
(ii. 21, etc., comp. iii. 8). In ii. 3, etc., he unfolds
the majesty of Christ as head of His Church, in the
words of Isa. xxviii. 16, viii. 14, etc.; and in the
same chapter (v. 9) describes the universal priest
hood of believers in Mosaic language taken from
Ex. xix. 6. In ii. 10 he again appeals to prophetic
testimony (Hos. ii. 22) in favour of the conversion of
the heathen, and makes the Old Testament the basis
of his exhortations also, e.g. i. 15, iii. 10, etc. And
these are only isolated examples. In fact, we may
say that the author supports all his statements by
the authority of the Old Testament, making it the
universal medium of expression, in images and ideas.
He presupposes throughout the unity of the new and

THE LATER DOCTRINE OF THE APOSTLE PETER. 157
the old covenant, so that light is thrown on the
Old Testament by the manifested revelation of God
in Christ ; for it is the Spirit of Christ that foretold
in the prophets what is now fulfilled.1 This self-
absorption in the Old Testament is the more remark
able in the Epistle, for two reasons — (a) because it is
addressed, if not exclusively, yet mainly to Gentile
Christians ; (o) because it is by no means legal and
Judaistic in its conceptions, but rather genuinely
Christian and evangelically free. It is noteworthy
in this relation that there is no question of Mosaism
proper, the word vbp,os itself not once occurring in the
Epistle. The greater is the importance attached to
the promise and to Old Testament prophecy, for
which reason Schmid, ii. p. 154, etc., is right in his
assertion that Peter apprehends Christianity as the
fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy.2 These pheno
mena point unmistakeably to the apostolic era, and
betray the authorship of a Jewish apostle like Peter ;
for only on this assumption can we solve the problem
of the close intermixture of Old Testament views
with free, pure, large-hearted recognition of the truth
in Christ Jesus.
Secondly, a further peculiarity is seen in the way
in which the sufferings and resurrection of Jesus are
spoken of. The passion is not only mentioned in a
1 This idea is therefore already biblical and not patristic in its
origin, as Ritschl {Altkath. Kirche, 2nd ed. p. 307) supposes, who
believes it to have been first expressed in Clement of Rome and
Barnabas, as also in the Ignatian Epistles and Justin.
2 E. Bonifas excellently remarks (t in Montauban), L'Unitd
de V enseignement apostolique, 1866, p. 55, that all the peculiar
doctrines of the Epistle are grouped around the following central
idea : " l'Evangile accomplissement des promesses et promesse a son
tour,"

158 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
general way, but is carried on as it were continuously.
The meek conduct of Jesus, His silent endurance of
all reviling and accusations, His quiet patience even
unto the cross, even to the pouring out of His blood
and the moment of departure (ii. 22. etc., i. 19), —
all this is described in such a manner that we in
voluntarily get the impression of an eye-witness of
the sufferings and crucifixion of Jesus, and of an
eye-witness who had all these scenes before him as
a disciple of Jesus, full of loving interest and sympa
thizing attachment, on whose mind they remained
ineffaceably impressed. In short, we feel that one
who writes in such a way is in fact in the properest
sense a pdprvs tcov tov Xptarov iradyptdrcov, such as
the writer in v. 1 professes to be.1 On the other
hand, it is noteworthy how decidedly and prominently
faith and Christian hope are made to rest on the
resurrection of Jesus. If we carefully estimate the
importance of passages such as i. 3 and ver. 21, we
shall find that the attitude of the soul to the fact
of the resurrection of Jesus here depicted, is very
similar to that which lies at the foundation of the
Petrine discourses in the Acts of the Apostles, ii. 23,
etc., ver. 32, etc., iii. 15,iv. 10. Here, too, we recog
nise one of the first disciples, whom the message, "the
Lord is risen indeed," has awakened to new life, to
joyful confidence and certain hope.
Proceeding to examine and compare the Second
Epistle of Peter, it becomes clear that the "everlasting
kingdom " of Jesus Christ forms his Bvvapts xal
irapovaia (i. 2, 16, iii. 4—13), the great object he
1 How de Wette in his Introduction to the New Testament, ii. 22,
etc., can fail to see a living view of Jesus' personality, such as Peter
had experienced, we are unable to comprehend.

THE LATER DOCTRINE OF THE APOSTLE PETER. 159
had in view. The " word of prophecy," the prophecy of
the Old Testament Scripture (i. 19-21), shines in his
view with so peculiar a splendour, that it may be said
that Christianity appears in the second Epistle also as
the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy (Schmid,
ii. 212, etc.), and the distinction between the old
and new covenant is not emphasized. But on the
other hand, we find certain indications of such a
nature as to make the difference between the two
Epistles appear very important. While in the first
Epistle the e'X7rt? appears as the centre of inner
Christian life on the ground of faith, we have in the
second Epistle instead the iiriyvcoais or yveoais rest
ing upon faith, so that in fact the idea of hope never
appears in the second Epistle, just as the idea of
knowledge is absent from the first. Again, the fact
of Jesus' propitiatory suffering and death, which plays
so important a part in the first Epistle, is passed over
in the second, with one solitary exception (ii. 1), in
perfect silence ; as also the idea of the inseparable
union of suffering and glory so characteristic of the
first Epistle. It is, moreover, a striking circumstance
that opposition to errorists plays so important a part
in the second Epistle, all else being subordinate; while
in the first Epistle we do not find a single trace of
errorists to be combated. For these reasons we are
unable to look upon the second Epistle as an
authentic source of Petrine doctrine, however grand
the individual thoughts it may contain.

We are now in a position to compare the Petrine
discourses in the Acts of the Apostles with the first
Epistle with respect to its doctrinal contents and

160 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
peculiar character. Here a prevailing unity appears.
This is already visible in the fact that Old Testament
prophecy and its fulfilment in Jesus the Messiah,
forms the chief point of view in the discourses to the
Israelitish nation as well as in the Epistle addressed
to the Christian Churches of Asia Minor. In the
former, Peter views Christ chiefly under the image of
" the servant of God " in Isaiah ; in the latter, under
the same image in conjunction with that of a patient
lamb, drawn from the same source. Notwithstanding
all this, it is yet unmistakeable that the perception of
Christ's Godhead and of His antemundane existence
is decidedly more advanced in the Epistle than in the
discourses. The death of Jesus foretold by the
prophets was at first regarded by Peter only as a
thing divinely foreordained ; now, with deeper per
sonal insight he recognises its necessity and its recon
ciling aim. The apostle has grown in knowledge, and
has been more fully initiated into the truth by the
Holy Spirit. Peter had formerly, Acts ii. 24, 27,
31, said that it was not possible for Jesus to remain
in death, in the kingdom of the dead, that He could
not see corruption ; hence what he now reveals to us
of Christ's descent into the kingdom of the dead
is consistent with the idea of progress. At the
feast of Pentecost and even later, the apostle still
looked on the resurrection of Christ as the founda
tion on which faith and all hopes of the believer rest.
As Peter had once required repentance and baptism
into Jesus as a condition of the forgiveness of sin
and the gift of the Spirit, so now baptism is in his
view the earnest desire of a conscience reconciled
and purified by forgiveness, a means of grace in
addition to the living and regenerating word of God.

THE LATER DOCTRINE OF THE APOSTLE PETER. 161
The perception is deepened and advanced, but the
fundamental truth in which his soul lives is one and
the same. As the apostle had previously foretold that
God would also call those who were afar off (Acts ii.
30 ; comp. x. 14, etc.), he is now able to write even
to Christians who had formerly been heathen, but
are called to partake of the blessing (1 Pet. i. 15,
ii. 4, iii. 9) ; and considers them incorporated with
the people of God as true Israel (i. 1 : Biaairopd;
ii. 9, etc.). As the return of Jesus to fulfil all
things had been once his highest prospect, the
hope of glory and of seeing Christ again (i. 8, etc.)
is always the element in which his spirit lives
and is quickened, the foretaste of the dvdyj/vijis,
Acts iii. 19. But his spirit is infinitely more
advanced in one important particular, viz. that now,
ripened by his own experience, enlightened and
humbled, he knows the way through suffering to
glory as the only one, and has fondly embraced it.
Can we not rightly say that the element of Peter's
whole life was the Messianic glory, and that the
subject in connection with which his inner develop
ment advanced, was above all the relation between
suffering and glory ? In his first stage, during the
life of Jesus, it was absolutely impossible for him to
conceive of glory as actually related to suffering, the
two seemed to him to be utterly irreconcilable.
¦¦" That be far from Thee ! " he exclaimed to the
Master, when the latter predicted His sufferings ; and
when he himself; the disciple, saw suffering before
him, he denied and fled before the cross (Gospels).
In his second stage, after the crucifixion and
ascension of Jesus, he came to think of both together,
but still only externally : — it is so — it shall and must
VOL. II. L

162 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
be so, for the sufferings and death of the Lord were
predicted and foreordained by God as the way that
must be trodden. But he still looked upon the
suffering and death of Christ as not being internally
and essentially necessary to salvation ; the inner
power of suffering was still concealed from him, so
long as he had not learnt the way of suffering by his
own experience (Acts).
In his third stage, through the guidance of the
Spirit into all truth, with the help of personal
experiences in the apostolic office, in prison and in
persecutions, as well as by intercourse with Paul and
others, the way through suffering to glory is not only
fully revealed to him as possible aud actual, but is
also endeared to him as the only necessary and
blessed way lying at the basis of man's salvation,
and to be trodden by every believer. And now Peter,
with all his acquired knowledge and moral advance
ment, had reached the goal to which as an apostle he
was destined to attain.1
1 The comparison of the Petrine doctrine in the first Epistle with
the discourses in the Acts bears important testimony at the same
time to the credibility of Luke as a narrator. The agreement of the
first Epistle with the discourses in peculiarity of feature, as well as
the difference between them, in so far as the latter represents a
further development in one and the same direction, testifies to the
fidelity of the historian in reproducing his thoughts, although to
some extent freely choosing his words. Weiss appears to us to have
misconceived the doctrine of the discourses and of the first Epistle,
because he shows a tendency on the one hand to find in the
Petrine discourses of the Acts a more fully developed doctrine than
we can allow, and on the other hand to reduce the conceptions of the
Epistle to a lower moral level, in order to bring both nearer together
and to prevent a later, more highly developed Pauline form of
Christian knowledge being assigned to the Epistle. We consider
such anxiety to have as little foundation as the attacks upon the
authenticity of the Epistle, based upon its alleged Pauline character.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN 163
FIFTH SECTION.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN.
For the doctrinal system, apprehension of Christi
anity and mind of the Apostle John, we have at our
command two different sources ; on the one hand the
Apocalypse, on the other hand the Fourth Gospel
together with the Epistles. The fact of our using both
sources conjointly brings us into conflict with two
groups of theological critics, who, though setting out
from different standpoints, nevertheless agree in
separating the Apocalypse from the Gospel and
Epistles. Some ascribe the Gospel and the Epistles
to the Apostle John, but deny his authorship of the
Apocalypse ; others inversely acknowledge the Apoca
lypse to be a work of the Apostle John, but deny
with the greatest confidence that he is the author of
the Gospel and Epistles. We characterize the former
What positive original documents and proofs have we that Peter
could not have taught as the first Epistle makes him do ? Besides
Peter's discourses in the Acts, which do not really justify such a
conclusion, we possess no support for it at all, unless it be in certain
expressions of the Apostle Paul regarding which we have already
shown that they are by no means favourable to the denial of its
authenticity. One can therefore argue merely from a preconceived
idea respecting Peter's mind and way of thinking, drawn from some
other source, i. e. from an a priori supposition. We cannot till later
make a comparison of the Petrine with the Pauline system of
doctrine, but must here express our conviction that critics have no
right to deny an inner capacity of development to the Apostle Peter,
and to assert that in consequence of his character or apostolic dignity
and independence, he could not have made progress in the preaching
of the gospel, and that he could have allowed no other, even the
Apostle of the Gentiles, to have had any influence upon his mode of
thought and standpoint.

164 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
group as the school of Sehleiermacher, because not only
has the master himself adopted this view (Einteitung
ins K T, pp. 317, 449, etc, 446, etc., 470, etc.),
but also because those theologians whose searching
inquiries have led them to a similar result may be
reckoned among his followers (e.g. Bleek, Theol. Zeit
schrift von Sehleiermacher, de Wette, und Liicke, 1820,
p. 253, etc. ; Beitrage zur Evangelienkritik, 1846,
p. 182, etc. ; Liicke, Versuch einer vollstand. Einteit
ung in die Offenbarung des Johannes, 2nd ed., 1848-
1852 ; Neander, Pftanzung und Leitung, ii. p. 628,
4th ed.). This view prevailed pretty much twenty
or thirty years ago. But in the following decade
things took another turn : the opposite view, viz.
that the Apocalypse was a genuine Johannine pro
duction, and the Fourth Gospel with the Epistles
pseudo-Johannine, finding in the school of Baur a
number of advocates and defenders so successful in
their efforts that the above twofold position of
criticism became an axiom of the school (Zeller,
Theol. Jahrbiicher, 1842, p. 654, etc.; Schnitzer,
ibid. 1842, pp. 458, etc., 627, etc. ; Baur, ante,
1844, pp. 659, etc.; Christenthum der drei ersten
Jahrhunderte, 1853, pp. 131, 150, etc., 2nd ed. p.
167; Kostlin, Lehrbegriff des Ev. Joh. 1843, p. 3 ;
Schwegler, Nachap. Zeitalter, ii. p. 249, etc.). Not
withstanding the strong opposition between these two
groups of critics, they agree in the conclusion set
forth by de Wette (Einteitung ins N. T, 3rd ed. p.
367) as an axiom: "In New Testament criticism
nothing is so firmly established as that the Apostle
John, if he be the author of the Gospel and the
Epistles, did not write the Apocalypse ; or if the
latter be his work, that he cannot be the author of

THE DOCTRINE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. 165
the other writings." But there is the less need of
bowing down to this dictum, as many of the so-called
irrevocable results of criticism have already been
departed from, occasionally by their authors them
selves. The last step, from half - denial to whole,
was taken by Liitzelberger, in denying the genuine
ness of all the Johannine writings (Die Kirchliche
Tradition ueber den Apostel Johannes und seine
Schriften, 1840). We abide firmly by unity of
authorship, and recognise both writings as apostolic
and Johannine. In this matter we have such
scholars as Gieseler (Kirchengeschichte, 4th ed. i. 1.
127, note), Guericke (Einl. in das iV. T), Hengsten-
berg, Hase, and others on our side, men of very
different theological tendencies. The same conclusion
is reached on the basis of a searching examination
by A. Niermeyer, Over de echiheid der Johanneische
Schriften, 1852 ; W. Milligan in Contemporary
Review, 1871, August and September : " The Gospel of
St. John and the Apocalypse ; " Hermann Gebhardt,
Der Lehrbegriff der Apokalypse und sein Verhattniss
zum Lehrbegriff des Ev. und der Epp. des Johannes,
1873, especially 326, etc. The final words of
Gebhardt in p. 431, etc., contain in a compressed
form the essence of his comparison between the
Apocalypse and Gospel, with many appropriate and
intelligent remarks. But scientific impartiality and
thoroughness require that the Apocalypse and Gospel
with the Epistles should not only not be employed
without distinction, but that each should be funda
mentally examined by itself.
If the Apocalypse be first considered, we must
allow the assertion of Baur's school to be well
founded, viz. that external testimony in favour of

166 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
the apostolic ancl Johannine origin of the book is
stronger and more continuous than it is for other
New Testament writings, so that nothing but bias
and uncritical haste could lead one to sacrifice its
authenticity to that of the Gospel.
The object of the work is to strengthen believers
under their cross, amidst the temptations and
dangers to which they are exposed in the struggle
of the enemies of God and Christ against Christ
and His Church ; to encourage them to patience and
stedfastness (viropovy, ii. 19, xiii. 10, xiv. 12), and
to unshaken fidelity and courageous joy in their con
fession of Jesus (paprvpta 'Iyaov). As a means to
this end, they are assured of the continual presence
and dominion of Christ, of His final victory on
earth, and future coming to judge the powers that
are hostile, and to reward fidelity. Lastly, a picture
is drawn of the blessed rest and holy consummation
of those who do not live to see the peaceful time,
but have previously fallen as true confessors amid
strife and distress. The excellent artistic form in
which the whole is depicted, presupposing a revela
tion actually received, we leave here untouched.1 As
to the question which has been discussed in many
ways, and answered so differently, respecting the
historical circumstances and time to which the indi
vidual prophecies and images refer, we offer the
following brief remarks, in agreement with Auberlen,
Daniel und Offenbarung Johannis, 1854, p. 362, etc.
The conception of the whole embraces three prin
cipal groups, which are again subdivided, with
1 Comp. Godet, Bibelstudien, translated into German by Kagi,
1878, ii. p. 212, etc., on the fact that divine prophecy and a too
highly elaborated artistic form are not incompatible.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. 167
mutual ramifications that to some extent pass into
one another. The first leading form of conception
is the world-historical (" church-historical," Auberlen),
which strictly carried out looks upon the Apocalypse
as a prophetic summary of all the world's history
since the time of Christ, so that we are able to per
ceive in it the individual periods and points of
time even chronologically. The most noted inter
preter of this tendency is Bengel. The second
leading form of interpretation is the time-historical,
i.e. the interpretation which finds the subjects of the
book wholly and exclusively in the time of its
composition. This mode of interpretation has given
rise to three different views ; some finding all that
is combated as hostile to Christ and His kingdom,
either exclusively in Judaism (Abauzit, Herder,
Hartwig, and later Ziillig, 1834, 1840), or exclusively
in heathenism and the world-monarchy of heathen
Rome (Semler, Ewald), or both together, so that the first
half of the book describes Jerusalem and Judaism
as hostile to Christ, while the second attacks
world - ruling Rome and its imperialism, especially
Nero as Antichrist (Grotius, Eichhorn, Liicke). A
third leading mode of interpretation, which may
be called the salvation - historical, finds in the
Apocalypse not so much an individual history of
the future as a prophecy of the great development
of God's kingdom, so that the salvation of souls
and the consummation of God's kingdom form the
leading point of view throughout (Hofmann, Weis-
sagung und Erfiillung, and Schriftbeweis; Auberlen).
Hengstenberg's exposition may be regarded as a
transition of the imperial-historical into the world-
historical ; while Thiersch, Kirche im apost. Zeitalttr,

168 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
p. 230, etc, has made a noteworthy attempt to
combine the salvation-historical and time-historical
interpretations, recognising the Nero legend itself as
the point of time to which the prophecy is attached ;
the future Antichrist having a sort of forerunner in
this godless tyrant.
The ideas of the book are clothed throughout in
Old Testament forms and images, as we see at a
glance ; but it does not follow that the standpoint
too is Jewish rather than Christian. This will appear
immediately when we enter upon an examination of
the doctrines themselves.
In the doctrine of God, partly by way of
opposition to heathenism with its presumptive gods,
prominence is given to the truth that God is living
and eternal (vii. 2, iv. 9, i. 4), iravroxpaTcop, the all-
powerful Creator (iv. 11, x. 6, xviii. 8), while partly
in allusion to the judgment depicted in the book it
is emphatically asserted that He is holy, just, and
true (vi. 10, xv. 4, xvi. 5). The love of God is
also made prominent, not only in the greeting, i. 4 :
Xapis iipiiv xal elpyvy dirb d av, etc, but also in the
reiterated promise : " God shall wipe away all tears "
(vii. 1 7, xxi. 4), as well as in the words : avrbs earai
pot vlbs, xxi. 7, where God is depicted as a Father.
The utterances to be found respecting Christ, His
person and His work, are well worthy of notice.
With reference to His person we find the union of
the human with the divine clearly indicated. He
is the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David
(v. 5, xxii. 16), and therefore of human descent, of
the lineage and race of Israel to whom the Messi
anic promise was given. But Pie is also the Alpha
and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning

THE DOCTRINE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. 169
and the end, the holy and true (i. 17, ii. 8, xxii.
13, iii. 7), used in this book as a predicate of
Jehovah, the Eternal, and at the same time denoting
absolute, divine essence (i. 8, xxi. 6). Again, Christ
calls Himself: y dpxy t^9 xriaecos tov deov, iii. 14,
etc. But since xriais can only mean creation as
an act, or the creature, while on the other hand the
connection of deov with xriais forbids us to attribute
to dpxy the meaning of " author, founder," the only
remaining alternative is to conclude that it denotes
"the beginning of the creation of God." If we
compare this with the apocalyptic formula, dpxh xal
reXos, we find that it cannot be limited to the first
or highest creature, or to Him " in whose presence
the God - created world begins " (Ritschl, Altkath.
Kirche, 1st ed. p. 144; Baur, N. T. Theol. p. 217,
etc.; Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, i. 153), so that Christ
would be placed in the rank of creatures, though as
¦ primus inter pa.res ; but priority in time at least is
attributed to Him, consequently pre-existence and
precedence of rank before all creatures. He is set
forth as a being above the sphere of the created, as
the primeval principle of creation ; and this is not
opposed to the sole, sovereign creating power of God,
' but is rather directly confirmed by deov ; comp.
Gebhardt, Lehrbegriff der Apokalypse, p. 96. More
over, the name d Xoyos tov deov (xix. 13) is attri
buted to Christ where He appears as Judge in His
glory with the heavenly hosts, according to which
He is Himself the Word, the personal Possessor of
divine wisdom and might, the Mediator of all divine
self-revelation.1 1 Liicke's discussion respecting the Christology of the Apocalypse,
Versuch einer volbtiindigen Einteitung, 2nd ed. p. 734, etc., is

170 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
The work of Jesus Christ proceeds from His love
to us (i. 5), as He is, in the first place, the faithful
and true witness (iii. 14, i. 5), i.e. the absolutely
faithful messenger of the divine will and the divine
truth, and also sends His angel from heaven to give
testimony (xxii. 16; comp. ver. 20). Again, the
Apocalypse is fond of setting forth Jesus the cruci
fied one under the figure of the lamb that was slain
(v. 6, xiii. 8, vii. 14, xii. 11 ; comp. i. 5, vii. 18) ; a
figure primarily derived from the Passover lamb,
whilst at the same time the passage Isa. Iiii. and
the ritual of the atoning sacrifice appear uppermost
in the mind of the writer. He thus implies that
Jesus' death on the cross was of an atoning and
sacrificial character. Hence a sin-redeeming (v. 9,
xiv. 3) and cleansing power (i. 5, vii. 14) is attri
buted to His blood. The entire work of redemption
is a victorious combat (iii. 21, v. 5). But now that
Jesus has conquered, has risen and been exalted, He
is also a King of kings, seated with the Father on His
throne, has power, honour, and glory, holding even
the keys of Hades and death (i. 18, iii. 21, v. 9, 12,
superficial, and scarcely worthy of the otherwise excellent work ;
Baur's endeavours to deprive the predicates of Christ in this book of
a metaphysical significance (Christenthum, 1st ed. p. 290, etc., 2nd
ed. p. 315, etc. ; N. T. Theol. p. 215, etc.) is less convincing.
Niermeyer, Over de echtheid der Joh. Schriften, Haag 1852, p,
169, etc., is more searching. Reuss, Hist, de la thiol, chr. i.
346, jusjly admits : "On doit reconnaitre, sans h&iter, que Christ,
dans l'Apocalypse, est eleve' au niveau de Dieu." Compare the excel
lent remark of Beyschlag, Christologie des N. T. 1866, p. 133.
The expressions S xiyos tov hov and h xpx>i Tm xTio-tas are mutually
explanatory. It is evident that a.px'i «¦« xrlo-ieis may mean a
world - creating Word of God, not a merely world -judging Word,
in whatever way xp%ri be taken ; a merely world-judging Word
might indeed be a t'iXos, but in no sense an &p%4. Gebhardt, Lehr
begriff der Apokalypse, 1873, p. 98, etc.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. 171
xix. 16). As Lord he has also "the key of David ;''
walks amidst the golden candlesticks, i.e. the Churches,
and with eyes like flames of fire pierces the souls
and conditions of the Churches (ii. 1, 18, iii. 7, v. 6),
having the seven spirits of God, viz. the one Spirit
of God in the fulness of His nature, in His different
revelations, i.e. He walks as the omniscient, present
and mighty Head of His Church, holds His own
people fast (i. 16), chastens those whom He loves
(iii. 19), stands at the door and goes in unto them
(iii. 20).
The Church consists of souls that have been
pardoned, that were originally sin-stained, miserable,
and dead (i. 5, iii. 1, 17), but are now called, chosen
and faithful (xvii. 14). They are gathered from
every kindred and tongue and race of humanity
(v. 9, vii. 9). The universalism of Christianity is
here so clearly attested, that there is no ground for
reproaching the author with Jewish narrowness ;
this is so fully recognised even by Liicke, that he
effectually defends the Apocalypse against all such
accusations, ante, p. 736, etc.; comp. Bleek, Beitrdye
zur evang. Kritik, p. 184, etc.; Niermeyer, ante,
p. 84, etc. The Apocalypse definitely acknowledges
that the gospel is destined for humanity, but
expresses' this idea in such a way as to make the
nation of God, from its Old Testament foundation,
receive all races of humanity into its communion
through the word of God (iii. 3, xiv. 6, etc.) accepted
by them. They have washed their robes, and made
them white in the blood of the Lamb (vii. 14), viz.
through Christ's death they have become personal
partakers of reconciliation with God, having appro
priated to themselves this reconciliation. But lest

172 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
they should come short of salvation, they must keep
themselves holy (xxii. 11; comp. xi. 18), must cease
to participate in the sins of the world (xiv. 4, xviii.
4); in fear of God and obedience to Him (xi. 18,
xii. 17, xix. 5) keeping true to the faith and confes
sion of Jesus, even unto death (ii. 2, 3, xix. 10),
that they may overcome (ii. 7, xxi. 7). These
believers have great honour ; they are kings and
priests (i. 5, v. 10), but brethren among themselves
(xix. 10).
Against the Church of Christ comes forth Satan
iu hostile attitude, attacking in every way, mislead
ing the world, and estranging believers (ii. 9, xii. 9,
etc., xx. 2, 9).* After being thrust out of heaven
and hurled down to the earth (xii. 13, etc.), he
pursues the Church of Christ on earth, especially by
means of the two powers which are represented
partly under the form of a fearful beast out of the
sea uniting in himself " great power and much
cunning," partly under the form of a beast coming
up out of the earth, a false prophet (xiii. 1, etc.).
Hence the former beast appears still in connection
with the godless metropolis, persecutes the saints
even unto death, and purposes to destroy Christ's
kingdom. Those men who do not serve the true
God and Christ are deceived so as to worship the
beast and his image, and by that means serve the devil
-who has given his power to the beast (xiii. 4, xiv. 9,
11, xvi. 2) ; and sink into all manner of sin and vice
(ix. 21, xiv. 8, xvii. 2, etc, xviii. 3, 6, etc, xxi. 8).
This fearful struggle, demanding many sacrifices,
ends in a glorious victory at the return of Christ, who
shall appear from heaven visibly, so that all eyes see
Him (i. 7, xix. 11) in great glory, accompanied by

THE DOCTRINE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. 173
an army of the saints (xix. 14, 19 ; comp. xvii. 14).
Such is the sacred, fundamental truth that runs
through the whole book. John says : " Behold, He
comes with clouds," etc. (i. 7) ; ' Christ commands to
write to the Churches: "I come" (ii. 5, 16, iii. 3,
11); John sees in vision how Christ comes down
(xix. 11, etc.). The voice resounds in different
passages: "Behold, I come quickly" (xvi. 15, xxii. 7,
12, 20). The spirit answers out of the hearts of
believers: " Come, Lord Jesus" (xxii. 17, 20). It is
an unquestionable fact that the coming of Christ is
described as a visible thing in connection with
phenomena and shakings of the visible world ; comp.
Liicke, ante, p. 719, etc. The returning Christ will
first of all make vigorous war upon the enemies of
Himself and His kingdom that gather themselves
against Him in a host, and will victoriously overcome
them. As Babylon the harlot (i.e. the God-forsaken
metropolis, xvii. 1, 18 ; see Hofmann, ii. 2. 640, etc.)
had been judged and destroyed before (chap, xviii.),
so He Himself at His appearing will execute merited
judgment not only upon them that have been
deceived (xix. 21 ; comp. xiii. 15, 17), but will also
overthrow the two deceivers, and cast them alive
into a lake of fire burning with brimstone, viz. the
beast (the world-power at enmity with God, the
whole kingdom of the world as opposed to the
kingdom of God ; see Auberlen, Daniel und Offen-
barung Johannis, 1854, p. 267, etc.) and the false
prophet (wisdom and intellect at enmity with God).
Immediately after this the author and prince of all
evil (Satan) is cast down into the bottomless pit,
where he is confined and bound during a thousand
years, so that he has no more concern in deceiving

174 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
the nations during this period (xx. 1-3). Secondly,
the believing and faithful enjoy the fruits of their
Lord's return, especially those who live till that
time, who shall henceforward sit upon thrones and
judge for a thousand years,1 as also those who had
been slain for the witness of Jesus, martyrs and
confessors raised from death in the first resurrection
(xx. 5).2 These now live in undisturbed peace, in
priestly service of God and Christ, clothed with
kingly glory (xx. 6).
The millennial kingdom is not yet the consumma
tion itself. After the thousand years are expired, a
final contest breaks forth, Satan being loose again,
stirring up an assault of heathen nations against the
saints and the city of God (xx. 7—9). But fire from
heaven consumes these enemies, and Satan is now
cast into the lake of fire to be tormented everlastingly,
where the beast and the false prophet are already
(vv. 9, 10).
1 In the description contained in chap, xx, the ipom and f>atn-
Xivnt mentioned in ver. 4 and again in ver. 6, are manifestly the chief
thought ; the xplpx iiii* follows, and, like Dan. vii. 20, brings to
view a princely trait. Kpi/ix sSoVn xvtoJs does not describe a judicial
act, as Weiss, N. T. Theol. p. 557, note 1, asserts, for the assump
tion that it refers to those summoned to judgment is a mere guess ;
while the apocalyptic writer in another place (comp. xx. 11, etc.)
describes an act of judgment — the last judgment — with unequivocal'
clearness. We agree, therefore, with Gebhardt, Apokal. p. 292, who
finds in xptpx iiitti the usual expression for the beginning of the
dominion. 2 That this first resurrection is meant to be understood in a literal
sense appears from the antithesis, ver. 5, according to which the
rest of the dead do not live again till the thousand years are past.
We must do complete violence to the words if, with Hengstenberg,
we take the "first resurrection" figuratively {Die Ofenbarung des
h. Joh. ii. 1. 357, etc.), and understand it as referring to the first
stage of happiness and rest in the invisible world. Not to mention

THE DOCTRINE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. 175
Now comes in the end of the world with the uni
versal judgment and the resurrection of all the dead
(xx. 11, 15). Heaven and earth pass away, a new
world comes in their place (xxi. 1, 4, etc. ; comp. xx.
11), the new Jerusalem comes down from God (xxi.
2, 9, etc.), God Himself dwells with men (xxi., xxii.
3, etc.). The city needs neither sun nor moon, for
the glory of God and of the Lamb lightens it (xxi.
23, comp. ver. 11, xxii. 5). Neither has the city
any temple, for God Almighty, with His holy presence,
and the Lamb are the temple of it (xxi. 22). Absolute
holiness and blessedness (xxi. 4, 8, 27, xx. 1, etc.),
priestly service of God and the Lamb on the part of
God's children (xxii. 3, etc., xxi. 7), and their ever
lasting, kingly reign (xxii. 5), pervade the city. Its
gates bear the names of the twelve tribes of Israel ;
and the foundation-stones of its walls, the names of
the twelve apostles of the Lamb (xxi. 12, 14). The
nations inhabiting the new earth walk in the light of
other considerations, it is inexplicable in that case why this resur
rection (ver. 5) does not begin till the very commencement of the
thousand years. Nothing but prepossession can prevent our seeing
here that 'iZ,wrxi has the same meaning as in ii. 8 : 2s iyinro nxpcs
xxi iZi"', i.e. in vitam redierunt (Bengel). Consider the contrast in
^ti^ij twv xter tXixtffptivoj v — xxi&^no-xv. The passage speaks of an
awakening of the martyrs from corporeal death to the full enjoyment
of reigning with Christ for a thousand years, — a state which is
described in pure and noble colours, without the admixture of
sensuous traits. This is the opinion of Liicke, ante, p. 730, etc. ;
Hofmann, ii. 2. 652, etc. ; and others agree. But the allusion is not
only to those who are awakened (Hofmann, p. 653), as is clearly
shown by the distinction between Xxxlurxi — xxi xplpox ib"o6n xvtoTs
on the one hand, and «•! txs -^vx^s — xxi iX,wxt, etc., in ver. 4.
On this point we agree with Hebart, Die zweite sichtbare Zukuvft
Christi, 1850, p. 165, although his work leaves much to be desired
in respect to biblical completeness, exegetical research, and scientific
elaboration.

176 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
this glorious city of God ; kings of the earth do
homage to it, and the leaves of the trees of life along
the river of life which flows through its streets, serve
for the healing of the nations (xxi. 24, etc, xxii.
1, 3).
The meaning of edvy, xxi. 24, 26, xxii. 2, and of
BaaiXeh t^9 7??9, is disputed, some referring the words
to the heathen and men outside the Church (Hofmann,
ii. 2. 660), others to Gentile Christians (Credner,
Einleit. i. 74), others maintaining that " peoples "
generally are meant by edvy, who are then supposed
to belong to the Church of the blessed. According
to the first explanation, the statements about the edvy
must be put back into the last period of the world,
i.e. into the time before the new heavens and earth
were created (Hofmann, ante) ; but there is no trace
of this in the words themselves ; oneuie contrary, the
distinction in question must be ip.ud between the
lines and interpolated. The idaa -of Gentile Christians
is also incorrect ; at least the Old Testament colouring
of the picture of the city of God gives no support to
it ; for the glorified Church of God is represented as
the new, perfected Israel. There is therefore no other
alternative than to take edvy, with Hengstenberg, ante,
ii. 2. 47; Liicke, ante, p. 738, etc., and others, as
meaning " peoples," " nations," who are attached to the
city of God and inhabit the new world round about
the new Jerusalem.1 Hence there is involved in the
1 It follows from the parallel pxnxus ns y>is, xxi. 24, and again
from the expression, xxi. 26 : iripMXT7iitovci hx tov qyuros xIttis, and
xxii. 2 : ri tp IxXx t«5 |i!am lis hpxvriixi ifoZv, that in xxi. 24, 26,
xxii. 2, tin cannot include the religious conception of heathenism in
opposition to the people of God, as Weiss supposes (ante, p. 560, comp.
note 5), but simply means, the nations who do not themselves fully
belong to the city of God, but are so to speak its confederates.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. 177
statement no Judaistic limitation ; nor does the fact
that the names of the twelve apostles are upon the
twelve foundation-stones of the walls (xxi. 1 4) imply
a direct exclusion and rejection of the Apostle Paul
(against Baur, Kanon. Evang. pp. 348, 368 ; Christen-
thum der drei ersten Jahrh., 1st ed. p. 75, etc, 2nd ed.
p. 81 ; N. T. Theologie,^. 214; Schwegler, Nachapost.
Zeitalter, i. 121, 15 7, etc, ii. 254). For if, in con
formity with the whole tone of the book, the Church
of Christ be set forth as the true Israel, consisting in
its entirety of the twelve tribes of Israel, the com
pleted city of God corresponding to the number twelve,
it would be impossible for the seer to put in a
thirteenth foundation-stone without the most hideous
disturbance, even if he were the freest disciple of the
Apostle Paul. Moreover, when the apostles are said
to be twelve in number, we must not be petty in our
reckoning, for Paul himself speaks of them on one
occasion (1 Cor. xv. 5) as " the twelve," although at
that time, speaking accurately, there were only eleven.
Comp. Bleek, Beitrage, p. 184 ; Ritschl; Entstehung, 1st
ed. p. 138, 2nd ed. p. 120, etc. ; Niermeyer, ante, p.
87, etc. ; Liicke, ante, p. 739 ; Reuss, ante, ii. p. 518,
etc. Gebhardt's explanation of the passage, Lehrbegriff
derApokal. p. 314, etc, is neither clear nor convincing.1

Passing to the Gospel and Epistles of John, we leave
unnoticed the doubts advanced by Baur respecting
the unity of their authorship, and appeal to the
1 Kliefoth, Die Offenbarung des Johannes, 1874, iii. 315, correctly
remarks, the text counts up neither the names of the apostles nor
those of the tribes, and therefore cannot show the way in which they
are counted. Hence it is vain to ask whether Paul is included in the
reckoning, or who in this case is left out.
VOL. II. M

178 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
excellent refutation of them by W. Grimm (" Ueber
den I. Brief Johannis und sein Verhaltniss zum Evan-
gelium," Stud, und Krit. 1849, p. 269, etc.) and
Diisterdieck (Die drei joh. Brief e, 1852, i. p. lvii. etc.).
We prefer to develop the doctrinal system of the Gospel
and Epistles together, presupposing the genuineness of
both, as already stated.
If we use the Gospel as well as the Epistles as a
source of John's doctrine, the same mode of procedure
cannot be objected to where the prologue and the
many intermediate remarks in the course of the
narrative, and at its close, are concerned. The case is
different if we employ the discourses of Jesus also
as a means to discover the apostle's doctrine. Is this
not indirectly attacking and sacrificing the historical
character of these discourses ? We think not. It is
our conviction that the discourses of Jesus are accu-
1 The difficulty of this, question, undoubtedly the most important
in the sphere of introduction to the New Testament, is well known.
A testimony to the fact that the decided ' ' moments " are almost
equally balanced, is seen in the case of a critic like Strauss, who wavers
in the different editions of his Leben Jesu, having first presupposed
the spuriousness of the Gospel, and afterwards inclined to its genuine
ness. The attack upon its genuineness, on internal grounds, as
conducted by Baur ("Composition und Charakter des Joh. Evang,"
Theol. Jahrb. 1844, 1, 3, 4), does not rest on a secure foundation,
notwithstanding his acknowledged acuteness, as has been pointed out
by Bleek (Beitrage zur Evangelien Kritik, 1846), Hauff (Stud, und
Krit. 1846, iii. p. 350, etc.), Luthardt (Der johanneische Ursprung
des vierten Evang. 1874), and others. Among the external testimonies
mustered by Zellerin a negative direction (Theol. Jahrbueher, 1845,
iv. p. 579, etc.), two have been specially misconceived, viz. the
important circumstance that Heracleon, Valentine's immediate dis
ciple, wrote a commentary on John's Gospel ; and Justin's quota
tions from John which have been elucidated by Semisch (Denk-
wurtligkeiten des M. Justinus, 1848, p. 155, etc.). An impartial
estimate of these two testimonies suffices to refute the hypothesis of
the composition of the Fourth Gospel in the middle of the second

THE DOCTRINE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. 179
rately rendered ; but the assumption that their form and
composition have come down to us without any addi
tion on the part of the narrator, seems to be unhistorical
ancl unnatural ; for the essence and course of divine-
human life, and of its divine - human transmission,
condition a passing of the subjective into the objective,
as well as of the objective into the subjective. Comp.
the excellent ideas of Lutterbeck, ante, ii. p. 253,
etc, and Bunsen's observations to the same effect,
Hippolytus, i. 303 ; Luthardt, Der joh. Ur 'sprung des
vierten Ev. p. 178, etc.; Godet, Comm. sur t'Ev. de
St. Jean, 2nd ed. part 1, p. 163, etc. ; Weiss, K T.
Theol., 4th ed. p. 596, etc. Accordingly, we derive
the apostle's doctrine as well as that of Jesus, from
the discourses of the latter as related by John.
John himself thus defines the aim of his Gospel :
century. We agree with a remark of Bleek (Beitrage, p. 91), to the
effect that "it is incomparably more difficult to understand the phe
nomena presented by the Fourth Gospel in itself and in comparison
with the Synoptics, as well as its history in the Church, on the sup
position of the spuriousness of the work than on that of its genuine
ness." Since 1850 some very important testimonies for the Gospel
of John have appeared in newly-discovered writings of antiquity,
first in the conclusion of the Clementine Homilies discovered in Rome
by Dressel, about which criticism had formerly decided that they
could not possibly cite the Fourth Gospel. The conclusion discovered
proves unmistakeably that the author knew and used the Gospel of
John. Next we find in extracts from the writings of the Gnostic
Basilides, communicated in the so-called Philosophumena Origenis
(in reality Hippolytus) Refutatio heeresium, a remarkably copious
use of the Gospel of John. The representation of the Basilidian
system, which we find in Hippolytus, is judged by experts, as Uhlhorn
(Das basilidianische System, 1855) and Baur (Tlieol. Jahrb. 1856, p.
150, etc.), to be in a high degree original and well founded, which
puts an important weight into the scale, especially in favour of
Basilides' quotations from John (at latest 130 a.d.). Comp. P.
Hofstede de Groot, Basilides als erster Zeuge fur N. T. Schriften,
besJoh. Ev., German edition, Leipzig 1868, pp. 4, etc., 95, etc.

180 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
" These are written, that ye might believe that Jesus
is the Christ, the Son of God ; and that believing ye
might have life through His name" (xx. 31). The
expressed aim of the first Epistle is, that in fellowship
with God the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ
the joy of the readers might be full (i. 4 in conjunction
with ver. 3). Comp. Erdmann, primce Joh. epist.
argumentum, etc. 1885, p. 58, etc., and Diisterdieck,
ante, xvii. The similarity as well as the difference of
these two positions, each indicating the central point
of the writing in question, is obvious ; particularly
the practical turn which the Epistle, by virtue of its
admonitory purpose, gives to the same truth. Hence
John's fundamental view is this : Jesus the Christ and
Son of God, in whom is the life. Christ the Son of
God is the personal, the %coy the material, fundamental
conception of the Johannine doctrine ; rriarts is the
medium by which Christ applies life to the soul.
Thus the religious view is immediately directed to the
unique majesty, divinity, and fulness of life in the
person of Jesus Christ with peculiar intensity and
power. But this view of Jesus presupposes a very
definite conception of God and the world, whilst at
the same time it puts into humanity a definite de
velopment and completeness as the effect and fruit of
personal life in Christ. The leading parts of the
Johannine system are thus indicated.1
1 Reuss has based his development of the Johannine doctrine in
an able manner on the Gospel statement contained in iii. 16, Hist, de
la thiol, chr. ii. 336, etc, his only mistake being that he makes the
doctrine of the Son and His work rest on dogmatic premisses. Follow
ing the words step by step, the classification is this, viz. — I. Dogmatic
premisses: 1. Speculative portion, (as) S lus, (6) rov viiv x'vrov ; 2. His
toric portion, (a) ilmxi* (incarnation), (b) us to* xio-pov. II. Mystic
doctrine: 1. 'Ivx tfhttivovtis ', 2. £«?jv 'i%capiy.

GOD. 181

FIRST DOCTRINAL PART.
WHAT IS IMPLIED IN THE DOCTRINE OF JESUS CHRIST,
THE SON OF GOD ?
A. God.
Respecting God, John gives special prominence
to the idea that He is the one, the only true God, in
opposition to the gods so called (Gospel v. 44, xvii.
3; Epistle v. 20, etc.); for the circumstance that
0UT09, He who is d dXydivbs debs xal %coy alcovios,
does not refer to the Son Jesus Christ, but to the
6 dXydivbs occurring twice before, consequently to
God the Father, makes it most probable that iv rep
vlcp avrov 'I. Xp. is only put in by way of adjunct.
Of God as the true, i.e. of Him who is really God,
John testifies that He is invisible; just as Jesus
(Gospel iv. 24) tells the Samaritan woman irvevpa
b debs, which, according to the context, is in the
first place a denial of all supposed limitation of God
to one fixed place, but at the same time emphasizes
the spirituality of God positively and in a moral
aspect. The apostle repeats : deov oi/Bels ecopaxev
ircbirore (Gospel iv. 12); and again: deov oiBels
ireoirore redearai (1 John iv. 12); the former in
opposition to a full apprehension of God mediated
by His only-begotten Son, the latter in opposition
to the indwelling of God in those who love one
another ; thus, in the former, the apostle denies an
immediate vision of God; and in the latter a sensuous
vision of Him as distinguished from one that is
morally conditioned. John affirms of God positively,

182 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
that He is light, life, love. God is light (1" John
i. 5) : xal axoria iv avrcp ovk eariv ovBepla ; i.e.
according to the application that immediately follows,
God is holy: the proposition, however, is not to be
limited to this meaning, but is rather to be under
stood as including perfection of existence, nature,
and will ; whose negative side a scholiast thus ex
presses : ovre yap dyvoia, ovre irXdvy, ovre dpaprla,
ovre ddvaros. Comp. Dlisterdieck's excellent dis
cussion, ante, i. 71-78. The other statement, that
God is life (%coy alcovios, 1 John v. 2 0 ; Gospel v. 2 6 :
d iraryp e^et ^coyv iv eavrcp), absolutely perfect,
eternal life in Himself, origin and source of all
material and spiritual life of the creature, is there
fore allied to this. Finally, God is love, 1 John iv. 8 :
d debs dydiry iarlv, to interpret which in a merely
moral sense, as the will to love (plenus dilectione,
Grotius, etc.), is superficial; it is rather an expression of
the fact that the nature of God is love (Luther : " Deus
nihil est quam mera caritas "), i.e. He is the absolute
personality whose nature and will consist in love ;
which is revealed in the communication of Himself,
inasmuch as God pours light and life into His
creatures, while the Father redeems the world by
the Son in the Holy Spirit, John iii. 16. Again,
Jesus states .emphatically that the Father eoss dpn
epyd^erat, i.e. that the Sabbath-rest of God after the
creation is a state of constant activity and work.1
John lays stress on those moral attributes of God
1 Godet makes an acute remark respecting this utterance of Jesus,
Comm. 2nd ed. ii. p. 398, etc. ; comp. i. 209 : " II ne s'agit pas, dans ce
passage, de l'activit^ de Dieu dans le domaine de la nature, mais du
travail du Pere, dans la sphere de l'^ducation morale et de la redemp
tion du genre humain, travail qui a pr^cise"ment commence" a la suite
et sur le fondement du travail ereateur."

GOD.

which lend themselves to the practical aim before
him at the time, e.g. that He is true (by way of
antithesis to yjrevaryv iroiovpev avrov, 1 John
i. 10), faithful and just (1 John i. 9).; the former,
inasmuch as He is true to His word and fulfils His
promises ; the latter, inasmuch as the forgiveness of
sins, in the case of honest confession, is likewise an
act of justice, "vene confessioni juste dimittit" (Bede);
God's forgiveness of the repentant sinner is a suum
cuique ; the interchange of Bixatos with "gracious,
merciful," which was at variance with all usage, has
rightly disappeared ; on the other hand, reference to
the doctrine of satisfaction, connected with the iden
tification of Bixatos with the Pauline Bixatcov, invests
the word with a meaning that lies neither in itself
nor in the context ; comp. Liicke, Comm. 2nd ed. p.
142; Diisterdieck, i. p. 132, etc.; Huther, Comm.
2nd ed. p. 63, etc. Along with the omniscience of
God we have, in 1 John iii. 20, the statement:
pel^cov iarlv b debs rys xapBlas yp,cov. By virtue of
its connection with vv. 19 and 21, this cannot
mean that God is greater in holy severity (Liicke,
who has, however, felt the doubt himself), but must
have a comforting sense. But if this consist in the
fact that God knoivs all things better than our heart
(Diisterdieck, ii. 1, p. 206, etc, and especially p. 229,
etc. ; Weiss, N. T. Theol. p. 652, with note 9), then
peltfov — yposv and yivcoaxet irdvra must coincide ; a
supposition only admissible in case no other thought
were present in the former clause. Hence we prefer
the interpretation, God is greater, possesses more
power and authority to pardon (with Huther, Comm.
2nd ed. p. 176, etc.; Erdmann, ante, p. 127: "fortior
est, ut hostem devincere possit ").

184 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.

B. The World and the Prince of this World.
The world in all its parts was created by God
(through the Logos, see below), Gospel i. 3, 10.
These words prove that John may be fully acquitted
of the charge of Gnostic dualism brought against
him by Hilgenfeld. But the world in its existing
state is at enmity with God, so that he who loves
the world cannot love God. And by xoapos, John
usually understands the whole sphere of earthly
creation (e.g. 1 John ii. 15-17) so far as it is
estranged from God, and subject to the dominion
of evil ; rd iv rep xbapco are the individual objects
within the world's compass. In many passages (e.g.
Gospel xvii. 25) the narrower conception of the evil
world of humanity prevails ; comp. the profound
discussion of the conception xoapos in Diisterdieck,
ante, i. 247-261. God is light, the world darkness;
God is life, in the world death reigns (1 John ii. 15,
i. 5 ; comp. ii. 9 ; Gospel i. 5 ; 1 John iii. 14). Dark
ness is partly estrangement from the truth, lies and
unbelief (Gospel xii. 35; 1 John i. 6, 8, ii. 22);
partly estrangement from love ; wrath, hatred, and
bloodthirstiness (1 John ii. 9-11, iii. 14). Sin is in
itself lawlessness (dvopla), estrangement from the
holy will of God (1 John iii. 4) ; for to understand
by the vbpos which is transgressed, the Mosaic law
alone, would be contrary to the entire Johannine view ;
vbpos must be the sum-total of the divine commands
(ii. 3, iii. 22, etc, v. 2, etc.), the greatest of which is
love. Comp. Weiss, Johanneischer Lehrbegriff, 1862,
p. 167. Sin is universal in humanity, for it belongs
to the essence of the adpg, Gospel iii. 6 : to 76761/-

THE WORLD AND THE PRINCE OF THIS WORLD. 185
vypevov ix T779 aapxbs adpl; iariv, xal to yeyevvypevov
ix tov irvevparos irvevpa iariv. The connection of
this clause with the whole discourse in which Jesus
declares the necessity of regeneration, shows that adpl;
is used to denote nature and life, not merely as a
lower in opposition to a higher nature, but as at
variance with the divine essence and will. The
passage therefore teaches that mankind, by virtue of
their birth and parentage, are tainted with moral
corruption, comp. Jul. Miiller, von der Siinde, ii. p.
174, etc, a view which Hofmann need not have
opposed as he has done (Schriftbeweis, i. 452). John
considers this state of ungodliness as actually in
herent in humanity and universally present ; and has
described it in its separate aspects. Kostlin (Joh.
Lehrbegriff, p. 117, etc.) maintains that John repre
sents the opposition between God and the world as
original, coinciding with the distinction between the
earthly and the heavenly, — an inference drawn from
the author's silence respecting the fall of Adam, and
quite unauthorized. This conclusion is the less
admissible, inasmuch as the above dualistic concep
tion of evil is quite irreconcilable with the unmistake-
able Old Testament character of John's fundamental
view (comp. Gospel viii. 44).
It is an essential element in the conception of the
world's estrangement from God, that whoever commits
sin is of the devil. This being, Satan, is the author
of all evil : sins are his epya, and those who do evil
are his children, morally dependent on him as author
of the evil within them (1 John iii. 8,12: ix rov
BtaBbXov elvai, rexva rov BtaB., but never yeyevvyadai
ix r. B. ; comp. Diisterdieck, ante, ii. 1, p. 126, etc.).
The whole evil world lies in the wicked one, i.e. under

186 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
the power of the wicked one (1 John v. 19). That
this passage does not refer to to irovypov, but to
d irovypbs, is shown by its connection with v. 18 :
d irovypbs ovx dirrerai avrov, and by the usage of
the whole Epistle, in which (ii. 14, iii. 12; comp.
ver. 10) d irovypbs is used in a personal sense =
BtdBoXos, while to irovypov never appears. This
agrees with 1 John iv. 4 : d iv rep xbapep ; comp.
with Gospel xii. 31 : d dpxcov rov xbapov tovtov.
Satan is the personal principle of evil, for he sins
from the beginning (1 John iii. 8). This does not
mean that the devil is originally and by nature an
evil being ; here we agree with Kostlin (ante, p. 127,
etc.), and appeal to the parallel passage in the Gospel
(viii. 44, etc.) ; for if the devil be " a murderer
from the beginning," "the beginning" can only coincide
with the creation of man and his fall (viz. with the
first murder, comp. 1 John iii. 12, which is rendered
improbable by the context; see Stud. u. Krit. 1854,
p. 814, etc.), and not with the existence of the devil
himself. John certainly does not speak of a fall of
the devil, nor does he make any mention of the fall
of the first men. On the contrary, he describes the
nature and work of Satan as it is, making no state
ment as to the origin of his hostile disposition
towards God, but rather taking it for granted on the
basis of Old Testament revelation. In the Gospel
passage Jesus makes a twofold statement respecting
the devil ; first, he is a murderer of men from the
beginning ; second, he is a liar and does not abide in
the truth (ev rfj dXydeta oi>x earyxev, has not his
abode in the truth, truth is not the foundation of his
being ; comp. Hahn, Neut. Theologie, i. p. 31 3, etc.) ;
when he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own, i.e.

THE WORLD AND THE PRINCE OF THIS WORLD. 187
in conformity with his innermost essential nature.
And just as he is so does he work. His works
(1 John iii. 8) are partly anger, hatred, and murder
(1 John iii. 10, 12, 15), partly lying (Gospel viii. 44).
These testimonies respecting the devil and his
children have been misinterpreted and abused in
many ways ; in olden time by the Maniclueans, who
tried to support their distinctive dualism by the
authority of the apostle, more recently by critics who
thought they could establish the presence of a Gnostic
tendency in the authors of the Fourth Gospel and
Epistles (for they also disputed the unity of author
ship).1 That a Gnostic dualism between God and the
devil as principles of good and evil alike eternal, and
the opposition between the children of God and the
1 That John in viii. 44, 1 John iii. 8, considers the devil as a,
being originally and radically evil, is maintained by Frommann,
Hilgenfeld, Reuss (ante, ii. p. 380: "il est mauvais de sa nature,
depuis le commencement de son existence "). We must allow that
Hilgenfeld has put forth the boldest assertion, viz. that the author
of the Fourth Gospel (chap. viii. 44) makes Jesus speak of the God of
the Jews as " the father of the devil " in the words : U tov *« rpis
tov d ix (SoXov iffTl and ¦^.lutfTvis iffTiv xxi 0 VTXTVip xvtov. This
strange explanation, in which Credner led the way followed by
Volkmar, would bo admissible only if the more natural acceptation
of tov lixfioXov as a genitive of apposition to tov nxTpis yielded no
good sense ; not only is this not the case, but it even corresponds to
the parallel passage, 1 John iii. 10 (t'ixvx tov hov — r«u SixfUXov). Such
an interpretation leads to the conclusion that the Jews are described
as brethren of the devil. Moreover, in the passage in Irenajus, Adv.
Hezreses, i. 30, § 5 (Stieren, i. p. 266), which has been appealed to by
way of confirmation, it is not directly said that Jaldabaoth, the god
of the Jews according to Gnostic teaching, is " the father of the
devil," but only that the Eeon Nus, the serpent-like, was begotten
by Jaldabaoth. Godet (Comm. 2nd ed. i. p. 221, etc.) has given
an excellent refutation of Hilgenfeld's view which even Scholten
decidedly rejected.

188 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
children of the devil as a " metaphysical dualist
principle" (Hilgenfeld, Theol. Jahrb. 1856, pp. 490,
etc, 512) are entirely foreign to John, is obvious from
the following considerations to all who desire to see :
— (1) from his doctrine of creation, see above, p. 184,
vol. ii, according to which all that is, without a single
exception, was created by God (through the Logos),
Gospel i. 3 ; (2) from the doctrine and history of the
Old Testament presupposed by him, which, are un
questionably not dualist but strictly monotheistic ;
(3) from his teaching that every man without excep
tion though born of the flesh, a child of the world, is
delivered from the inherited state of sin and death
by being born of God, and is transplanted into life
(Gospel iii. 5, etc. ; 1 John iii. 14). This is not by
any means consistent with the vain imagination that
part of mankind are originally children of God, part
children of the devil. With John this antithesis has
in general only a moral sense, conditioned by will
and disposition, and must not be understood as having
its essence in the nature. Comp. Diisterdieck, ante,
i. 257, etc, ii. 1. 129, etc. ; Lutterbeck, neutest.
Lehrbegriffe, ii. 269, etc.; Weiss, Johanneischer Lehr
begriff, p. 128, etc. Finally, (4) the alleged dualism
of nature is at variance with the truth that God
loves the world notwithstanding its state of alienation
and sin (Gospel iii. 16, etc.), and so loves it as to
give His only-begotten Son that it may be saved.
Accordingly, it must be His world in origin and
essence. "For this purpose the Son of God was
manifested, that He might destroy the works of the
devil " (1 John iii. 8).

JESUS CHRIST THE ONLY-BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD. 189
SECOND DOCTRINAL PART.
JESUS CHRIST, THE SON OF GOD, IN WHOM IS LIFE.
A. Jesus Christ the only-begotten Son of God.
1. His Person.
The empirical view of Jesus Christ in His entire
divine-human personality (Gospel i. 14,16: ideaadpeda,
iXaBopev ; 1 John i, 2, etc.), lies at the foundation of
John's teaching with respect to His person. John
sets forth the manifestation of Jesus Christ in the
Gospel as well as the Epistle, in the latter by way of
exhortation, in the former historically ; but the eye is
always directed to the divine glory shining forth in
the human life of Jesus : He is eternal life made
manifest ; He is the Logos made flesh.
(a) The Logos in and by itself. We cannot assent
to the view put forward by Hofmann, ante, i. pp. 101,
etc, 144, etc., and subsequently with little deviation
by Luthardt, Joh. Ev. 2nd ed. 1875, i. p. 275, that
John i. 1 speaks only of Jesus Christ as an historical
personage ; whether with the former, X0709 be taken
as "the apostolic announcement, viz. its personal
substance, Jesus the Christ," or with the latter as
"the essential revelation in the history of salvation,
Christ, the ultimate revelation of God." We have
nothing to object to the latter interpretation so far as
the language is concerned, but as to its substance we
urge the following considerations against the attempt
to detach the Logos-conception from all extra-Chris
tian, and even from all other biblical usage. It is a

190 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
substantial error to suppose that the conception in its
above sense can be intelligible of itself; the history
of the prologue's interpretation is the strongest
counter-proof. The whole discourse presupposes that
the readers were already acquainted from some other
source with the conception and its expression " the
word ; " which is (probable, moreover, even in the
circle of readers belonging to Asia Minor, for whom
the Gospel was specially designed. But it is the
apostle who first presents the truth in its purity
and fulness, its genuineness and depth, to rectify
the current ideas of his time. Though unable to
separate John's conception of the Logos from all
association with other forms of thought (which
Baumlein has discussed more fully and learnedly
than any other of his time, in his Versuch, die Bedeu-
tung des johanneischen Logos aus den Beligionssystemen
des Orients zu entwickeln, 1828), we believe it has its
foundation mainly in the biblical idea of the creative
word and of the revealing speech of God ; while refer
ence to the Alexandrian-Hellenist conception of the
Logos as divine reason is not to be excluded. The
evangelist appropriates ideas which he found in his
own sphere, as well as the language in which they
were clothed (comp. Schanz, Comm. i. 1844, p. 70).
And it should never have been questioned, in face of
the unmistakeable parallel between John i. 1—5 and
Gen. i. 1, etc, that Gen. i. 3 in particular was in his
mind. This very parallel is conclusive against the
assertion that John had the historically-manifested
God-man in view from the beginning. He certainly
sets out with what he had seen and experienced
(comp. 1 John i. 1, etc.), and refers to the pre-
mundane deity of Christ; but in the prologue, as a'

JESUS CHRIST THE ONLY-BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD. 191
divine preliminary history of the Redeemer (see
Baumgarten-Crusius, Theol. Ausleg. der joh. Schriften,
1843, i. 1, p. 1), he treats of the Logos before the
incarnation and in the incarnation. Without doubt
he takes " the word," i.e. the essential revelation-word,
the sum-total of the divine ideas — (1) as premandanc
and before time, consequently as eternal (ver. 1 : iv dpxfj
yv, " cum primum fiebant, quaecunque esse cceperunt,
erat"). The statement does not indeed go beyond
the beginning of the world, but since it certifies that
the word did not originate when the world began but
already existed, the implication is that the Logos did
not become, but is eternal. (2) The Logos is God, of
one substance with the Father, which is already
involved in the former statement, ver. 1 : debs yv 6
Xbyos, where debs must doubtless be taken as the
predicate, meaning that the Logos is true God, not
merely " Godlike, divine." It is therefore certain
that the article is designedly absent, i.e. that the
Logos 0eo9 is always to be distinguished from d debs,
so that this statement again involves the next. (3) The
Logos is personally distinguished from the Father :
d X0709 yv irpbs tov deov, — He was God with
God, more accurately, toward God, so that His direc
tion tended toward God, His look (comp. i. 18) was
directed to God, His consociation was a communion
• with God. Thus the personal distinction between the
Logos and God is stated as definitely as His unity of
essence with God had been before. In short, the
personality of the essential word is here attested
(comp. Baumlein, ante, p. 77, etc. ; Lutterbeck, ii. p.
262 ; Godet, Comm. 2nd ed. ii. 30 : " il s'agit d'une
relation active, de la communion sentie et personelle").
While ver. 1 declares the relation of the Logos to God,

192 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
vv. 2-5 define His relation to the vjorld. (4) The
Logos is the Mediator of creation, ver. 2 : 7raz>Ta Bi
avrov iyevero; the negative antithesis : XaPL^ a^T0^
iyevero oiiBe ev o yeyovev, purposely excludes eternity
of matter as well as all other dualism. However
strongly this may be expressed, we have yet no right
to say that the Logos is "the absolute principle of
existence" (Baur, theol. Jahrb. 1844, p. 11), or that
" it is not the Father, but the Son who created the
world" (Lutterbeck, ante, ii. p. 263); the Bid in
vv. 2, 10 must not be mistaken; the Logos is the
instrument of the world's creation, not the original
author of creation. (5) With respect to the world of
humanity, the Logos is the source of life and light, of
all grace and truth, and of sonship to God (vv. 4,
etc, 9, 12, 14, 16, etc.); the last, however, only by
virtue of His incarnation, which is already presupposed
aud indicated in vv. 4, 9, etc, but is not expressly
stated until ver. 14.
(b) The Logos made flesh. — In becoming flesh, the
Logos entered upon a new and essentially different
state. Setting out with the heavenly existence of the
Logos, John goes on to say, the Life which was with
the Father vms manifested (eepavepdody), and we have
seen, looked upon, handled and heard it (1 John i. 1,
etc.) ; the Logos was made flesh and dwelt (iaxr;vcoaev)
among us, and we beheld His glory (Gospel i. 14).
From the circumstance that John never says the
Logos became man, but always adpl; (comp. 1 John
iv. 2 ; 2 John 7), and that he lays peculiar stress
on the shedding of the crucified One's blood (1 John
v. 5, etc.), Kostlin (ante, p. 139, etc.), following Zeller,
Jahrbuch. 1842, p. 74, etc., and Baur, K T. Theol. p.
362, has arrived at the conclusion that the incarna-

JESUS CHRIST THE ONLY-BEGOTTEN SON OF COD. 193
tion in John's view appears solely as the assumption
of a human body. But the passages that speak of
the tyvxy of Jesus (Gospel x. 11, 15, 17; 1 John
iii. 16) are against this conclusion,1 since it is neither
proved nor provable that the -y^rvxy is something
purely animal (comp. on the contrary, Gospel xii. 2 7 :
y yfrvxy pov rerapaxTai). Even the name vlbs
avdpcoirov (Gospel v. 27, i. 52, and other passages)
testifies in favour of the complete humanity of the
Logos made flesh, just as in another respect it refers
back to the history of the conception and birth of
Jesus, with which John's Logos - conception is said
to be in irreconcilable opposition, according to Baur's
judgment (Theol. Jahrb. 1844, p. 24, etc.). The
stress laid upon the adpij is mainly explained by the
polemic against a docetism that had already appeared,
and denied the truly human element in Jesus
(1 John iv. 2). In the first Epistle (ver. 1) special
emphasis is laid upon the actual corporeity of the
Redeemer — first, inasmuch as the direct testimony
of the apostle and of his apostolic associates in office
is prominently set forth because of their personal
intercourse with Jesus ; next, specific importance is
attached to the real corporeity of Jesus in and by
itself, as well as to His truly human existence and
life, which could be directly apprehended by sight,
1 Kbstlin roundly asserts, p. 13 : " No trace is to be found in
John of a human 4*vx%" an assumption which he himself refutes in
p. 14, etc, since he quotes passages such as x. 11, etc., xii. 27, in
which Jesus speaks of His ^vx*. It certainly cannot be proved that
the -^vx« was something purely animal, as he supposes. He him
self frankly acknowledges that ^w£>i in xii. 27, as well as in xiii. 21,
etc., might be interchanged with ¦mtv/tx, and that -^vxfi denotes the
highest spiritual principle of the individual, especially if supposed to
be under the influence of strong emotion.
VOL. II. N

194 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
hearing, and handling; and this is done not merely by
way of opposition to docetic ideas, but also by virtue
of the biblical realism which considers corporeity as
the end of the ways of God, as the completion and
actual means of revelation (iepavepcody). In agree
ment with this, John (Gospel i. 14) does not speak
of the incarnation abstractly, but under the aspect of
the adpl;, i.e. the earthly sensuous nature in respect
of which Christ was made like unto us and approached
us so nearly.
The word iyevero must here be taken in a strict
sense, not merely as a coming and appearing in the
form and garb of the adpl;, but as an actual passing
over on the part of the Logos (which is irvevpa) into
the adp% (see Hahn, N. T. Theol. i. 196, etc. ; Godet,
ii. 74, etc.), so that by virtue of this real transmuta
tion, the heavenly, the supramundane, the Bbga itself
might be made perceptible to sense (ideaadpeda,
comp. 1 John i. 1, 3 : dxyxbapev, etc.). In connec
tion with this John does not expressly assert the
idea of the humiliation of Christ in His incarnation,
but vividly sets forth His corporeity in different
features of His historical life. Setting out with the
human appearance of Jesus Christ, John designates
Him as vlbs deov, a conception of relationship and
communion with God which is described as absolutely
unique and belonging to him exclusively by means
of the adjective povoyevr/s (1 John iv. 15, v. ; Gospel
i. 14, 18). The Son of God, who existed from the
beginning, is in the bosom of the Father, equal with
God (1 John ii. 13, etc.; Gospel i. 18, v. 18); in
His humanity He possesses divine Bbga and fulness
of grace and truth. In Him is life (the source and
fulness of life, corporeal as well as spiritual, moral

THE WORK OF JESUS CHRIST. 195
and eternal) : He is the way, the truth and the life ;
He is even one with the Father (Gospel i. 14, 16,
v. 26 ; 1 John v. 11, etc. ; Gospel xiv. 6, x. 30).
2. The Work of Jesus Christ.
(a) The work of Jesus Christ dwelling among us
in the flesh is thus summarized by John : " We have
seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to
be the Saviour of the world (acorypa tov xbapov,
1 John iv. 14; comp. Gospel iv. 42), to destroy the
works of the devil," 1 John iii. 8, i.e. to efface all sin
with its consequences.
a. He is the personal truth (xiv. 6) ; has declared
the name of God, and is come into the world
to bear witness to the truth (Gospel i. 18 : ixelvos
igyyyaaro, i.e. He has declared and manifested the
divine things which He has seen, xvii. 6, 26,
xviii. 37; 1 John i. 5). As He was so should we
be in this world ; as He walked so should we also
walk (1 John ii. 6, iv. 17). In the latter passage
the apostle presents the whole walk of Jesus as it
dwelt in his memory, setting it forth as a type of the
holy Christian walk.
B. He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole
world (1 John ii. 2, iv. 10). The most general
expression is, He laid down His life for us (1 John
iii. 16 : ii7rep ypcov ryv yjrvxvv avrov edyKev, i.e. for
our advantage, in reality in our stead); His shed blood
has power to cleanse from sin (1 John v. 6, i. 7 : Kal
rb alua 'Iyaov rov vlov avrov Kadapi^ei ypds airo
irdays dpaprlas). The apostle here bears witness to
the purifying effect of the blood of Jesus which was
shed on the cross, declaring that the cause and power

196 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
of the purification, its efficacy, is not in us, nor in
our conversion and moral walk in the light, nor yet
in Christian fellowship, but is in fact in the " blood "
of Jesus, i.e. in His bloody death on the cross,
Jesus being the Son of God (rov vlov avrov
is appended as the reason), the God-man. This
cleansing efficacy was not exerted once for all, but is
represented as present and always continuing, by the
use of the present xadapl^et. But in what this
cleansing essentially consists is a matter of dispute.
Some take the xadapl^etv as purification from guilt,
viz. in the sense of forgiveness of sins and justification
(Baumgarten-Crusius, Hofmann, ii. 1. 130); others
understand it as deliverance from the dominion of
sin in act and tendency (Liicke, Diisterdieck, Huther) ;
while others again join the two meanings (de Wette).
The argument drawn from ver. 9 in support of the
second view is not valid, so far as it is based on
the fact that xadapl^etv dirb irdays dBixtas is dis
tinguished from deptevat rds dpaprlas ; because
ver. 7 does not make this distinction, while the
expression before us unites what is separated in
ver. 9. We decide in favour of the union of both
views, and take xadapi^etv as a power which frees
not only from guilt, but also from sinful desire and
action ; for the assertion that xadapl^eiv cannot
mean the removal of guilt (Diisterdieck), seems to
us, in face of biblical usage respecting the washing
away of sin (Ps. Ii. 9 ; Ezek. xvi. 9 ; Apoc. i. 5), to
be without foundation. But it is an unquestionable
fact that the apostle declares the justifying and
sanctifying efficacy of the blood of Jesus upon the
individual to be conditioned by walking in the lio-ht,
since it is only under this condition that mutual

JOHANNINE DOCTRINE  GOSPEL AND EPISTLES. 197
fellowship can be maintained and enjoyed, and that
the justifying and sanctifying efficacy of the blood
can be experienced; comp. Gospel i. 29, where John
the Baptist points to Jesus as " the Lamb of God,
which taketh away the sin of the world." The most
definite language is to be found in the passage 1
John iv. 10, comp. ii. 2 : "The Father sent His Son
to be the propitiation for sins," words that cannot
denote an indirect removal of guilt and punishment
effected by moral purification (as Kostlin supposes,
ante, p. 181, etc.), because 7re|0t oXov rov xoapov
are expressly used. We must therefore suppose a
propitiatory sacrifice, efficacious for the entire world
of sinners, directly adapted to remove the state of
guilt and punishment ; not overlooking the fact that
the apostle both times calls Jesus personally the
IXaapbs (comp. Diisterdieck, i. 159, etc.; Weiss, Joh.
Lehrbegrif, p. 159).
7. Peculiarly Johannine is the conception of the
work of Christ as a judgment so far as the appearance
of Christ leads to a free self-decision on the part of
individuals, and a progressive separation between
those who are ready to receive the truth and those
who have closed their hearts against it, and there
fore to a judgment on those who hate and avoid the
light that has appeared (Gospel iii. 19, etc, ix. 39,
xii. 31). The judgment, however, takes the form of a
decisive conflict, for the prince of -this world (Satan)
comes, and has nothing in me (xiv. 30) ; the prince
of this world is judged and shall be cast out (xvi. 11,
xii. 31) ; be of good cheer, I have overcome the world
(xvi. 33).
(6) The work of Jesus after His glorification. —
The Son of God returns to the glory which He had

198 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
from the beginning (xiv. 28, xvii. 5), and is there
continually, assistant and mediator of His believing
ones (irapdxXyros, 1 John ii. 1), with whom He
continues in actual, spiritual communion (xiv. 20,
xvii. 21 ; 1 John i. 6). The Spirit whom Jesus sends
from the Father (1 John v. 6, 8, iii. 24, iv. 13) is a
substitute for Jesus Himself on behalf of believers
(xiv— xvi.). So far as He is imparted to believers
He is called the anointing, the priestly consecration,
as Jesus Himself is called the Messiah, the Anointed
of God (1 John ii. 20, 27). He is the Spirit of truth
(1 John iv. 6, v. 6 ; Gospel xiv. 17), in particular
He makes known the future (xvi. 13), reproves and
overcomes the world (xvi. 8, etc.). In the discourses
of Jesus given in John the personality of the Spirit
as distinct from Father and Son as well as from
human personalities (xiv. 16, etc, 26, xv. 26) is pro
minently set forth, so that the Trinity in God clearly
appears ; but less clearly in the Epistle.
B. Fellowship with the Father and the Son.
1. Its Origin.
The efficacy of the Redeemer and the fruit of His
work is the new life of believers, which has its
foundation in the hearing of the word, the testimony
of Jesus (1 John ii. 7 : d Xoyos bv yxovaare ; comp.
ii. 24, i. 5, 2, iii. 11). Every one who hears the word
of God and accepts it with a willing heart (Gospel iii.
32, etc. ; comp. ver. 11, xii. 48), thus receiving Jesus
Himself who draws near to him personally by that
means (Gospel i. 11, etc., v. 43, xiii. 20 ; comp. xviii.
3 7), becomes a believer. This, however, is not solely an
act of human volition, but in becoming a believer there,

FELLOWSHIP WITH THE FATHER AND THE SON. 199
is essentially a new birth. No man can see the kingdom
of God, no man can enter into the kingdom of God,
except he be born from above, of water and spirit
(Gospel iii. 3, 5—8, baptized with water and the
spirit). Born of the spirit which bloweth where it
listeth, man himself becomes spirit (Gospel iii. 6) ;x and
he who believes that Jesus is the Christ, is born of
God, has become a child of God (1 John v. 1, 4,
iii. 1, etc., iv. 4, 6), and has been translated into
fellowship with the Father and Son (1 John i. 3, v. 20).
2. Condition and Development of this Fellowship.
(a) The fellowship consists chiefly in faith in
Jesus, the Son and Anointed of God (Gospel xx. 31,
i. 12 ; 1 John v. 10, 13, iii. 23), that is, in willing
attachment and surrender to the person of the
incarnate Son of God as He has been revealed to us.
By virtue of faith man is in God and God in him
(ii. 24, iv. 16).
(b) Connected with faith is the knowledge of the
true God and Him whom He has sent (Gospel
xvii. 3 ; 1 John ii. 13, iii. 16, iv. 7, 16, v. 20), a
knowledge by which the Holy Spirit (" the anointing")
leads souls into all truth (Gospel xvi. 13 ; 1 John
ii. 20, etc, 27). "True faith," according to John,
"apprehends, experiences; true apprehension believes,"
Liicke, Comm. iii. 268.
(c) Bighteousness of life (iroieiv rgv Bixatoavvyv,
1 John ii. 29, iii. 7), or walking in the light (1 John
i. 7), implies the fulfilment of the divine will and
1 Godet, Comm. ii. 264, rightly observes : " Ce mot esprit comprend,
dans le contexte, non settlement le nouveau principe de vie spirituelle,
mais aussi I'dme et le corps spiritualises."

200 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
the following of Jesus (1 John ii. 3-6, 17, iii. 22,
v. 3). Hereby we show that we really know Him
(1 John ii. 3, etc.). This is no difficult task to him
who is born of God and remains actually united
to Christ, the sinless One. He does not sin and
cannot sin (1 John v. 3, iii. 6, 9). We must here
observe that John represents this impossibility of
sinning as consequent upon and conditioned by the
divine life present in the regenerate man ; by this
means, as well as by the declaration of the sinfulness
even of believers (1 John i. 8), all misapprehension
of such ideal view is obviated ; comp. Diisterdieck, ii.
1, p. 117, etc.; Weiss, Joh. Lehrbegriff, p. 176, etc.
Careful watch over oneself is also necessary, and
constant moral purification (1 John iii. 3, v. 18) ; in
addition to honest, active, self-sacrificing brotherly
love (1 John iii. 14, etc, 16, etc, 23, iv. 7-12, v. 1),
and victory over the world (1 John v. 5).
Brotherly love toward those who are in like manner
born of God leads to fellowship of believers with one
another (1 John i. 7 ; comp. iii. ; v. 1), of brethren
(1 John iii. 13, 17; comp. ii. 19), in opposition
to false teachers and seducers (1 John ii. 26, iii. 7,
iv. 1). The apostle makes no distinction in the
first Epistle between Jews and Gentiles, but he does
so in the Gospel (i. 11), where by the use of 'IBia and
t'Stot he characterizes the Jewish nation as peculiarly
belonging to Christ (Liicke, Meyer, Godet) ; just as
Jesus Himself (iv. 22) denies intelligent worship, a
correct knowledge of God, to the Samaritans, but
attributes it to Israel in the words : on y acorypla ix
tcov 'IovBaicov iariv. On the other hand, Jesus
declares that He has also sheep outside the fold of
Israel, which He must bring in, that there may be

FELLOWSHIP WITH THE FATHER AND THE SON. 201
one flock and one Shepherd (x. 16); words by which
the Redeemer attests His claim to the Gentile world,
as well as the future union of Gentile and Jewish
Christians. This is in harmony with the fact that
the evangelist (xi. 52) represents the union of the
scattered children of God as the aim of the atoning
death of Jesus, thus recognising the existence, even
outside the world of Israel, of those who are His
children in God's mind and decree.1 John (i. 17)
contrasts the law given by Moses with grace and
truth in Jesus, as something inferior; and Jesus,
speaking of the law to the Jews, calls it your law
(viii. 17, vii. 19, x. 34, xv. 25). On the other
hand, He declares (v. 39) that Moses testifies of
Him, and that the old covenant points in its inner
sense to the new, to Christ Himself ; comp. my
essay, " Das A. T. in den Reden Jesu," Stud. u. Krit.
1854, p. 846, etc.2
3. Completion of Fellowship with the Father and
the Son.
The object of Christian faith, love, and hope is the
irapovata Xptarov, his future manifestation in the
eaxdry ypepa (Gospel vi. 39, etc, 44, xiv. 3, xvi. 22).
That vi. 39, etc, 44: iva dvaaryaco avrov iv ry
1 Godet, Comm. iii. p. 234, with reference to this justly remarks :
"Jean n'oublie jamais qu'il dait en vue de lecteurs grecs, et il ne
neglige pas une occasion de leur assiguer leur part dans l'accomplisse-
ment des promesses divines."
2 The assertion of Baur (Christent. der drei ersten Jahrh., 2nd ed.
p. 171 ; N. T. Theol. p. 390, etc.) and of his school, that the Fourth
Gospel has an anti-Jewish character, has been well cleared up by
Godet. With respect to Jesus' expression, "your law," etc, he
remarks : Jesus certainly might have said " the law," but He could
not have said " our law," any more than "our Father ; " comp. xx.

202 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
eaxdry ypepa, does not refer to the new life on this
side the grave, to the spiritual resurrection (Baum-
garten-Crusius), nor iaxdry ypepa to the last day of
life (Reuss), but as a matter of fact to the day of
judgment and to the resurrection of those who are
corporeally dead, is unanimously held by recent
expositors since the time of Liicke. It is not so with
respect to the irdXtv epxopat xal irapaXypyfropai vpas,
xiv. 3, and the irdXiv otyopai vpas, xvi. 22 ; Liicke
makes both these promises refer to the spiritual
presence of Jesus with His disciples ; while Meyer
refers the latter at least to the Paraclete. But his
arguments are not conclusive. On the contrary, we
are persuaded that where the Johannine discourses
of Jesus regarding the last things are concerned, the
mind is warped by a preconceived opinion in favour
of the purely ideal view and spiritual conception of
John ; and that any one who can free himself from
this a priori judgment, which attributes a one-sided
spiritualism to the apostle, will look at the passages
in question with very different eyes. The words
themselves, as well as the context, not only may, but
must be understood of the impending return of
Jesus, i.e. the Parousia, for the perfecting of His people
and the whole Church, that He may take them home
and impart to them a joy that shall not be taken
away from them, a knowledge that shall supersede
all asking (xvi. 22). What ver. 23 goes on to say
respecting prayer and its answer, is a new section,
17, "my Father and your Father ;" by virtue of His inner union
with the spirit of the law he stood in quite a different relation to
this institution from those on whom the law was externally imposed
Besides, the predicate " your" (viii. 17) made the thought still move
striking, as if Jesus intended to say, "The law that you yourselves
recognise, and which you try to use as a weapon against me. "

FELLOWSHIP WITH THE FATHER AND THE SON. 203
separated from the former clause by dpyv dp.
Xeyco, etc., and refers to the immediate future, thus
proving nothing against our interpretation. The
meaning of these passages has been rightly under
stood from early times, e.g. xiv. 3 has been explained
by Euthymius as referring to the Bevrepa irapovaia
and the resurrection. But later exegesis lost the true
interpretation in consequence of a spiritualistic con
struction ; and the true sense has not been recovered
till recent times (see Hofmann, i. 166, etc, ii. 2. 43 5,
etc.; Bruckner -de Wette, 5th ed. 1863, p. 253;
Weiss, Joh. Lehrbegriff, -p. 181, etc. ; iV. T. Theol., 4th
ed. p. 679 ; Luthardt, joh. Ev., 2nd ed. ii. 317, etc.).
By this explanation, which in our conviction is the
only correct one, opening up the right path, the irdXtv
ptxpbv, xal oyjreade p,e, xvi. 19, obtains a startling-
sense, excellently agreeing with the synoptic discourses
and the apostolic utterances respecting the impending-
return of the Lord ; while, on the other hand, the true
meaning of these Johannine promises of Jesus con
cerning His return in glory for the perfecting and
even corporeal glorification of believers, after a short
interval, coincides remarkably well with the strong
emphasizing of the corporeity of Jesus the Son of man.
When He appears, those who are in their graves will
hear His voice and come forth ; they that have done
good, to the resurrection of life ; and they that have
done evil, to the resurrection of judgment (Gospel v.
28, etc.). The correct interpretation of this passage
is already more widely acknowledged. It is true
that Baumgarten-Crusius still takes the verses figura
tively ; but Liicke and Meyer understand them as
decidedly referring to bodily resurrection, so that in
ver. 25 a spiritual resurrection is spoken of, but in

204 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
ver. 28, etc, a bodily one. Both, however, are appre
hended together by Jesus; the bodily and the spiritual,
the future and the present being united in one compre
hensive and exhaustive view. What Jesus says in
ver. 25: epxerai copa xal vvv iariv, etc, means that the
hour which has already begun (with the appearance
of Jesus in whom is the life) continues until the
communication of life is completed, till the spiritual
awaking has found its end in the bodily, i.e. till the
Parousia. (Meyer, Luthardt, 2nd ed. ii. 458, etc.; Godet,
2nd ed. ii. 424, etc, give the most convincing proof
that ver. 28, etc, must necessarily be understood of
the resurrection of the dead in a literal sense.) The
resurrection of the body is here distinctly divided
into a judicial, condemnatory (xpiaecos) resurrection,
and a resurrection to life the essence of which is
%eoy in the full sense of spiritual-corporeal, blessed
vita vitalis. Meyer rightly observes that neither here
nor in ver. 25, where the operation is spiritual, is a
simultaneous awakening asserted, but that, on the
contrary, the copa may be prophetically extended to
embrace many periods. Hence reference is made to
a definite point of -time, when the consummation
begins ; and the return of Christ, as in passages
where John speaks of the eaxdry ypepa, must be
conceived of as a visible one.1
It is true the first Epistle makes no direct mention
1 How convincingly clear, how incapable of misconstruction to
every unprejudiced mind, is the statement of Jesus contained in ver.
28, etc, is shown by the experience of Scholten. In a treatise
entitled Jaarboeken voor wetensch. Theol. vi. p. 415, and viii. 431,
etc. , he has proved exegetically that the utterance contained in John
v. 28, etc. , must be understood of a definite point of time in the
future, and of a visible Parousia. But after adopting a different view
with respect to John's Gospel, and having arrived at the conviction

FELLOWSHIP WITH THE FATHER AND THE SON. 205
of the resurrection, but it speaks of the iaxdry copa,
ii. 18, the irapovaia avrov, ii. 28, the judgment,
ypepa t% xploecos, iv. 17, contrasting the shame and
the joy before the face of the returning Christ (ii. 28,
iv. 17). The happiness of believers will then consist
in likeness to Christ, a likeness which is the result
of seeing Him as He is (1 John iii. 2 ; comp. the
profound interpretation of Diisterdieck, ii. 1, pp.
56-82), and which doubtless comprehends likeness
to the glorified resurrection-body of Christ and there
fore implies resurrection itself. So also in the
Gospel (xvii. 24; comp. xii. 26) future blessedness is
made to consist in this, viz. that believers will be
with Christ and see the glory which the Father has
given Him ; a joy which shall not be taken away
from them (Gospel xvi. 22). How Kostlin (ante, pp.
232-239) can repeatedly assert that John knows no
eXirts, feeling the power and blessedness of the divine
life too much to be able to designate hope in it as a
peculiar disposition of the mind — we cannot under
stand, since even apart from 1, John iii. 3, where
prominence is expressly given to iXiris, the feeling of
hope in that which has not yet appeared is put
forward in many passages with sufficient emphasis.
The view that up to the present time has been
frequently taken, viz. that John's conception is
purely spiritualistic, and does not go beyond the
present life, has been expressed by none more
that the " pseudo- Johannine Gospel" only asserts an operation of
Jesus on those living ou this side the grave, he was bold enough to
declare the two verses objectionable to him to be spurious, without
the least foundation in external testimonies ! (Das Evang. nach Joh.
iibersetzt, von H. Lang, 1867, p. 124, etc.) He would certainly
have spared himself this rash conjecture if he had been able to over
throw his former exegetical result.

206 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
strongly than Reuss, who (Hist, de la Thiol, ii. 459,
etc, 499) asserts that the Johannine doctrinal system
has no room for the usual eschatology ; that there is
no trace of the approaching end of the world or the
Parousia ; and that the doctrine of last things is
altogether spiritualized, at least in the Gospel, while
the Epistle approximates to the current view. The
refutation of this is contained in -what has already
been said. In conclusion, we give our full assent to
the proposition laid down in Liicke's Versuch, 2nd
ed. p. 715:" Without the Christian doctrine of future
perfection, the doctrine of love and faith contained
in the Gospel is incomplete and unintelligible."
It is noteworthy that in the first Epistle John
speaks of the last time as already begun, iaxdry
&pa iariv (ii. 18; comp. Gospel v. 25). He draws
this conclusion from the circumstance that many
antichrists, dvrtxpiaroi (¦$ evBoirpoepyrat, iv. 1), had
already appeared ; a fact which he places in close
connection with the prediction contained in the
general preaching of Christianity (dxyxbare, yxovaare,
ii. 18, iv. 3) respecting the appearance of Antichrist
before the second coming of Christ (d dvrlxpiaros,
ii. 18; comp. 2 John 7). Antichrist, in the sin
gular, has been understood in a collective sense
(antichristus pro antichristianismo — et multitudine
hominum Christo contraria) by Bengel and some
recent expositors, e.g. Huther, but has by most
critics been interpreted as a concrete personality.
The latter is the correct view, for the many anti
christs are confessedly human personalities; where
fore the one Antichrist is also a human person (comp.
Erdmann, primes Joh. ep. argum. p. 94). But the
spirit of the one Antichrist (iv. 3) is already in the

COMPARISON OF THE GOSPEL AND EPISTLES. 207
world, and is at work in the many antichrists. The
appearance of the one personal Antichrist is in fact
made known by the many antichrists (ii. 18 ; comp.
Diisterdieck's thorough discussion, i. 308-332).

The doctrinal system of the Gospel ancl Epistles on
the one hand and of the Apocalypse on the other
present an agreement so remarkable, that even
critics who think it necessary to separate them
widely acknowledge that both are characterized by
" the same intuitional method," the Gospel itself being
a spiritualized apocalypse (Baur, Theol. Jahrb. 1844,
p. 691 ; Kanon. Evangelien, p. 380 ; Christenthum der
drei ersten Jahrhunderte, 2nd ed. p. 147). Schwegler,
Nachapostol. Zeitalter, ii. 346, states : " The Johannine
Gospel is the last and ripest fruit, the glorification, so
to speak, of that Jewish Christian series of develop
ments at the head of which stands the Johannine
Apocalypse" (comp. p. 374; Kostlin, ante, 498).
The former rightly draws attention to the fact that
in both writings the description centres in a great
struggle of Christ with Satan the prince of this
world. The parallel which Kostlin (ante, pp.
482—500) draws between the Apocalypse and the
Johannine system of doctrine, although he has not
been sufficiently on his guard against spiritualizing
the Gospel and materializing the Apocalypse, still
gives the impression that both writings are allied in
character, and are pre-eminently one in doctrine.
We draw attention only to a few leading points.
First. The view taken of Christ's person is of the
most exalted kind in both, being directed to the

208 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
divine glory of the incarnate Son of God, who Him
self is called personally the Word of God (Gospel :
d X0709 ; 1st Ep.: d X0709 T779 incogs ; Apoc: o Xoyos
rov deov). The Son has from the Father all that He
Himself has, and imparts it to His own (Apoc. i. 1, ii.
26, iii. 21 ; Gospel v. 20, 22). Not only is a pre-
historical, but also a premundane existence attributed
to Christ in both works ; He is conceived of as the
essential and personal Word of God, spoken of and
honoured even as God Himself (comp. John i. 1 : debs
yv b Xoyos, with the ascription of God's name, Alpha
and Omega, etc. ; Apoc. i. 8, 17, ii. 8, xxi. 6). This
point is discussed by Niermeyer, Echtheid der joh.
Schriften, pp. 169—177, noticed in Stud. u. Krit.
1856, p. 894, etc.; W. Milligan, Contemporary
Review, 1871, August number; Herm. Gebhardt,
Lehrbegriff der Apokalypse, 1873, p. 349, etc.
Second. Where the work of Christ is concerned,
Gospel and Epistles agree with the Apocalypse
in laying special emphasis on the teaching activity
of Jesus, 1 John i. 5, ii. 25 ; Gospel i. 18, v. 31:
paprvpla dXydrjs ; Apoc. i. 5 : d ptdprvs 6 irtarbs.
Again, both represent the death of Jesus not only as
an active proof of His love (Apoc. i. 5 ; 1 John iii.
16), but also as having a redeeming, reconciling, and
purifying efficacy (1 John ii. 2 ; Apoc. i. 5, vii. 14,
xii. 11). The difference consists solely in the mode
of presentation, which is doctrinal in the Gospel and
Epistles, while in the prophetic book it is figurative ;
comp. Hofmann, ii. 1. 332 ; Kostlin, joh. Lehrbegriff, p.
486. Moreover, the image of the lamb, under which
Jesus the crucified One is repeatedly presented in the
Apocalypse, an image which in fact dominates the
Apocalypse, is the same under which John the

COMPARISON OF THE GOSPEL AND EPISTLES. 209
Baptist, the first time he saw Jesus, presented Him to
his disciple, the fut'are apostle (Gospel i. 29).1 The
Gospel of John has a number of images that are also
peculiar to the Apocalypse, for example, the shepherd,
the living water, etc.
Third. We have already remarked that the work
of Christ and its continuance even to the end is
described in both writings as a struggle of Christ
with Satan, of light with darkness — as a struggle
ending with the complete victory of Christ and His
kingdom. Comp. Milligan, ante, September 1871.
Fourth. The relation of Christianity to Judaism
and heathenism is- quite different in the Johannine
doctrinal writings and in the Apocalypse, according
to the assumption of modern criticism. But even
Liicke, who is by no means inclined to efface the
distinction between the two, judges (Ver such einer
vollst. Einleit. 2nd ed. p. 736) that there has been great
exaggeration in this matter.2 So much, indeed, is
correct, that in the view of the evangelist the opposi
tion of Judaism to Christianity is an historical fact
which is past and gone (Baur, Christenthum, etc, 2nd
ed. p. 156); but, on the other hand, he bears witness
that Israel is the peculiar possession of Christ
(t'Stot, i. 11), that salvation is of the Jews (iv. 22).
According to the evangelist, Jesus declares that Moses
1 Godet, Comm. 2nd ed. ii. 151 : " II est remarquable que ce titre
d'agneau sous lesquel l'evangeliste apprit a connaitre pour la premiere
fois Jesus, soit celui par lequel le Sauveur est design^ de preference
dans 1' Apocalypse. "
2 A. H. Blom goes to a most incredible extreme in this direction,
"De Bestemming von de Apocalypse," Theol. Tijdschrift, 1885, p.
184, etc. According to him, "the synagogue of Satan" (ii. 9), and
even'the pseudo-prophet " who was cast into the lake of fire " (xix.
20), is nothing else than Paulinism : and this was the standpoint of
all the twelve, p. 200.
VOL. II. 0

210 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
testifies of Him (v. 39), in proof of which he
frequently adduces prophecies - out of the Old
Testament fulfilled in Jesus. Hence Israel in his
estimation is the root of the Church of Christ, the
old covenant the basis of the new. Where then
does the Apocalypse differ when it regulates the
number of the elect, the relations of the new Jerusalem,
etc, according to the number of the twelve tribes of
Israel ? If the evangelist makes Jesus declare that
those bodily descendants of Abraham who are not
His children in a moral sense, are children of the
devil (viii. 39, etc.) ; the Apocalypse also boldly says
of the Jews who are not such in reality, that they
are a synagogue of Satan (ii. 9, iii. 9). It has been
shown above that the Apocalypse, as well as the
Gospel, opens wide the doors of the kingdom of
God to the heathen world, to all humanity, and
is as far as possible from opposing the Apostle
Paul as alleged ; consequently that it is not con
trary to the Gospel. Comp. Niermeyer, anie, pp.
154-165, and our notice of the book in Stud. u.
Krit. 1856, p. 888, etc. ; Milligan, ante ; Gebhardt,
ante, p. 399, etc.
Fifth. The doctrine of last things in the two works
can only be regarded as completely opposite, if it be
assumed that the images of the Apocalypse, especially
towards the end of the book, are altogether material
and sensuous, and the words of the Gospel and Epistle,
on the other hand, altogether ideal and spiritualistic ;
a method by which " extremes meet," as is so often
the case in this world. The last two chapters of the
Revelation of John only require to be read with some
sense of the language of imagery and poetry, especially
as employed by the prophets, in order to be convinced

COMPARISON OF THE GOSPEL AND EPISTLES. 211
of the pure conceptions which form the basis of • the
description. The statement that there is no temple
in the new Jerusalem is in perfect accord with the
words addressed by Jesus to the Samaritan woman
(Gospel iv. 21—2 4).1 According to Liicke, ante, p. 7 1 8 ,
the eschatology of the Apocalypse is " not so distinct
from that of the Gospel and Epistles as absolutely to
exclude it ; they supplement one another, the former
being the more developed, the latter having a more
interior mould." But in another place (p. 732) he
declares the difference in the eschatology to be
" radical and essential, which cannot possibly be
adjusted in one and the same subject." And yet, as
Liicke himself admits (p. 721), the difference is only
one of comparison, inasmuch as the coming of Jesus
in the spirit is primary with the evangelist, while the
apocalyptic writer is mainly occupied with the external
coming of Christ. This distinction, which is con
fessedly of a merely relative character, and in which
one part of the antithesis does not exclude the other,
when closely examined, is itself found to .consist
solely in the mode of presentation, the Apocalypse
clothing the idea in figure and symbol ; the doctrinal
writings, on the other hand, in the conceptions of
the thinking mind. In what, then, does the impos
sibility of adjustment consist ? Add to this that,
rightly interpreted, the first Epistle, and even the
Gospel, imply the visible return of Jesus; that in
the Epistle Antichrist appears as a person, and the
many antichrists as his forerunners ; that not only a
resurrection of tbe body is taught, but that even two
resurrections are mentioned (Gospel v. 8, etc.) of
1 Comp. Kostlin, " Zur Gesch. des Urchristenthums, " Theol. Jahrb.
1850, p. 279, etc.

212 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
an entirely different nature, nothing compelling us to
suppose that they take place at one and the same
moment ; finally, that the joy which none can take
away, the dwelling of God with His own, the vision
of Christ as He is and the likeness to God condi
tioned thereby, — when we think that all these are
features of the final consummation, we have a suffi
cient number of truths in which the doctrinal writings
coincide with apocalyptic prophecy. But in order
rightly to understand apocalyptic prophecy, our minds
must be as open to its moral and spiritual meaning
as to the real and corporeal aspect of the doctrinal
writings, — a matter of no great difficulty if we keep
the seven Epistles adequately in view, bearing in
mind the practical theme of the Apocalypse, " Here
is the patience and the faith of the saints ! " (xiii. 1,0
and other passages) ; and try to estimate with some
knowledge and appreciation of Old Testament prophecy
the glorious descriptions of eternal life (vii. 15, xxi.,
etc.), and the forcible images of Antichrist and of
the decisive struggle. On this assumption and by
the help of such considerations, we may acknowledge,
without reservation, the unity of spirit and doctrine
in both kinds of writing, notwithstanding their dif
ferent dress and object. Do we not find the very
same character of fervent faith and fulness of spiritual
power expressed in the blissful contemplation of the
divine-human glory of Christ (in the Gospel), the
earnest exhortation to true fellowship with the Father
and the Son (in the Epistles), the prophetic lookin«
for the coming of the Lord in His glory, expected
with faith, patience, and longing (in the Apocalypse) ?
So that it is in fact difficult to determine whether
the beautiful verses in the following poem on the

THE DOCTRINAL SYSTEM OF PAUL. 213
Apostle John are more applicable to the evangelist or
the apocalyptic writer.1 Verbum Dei Deo natum : —
' ' Volat avis sine meta, Tarn implenda quam impleta
Quo nee vates nee propheta nunquam vidit tot secreta
evolavit altius. purus homo purius."

SIXTH SECTION.
THE DOCTRINAL SYSTEM OF THE APOSTLE PAUL COMPARED
WITH THAT OF THE OTHER APOSTLES.
The doctrinal system of the Apostle Paul is the
centre to which other systems must be referred. In
order to arrive at an accurate determination of their
common relation, we shall set out with Paul's own
personal utterance respecting it. It is already note
worthy that he speaks of his gospel more than once
with a certain emphasis, e.g. Rom. ii. 16: xpivet b debs
rd xpvirrd tcov dvdpcoircov xard to evayyeXiov pov
Bid 'Iyaov Xp. ; comp. xvi. 2 5 ; 2 Tim. ii. 8 : pvypb-
veve Iyaovv Xp. iyyyeppevov ix vexpebv, eK airepparos
AavelB, Kara rb evayyeXiov pov. Again, to eiiay-
yeXtov ypSiv, 2 Cor. iv. 3 ; 2 Thess. ii. 14. Finally,
1 Cor. xv. 1, etc. : to evayyeXiov b evyyyeXiadp.yi>
vplv, etc. ; and in the most definite way in Gal. i. 11,
comp. 7, etc., ii. 2, where he distinguishes his gospel
that he had preached among the Gentiles from another.
In the last passage Paul unmistakeably sets his gospel
over against that of the Galatian errorists, whose
gospel was " another " (erepov), but not actually
another (oovx eartv dXXo), i.e. not a genuine ami
1 Daniel, Thesaurus hymnologicus, vol. ii. p. 166. Mone, Lat.
Hymnen des Mittelalters, iii. 118.

214 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
real one. On the other hand, it is clear that Paul
is far from separating his gospel from that of the
other apostles, as if it deviated from them essentially.
With regard to the other passages in which he speaks
of his gospel, it cannot be mistaken that they refer
to the judgment of the world and the resurrection of
Jesus, David's descendant, consequently to the most
general and fundamental truths of the Christian faith
and apostolic preaching. Taking, therefore, their con
nection into account, it is impossible to think that
by " my " Paul meant to separate the doctrine he
taught from that of the other apostles. On the
contrary, the reason of the adjective can only be in
the desire emphatically to assert his own , adherence
to the doctrine of Christ on the one hand (comp.
d 0eo9 pov, Rom. i. 8, and other passages), and to
declare his opposition to certain errorists, especially
of a Judaistic tendency, on the other hand.1
If we bear in mind what Paul positively states in
his Epistles respecting the elder apostles and his
relation to them, we must observe, in the first instance,
that in more than one place he clearly affirms his
agreement with them. Already in the Epistle to the
Galatians, i. 23, etc, he makes a statement, from
which it follows that his preaching of the gospel was
recognised as in harmony with the belief of the
primitive Church. The Christian Churches in Judea
" heard that he which persecuted us in times past
now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.
1 Comp. van Hengel, de betrekking van het gevoel tot het uitleggen
ran den Bybel, 1853, p. 196, etc. We have given way to the power
ful arguments brought forward by van Hengel against our former
explanation of ivxyy. /xov as implying differences between him and
the other apostles (1st ed. ).

THE DOCTRINAL SYSTEM OF PAUL. 215
And they glorified God in me." That is to say, they
recognised him as a preacher of the (true) gospel.
Hence it is plain that the apostle, if he attached any
value to the witness of the Jewish Christian Churches
of Palestine in favour of his work as a true " evan
gelist," a messenger of the faith, must have been
conscious that he was preaching the same faith for
which he had formerly persecuted the Christians.1
In 1 Cor. xv. 1, etc, he speaks with far more direct
ness. He appeals to the fact that from the beginning
lie had preached to the Corinthians that Christ died
for our sins, and rose again, and was seen by many
witnesses, last of all by himself. Then follow words
expressive of his humility : " I am the least of the
apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle ;
but by the grace of God I am what I am, and by the
grace of God have laboured more abundantly than
they all." He then continues (ver. 1 1) : etVe ovv iyeo,
e'ire ixeivot, ovtco xypvaaopev, xal ovtcos eirioTevaare.
It is noteworthy here that Paul, after having made a
distinction between himself and the rest of the apostles
with regard to the success of their work, immediately
proceeds to affirm their agreement in preaching the
gospel. At the same time it is very probable, as
Baur (Paulus, 1st ed. p. 282) aptly conjectures, that
this statement has a polemic side-reference, and that
Paul alludes to the distinction which his Corinthian
opponents were so fond of making between him and
the other apostles, — a probability which gives the
more significance to the apostle's express declaration
1 Ernst Wbrner (+ in Zurich) was the first expositor of the Galatian
Epistle who recognised the range of the words in question, Auslegung
des Briefs an die Galater, edited by W. Arnold, Basel 1882, p. 37,
etc.

216 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
as to the union existing between him and the other
apostles. We also find a certain resemblance to this
passage in 1 Cor. iii. 22, where Paul speaks against
such as separated themselves into factions, setting
up a distinction, almost an opposition, between parties
in the first instance, and indirectly between their repre
sentatives and heads. Hence he says : etVe HaiiXos,
etVe AiroXXcos, eire Kycpds, irdvra vpcov, vpeh Be
Xptarov, Xpiaros Be deov, the undoubted meaning of
which is : you must not make yourselves dependent
on men, allowing yourselves to be guided by them as
leaders and heads, but rather let them serve you, that
ye may belong only to Christ and be His property,
as Christ belongs to God. Paul's object therefore is
to give prominence to that freedom and independence
on the part of man which has its foundation solely
in dependence on Christ. But the words contain
another thought, viz. these apostles and teachers are
one in Christ; their names, which you employ as
badges of separation, ought not to divide you from
each other. Consequently he denies, at least indi
rectly, the existence of opposition between Peter and
himself which was made by party spirit.
These utterances are irreconcilable with the
assumption of a radical opposition between Paul
and the other apostles, since Paul, who certainly
was the best judge in the matter, bears witness to
the harmony and union existing between himself
and the others. It is true, we may be met with the
assertion that, in 1 Cor. xv. 11, Paul treats solely
of the essentials of Christianity, not of the par
ticular doctrines founded on these, such as questions
respecting the validity of the law or the universal
character of Christianity. However this may be,

PAUL COMPARED WITH THE PRIMITIVE APOSTLES. 217
his repeated utterances respecting his essential
agreement with the other apostles give us an im
portant handle against the attempts of recent critics
to point out a complete schism in primitive Chris
tianity. In order to a fuller examination of the subject,
we shall separate and compare with the Pauline
system of doctrine, — first, the teaching of the other
apostles as orally delivered before the appearance of
the Gentile apostle ; second, the doctrinal systems of
the other apostles impressed on their own writings.

FIRST LEADING DIVISION.
THE RELATION BETWEEN THE PAULINE DOCTRINAL
¦ SYSTEM AND THE PREACHING OF THE OTHER
APOSTLES IN THE EARLY APOSTOLIC TIME.
It cannot be denied nor will any one dispute, that
complete harmony exists between the teaching of
Paul on the one hand, and of Peter, James, and the
remaining apostles on the other hand, if we base our
opinion solely on the evidence afforded by the Acts
of the Apostles. They all agree in teaching the
death, resurrection, and exaltation of Christ as the
main facts proclaimed, as well as the Messiahship of
Jesus Christ, with salvation in Him and His future
return to judgment. In attachment also to the Old
Testament, in proving doctrines by the promises of
the old covenant fulfilled in Christ and His work,
Paul agrees with those that were apostles before
him. In this respect the agreement will be found
only too striking, though Peter in his speeches

218 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
in the Acts, chaps, i.-xv., gives utterance to the
leading Pauline ideas as openly and clearly as these
are veiled in the Pauline discourses in chaps, ix.—
xxviii. (Schneckenburger, Zweck der Apostelgeschichte,
p. 189 ; Schwegler, Nachapost. Zeit. ii. p. 105, etc.).
We have already refuted this judgment in page 318,
vol. i, with respect to the Pauline discourses. With
regard to their mutual relation, we shall only make
the following brief remarks : The Pauline discourses
in the Acts, notwithstanding their essential agreement
with the Petrine, surpass them in possessing a fuller
and higher insight, and an apprehension of the
truth in its doctrinal aspect. The case is similar
with regard to the person of Christ, whom Peter
never calls the Son of God but the servant of God ;
while Paul preaches Him as vlbv deov. In describing
the work of Jesus, Peter enters far more fully into
His life than Paul ; but he lays the main stress on
the resurrection of Jesus as the most important fact,
and speaks of His death only as an event permitted
and foreordained by God ; while Paul regards His
death as the positive foundation of salvation (xx. 28),
attaching importance to His resurrection also, as an
attestation of His dignity. With regard to salvation
in Christ, the chief blessing of which is the forgive
ness of sins, Paul and the other apostles agree in
their teaching, according to the Acts ; but it must be
allowed that Paul alone puts forward the definite
conception of justification by faith, which Peter
and the other apostles do not. In the discourses
in the Acts. James and Peter are as far as Paul
from limiting salvation to Israel to the exclusion
of the Gentiles ; on the contrary, Peter positively
declares that salvation was intended for the heathen

PAUL COMPARED WITH THE PRIMITIVE APOSTLES. 219
also, and that the Jews cannot be saved by the law,
which is an intolerable burden, but by grace, and
that only on condition that they are converted.
Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, alone bears witness
(chaps, xiv, xvii.) to a natural knowledge of God on
the part of the heathen, in consequence of His reve
lation in creation and conscience.
We must go a step farther, however, and compare
the doctrinal system of Paul, taken from his own
Epistles as the most direct source, with the stand
point of the other apostles in the time before they
had composed their writings. According to the dis
covery of recent criticism, the other apostles are said
originally to have held Ebionite, i.e. narrow, Judaizing
views, and therefore to have stood in rude antagonism
to the doctrine of Paul. The Pauline teaching rested
on two fundamental conceptions- — (1) the universality
of the Messianic salvation ; (2) the abrogation of the
Mosaic law. With respect to the latter, it substituted
justification by faith for the righteousness of the law ;
while on the basis of the former, it justified the
reception of the heathen into the communion of
believers, without previous circumcision. On the
other hand, the rigid Judaizing Christianity of the
primitive apostles, assuming the essential identity of
Judaism and Christianity — (1) took the impress of
Jewish particularism, and (2) upheld the permanent
binding character of the Mosaic law, even in respect
of ritual (comp. Schwegler, ante, i. 25, 152, 159, 171).
But it cannot be directly proved that the apostles
shared this view, though some have tried to establish
the position indirectly, alleging that the existence of
a Judaistic opposition which appealed to the primi
tive apostles against Paul (2 Cor. iii. 1), necessarily

220 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
leads to the conclusion that the primitive apostles
themselves were of the same mind (Schwegler, i. 169,
etc., 27, etc.; Baur, Christenthum, 2nd ed. p. 49).
Let us examine' the matter in detail. The stand
point of the Judaizing Christians is said to be shown,
in the first place, by their particularism. We remark
at the outset that the statement of the Judaizing
Christians being disposed to particularism is true or
false, according to the way in which it is taken.
It is false if understood, as it is frequently done,
to mean that this class of believers wished to
limit salvation in Christ to the Jewish people exclu
sively, all other peoples being shut out from the
kingdom of God, from truth and salvation in Christ.
This conception is absolutely erroneous and without
foundation; needing but little reflection to see that
such is the case.
We have still to turn our attention to the Old
Testament. The original fundamental facts and pro
mises of the old covenant, although actually referring
to one man, one family, one people, or more correctly
extending thus by degrees, have from the beginning
a wide-embracing and absolutely universal aim, " In
thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed."
The particularism of the Old Testament, taken in its
genuine and true form, has a universalist object from the
beginning. How comprehensive, moreover, is the view,
and how truly human the sentiment of the prophets !
They give expression in so many passages to the divine
idea, " When Israel, after being chastened for their
disobedience and apostasy, shall repent and turn to
God, and Jehovah shall graciously receive His people
again, collecting those that are scattered abroad, and
setting up the banner of salvation; then shall the

PAUL COMPARED WITH THE PRIMITIVE APOSTLES. 221
rest of the nations see this glory, and acknowledge
that the true God is only here. Then shall they
stream hither and go up to the mount of Jehovah.
Then will light and knowledge go forth from Zion,
and the word of Jehovah from Jerusalem ; the earth
shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord and of His
glory" (comp. Lutz, Bibl. Dogm. pp. 246, 238, 260;
Herm. Schultz, A. T Theol, 1st ed. ii. 231, etc.; Fr.
Ed. Konig, Hauptprobleme der altisraelitischen Beli-
gionsgeschichte, Leipzig 1884, p. 95, etc.). Coming
down to the time of the New Testament, we have in
the Gospels themselves a passage in which Jesus
speaks of the proselytizing zeal of the scribes and
Pharisees, who compass sea and land to make prose
lytes, but in so perverted a way that the latter become
even more the children of hell than the Pharisees
themselves (Matt, xxiii. 15). From this it appears
most clearly that even the strictest party of the Jews,
those Pharisees from whom the narrowest Judaists
in the Christian Church afterwards proceeded (Acts
xv. 5), were far from thinking that truth and salva
tion, so far as they knew them, must remain confined
to native Jews and could not benefit the heathen.
Rather did they perceive it to be a duty and regard
it as an honour to carry on a propaganda, to make
proselytes of the heathen. When had even the most
bigoted Jews ever refused incorporation among the
people of God to a Gentile willing to be circum
cised ? It is not merely from the Acts, but also from
Josephus, and even from Roman writers of that and
a later time, e.g. Horace, Juvenal, Seneca, Dio Cassius,
and Tacitus, that we know how many Gentiles
attached themselves more or less closely to the Old
Testament religion ; how the Jewish propaganda

222 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
laboured with success in almost all places where
there were synagogues.1 According to this, it is not
conceivable that Israelites, after becoming believers in
Jesus as the Messiah, should have been more narrow-
minded than other Israelites, and could have enter
tained the false notion that redemption through the
manifested Messiah was intended solely for Jews, to
the exclusion of Gentiles. There is in fact not a
single passage of the New Testament which, rightly
understood, expresses a particularism of this kind.
The only place that sounds like it according to the
letter, viz. 1 Thess. ii. 16 : "They (the Jews) forbid
us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved,"
certainly refers only to Paul and to the Pauline
preaching of the way of salvation, and does not
therefore imply an unconditional limitation of salva
tion to the Jewish nation on the part of those
unbelieving Jews.2
Is there then no truth in the assertion that the
Judaistic Christians were disposed to particularism ?
This is not our opinion ; the assertion is correct only
so far as the Judaistic Christians were not opposed
to the conversion of the heathen in itself, nor to their
incorporation with the Church, but only objected to
1 Comp. Schiirer, Lehrbuch der N. T. Zeitgeschichte, 1874, p.
644, etc.
2 With respect to the Judaistic opponents of Paul in Galatia, where
the first and sharpest conflict of the apostle with the Judaists is
recorded, Baur himself expressly states (Paulus, p. 253, 2nd ed. i.
281) their reaction against the apostolic activity of Paul was not
directed to prevent the heathen also being called to participate in
the Messianic salvation ; in this respect the barrier of Judaism had
already been broken down even for them, but so much the more
zealously disposed were they to retain the fundamental position, that
even in this extended sphere salvation could be communicated only
in the form of Judaism.

PAUL COMPARED WITH THE PRIMITIVE APOSTLES. 223
such incorporation unless associated with acceptance
of the Mosaic law and of Judaism. The main point,
that salvation in Christ was free to all men, was not
in dispute ; this was as firmly believed by the
Judaizing Christians and Jew-apostles as by Paul.
But the mode in which Christianity was to be applied
to the heathen, how Christian universalism should be
realized, was understood by Paul in one way and by
others in another way. It is remarkable that a
similar difference already existed with respect to
heathen conversions made by the national Jewish
propaganda. Josephus relates (Archaeology, xx. c. ii.
§ 5) that King Izates of Adiabene, who was inclined
to Judaism, was advised by his friend the Jewish
merchant Ananias not to be circumcised, on the plea
that he could worship the Deity even without circum
cision, if he would only conform to Jewish customs :
Bvvdpevov Be avrov, ecpy, xal ^w/3t9 t?)9 irepiropys
to deiov aefietv, e'lye irdvrcos xeKpiKe %yXovv rd
irdrpia tcov 'lovBalcov' tovto elvai Kvptcorepov rov
ireptrepveadai. But the king himself entertained
conscientious scruples as to whether he could be a
true Jew without circumcision. A zealot, Eleazar
by name, afterwards came to Adiabene, who thus
remonstrated with the king : " How long wilt thou
reniain uncircumcised ? Hast thou never read what
the law says respecting it ? Read then, that thou
mayest see the danger to which thy soul is exposed."
Izates was actually circumcised. We have here two
different views within Judaism itself. Agreeing as
to the fact that the heathen also may and should be
converted to the faith of Jehovah, they are at variance
only as to whether knowledge and worship of the
true God, associated with observance of the commands

224 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
and customs of Israel, is enough ; or whether cir
cumcision, consequently full incorporation with the
Israelite people, be indispensable. In other words :
one party holds it sufficient for the former Gentile
to become a " proselyte of the gate," the other requir
ing that he should become a " proselyte of righteous
ness," as a step indispensable to salvation. The
question therefore amounts to this : whether complete
incorporation with the Jewish nation be indispensable
to salvation or not. The stricter view gives an
affirmative, the milder a negative answer to the
question.1 The opposition that took place within Christen
dom itself at the beginning is similar. The question
turned not only upon the giving of salvation to the
Gentiles, but on the manner of giving it. All, even
the strictest Judaists, were agreed on the former
point, but the question in dispute was whether the
Gentiles, when they became disciples of Jesus, should
also submit themselves to the Mosaic law and cir
cumcision, i.e. whether they must become Jews, or
whether they could dispense with this requirement.
This question was discussed at the Convention in
Jerusalem about the year 50, where it was decided
1 From the standpoint of the old covenant, and from the general
standpoint of antiquity, the stricter view was the more correct. The
dislike of the Romans to the religiones peregrince, for reasons of
State, was based on the idea that foreign religions, as Maecenas said
to Augustus, xvxtriihviriv xXXorptovofiuv (Dio Cass. Iii.), i.e. undermined
the national feeling. Among ancient nations the transmission of
religion was accompanied by the transmission of the whole nationality
to the people who were to be civilised. This was the case not only
among the Jews, but also among the Greeks and Egyptians. Chris
tianity, which was essentially and in its origin the religion not of
one nation but of humanity, first broke through the limitations of
nationality.

PAUL COMPARED WITH THE PRIMITIVE APOSTLES. 225
according to the mind of the Apostle Paul (Acts xv. ;
comp. Gal. ii.). There were certainly Judaists, not
only before this decision but even after it, who
believed that circumcision, i.e. the acceptance of
Judaism, should be demanded of the Gentiles that
had become believers. The Gentiles, even after they
believed on Jesus Christ, as long as they were not
circumcised and had not accepted Judaism in its
national sense, were not looked upon as full citizens
in the kingdom of God, but only as guests and
strangers. Hence they we?e considered unclean ;
social intercourse and companionship with them at
table being avoided as things that defiled. Such
was their particularism. All men, even heathen,
were to have access to salvation in Christ, but only
through the medium of Judaism.
We thus arrive at the second, in truth the only
characteristic feature of the strict Judaizing tendency.
It consisted in the assertion of the full and perma
nently binding force of the Mosaic law. The Judaizing
Christians certainly recognised Jesus as the manifested
Messiah, in whom the promises of the old covenant
were partly fulfilled already, and partly ripening
towards fulfilment at His second coming (comp.
Hess, Gesch. n. Schr. der Apostel, 1828, i. 242, etc.).
They believed, however, that no part of the law or
the old covenant was abrogated on this account, but
regarded it as binding and permanent in every
particular, and that too with respect to all that
believed on Jesus, Jews as well as Gentiles. It was
this party that imposed circumcision on the Gentile
Christians, and wished to subject the Galatians to the
yoke of the law. They appealed to the primitive
Church. In their view, James, Cephas, and John
vol. n. R

226 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
were " pillars ;" James especially being their authority.
We must be careful, however, not to impute the
thoughts and opinions of such persons to the Jew-
apostles themselves without closer investigation :
" The narrowness of the strictest Jew-believers cannot
possibly throw suspicion on their teachers, the
apostles" (Schneckenburger, ante, p. 195, note).
Such an assumption cannot be taken for granted,
even though these Judaists appealed directly to the
primitive Church and the distinguished apostles ; for
have we not a case in the Acts where an appeal of
this kind was disavowed by the apostles themselves,
and declared to be unauthorized ? (xv. 24). James,
the brother of the Lord, seems to have been most
inclined to that side of the question, as shown by his
speech at the apostolic convention, in which we can
discern the silent hope that the Gentiles may avail
themselves of the opportunity presented to become
acquainted with the law of Moses, and may in due
time submit themselves to it freely (comp. Rothe,
Anfdnge, p. 314). The same thing appears from the
statement of James in conjunction with the elders of
the Church at Jerusalem (Acts xxi. 20, etc.), respect
ing the zeal for the law shown by believing Jews
and their resentment against Paul ; for he urges the
latter to prove by his conduct that he is not an
enemy of the law. But even if one of the BoKovvres
aTvXot elvai was in conscience more strictly wedded
to the law, it by no means follows that all the
primitive apostles, a Peter and a John for example,
were exactly of the same mind (comp. Credner, Einl.
ins N. T. i. 625; Weitzel, Christl. Passafeier, 1848,
p. 176, etc.).
This alleged agreement of the elder apostles with

PAUL COMPARED WITH THE PRIMITIVE APOSTLES. 227
Ebionism, the narrowest and crudest form of Jewish
thought, is occasionally carried so far that some have
not hesitated to say, " If Christianity had remained
at the stage occupied by the apostles themselves-
(with the exception of Paul), it would never have
achieved its separation from Judaism. It is evident
that it would have remained a doctrine within
Judaism, a Jewish sect, and as such would, in the
course of time, have been either re-absorbed into
ancient Judaism, or would have prevailed over
ordinary Judaism only in the fact that the Messiah-
ship of Jesus would forthwith have been accepted
even by the Jews as a Jewish dogma. In this
Jewish form it was deprived of all power of develop
ment" (Schwegler, Nachapost. Zeitalter, i. 147). It
would be hard to imagine a more unhistorical asser
tion. Everything in the world is capable of develop
ment ; Christianity alone is to be excluded. In this
case Paul, to whom is ascribed the merit of having
helped Christianity to its development, must have
reached his standpoint at a single bound, and have
brought about the development , of Christianity
entirely from without ! It is true the same scholar
in another place silently withdraws this assumption,
asserting on the contrary, " It is the immanent
dialectic of Judaism itself, the dialectic conversion of
the religion of law into the religion of freedom, which
— of course within the forms of thought and religious
views of that epoch — was accomplished in Paulinism "
(i. 155, etc.). This declaration, however, seems to
have been forced from the author against his will by
the truth itself; for, in accordance with the view
which runs through his book, Paul properly speaking
is made the actual founder of Christianity as a thing

228 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
new in principle. On one occasion he says, " With
this idea (of Paul) respecting the independence of
Christianity as a xaivy xriais, a principle of inde
pendent development was first given to Christianity,
the breath of a new life breathed into it" (i. 152,
etc.). If Paul then first breathed, into Christianity
the new breath of life by his idea of the xaivy
xr la is, then is he manifestly put in the place of
Christ as the true creator of spiritual Christianity,
and the primitive Christianity that existed before is
regarded as a lifeless form. A view as unhistorical
as it is unworthy, against which no one would have
raised a stronger protest than the humble Paul him
self, who would thus be exalted at the expense of
Him who alone is Lord and the only foundation,
besides which no other can be laid, — at the expense
of Jesus Christ, in whom the great apostle testifies
that he himself first found life (Gal. ii. 20).1 We
must, however, examine the view still more closely.
First. It is impossible to apprehend Jewish Chris
tianity as it originally existed in its full historical
reality, if the belief that Jesus is the manifested
Messiah be regarded as something quite subordinate
and unimportant. All that is peculiarly Christian
in the teaching of the first apostles, if put into words
might be compressed into the simple sentence, "Jesus
is the anointed One." But this very sentence has a
comprehensive significance and an extraordinary range.
1 Baur, Christenthum der drei ersten Jahrhunderte, 1st ed. p. 43,
protested strongly against being accused of believing that Paul was
the first and true founder of Christianity as a new principle, and
that Christianity in its origin was nothing but pure belief in the
Messiahship of Jesus within Judaism. In the 2nd edition he makes
a somewhat different declaration (p. 46, etc.), showing more con
sideration for men of his school such as Schwegler.

PAUL COMPARED WITH THE PRIMITIVE APOSTLES. 229
The predicate of the sentence (viz. the Messiah) was
doubtless a familiar Old Testament idea. But the
very fact that one who was an Israelite " waited for
the consolation of Israel" (Luke ii. 25), i.e. held
firmly to the hope of a promised Messiah, and
that too at a time when the greater number had
become indifferent to the promise, — sprang from a
sentiment of trust in God ancl believing piety, which
is of great value. Hence the main point is this ;
whence came the belief and conviction that this Jesus
of Nazareth was in fact the expected Messiah ? It
obviously came from the impression that had been
produced on the mind by the personality of Jesus.
This impression must have been the more powerful,
penetrating, and lasting, the greater were the
hindrances that stood in the way of the conviction,
viz. the misapprehension of Jesus by His own people,
and the ignominious death that He suffered. The
axdvBaXov tov aravpov, of which Paul often speaks, not
only existed for him, but was felt by all the disciples
who preceded him. In order to rise above this
axdvBaXov and to attain to undoubted certainty, an
overpowering impression of the personality of Jesus
was necessary in the first place ; and in the second,
the presence of a fact that was able to counteract
the offence in question, a divine act such as the
resurrection of Jesus. The resolute faith that Jesus,
the crucified and risen One, the meek and lowly-
minded, was the Christ, if once apprehended and firmly
held, must have had this effect, viz. that the former
current idea of the expected Messiah would be trans
formed by the actual manifested Saviour, in many
essential features, and result in a not unimportant
deviation on the part of believing Israelites from

230 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
those Jews who did not believe in Jesus. Moreover,
the conviction that the Old Testament prophecies
were fulfilled in Jesus must by degrees have brought
about a complete change in the entire religious view
which the disciples took of the world and of history.1
Finally, it is in the nature of the subject that the
view of the person of Jesus, retained and kept alive
in the memory, must have had an elevating, spiri
tualizing, and emancipating influence. From what
has been said, it follows indubitably that through
faith in Jesus as the Messiah, a living, fruitful germ
of free, spiritual development was already laid, even
in those disciples who still voluntarily stood entirely
on Old Testament ground and as Christians were
conscious only of being the true Israel. So far the
statement of Zeller (Aphorismen uber Christenthum,
Jahrb. der Gegenwart, 1844, p. 514) is quite correct:
" The Pauline tendency had its allies even in the
camp of the enemy (Ebionism), namely, the internal
power of the Christian principle which could not
deny its inborn nature, even in its Ebionite chrysalis-
form, but must rather press forward to the bursting
of its covering. Accordingly, even in this early
form of Christianity borrowed from Judaism, the
Christian Psyche was already present though veiled,
and had only to break through and come to light ;
to which end Paul was made instrumental through
divine guidance."
Second. Starting from Paul, we come to the same
1 Comp. Baur, Paulus, 1st ed. p. ' 42 ; " This simple, still unde
veloped faith (in Jesus as the Messiah) included a breach which had
come into the Jewish consciousness, and must necessarily have
severed Judaism and Christianity farther and farther from one
another. "

PAUL COMPARED WITH THE PRIMITIVE APOSTLES. 231
result as before when we made Jewish Christi
anity our starting - point. If we apprehend Paul's
manner of thought and view in its full historical
reality, without distorting it by exaggeration or
by weakening, we shall find that it by no means
differs so widely from Jewish Christian mode of
thought in its actual form and true historical nature
as to justify the conclusion that spirit and life were
only on Paul's side, and on the other side only the
dead letter and narrow, servile nature. It is true, if
Paul wished to owe nothing to the traditions of
Christ's life and history, if it were certain that " his
conception of Christianity was free and outside
history" (Schwegler, i. 155), the rudest contrast would
unmistakeably exist between Pauline Christianity
and the historical form of it transmitted by tradition
at that time. The Paul of this conception, however,
is not the real Paul, but a caricature. We simply
appeal to the development of the Pauline gospel
already given to prove that it is by no means dis
severed from historical Christianity, but is rather built
upon it throughout. We may mention in particular
how strongly he asserts the agreement of his teach
ing with that of the other apostles (1 Cor. xv. 11) ;
how he makes faith and salvation dependent on the
preaching of the word, and therefore upon historical
transmission and tradition (Rom. x. 17); how he leans
upon the Scripture of the Old Testament in promise
and law for all leading truths (Rom. iii. 21); how
his conception of Bixaioavvy has its root in the
ground of the Old Testament ; and lastly, how the
centre, so to speak, of his Christian consciousness
falls into the future,— facts which prove not only that
the view of the Apostle Paul still rests upon the Old

232 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
Testament, that his mode of thought was penetrated by
Jewish elements (comp. Baur, ante, p. 485; Schwegler,
i. 154), but are likewise so many evidences of the
harmony of his gospel with that of the other apostles.
But with regard to the main question, in what respect
the true Judaistic view differs from the Pauline, i.e.
circumcision, Paul would only have been in irrecon
cilable opposition to the maxim of the Judaizing
party, viz. that circumcision is absolutely necessary
to Messianic salvation, if he had maintained, on the
contrary, that circumcision is absolutely incompatible
with Messianic salvation. The latter position, like
the former, would put a moral value on circumcision;
only that the sense would be negative in one case
and positive in the other. But this was, in truth, not
the view of Paul. Gal. v. 2 certainly has this mean
ing if the letter alone be considered, but if taken
with the context, it can only be understood to mean
that circumcision, in so far as it is accepted as the
indispensable condition of salvation, though not in
itself, is incompatible with redemption by Christ.
To Paul, circumcision, like all Old Testament customs,
is a thing purely subordinate in its relation to Chris
tianity. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision
is nothing (1 Cor. vii. 19), i.e. both are of no avail,
and both are harmless in themselves ; neither is in
itself moral, both being external; and in matters of
salvation nothing can depend upon them because the
irvevpa alone avails. It is true that Paul was tho
first to have a deeper perception of the truth of the
gospel by means of the grace that was given to him,
that he had a clearer view of the glory of Jesus Christ
the Son of God, that he pointed to Christ as the end
of the law, and that he completely succeeded in

PAUL COMPARED WITH THE PRIMITIVE APOSTLES. 233
obtaining Christian freedom, also that he apprehended
a new creation in redemption by Christ, definitely
experiencing and representing the life-giving spirit in
opposition to the letter. But with all this he did not
give or create anything absolutely new ; he did not
stand in opposition to the gospel that had been
preached by the apostles before him. On the con
trary, he was called and was prepared by the special
direction of his life, as well as by the peculiar
Xdpiapa of the spirit and the grace of Jesus Christ
which was imparted to him, to develop germs of
truth and life that had hitherto been veiled and
dormant in the gospel, and to unfold the inner
essence of Christianity which even the personal
disciples of Jesus had not yet consciously known.
In other words, he advanced Christianity only so far
as he gave conscious expression to what was actually
involved in it.1
We believe that by the examination already made
we have firmly established the position that the
doctrinal system of the Apostle Paul, notwithstanding
its peculiarity, was still in essential agreement with
the antecedent preaching of the other apostles. The
gospel of Paul is neither identical with that of the other
apostles nor yet radically opposed to it. These two
1 The latter position has been defended on just grounds by C.
Plank in his essay on Judaism and Primitive Christianity (Zeller's
Theolog. Jahrb. 1847, pp. 258, etc, 409, etc.), against Schwegler,
as we are glad to see, although we can by no means adopt all that
he has there put forward. It is matter for rejoicing that testimonies
against the erroneous theory of the "Ebionism of primitive Chris
tianity " increase even among those who either belong to the school
of Baur itself, or at least stand near it. We may mention, in the
first place, Ritschl's learned work, Die Entstehung der Allkatholischen
Kirche, with which we gladly agree in many points, and to which we.
are much indebted. The author was of the school of Baur, but even

234 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
assertions are equally untrue. We have no historical
justification for supposing that the elder apostles
entertained from the beginning views completely
identical with those of Paul respecting the law and
the gospel, and the Jewish and Gentile world. But
it is quite as unhistorical to assert, as some have
done, that Paul was in direct antagonism to the
views of the primitive apostles on the most essential
points ; and to found a new view of early Christianity,
jirofessedly the only critical one, on this axiom. The
truth lies between these two extremes. It makes its
way in spite of all mockery respecting the via media.
The mental tendencies of the Apostle Paul and of the
Jew -apostles were not of a nature to exclude one
another; on the contrary, they were intertwined in
manifold ways. The apostles themselves stood to
one another in a free, independent, and essentially
harmonious position. The keynote in all is one and
the same, i.e. living faith in Jesus of Nazareth, the
crucified and risen One who is the Messiah promised
to the fathers, the Saviour, and the only ground of
salvation. But with this unity there were many
diversities, first, with respect to the person of Christ.
The elder apostles, the personal disciples of Jesus,
who companied with Him all the time that the Lord
in the first edition of his book, 1850, put forward objections to a
number of the principles laid down by this school. In the second
edition of 1857, his opposition assumed a fundamental character,
differing in principle. And here we must not omit to mention the
essay of K. R. Kostlin, ' ' Zur Geschichte des Urchristenthums, " Theol.
Jahrbucher, 1850, 1 and 2, which opposes Schwegler's one-sided
construction of history with a definite perception of the truth,
although the author is sufficiently prejudiced to take for granted
without further inquiry, as if they were axioms, all the critical
views of Baur respecting the canonical books of the New
Testament.

PAUL COMPARED WITH THE PRIMITIVE APOSTLES. 235
Jesus went in and out amongst them (Acts i. 21),
retained the impression of the person of their Master
as they had received it, and transmitted with the
greatest possible fidelity the revelation imparted to
them through the life and words of Jesus. On the
other hand, Paul, who was not an eye-witness, not a
personal disciple of Jesus during His walk upon
earth, but who had been called at a later time by his
exalted Lord, and had received from Plim internal
revelations, viewed with a spiritual eye less bound
by sense, the glory of Jesus the Son of God ; and
that more clearly and penetratingly than the elder
apostles had been able to do. Again, with reference
to the work of Jesus, or the establishment of salvation
by His acts and suffering, the resurrection of the Lord
was far the most important and decisive fact for the
primitive apostles, inasmuch as the offence of the
ignominious death on the cross was in their case
taken away, and Jesus effectually proved to be the
Lord and Christ. On the other hand, Paul, who had
not occupied the same relation as theirs to these
important events, nor taken part in them as they had,
though apprehending the full importance of the
resurrection of Jesus as the fundamental fact of
salvation, places the death of Jesus as an act of
atonement and redemption far more prominently in
the foreground. This leads us to a third point, viz.
that Paul, who had been a persecutor of the Church
of Christ, was nevertheless called by the Lord to be
His disciple. The personal experience of the un
merited grace of Christ towards sinners, which he
thus had, took such powerful hold on him that sin
and grace became for him the fundamental concep
tions, and formed as it were the poles to the axis of

236 THE ArOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
truth in Christ Jesus. Hence it followed that his
own personal life, as well as the history of mankind,
was in his view divided into two halves — the
time before and the time after Christ. This dis
tinction was not so strongly marked for the other
apostles as for Paul ; their life in relation to Christ
having been gradual, continual, and homogeneous.
Finally, where the relation of the gospel to the Old
Testament was concerned, the elder apostles finding
their sphere of activity within the period we have in
view, ancl as " apostles of the circumcision," especially
among the people of Israel, remained both in doctrine
and walk true to the Old Testament so far as it
was consistent with faith in Jesus the only Saviour.
On the contrary, Paul, by the manner of his calling,
by his inner experiences of sin and grace, and by his
appointed sphere of action as Apostle to the Gentiles,
was led to apprehend the gospel as the power of God
to the salvation of all who believe in it, Jews as well
as Gentiles ; to recognise Christ as the end of the
law ; to preach the righteousness of God by faith in
opposition to pretended righteousness by works of the
law, and to apprehend redemption by Christ as a new
creation; in a word, to separate Christianity entirely
from Judaism. By this we do not deny that he
took his stand upon the Old Testament in harmony
with the other apostles while preaching the gospel
and unfolding its truths ; nor that he in his own
person walked according to the law, whereas the
. other apostles on their part agreed with Paul respect
ing the calling of the Gentiles into the kingdom of
God, and the rejection of Judaistic demands upon
the Gentile Christians.
The two tendencies, therefore, did not exclude, but

JAMES AND PAUL. 237
rather supplemented one another. We find multi
plicity with- agreement, and unity in diversity be
tween Paul on the one hand and the elder apostles
on the other. We recognise the same spirit in the
diversities of gifts, the same Lord in the differences
of administrations, the same God in the diversities of
powers and operations, 1 Cor. xii. 4, etc.

SECOND LEADING DIVISION.
THE RELATION BETWEEN THE PAULINE SYSTEM OF
DOCTRINE AND THE TEACHING OF THE OTHER
APOSTLES AS SHOWN IN THEIR WRITINGS.
It is necessary to keep the three different types
apart, and in the first place to compare each one
separately with the doctrinal system of the Apostle
Paul. A general survey will then follow.
A. James and Paul.
It is usual in determining the relation between the
two systems of doctrine to limit oneself where James
is concerned to the section ii. 14, etc., as has been
done in the 2nd edition of this work, p. 252, etc, as
well as by W. Schmidt, Lehrgehalt des Jakobusbriefs,
1869. This one-sided course of proceeding can
scarcely lead to an adequate result. We believe we
ought to consider the Epistle of James as a whole, and
compare it with the substance of Paul's teaching. The
prevailing character of the Epistle, as we have already
seen, p. 293, vol. i., etc, is moral and practical; it
has no doctrinal, dialectic development, as the Pauline

238 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
writings have. It is true that neither original ideas
are wanting nor spiritual apenjus, but they are put
forward in concise, sententious language, and never
thoroughly developed. Not only are the two men
manifestly different as individuals but also as writers
and characters ; there is likewise a difference in the
time when they wrote. The Pauline Epistles show
an advanced development of Christian life and
thought ; while James belongs to an earlier and far
more elementary stage in the development of primitive
Christianity. This is due to the circumstance that
the personal teaching of Christ, especially as contained
in the Sermon on the Mount, lives in the memory of
James with a freshness inconceivable to a Paul.1 It
is also due in some measure to the fact that the glance
of James is far more intently fixed on the glorified
Christ whose second coming is at hand, than on the
Saviour in His atoning death. Moreover, it is
characteristic of James as compared with Paul, that
he apprehends Christianity as the paramount law of
life, not as coinciding with Mosaism but as the
perfect law of freedom ; 2 notwithstanding which he
regards it pre-eminently as the moral rule of conduct.
1 Comp. W. Schmidt, " Char. u. Abfassungszeit des Jakobusbriefs,"
in Predigt und Vortrdge,- etc., Leipzig 1884, p. 76 : " All the
other epistolary writings of the New Testament together do not
contain nearly so many reminiscences of the discourses of Jesus as
the one Epistle of James. "
2 Something of evangelical freedom lies in the idea of the »/>»
t'iXhos tyis i\ivhpixs, while Paul on his side also speaks of a vopcos tov
msvpcxTos, though the two points of view do not fully coincide.
Stanley expresses himself very beautifully of the Epistle of James,
echoing the words of Isaac in Gen. xxvii. 22 : "Its voice is the voice
of the new dispensation, but its outward form and figure belongs
almost entirely to the older. It is not opposed to the teaching of St.
Paul and St. John, but it is St. Paul and St. John on a lower stage "
(Sermons and Essays, p. 310, etc.).

JAMES AND PAUL. 239
If, however, his whole conception resolved itself into
morality, he would be no Christian. But this cannot
be said of James. He is " a servant of God, and of
the Lord Jesus Christ " (i. 1) ; for him faith is a great
and glorious thing, mighty and powerful ; see above,
p. 302, vol. i., etc. Here James is in fundamental
harmony with Paul. Does he not recognise in sin a
connection with the invisible kingdom of darkness ;
in conversion, an act of God by which He has
begotten us to be the first - fruits of all His
creatures (p. 301, vol. i., etc.) ; in the prayer of faith,
miraculous power (p. 302, vol. i.) ; while his believing
glance is directed to the second coming of Christ as
the Judge of the world who fulfils the highest
promises ? All these are specific features of Christian
thought common to the Gentile apostle also. James
is as evangelical as Paul in basing salvation not upon
human merit but upon a divine gift (Bcbpypa, i. 17),
i.e. upon grace, the greatest operation of which is
regeneration. The Apostle Paul, in consequence of
the experiences which he made, perceived and
developed deeper truths, by virtue of a dialectic
and speculative gift as well as a divine illumination
— truths which were remote to a James at his time,
and with his empirical mode of thinking and practical
tendency. But the latter, from his predominant
moral bias, labours on every occasion to show that
Christianity must be an honest, complete, and solid
thing, not a half thing, hollow, one-sided, and power
less (see, p. 293, vol. i.). It is merely an applica
tion of this fundamental position when James insists
that faith is a genuine, solid, living thing; that it
should manifest itself in works and therefore ripen
to full completion ; for faith without works is vain,

240 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
powerless, even lifeless. This is the germ of the idea
which is expanded in ii. 14-26. It is only in order
to bring Scripture proof in support of his position
that faith without works is vain, of no avail, that
James in the course of his exposition gives expression
to the sentiment that a man is justified by works,
not by faith only (ii. 24). In any case Baur has no
foundation for his assertion that the position : e'|f
epycov Btxatovrai avdpeoiros xal ovx ix iriarecos
pbvov, is the main theme of James' teaching (Paulus,
1st ed. p. 677 ; 2nd ed. ii. 322, etc.). He himself is
unprejudiced enough to acknowledge that the polemic
against the Pauline doctrine of justification is not made
prominent as the principal subject of the Epistle,
but only comes to be discussed in connection with the
practical exhortation to perfection of Christian life and
walk (Paulus, 1st ed. p. 691 ; 2nd ed. ii. 339, etc.).
In determining the relation between James and
Paul, great importance is due to the fact that in the
section in question James' original aim is to vindicate
a more general thought, his appeal to the authority
of Scripture having no other object than to convince
his hearers of the truth of his argument, so that he is
only led in this way to the idea of justification before
God and to the assertion : ii; epycov Btxatovrai avdpeo
iros, xal ovx ix iriarecos povov. This very circumstance
is against rather than in favour of the theory (to
which, with Schmid, bill. Theol. ii. 98, and W.
Schmidt, Lehrgehalt, p. 181, the second edition of my
book, p. 255, adheres) that a reference to Paul and
Pauline ideas lies at the foundation of James' Epistle,
We are not obliged, either by the words or the
context of the section, to assume that James took the
field directly against the teaching and writings of the

JAMES AND PAUL. 241
Gentile apostle. But neither have we any foundation
for the assumption (Neander, Pflanzung und Leitung,
ii. 265, etc., and Schneckenburger, Annotatio) that
the passage, ii. 14, etc, is directed against Jewish
aberration and modes of thought, viz. the one-sided
overestimate of a still undeveloped monotheistic per
ception of God, a kind of righteousness by works.
Here, as in other parts of his Epistle, James
has rather to do with practical error within the
(Jewish Christian) Churches, which had crept in
quite independently of Pauline principles, and was
antecedent to the results of Paul's mission to the
Gentiles and church-training, viz. self-deception with
regard to a state of faith unaccompanied by its
exemplification in conduct (comp. Weiss, N. T. Theol.
4th ed. p. 180, etc.).
We are unable to recognise either a direct (inten
tional and conscious) polemic on James' part against
the teaching and writings of the Apostle Paul, or an
indirect attack on views that may be traced back to
Paul even by misapprehension. But apart from
this, we must examine how the teaching of James,
ii. 14, etc, esp. ver. 21, etc, is related to that of the
Apostle Paul.
James says, in ii. 24 : e'l? epycov Btxatovrai dvdpco-
iros, xal ovx ix iriarecos povov.
Paul says, in Rom. iii. 28: Btxaiovadai irlaret
dvdpcoirov ^w/3t9 epycov vopov.
The question is, Is there an irreconcilable contra
diction between the two statements ? Both treat of
man's subjective condition, in which he is declared
righteous by God and is regarded as such. That
Btxaiovadai with James does not express a different
conception from Paul's, we consider proved by the
VOL. II. Q

242 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
usage of the Old Testament P"]??, of the Bixaiovv in
the Septuagint, and of the context of the passage
under discussion, with special reference to iXoytady
and cplXos deov ixXydy, ver. 23.
Paul portrays faith as a subjective condition of
the justifying judgment of God, to the exclusion of
the works of the law ; James presents faith in con
nection with works, the faith which is made perfect
in works (ireXeicody, ver. 22), proving itself vital and
valid. Without doubt this is a contrast ; but, be it
observed, not the sharpest contrast conceivable. It
would be so if the statement that man is justified by
works alone, and by works of the law without faith,
stood over against the statement of Paul, "Man is
justified by faith without works." But the former is
not at all the meaning of James, who on the contrary
makes faith decidedly a condition of justification, only
not faith alone, but faith in connection with works,
i.e. not with works of the law, but with acts of
Christian morality. James' only reason for laying
down this axiom as to the indispensability of works
to faith in case of attaining to Bixalcoais is, that he
has in view a pretended, dead faith (ii. 14-26), with
which an ungodly life is associated (iii. 1, etc, iv. 1,
etc.). Hence, to prevent self-deception, he demands
signs, living testimonies of genuine faith ; and these
are works without which a man cannot be righteous
before God. Paul on his side acknowledges only
that faith to be genuine and justifying from which
sanctification and good works proceed (Gal. v. 6 :
irlans Bi dydirys ivepyovpevy). Nevertheless the
fact remains that Paul could never have expressed
himself as James has done ; and that the position of
the latter is certainly opposed to that of the former.

JAMES AND PAULJ 243
The relation between them has| been excellently
formulated by Kern (Brief Jakobi, p. 47) as follows:
" With Paul faith is the source of good works, because
it is faith that justifies ; with James faith justifies,
because it is the source of good works, and by them
proves itself living and active." It is not advisable
to weaken this contrast in order to obtain a harmony
at any price, but we are not therefore justified in
concluding that James meant, consciously and
designedly, to combat a doctrinal sentiment of Paul,
inasmuch as the necessity of this assumption can by
no means be demonstrated from the text. We freely
admit an opposition between the two statements ; but
are convinced that the antithesis is only subordinate
not fundamental, because the points of agreement
between the two doctrinal conceptions are far more
important than the points of difference. We must
not forget in particular that it is only the sharpened
didactic form, the conceptual mode, which makes the
opposition of the two statements in question appear.
James, however, agrees with Paul inasmuch as even
he does not acknowledge the meritoriousness of works.
While Paul rejects every opinion of this kind ex
pressly and in the strongest manner, James tacitly
assents, for there is not the slightest trace of such an
opinion to be found in his Epistle : he does not assert
a Btxatcoais ii; epycov absolutely, but e'£ epycov ois y
iriarts avvepyet. At the same time the epya are not
with him epya vopov in the Mosaic sense, but epya
vopov iXevdepias, i.e. works which proceed from faith
in the gospel and from regeneration. The latter is a
very important point. The conception of regenera
tion (Jas. i. 18) by the free will of God, free grace,
as Kern rightly remarks, ante, p. 48, etc, would

244 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
logically lead to the conclusion that justification is
subjective, conditioned by faith alone. But there is
a want of the dialectic and speculative thought by
which Paul is distinguished in his development of
Christian doctrine. As to man's laying hold of grace,
James agrees with Paul in the idea that it takes
place only by living faith, consequently (a) not by
works of law, which Paul expressly denies, while
James holds no other view ; (b) not by a dead faith,
as James expressly states, while Paul (Gal. v. 6 ;
1 Cor. xiii. 2) has no other opinion. In agreement
with this is the fact that James, like Paul, puts faith
and works in organic connection with one another, so
that both are in perfect agreement respecting the
fundamental truths of Christian knowledge. Paul
stands on a higher, platform of thought-development
only by virtue of his peculiar genius and life-expe
rience, especially by the power of his gift in laying
hold of the principle and carrying it out in logical
thought. Our comparison between the doctrine of James
and that of Paul has shown that they differ from
one another as Jewish from Gentile Christianity
(the former the Christianity of vbpos, the latter of
grace; the former having in view believers from
among Israel, the latter, Gentile Christians and
mixed Churches) ; but they also differ as a predomi
nant moral and practical tendency differs from a
mode of thought which, though practical also, is at
the same time reflective, deductive, and elaborating ;
lastly, as the empirical differs from the speculative
gift (comp. Baur, Paulus, 1st ed. p. 683, etc, 2nd ed.
ii. 329 ; Reuss, Histoire de la thiol, chr. ii. 530, etc.;
Bonifas, VUniti de t'enseignement apost. p. 251, etc.).

JAMES AND PAUL. 245
The Epistla of James is unmistakeably adapted to an
earlier stage of the development of Christian life and
evangelical preaching. Although James only attained
to faith as a consequence of the resurrection of Jesus,
yet we are conscious in his case of a continuous
advance in the inward man ; while Paul, by the
revulsion that took place in his inner life, was
changed and lifted up with one powerful wrench as
it were, so that from a persecutor he became an
apostle ; gaining by this means a deeper knowledge
of the person of Jesus Christ and His atoning death,
a fuller insight into sin ancl grace, and the joyful
possession of evangelical freedom. But the difference
between James and Paul is doubtless most strongly
marked in their respective statements as to the justi
fication of man before God, inasmuch as James de
clares " man is justified by works, and not by faith
only," while Paul asserts that " man is justified by
faith, without the works of the law." The contrast
between these two theses is not, however, absolutely
the sharpest, as we have already seen. Neither of
the two men affirms the meritoriousness of works,
while Paul as well as James assumes the existence
of a living active faith manifesting itself in love.
But what has the greatest weight, is that the state
ment of James before us comes up only incidentally ;
whereas he makes it all-important that the Christian
faith should be genuine, profound, energetic, and that
the Christian life generally should be full, complete,
and vigorous. Hence, notwithstanding the distinction
between Paul and James, unity is not wanting in the
main points of Christian faith and Church doctrine.
A position beside Paul necessarily belongs to James,
an abiding value, an inalienable right, in the face

246 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
of all aberration and leaning to vain formality, idle
presumption of knowledge, rigid orthodoxy, high-flown
antinomianism, and practical latitudinarianism.1

B. The Relation of Peter to James and Paul.
If, in the first place, we compare the doctrine of
the Apostle Peter, as already (p. 135, vol. ii., etc.)
extracted from his first Epistle, with that of James,
we are at once struck with a double peculiarity
which is common to both, namely, attachment to
the Old Testament, hence a prevailing practical and
moral drift, inasmuch as Peter, like James, insists
throughout his whole Epistle on the attestation of
Christianity by good works, on abstaining from worldly
lusts, on prayer, and above all on holiness of conver
sation. In both points, however, a difference is
observable ; whilst James looks upon Christianity as
law, but as the perfect law of liberty, Peter ignores
the conception of law entirely, touching upon the
Mosaic commandments and ordinances only in pass
ing, but showing, on the other hand, all the greater
predilection for the promises, because Christianity is
in his view not so much a fulfilling of the law as of
prophecy. As to the other point, Peter is distin
guished from James mainly by the circumstance that
his exhortations are far more interwoven with didactic
arguments and supported by specific Christian dogmas.
Consistently with this, the doctrine of the Petrine
Epistle is on the whole more developed than that of
James. For example, with respect to the person of
1 Comp. Stanley, Sermons and Essays, p. 316, etc. ; Schalf,
Kirchengeschichte, i. 622.

THE RELATION OF PETER TO JAMES AND PAUL. 247
Christ, whojn Peter considers not merely with James
as the exalted Lord, but also as pre-existing and
working before His incarnation, a view which influ
ences his whole theology ; and again, with regard
to the work of Christ, chiefly in so far as Peter
, definitely and repeatedly sets forth the death of
Jesus as an act of atonement by which the salvation
of sinners is established, which James passes over
in silence. Both regard the inner life of the Chris
tian as the effect of regeneration ; but Peter refers it
more immediately and fully to Christ than James
does ; comp. Schmid, Bibl. Theol. 2nd ed. pp. 158, etc,
190, etc., 206, etc, and Bonifas, V Unite de I'enseignc-
ment apostolique, p. 68, etc.
While the Petrine doctrine shows an unmistake-
able advance as compared with that of James, it is
behind that of Paul, which is incomparably fuller
and has a deeper development. Views differ very
widely, however, as to the latter relation. On one
hand, the opinion that no fundamental, essential dis
tinction exists between the Pauline and Petrine doc
trine, still finds many supporters. Not only do Baur,
Christenthum, 2nd ed. p. 123; N. T. Theol. p. 287,
etc.; Schwegler, Nachap. Zeit. ii. 28, and others of
this school maintain that the First Epistle of Peter
is essentially Pauline ; but Lutterbeck, Neutest. Lehr-
begriffe, ii. 1 78, even ventures to assert that a separate
presentation of the doctrine of the First Epistle of
Peter is " scarcely necessary, since it would only be
an anticipation of Pauline doctrine." But although
the alleged identity of the two systems of doctrine
cannot be proved, yet there is a certain agreement
between them which, on the other hand, has been
overlooked by Bernhard Weiss, Petrin. Lehrbegriff',

248 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
inasmuch as he tries to bring down the ideas of the
first Epistle to a lower stage of development
throughout. Peter is in truth at one with Paul
regarding the main facts of salvation : Jesus Christ
the Redeemer, the Son of God, active in the old
covenant before His historical appearance ; the death
of Jesus on the cross, the vicarious, atoning death
for sinful humanity ; His resurrection the indispens
able condition of our redemption ; between these
the descent of Christ into the under-world, mentioned
in the New Testament only by Peter and Paul.
Both apostles clearly mark the antithesis between
redemption, as grace, and the sin and guilt of man
kind, — grace, moreover, being in their view designed
for all humanity, inasmuch as Peter writes also to
Gentile Christians, in accordance with our previous
showing (p. 137, vol. ii. note).1 Both apostles regard
the inner Christian life as implanted by regeneration,
and as consisting in faith, love, and hope, the forgive
ness of sins being the first gift of grace, though
the Christian must prove himself such in sanctifica
tion. Both teach Christian fellowship as a com
munity of life which has its foundation in grace, and
only awaits its completion. These truths which they
have in common are certainly many and important.
But in all these points the difference is still so appa-
1 Weiss, ante, p. 144, etc., is indeed of opinion that Peter has only
Jewish Christians in view, leaving Gentile Christians quite out of
account. Yet he himself has no doubt (p. 159) that Peter afterwards,
i.e. after sending off his Epistle, "understood the purpose of God
as revealed in the grand development of the Gentile Church," and
changed his earlier view. Very good ! But, according to the
Epistle, this change had at that time already taken place. Hence,
in the case of Peter, a difference of opinion exists only as to the
lime of this inner progress and not as to its actuality.

THE RELATION OF PETER TO JAMES AND PAUL. 249
rent that we cannot mistake the Jewish-Christian
basis underlying the peculiar character of the Petrine
doctrine, or fail to see that its development is less
advanced, its thought less fundamental and connected.
With regard to the first point, the whole life of Jesus
passes before the mind of Peter in a way impossible
to Paul. Only one who had himself lived to see
how all hope of Israel seemed annihilated by the
cross of the Saviour, who had been born again to a
lively hope (i. 3, etc.) by the resurrection, could bear
so joyful a testimony to the resurrection of the Lord.
Add to this that Peter had been a witness of the
resurrection of Christ. Paul, on the contrary, became
a witness to the atoning death of Christ ; Christ the
crucified was the subject of his preaching (1 Cor.
ii. 2, i. 23). Besides, in Peter everything is looked
at in the light of the Old Testament as a whole, and
is so coloured ; whereas, in the case of the Gentile
Apostle, who also took the old covenant for his
basis but apprehended Christ as " the end of the
law," this was not possible. It is only intelligible
where an o7rdo-ToXo9 ireptroprjs is concerned. In
harmony with this, the fear of God is made prominent
as the nucleus of piety, all discussion about vbpos
and such like is wanting, the Old Testament view of
Christianity being carried out, whereas these features
appear in Paul but partially. The less developed,
less fundamental, and less systematic character is
revealed not only in the less perfect unity of the
doctrine as a whole, but also in this, viz. that the
nature of sin and grace, the specific element of justi
fication, is not put in a doctrinal form. Comp.
Reuss, ante, ii. 584; Schmid, ante, ii. 207, 209.
That faith, as a subjective moment, is differently

250 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
regarded by Peter and by Paul, the former attaching
far greater importance to Christian hope, the prospect
of glory after suffering, — we shall here but briefly
indicate, referring our readers to Weiss, ante, pp. 65,
etc, 79, and to our own earlier discussion. But the
Petrine doctrine, although unmistakeably inferior to
Paul's in conceptual grasp and unity of knowledge,
has still its permanent value by reason of its peculiar
practical and moral character, as well as its method
of teaching which faithfully adheres to the unity of the
old and new covenant, and emphasizes the Christian
element of hope with special fervour and animation.
As Peter has addressed his testimony respecting the
fulfilment of the promises in Christ to Gentile Chris
tian Churches, we, the posterity of converted Gentiles,
need constantly to be reminded of Peter's teaching
as to the connection and unity of all divine revela
tion, in which alone sound truth lies hid, — and this
is the more necessary in proportion as Christian
development, and Christian science in particular, assert
the new and creative power of Christianity.1

C. John and Paul.
In finally passing to John, and taking together
both classes of the Johannine writings, Apocalypse
ancl Gospel with Epistles, in conformity with the
examination we have already made, we find that
these writings not only presuppose the Pauline
system of doctrine, but also present the highest
perfection of all other New Testament teaching.
1 Comp. the beautiful words uttered by B. Weiss to this effect,
Petrin. Lehrbegriff, 196, 231, etc.

JOHN AND PAUL. 251
First. In his teaching respecting the person of
Christ, John agrees with Paul in setting forth with
warm predilection and marked emphasis the divine
glory and eternal exaltation of Christ as well as His
true humanity. Both recognise in Jesus a person1 pro
ceeding from God Himself, and consider the Redeemer
as of one essence with Him. But whilst Paul, even
when treating of the Redeemer in His prehistorical
state, speaks simply of " Christ," we find in John so
great an advance of thought that he describes the
Logos, the essential Word (or according to 1 . John i. 2,
the eternal Life), as having become man.2 John
directs his view especially to the divine in the
person of Christ, and thus makes a great stride
towards understanding the threefold nature of God,
not only with Paul as a distinction ab extra, a
trinity revealed, but as an inner relation of God to
God, i.e. as a trinity of essence. Paul looks at the
incarnation in the light of a voluntary humiliation
on the part of Christ, from which, after having con
descended lower and lower, down to death on the
cross, He was again exalted ; John, on the other
hand, whose prevailing point of view is not antithetic
and polemic, but internal and coalescent, regards the
incarnation as the perfect revelation of the Life or the
Logos, so that the full glory of the Only-begotten of
the Father was manifested in the human appearance
of Jesus, even in His corporeity, God and man being
1 Kostlin, Joh. Lehrbegriff, p. 306.
2 Messner, Lehre der Apostel, p. 399, finds nothing more than a
difference of terminology not of view, in the fact that John desig
nates Christ before His appearance in the flesh as Logos, and Paul
not. It appears to us that the distinction lies not merely in the
expression but in the idea itself ; comp. Godet, Comm. sur I'Ev. de
St. Jean, ii. 1S77, p. Ill, etc.

252 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
united in one in the person of Jesus Christ, in whom
heaven and earth, spirit and flesh, are made one.
Second. While Paul makes the crucifixion, the
vicarious, atoning death, the centre of the work of
Christ, John too (in the Apocalypse and Gospel),
with full emphasis extols the Lamb of God who
bears the sins of the world. With John, however,
the coming of Christ into the world is the all-
embracing great fact, the death on the cross being
only a proof of the love and grace of God; whereas
Paul is lost in admiration of the Btxaioavvy deov
revealed and communicated in the propitiatory death
of Jesus. Third. John does not follow up sin, as Paul does,
in its gradual development within the life of indi
viduals and humanity, yet both agree perfectly in
their perception of the ultimate origin of sin in
humanity as a whole, and of the innate sinfulness of
every man in particular. Whilst John, with grand
comprehensive view, declares the character of the
world that lies in the wicked one to be darkness,
hatred, and death, he still apprehends as clearly as
Paul the freedom of the will, and the possibility left
to man of loving the light and the truth, and of being
converted. v Fourth. Although the two apostles agree so closely
in their belief in the redemption of the sinner by
God's grace in Christ, yet in their doctrinal discus
sion of the way of salvation they disagree, inasmuch
as Paul lays chief stress on the justification of the
sinner by faith ; while John, though also testifying to
the forgiveness of sins, does not give prominence to
the judicial element, but emphasizes the new divine
life which is implanted by the power of God, through

JOHN AND PAUL. 253
faith, in regeneration, and is maintained in com
munion with the Father and the Son. In other
words, John, in his conception of regeneration, does
not attach chief importance to the new as contrasted
with the old, but to the communication and power of
eternal life.1
Fifth. In John we find no longer any trace of
Pauline striving for the evangelical freedom of Chris
tians, of the opposition presented by Paul between
righteousness by faith and righteousness by the law,
or of his struggle for the right of Gentile Christians
to entrance into the Church of Christ without circum
cision and subjection to the Mosaic yoke. On
the other hand, the secure possession of all that Paul
had gained, is taken for granted in John's writings.
The gospel is completely loosed from the narrow
bondage of Judaistic limitation, freely and joyfully
we breathe the pure mountain air of perfect liberty
in Christ Jesus. With blissful rapture the spirit
beholds the manifested glory of the Only-begotten, in
whom we have received grace and truth, blessings that
stand far above the law that was given by Moses.
Sixth. John, like Paul, regards the Christian
Church as a fellowship with God the Father through
Christ in the Holy Spirit ; only that in him the
view of life-communion with Christ is carried out in
greater purity and fulness. As in the Apostle Paul's
view, Christ is the head, the Church the body, so in
John Jesus represents Himself as the vine, His
disciples being the branches, which can only do
1 Comp. Reuss, ante, ii. 428, etc. He formulates it excellently as
follows : " Selon Paul, il s'agit de mourir pour naitre ; et selon Jean,
de naitre pour vivre." Unquestionably Reuss has here made not only
an acute but also a correct observation.

254 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
something, i.e. bring forth fruit, when attached to
the vine. Comp. the instructive parallel between
Johannine and Pauline doctrine in Lange, Gesch. d.
Kirche, ii. 603, etc. Hence the whole testimony of
John respecting the sanctification of believers and
their inability to sin, together with his attestation
that the commands of God are not difficult, rests
on close communion of life and nature with Christ,
an ideal conception to which Paul also approaches
when he represents believers as ev irvevpa with
Christ (1 Cor. vi. 17), as d^vpot, as cpcos iv xvpico and
not as axbros (1 Cor. v. 7 ; 2 Cor. vi. 14 ; Eph. v. 8),
and directs his view to the object of sanctification
(eivat ypds dyiovs xat apcopovs xarevcbirtov avrov,
Eph. i. 4).
Seventh. Attention has been frequently and fully
drawn to the many points of contact between the
Pauline doctrine of last things ¦ and the Johannine
Apocalypse (W. Georgii Theol. Jahrb. 1845, p. 11,
etc.; Ritschl, Altkath. Kirche, 2nd ed. p. 58, etc.;
Messner, ante, p. 420, etc.). Consider, for example,
the double resurrection, the kingdom or reign of the
blessed with Christ, the doctrine of Antichrist. Not
only the Apocalypse, however, but also the First
Epistle of John, has the last of these facts in
common with Paul ; the Johannine avrlxptaros
corresponding exactly to the Pauline dvri.xeip.evos, as
the absolute enemy of Christ, whose power lies in
the region of the spiritual and moral, whose ultimate
principle is Satan, while he himself appears as a
human personality (Liicke, Comm. ilber die joh. Brief e,
2nd ed. p. 193, etc.). We are thus led to the analogy
that also exists between the doctrine of the Epistles
and Gospel and that of Paul regarding the last things.

JOHN AND PAUL. 255
Their agreement with respect to the future visible
coming of Christ, the resurrection of the body, the
judgment and the life of the blessed, is self-evident,
unless we misapprehend the Gospel so as to dissipate
all that it contains into mere ideas, into nothing
but spirit, into spirits themselves.1 Comp. Bonifas,
V Unite" de I'enseignement apost. pp. 262, etc.

If we survey once more the whole range of
apostolic doctrine as already examined, from the first
missionary discourse of Peter to the Johannine Gospel,
indubitably the latest writing of the New Testament,
embracing a period of perhaps fifty years, we have
before us a phenomenon such as does not occur twice
in the history of humanity. What multiplicity of
minds, what variety of natural parts, of life and
sphere of action ! But with all this, what surprising
unity in the main ! Here is certainly in necessariis
unitas, a great consensus of the apostolic xypvyp-a, as
Paul attests in 1 Cor. xv. 11, 3, etc. We found the
apostolic discourses to Jews and Gentiles, all the
apostolic Epistles to Jewish and Gentile Christians
united in this leading truth, viz. Jesus of Nazareth is
the Christ ; in Him alone is salvation for all. All
that the apostles teach is contained in this confession
of faith as in a nutshell ; their doctrine of faith and
morals, so far as it can be carried out in its height
and depth, length and breadth, is but an unfolding of
this fundamental truth. He Himself, the Lord of
glory whom they confess with one mouth and preach,
1 Comp. Baur, N. T. Theol. p. 407: "This is again the same
idealism to which even historical reality is at last but an external
form."

256 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
is the personal centre of their life and faith. They
themselves are personally one in Him : et9 xvptos, pia
irlans, ev Bdirnapa (Eph. iv. 5). Their teaching,
too, agrees in its essential features ; comp. Lutterbeck,
ante, ii. 138, etc. ; Schaff, ante, p. 608 ; Bonifas, ante,
p. 379, etc. The unity is especially marked in the
historical leading facts of the life of Jesus, viz. His
crucifixion and resurrection. To the preaching of
the Saviour is attached the doctrine of salvation, sin,
and redemption, also agreeing in substance. With
respect to the mode of obtaining salvation, James and
Peter, Paul and John are in almost verbal agreement
as to the fact that the new life of the Christian is
produced only by regeneration. They all acknow
ledge the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy
Spirit to be the chief blessing of believers ; while, on
the other hand, all the apostles with one mind make
holiness of walk an indispensable requirement. The
apostolic unity of doctrine regarding Christian hope is
particularly clear, all the apostolic writings are com
pletely at one in teaching that the crucified and
risen One, the exalted Redeemer, the Son of man
which He is continually, shall come again visibly to
judge the quick and the dead and to bestow everlast
ing blessedness on His own. In conclusion, we
mention only one point of the great apostolic con
sensus : the Old Testament the basis of the new, the
basis of the coherence of all divine revelation. Even
Paul fully recognises this truth, however much he
puts in the foreground the newness and freedom of
grace in Christ.
It is sufficiently obvious from the foregoing
description that the unity of the doctrinal conceptions
of the New Testament is not an identity, but embraces

JOHN AND PAUL. 257
manifold distinctions, a fulness of peculiar develop
ments. The peculiarity of each doctrinal concep
tion is such that it may be followed through all
points even to the minutest particular. These
very differences within the unity of the apostolic
doctrine enhance the completeness of the harmony
and preserve its living freshness. They answer this
purpose in all time. It is not for us to go through
these distinctions again. Some excellent remarks on
the subject are to be found in Lutterbeck, ante, ii.
pp. 138, etc, 206, etc, 260, etc, 300 ; Godet, Bibel-
studien, ii. 1878, p. 207, etc. An acute and far-
reaching observation was made by Hugo Grotius
even in his day, to the effect that Peter was a oStXd-
Xpicros ; John, on the other hand, a eptXotyaovs, i.e.
the former loved the Messianic dignity of the Saviour
above all, the latter His divine-human person. The
characteristic difference of view with respect to the
Holy Ghost consists in the fact that Peter looks upon
the Holy Ghost as a gift sent down from heaven
(1 Pet. i. 12), while Paul regards the Spirit as an
inward possession, an element of new life, and John
makes it the source of eternal life. But we must not
linger on these comparisons. We pass on to the
more general observation, that in the development of
apostolic doctrine as a whole Paul with his life-
work and teaching unmistakeably forms the centre,
inasmuch as the writings of Peter and John that
were composed after His appearance bear traces of
Pauline doctrine. We for our part cannot see any
thing inconsistent with the character of the primitive
apostles or with apostolic dignity and independence,
in the assumption that they were influenced by the
intellectual power of Paul. If the apostles were to
VOL. II. K

258 THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES.
be gradually led by the Spirit into all truth, there is
nothing contradictory in the acknowledgment that
under the guidance of the Spirit and within the
brotherly xoivcovla one served to advance the rest in
the truth, especially where the instrumentality of that
one was so greatly blessed.
If every doctrine complete in itself be valued only
according to acuteness of conception, logical develop
ment, systematic unity, in short according to its
scientific completeness, the Pauline doctrinal system
undoubtedly stands on the highest platform. But it
is still surpassed by the Johannine in sweep of spirit
and mystic intuition which, carried along by pious
love to the Lord, aims at the centre and reaches the
highest unity. John, with his doctrinal system that
adjusts and reconciles all the antitheses in apostolic
teaching, presents the highest perfection within the
New Testament canon. What is most surprising
is the simplicity of language and form in which
he clothes the highest thought ; it is highest truth
presented in purest beauty of form.
Just as the unity of apostolic teaching is the
support of the faith and life of the Church of
Christ in all time, so also the difference and the
characteristic peculiarity of the separate systems of
doctrine are serviceable to the Church and indi
viduals of every age. There are persons, there are
times, modes of thought and tendencies, in which
James or Peter, Paul or John is reflected (see the
able treatise of A. Lowe, Johannes und Paulus in der
Geschichte und Gegenwart, in. Liicke and Wieseler's
Vierteljahrsschrift, iv. 1848, p. 61, etc. ; comp. Weiss,
Petrin. Lehrbegriff, pp. 97, 331, etc. ; Stanley, Sermons,
p. 173, etc.; Godet, Bibelstudien, ii. p. 209, etc.).

JOHN AND PAUL. 259
But it is only the whole that is also the sound ; and
every one of the apostolic doctrinal conceptions is
given to Christendom as a rule and means of
advancement. This everlasting importance of the
collective doctrines of the New Testament impels
us to adoring admiration of the divine wisdom, when
we consider that all the New Testament writings
were nothing but occasional works composed in given
circumstances for definite readers, for a special time,
and are now of permanent significance to men of all
places and all times, containing unexhausted and
inexhaustible treasures of wisdom and knowledge,
as also of everlasting life. Thanks be unto God for
His unspeakable gift (2 Cor. ix. 15).

SECOND BOOK.
THE POST-APOSTOLIC PERIOD.

HERE also we keep the Churches of Jewish and
Gentile Christians apart, conformably to the
purpose which we have in view. But we find
reason where the former are concerned, for going out
side the boundaries of the post-apostolic period, so
called in a narrower sense ; while keeping within
those limits with respect to the Gentile Christians.
Consequently we shall not go beyond the end of the
second century after Christ, when a new period,
that of " the Old Catholic Church," begins with the
time of an Irenseus, a TertuUian, and a Clement of
Alexandria. Since it is now recognised, and even
admitted by the school of Baur, that at the end
of the second century, when a " universal " united
Church was already in existence, the antithesis
between Petrine and Pauline tendencies or Judaism
and Paulinism, were adjusted, our task does not lead
us beyond that time. On the other hand, with
respect to Jewish Christianity it is important both
to follow the Judaistic tendency to its disappearance,
and to indicate as far as possible the traces of national-

THE JEWISH CHRISTIANS. 261
Jewish Churches. The two things are impossible
without going beyond the time specified. We pro
ceed to the latter task.

FIRST PART.
THE JEWISH CHRISTIANS.
The fanatical hatred of the Jews against the
Jewish Christians, that had grown stronger and
stronger from the time of the Jewish-Roman war,
led to the martyrdom at the age of 120 years of
Simeon, the successor of James in the leadership
of the Church at Jerusalem. According to Hege-
sippus, in Eusebius, H. E. iii. c. 32, certain adherents
of the Jewish sects denounced him as a Christian
and a descendant of David, and finally succeeded in
bringing about his crucifixion, which took place under
Trajan, in the year 107. Ten years later there were
risings of the Jews in various parts, in Babylonia,
Egypt, Cyrene, and in the island of Cyprus ; and
in the year 118, when Hadrian ascended the throne,
the revolt in Palestine broke out into a blaze, but
was put down for a time by the Emperor through
measures of concession.1 At last, in the year
132, the insurrection that had been in silent prepa
ration for twelve years broke out under the priest
Eleazar and the pseudo-Messianic revolutionary hero
1 Griitz, Ceschichte der Juden, iv. 1853, pp. 148, etc., and 510,
tries to prove that Hadrian even gave permission for the restoration
of the temple. But on a careful examination of the point, not ,i
single source, excepting one Talmudic passage, makes any mention
of such permission, but only of independent attempts of the Jews
to build up their temple again.

262 THE POST- APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
Simon Bar-Cochba, not without considerable influ
ence on the part of the Rabbi Akiba, who had
travelled a great deal for the purpose of agitation.1
Its object was to recover the freedom of the nation,
and to restore the Jewish state. The Christians
in Judea did not, on principle, attach themselves to
the insurrectionists ; and stedfastly refused to take
any part in fighting against the Romans. For this
they had to suffer fearfully : Simon Bar-Cochba,
while sparing the captive Romans, had many Chris
tians executed because they refused to deny Jesus,
and because they were apostates and spies. Con
sequently, after the revolt had been suppressed, when
the Emperor Hadrian planted a colony in the year
135 on the ruins of Jerusalem, a military camp
which was called "Aelia Capitolina," and which the
Jews were not permitted even to enter on pain of
death, — the Christians who assembled in the new
heathen city chose for the first time a Gentile
Christian Marcus for their bishop, whereas formerly
they had had none but circumcised bishops.2 How
shall we picture the Church in Aelia Capitolina ?
The choice of a non-Israelite, one who was uncir-
cumcised, as head of the Christian Church at
1 Gratz, iv. p. 157 ; Renan, Les Evangiles, 1877, p. 515, etc. ;
Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine, 1867, pp. 395, etc., 418, etc. ;
Theodor Mommsen, Rom. Geschichte, vol. v. 1885, p. 544, etc.
2 From James to the war under Hadrian, Eusebius (II. E. iv. 5.
§ 2) counts fifteen bishops : ¦z-xvTxs'Efipxi'ovs ovtxs xvixxhv . . , ix
tfipiropris. In the same work, speaking of the Church at Jerusalem
as a whole, Eusebius says that from the time of the apostles to the
siege under Bar-Cochba, it had been purely Jewish Christian, <roni-
(Ttxyxi xvtoTs tots rtxo'xv ixxXrifflxv i\ Efipxtav xiffruv. On the other
hand, he says of the newly-assembled Church in Aelia Capitolina,
C 6. § 4 : xxi 3« Ttjs xvt'oSi ixxXno-'txs *£ i6vaiv trvyxpoTtihiirns, TpoJTos
poiTx tous ix •jriptTOfAris ivriffxoTovs r*iv tojv ixiiT i XsiTovpyixv iyx^iptZiTai

THE JEWISH CHRISTIANS. 263
Jerusalem, demanded on the part of a Jewish
Christian a victory over self, a suppression of here
ditary, national feeling, of which at most only some
of the Jewish Christians would be capable. But
apart from the choice of a Gentile Christian as
bishop, no Jew was permitted to set foot in the
city, by virtue of an express command of the
Imperial founder ; an Imperial decree imposed the
severest punishment on all who should observe
circumcision and the Sabbath. Hence only such
Christians might settle there as could in no sense be
looked upon as Jews, that is Gentile Christians
only, and at most such Jewish Christians as were
connected with the Jews solely by their descent,
but not by the customs, usages, and observance of
Mosaism. Thus where a Christian descended from
the Hebrews was concerned, the fact of dwelling
in Aelia implied a complete renunciation of the
law and of Judaism; a standpoint which, as
already stated, we can only accept in the case of
a few Jewish Christians ; for it would in reality
be nothing less than going over to the Gentile
Christians. Thus Gentile Christianity took the place
of the mother Church, and Jewish Christianity was
thrust out of Jerusalem. As a consequence of the
last revolt even the name, Jewish country, was set
yixpxos. And Sulpicius Severus (Hist. ii. 31) says of the time of
the Jewish war under Hadrian: "Tum Hierosolymae nonnisi ex
circumcisione habebat ecclesia sacerdotem." But the author then
goes on to say that Hadrian closed the newly -built city against the
Jews, and continues: this "proficiebat christians fidei, qui tum
pame omnes Christum Deum sub legis observatione credebant.
Nimirum id Domino ordinante dispositum, ut legis servitus a liber-
tate fidei atque ecclesise tolleretur. Ita tum primum Marcus ex
gentibus apud Hierosolymam episcopus fuit."

264 THE POST- APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
aside : the province was no longer called Judea as
formerly, but Syria Palastina, Syria of the Philistines
(as in Herodotus).1 For this reason Schliemann
(Clementinen, pp. 408, 474, etc.) has put forward the
view that in the year 138, when the Christian inhabi
tants of Aelia Capitolina completely renounced the
law and Judaism, the separation took place between
the stricter and more tolerant Jewish Christians
(according to former usage "Ebionites and Nazarseans"),
and Ebionism became a sect. But neither the dis
tinction between Nazarseans and Ebionites, nor an
assertion that the latter were heretics, can be proved
of the period in question. Gieseler, Kirchengesch. i.
1. 130, note 6, puts the origin of the division
between the Nazarseans and Ebionites farther back,
viz. at the beginning of the second century, after the
death of Symeon (107), on the basis of a statement
of Hegesippus in Eusebius (H. E. iii. 32, comp. iv.
22),' to the effect that the Church continued till the
death of Symeon " a pure and undefiled virgin." But
on comparing these two passages, we find that
Hegesippus does not speak of Judaistic sects but of
sects in general ; and that he has the Gnostics in his
mind above all. Hence we cannot attach any such
value to the fragment from Hegesippus as to warrant
us in putting with safety into so early a period the
full appearance of the division between Nazarseans
and Ebionites. As to the impossibility of going back
still farther and identifying Ebionism with primitive
Christianity, as Schwegler does, it is unnecessary,
after our previous investigation, to say more. But
however widely the three views just given differ
as to the origin and age of Ebionism, they yet all
1 Mommsen, ROmische Geschichte, vol. v. p. 546.

DIVISION AMONG THE JEWISH CHRISTIANS. 265
agree in their recognition of the truth that Judaistic
Christianity was in existence since there were
Christians ; and that the distinction of a harsher as
opposed to a more tolerant tendency was present
among Jewish Christians as early as the apostolic
era (Baur, Paulus, 1st ed. p. 127, etc, 2nd ed. i. 145,
etc.; Gieseler, p. 130; Schliemann, p. 405, etc.). The
apostolic convention was undoubtedly the occasion on
which this difference once appeared, thus forming the
first problem in the development of Jewish Chris
tianity. The destruction of Jerusalem, in accord
ance with our former decision, must be regarded as
the second crisis ; it led to an internal convulsion
that shook Jewish Christianity to its very foundation,
and by withdrawing its national basis robbed it of
the moral power that it had had hitherto. The
third knotty point is the establishment of an entirely
Gentile Christian Church on the ruins of Jerusalem
(p. 135), by which Jewish Christianity was also sup
pressed externally. The fourth and final step was the
formal separation of the Ebionite and Nazarsean parties.
But since we cannot show by historical testimonies
the definite point of time in which that step took
place, we believe it must be assumed that the
development and the separation of the two different
tendencies in the Jewish Christianity of Palestine
and the neighbouring lands, as well as the hardening
of these tendencies into opposing parties, took place
only gradually in the course of a longer time.
If we examine the authors of the second century
for evidence on this point, we find that Justin
Martyr was the first, in his dialogue with the Jew
Tryphon (c. 47), composed about the middle of
this century, to distinguish two kinds of Judaizing

266 THE POST- APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
Christians, viz. such as hold fast to the law them
selves, without desiring to impose it on others or
making it necessary to salvation ; and, on the other
hand, such as adopt the latter view, and regard as
brethren those Christians only who also observe the
law. We give the passage, on account of its historical
importance, with its context. Tryphon asks, c. 46 :
" But if some, even now, wish to live in the observ
ance of what is appointed by Moses, and believe in
this Jesus the crucified One, while they acknowledge
that He is the anointed of God (d Xpiaros rov deov)
and that it is given to Him to judge all men, and
that the everlasting kingdom is His, — can these also
be saved ? " — Justin first of all proves that circum
cision and ceremonial observances of this nature
cannot possibly be absolutely indispensable conditions
of salvation. The Jew, however, repeats his ques
tion, c. 47 : " But if a man who knows this to be so,
while recognising Him (Jesus) as Christ and believ
ing and following Him, yet wishes also to observe
this (the Mosaic ceremonial law), will he be saved % "
to which Justin replies : cits pev ipol Boxei, Xeyco
brt acodyaerai b toiovtos, iav py rovs aXXovs
dvdpcoirovs, Xeyco By rovs dirb tcov id v tov Bid tov
Xptarov dirb t% irXdvys irepirpydevras, ix iravrbs
ireldetv dyeoviXyrai, ravrd avrep epvXdaaetv, Xeycov ov
aeodyaeadai aiiTOVS, iav py ravra epvXd^coaiv, etc.
Tryphon then inquires more precisely : Bid tI ovv
eiiras cos pev ipol Boxei, acodyaerai d toiovtos,
el py n elalv oi Xeyovres on ov acodyaovrat ol
toiovtoi ; and Justin explains in detail : Elalv — xal
pyBe xotvcoveiv bpiXlas y earlas rols toiovtois toX-
peovres' oh iyeo oil avvaivos elpt. .4XX' iav avrol
Bia to dadeves rys yvcapys xal rd oaa Bvvavrai vvv

DIVISION AMONG THE JEWISH CHRISTIANS. 267
ex tcov Mcoaecos — perd rot iirl tovtov tov Xpiarbv
eXiri^eiv, xal rds alcoviovs xal cpvaei 8ixaioirpai;ias
xai evaeBeias epvXdaaeiv BovXcovrat, xal alpowrai
av^yv rots XPi<7'Tlavoh xal iriardis, cos irpoeiirov, py
ireidovres avroiis p-yre irepirepveadai bpolcos avrois,
pyre aaBfiarttetv, etc., xal irpoaXapBdveadai xal
xoivcoveiv dirdvrcov, chs bpoairXdyxvois xal dBeX<pois,
Beiv dirocpalvopaf iav Be ol dirb tov yevovs tov
vperepov irtareveiv Xeyovres iirl tovtov tov Xpiarbv
— ix iravTOS xara tov Bid Mcoaecos Biaraxdevra
vopov dvayxd^coat £yv rovs ii; idvcbv iriarevovras
iirl tovtov rbv Xpiarbv, y py xoivcoveiv avrois TJ79
roiavrys avvBtaycoyrjs alpcbvrai, bpolcos xal tovtovs
ovx diroBexopai (ed. Otto, 1848, ii. p. 146, etc.).
The last expression : toutou9 ovx diroBexopai, does not
mean simply, I disapprove of these (Hilgenfeld,
Ketzergeschichte, p. 21, note); neither does it mean:
" I cannot regard these as on an equal footing with
the more tolerant," as Dorner suggests (Entwicke-
lungsgesch. i. 300, note) ; but in conformity with the
context, the sense is, In like manner I refuse to recog
nise them, viz. as they refuse to recognise us (as
Schliemann explains).
Here then mention is made of two extreme
parties ; first, of Judaizing Christians who regard the
observance of the Mosaic law as absolutely necessary
to salvation, and hold no fellowship with Christians
of a different mind. At the opposite extreme stand,
secondly, Gentile Christians who on principle entirely
avoid all intercourse with Judaizing Christians that
observe the law. Half - way between these two
extremes are two other groups ; first, Christians who,
as Jews by birth, submit to circumcision and Mosaism
themselves, but do not make them binding on Gentile

268 THE POST-APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
Christians, with whom they hold brotherly intercourse;
on the other hand, Gentile Christians who on their
side hold intercourse with Jewish Christians of the
last - named kind. The former extreme Judaizing
party, by refusing church - fellowship to Gentile
Christians, shut themselves out from the collective
Church, thus taking an isolated position as a sect.1
Hence Justin affords an insight into the inner pro
cess of this degeneracy into a sect, while the fact
that this fraction actually became a sect did not
appear until afterwards.
It is much to be desired in the interest of history, that
some works of the very same time at which Justin
wrote, about the middle of the second century, had
come down to us, proceeding directly from Judaizing
circles, and opening up a glance into them. Such are
the writings commonly classed under the general title
of pseudo- Clementine literature. These are the Recogni
tions Clementis, libri x., which have been preserved only
in the Latin translation of Rufinus; again, the Homilies
of Clement (to KXypevna), which we possess in the
Greek original, and since 1853 in a complete form;
finally, the Epitome, which is only an abridgment of
the Homilies. As the Homilies in any case present the
more doctrinally developed and historically important
form of the other treatises which are essentially similar,
we lay them at the basis of the following examination.2
1 The copious and intrinsically clear exposition of Justin, has a
still greater range than Hilgenfeld, Ketzergeschichte des Urchris-
tenthums, 1884, p. 21, etc. note, admits.
2 To Baur belongs the merit of having turned the attention of the
inquirer to the Clementines as the source of Church history and
dogma ; he first investigated the subject in the programme 1831,
De Ebionitarum origine et doctrina, then in the Tubingen Zeitschrift
filr Theol. 1831, 4: "Die Christuspartei in der Kor. Gemeinde,"

JEWISH CHRISTIANS: THE CLEMENTINES. 269
The Homilies, as Semisch (Die Apost.. Dcnkwiirdig-
keiten des M. Justin, 1848, p. 358) correctly puts it,
form a " tendenz-romance," which professes to be
authentic history, whereas it transfers the peculiar
views of the author and his party back to the apostolic
period, and unfolds them in the discourses of Peter.
To the Homilies a threefold preface is prefixed in the
form of three original documents, viz. (a) a letter
from Peter to James enjoining secrecy as to the
xypvypara LTerpov that had been sent to him ; (b)
the Biapaprvpia of James to the elders at Jerusalem
respecting the mode in which the xypvypara LTerpov
were to be confided to the initiated under the seal of
secrecy; (c) an accompanying letter of Clement to
James, in which he informs him that Peter, before
his death, had chosen, prepared, and consecrated him,
as well as in his Christlichen Gnosis, 1835, and in later treatises ;
comp. on the literature, Uhlhorn, Homilien und Recognitionen, 1854,
p. 12, etc. Schliemann, Die Clementinen, nebst den verwandten
Schriften, und der Ebionitismus, 1844, is at fault in refusing to
acknowledge the epoch-making character of Baur's investigations.
But Baur, as may readily be understood, over-estimates the import
ance of his source, newly discovered by him so to speak, or at least
made subservient for the first time to Church history ; inasmuch as
he treats it as the richest and all-enlightening primitive document
of the Church and of ecclesiastical consciousness at that time,
whereas it is at the most a product and expression of an isolated
party or fraction, to some extent even an entirely individual work of
the heretical author. The relation of the Recognitions and the
Homilies to one another was understood by Baur, Schliemann, and
others to be, that the Homilies were the original ; the Recognitions
a later revision of the Homilies composed at the beginning of the
third century. In opposition to this view Hilgenfeld has endea
voured to make the inverse relation probable, Die Clement. Recogni
tionen und Homilien, nach ihrem Ursprung und Inhalt dargestellt,
1848 ; and Ritschl, Entstehung, 2nd ed. p. 205, etc., agrees in the
main. According to this view, the Recognitions were composed
about the year 140 with a polemic object against the Valentinian

270 THE POST- APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
Clement, to be his successor in the Roman episcopate ;
but had specially charged him to give James a sum
mary account of his (Peter's) discourses and acts, of
which Clement had in several places been a witness.
Clement gives the history of his own life and conver
sion in the Homilies themselves. He tells how,
driven to the East by ardent thirst of the truth that
was not appeased in the schools of philosophy, he
became acquainted at Alexandria with Barnabas who
was preaching in that city, and was instructed by
him ; and again, how, having followed Barnabas to
Judea, he had met with Peter in Caesarea, who had ini
tiated him into the truth ; hence he attends the public
disputation with Simon Magus held by Peter in that
place, and accompanies the apostle, who pursues the
retreating sorcerer from Caesarea through Tyre, Sidon,
Berytus, Tripolis, Antioch, etc, in order to oppose him
Gnosis, being therefore older and more original ; the Homilies, on
the contrary, were elaborated partly on the basis of the Recognitions,
against Marcion, about 160 ; and a still older original, the xnpiypixTx
ilirpov, written perhaps about 120, with reference to Basilides, served
as the basis of the other two. We expressed doubts, even in our
second edition, as to whether the attempt of Uhlhorn, Die Homilien
und Recognitionen des Clemens Rom. 1854, to prove the Recognitions
to be a revision of the Homilies, was successful. In the meantime,
he himself, in consequence of later investigations, particularly those
of Lehmann, Die Clementinischen Schriften, 1869, and Lipsius, Die
Quellen der ROmischen Petrussage, 1872, has retracted his view ; see
Real-Encyclopddie, 2nd ed. vol. iii. 208, etc. Even now the point is
by no means clear. The following remarks, however, appear to come
near the truth. An older work lies at the basis both of the Homilies
and Recognitions, bearing the title, Kerygmen des Petrus. To this
document sometimes the Homilies, sometimes the Recognitions
correspond more faithfully ; its historical contents are more correctly
seen from the Recognitions, its doctrinal contents from the Homilies.
Hausrath in his N. T. Zeitgeschichte, iv. 2nd ed. 1877, pp. 133-145,
in his fanciful examination develops the way in which the gradual
origination of the Recognitions and Clementines is to be conceived.

JEWISH CHRISTIANS : THE CLEMENTINES. 271
and his errors. That anti-Jewish gnosis, especially
that of Marcion, is presented and combated in Simon
Magus, is universally acknowledged since the dis
quisition of Baur. Uhlhorn's conjecture, p. 290, etc,
that the actual doctrines of the Simonians, a Gnostic
sect of this name, are attributed to Simon in the
Homilies, which has much in its favour, is quite con
sistent with the above fact. On the other hand, it is
a matter of dispute whether the aim of the author is
to make Simon Magus represent Paul also, as Baur,
followed by Schliemann, Schwegler, Ritschl (Entste-
hung, p. 228), and Uhlhorn, ante, maintains. Niedner
takes the negative view. He observes (Kirchen-
geschichte, p. 242, note), with reference to Horn.
xvii. 19, that Paul as a matter of fact gained the
assent of James, but did not make the essence of
the revelation he had received consist in visions ;
while the common usage of the word xareyvcoapevos
gives no foundation for referring the above passage
to Gal. ii. 14. But after careful examination of the
seventeenth homily we cannot help coming to the
conclusion that the passage in question contains an
intentional and unmistakeable allusion to the story of
the conversion of Paul as well as to the scene at
Antioch, Gal. ii. 11, etc.1 This polemic against Paul
is quite in the spirit of the work in question, for in
1 This is the more palpable since in Horn. xvii. 19 not merely
is xxTiytom pt'iios used twice, with an unmistakeable purpose, but
also (a thing that Niedner seems to have overlooked) the MTirr»v
from Gal. ii. 11 again recurs: 'wxvt'ios xtliirTnxxs ptoi — as ipov xxtx-
yvoio-iivTos xxi ipov il^oxipoovvTos. The last words are incorrectly trans
lated by Dressel: quamvis laudari debeam, whereas they undoubtedly
mean, " and as if I were pleased with that." De Lagarde's conjec
ture, Clementina, p. 168: ipov xhoxiptov 2W«, instead of iHoxi/xovvtos,
we hold to be neither necessary nor happy, since it leads to tautology.

272 THE POST- APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
the interest of its opposition Peter is made responsible
for all Pauline actions ; Clement himself is estranged
from Paul and converted by Peter ; Paul is set aside
(see Dorner, Entwick. Gesch. der Lehre von der Person
Christi, i. p. 340, etc, note). The book contains
much that is quite in the spirit of the ecclesiastical
writers of that time, especially in its practical part,
e.g. Horn. iii. 61, etc. Though as a rule it adheres as
closely as possible to what is customary and recognised
in the Church, especially in the use of the canonical
Gospels ; l yet the Judaizing spirit appears unmis-
takeably, though notably mixed with heathen Gnostic
1 Credner in his Beitragen zur Einteitung in die bibl. Schriften,
i. 282, etc. , 330, etc. , has indeed tried to show in detail that the gospel
quotations of the Homilies point as a rule to the Hebrew Gospel, a
result that Schwegler, ante, i. 207, takes for proved. But an impar
tial perusal of the Homilies gives, on the contrary, the general
impression that our canonical Gospels lie rather at the foundation
of the quotations, and have certainly been used with more or less free
dom. This impression has been scientifically established and proved
by Frank, " Die evang. Citate in den clement. Homil." (Studien der
Wiirttemb. Geistlichkeit, 1847, ii. 144, etc.), and Semisch, Apostol.
DenkwUrdigkeiten Justin's, p. 356, etc. ; in both cases as the result of
independent research. Frank, by collecting all the Gospel quotations
and examining each one separately, has shown that most of them may
be traced back to Matthew, several to Luke either alone or in connec
tion with Matthew, and a few to the Gospel of John, the reproduction
in most cases being free and occasionally arbitrary ; while those
citations that have no parallel in our Gospels are doubtless composed
partly in a free way from other passages, and partly ascribed to
Jesus directly. In the conclusion of the whole work, found by
Dressel in the Vatican Library, it is shown that the author of the
Homilies both knew and used the Gospel of Mark and that of John .
Even Hilgenfeld, who in the year 1852 (Krit. Untersuchung iiber die
Evang. Justin's, der clem. Horn, und Marcion's, p. 388) declared, in
the most positive way, that ' ' the Gospel of John had in no case been
made use of," now freely acknowledges, Theol. Jahrb. 1855, p. 534,
note 1, that by Homily xix. 22 a knowledge of the Gospel of John
on the part of the Homilies is put beyond all doubt. We remark in

JEWISH CHRISTIANS: THE CLEMENTINES. 273
speculation. The idea of God which insists upon
abstract unity (povapxtxy dpyaxeia), is Judaizing, and
directly contradicts the deity of Christ,1 whilst the
theory of the creation and formation of the world is
cast in a heathen mould by virtue of its emanationist
and dualistic character (avfrylai). The legality of
the Clementine doctrine is undoubtedly Judaistic,
since Peter characterizes his xypvypa itself as vbptpov
in the Epistle to James which is put at the be
ginning of the treatise, in opposition to the dvopos
— BtBaaxaXia rov ixdpov dvdpcoirov (p. 3, line 24,
etc, ed. de Lagarde) ; just as in Horn. viii. 6 the
conclusion that the words yiviah Tpavri^iTxi Voxipooi, put into the mouth
of Jesus by Horn. ii. 51, iii. 50, xviii. 20, — which we should willingly
regard as oral tradition, preserved by /the Hebrew Gospel, — if com
pared with Horn. iii. 64, may be easily explained from a combination
of Matt. xxv. 27 with Luke xix. 23. This conjecture of ours is con
tested by Uhlhorn, ante, p. 134, note 54, on the ground that the saying
is too widely spread. But in Anger's valuable Synopsis, 1852, p. 274,
it has been shown that this sentence, though it appears frequently
in Christian antiquity, is first quoted among ecclesiastical writers
by Clemens Alex, (in connection with 1 Thess. v. 21), if we except
the Homilies and the Marcionite Apelles, and after him by Origen,
subsequently by men of the fourth and fifth centuries. From this it
follows that the sentence, once having been appropriated by an
ecclesiastical writer such as Clemens Alex. , might be ' regarded as
genuine and become current. In favour of our view we appeal
also (1) to the custom of pseudo-Clement, pointed out by Uhlhorn
himself, p. 128, etc., of combining two biblical passages " mixings of
texts ; " (2) to the circumstance that the unknown author formally
aims at the concealment of his use of written sources, and in the
interest of his fiction tries to give his Peter the appearance of having
directly heard the words of Jesus ; see Uhlhorn, p. 131.
1 Clementina, xvi. 12 (ed. de Lagarde, 1865, p. 155) : EiV Uriv S rf
xvtov ffotp'ix iWuv " vottitrojpiiv uv6pu7Tov. " — "Uvcotxi fjXv (h o-otp'ia) us ^vx^i Tm
hip' ixTiiviTxi §t xt' xvtov, as Xl'f SiP'ovpyovirx « irxv ; xvi. 15 : '0
xvptos hpocov ovti hovs uvxi \tydiy\xro vxpx tov xtitxvtx too xxvrx, ovti
i xvtov Slav iTvxt xwiyoplveriv, vlov Se faov — rov iiotovtx xvtov ivXoyois
ip.xxxpi<riv (in allusion to Matt. xvi. 16, etc.).
VOL. II. S

274 THE POST- APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
doctrine of the apostle is not only identified with
that of Jesus, but also with that of Moses. But
inasmuch as a distinction is made within Mosaism
and the old covenant between truth and error, between
that which is for God and that which is against God,
between masculine, i.e. true, and feminine, i.e. false
prophecy, between that which is genuine and that
which is spurious, and inasmuch as it is taught that
the pure law of God which was given by Moses and
meant to be orally handed down, was afterwards
falsified by being put into writing, therefore the
Gnostic, namely the Marcionite fundamental view, is
indirectly admitted.
The conception of the person of Jesus and His
work is Judaistic, as well as that of the relation of
Christianity to Mosaism, inasmuch as the deity of
Jesus is disputed ; on the other hand, it is asserted
that Jesus can only be called God in the same
sense as all the souls of men (Horn. xvi. 26).
According to the author, the work of Jesus consists
solely in the prophetic and kingly office ; the atone
ment and death of Jesus are not at all spoken of in
a didactic way. Jesus as the true Prophet has taught
men to know the one God, the Just and Good ; but in
so doing He has only made that truth accessible to all
which had from the very beginning been delivered in
secret to those who were worthy of it, even to the
heathen themselves (Horn. iii. 19). Niedner briefly for
mulates the view of the Homilies in this direction as
follows (Kirchengeschichte, p. 246) : " Christianity is
only a restoration of the primitive religion in time, and
an enlargement of it in space.'- But when the Homilies
ascribe the 07401; Xptarov irvevpa to Adam, and teach
that the Holy Spirit, changing name and form, goes

JEWISH CHRISTIANS: THE CLEMENTINES. 275
through the epochs, and in the form of individual men
(Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus) as
prophets of the truth, constantly announces one and
the same truth (Horn. iii. 20), so that it is the same
whether Jesus or Moses be taken as teacher, for he
that follows either of the two is acceptable to God
(Horn. viii. 6) ; — the person of Jesus is by this means
robbed of its high, unique dignity, and the peculiar
character of Christianity is destroyed.
The practical substance of the Clementine doctrine
is the recognition and worship of the one God ; this
is the first and greatest command of Jesus (Horn.
xvii. 7). If the heathen follow the law, he is a Jew ;
if not, then he is a heathen (Horn. xi. 16). This
is doubtless Judaistic. The opposition to the Apostle
Paul under the name of Simon Magus, which, though
veiled, is still violent and radical, betrays the same
Judaistic character. But, on the other hand, the
Homilies nowhere mention circumcision, which is
equivalent to a silent abandonment of this Mosaic
and Ebionite fundamental requirement, although it is
demanded in the Btapaprvpta of James (p. 4, line 22,
etc., ed. de Lagarde) that he to whom the books are
entrusted should be " circumcised and believing "
(ivirepirop-os — 7770^09). When therefore the Homilies
set forth circumcision as a condition of esoteric dedi
cation, but do not impose it on all believers as an
indispensable condition of salvation, only requiring
in addition to the moral commandments, abstinence
from flesh offered to idols, blood and things strangled
(Horn. vii. 4 ; Recog. iv. 36 ; comp. Acts xv. 20, 29),
together with washings and purifications, their origin
cannot be assigned to that class of Jewish Christians
described by Justin as the strictest, but must belong

276 THE POST- APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
to the more tolerant, who adhered to social and
Church communion with the Gentile Christians. The
latter conclusion appears to follow as a matter of
necessity. But we must at the same time admit that
the want of reverence for the Old Testament which
appears in the distinction made between godly and
ungodly elements within it, as well as the mixture of
heathen Gnostic speculation, throw the Homilies into
the shade compared with the pure Jewish Christian
standpoint. Moreover, although the author endea
vours to give an apostolic sanction to his doctrine,
the speculative or Gnostic feature of the doctrine,
together with the affectation of secrecy in the com
munication of it, is opposed to the assumption that
the tendency of the Homilies " was predominant in
the faith of the majority of that period," as Schwegler,
Nachapost. Zeit. i. 405, asserts. On the contrary, the
Homilies, as Dorner has well observed, have the " evil
conscience of an isolated heretical party stamped on
their forehead " (Lehre von der Person Christi, i. 340,
etc, note 190). Ritschl also, 2nd ed. p. 259, remarks
that the Homilies, far from expressing the view of
the ecclesiastical majority of their day, were rather
composed in circumstances unfavourable to the party
they represented, since their possession of a majority
is quite inconceivable, although the party was not
yet separated from the communion of the Catholic
Church, as heretical.
About the time when in all probability the
Clementines were composed, viz. about the year 160,
a man from the East, whose evidence respecting the
Church of his time is important, took up his abode
in Rome,- — Hegesippus, from whose viropvypara or
Memorabilia we have already taken the description of

JEWISH CHRISTIANS: HEGESIPPUS. 277
James in p. 59, etc. He is generally, as a matter of
course, reckoned amongst Jewish Christians, because
Eusebius relates 1 that he was a Hebrew by birth,
e^ eBpalcov avrov ireirtarevxevai. Ritschl, however
(ante, 2nd ed. p. 267), draws attention to the fact
that from the way in which Eusebius handles the.
subject, the Hebrew descent can only be an inference
drawn by the Church historian from certain Hebrew
and Syriac phrases incidentally scattered among the
viropvypara of his predecessor, as well as from certain
accounts that may have had their source in Jewish
Christian oral tradition. Hence the common assump
tion of the Jewish descent of Hegesippus has no
purely objective foundation but rests on a mere in
ference and conjecture of Eusebius, and may possibly
be quite erroneous. Nevertheless we adhere to the
traditional view that Hegesippus was by birth a Jew
and a native of Palestine, on the ground that the
facts from which Eusebius drew this conclusion
justify us in so doing. We have at least one example
of attachment to specific Jewish Christian tradition
(lovBaixy aypacpos irapdBoais) in the character given
of James the Just, which has been analysed above,
p. 59, etc. But whether Hegesippus was not merely
a Jewish Christian by descent but had actually a
leaning to Judaism or Ebionism, is quite another
question. An attempt has been made to prove the
latter from a fragment of the fifth book of the
virop-vypara of Hegesippus, preserved by the Mono-
physite Stephen Gobar in the Bibliotheca of Photius,
1 Eusebius, H. E. iv. 22. 2 : 'Ex tov xxi' 'E&pxiovs llixyyikiov xxi
tod Ivpixxov xxi 'thiols ix rris ifipxiSos "SixX'sxtov rivx Tifatriv ipiipxivojv il
'E/ipxiniv ixvtoi oriirio-Tivxivxi' xxi xXXx Se lis xv e| hvSxixrts xypxtyov
vrxpxhoffius ptvtjfiovivn.

278 THE POST-APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
Cod. 232, where he speaks of people who say " that
the blessing prepared for the just, no eye hath seen,
no ear heard, nor hath it entered into the heart of
man." The judgment of Hegesippus on this point is
to the effect : pdryv pev etpyadai ravra Kal xara-ty-ev-
Beadat robs ravra cpapevovs tcov re deteov ypaepeov
Kal rov Kvpiov Xeyovros' paxdpiot ol bepdaXpol vpcov
ol BXeirovres, xal ra toja vpcov ra dxovovra, xal
efts.1 Baur (Theolog. Jahrb. 1848, p. 571) and
Schwegler (Montanismus, p. 276) refer this polemic
to the . Apostle Paul, thus making the author apply
the terms lying and foolish to the statement of the
apostle in 1 Cor. ii. 9. If this were so, the ultra-
Ebionite spirit of the man would indeed be fully
proved. But we must not overlook the circumstance
that Paul himself here borrows a prophetic announce
ment from Isa. Ixiv. 4, for which reason it is im
possible, if we take into account the well-known
reverence of Hegesippus for the Old Testament, to
believe that he would have called the words them
selves a lie against the divine Scripture and the Lord,
a vain and senseless speech ; it is much more probable
that he only referred to a certain application of the
words. Grabe is surely right (Spicilegium Patrum, see
Routh, ante, p. 253) in his opinion when he supposes:
Hegesippi viropvypara si superessent, videremus forte,
eum non ipsa ilia verba rejecisse, sed falsam eorum
interpretationem ab haereticis factam, etc.2
1 Compare the passage in Routh, Reliquiee Sacrce, i. 203, together
with the Annotationes, 223, etc. Photius, Bibliotheca, ed. Migne,
Patrol, graeca, torn. 103, p. 1096.
2 Formerly the expression was only known to occur in the apocry
phal " Revelation of Elias " (see Schliemann, Clement, p. 429, etc.).
But now we know from the anti-heretical work of Hippolytus that
it was in current use among Gnostics, e.g. Justinus, v. 24, 26 27

JEWISH CHRISTIANS: HEGESIPPUS. 279
Special stress is justly laid on what Hegesippus
concisely states in a fragment of his " Memorabilia "
preserved by Eusebius (H. E. iv. 22. 3) as the
result of his travels, undertaken in the years 150-160,
to different Churches as far as Rome, among which
he gives particular prominence to that at Corinth :
e exaary BiaBoxfl xal iv exdary iroXei ovrcos e%et, a>9
vopos Kypvrrei Kal ol irpocpyrat Kal d Kvpios. Baur
(Theol. Jahrb. 1844, p. 571 ; 1845, p. 267 ; Christen
thum der drei ersten Jahrhunderte, 2nd ed. p. 84; comp.
Schwegler, Nachap. Zeit. i. p. 354, etc.) concludes
from the prominence he gives to law and the pro
phets, from his attaching equal value to the Old and
New Testament and from his not mentioning the
apostles, that Hegesippus followed the Ebionite, harsh
Judaistic tendency, and that in the greater part of
the Church at that time, particularly in the Corinthian
community, the Jewish Christian or Petrine party had
acquired decided superiority over the Pauline, else
the Ebionite-minded man would not have been so well
satisfied with the result of his travels. But this
reasoning overlooks the fact that at that time, before
the canon of the New Testament existed, the Old
Testament was esteemed the fundamental document
of religious truth throughout all Christendom, just as
j>p. 216, 222, 230, ed. Duncker, and in Valentine, vi. 24, p. 262, ed.
Duncker, to denote the superabundance of their alleged mysteries and
revelations. The appeal of Hegesippus, by way of refutation, to
Matt. xiii. 16 is in surprising agreement with this. It shows that
the people whom he attacks mistook the dignity and unique character
of the revelation in Christ, perverting those words of Scripture. But
there is no trace here of an anti-Pauline direction. With this accepta
tion agree independently Ritschl, Entsteh. der altkath. Kirche, 2nd
ed. p. 267, etc., and Weizsacker, art. " Hegesippus," in the Theol.
Real-Encykl. 2nd ed. vol. v. 1879, p. 698.

280 THE POST- APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
the Apostle Paul himself regarded it. " The law, the
prophets, and the Lord " were the authorities of the
whole Church at that time, and not the authorities of
a party. Hence Hegesippus is not a witness for the
prevalence of the Judaizing tendency, but rather
for the growing unity of the Catholic Church, from
which the Judaistic parties, as sects, were soon
excluded.1 Twenty years after this period the Ebionites appear
in Irenseus as well as his contemporary TertuUian, as
a party outside the Church, a sect.2 The Ebionites,
first mentioned under this name by Irenseus, are
represented by him as standing outside the Church iu
exactly the same way as the various Gnostic sects ;
nor does he give the slightest hint as to fluctuation
of public opinion respecting them, or any difference
1 Comp. Ritschl, ante, 2nd ed. p. 268 ; Dorner, ante, i. 219, etc. ;
Weizsacker, Real-Encykl. 2nd ed. v. p. 699.
2 Ireneeus, Contra Hmreses, i. 26. 2 (ed. Stieren) : ' ' Qui autem
dicuntur Ebioneei, consentiunt quidem mundum a Deo factum ; ea
autem, quae sunt ergaDominum, non similiter," — (Cotelier and Grabe
already perceived that non could not here be genuine, although
it is found in every manuscript ; and Stieren in his edition, 1853,
i. 254, note 3, concurs in their view. Recently all doubt has been
removed by the corresponding passage of Hippolytus, vii. 34, which
follows Irenseus exactly (see p. 406, ed. Duncker) ; it runs thus :
tx Sg ffipi tov TLpiifTov ofioieos Top Kyptvtloj xxi K.xpcroxpxTii pivllivovcrtv), —
"ut Cerinthus et Carpocrates opinantur. Solo autem eo, quod est
secundum Matthaeum, Evangelio utuntur et Apostolum Paulum re
cusant, apostatam eum legis dicentes. Quae autem sunt prophetica,
curiosius exponere nituntur ; et circumciduntur, ac perseverant in
his consuetudinibus, quae sunt secundum legem, et judaico charactere
vitse, uti et Hierosolymam adorent, quasi domus sit Dei. iii. 15.
1 : Eadem autem dicimus iterum et his, qui Paulum Apostolum
non cognoscunt etc. Qui igitur non recipiunt eum, qui sit electus
a Deo ad hoc, ut fiducialiter portet nomen ejus, quod sit missus ad
quas prfediximus gentes, electionem Domini contemnunt et se ipscs
segregant ab Apostolorum conventu. "

EBIONITES IN THE TIME OF IRENSEUS. 281
of view such as still existed in Justin's time. Hence
in the view of this Church-Father, which was notably
not a limited one, the exclusion of those Jewish
Christians who adhered to circumcison and the observ
ance of the law seems to have been the fixed rule,
although the wording of the second passage, seipsos
segregant, leads us to suppose that the Ebionites with
drew of themselves, and were not thrust out from the
Church. But since Irenseus wrote his five books
against heresies between the years 176-190, it may
be reasonably assumed that the separation of the
Ebionites from the Christian Church or old Catholic
Christendom, took place twenty years at least before
the close of the second century. And as this cannot
have occurred all at once, nor in every place simul
taneously, it may have happened in many countries
still earlier.1 It is noteworthy, however, that Irenseus
makes no distinction whatever, as between a milder
and stricter class among the Judaizing Christians
whom he calls Ebionites ; in particular that he neither
expressly names nor hints at the Nazarseans, who were
afterwards distinct from the Ebionites. Hence we
must assume either that the Nazarseans had not yet
at that time made themselves noticeable as a peculiar
party in opposition to the stricter, the Ebionites pro
perly so called ; or else that both parties had been
already separated from the Church. The use of the
Gospel of Matthew, the practice of circumcision, and
the observance of the law — all this may still be
referred to the milder Jewish Christians, but the
rejection of the Apostle Paul as an apostate from the
law, attested by Irenseus in the passages already quoted,
points directly to the extremest Jewish tendency.
1 Ritschl, ante, 2nd ed. p. 248, etc.

282 THE POST- APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that the account
of Irenseus is exceedingly scanty ; probably he was
without more accurate knowledge respecting the Jewish
part of Christendom. If we could suppose that he
was fully informed, we should be led to conclude
that the exclusive party of the Gentile Christian
majority, who according to Justin's testimony were
inclined to break off intercourse with those Jewish
Christians who observed the law, so early as the
m' Idle of the century, had already prevailed over the
more tolerant view of a Justin and others similarly-
minded ; and that the milder Jewish Christians who
showed more tolerance to the Gentile Christians,
were in conformity with party usage identified with
the strictest Ebionites, both together being rejected
as an unchristian sect.
Hippolytus, the newly-discovered source for the
history- of the heretics in the first thirty years of the
third century, is in essential agreement with Irenseus.
Both make slight mention of the Ebionites in con
nection with the detailed refutation of the Gnostics.
Hippolytus, like his predecessor, treats exclusively
of the Ebionites, without making any distinction
between the milder and stricter parties. But Hip
polytus differs from Irenseus in giving prominence
to the teachings of the " Ebionites " respecting the
Mosaic law and justification by the law, while this
characteristic part of their doctrine is put in the
background by the Gallic Church-Father.1
1 Philosophumena, vii. 34, ed. Duncker, p. 406, etc. : "EA«-i»
\ovhxtxols Kvffl> xxtx vopiov tyxtrxovns OixxtovffSxi, xxi tov 'ltiffovv
Xiyovrls "%lhixxiois6xt <xoir»o~xvTx tov vopoov'  AvvxtrSxi ii xxi ixvrovs
o/zoiois iroiwxvTxs, XptrTovs yiviaixi' xxi yxp xxi xvtov i/totojs xvtlptvorov
livxt orxot Kiyovfftv.

EBIONITES IN THE TIME OF ORIGEN. 283
It is noteworthy that Origen, who belongs to the
same period (t 254), employs the name Ebionite,
which he also uses of the Jewish Christians outside
the Church, to denote the Jewish Christianity of the
primitive period. The second of the eight books
against Celsus refutes the attacks which Celsus had
made upon the Jewish Christians. To the objection
that the Christians had forsaken the irdrpios vbpos,
Origen replies by referring his opponent to the fact
that both the apostles themselves and the Ebionites
had been in the beginning true adherents of the
Mosaic law. In his statement, Contra Cels. ii. 1 :
E/3icovaioi xp^l^ciTlfyvaiv ol dirb IovBaicov tov 'Iyaovv
cos Xpiarbv irapaBe^dpevot, the name appears to
have been freely used as a designation of the
nationality of the first Christians = Jewish Christians.
On the other hand, at the end of the fifth book
against Celsus, Origen speaks of the Ebionites of his
own time as if they were a sect outside the Church,
and also in a way implying the distinction of two
classes, a thing which we never find before him, but
always after him. That is to say, he speaks (v. c. 6 5)
of 'EBtcovatot apeporepot, and makes the distinction
between them to consist in their view of the person
of Christ, the one admitting, the other denying His
supernatural birth from a virgin (chap, lxi.): ol Bnrol
'EBtcovaioi, yroi ix irapdevov bpoXoyovvres bpoicos ypiv
rbv 'Iyaovv, y 0VX °^r(0 yeyevvyadai, dXX cos rovs
Xoiiroiis dvdpcoirovs. When Schliemann (Clementinen,
493) identifies these two classes in Origen with his
own twofold Ebionites, " the Gnostic and vulgar," he
puts his distinction into the clear classification of
Origen, and besides overlooks the fact that the Gnostic
Ebionites could not have adopted the theory of super-

284 THE POST-APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
natural birth from a virgin, as he himself proved in
page 207; comp. Gieseler, Kirchengeschichte, i. 131,
note 8; Uhlhorn, Beal-Encyklopddie, 2nd ed. iv. 16,
art. " Ebioniten."
Like Origen, Eusebius1 about a hundred years later
distinguishes two kinds of Ebionites, the difference
between whom is not put as it is in Justin in the
tendency to exclude Gentile Christians more or less,
but only in the view taken of Christ's person, whether
lower or higher ; which comes very near the distinc
tion first made by Origen. In this description one
cannot fail to see how much belongs to Irenseus and
Origen, whom Eusebius seems to have used, having
no other sources of information. The circumstance
is also noteworthy that Eusebius speaks of that sect
not as if it were a party belonging to his own time,
but as a phenomenon which had already gone into
history, since he speaks of the past in a narrative
way : yyovvro — BieSiBpaaxov — irepterpeirovro — iairov-
Ba^ov — irapeepvXarrov — iirereXovv. Gieseler identifies
1 K. Gesch. iii. 27, where, speaking of the end of the apostolic
age and of the Gnostic sects which appeared at that time, he is led to
say oi the Ebionites : Efiiojvxiovs tovtovs olxilois iwttpripu^ov ol vrpuTai,
•JCTOt^US Xxi TXITUVUS TX OTipi TOV JCpiffTOV tli^X^OVTXS.  Sfilv Se OTXVTCOf
xvtoIs Tns vopoixvis Q pno-xilxs, ojs fori xv Sia fjoovvts tv\s lU TOV XptOTOV
*i<ttiois xxi tov xxt xvttiv (oiov BoiQno~opi.iveis. "A X X o i Se vxpx tovtovs
t^is xvrns ovtis orpooyyopixs, rnv //.iv tcov iipyifiivuv sxtootov S/e S/'Sflao-xo v
xtokixv, ix wxpQlvov xxi tov Ayiov HvlvptXTOS pih xpvov/Atvoi yiyovivxi tov
Kvpiov' ov pLTjv 16 ofoot&is orpovorxp%tiv xvtov, Siov Xoyov ovtx xxi o-oiplxv
optoXoyovvTis, Ty tuv irpoTipaiv tfipiiT piffovTO ovtrtrifiiix' [axXiittx oti xxi
TYIV POJfAXTIKVjV OTipi TOV VOpCOV XxrpitXV Ofio'tUS IXIIVOIS IfipiiTUV i IT OT 0 V 3 X £ 0 V.
OUTOl Se TOV ptlV XTTOffToXoV OTXITXS Tlis iflffTOXxS XpvVJTlXS h V 0 V V T 0
iivxi dilv, xrrocTTxTtjv xtoxxXovvtis XVTOV Trv vopoov, ivxyyiXiui Se fJOOVU TU
xxS Efipxtovs Xiyoptlvtv %paifi.£voi, tuv Xoiotojv ffpcixpov iirotovvro Xoyov'
K.xi to poiv ffxfifixTov xxi tyiv lovoxtxnv xXXriv xyoiyhv opooius ixuv.is
vxptipvXxTTov, Txis S' xj xvpixxxT; vifoipxi; viptiv tx orxpatfXvo-tx lis uvvutiv
Tns tov xvpiov xvxffTxffius ioriTiXovv.

NAZARSEANS AND EBIONITES : 4TH CENTURY. 285
Eusebius' two classes of Ebionites with "the Ebionites
and Nazarseans" (i. 131, note 8). But if the
Nazarseans of later writers acknowledged Paul as the
Apostle of the Gentiles, and stood nearer the Church
than the Ebionites, those whom Eusebius adduces as
in the second rank and as less extravagant, cannot
possibly be identical with those Nazarseans who even
rejected Paul as a renegade.
Towards the end of the fourth century we first meet
with the name Nazarseans in Jerome and Augustine,
as well as Theodoret and Epiphanius (Schliemann,
p. 450, etc.) ; but it is worthy of note that Epiphanius
alone looks on them as heretics, while the other Church-
Fathers always seem to regard them as good, orthodox
Christians. According to Epiphanius (Haer. 29), Naza
rseans were to be found especially in Bercea, Syria,
Coelesyria, in Decapolis, about Pella, in Kokab, and in
the land of Bashan, where they lived among the Jews,
quite apart from the Gentile Christian communities.
Augustine certifies that their number in his day was
very small. Their peculiarity consisted in constant
observance of the law, i.e. of Mosaism to the exclusion
of Rabbinical-Pharisaic precepts which they with
stood ; for far from wishing to impose the Mosaic
law on the Gentile Christians, they joyfully accepted
Paul as the Apostle of the Gentiles. According to
the description of Jerome, they mourned for their
unbelieving brethren, aud looked forward with longing
to the time when they would turn to the Lord ; which
proves that the Israelite feeling and hope for their
nation was warm and lively in them.
In the fourth century the Ebionites appear to have
been more numerous than the Nazarseans. According
to Epiphanius (Haer. 30), they were found not only

286 THE POST- APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
in Palestine and the neighbouring lands, Persea,
Nabathsea, Moab, Batansea ; but also in Cyprus, in
Asia Minor, and in Rome itself. Yet they did not
continue long, for even in the time of Theodoret who
died A.D. 457, they had disappeared. Their peculiarity
consisted, as we have said, in their attributing per
manent validity to the law of Moses, regarding the
observance of it as necessary to salvation not merely
for themselves but absolutely for all Christians.
Origen in his Commentary on Matthew specially
attests that they made it a matter of reproach against
the Catholic Christians, that the latter did not observe
the ordinances respecting clean and unclean meats.
With respect to the person of Christ, they held that
He was not born of a virgin, but was begotten like
other men. In the nature of things belief in Christ,
as the only ground of salvation, could not consist
with the expectation of blessedness through the law.
They regarded the Apostle Paul as an apostate from
the law, and brought against, him all manner of
calumnies. — The fact that in the course of the second
century a party of the Ebionites attempted to make a
scientific defence of their views, and to spread them
by writing, even seeking to make them acceptable to
their contemporaries by the admixture of Gnostic
ideas, may be explained in two ways : first, by-
assuming that the Ebionites originally proceeded from
the Essenes, to whom they were indebted for those
fundamental principles of Gnosticism which they
afterwards developed more fully. This view, first
promulgated by Credner, and then appropriated by
Baur, Gieseler, and Ritschl, finds no adequate support
in those words of Epiphanius on which the alleged
connection between Ebionites aud Essenes is made to

NAZARSEANS AND EBIONITES: 4TH CENTURY. 287
rest ; moreover, the Gnostic elements attributed to the
influence of the Essenes cannot be certainly proved
(see Schliemann, p. 525, etc.). The other explanation
is therefore more probable, viz. that the Gnostic
development of Ebionite doctrine was a fruit of the
Gnostic period. In other words, we may assume that
in the period which gave birth to the Gnostic systems
even Jewish Christians went with the times to some
extent, mainly with the view of employing the
weapons of Gnosis to defeat the Gentile Christian
tendency which had extended far and wide through
the Gnostic systems of a Marcion and others. During
the fifty years that followed the destruction of
Jerusalem, Gnostic ideas found their way into
Judaism itself, so that a certain Elisa Ben Abuja
adopted the Gnostic fundamental principle of a
dualism in the Deity, and became a despiser of the
law, for which reason he received the name "ins as an
apostate, as if by the adoption of a strange principle
he had become another. This and similar experiences
were the occasion that gave rise to the decrees of the
synagogue against the teaching of the Gnostics (Gratz,
Gesch. der Juden, iv. 99, etc., Ill, etc.). How much
more readily would the charm of these theosophic
ideas of the time attract such Jewish Christians as
were of a susceptible nature, in whose minds, more
over, a spiritual fermentation had been produced by
the union of truth in Christ with Old Testament
ideas and ordinances, especially when by their
residence in East Jordan, Syria, etc., they had like
wise come into close contact with heathen systems of
religion, with Parsee dualism for example ! Thus in
the sect of the Elcesaites, on which new light is
thrown by the Philosophumena, there is undoubtedly

288 THE POST-APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
a strange mixture of Jewish Christianity and Gnostic
theosophy. Even the view that the Clementine
Homilies contain a further development of the
Elcesaite religious system, which has been put for
ward, is not without weighty grounds.1
The gradual disappearance of the Ebionite Jewish
Christians must be explained in accordance with
existing indications, by the circumstance that they
returned by degrees to complete Judaism. The inner
character of the sect is thus revealed, inasmuch as
Christianity was for them only a continuation and
completion of Judaism ; the latter being the centre
and the chief thing. If Christianity itself had for
them passed into Judaism, we can only find the
world's judgment, which according to poetry is the
world's history, in other words the logic of the
matter, in the fact that they themselves were finally
absorbed in Judaism.2
Whilst we are able to define pretty accurately the
period in which the Ebionites melted away by degrees
as a Christian sect, viz. the first half of the fifth
century, it is very remarkable that we are unable to
say at what time the Nazarseans disappeared. Epi
phanius, before the year 400, was the first who put
them into the category of heretics ; whereas Jerome
1 Ritschl, "Ueber die Sekte der Elkesaiten," Zeitschrift fur hist.
Theol. 1853, p. 573, etc. ; but especially Uhlhorn, Homil. und
Recogn. p. 392, etc.
2 This seems to have been already an accomplished fact when the
Apostolic Constitutions took their present form, for in them the
Ebionites are plainly regarded as a Jewish sect, no longer as Christian
heretics, vi. 6, ed. Ueltzen : El^e put ovv xxi S Uvixi'xos o%Xos xlpinus
xxxix;' xxi yxp xxi oxHhovxxloi i\ x'vtoiv  xxi (pxpitrxioi  xxi ol
iip vjfieov vvv tpxvivris e(oiojvx7oi, tov viov tov Hov ^J/iXov xvQpwjrov iTvxi
fiovXopilvoi, etc.

EASTERN JEWISH CHRISTIAN COMMUNITIES. 289
somewhat later gives a very appreciative sketch of
them. The case stands thus : they dwelt apart in
isolated districts of the East, not as a sect outside the
Church but as a part of the Church itself, having
disappeared from the horizon of the Fathers and
historians. Only in this way was it possible that in
recent times a Jewish Christian national Church
should be rediscovered like a lost world ; we refer to
the Nestorian Christians in the Kurd mountains, who
were visited in 1839 by missionaries of the North
American Independents, and were described by the
medical missionary Dr. Grant (The Nestorians, or the
Ten Tribes, a work which was translated into German
by Preiswerk, Basel 1843). These Nestorians are
said to be descendants of the people of Israel. The
tradition current among them, that their ancestors in
olden time came from Palestine to their present
country, and that they were " Beni Israel ; " the
testimony of the Jews that dwell among them, who,
notwithstanding their antipathy to them as " apostate
brethren," yet confess that they, like themselves, are
descended from the house of Israel ; the new-Syrian
language, common to the Jews and Nestorians in
Assyria, and distinct from the dialects of all the
neighbouring peoples ; the strikingly Semitic features
and almost universal Old Testament names of the
Nestorians, associated with genuine Israelite institu
tions and customs of civil and domestic life, — all
these facts are put forward by Grant as evidence that
the Nestorians of the Assyrian upland are by descent
true Jewish Christians; while his conjecture that
they are nothing but descendants of the ten tribes,
dating from the time of the Assyrian exile, cannot
be regarded as sufficiently proved.
VOL. II. T

290 THE POST-APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
This Christian people, therefore, whose Semitic
origin can hardly be doubted, possesses religious
peculiarities which1 fully answer to the fact of their
descent, and are calculated to throw welcome light
on the state of Jewish Christian Churches of the first
centuries. Circumcision does not exist among them ;
in their view it is superseded by baptism ; they do
not observe the Sabbath, but keep Sunday instead,
most conscientiously, however. These facts can only
be explained on the assumption of Gentile Christian
influence. In other respects they possess remarkable
remnants of Jewish Christian traditions, viz. in their
worship, in the celebrating of Sunday and feast-days,
and in certain Levitical customs to which they adhere.
We may mention, for example, their prayers of inter
cession and thanksgiving ; sacrifices (devkha, Krai,
from rnt), in which lambs were slaughtered before the
church door ; 1 again, their custom of dedicating the
firstlings of fruits and herds to the Lord, for the
service of the sanctuary or for the poor ; 2 and again,
their vows, for example Nazarite vows, in which
they allowed the hair and beard to grow, were satis
fied with meagre fare and avoided Levitical impurities ;
to which we may add the legal distinction between
clean and unclean food. These all are things which
those Christians of the East have retained from the
Old Testament. The division of their church
buildings into the ship, the sanctuary, and the holy
of holies, seems also to be borrowed from the arrange-
1 Badger, The Nestorians and their Rituals, London 1852, p.
229, etc.
2 The offering of the firstlings, a very old Christian custom derived
from Jewish Christian communities, is now confirmed by the AiSo^n
tuv %ai%ixx xtfoffr'oXaiv, C xiii. § 3.

EASTERN JEWISH CHRISTIAN COMMUNITIES. 291
ment of the temple at Jerusalem; for while the church
assembled in the ship (called Hekla, from i^n), the
sanctuary (Medhba) could only be entered by ordained
priests after previous fasting, but the little niche
which was called the holy of holies, and in which
there was only a cross, could be entered by none.
Finally, in harmony with the peculiarities just
mentioned are the extraordinary strictness of Sunday
observance, and the celebration of the Easter-festival,
which they still call the Passover, but in which the
Lord's Supper takes the place of the Passover lamb ;
whereas the Old Testament prescriptions are still
observed in other matters.
Thus, then, this Jewish Christian Church of the
Assyrian upland, dead as it were, and again discovered,
is a fragment of antiquity, preserved without injury
in the enclosure of the mountains, from the time in
which there were still pure Jewish Christian com
munities in the East. With respect to the character
of these Jewish Christians, decimated by the Kurds
in 1843 and 1846, this much is clear, that they
cannot in any case be reckoned among the Ebionites,
since they do not at all regard the Mosaic law as
indispensable to salvation, so far as they themselves
observe it, and are far from supposing that "Christians
of the Gentiles," as they rightly call us, should
observe those legal usages which are customary among
them. Their whole peculiarity rather corresponds
with the character of the Nazarseans as we know it
from the history of the first centuries. The Anglican
missionary Badger (The Nestorians, 1852) shows that
the Nestorians call themselves by the generic name
" Christians," or " people of Messiah," Meschihaye, as
well as Nsara, Nazarseans, but also by the specific

292 THE POST-APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
designation, "Syrians," Suraye, or Nestoraya, i. 176,
etc, 223, etc. One essential distinction between the
Nestorians of to-day and the Nazaraeans of the past
no doubt lies in the fact that the Nazarseans of the
post-apostolic period still retained circumcision, and
only relinquished it in later times, whereas circum
cision is unknown to the Nestorians, a circumstance
in which, as already stated, we recognise the influence
of the Gentile Christian Churches.

SECOND PART.
THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS.
In order to ascertain the true character of the
development of the Church of Christ as shown in
the Gentile Christian majority, from the end of the
apostolic period to the end of the second century,
we confine ourselves to the most essential features,
for the separate questions and obscurities in this
department are so many that we should lose the
thread of our inquiry if we did not limit ourselves
fo the strictest bounds. The subject itself, how
ever, requires a distinction between doctrine and life ;
hence this part is divided into two sections, the
Church - historical and the dogmatic - historical. In
regard to both several documents have in recent times
become available for purposes of investigation. The
Codex Sinaiticus, discovered by Tischendorf, is of
importance in regard to the post-apostolic period,
inasmuch as we now for the first time possess the
Greek original of the Epistle of Barnabas in a com
plete form, as well as a considerable part at least of

THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS. 293
the original text of the " Shepherd " of Hermas (not
to mention the Simonides manuscript). Still more
important was the discovery and publication by the
metropolitan Bryennius of the two Epistles of
Clement, from a manuscript hitherto unknown. But
most important of all was the AiBaxh rcav BcbBexa
diroarbXcov, edited in Constantinople by this Greek
scholar from the same manuscript, at the end of the
year 1883.
In making use of the AiBaxy, it is a consideration
of moment to determine whether this primitive docu
ment depends on sources that we know already, or
whether it should be looked upon as independent.
On the answer to this question depends the deter
mination of the age and time to which the little
work belongs. Bryennius, p. irB', etc. ; Harnack,
Die Lehre der zwblf Apostel, 1884, pp. 65, etc, 81 ;
and Krawutzcki, "Ueber die sogen. Zwolfapostellehre,"
Theol. Quartalschrift, 1884, pp. 547, etc., esp. 569,
etc, assert that the author drew mainly from the
Epistle of Barnabas, and that in particular he
remodelled its doctrine of the "two ways." We
have serious doubts of this. It appears to us that
this question needs a much more minute examina
tion, and especially a more careful investigation of
the parallels in both. It is not for us to enter upon
the inquiry here. We can only make a few observa
tions at present. The expressions are in many
instances of such a nature, that the corresponding-
passage of the Epistle of Barnabas seems not to be
the original, but on the contrary a copy. For
example, in Barnabas xix. 6 we read on dvev deov
oiBev ylverai. The AiSaxy has in chap. iii. 10:
on drep deov ouBev ylverai. In the former the

294 THE POST- APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
expression obviously conforms to general usage. Is
it conceivable that the AiBaxy should have borrowed
the sentence from Barnabas, and in place of dvev, the
alleged original reading, put the antiquated drep,
only used in poetry ? x In the AiBaxy it is not
unusual to find simple, biblical, sober thought, which
in the Epistle of Barnabas is artificially meta
morphosed, changed into a Gnostic form and
exaggerated in an unbiblical way. It is only
necessary to compare the beginning of the AiBaxy,
i. 1, etc, with Barn, xviii. and xix. 1, 2, etc. How
plain and unpretentious, attaching itself to Bible
passages, is the language of the "teaching of the
apostles ; " how boastful, promising mysterious depths
of Gnosis, is Barnabas! In the one, doctrine, in the
other, insight and doctrine. In the former " the
way of life " contrasted with that of " death." In
the latter " the way of light " and that of " darkness "
or the way of the wicked one, i.e. Satan; comp.
iv. 9 and xviii. 1 : epeoraycoyol ayyeXot rov deov, —
dyyeXot tov Xarava. Is it likely that the more
exaggerated artificial document should have served as
the original, and not rather have been the product
of a pretentious metamorphosis ? How overstrained
are these words of Barnabas, xix. 5 : 'Ayairyaets
toi> irXyaiov aov virep ryv yjrvxyv aov, while
the AiBaxy, ii. 7, simply says: "Thou shalt not hate
any one, but some thou shalt rebuke, and for some
thou shalt pray, and some thou shalt love more than
thine own soul." Is the latter a weak imitation
(Harnack, Lehre, p. 84, 1) ? Is not the former
much rather a visionary exaggeration ? Again, the
two commands of love to God and love to one's
1 In the New Testament xTip is found only in Luke xxii. 6.

THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS. 295
neighbour are in the AtBayfi, i. 2, classed together
with simple, fundamental distinctness, whereas in
Barnabas love to one's neighbour is lost as it were
amid a number of less important precepts. But
whereas Harnack, note on AiB. text, i. 2, represents
the d irotyaas ae, appended to the name of God, as
borrowed from Barnabas xix. 2, it is far more
probable that the expression : dyairyaeis tov ae
irotyaavra, cpoBydyay rov ae irXdaavra, employed
by Barnabas, is a more extended paraphrase of the
simple original. In our view it is an important
circumstance that the Epistle of Barnabas on one
occasion introduces the saying of Jesus : iroXXol
xXyrol, bXiyot Be ixXexrol, with the words: &>9
yeypairrai, c. iv. § 14, i.e. he quotes the saying as
contained in Holy Scripture,1 whereas the AiBaxy
adopts numerous words of Jesus, especially those in
the Sermon on the Mount, but in all cases only with
an appeal to the to evayyeXiov, at most with the
addition : &>9 exere iv rip evayyeXtco tov xvptov yptiov,
chap. xv. 3 and 4 ; never with a yeypairrai, and never
with express reference to a holy document. This
fact favours the opinion that the AiBaxy 1S °lder
and more original than the Barnabas Epistle which
belongs to a later stratum where the Gospels have
1 Before the Greek original of the first chapter of Barnabas'
Epistle was known by means of the Sinaitic manuscript, some went
so far as to take the sicut scriptum est of the old Latin version for a
gloss, Credner, Beitrage zur Einteitung in die bibl. Schriften, i. p.
28. The Sinaitic has justified the translation as true to the Greek
original, the us yiypxwTxi as genuine, notwithstanding which Weiz-
sacker, Zur Kritik des Barnabasbriefes, 1863, p. 34, etc., is inclined
to suppose that yiypxorrxi points to an extra-canonical source, such
as 4 Ezra viii. 3 ; but Harnack, Patr. ap. opp., in a note on the
passage, rightly asserts that the author must have had in view the
following passages of Matthew, viz. xx. 17, xxii. 14.

296 THE POST- APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
already a prescriptive authority as "scripture," so
that they were cited as literature. With this agrees
the remark that no single writing of Christian
antiquity gives so clear and lively a presentation of
the arrangements and conditions of the Churches imme
diately after the death of the apostle as the AiBaxy,
as will appear most clearly with respect to offices.
By this we do not intend categorically to assert
that the author of the Barnabas Epistle drew directly
from the AiBaxy (in opposition to Harnack, Lehre,
etc, p. 82). It is quite possible that certain prin
ciples and reminiscences of the apostolic preaching
may have assumed a stereotyped form even before
they were fixed in writing in the AiBaxy. It seems
to us to be at least conceivable, and even probable,
that where parallel passages are concerned the
AiBaxy Das a more original and genuine form than
the Epistle of Barnabas.1
The AiBaxy ™v BcoSexa diroaroXcov, regarded as a
whole, seems to us to rest on certain fundamental
passages in the Bible. In the description of the
life of the new converts made at Pentecost, and of
1 This conclusion is admitted both by Funk and Zahn, as the
author discovered after the close of his disquisition, and is now
accepted by Dove and Langen also ; by Funk in the treatise, ' ' Doctrina
Apostolica," Tiibinger Theologische Quartalschrift, 1884, pp. 380,
etc, esp. 398, etc. ; by Zahn in his Forschungen zur Geschichte des
N. T. Kanons, part iii. 1884, pp. 278, etc., esp. 310, etc. ; by
Richard Dove in his concluding note on Friedberg's article on the
Aiixx,i in the Zeitschrift fur Kirchenrecht, 1884, p. 424, etc. ; he
affirms that Harnack has not proved that the a<S«^;b takes its
doctrine of the "two ways," chaps, i.-vi, from the Barnabas Epistle.
Joseph Langen, in v. Sybel's hist. Zeitschrift, 1885, p. 193, etc,
has shown with great minuteness, by means of a careful comparison
of the text, that Barnabas, chaps, xviii. -xxi, draws from the
AiSos^-,,', and that the section chaps, i.-vi. in the latter work was
not derived from Barnabas. So also Sabatier, La Didachi, p. 8'2,

THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS. 297
those incorporated with the Church, Acts ii. 42, chief
prominence is given to the fact that they continually
adhered to the BiBaxy rcov diroarbXcov. Undoubtedly
the above-mentioned trait was a factor in the estab
lishment and formulating of apostolic doctrine. But
this primitive apostolic custom itself points back to
a still more original foundation. To it is due the
fact in particular that the apostolic teaching was pre
dominantly • moral in character. We refer to the
Redeemer's command with respect to baptism, con
tained in Matt, xxviii. 19, etc, where he enjoins his
apostles to make disciples of all nations, baptizing
them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost, and teaching them all things that He had
commanded (81800-/1-01^69 rypeiv irdvra oaa iverei-
Xdpyv vplv). The substance of their teaching was
to consist in what the Redeemer had commanded, the
catechumens were to be trained in obedience to the
ivToXal of Christ. Hence it is easy to understand
how the BtBaxh rusv diroarbXcov, since it undoubtedly
took early shape and in tradition gradually assumed
a fixed form, referred chiefly to the ivroXal xvpiov
(comp. AiBaxy, iv. 13 : ov py eyxaraXiirys ivroXas
xvpiov, cpvXagets Be a irapeXaBes (= rypetv oaa
ivereiXdp-yv), comp. i. 5, ii. 1, xiii. 5).
etc. The same relation obviously exists between the A<Sas£ii on the
one hand and the Shepherd of Hermas on the other hand. The
parallels between the two latter works are neither so numerous nor
so unmistakeable as between the Aiix%v and Barnabas. This is
recognised by Bryennius, p. ^S', as well as Harnack, who affirms
only the "probable" use of the Hermas by the AiS^o', p. S7.
Harnack's argument in the note to chap. i. 5, p. 6, etc, proves his
point the less clearly since the A, i. 5, is in more than one respect
enigmatical and disputed. Nor does Zahn's examination, ante,
which seeks to prove the priority of the Shepherd and the dependence
of the A^x^n on Hermas, appear to us by any means convincing.

2 98 THE POST-APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
FIRST SECTION.
CHRISTIAN LIFE AND ITS ARRANGEMENTS.
A. Worship and Ecclesiastical Observances.
The Lord's Supper forms the centre of all Christian
worship in the post - apostolic time. The agapse,
meals of Christian brotherhood, that had originally
culminated in the Lord's Supper, had been even at
the beginning of the post -apostolic time separated
here and there from the worship as also from the
holy supper, which appears from the letter of Pliny,
x. 96, in the first decade of the second century, and
also from Justin, Apology, chap. lxv. (cxl.).1 But it
follows from the AiBaxy T^v diroarbXcov that the
separation of the Lord's Supper from the brotherly
meal had not yet been effected in all parts of
Christendom. It is true that the prescriptions re
specting the Eucharist, ix. 1—5, have only in view
the Lord's Supper itself. But when the words in
x. 1 are immediately added : Mera Be to ip,irXya-
dyvai ovtcos evxapiarrjaare, etc, the union of an
actual meal, i.e. of a brotherly meal with the Lord's
Supper, is presupposed. It is likely that the brotherly
meal followed the Lord's Supper. The beautiful
1 Justin, Dial. c. Tryphon, chap. 41, ed. Otto, 1848, ii. 134 :
' ' The Old Testament offering of wheaten flour for those cleansed from
leprosy, was a type of the bread of the holy supper : rims Iv n>
xpTov t?,s iv %xptffTixs, ov lis xvxpovyitriv tov orxSovs ov I'jrxQiv iivrip
tcov xx0xipopcivoiv Tots -^.vxxs x<xo orxons mvvipixs xvfyeovrcov 'lytrovs XpiffTOS 0
xlpios lopooiv orxpiooixl oroiiiv. Comp. Aiox%ri, ix. 3 : iv^xpitrrovftiv vsrip
ros ^oins x xi yvcvfflai; vis iyvotpttrxs hpuv, etc. J X. 2: xxi 008 xvxirixs ?,s
iyvaipitrxs hpuv S/a Ivtrov tov irxtoos &ov. § 3 : i%xpiiru Tvivpoxrtxiiv Tpoltmv
Xxi ffOTOV Xxi ^OJVIV xld'VlOV OIX TOV VXldoS COV.

WORSHIP AND ECCLESIASTICAL OBSERVANCES. 299
prayer of thanksgiving, x. 2-5, esp. 2-6, has no
proper meaning unless spoken after an "agape," for
thanks are offered up in § 3 for meat and drink,
while grateful praise for the irvevparixy rpoepy xal
irorbs given to believers only follows. The exhorta
tion, xiv. 1 : "On the Lord's Day, awaxdevres xXd-
aare rov dprov xal evxapiaryaare," also implies
the association of the breaking of bread at the
brotherly meal (Acts ii. 42, 46) with the Lord's
Supper, the Eucharist. I find that this is Zahn's
view also, Forschungen, iii. p. 296, etc. The fact
that the AiBaxy still adheres to the union of agape
and Eucharist, may be taken as additional evidence
for the almost apostolic age of this early document.1
The true Lord's Supper, as the most sacred act of
divine worship, celebrated by itself, has its centre in
one aspect in the propitiatory sufferings of Christ,
and forms a purely Christian act completely severed
from all other religious fellowships, especially since
by virtue of the mysterious, esoteric character which
it possessed even in early times, participation in it is
made to depend on preliminary baptism with confes
sion of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as well as
on a pious Christian walk.2 But with respect to the
holy supper, Hofling3 has clearly shown that it is

1 Comp. Paul Sabatier, La Didachi, Paris 1885, p. 99, etc,
although we cannot assent to all that he says.
2 Justin, Apol. i. chap. 66 (p. 67, etc., of the Paris edition) :
(iV%XpiffTIXs') OVOlvl xXXltl polTXCr%UV i\oV 'lOTlV, V} TCp TTIffTlVOVTI xXqdri l7vXI
tx Hidioxyptivx vep' ti/acZv xxi Xovcrxpoivai to vvip xtylfftws x/ixpncdv xxi its
xvxyivvno-tv Xovrpov, xxi ovrcos (oiovvti ojs o Xpipros fftupioaixlv. Comp.
AiSa^jJ tcov "hoiWixx xftoffroXuiv, chap. IX. 5 '. Mrjoiis ipxyiroj povioi •ffi'iru
xto Ttis lv%xpiffrias vpccov, ciXX olfixorrifttivrcs lis to ov o pox xvpiov.
3 Die Lehre der altesten Kirche vom Opfer im Leben und Cullus
der Christen, Erlangen 1851, esp. p. 45, etc. In chap. xiv. 1 and 2,

300 THE POST- APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
not regarded as a sacrifice in the Levitical-hierarchical
sense, either by the apostolic Fathers or by Justin the
martyr. He proves by a careful exposition of the
Fathers, keeping the context always in view, that
the " sacrifice of the Lord's Supper," apart from the
alms-offering with which it was connected in the
practice of the Church, was simply an offering of
prayer ; that the sacrificial act of the Christians was
simply an act of prayer.
So also baptism, which was regarded by the Fathers
not merely as a baptism of repentance having sym
bolical significance, but as a bath of regeneration and
forgiveness of sins l having sacramental efficacy,
attests an independent position and conception of
Christianity as compared with Judaism. That is
to say, inasmuch as it was performed, according to
appointment, in the name of Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost, it is undoubtedly a seal bearing the stamp of
Christianity, not as opposed to the old covenant,
but yet as distinguished from it.
It is, indeed, beyond doubt that long after the
the AiSx^ii ruv 'SdHixx xorocrixtov repeatedly applies the idea of iueitt to
the communion. But the connection shows that even here the idea
of "sacrifice" is not understood in a Levitical, hierarchical sense, for
the members of the Church themselves are the conmunicants, not the
administering officers of the Church, i.e. priests. In both cases the
Eucharist is called >i tvoix vpowv, supposing that vpoZv is the correct
reading in the first case, as well as afterwards in § 2, whilst in § 1
the manuscript has tipiSv. The meaning is the sacrifice which you
offer to God in your grateful, devotional desire for the Eucharist.
1 Ep. Barnabae, chap. 11 : 'Hpoiis ptiv xxrxflxivopiiv us to vSaip
yip&ovris xpoxprioiv xxi pvvov, xxi xvxfixivoptiv xxpir otyopotj vrls iv rr
xxpd'tx rov (p'o&cv xxi rhv iXvrth'x its rov 'Inoovv i%ovrss iv rZ orvivpoxri. —
Justin. Apol. i. chap. 61 : 'iviitx xyovrxi vtp' VtfAuv 'iv$x vlup icrn xxi
rpoirov xvxyivvvitnois ov xxi 'Apilis xvroi xviylvvn6yi[/.iv , xvxyivvuvrxt. — Dial.
c. Tryphon, chap. 48. 231 : to foxirnirptx to poivov xxlxplaxi
rovs pcirxvovffxvrxs Svvxpcsvov rovr'o iffri to voup T7IS Z,oiris.

WORSHIP AND ECCLESIASTICAL OBSERVANCES. 301
apostolic time, the Old Testament, at first by itself
and exclusively, afterwards in connection with the
writings of the New Testament, formed the basis
and means of edification in the services of the Gentile
Christian Churches. But this by no means proves
that the novelty and independence of Christianity
did not for a long time enter into the consciousness
of the Gentile Christian portion of the Church
(Schwegler, ante, ii. 197). This would be entirely
to mistake the way in which the Gentile Christians
looked at the Old Testament, regarding it as no
longer rightly belonging to the Jews but exclusively to
the Christians, and interpreting it in a spiritual sense.1
The holy seasons of the Church, serve as a sym
bolical expression of the novelty and independence
of Christianity. Already in the time of the apostles,
Sunday was celebrated every week as the feast of
the resurrection of Jesus, as shown above, p. 153,
vol. i. etc., in addition to the Old Testament Sabbath,
probably even by Jewish Christians. Among the
Gentile Christians we find that, from the end of the
first century, the Sabbath was supplanted by the
Sunday, as appears from the Epistle of Barnabas,
which implies the observance of the eighth day as
a standing custom in opposition to that of the
seventh, now disapproved by God.2 This may also
be seen from the AiBaxy rcov BeoBexa diroaroXcov,
1 Justin, Dial. c. Tryphon, c. 28, etc, 246 : 'Ev ro7s vptiripois
xmxuvTxi ypxpopcxci, pixXXov Se ov%, v poiripois, iXX hpoiripoiS' npous
yxp x'vtois mit'opolSx, vpoiis Se xvxyivoiaxovrls ov vojrl rov iv x'vro7s vovv.
Comp. the whole Barnabas Epistle.
2 C. 15. 9 : A/o xxi xyoptiv rhv vpcipxv ttiv oy^ovlv lis ivtppocruvyv, iv
ri xxi o 'ino-ovs xvitrrn ix vixpuv, etc.
3 C. 14. § 1: Kxrx xvpixxnv Se xvpiov <rvvx%Qivns xXxo-xn
xprov.

302 THE POST- APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
from Justin Martyr,1 Ignatius,2 and the Epistle to
Diognetus.3 The Apostolic Constitutions alone take
another view, since, although not intended for Jewish
Christian circles, they yet expressly recommend the
religious observance of the Sabbath as well as the
Sunday.4 The Sunday is here distinguished as the
day of the Lord, while the Sabbath is no longer
pre-eminently the Lord's day of rest ; moreover, the
Constitutions reject the Jewish mode of keeping the
Sabbath, viz. by mere inaction ; 5 yet the Sabbath is
in a certain sense put on a par with the Sunday,
which strikes us as something strange, a feeling
which is not entirely removed by Ritschl's observa
tion, Entstehung der altkath. Kirche, 2nd ed. p. 329,
to the effect that the reference is not to Jewish
1 Apol. i. c. 67, 98: Kxi rn rov nX'iov Xiyopoivn hpoipx ofxvroiv
xxrx troXsis v\ xypoii; poivovrcov ecri ro xvro avviXivnis yivlrxi. — ETltoh
vrpoirn iariv y)uipx, iv n o hos, to orxoros xxi rnv 'vXvjv rpi-^xs xocrptov
lTo'iv;<7i, xxi Inaovs Xpiffro; o npilrlpos ocornp rn xvrn npoipx xv la rn' TV]
ykp orpo rr,s xpovixvjs (pridie Batumi) iarxvpuaxv xvr'ov, xxi rn ptlTX rnv
xpovix-nv, virts iariv riXiov vtptipx, Qxvils ro7; xvroaroXois x'vrou xxi p/.x6$rx7s
tSi'Sofjs rxvrx, etc. — Dial. c. Tryphon, c. 12, etc, 229: xxf.^x-
riZliv v.y.v.; 0 xxivos v'opoos oixorxvros iHiXlt, xxi vpolis polxv xpyovvrts
ipoipxv iuaif>uv "ioxCiri. An actual contradiction between the ideal
requirement of a continual observance of the Sabbath on the one
hand, and the custom of Sunday worship on the other hand, as
implied by Justin in the above passage, does not exist.
2 Epistle to the Magnesians, c. 8. 1 ; see infra.
3 Epistle to Diognet. u. 4 : « iripi rx axfif&xrx %na toxiptovix.
4 Const, ap. ii. c. 59, ed Ultzen, 1853, p. 70, etc. : 'Exxarns rpoipxs
avwUpalZ^iaOi op&pov xxi iaaripxs ^/xXXovri; xxi orpoaiv^'opoivoi iv ro7; xvpi-
xxois' — WlxXiarx oi iv rn v\ptiprp rov axfifoxrov xxi ev rn rov xvpiov
xvxerrx a l pc 01 tv xvpixxn a-xavoxioripois xorxvrxri, xlvov a.vx'ri/j.arovris
rZ QiZ rov tfoinaxvri rx oXx Si« 'iviaov xxi avrov lis r,pox; i%xoroar<iXxvTi
kx) avy^copnaxvrt vrxSiiv xxi ix vixpojv xvxarnaxvri.
5 Const, ap. vi. u. 23. 1, p. 151: 'O ox$$xrlZ,iiv Si' xpylx;
voftoQirnaxs Sia rnv rov v'opoov pclXlrnv vvv xxSnpoipxv ixiXlVffiv r.fixs
iv^xptaruv 6tcZ ; ii. 36: ax(ofoxrn7s — axfifixnapoiv po0.irns vopooiv, ov
%':'?*>> xpylxv.

WORSHIP AND ECCLESIASTICAL OBSERVANCES. 303
inactivity on the Sunday, but to Christian worship.
On the contrary, Dorner has in our opinion found
the true solution, when, referring to the Conslit.
apost. vii. 23,1 he says : " The opposition to Gnosticism
seems to have kept up the celebration of the Sabbath
as well as Sunday, which had at first been historically
necessary, for a longer time," because it did not appear
practicable to give up the religious celebration of the
creation, so long as the Creator was by many not
acknowledged as the Supreme God. It was possible,
however, as we learn from Justin, to observe the
memory of the creation even on Sunday in opposition
to Gnosticism ; but when, in memory of the world's
creation, the Sabbath was retained in addition to the
Sunday, and was distinguished by the worship of
God, we cannot fail to recognise a certain dependence
on the law, however modified by motives ancl method.
But if Sunday was the Christian weekly festival,
the Passover, the oldest and first of all those festivals
which now form the series of the eeclesiastical year,
was the Christian yearly festival. The Passover,
however, belongs not only in name, but also by virtue
of its original meaning, to the Israelite circle of feasts ;
and within Christendom, to Jewish Christianity. It
is well known that in the first centuries several dis
putes took place with respect to the observance of
the Passover ; different circles following different
customs. This divergence of practice and the negotia-
1 vii. C. 23. § 2 : To axfifixrov ptivroi xxi rnv xvpixxnv \oprxZ,lTl, on
to poiv Irtpoiovpy'txs iariv vv a pivviptx, n Se xvxarxascos. It is Wortlly
of note that the Apostolic Constitutions, vii. c. 30, following the
AiSofci), of which the seventh book is a revision (according to the
showing of Bryennius and Harnack), speaks exclusively of the
"Lord's Day" as the day when divine worship was always cele
brated.

304 THE POST-APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
tions that took place regarding it, meant nothing less
than the gradual severance of the Christian festival
arrangement from that of the Old Testament, together
with the establishment and exclusive supremacy of
an independent, purely Christian festival observance.
To this aspect of the subject we shall confine our
selves, leaving other aspects 1 of the much - vexed
Passover question that has not unfrequently been
made more obscure by learned disquisitions, as much
as possible out of sight. In the second century two
leading customs with regard to the Passover were in
opposition to one another, and in the second half of
this century came into collision. They are commonly
called the " Western " and the " Eastern " practice.2
But the opposition was by no means between a purely
Christian party and a Judaizing one, as recent
criticism admits ;3 for the people of Asia Minor, who
followed the tradition of the Apostle John, observed
a Christian Passover as well as the other provincial
Churches, in memory of the sufferings and crucifixion
of Jesus Christ. Even by their opponents, they are
never accused of a Judaistic denial of the gospel of
grace and reconciliation through Christ ; on the con
trary, their perfect agreement with the apostolic
1 For example, the reference of the question to the chronology of
Passion-week and to John's Gospel.
2 The learned Bishop of Rottenburg, Karl Joseph Hefele, who dis
cusses this question in his Conciliengeschichte, i. 1855, p. 286, etc, in
connection with the Nicene Council, has observed (p.' 294) that this
terminology is inaccurate, and that it would be more correct to
designate the former practice as the communis or prevailing one, the
latter as the Johannine. In conformity with this, in his 2nd edition
1873, i. p. 86, etc., he terms the Christians in proconsular Asia the
"Johannine Quartodecimans. "
3 Even Baur, Christenthum der drei ersten Jahrhunderte, 2nd ed.
p. 158.

GENTILE CHRISTIANS: PASSOVER DISPUTES. 305
tradition of the Church is positively attested.1 The
difference, so far as it appeared externally, consisted
solely in the fact that the people of Asia Minor (a)
always kept the Passover on the 1 4th Nisan ; (b)
regulated the conclusion of the fast by this day (and
did not give up fasting and turn to the enjoyment of
feasting on the very day on which they solemnized
the death of Jesus).2 All the theories that have been
set up on different sides regarding the character and
motives of this change are thus disposed of. In
opposition to this, the other Churches (a) did not in
observing the Passover go by the 14th Nisan, but by
the feast of Jesus' resurrection, which they invariably
kept on the Sunday ; hence (b) the conclusion of the
feast always and invariably fell on Easter Sunday.
In other words, the question between the two Church-
parties turned upon the normal day of the entire
Passover feast, on the day by which the other days
of the Easter festival and its transactions were to be
regulated. The Christians of Asia Minor took for
this normal day the 1 4th Nisan, being the day of the
month on which Jesus was crucified. The other
Churches held fast by the Sunday of the resurrection
of Jesus as the normal day, because tbe Redeemer
had risen on a Sunday. With the former, the normal

' Hippolytus, Philosophumena s. Refutatio hceresium, vii. 18,
p. 434 (Duncker) : 'Ev Se ro7s iripois ovroi avpoifaivovai orpos vrxvrx rx
rn ixxXnatx voro ralv xoroaroXoov orxpxoidopoivx.
2 Euseb. Hist. eccl. v. 23 : xxrx rxvmv rnv npoipxv does not neces
sarily mean, on this day (14th Nisan), but, according to this day, the
close of the feast being regulated by it. The inaccurate, common
explanation has led to the most diverse hut equally groundless con
clusions (in the case of Baur as well as Weitzel) ; attention was first
directed to the true interpretation, if we mistake not, by G. K.
Mayer, Achtheit des Ev. nach Joh. 1854, p. 394.
VOL. II. U

306 THE POST- APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
day was a monthly, with the latter a weekly day.
With the former, the yearly festival of the resurrec
tion and consequently the close of the Passover might
fall on any day of the week ; with the latter, the feast
of the resurrection must fall on a Sunday, so that the
keeping of the day of crucifixion was always on a
Friday. Thus the question in its outward aspect was
only a calendar question, a question of Christian feast-
reckoning. But the matter had still a deeper signi
ficance, for the one party put the Jewish calendar at
the foundation of the Christian festival year ; while
the other, departing from it, kept the leading festivals
of the Christians independent of the Old Testament
Passover festival, according to an absolute and purely
Christian rule. This standard was no other than the
Sunday, which had long been celebrated as a holy day
of the week, as a specifically Christian weekly festival,
but was now applied as a crystallizing point to an
independent Christian festival arrangement embracing
the entire year. It is obvious that the Passover
disputes were so important as to carry through the
autonomy of Christianity with respect to the Christian
festival customs, ancl to separate the latter entirely
from Old Testament legality.1 Since it was in
accordance with the divine plan that the Old Testa
ment shell should burst quite open and then be
entirely thrown off, while, on the contrary, the pure
kernel of Christianity should attain to full and free
1 Nowhere do we find this aspect of the question more clearly indi
cated than in the short discussion of Hippolytus on the Quartodeci-
mans, whose concluding sentence as to the orthodoxy of the party in
other respects has already been cited (p. 305, vol. ii, note 1), vii. 18
p. 434 (Duncker) : "Erlpoi oi rivis QiXovuxoi rnv tpiaiv, 'ioiutxi rnv yvovaiv
pcx^ifocvripoi rov rpoTov, avviarxvovai 0i7v ro orxa%x rrt riaaxpianaioixxrv
rov vrpdirov ptnvos QvXxaativ xxrx rnv rov vopov oixrxynv, Iv n xv nu-iox

GENTILE CHRISTIANS : PASSOVER DISPUTES. 307
development, therefore in this particular matter of
Christian life the victory and the future were given
to that side which represented the purity, indepen
dence and honour of Christianity. Hence the party
that adhered to the 14th Nisan, and therefore in
directly to an Israelite observance of feasts and to the
law (although quite free from legality in doctrine)
became isolated by degrees ; then, as the Quarto-
deciman sect, it went to the wall, and finally dis
appeared altogether. This is the true state of the
case according to important early documents, par
ticularly the writing of Bishop Polycrates to Bishop
Victor in Rome, and in accordance with the declara
tions of Irenseus and the fragment of a writing of
Palestinian bishops (all of which have been preserved
by Eusebius, H. E. v. 24r etc.), as well as the account of
Eusebius himself (v. 23): the question turns on rypeiv
and py rypeiv, on the rypeiv (or dyetv) t^i< ypepav
t?79 reaaapeaxaiBexdrys tov irdaxa. The question
as to the close of the fast was only a by-question,
inasmuch as the Romans and others might observe
Easter Day and thus conclude the Passover fast
without restriction on Sunday as the weekly festival
of the resurrection of Jesus ; while, on the other hand,
the Christians of Asia Minor might observe it on any
day of the week they liked, only regulating this by
the day of the death of Jesus, which certainly fell on
the day of the month in question (14th Nisan).
lu.Tttr*], v&opojfJ-ivoi to ysypa.pf&zvov Iv vof&w, ev$ iTtxaroLpeLTOV ttfiffSat tov f/,i\
(tvXa.\u.vra. otirus a$ %itt,ffri\XiTai' ob tfpoff'zxovris oti lovoaiots Ivo/zotei-
hTro toTs fAi.Xkovffi ro txXrifavov ^txff^a, aivccipuv, ro us t$v n xea$ffa-v (an
intimation of the Gentile Christian, autonomous standpoint), xa.)
•srltrrtt voevfztvov, ov ypeiftftari vvv Tnpovjxtvov. Ol fiiez tbcutvi #poffi%wrts
IvroXr ovx o\<popoJfftv tt; to ilpnftivov vTo tov a'z'oo'roXou, ort otoiuapr upturn
warr) vripirtftvoftivsp, ort otyu\'iTr,s \ffri rov navva, rov voftav votviffat.

308 THE POST-APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
The attempt has, however, been made to show
that something quite distinct lies at the foundation
of this difference of custom, viz. that the Christians
of Asia Minor did not observe the 14th Nisan as the
day of Jesus' death, but as the day on which He ate
the Passover lamb with His disciples, solemnizing
it by a Christian Passover meal ; whereas their
opponents, proceeding from the fundamental thought
that Jesus was the true and real Passover Lamb, had
arrived at the conclusion that Jesus must have died
on the same day on which it was customary to slay
the Jewish Passover lamb ; hence in the view of the
latter, the Westerns, the 14th alone could have
been the day of Jesus' death.1 Pausing for a moment
on the latter point, according to this acceptation the
Westerns must have celebrated the 14th Nisan
itself, their most important anniversary, as solemnly,
and adhered to it as tenaciously, as the Christians of
Asia Minor, the former keeping it, however, as the
day of Jesus' death, the latter as the day of the last
Passover meal of Jesus, — whereas the py rypetv ryv
reaaapeaxaiBexdryv was exactly their distinguishing
mark ! It is only by means of a not very convincing
train of thought that Baur, ante, p. 163, etc, can evade
this inconvenient but overpowering conclusion. The
main ground of his distorted view lies, to our thinking,
in the circumstance that the alleged opposition between
John and the Synoptics with respect to the day of
Jesus' death has been mixed up in a hasty way with
the party disputes of the second century. But appeal
is made to original documents which, it is said, show
clearly and inevitably that such was the state of the
case, viz. to the fragments of Apollinarius contained
' Baur, Christenthum, 2nd ed. p. 161, etc.

GENTILE CHRISTIANS : PASSOVER DISPUTES. 309
in the Passover Chronicle, to Hippolytus and Clement
of Alexandria. These are doubtless directed against
those Christians who looked upon the 14th Nisan as
the day of the last Passover supper of Jesus, and
therefore regarded the 15th as the day of His death,
celebrating the former with a Christian Passover
meal. But this implies an assumption that cannot
be proved, adopted by Baur from Neander, viz. that
those Churchmen had in view the festival arrangement
of the Christians of Asia Minor and combated it. To
Weitzel x belongs the principal merit of having refuted
this assumption, though Schneider2 arrived inde
pendently at the same conclusion. The context of
the Byzantine Passover Chronicle, in which the frag
ments are inserted, contains no reference to the Pass
over dispute between Asia Minor and Rome, nor does
the text of this fragment itself make any positive
allusion to that well-known difference. In one
fragment Hippolytus is evidently occupied with an
individual opponent (Xe^et yap ovtcos' — " 8td xdpe
Set — ovrco iroielv "), namely, one who considers it
essential in imitation of Jesus to observe a Christian
Passover meal at the Passover time, and has appa
rently set forth this view in writing. Here, as in
Clement of Alexandria and Apollinarius, it is not a
1 In the learned and profound work, Die Christliche Passafeier
der drei ersten Jahrhunderte, 1848, esp. p. 19, etc. If all points
of this obscure subject are not satisfactorily discussed, yet the author
has thrown much light on it, in particular he has brought forward
proof that Apollinarius himself is on the side of the Christians of
Asia Minor ; comp. Steitz, Stud, und Krit. 1856, p. 721, etc, and
Scholten, Godgeleerde, Bydragen, 1856, vol. ii. p. 105, etc., and
recently the article " Passa christliches," by Wagenmann, Recd-
Encyhlopadie, 2nd ed. ii. 1883, p. 270, etc.
3 Die Aechtheit des Joh. Evangeliums, 1854, p. 51, etc.

310 THE POST-APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
question of rypeiv or py rypeiv, scil. ryv reaaapeaxai-
Bexdryv, but of the manner of observance, viz. whether
the feast was to be solemnized by a Christian Pass
over meal or not. The Church teachers above named
negative this, taking up the dogmatic position that
Jesus is Himself the true Passover Lamb, for which
reason He did not once partake of the legal Passover
lamb during the week of His passion ; and that the
14th Nisan was the day of His death not of His
Passover meal. It is more probable that the custom
attacked is something peculiar, Judaistic in fact, and
at variance with the general custom prevalent in Asia
Minor; whereas, on the contrary, the assumption
that it must have been the prevailing practice in Asia
Minor is the more arbitrary, since we know quite well
from Irenseus that there existed in his time a con
fused multiplicity of observances with respect to the
Christian Passover, especially regarding the duration
of the fast (iroixtXia tcov iir try povvreov, in the frag
ment of the writing to Bishop Victor at Rome, in
Eusebius, H. E. v. 24). The more powerfully the
Church of that time felt the inclination and impulse
towards unity, the stronger must have been the motive
to contend for a united and at the same time purely
Christian observance in the case of an important part
of worship such as the Passover, which was at that
time the sole yearly festival of the Christians.
B. Christian Customs and Discipline.
The great value and importance which the post-
apostolic Church attached to practical Christianity, to
the pious, pure, virtuous walk of its Church members,
is clearly seen from the newly-discovered document,

GENTILE CHRISTIANS: CUSTOMS. 311
" Teaching of the Twelve Apostles." Almost the first
half of this very ancient Church manual (chaps, i.-vi.)
is occupied solely with the commands of the Lord,
with directions for a truly Christian walk in "the
way of life," and with warnings against " the way
of death." These admonitions are unquestionably
addressed to catechumens 'in the first instance, which
is proved by the reference in vii. 1 to what goes
before: Tavra irdvra (moral commands) irpoeiirovres
Bairrlaare, etc, and again by the oft-repeated address:
rexvov pov, iii. 1, etc. These admonitions, meant to
be enforced on catechumens chiefly, but also on all
believers, are based partly on the sacred ten com
mandments, partly on the teaching of the Redeemer,
but manifestly received their development and ex
pression by degrees, and passed over in tradition from
a state of fluidity into a fixed crystallized form.
Asceticism, or the striving after holiness by virtuous
conduct and renunciation of self, which from the
time of the apostles became more and more naturalized
in Christianity, has by its externality and gradual
legal normalization given rise to the appearance of an
Ebionite and anti-Pauline character, in a way that
may easily be explained. We must not, however,
overlook the fact, first, that the Apostle Paul himself,
in his opinion of marriage, celibacy, and similar
questions, was favourable to asceticism; and again,
on the other hand, that the ultra-Pauline, anti-Jewish
tendency in Gnosticism (Marcion and afterwards the
Manichseans) had likewise its asceticism which it
carried to extremes. All Gnosis was on its practical
side characterized by asceticism, which was even
enhanced by the dualism between irvevpa and vXy.
Finally, on closer investigation an internal dis-

312 THE POST-APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
tinction between Jewish and Christian asceticism
is unmistakeable. Hauber (TertuUian's Kampf gegen
die zweite Ehe, Stuclien und Kritiken, 1845, p. 637)
defines it as follows : " To Jews the law exists for its
own sake ; it is the will of God which they honour,
and to which they submit ; obedience, servitude of
man toward God, is the essence of Jewish legality.
In Christian asceticism the question is not so much
one of obedience on the part of man to God as of a
relation within man himself between obedience and
servitude, viz. that in man the flesh should yield to
the spirit and be in subjection to it." The " Teaching
of the Twelve Apostles " attaches great importance
to fasting ; in it fasting and prayer are all but
inseparable : intercession for enemies and persecutors
is, according to i. 3, associated with fasting for them.
A holy act like baptism is to be preceded by fasting :
the baptizer and the baptized, and even others who
are in a position to do so, are to fast previously, the
candidate for baptism, for one or two days (vii. 4).
Yet fasting is not enjoined in a spirit of Jewish
legality, but as a specifically Christian act, for the
members of the Church were not to fast on the second
and fifth days of the week (Monday and Thursday),
but on Wednesday and Friday (rrapaa xevy) ; on the
other two days " hypocrites " fasted (viii. 1). The
meaning is plain : the weekly fasting was to be clearly
distinguished from the specifically Jewish fasting.
There can be no doubt that Wednesday and Friday
were prescribed with reference to the Passion week
of the Redeemer, although this motive is not expressly
named. The direction here given has unmistakeably
a close connection with the Passover dispute.
This is the most suitable place to give a brief

GENTILE CHRISTIANS: MONTANISM. 313
explanation of Montanism, the peculiar province of
which lies obviously in Christian morals.1
1 Both the adherents and opponents of Montanism agree in their
description of it. TertuUian, a decided Montanist in his later
writings, says in De Monogamia, c. 2, ed. Oehler, i. 762, of
opponents : paracletum — existimant novse discipline institutorem.
He himself indeed does not admit this, but rather calls the Paraclete
restitutorem potius quam institutorem, ib. c. 4, i. 766, Oehler ;
yet he presupposes that disciplina is his peculiar province, and
expressly attests that the Paraclete, setting out with that principal
rule (de principali regula ilia (scil. fidei), multa qua? sunt discipli-
narum revelabit, fidem dicente pro eis integritate pradicationis),
i.e. his revelations respecting morals and discipline are accredited by
the orthodoxy of his doctrine, c. 2. An opponent, however, viz.
Hippolytus, Refutatio hceres. viii. 19, p. 436, ed. Duncker, also
attests the orthodoxy of the Montanists in their doctrine of God and
Christ ; he finds innovations only in the department of morals :
Ovrci rov ptiv Txrlpx tojv oXmv hcv xxi orxvrojv xrlarnv opooiais rn
ixxXnaix opooXoyovai, xxi offx to ivxyyiXiov vript rov Xpiarov poxprvpi7,
xxivit^ovai Se v/jarilxs xxi ioprxs xxi \npoip xylxs xxi pxQxvo-
fxylxs, etc. Among modern scholars, Neander, Kirchengeschichte,
1st ed. 1827, first treated of Montanism in its doctrine. On
the other hand, Schwegler (Der Montanism, 1841) sought the
centre of the whole system in the Paraclete, by whom the gradual
progress and completion of the Church is to be effected through
revelations, but he thought that the whole phenomenon should be
looked upon as a development of Ebionite Jewish Christianity.
Baur himself believed that he discovered the punctum saliens, the
organization-centre, from which everything " Montanistic " proceeds,
in millenarianism and the idea of the approaching end of the world,
Theol. Jahrb. 1851, p. 538, etc., esp. p. 560, etc. ; Christenthum der
dvei ersten Jahrhunderte, 2nd ed. p. 235, etc. ; without failing to
perceive that the Paraclete "has the sphere of His real activity in
the department of morals," p. 240. On the other hand, Ritschl,
Altkath. Kirche, 2nd ed. p. 492, .clearly perceives that Christian
morality is the proper field of the activity of Montanism. W. Belch,
Geschichte des Montanismus, 1883, p. 48, asserts that the logical
consequence of Montanism is an exaltation of the revelations of the
Paraclete above those of the Old and New Testaments, an exaltation
of the Spirit above Father and Son, consequently an inversion of the
doctrine of the Trinity. This statement rests solely on fictitious
inferences.

314 THE POST-APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
Montanism is one of the manifold religious move
ments that conduced to the fuller realization of
Christianity and its exemplification in the life, at a
time in which it had to conquer a field for itself
over against Judaism and heathenism. According
to Montanism, Christianity was to find its perfect
realization, not in the sphere of faith and doctrine,
dogma and reason, but in the field of practical life,
in Christian practice and holiness, accompanied with
stedfast looking for the second coming, the approach
ing end of the world and the millennial kingdom.
Alleged prophetic revelations by the Paraclete were
the instrument for effecting this practical reform.1
Schwegler pronounces Montanistic prophecy to be
an Ebionite feature ; but Ritschl, Altkath. Kirche, p.
477, rightly rejects this opinion. Comp. Bonwetsch,
Geschichte des Montanismus, 1881, p. 66, etc. The
latter reminds us that the ecstatic form of Montanist
prophecy rather points to heathen divination as its
source. Comp. also Fr. Ed. Konig, Offenbarungsbegriff
des A. T. i. 114, etc, ii. 49, etc. Among the moral
relations to which the Montanist revelations, the
1 This prophecy was the peculiar formal principle of Montanism.
By means of it the sole and absolutely highest validity of the word
of God, the verba solo, was misapprehended and even disparaged in
an outrageous way, — a true "fanatic enthusiasm," as Th. Harnack,
Ghristl. Gemeindegottesdienst, p. 52, etc, excellently puts it. This
was well known to the Church ; for Hippolytus, p. 436 (Duncker),
shows his acquaintance with the high opinion of the Montanists
respecting the revelations of Priscilla and Maximilla : TlXi7ov n S.'
xvtviv (pxaxovris poiptxS nx iv xi n ix voptov xxi orpoQnroiv xxi roiv ilixy-
yiXloiv. 'Torip Se xftoar'oXovs xxi orxv y^xpiapox rxvrx rx yvvxix
oo^x^ovaiv, ojs roXpcxv orXl7ov TI Xptarov Iv tovtois Xiynv rivxs xvrwv
yiyovlvxi. — On .the apocalyptic moment in Montanism, comp.
Liicke, Versuch e'mer voll.it. Einteitung in die Offenbarung Joh.
2nd ed. p. 321, etc.

GENTILE CHRISTIANS: MONTANISM. 315
prescriptions of the Paraclete extend, martyrdom,
marriage, fasting, and outward propriety of demeanour
are chiefly to be named. The duty of fidelity even
to martyrdom was inculcated anew by Montanism ;
because in many circles a moral laxity, a suspicious
elasticity of conscience in the matter of confession
under suffering, began to prevail. With respect
to fasting the Montanists made more stringent rules
on the alleged divine authority of the Paraclete.1
They also prohibited second marriages, without
demanding complete celibacy; although their point
of view might logically have led to this conclusion.
In addition, they made all kinds of rules for con
duct, e.g. the young women were never to appear
unveiled in the Church assemblies, a Christian
was not allowed to wear a garland, etc. In other
respects it was not a question (at least in TertuUian's
view) of introducing a new moral law, but only of
carrying out the old one laid down in the Old and
New Testament Scriptures, and of giving full legal
effect to commands already existing, so that Montanism
would only be new in so far as it was reactionary.2
But it is very questionable whether this was not
simply TertuUian's own view, who hoped for success
in the defence and recommendation of his party in
proportion as he could prove that they proposed no
actual innovation, but only aimed at restoring the
old well-known and recognised code to its merited
rank ; in other words, that Montanism was no innova
tion, but only a necessary reform, viz. the restoration
of original, biblical, and apostolic Christianity. As a
1 Apollonius apud Eusebius, H. E. v. 18. §2 : Movrxvos o vnanlxs
voptflQl rnffxs.
2 Comp. Ritschl, Entstehung der altkath. Kirche, 2nd ed. p. 513.

316 THE POST- APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
matter of fact, Montanism was an exaggeration and
rigorous overstraining of the asceticism and legality
that had penetrated Christianity ; its asceticism being,
however, methodically arranged, so that we may call
it a methodism of asceticism. In order to carry out
its law of morals in practice, to present the community
of Christ as a holy Church, a pure virgin, a strict
moral discipline was necessary, which Montanism
enforced so rigidly that every mortal sin led to
absolute exclusion from the Church; while murder,
idolatry, and unchastity might be forgiven by God in
case of repentance and conversion, but never by the
Church. It is in harmony with this that Montanism
assigned the power of the keys, the right to bind and
to loose, to the new prophets as being spiritually
gifted. This was a deviation on one side from the
original autonomy of the Church, inasmuch as the
right in question was given only to those inspired by
the Paraclete, on the other side from the disciplinary
power of the bishops that had already sprung up at
that time.1 Hence this encroaches on the province
of Church government, and therefore Ritschl, Altkath.
Kirche, 2nd ed. p. 519, characterizes Montanism as
" a crisis in the constitution of the Catholic Church."
But this encroachment on questions of the constitu
tion is obviously a subordinate result only, the kernel
of the whole lying in the province of morals, so that
Montanism should rather be designated as " a product
of an ascetic crisis in the Church." 2
1 The question was : office or gift ? One may certainly say with
Th. Harnack, Christliche Gemeindegottesdienst, p. 331, etc., note:
' ' The burning question between Montanism and the Church was
the question of office;" comp. Dorner, ante, i. p. 151, note.
2 See Hauber, ante, p. 656. In modern times Dorner, ante i. 185
etc., note, called attention to the fact which Ritschl, Altkath.

CONSTITUTION AND ORDER OF THE CHURCH. 317

C. Constitution and Order of the Church.
All orders and offices in communities as well as
in the collective Church developed, as we have seen,
by degrees. In proportion as the constitution of
the Church took definite form in post - apostolic
time, it lost that simplicity and freedon of Church-
fellowship which existed in the time of the apostles.
Through the early document, AiBaxy tcov BcoBexa
diroarbXcov, we obtain a glance into the internal
relations of the Christian Churches as they still
Kirche, 2nd ed. p. 529, etc., endeavoured to prove at great length,
viz. that the "Shepherd " of Hermas is closely allied to Montanism,
inasmuch as the leading idea of the book is repentance, its chief
question the possibility of repeated repentance after conversion,
especially for him who has denied Jesus under persecution. Besides,
a high estimate of martyrdom, an anti-hierarchical spirit and reve
lation through visions, are common to the ' ' Shepherd " and the
Montanists. On this account Ritschl has no hesitation in declaring
the author of the "Shepherd" to be a Montanist, Altkath. Kirche,
1st ed. p. 558. Uhlhorn, however, Monatsschrift von Liicke und.
Wieseler, 1850, p. 281, etc, and afterwards Hilgenfeld, Apost.
Vdter, p. 177, etc., observe that Hermas, ascetically inclined though
he be, deviates from Montanism in essential points, and has no con
nection with it, either of a friendly or hostile nature ; with which
TertuUian's condemnatory judgment agrees, De pudicitia, u. x. 20,
for he thinks the "Shepherd" morally lax. Recognising the cor
rectness of these remarks, Ritschl, in his second edition, 1857, pp.
529-538, has somewhat modified his representation of the connection
between Hermas and Montanism. On the other hand, Theodor Zahn,
Hirt des Hermas, 1868, p. 356, etc., has definitely shown that there
is not any direct connection between the "Shepherd" and historical
Montanism, and even that the two do not coincide in their main
substance, inasmuch as Montanism has for its object an ascetic
reaction, an elevation of moral discipline, a more rigid penitential
practice in the Church, whereas Hermas does not follow an ecclesias
tical but a religious aim, viz. a moral purification of the Church and
its consequent pacification.

318 THE POST- APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
existed in the beginning of the post-apostolic time, a
view which presents many strange features as com
pared with current belief. We here find, xv. 1 and
2, not merely iiriaxoiroi and BidxOvot, but also
irpocpyrat and BiBdaxaXoi, and even diroaroXoi, who
are not identical with the New Testament Twelve,
but yet belong to the actual time of the author
(xi. 3-6). Occasionally an " apostle " comes to the
Church, and again takes his departure (xi. 4). These
" apostles " were undoubtedly nothing but wandering
evangelists, missionaries, such as Eusebius depicts in
the course of his description of Pantsenus, H. E.
v. 10, end of § 2, and at still greater length in
iii. 37. § 1-3. Eusebius ranks them immediately
with the apostles whose disciples they were, since,
though not connected with any particular Church,
they travelled from place to place, preaching Christ
to such as had not heard the word. But whereas
Eusebius designates these men as evayyeXiaral rov
Xbyov (v. 10. 2), and only ascribes to them an
inspired zeal after the apostolic example, " never
giving them the title apostle," just as all the apostolic,
Fathers, with the single exception of Hernias,1 restrict
the name apostle exclusively to the Twelve (e.g.
1 In the "Shepherd" of Hermas the name xmaroXm occurs
five times ; only in one case (Simil. ix. 17. § 1) is it certain that
the Twelve are meant ; in the other passages ( Vis. iii. 5. 1 ; Sim.
ix. 15. 4, 16. 5, 25. 2) xor'oaroXoi xxi o*ioxaxxXot are always named
together as " apostles and teachers of the preaching of the Son of
God" (Sim. ix. 15. 4). They are travelling missionaries, opening
up the way ; but from the context we see that even at that time
they partly belonged to the past, whereas the Aioxxn recognises
"apostles" as existing in the time of the author. This circum
stance is an argument in favour of the priority of the Aj5k^»,
while the language of Hermas respecting xmaroXoi seems to point
to a time before that of the other apostolic Fathers.

CONSTITUTION AND ORDER OF THE CHURCH. 319
Ignatius, who uses the name not less than thirteen
times) ; the men of this calling are in the AiBaxy
directly styled dirtaroXoi.
The AiBaxy glves directions as to the estimation
in which these apostles (and the prophets) are to be
held (xi. 3, etc.). It enjoins simple adherence to
what is laid down in the gospel (xard to Bbypa
rov evayyeXiov, ante, § 3), doubtless to the command
of Christ contained in Matt. x. 42, vii. 15, etc.;
such a one is to be received as the Lord Himself, but
he is not to remain longer than one or at most two
clays ; if he stays three days, he is a false prophet
(Matt. vii. 15). When he departs he is not to take
more than will suffice to keep him till his next
resting-place ; but if he asks for money, he is a false
prophet (ante, § 4—6). It is plain that an " apostle "
does not belong to one particular Church, but to the
Church in general (comp. Harnack, Lehre, p. 104),
for they are in reality wandering missionaries,
itinerant preachers.
Next to the apostles " the AiBaxy sPea-ks of pro
phets." These are not absolutely and without
exception travelling prophets ; a prophet may be
irapbBios, an itinerant prophet (xii. 2) ; in which case
he is to be esteemed and treated as an " apostle "
(chaps, xii, xiii. 1) : if he does not practise what
he teaches, his conduct is not worthy of Christ ; or
if he asks money, he is not to be listened to, he is a
false prophet (xi. 8, 10, 12). But he may settle
in a church (xadiaat irpbs iipds, xiii. 1), and is
then worthy of his food, of his support ; he is to
receive the first-fruits of the soil and of oxen and
sheep (ante, § 2, etc, 6).
The third group are the teachers. These are not

320 THE POST- APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
mentioned nearly so often as tbe prophets ; but a
true teacher, 8t8ao-/caXo9 dXydivbs, is spoken of only
in xiii. 2 ; and in xv. 1, 2, BiBdaxaXoi. These stand
next to the prophets.
All three groups are manifestly without posses
sions, and are referred to the free-will offerings of
those communities in whose midst they laboured
from time to time. But all apostles, prophets, and
teachers occupied a position of acknowledged activity
at the time when this original document was com
posed. Hence we are thrown back into a time when
apostolic arrangements were still retained. In
Antioch, before Paul and Barnabas undertook their
first missionary journey, i.e. about 44 or 45 A.D,
there were found in the Church of that place
" prophets and teachers," Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius
of Cyrene, Manaen and Saul (Acts xiii. 1). In
consequence of a revelation of the Spirit (doubtless
through one of the prophets), Barnabas and Saul
were sent out to labour as wandering missionaries ;
i.e., according to the language of the AiBaxy, as
apostles. The Acts adopt the same usage, for in
xiv. 14 they also speak of the two men as
" apostles." The Gentile apostle himself, in Rom.
xvi. 7, calls Andronicus and Junias iirtaypot iv tois
diroaroXois, whereas in the two passages, 2 Cor.
viii. 23 and Phil. ii. 25, in the former of which the
title " apostle " is conferred on Titus and certain
others who are not named, and in the latter on
Epapbroditus, this name denotes only an ambassador,
a deputy. But in 1 Cor. xii. 28, etc, and Eph.
iv. 11, Paul speaks first of apostles, without the
definite article, as bearers of God's gifts and powers
for the Church, secondly of prophets, and thirdly

CONSTITUTION AND ORDER OF THE CHURCH. 321
of teachers, etc, while the enumeration in the
Ephesian Epistle differs only in the circumstance
that evangelists and pastors are inserted between
prophets and teachers, the latter of whom seem to
be identical with the BiBdaxaXoi. The Apocalypse
ii. 2 also attacks errorists who professed to be
apostles and were not: Xeyovras eavrovs airoarb-
Xovs xai ovx elalv, xal evpes avrovs tyevBeis. The
AiBaxy plainly takes us back to the time shortly
after the death of the last of the Twelve, when the
wandering missionaries still bore the honourable
name " apostle ; " whereas the title was soon after
restricted solely to the former Twelve and to Paul.
Apostles, prophets, and teachers belonged according
to the AiBaxy to tne collective Church, not to one
community ; they were not even chosen by the
community. On the other hand, the AiBaxy has
officers of the communities, by which they were
chosen and called, " bishops and deacons." All that
is said of the latter in xv. 1 and 2 agrees with what
we learn from the New Testament records. Elders,
irpeaBvrepot, are not named, because in the primitive
Christian time presbyter and bishop were identical; a
distinction of the names existing1 so far as the title
irpeaBvrepoi, corresponding to the O^i?.? of Israelite
congregations, was originally used in Jewish Christian
circles ; but the title eirtaxoiroi, corresponding to the
antique Hellenic name of certain communal officers,
was usual in Gentile Christian communities (see
above, p. 164, vol. i.). As the AiBaxy, according to
its inscription " for the Gentiles," was designed for
Gentile Christians, it is quite natural that irpea-
1 This identity is recognised by Hatch, Constitution of the Primi
tive Church, in certain cases.
VOL. II. X

322 THE POST-APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
Bvrepot should not be spoken of but rather iirlaxoiroi,
who together with the Btdxovoi were numbered among
the Tertpypevoi of the Churches.1
We abide, therefore, by the position that in the
primitive Christian communities by virtue of the
Church's choice the labourers were only presbyters
synonymous with bishops and deacons, besides the
men who were distinguished by God's extraordinary
spiritual gifts, namely apostles, i.e. travelling mission-
1 The representation given by A. Harnack, Lehre der zwblf Apostel,
p. 140, etc, comp. his Analecta to Hatch, p. 229, etc., appears to
us more artificial and ingenious than evident or probable. The
assertion that the orpiafUnpoi of the early Christian Churches were
not officers, but that vnunpoi and miaSUnpoi were simply young and
old, the latter respectable persons whose experience qualified them
for counselling and governing, leaves the fact out of account that
Acts xiv. 23 unquestionably speaks of an actual office and of a formal
inauguration into it ; while in xi. 30 it is plainly said of Church
officers that the collection from Antioch was handed over to them.
Besides, the passages Acts xv. 6, 22, etc., xx. 17, comp. with vv.
28 and 21, 18, clearly prove that both the orpiafivrspoi from Ephesus,
whom the apostle in ver. 28 calls i-rlaxomi appointed by the Holy
Spirit to feed the Church, and the irpia^vripoi at Jerusalem who make
an important decree, chap, xv., and who were present at a, confer
ence with Paul in James' presence, chap, xxi, — that such rpiafivripoi
were in fact commissioned and authorized officials. And that the
miafivTipoi also in 1 Pet. v. 1, etc, are not merely aged Church
members, but officers in the pastorate furnished with authority,
appears both from the words mipoxvxn to — orolpovtov, WtaxomvvTis,
from poh — xxrxxvpuvovTis, etc., from the reference to ipxtTolpcnv, ver. 4,
and from the fact that the Apostle Peter calls himself avftmiafivripo;,
ver. 1. The case is different (ver. 5) with respect to the viuripoi as
distinguished from orpta/iiripoi, where distinction of age is obviously
in view ; and the same applies to 1 Tim. v. 1, it being plain from
ver. 2 where women are spoken of that elders are aged persons. In
like manner, Titus ii. 2-4 speaks of age in men and women, not
of a calling or office. So, too, in Acts v. 6, vuinpoi means simply
younger members of the Church, as appears from the synonymous
vtxvlaxoi in ver. 10. On the contrary, Jas. v. 14 speaks most probably
of "elders" as official men, since they are called miafivripoi rns
ixxXnalxs.

CONSTITUTION AND ORDER OF THE CHURCH. 323
aries, prophets, and teachers as special officers. Both
kinds of commissioners in the Churches were admini
strative officers in the first instance. Teaching, service
relating to the word, was not their proper official
duty ; yet they were also permitted to teach when
they possessed the gift for it by virtue of the
freedom of speech allowed in the Church ; comp.
1 Tim. v. 17. When they did not merely rule but
also taught, they united two functions originally
distinct in themselves.1 The more the age advanced
the rarer the free oecumenical "prophets and teachers"
became. Chosen bishops and deacons came into the
breach and performed the service which had belonged
to the former, AiB. xv. 1 : vplv Xeirovpyovai xal
avroi (iirtaxoirot xal Btdxovoi) ryv Xeirovpyiav tcov
rrpocpyTcbv xal BtBaaxdXayv.
The activity of the Church members in teaching
gradually became an exception to the rule. It was
only in the choosing of officers, in taking part in
Church discipline and receiving back the penitent,
that an important privilege of the laity still remained.2
Another alteration took place in the transference of
the Old Testament priestly idea to ecclesiastical
offices.3 This change of view is often considered an
1 Comp. Hatch, ante. On this account they were also doubly
riripjonfJoivoi or "hivrXris ripens x\ioi, 1 Tim. v. 1/.
2 This privilege of the Church is presupposed and recognised when
the Roman Clement undertakes to declare to the authors of the
division at Corinth in case they were of a noble and amiable disposi
tion : ll Si' ipol arxais xxi o-^iaptxrx, ix.%ojpu, xoriipt, ov ixv (ZovXnafo,
xxi oroiu rx orpoarxaaopoivx tiro rov orXntlovs, chap. liv.
* A proper transference of this idea did not take place at first, but
merely an application of the ordinances and laws of the Mosaic
cultus to the persons and transactions of Christian worship. Thus
e.g. Clement of Rome (to the Corinthians, chap, xl.), in appealing to
the Levitical laws respecting the times, places, and persons of divine

324 THE POST- APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
Ebionite feature which, proceeding from Jewish
Christian circles, penetrated the Gentile Christian ones.
But no early Christian testimony exists on behalf of
that way of thinking having been peculiar to Judaiz
ing Christians, except the apocryphal work, The
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.1 It is more
worship, only means to' show that everything should be done in
order in Christendom also, " iva^nptovois xxi xxrx rx%iv ;" comp.
Hofling, vom Opfer, p. 17, etc. But in proportion as Christian
and Levitical offices, acts, and arrangements were brought into
parallelism, so much the more did the actual difference between
them fade from consciousness, till at length the thing itself became
legal and Levitical to a great extent.
1 The treatise belonging to ancient Christianity, entitled Al Si«-
inxxt tuv lutixx ofxrptxp^eov, is but little adapted to be a safe guide in
ascertaining the state of things in the post-apostolic age, for three
reasons. First, we are still in want of a critical genuine text. It is
true that Sinker published an edition in 1869 based on two MSS. in
the libraries of Cambridge and Oxford. But it is to be deplored that
Tischendorf, who had discovered and collated a third MS. during his
travels in the East, and who had purposed to give a critical elabora
tion of the text (Real-Encyklopmdie, 1st ed. xx. p. 431), was pre
vented by death from carrying out his design. Secondly, the date
of the work cannot be accurately determined. Only this much is
beyond question : the book did not appear before the destruction of
Jerusalem under Titus, for in Levi's legacy, or chap. iii. § 10 and 15,
the destruction of the temple is unmistakeably intimated ; and, on the
other hand, the origin of the work with the object pursued in it, viz.
to promote a disposition of mind favourable to Jesus Christ in Israel,
is inconceivable after the war of Bar-Cochba. Now it is difficult to
discover a definite point of time between a.d. 70 and 132 in which
the composition of this book can be put with any probability.
Thirdly, we have not yet clear knowledge respecting the spiritual
home, the proper character of the production, because a sharply
expressed doctrinal character cannot be extracted out of it. It is a
fact that the views of scholars about its doctrinal contents waver
between the farthest extremes. Kayser considers the author a com
plete Ebionite, Strasburger Beitrage, 1851 ; Ritschl, 1st ed. of the
Entstehung, makes him Pauline ; and Hilgenfeld, a declared anti-
Judaist. In consequence of Kayser's criticism, Ritschl in the 2nd
ed. of his Entstehung der altkathol. Kirche, 1857, p. 171 etc.

CONSTITUTION AND ORDER OF THE CHURCH. 325
probable that the Apostle Paul's conception of
Christian life and service, of Christian beneficence
and self-denial as a sacrifice (Rom. xii. 1, xv. 16 ;
Phil. ii. 17; comp. Heb. xiii. 15; 1 Pet. iii. 18),
led to priestly activity and authority; a course of
thought according to which the community of be
lievers originally offering " spiritual sacrifices " must
have been considered the acting priesthood. Hence
the transference of the priestly idea to the Chris
tian office, " the universal priesthood of believers,"
must be presupposed as a basis, so that it origin-
admitted that the author occupies the standpoint of the Nazarseans.
This much only is beyond doubt. First, the author is a Christian.
In the parting discourses of Jacob's sons, along with moral admoni
tions which are brought home to the heart, the central-point is in
the prophecies which describe with the fullest sympathy and in
the most unmistakeable way, but without mentioning the name
of Jesus, the salvation (to amrnptov), the accomplishment of the
kingdom and priesthood in the Saviour, the virgin out of Judah,
His mother, the Gentile apostle out of Benjamin, etc. Second,
the author himself is an Israelite. A Gentile Christian would
not have conceived the whole subject in such a way, nor would
he have carried it out partly on the basis of Genesis, partly on that
of Jewish tradition, with so much national feeling as the book
presents. Third, the author is a Jewish Christian of such world-
embracing heart that he. is quite sympathetic towards Gentile
Christendom (the awxyuyxi ruv iSvuv, Benjamin, chap. xii. § 11),
and has serene joy in the work of the Gentile apostle. That the
kingdom of Judah and the priesthood of Levi are viewed as one
in Christ cannot be of force on behalf of an Ebionite renewal of
Levitical priestism within Christendom, since the rending of the
temple vail (Benjamin, or chap. xii. § 9), the custom of the Levitical
priesthood, the establishment of a new priesthood for the Gentiles
(Levi, chap. iii. § 18. 8), the possession of a completed priesthood on
the part of the Redeemer, which will continue for ever without
succession (ovx iarxi tix'ioxfi x'vrtp lis y'-vix; xxi yivlxs "ois xluvos), are so
strongly emphasized. In this respect the work treads in the steps
of the Epistle to the Hebrews, as Dorner has rightly observed (Lehre
von der Person Christi, 1851, i. 263) ; but certainly without
approaching the deep thinking and clear view found in the latter.

326 THE POST-APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
ally applied to all, but without being Judaistic or
hierarchical.1 Another point is the appearance of a centralized
government in Church offices, i.e. of the episcopal
authority. We know that there was no distinction
between bishops and elders in the time of the apostles
and a considerable time after. In Clement of Rome,
in Polycarp as it seems, in Hermas too, the distinction
is not yet developed. Even in Irenseus, who was
certainly acquainted with it, it is not at all a fixed
thing, since he still uses the names iirlaxoiros and
irpeaBvrepos interchangeably (e.g. iv. 26, 2 and 5).
The first person by whom " the bishop " is consciously
separated from the presbyters, taking a high and
singular position not only in idea but also in action,
is Ignatius of Antioch. It would therefore be very
important if we could with confidence fix precisely.
the date of his martyrdom, and consequently that of
his Epistles. But science has not yet been fortunate
enough to do it. The farther back the end of this
man is put, the greater is the difficulty created by
his Epistles. While Uhlhorn thought that the death
of Ignatius must be put in the year 107 or 108 a.d.
as the result of chronological researches (Zeitschrift f.
histor. Theol. 1851, p. 259, etc.), Harnack has come
to the conclusion that the tradition about the martyr's
death under Trajan does not by any means rest on a
secure foundation (Hie Zeit des Ignatius und die Chrono
logic des antiochenischen Bischbfe, 1878, p. 68, etc.).
As to the Ignatian Epistles,2 we find, after a careful
1 Comp. Ritschl, Altkath. Kirche, 2nd ed. p. 396, etc., and
especially Hofling, ante, 21, etc., 33, etc., 64, etc.
2 We honestly confess that we have had doubts for years as to the
genuineness of these letters, of course as to the shorter recension. The

CHURCH ORDER: IGNATIAN EPISTLES. 327
and impartial examination of their contents, that it
is not a recommendation of the episcopal authority
longer recension of the Greek text, first published in the fifteenth
century and containing twelve Epistles, does not come into considera
tion, since it is acknowledged to be a forgery resting upon interpola
tion and fiction. On the other hand, the smallest collection,
consisting of but three Epistles in a short form (to the Ephesians,
Smyrnseans, and to Polycarp), first published in a Syriac translation
by Cureton, 1845 (comp. his Corpus Ignatianum, 1849), was declared
by him, then by Bunsen (Die drei echten und vier unechten Briefe
des Ignatius, 1847 ; and Ignatius von Antiochien, 1847), by Lipsius
(Niedner's Zeitschrift fur hist. Theol. 1856), as well as by Ritschl
(Entstehung der altkath. Kirche, 2nd ed. p. 403, etc. ) and others, to
be exclusively genuine, the four others being supposititious. But
this view was opposed by Baur (Die Ignatianischen Briefe und ihr
neuester Kritiker, 1848) and by Hilgenfeld (Apost. Vater, 1853, pp.
274-279), who defended the relative originality of the shorter seven-
collection, compared with the shortest ; while Uhlhorn (Zeitschrift
f. hist. Theol. 1851, vols. i. and ii.) and others endeavoured to
prove the genuineness of the seven letters, not merely comparatively
but absolutely. Finally, Theod. Zahn (Ignatius von Antiochien,
1873, pp. 167-240) has conducted the argument in a literary and
definitive way, to show that the Syriac recension is only an abridged
form of the three letters in question. As to the main question, the
genuineness of the seven Epistles to the Churches of Ephesus,
Magnesia, Tralles, Rome, Philadelphia, Smyrna, and to Polycarp, in
the shorter Greek recension, the consideration in their favour with
ever-increasing weight is, that between the second decade of the
second century, in which it is alleged that the Epistles were written,
and about 170-175 a.d., in which the monarchical position of the
episcopate was already an established fact ; a point of time, an
occasion, and a person cannot be found for the authorship of the
letters in ease they were forged. But it requires a certain self-
effacement on our part to understand the personage who comes before
us in the letters, with his joyousness in death, his much-enduring
heroic spirit, his moral pathos, his originality full of character, and
his deep humility. In his Ignatius v. Antioch. pp. 400-424, Zahn
has said much that deserves attention in regard to this. As to the
ideas of the letters about the position and authority of the episcopal
office, they appear in another light when one sees in them the
fundamental conception, the object and motive of the whole, than
when one recognises in them merely the absolute unity of Church life
as the impelling fundamental idea.

328 THE POST-APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
which forms their central point, that it is not the
exaltation of the bishop above the college of presbyters
which is the object in view ; but it is rather the union
of believers among themselves, the unity of the Church
that is the ruling idea.1 The existing state of the
congregations at that time furnished the ground and
duty for emphasizing it. There appears to have been
a strong tendency toward separation in the Churches
of Asia Minor to which Ignatius was then writing.
When he says that many a one axitpvn dxoXovdei,
(Phil. iii. 3), it is not without cause that he admonishes
the Church in question, chap. vii. 2 : rovs pepiapovs
cpevyere ; comp. Smyrn. vii. 2 : T0119 pepiapovs cpevyere
d>s dpxyv xaxwv. He says very plainly in the Epistle
to the Ephesians (chap. v. 3) : " He who agrees not
(with the Church) is proud, and has separated
(Biexpivev) himself." In the exhortation to use one
eucharist, Philad. chap. iv. (airovBdaare pta evxapiaria
Xpyadat, etc.), he intimates that many Church members
celebrated the last supper themselves in separate
conventicles. Accordingly Ignatius comes forth as
" a man perfectly prepared for unity ; " words that he
applies to himself: ehs avdpcoiros els evcoatv xarypria-
pevos, Philad. viii. 1. He fulfils his personal calling
(ibid. : iym to iBiov iirolovv) when he opposes all
division, insisting upon the complete unity of the
Church. There is nothing better than peace (Eph.
xiii. 2). But, inasmuch as the Church is a well-
arranged whole only in connection with its appointed
officers (without them there is no Church, Trail, iii. 1),
Ignatius always expresses his admonitions on behalf
1 This has been not only proved by Zahn, Ignatius v. Ant. p.
424, etc, especially p. 440, etc., but is also acknowledged by
Hatch, Organization of the Primitive Church, etc.

CHURCH ORDER: IGNATIAN EPISTLES. 329
of unity in such a way as to require subjection to
the bishop, the presbyters, and deacons.1 He is
convinced that " whosoever doeth anything apart
from the bishop, the presbytery, and the deacons, is
not pure in his conscience " (Trail, vii. 2). But he
does not always name the three together. He often
speaks only of the bishop and presbyters (e.g. Eph.
ii. 2 ; Trail, xiii. 2 ; Magnes. vii. 1), and certainly
very often of the bishop alone (e.g. Eph. iv. etc,
and elsewhere). The one bishop is the head, the
personification, as it were, of ecclesiastical unit)-.
The writer is penetrated and animated with this idea
so strongly that , he does not hesitate to set forth
positions like the following, that border too nearly
upon the deification of man: "Do ye all follow the
bishop ; whatsoever he shall approve of is well-
pleasing unto God, to the end that whatever is done
may be safe (dacpaXes) and sound " (Smyrn. viii.).
" He who knoweth the bishop is honoured of God ;
he who doeth anything without the knowledge of the
bishop serveth the devil " (ibid. chap. ix.).
With all this, however, it is to be observed that
Ignatius intends by such language to make clear
nothing more than the religious motive of obedience
and honour to the bishop ; while he sees in the
deacons an image of Christ, and compares the presby
tery to a council of God (comp. Zahn, Ignatius, p.
444, etc.). It is true that numerous expressions in
the Epistles imply the official existence of one bishop
1 Philad. vii. 1: TZ Isriaxoorx orpoai%lrl xxi rep wpiafivrlpioj xvi
oixx'ov ots. Smyrn, viii. 1 : Tlxvns rep lortaxovrM xxoXov8i7n us \naov;
Xpiaros ru orxrp'i, xxi rop vrpiafivrtptip us To7s xoroaroXots, robs ds
iixxovovs ivrpiiriall, as 6'*'V ivroXnv. Comp. Polyk. vi. 1. Ol
vmrxaalpiivoi rZ iTiaxozrx, vpzafivnpsts, oixxovo.s.

330 THE POST- APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
in distinction from presbyters, both in Antioch itself
and in other Syrian Churches, as also in a number of
congregations in Asia Minor (Zahn, ante, p. 295, etc.) ;
but it is by no means assumed that an official
separation of bishop and elders was already found in
all Churches, particularly not in Rome, as we learn
from Ignatius' Epistle to the Romans. It should
also be observed that the episcopate, according to the
letters, is a Church office whose authority is confined
to the one city church in which it exists, not at all
possessing importance and authority in relation to a
number of communities or the whole Church, as was
the case after the last quarter of the second century.
In short, Ignatius' episcopate is an office over one
community, not as yet over the Church. Moreover,
his bishops are not successors of the apostles ;
rather does he enjoin a virordaaeadat rep irpea-
Bvrep'icp cos tois diroaroXois 'Iyaov Xptarov
(Trail, ii. 2).
These relations, based on fact, and the ideas of
Ignatius relating to the Church which we have
expounded, have so little of an Ebionite complexion,
that on the contrary he is distinguished by an anti-
Jewish style of thought, even by a direct polemic
against all xard 'IovBa'iapbv tfiv. Hence no primitive
proof remains on behalf of the assertion that the
hierarchical organization of the Church, the idea of a
priesthood, the monarchical partition of offices with
the bishop at the head, is of anti - Pauline and
Judaistic origin. This is seen apart from the pseudo-
Clementine romance with its universal bishop James
at Jerusalem.1 On the contrary, the idea of Christ's
1 Baur combines the Ignatian Epistles with the Clementines, tho
latter being a pseudonymous production, and in spirit wholly

CHURCH ORDER: IGNATIAN EPISTLES. 331
Church generally, as well as its realization, especially
its more complete and close arrangement, attained to
its development in Pauline circles and on the soil of
autonomous Christendom. When the Church was
powerfully impressed with the need of an assured
and consolidated unity, after the flourishing period of
gnosis ; when Christians strove to secure unity of
doctrine and of the canon, unity of ritual, actual reali
zation of the ixxXyata xadoXixy, it was universally
felt at the time that in respect to the constitution of
the Church there was need of an episcopate as the
practical instrument of such unity, a thing proceeding
entirely from within, in an independent way, without
being externally borrowed from Jewish Christianity.
Hence it came to pass that the great majority of the
Church consisting of Gentile Christians toward the
end of the second century, though without any leaning
toward Jewish Christianity and without any agree
ment with it, which idea is entirely fabulous, were
guided from within to a standpoint allied to the
theocracy of the Old Testament, legal and hierarchical
— a standpoint reached from within by development
of the Church's own nature, as also by the necessary
counter-impulse to Gnostic exaggeration and distortion
of Paulinism. In this result we must certainly
recognise a deviation from apostolic Church order.
different from the former, Christenthum der drei ersten Jahrhunderte ,
2nd ed. p. 275, etc. In this he js followed by Hilgenfeld, Die
Apost. Vdter, p. 270, etc.

332 THE POST-APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
SECOND SECTION.
DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE.
A. The Apostolic Fathers.
In this department the newly-discovered document,
The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, is important, but
not by its containing a formulated confession of faith.
To say that the use of the prayers at the last supper
and the baptismal formula appeared sufficient in the
view of the writer "to establish the Christian character
of him who lays claim to the name of Christian " (A.
Harnack, Lehre der 12 Apostel, p. 90), rests upon a
hasty conclusion. Yet the AiBaxy reveals important
parts of a faith specifically Christian and of the inner
life, which are supposed to belong to every Christian.
According to the prayers, believers are above all
partakers of everlasting life, the gift of Jesus Christ.
They give thanks (at the last supper) mainly for " the
life" (ix. 2: virep TJ79 %coys xal yvcbaecos, yv eyvcopiaas
yplv Bid 'Iyaov tov iraiBbs aov). How highly they
value this gracious gift of everlasting life is perfectly
clear from the prayer after the Agape (x. 2 : ei' yapto--
rovpev aoi — virep rys yvcbaecos xal iriarecos xal
ddavaa las, ^9 iyvcopiaas yptv Bid'Iyoov tov iraiBbs
aov. § 3 : yplv Be ixaplaco irvevpartxyv rpocpyv xal
irorov xai %coyv alcbviov Bid tov iraiBbs aov).
Doubtless the conception ^coy in the ethical instruc
tion relating to " the way of life and of death," chaps.
i.-v, refers to the new life full of everlasting power,
promised and bestowed by Christ. Even in xvi. 1
the admonition: ypyyopeire virep t?79 %coys vpcov,
must likewise allude to the new life given by God in

TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. 333
Christ, the promised life everlasting ; comp. xvi. 6 :
dvdaraats vexptov. It was the fundamental feeling
of believers in the primitive Christian Churches that
Christ " brought life and immortality to light "
(epcoriaas %coyv xal dcpdapatav, 2 Tim. i. 10). Even
among unbelieving people and mockers of the Greeks,
the impression they had of the invincible certainty of
that eternal life which dwelt in Christians was over
powering. Lucian reflects this impression when he
says in his work, lie pi rys Uepeypivov reXevrys, chap.
xiii. (ed. Bekker, vol. ii. p. 94), of the Christians:
Ueirelxaat yap avrovs ol xaxoBaipoves to pev oXov
dddvarot eaeadai xal Btcbaeadai rov dei XP0V0V>
irap' o xal xaraeppovovai rov davdrov xal exovres
avrovs iiriBtBbaaiv ol iroXXoi. What Lucian asserts
in a work written about a.d. 170 agrees well with
what occurs in the Teaching of the Apostles. We
see that Christ's resurrection and the article "An
Everlasting Life '' were not merely dogma, but an
innermost life-element of the Christians at an early
period, a foundation-stone of " the gospel " and of the
living tradition of Christian faith.
This fundamental conception of the " life " revealed
and given to believers by Christ leads us to entertain
a high idea of the Redeemer's person and work.
The Redeemer Jesus Christ (once only, in ix. 4,
called by the complete name, but oftener 'Iyaovs only)
is mentioned in the liturgical prayers manifestly
handed down from apostolic times and preserved in
fixed form, 'Iyaovs d 7rat9 aov, ix. 2, 3, x. 2, 3) ; once
simply d 7rat9 aov, i.e. the Servant of God, the
Mediator of divine revelation; David also being
called 7rat9 aov, ix. 2. In other passages of the
document, especially in many where the writer speaks

334 THE POST-APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
personally, the Saviour has the title d xvpios ypwv, d
xiiptos, or xvpios merely. Such appellations designate
Him beyond doubt as possessor of divine majesty and
authority by virtue of His exaltation. The name
xvpios in the document plainly involves a confession
of the deity of Christ, which is evident from the
application of Zechariah's words (xiv. 5) to His
return ; for the promise runs thus in the prophet
according to the Septuagint : r^et xvpios d debs pov,
xal irdvres ol dyioi per avrov. Zechariah speaks of
Jehovah's coming. The author, applying the words
to Jesus Christ, says in xvi. 7: y%ei b xvpios xal
irdvres ol dyioi per avroii, and puts the coming of
the Redeemer " on the clouds of heaven " (comp. the
last words of the chapter) in place of the coming of
God Himself. The conception xvpibrys (iv. 1 : bdev
y xvpibrys XaXetrai, ixei xvpios iariv) denotes the
divine, ruling dignity of Christ. With this agrees the
baptismal formula (vii. 1), baptism into the name of
the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (comp.
vii. 3), including not only confession of the Father,
Son, and Spirit, but having also in view redeeming and
salvation-bringing communion with Father, Son, and
Spirit, and therefore involving a confession of the
deity of Christ. The very circumstance of the world-
deceiver, d xoapoirXdvos, i.e. Antichrist, being about to
appear as if he were the Son of God (cbs vlbs deov, xvi.
4), appears at least to presuppose a near reference to the
deity of Christ. The true humanity of the Redeemer
is only intimated by the circumstance that the descent
of Jesus from David is attested in the figure of the
dy la dpireXos AaBIB applied to Jesus in ix. 2.
But while there are plain notices respecting
Christ's person, the AiSaxtf has only indirect utter-

TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. 335
ances about His work. Doubtless " the holy vine " of
David points to the blood of Jesus shed on the cross
and His atoning death, the Church giving thanks for
the blessed cup in the Eucharist, ix. 2 : " We thank
Thee, our Father, for the holy vine of Thy servant
David, which Thou hast made known to us through
Thy servant Jesus." The blessed wine, the blood of
the vine, is partaken of as the blood of Jesus Christ
the offspring of David, in a mysterious act, such
expressions being based upon the Lord's own words :
" I am the true vine," etc., John xv. 1, etc., compared
with Ps. lxxx. 9, etc, especially ver. 16. The
somewhat strange expression in the old traditional
prayer: bv iyvcopiaas yplv Bid 'Iyaov, may be
explained perhaps by the probable conjecture that
the prayer was originally composed in the Aramsean
dialect, and that the preposition 3 ^DJJ JftE^a was
rendered by the Greeks Sid 'Iyaov instead of iv
'Iyaov. The arrangement that believers should fast
every Wednesday and Friday (viii. 1 : rerpdBa xal
irapaaxevyv) alludes without doubt to the passion of
Jesus. Besides, the fact of His resurrection as a
guarantee of ours is presupposed, partly in the phrase
" resurrection of the dead " (xvi. 6), partly in the
believing experience of " the life " and in the con
solatory hope of immortality which we owe to
Christ (ix. 3, x. 3). The keeping of Sunday (xvpiaxy
xvpiov, xiv. 1) by religious gatherings and services,
with the Agape and Eucharist, points at all events to
Christ's resurrection on the first day of the week.1
1 It must be allowed that in the aX^h' ' ' the death and resurrec
tion of Christ are not mentioned " (Harnack, Lehre, 162. 6), so
far as an express mention is desired ; but the indirect references to
both make sufficient amends for the omission.

336 THE POST- APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
With respect to the doctrine of the AtBaxv about
salvation, we find nothing more than isolated hints.
Conversion takes place by repentance on the one
hand, by faith on the other. The document never
speaks expressly of " the first penitence " preceding
baptism, as it is called in ancient times. As confes
sion of sin is several times inculcated on believers
(iv. 14, xiv. 1), it was natural to assume that self-
examination, confession of sin, and turning from " the
way of death" (i. 1, v. 1, etc.) should have been
made an indispensable requisite on the part of him
who wished to join the Church for the first time and
asked for baptism. Faith is made most prominent
as an essential element in personal Christianity and
a condition of happiness (xvi. 2) ; hence the Christian
state is a state of faith ; comp. x. 2 (evxaptarovpev
aot — virep TJ79 yvcbaecos xal iriarecos xal adavaalas
. . .). But it is clear from xvi. 5, where deliverance
is promised to the viroptelvavres iv ry iriaret avrtov,
that faith is not a mere assent to the truth, but
confidence and trust in God. The Christian state of
certain slaves (iv. 10) being described in such a way
that they eVt (tov avrov) deov iXiri^ovat, it is all
the more clear that the author of the document takes
faith to be a trust in God which is full of hope,
reminding the reader of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
While conversion resting upon repentance and
faith presupposes a moral turning of the heart to God,
the AiBaxy does not consider it to be a mere human
resolution or an exclusively personal act, but goes
deeper and recognises in it a divine initiative ; God
calling man, bestowing upon him the Holy Spirit, and
taking him into communion with Himself. Chapter
iv. 1 0 speaks of vocation : " God does not come to

call (men) according to the repute of the person
(xaXeaat), but those whom the Spirit has prepared "
(ecp' ovs to irvevpta yroipaaev). Hence the Holy
Spirit prepares souls for reception into the Church of
God. It is only those whom the Holy Spirit has
prepared by His gracious influence (comp. gratia
prceveniens) that God calls to a state of actual con
version, by virtue of which " the holy name of God
dwells in their hearts " (ov xarea xyvcoaas iv rais
xapBlats ypmv, x. 2).
The community is formed out of individual
believers (iv. 14, xi. 11), the Church of God, which
is scattered to " the ends of the earth " (ix. 4, x. 5).
It receives through Christ, by means of the Eucharist,
gifts of grace : " spiritual nourishment and drink and
everlasting life " (x. 4 : ixa-ptaco irvevptartxyv rpotpyv
xal irorbv xal £coyv alcoviov, i.e. the spiritual food
and drink which procure everlasting life). It need
hardly be remarked that according to the .^tSa^ the
sacrament is a thing which is not merely human but
is also divine, an act by which God bestows grace
(xapl^erai), and that spiritual nourishment and drink
unto everlasting life are procured along with bread
and wine. By using the means of grace on the one
hand; by watching and prayer (xvi. 1, etc.), together
with earnestness in sanctification (comp. i.-v. as to
the way of life and death, especially iv. 13, etc.);
on the other hand, by mutual brotherly admonition
(iv. 2) and edification (xv. 2) must the believer make
moral progress in order that he may always come
nearer the goal of inward perfection (reXeicodyvat,
xvi. 2 ; comp. x. 5, viropevetv iv rfj irlarei, xvi. 5).
Watchfulness and constant readiness are so much
the more necessary, as we know not at what hour the
VOL. II. Y

338 THE POST-APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
Lord comes (xv. 1). It is plain that the expectation
of His coming in the near future filled the souls of
the Christians at that day. The conception of the
end of time (eaxarai Pf1. XVL 3, etc.) is based
in part on the eschatological discourses of Jesus
in Matt. xxiv. etc, and partly on 2 Thess. ii. with
Rev. xiii. Many false prophets and deceivers should
appear, so that believers themselves would be seduced,
and love be turned into hatred and persecution.
Then shall the world-deceiver (d xoapoirXavc&J Anti
christ) appear, giving out that he- ds God's son,
working signs and wonders, obtaining power over the
world. Then shall the creations of men come into
the fire of trial.1 Those who continue in the faith
will be saved from the accursed one.2 Then shall
appear the "signs of truth" in ^opposition 'to Anti
christ with his godless signs and lying wonders
(§ 4). The last of these signs is the resurrection
of the dead, not of all, but only of the holy. This-
seems to point to a kingdom of Christ on earth."
1 XV. 5: Tori n\u n xriais roiv xvGpaioruv us rhv orvpoiaiv rns
ioxiptxalx;. Hilgenfeld, Evangeliorum — qum supersunt, 1884,
p. 103, conjectures xplais instead of xriais, which cannot be
adopted because of ih r. yripcvotv r. Sox. Funk in Quartalschrift,
1884, p. 393, translates "the race of men ;" Sabatier, ante, p. 66,
I'humaniti; Harnack, Lehre, p. 62, " the creation of men "=xvtpooorlvn
xriais. In our opinion xriais means here, as often in profane
Greek, the founding, the doings of men. The whole clause appears
to us an allusion to and reminiscence of 1 Cor. iii. 13, etc. Tlvpoiais
rns "ioxipLxo'txs is an abstract expression for what is enunciated more
simply in apostolic language by (to 'ipyov) to <rvp "hoxipoxan.
2 The MS. has 'tsr' xvrov rov xxrxSiptxros. Bryennios, p. 54,
note 8, and after him Harnack, understand xxrxhpix of Christ,
whom those offending against Him regard as a "curse," — one
accursed. Funk conjectures ior' xvtov tov xxtoj Qipoxros = iori rns yns.
Few will see this. We agree here with the conjecture of Hilgenfeld,
ante, that im' should be read for xx' xvrov, etc.
s Harnack observes, Lehre, p. 166, under 7, "There is no special

TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. 339
Then shall the Lord come upon the clouds of heaven
before the eyes of the world.
From this survey it will be seen that the AiBaxy
contains a number of weighty facts in the scheme
of salvation, and of truths embraced in the apostolic
preaching ; and though they are not formulated in
exact conceptions and in the manner of a confes
sion of faith, they are still given in substance, to
some extent indirectly. It is a witness for the
common Christian faith which existed in the Churches
of that early time in a living state, as it had been
handed down. What this document, which in our
opinion belongs at the latest to the beginning of the
second century, if not to the end of the first a.d,
presents, is not a Judaistic character, as Harnack
rightly proves (ante, p. 166, No. 6, etc.), but a Gen
tile Christian one ; according to the inscription it
was intended T019 edveatv, and expressly warns
against the eating of flesh offered to idols, which is
a worship of dead gods (vi. § 3).1 It is also un-
mention of a kingdom of glory on earth." On the contrary, we
have to say that wherever two resurrections are spoken of in
Scripture and in the Fathers, a kingdom of glory on earth is also
implied, before the universal judgment and the creation of the
new world. When, therefore, the announcement is made, xvxarxais
vixpuv, ov •zxvroiv Se, etc., and also when the frxaiXilx of God is
mentioned (in x. 5), which He has prepared for His Church,
the expressions are based on the apostolic statements in 1 Cor.
xv. 23, etc. ; Apoc. xx. 4, etc. Thus it is implied that there
is to be a, kingdom of glory before the general resurrection and
judgment. 1 Sabatier, La Didachi, 1885, asserts absolutely that the
Teaching of the Apostles has a "Palestinian," i.e. a Jewish
Christian stamp. It is plain that on the one hand he undervalues
the positively Christian element which is partly expressed and
partly intimated ; on the other hand, the open opposition to Jewish
elements (viii. 1, etc.), as also the constant end in view for the

340 THE POST-APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
mistakeable that the doctrine of Christ and apostolic
truth were no longer preserved in a state altogether
genuine and pure, but that they had been clouded
and disfigured as well as weakened by self-righteous
representations (comp. the word of Christ in Matt.
vii. 12, with AiB. i. 2, where the former is nega
tively transformed and weakened, besides vi. 2, and
other expressions).
After the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles comes
the (First) Epistle of the Boman Clement to the
Corinthians, a work which is also illuminated by
" the evening red of apostolic splendour," 1 but
testifying to a form of life grown pale. A higher
rank belongs of right to this treatise, not merely on
account of the comparative certainty of its com
position by an alleged disciple of the apostles, as the
letter of a Church such as that of Rome, not merely
because of its high antiquity (the last decade of the
first century),2 but also on account of its internal
benefit of Gentile Christians, not merely in the title but also in
the contents themselves. So much must be conceded, that what is
communicated came forth originally from primitive apostolic preach
ing and ethics, as is clearly seen.
1 Jacobi, Die kirchliche Lehre von der Tradition und heiligen
Schrift, 1847, p. 44.
2 That the author of our Epistle, i.e. the so-called first Epistle,
was the Roman Clement is so well attested that it has been always
admitted, and but seldom doubted, on grounds that are weak, as by
Baur (Paulus, 1st ed. 472, note, 2nd ed. ii. p. 68, etc, also Die Igna-
tianischen Briefe, 1848, p. 127, etc.), Schwegler (Nachapostolische
Zeit. ii. 125, etc.), and by Volkmar, Theol. Jahrbiicher, 1856, p. 287,
etc. It may certainly be suggested with propriety, as Hilgenfeld, Die
apost. Vdter, 1853, p. 29, says, that its authenticity cannot be spoken
of inasmuch as the Epistle itself makes no pretension to the name
of Clement. But the tradition of his authorship goes so far back
(even to the middle of the second century), and is so constant as
well as uniform, that it has the same weight with the testimony

EPISTLE OF THE ROMAN CLEMENT. 341
character and value, which have been recognised
from very old times down to our own time, with
few exceptions ; and have even procured for it the
authority of a public ecclesiastical document to be
of the work itself. Schwegler had derived, from the indubitable
circumstance that there are numerous pseudo-Clementine works, a
suspicion against the present Epistle also ; and Bunsen, Ignatius
und seine Zeit, 1847, had carried this ad absurdum by the
answer : because there are pseudo - Isidorian, pseudo - Platonic,
pseudo-Virgilian writings, we must consider all that bears the name
of Isidore, Plato, and Virgil to be spurious. Ritschl, Altkath.
Kirche, 1st ed. p. 283, etc., has triumphantly defended the Epistle's
authenticity ; and even within the school of Baur it is admitted by
Zeller, Theolog. Jahrb. 1842, p. 61, etc, and Kostlin, ibid. 1850,
p. 247, etc. Hilgenfeld, Apost. Vdter, p. 96, etc., has advanced an
argument against Clement's authorship, that the Epistle is essentially
Pauline ; and there is a weighty anti-Pauline tradition, according to
which Clement was the confidential disciple and immediate suc
cessor of Peter in Rome, opposed to that which he calls the Petro-
Pauline one, so that Clement must have stood on the side of Peter,
and can hardly have been the writer. This suspicion has been
deprived of all weight by Lipsius' critical examination (De
Clementis Rom. ep. ad Cor. 1853, p. 166, etc.) of "the Petrine
legend," showing that the latter passed out of the pseudo-Clemen
tine literature into the Latin tradition. It appears to us that an
excessive and credulous love for the pseudo-Clementines, in which
Hilgenfeld has elsewhere put too much trust, has blinded his eyes
in the present case. As to the date, we may briefly remark
here that investigations of the Epistle (Rothe, Bunsen, Hilgenfeld,
Gundert, Zeitschrift fur luth. Theol. 1853, p. 643 ; Lipsius, p.
137, etc. ; Zahn, ffirt des Hermas, 1868, p. 44, etc. ; A. Harnack,
Clementis rom. epistolee, 1876, Proleg. lvi. etc.) have all arrived
at the same result as formerly Cotelier, Tillemont, and others, viz.
93-96 a.d. Volkmar's assertion (ante), that the letter may have
been written about 120 a.d., categorical though it appears, rests on
a weak foundation. It is now pretty generally allowed that it was
written in the year 95 or 96. Since 1875 the learned world pos
sesses the Epistle entire in Bryennios' edition, chap. lvii. (end) to
chap. lxiv. (beginning) having been lost till then. It has now
sixty-five chapters, particularly the fine prayer in lix.-lxi., not to
mention the valuable aid which the Constantinopolitan MS. has
rendered to the criticism of the text.

342 THE POST-APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
read in churches. Eusebius, in his Hist, eccles.
iii. 16, calls it p.eydXy re xal davpaala (eiriaroXy),
not without reason. It is, in fact, a precious Epistle,
proceeding right out of life and tending to promote life,
written with warmth and heartiness, instructive and
edifying, a jewel of Christian antiquity, out of which
there speaks " a soul full of harmony and clear
ness." 1 On the breaking out of differences in the
Corinthian Church, which had led to the deposition
of some pious elders through the intrigues of
ambitious partisans, the Roman Church addresses the
sister one at Corinth, and forcibly urges it with
heartfelt sympathy to repentance and reformation,
to humility and mutual conciliation, to peaceableness
and brotherly love, to the keeping of ecclesiastical
order, and to diligence in good works. The leading
motive to such conduct is prominently set forth as
the will of God and the holy vocation of Christians,
the example of Christ who humbled Himself, but
especially the near approach of the Lord's coming
and His kingdom, which it can only be the privilege
of His faithful servants to enjoy.
The chief question for us is this : What doctrinal
character does the Epistle present ? A subordinate
question is : Is the author to be reckoned among
Gentile Christians ? The latter is commonly
assumed. On the contrary, Gundert in the Zeit
schrift fur luth. Theol. 1853, p. 651, concludes from
the praise of the primitive Fathers in chap, xxxii.
that the writer must have been born an Israelite ; but
the passage contains nothing whatever that a believino-
Gentile Christian could not have said as well, on the
basis of the Old Testament Scriptures. The pre-
1 Dorner, Lehre von der Person Christi, i. 136.

EPISTLE OF THE ROMAN CLEMENT. 343
vailing assumption is that the doctrinal character of
the Epistle is Pauline — a position combated by the
school of Baur. Kostlin in particular has asserted
(Theol. Jahrb. 1850, p. 247) that the Epistle cannot
have come out of the Pauline circle, because it shows
that Petrine Jewish Christianity had the upper hand
in Rome at that time. Schwegler, though putting
the Epistle mainly into the Pauline series, still
regards it as a mediating accommodation to Jewish
Christianity, the intention being to bring together
opposites in the apostles Paul and James, the
irtarts and the epya, by an external connecting
link, so that the work has a " washy," characterless
stamp. After an attentive and impartial perusal, we
cannot discover a single obvious trace of regard to
Jewish Christian antitheses, or any side glance at the
relation between Gentile and Jewish Christians.
Rather -does the Epistle give one the impression,
partly that the Corinthian errors had no national, or
if we may venture to say so, no confessional colour
ing ; partly that the opposition between the Gentile
and Jewish Christian tendencies was no longer
visible in the Roman Church. The fundamental
view of Christianity which lies at the basis of the
author's admonitions, as also the mode of thinking
in the Roman Church of that day, in whose name
Clement took up his pen,1 appears from what we are
about to say. In plain words he confesses " redemp
tion by the blood of the Lord for all who believe
1 This point of view is justly emphasized by Kostlin (Theol.
Jahrb.) in declaring the Epistle as a Church letter to be an authentic
document attesting the standpoint of the majority in Rome. But
from what we have observed we draw a conclusion opposite to
his.

344 THE POST-APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
t
and hope in God " (chap. xii. § 7) ; 1 still further, he
says : " Now Jacob's posterity became great not for
their own sake, or for their works, or for the righteous
deeds which they had done, but through God's will.
And we also being called by His will in Christ
Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, neither by our
own wisdom or knowledge or piety, or the works
which we have done in holiness of heart, but by that
faith (ov Bi' eavrcov Btxatovpeda — dXXd Bid rrjs
iriarecos) by which Almighty God has justified all
men from the beginning" (chap, xxxii. § 3, etc.).
Though the former position is nearly parallel to
Peter's saying in 1 Pet. i. 18, etc, it is all the more
certain that the latter, which teaches salvation by
faith exclusive of works, is purely Pauline, even
with respect to the Old Testament conception of the
way of salvation.2 According to the words quoted
it cannot certainly be assumed that a Mosaic legal
righteousness was in Clement's mind, as Kostlin
supposes (see ante) when he asserts in definite terms,
that not only the moral law, but the Mosaic law
itself, is represented as perpetually valid ; for no
one can understand the passages in that case if
he considers them in connection with what
immediately follows (xii. liv.) — the very passages
1 The red sign in the window of Rahab signified .- h'n Sj« tov
xi [axtos rov xvpiov Xvrpeua is tarxt orxaiv ro7s artarlv ova iv xxi
iXm'C\ovaiv ivri rov hiv, chap. xii. Patrum Apostolicorum Opera,
rec. Dressel, Lips. 1857 ; Clementis rom. epp. ed. de Gebhardt,
Harnack, 1876, p. 26.
2 That the latter position is a genuine Pauline one is admitted
not only by Lipsius, De Clementis rom. epist. 1855, p. 82 ; Ritschl,
Entstehung der altkath. Kirche, 2nd ed. p. 275 ; by Engelhardt,
Christenthum Justin's des Mdrtyrers, 1878, p. 396, and elsewhere •
but even by Hilgenfeld, Ap. Vdter, p. 86 ; Pfleiderer, Pautinismus,
l>. 409 (a strict Pauline turn), and others.

EPISTLE OF THE ROMAN CLEMENT. 345
on which the hazardous assertion rests (chaps, xl.
and Iiii.).
Nowhere does Clement in the Epistle subject
Christians to the Mosaic law, nowhere does he assert
the maintenance of Judaism, nowhere does he
directly contradict the Pauline doctrine of faith, no
where does he put together externally merely iriaris
xal epya as the way of salvation. In every place
he requires not Levitical and legal righteousness, but
Christian virtue, inculcating withal the love that
produces works, without deriving them so clearly and
fundamentally as Paul does from faith as its fruits
and the manifestations of its life.1
As to the death of Jesus, Ritschl does not appre
hend Clement correctly when he supposes (2nd ed.
p. 281, etc.) that he perceives in the death of Jesus
nothing but an act of humility and patience, a
moral example, not one of redemption. He sees in
it not the establishment of a new relation to God,
but only the occasion of a new condition into which
man enters with respect to God. It is clear enough
from the passages themselves that Clement recognises
the death of Christ as assuredly a redemptive and
1 In order to show that Clement is not quite correct in handling
the Pauline system of doctrine when he speaks of justification by
faith or by works, though he is Pauline in the main, Lipsius adduces
iu § 68, etc., among other expressions, chap, xiii, where it is said,
oroniv xplpox xxi lixxioavvnv. But this irests on a misappre
hension. The words in question belong still to the Old Testa
ment language in Jeremiah, comp. 1 Sam. ii. 10, and therefore they
have a different sense to that which Lipsius supposes. This much
is correct, that Clement conceives of faith itself as an ethical pro
cess. Whether, therefore, it be quite appropriate to say that
according to Clement, non opera fide sed fides operibus continetur,
or that his doctrine of faith and works " smacks of Judaism," p. 69,
we must doubt.

346 THE POST- APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
atoning act, for example, chap. xxi. 6 : tov xvpiov
'Iyaovv, ov to alpa virep ypcov iSody, ivrpaircbpev
chap. xlix. 6 : Bid ryv dydiryv yv eaxev irpos yfi.ds,
rb alpa avrov eScoxev iitrep ypcov 'Iyaovs Xpiaros
— xal ryv adpxa virep rys aapxbs yp-iov, xal ryv
ifrvxyv virep tcov yfrvxcov ypcov; comp. Rom. v. 8—
vii. 4 : Areviacopev els to alpa rov Xptarov
xal yveopev cos eanv rlpiov rep deep tq> irarpl avrov,
on Bid t^i> yperepav acoryptav ixxvdev iravrl rep
xbapeo peravoias X"-Plv irryveyxev. The words
respecting a change of mind do not at all compel
us to assume that Clement wishes to take back
what he has said here ; on the contrary, the idea of
substitution must be admitted in these expressions
all the more confidently, because the same is con
tained in the words of the 49th chapter through
several variations. If, as Lipsius himself allows, the
notion of substitution cannot be avoided here, it is
much more surely in the other utterances. The
death of Jesus as an atoning fact works, according
to Clement, the true repentance which receives the
forgiveness of sins in faith. It is true that Clement
insists very strongly and in ever new turns of expres
sion upon Christian virtue, love, humility, good
works, and founds his requirement of them not
merely by referring to the redemption effected by
Christ, His example and command (xiii. 49), but
also by an appeal to the will of God. But that
coincides with the occasion of the letter and its
practical purpose. Though the Epistle departs in
many ways from the sharp Pauline doctrine in its
hortatory parts, yet in its expression of justification
by faith, of the substitutionary character of Jesus'
death, and in the usually typical and allegorical use

EPISTLE OF THE ROMAN CLEMENT. 347
of the Old Testament, the Pauline spirit appears so
unmistakeably, that one can surely venture to say,
Clement shows himself a Pauline disciple. He sets
the apostle high enough, and uses his authority in
order to make an impression on the Corinthians by
appealing to him and his letter (chap, xlvii.). Not
only do Ritschl and Thiersch (ap. Zeit, p. 347, etc.),
but also Hilgenfeld, Gundert, Lipsius, Engelhardt,
acknowledge the genuine Pauline basis of the Epistle's
doctrine. And this surely establishes the fact, since
it is a Church letter, that the Boman Church, at the
close of the first century, so far from being attached
to Ebionism, or even approaching it, had on the con
trary a Pauline tendency. The breach between the
Gentile and Jewish Christians was past, Judaistic
strivings had ceased, there was no more talk of opposi
tion between Peter and Paul, but the two apostles
were considered a united pair, chap. v. Still more ;
that breach between them which has been assumed
can never have been established before (comp.
Gundert, ante, 1854, p. 484, etc.; Lipsius, ante, p. 126,
etc.). Moreover, Judaism could not have prevailed
in Corinth at that time any more than in Rome. A
contrast between Pauline and Jewish Christianity
could not even have existed. The Corinthian parties
spoken of in the letter were Pauline Christians ; and
the whole Church did homage to the Apostle of the
Gentiles by whom it was founded, chap, xlvii. The
question there had nothing to do with an antagonism
between Peter and Paul ; the former Petrine, Pauline,
and Apollos parties had all disappeared ancl were
known only by Paul's Epistle. There is no trace of a
Judaistic element at that time ; and the letter of the
Roman Church unmistakeably presupposes the exist-

343 THE POST- APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
ence of faith and doctrine alike among the Roman
and Corinthian Christians. Hence the Epistle of
Clement affords an irrefragable testimony in favour
of a mode of thought and doctrine essentially Pauline
in these two important Churches of Christendom
before the end of the first century.
The so-called Second Epistle of Clement is not an
Epistle, nor does it belong to the Roman Clement or
proceed from the time when he lived. This was
perceived long ago.1 Since its publication by Bryen-
nios, which appeared in a complete form for the first
time in 1875, it has been put beyond doubt that it
is nothing but a homily, the oldest sermon with
which we are yet acquainted. It contains no less
than twenty chapters, instead of the twelve that we
had before. The unknown author calls his address at
the close, chap. xix. § 1, an evrevgis (exhortation,
admonition) et'9 to irpoaexetv rots yeypappevois, ancl
designates himself as one that avayiveoaxcov iv vplv.
When he exhorts, in chap. xvii. § 3 : orav els oixov
diraXXaycopev, pvypovevcopev tcov tov xvpiov evraX-
pidrcov, etc, it is clear that he has in view the return
of the worshipping congregation in which he appears
1 So early as 1698 the learned German, J. E. Grabe, living in
England, Spicilegium ss. patrum, i. 268, conjectured that the work
in question is the fragment of a homily. This view was approved in
the first and second editions of the present work (1851, 1857), and
by Hefele also, Pater ap. 3rd ed. p. xxxi.w, as well as Hilgenfeld,
Ap. Vdter, p. 111. Yet the last-named afterwards hazarded the
conjecture, N. Test. fasc. i. p. 39, that the work is nothing but
that which Bishop Soter of Rome, 167-175, addressed to the Corin
thians, according to the statement of Dionysius, bishop of Corinth
(Euseb. H. E. iv. 23, § 10). This hypothesis was also adopted by
Harnack, Patres app. i. 1875, Proleg. xci. All this is now set aside
since full light has been thrown upon the work by the appearance of
the complete text.

EPISTLE OF BARNABAS. 349
as a speaker, to their homes. The author is unques
tionably a Gentile by birth, and addresses converted
Gentiles. He betrays a decidedly anti- Jewish dis
position, when it is said, applying the prophecy of
Isa. liv. 1 to the Gentile Church, " our people seemed
desolate and forsaken of God, whereas now having
believed we are more than those who seemed to have
God" (irXeioves iyevopeda tcov Boxovvtcov exetv
deov), chap., ii. § 3, which means more numerous
than the Church of Israel — an expression that shows
a mean opinion of the Jewish people and the value
of their piety. All the higher is the author's view
of Christ, for in § 1, etc., he puts forward the
principle, " We ought so to think of Jesus Christ as
of God, as of the judge of quick and dead. We
ought not to think meanly of our salvation ; " " Him
who has redeemed us we should not merely call Lord,
Lord, but confess Him with upright obedience and
holy conversation," chap. iv. § 1, etc. The entire homily
insists upon practical Christianity, but on the ground
of redemption by Christ, originating in God's mercy.1
On the other hand, the so-called Epistle of Barnabas
is a primitive document actually proceeding out of
the circle of the apostolic Fathers. Like Clement's
first Epistle, it does not itself give the author's name ;
the Alexandrians Clement and Origen are the first

1 This production is said to betray an Ebionite way of thinkiDg
by Schwegler (ante, i. 448, etc.), who had, it is true, a predecessor of
the same opinion in Schneckenburger, Evangelium der ^Egypter,
1834 ; but Ebionism only in such a way that there must be "a com
bating of Ebionism within Ebionism" (p. 454), i.e. a wooden poker.
The arguments adduced on this behalf have already been thoroughly
refuted by Ritschl, Altkath. Kirche, 1st ed. p. 295, etc., 2nd ed. p.
286, etc, who shows that the ethics of the work rest not only on the
authority of the Mosaic law but upon the gospel, and reminding the

350 THE POST- APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
that call him Barnabas. To specify the work as
„ pseudonymous " with Harnack, Patres apost. i.
1875, p. xlvi., and with Engelhardt, Christenthum
Justin's, p. 375, "pseudo-Barnabas," is without
cause, since it has not a single passage indicating
that Barnabas is the writer ; comp. Riggenbach, Her
sogen. Brief des Barnabas, Program. 1873, p. 4. It
is acknowledged by all inquirers, even by Roman
Catholic scholars, that Barnabas could not have
written the letter (e.g. Hug, Hefele, Das Sendschreiben
¦des Ap. Barnabas, 1840, p. 147, etc.; Funk, Patres
apost. 5th ed. 1878, Proleg. iv. etc.). As to its date,
the production was written at the earliest soon after
the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by
Titus (70); at the latest, shortly before the second
Roman- Jewish war under Hadrian (before 132). In
chap. iv. (end) and chap. xvi. the destruction of
Jerusalem and of the temple are mentioned, and
that in such a way as to lead to the pretty certain
conclusion of the events having happened not long
before. Besides, the constant emergence of eschato
logy and millenarianism points to the nearness of
the apostolic time.
The fundamental character of this Epistle consists
in its opposition to Judaism. Hilgenfeld's observa
tion, Apost. Vater, p. 37, that the high antiquity of
reader that the antithesis of xluv oZros and poixxav, as well as asceti
cism and repentance, are not in themselves Ebionite. Hilgenfeld,
Apost. Vdter, p. 118, etc., expressed the same opinion. In the
meantime, it must be conceded that the homily contains a moral
weakening of Christianity, deviating far from the apostolic doctrine.
For this reason Engelhardt, Christenthum Justin's, p. 401, etc.
igrees with the date proposed by Harnack, Zeitschrift fur K. Gesch.
1876, i. 264, etc, 329, etc., only in the sense of its being brought
down far within the limits of Irenseus' lifetime.

EPISTLE OF BARNABAS. 351
the work shows itself in this disputed question about
the relation of Christianity to the law, is correct.
In its doctrinal part, chaps, i.-xvii, apart from its
beginning and end, we hardly find a chapter in
which that contrariety is not expressed partly by a
typical explanation of Old Testament occurrences and
arrangements, referring them to Christ and the New
Testament, partly by express polemics. The author
warns his readers against their attaching themselves
as proselytes to Mosaism ; 1 and he proposes to further
their faith and knowledge (yvcoais) by way of sup
porting this warning. This yvwats consists in seeing
that the New Testament as the true and perfect one
had been already announced and prepared for in the
Old, inasmuch as, on the one hand, ordinances of the
law, such as precepts about food, the Sabbath, circum
cision, sacrifices, but especially the rite of the feast
of Atonement (chaps, x., xv. 7-9), are types of Christ,
His sufferings, and His commandments ; on the other,
the prophets already declared how vain and unpleas-
ing to God were the fasts and sacrifices of the Jews
(chap. iii. 4), yea, how in the course of the history
of the old covenant, e.g. when Moses brake the ten
tables, Israel already lost the covenant (iv. 13, etc.),
all of which has now been fulfilled by the appearance
of Christ and by the rejection of the Jews at the
destruction of Jerusalem (iv. 16).
1 Chap. iii. conclusion : God has given us His revelation before
hand concerning all things, that we should not come as proselytes to
their law : civx pen orpoaptjaaevpol^x as ivrtXvrol rai ixllvoiv vopiy. We owe
to Tischendorf and the Sinaitic Bible MS. the Greek text of the first
four chapters, which we had before only in an old Latin translation,
chap. iv. 6 : "En Se xxi rovro ipoiru vpjoxs — orpoai%ltv vyv ixvrols xxi pxri
ipLiiovaixi Tiaiv Wiaoipliovras tx7s xpixprtxis vptoiv, Xiyovrxs on n
oix^nxn ixilvotv xxi hptaiv iariv.

352 THE POST- APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
.By the author's assertions that the law in its literal
sense was from the beginning of no value, that we
Christians alone have the right covenant, circumcision,
the Sabbath, that what the Jews have, apart from
the Church of Christ, is unpleasing to God, he goes
far beyond the Apostle Paul, who constantly and
expressly recognised the divine authority of Mosaism
in respect to the pre-Christian age. In short, by
such systematic carrying out of allegorical and typical
Scripture interpretation (yvcoats), a near approach is
made to the dualistic Gnostic view, but without
actually overpassing the limits which separate doctrine
and doctrinal error (Ritschl, 1st ed. p. 294, etc. ;
Reuss, Hist, de la thiol, ii. 557, etc. ; Hilgenfeld,
p. 41, etc.). Christ has brought in a new law without
the yoke of necessity.1 He became a man and
appeared in the flesh, for otherwise we could not see
Him and remain uninjured, as one cannot endure to
look at the rays of the sun, which is His work, and
will be one day no more (chap. v.). He suffered that
we might be sanctified by the remission of sins, by the
sprinkling of His blood, and by His stripes be healed
(chaps, v. 1, vii. 2).2 The true temple is the human
heart, in which God Himself dwells by the inhabita
tion of Christ (chaps, vi. iv. xvi.) ; give good laws to
yourselves (chap, xxi.: eavrcov ylveade vopoderai
dyadol). A broken heart is the sacrifice that is well-
pleasing to God. It is only circumcision of heart
(and ears) that is of value in His sight (ii. iv. ix.) ;
Chap. ii. 6: Txvtx ovv xxrnpynaiv, "vx o xxivos vopcos rev xvpiov
hpooiv 'Inaov Xptarov, xviv %vyov xvxyxns oiv, poh avSpuToorolnrov iyvj
rnv orpooQopxv.
2 Chap. vii. 2 : El ovv o vlos rov 6sov, ovv xvpios xxi pilXXuv xplvuv ^aivrx;
xxi vixpovs, 'iyxhv "vx n n-Xnyn xvrov Z,ot OT otnan hpoxs, orianvaovptiv oti
i vlis rov Siov ovx nhiivxro orxH7v, u ptn ot' hpoxs.

IGNATIAN EPISTLES. 353
and the eighth day has taken the place of the Sabbath,
a day of gladness on which Jesus rose from the dead
(chap. xv.).
With such decision is the newness and independ
ence of Christianity spoken of here, a system taking
the place of the old covenant now abolished and of the
Mosaic law ; with such incisive sharpness are com
plete Judaism and Judaizing elements in Christianity
combated. The spirit of the Epistle seems to be :
" Old things are passed away, behold all is new."
The production, with its opposition to the Mosaic
law, certainly originated in the sphere of Pauline
Christianity, though the form of the Pauline doctrine
is less apparent in it than in the view peculiar to the
Epistle to the Hebrews.1
In their doctrinal tendency the Epistles of Ignatius
have much similarity to Barnabas' Epistle, to which
also the date is near, if their authenticity be assumed.
The fundamental bearing of the Epistles is a practical
one. They aim at ecclesiastical unity, a subject which
we have already glanced at (p. 326, vol. ii.). We con
fine ourselves at present to what is doctrinal in them.2
1 It was a correct remark of Ritschl's, Altkath. Kirche, 1st ed.
p. 244, etc., especially p. 276, comp. p. 243, that the Epistle can
only be apprehended as an "evolution of the Pauline principle;"
while Dorner (ante, pp. 185, 168, note 22) sees again the Petrine
type of doctrine. Schwegler, ii. p. 240, etc, concedes the fact of " an
anti- Ebionite polemic " in the Epistle, but he inclines to look upon
that as a "transition of Alexandrian Judaism to gnosis." Comp.
Weizsacker Zur Kritik des Barnabasbriefs aus dem Sinaiticus,
1863 p. 41, etc. But to say that the Epistle contains the Pauline-
doctrine only in "a weak diluted form," the favourite expressions
of Paul as "mere formulas" (Pfleiderer, Pautinismus, p. 399), is
inappropriate. Comp, on the other hand, Engelhardt, Christenthum
Justin's, p. 381, etc.
2 Comp. Zahn, Ignatius von Antiochien, 1873, pp. 453-490.
VOL. II Z

e

354 THE POST- APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
On the one hand, Ignatius opposes the docetic view
of Christ's person and sufferings (Trail, ix. etc. ;
Smyrn. ii. etc.) ; on the other, the Judaistic tendency
which had been amalgamated with Docetism in
Cerinthus and others. Ignatius declares himself
against every mixture of Christian and Jewish
elements, a polemic specially found in the letters to
the Churches of Magnesia and Philadelphia. In
particular he rejects Sabbath-keeping (aaBBari^eiv)
as inconsistent with the Christian life (Magn. xi. 1),
and is zealous against the observance of the Mosaic
ritual, the xard 'IovBaiapbv t,yv, which is in his view
an evil leaven that has waxed old and become sour,
altogether incompatible with the confession of Jesus
as the Christ (droirbv iariv Xpiarbv 'Iyaovv XaXetv
xal lovBat^eiv, Magn. x. 3). This principle he estab
lishes first historically : Christianity did not believe
on Judaism, but Judaism on Christianity (same pas
sage) ; next doctrinally, by observing the Mosaic law
we should acknowledge that we have not received
grace.1 This latter assertion has a ring as Pauline as
if we had the Epistle to the Galatians before us.
Ignatius, like Barnabas, goes beyond the limits
observed by the Apostle Paul by reason of his honest
faith in the divinity of the entire old covenant. A
tolerably antinomian tendency appears in the letters
to the Magnesians and Philadelphians which are
occupied with Judaism; all Mosaic institutions are
absolutely rejected, and we find but once a word of
recognition toward the Mosaic law (Smyrn. v. 1),
but only so far as the law and the prophets pro
phesied of the Redeemer. What is said elsewhere
1 Ei yxp fi'iXP' <™» xxrx 'lovoxiapoov ZcHfiiv, opooXoyovpoiv %xpiv pen
ilXnfivxi, Magn. viii. 1.

IGNATIAN EPISTLES, 355
in recognition of the Old Testament concerns the
prophets alone, because they prophesied of, hoped and
waited for Christ (Philad. v. 2 ; Magn. viii. etc.). In
another place the author warns : " But if any man
preach unto you Judaism, hearken not unto him, for
it is better to hear Christianity from one circumcised
than Judaism from one uncircumcised.1 But if both
speak not concerning Jesus Christ, then are they in
my view tombs and graves on which are written only
the names of men " (Philad. vi. 1). The latter
remark deserves attention ; it lets us know that there
were still at that time native and circumcised
Israelites in the Church who were acknowledged to
be good Christians, with a true Christian confession
and life ; while, on the other hand, individual
Gentile Christians followed the observance of the
Mosaic ritual and judaized, though without sub
mitting to circumcision. Hence the latter was a
narrow Judaism, corresponding to the principles of
the Jewish Christians who had already renounced
circumcision as applied to native Gentiles. In accord
ance with this anti-Jewish character, which insists
upon the fundamental separation of Christianity ancl
Judaism, Christianity and Jewish Christianity, on the
independence of the Church of Christ, the author puts
the Apostle Paul very high (Eph. xii. 2), and has him
in view in various ways as an example even where he
does not name . him, using also his Epistles in par
ticular.2 In other respects, as to positive doctrinal
ideas, we do not find the sharp Pauline conceptions of
righteousness by faith in opposition to the righteous-
1 " ApjLiiv'ov iariv orxpx xvSpos Tiptropcnv i%ovros Xpiartxvirpiov xxovuv, n
orxpx. xxpof&varov 'lovoxiaptov, Philad. VI. 1.
2 Schwegler, ante, ii. p. 161, etc.

356 THE POST-APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
ness of works. Upon salvation in Christ alone and
exclusively — in Christ the God-man, the Crucified,
the Risen — Ignatius insists with stedfastness ; but he
does not with clearness, purity, and definiteness teach
the way of salvation, justification by faith alone ; 1
rather does he set faith and love completely on a level,
the one " the beginning of life," the other its " consum
mation" (Smyrn. vi. 1 : to yap oXov iarl irians xal
dydiry, cav obBev rrpoxexpirai ; Eph. xiv. ; Trail, viii.,
and other passages).
In Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians, which we
consider authentic,2 the laudatory mention of the
1 Philad. viii. 2 : 'E^o) Se xpx,t7x iariv (archives) 'Inaovs Xpiaros, rx
xStxrx xpfciix o arxvpos xvrov xxi o dxvxros xxi n xvxarxais xvrov, xxi h
orlaris n Si' xvrov' iv oTs Q'lXca ev rn orpoaiv%vl vptuv oixxiuSrivxi.
- The grounds on which Schwegler, ante, ii. p. 154, etc., and after
him Hilgenfeld, pp. 207, etc, 271, etc, oppose the authenticity of the
letter, are by no means valid ; for, 1st, The suspicion that the martyr
dom of Ignatius is implied in chap, ix, while in chap. xiii. he is still
alive, manifestly rests upon the incorrectness of the Latin translation,
chap, xiii., see Ritschl, Altkath. Kirche, 2nd ed. p. 585, etc. ; Hilgen
feld himself has therefore dropped this idea, p. 209. 2nd, The gnosis
opposed by Polycarp does not appear fully developed ; at all events
the intimations of the Epistle go far less into detail than do those of
the Ignatian letters. Hilgenfeld's assertion that this Epistle "pre
supposes the full development of the Gnostic heresies much more
than the Ignatian letters," is destitute of proof ; for even if we grant
that all the traits " concern the gnosis of Marcion," it is not proved
that they refer to Marcion alone and not to alleged prior errors as
well, e.g. those of Cerinthus, who, as is well known, denied the
appearance of Christ in the flesh and His sufferings. Even Schwegler's
stumbling at orpairoroxos rov axrxvx, chap, vii., strongly emphasized
by Hilgenfeld, is not dangerous ; the expression is so natural an ex
pansion of vlis lixfiixov, Acts xiii. 10, comp. 1 John iv. 2, etc, that
it might easily arise against a Cerinthus. 3rd, The solidarity of
Polycarp's Epistle with those of Ignatius, so that the former falls
inevitably under the same condemnation as the latter, being as is
alleged nothing but "a companion letter," "a preface" to the
pseudo-Ignatian, is so far from being proved that it is subject to the

polycarp's epistle. .-357
Apostle Paul is worthy of notice, who appears as the
perfect and incomparable teacher of truth (chap, iii.),1
comp. ix. 11; praise all the more natural as the
Epistle is addressed to a Church founded by Paul.
Such honourable recognition corresponds with the true
Pauline principle: %aptTt e'are aeacoapt'evot, ovx
6? epywv, dXXd deXyptan deov, Bid 'Iyaov Xptarov,
chap. i. § 3, comp. Eph. ii. 8, etc, and with the statement
in chap. iii. § 3, that hope follows faith but is preceded
by love, i.e. love is rooted in faith. We find Pauline
gravest doubt. For it is very questionable whether the Ignatian
Epistles with which we are familiar are meant by the word i-maroXxl,
chap. xiii. ; Hilgenfeld himself has not been able to get rid of every
doubt on the point, p. 120. Polycarp's Epistle is also separated by a
more temperate attitude, by the absence of opposition to Judaism, but
chiefly by the old simple Church order implied, — an arrangement
unknown to the Ignatian distinction between bishop and elders, — it
is so emphatically separated from the Ignatian Epistles that its
independence is clear enough to every impartial reader. In addition
to this, the weight of Irenseus' testimony (iii. 3, § 4) in favour of
the letter, both men being personally acquainted and in part con
temporary, cannot be easily lessened or set aside. We abide firmly
by the authenticity of the Epistle, which has been accepted by most
since the time of le Nourry ; in our days particularly by Neander,
Gieseler, Hefele, Dorner (ante, p. 171, etc, note), Uhlhorn, Zeit
schrift fur hist. Theol. 1851, p. 276, etc.; Zahn, Ignatius von
Antiochia, 1873, p. 492, etc. Against Ritschl, who allows the
authenticity but disputes the integrity, and conjectures the existence
of several interpolations from the hand that partly interpolated and
partly composed the Ignatian letters (Altkat h. Kirche, 2nded. p. 538,
etc.), we remark that his examination rests on an insecure founda
tion. He requires a strict connection both in a logical and aesthetic
point of view, and conjectures that there is interpolation wherever
this is wanting ; whereas precision and skilful arrangement do not
appear in Polycarp's way. Comp. Zahn, ante, p. 494.
1 Chap. iii. 2 : Ovri yxp iyoi, ovti xXXos opooios ipoal ovvxrxt xxrxxaXov-
Unaxt rn aoltix tov ptxxxplov xxi ivdo%ov TIxvXov' os ylvepoivos iv vpuv,
xxrx ftp'oaoiatov tojv r'orl xvfyevorovv £Si'Sa£ev xxpifous xxi f&lfixlojs Tov oripi
xXnhtxs X'oyov' os xxi xoruv vpuv lypx-tpiv ioriaroXxs, it; xs ixv iyxvvrnrl,
^vvTidnaiafa olxooopoCtaSxi us rnv 'oohTerxv vpttv vriartv.

358 THE POST-APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
expressions occurring elsewhere. But Polycarp does
not abide by Paul exclusively. In the testimonies
against docetism there are unmistakeable Johannine
assurances ; 1 and in other places Petrine citations, e.g.
in the exhortation to fear God, " believing on Him
who raised our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead,"
ii. 1 ; comp. 1 Pet. i. 21. All this, taken along
with the prevailing practical object of the Epistle,
leads to the opinion that Polycarp, who was certainly
not distinguished by richness and originality of ideas,
whose nature was reproductive rather than solid,
apprehended and expressed Christian truth with chief
regard to the unity of the apostolic teaching which
had been handed down.
The " Shepherd of Hermas," a production presum
ably having for its author the Hermas mentioned in
Rom. xvi. 14, but which does not belong to him,
having been composed in the first third of the second
century,2 certainly departs very strongly from the
Pauline system, redemption by the death of Jesus
being scarcely mentioned except in one- place.3 The
name of Jesus also never occurs in the whole book,
Chap. vii. : rt0j- ov pen optoXoyr 'iriaovv Xptarov iv axpxi iXnXvfivxt,
xvrl xpiaros iariv ; comp. 1 John iv. 3.
2 Comp. Liicke, Versuch einer vollstandigen Einteitung in dir
Offenbarung Johannis, 2nd ed. p. 337, etc. ; Schwegler, ante, i. 32S,
etc. ; Dorner, Lehre von der Person Christi, i. 185, etc, note 38 ;
Ritschl, Altkath. Kirche, 2nd ed. p. 288 ; Hilgenfeld, Ap. Vdter, p.
127, etc. ; Zahn, Hirt des Hermas, 1868 ; Engelhardt, Christenthum
Justin's, 1878, p. 410, etc. We owe the original Greek text,
instead of the unsatisfactory Latin translation, partly to Simonides,
ed. Anger and Dindorf, 1856, partly to Tischendorf and the
Sinaitic MS. of the Bible, which after Barnabas contains "the
Shepherd " also, or at least a good part of it.
3 Simil. V. 6, § 2 : Avros (o vlos) ras xptxprixs xvroiv ixxdxptal vroXXx
xoorixaxs xxi oroXXovs xinrovs nvrXnxois.

SHEPHERD OF HERMAS. 359
the chief weight being laid upon the law brought in
by Christ. Thus the prevailing standpoint is legal
to such a degree and in such a way as to pass over
entirely into the unevangelical region ; for not only
is one's own righteousness far overvalued, but even a
superfluous merit is attached to the pious,1 and the
doing away of sin by martyrdom is inculcated. It is,
however, a monstrous exaggeration on the part of
Schwegler when he asserts : " The spirit of Jewish,
legality and righteousness by works is so prevalent
in this writing, what is peculiarly Christian particu
larly in its Pauline aspect recedes so much into the
background, that but a few passages would have to
be effaced to make the whole book appear a produc
tion belonging to pre-Christian Judaism " (ante, i.
333, etc.). For such purpose we should rather have
to strike out whole sections treating of the Son of
God and the Church, of Christian Church order, etc. ;
in particular, we should be obliged to cancel all that
is said of the deity of Christ. Besides, " the law of
Christ" (see Ritschl, Alkath. Kirche, 2nd ed. p. 288,
etc.) is not declared to be identical with the Mosaic,
neither does Hermas inculcate duties specifically
Jewish Christian, e.g. circumcision for the Jews or
the proselyte laws for native Gentiles ; and nothing
specially Jewish lies in the asceticism required by
the Shepherd. Inasmuch as circumcision is not
made a condition of salvation, not even being once
named, whereas on the contrary the righteous of the
1 Simil. V. 3, § 2 : Taij ivroXxs \_rov xvpiov] (pvXxaai xxi lan ivxpiaros rip
*Je^. — S 3 : *Exv Ss rt ayxSov arotnans ixros rns ivroXns tov Slav, aixvrip
TriptToinan oo%xv oriptaaoripxv, xxi iari ivoo^oripos orxpx tx hoi ov ipeiXXis
iZvxi. Lipsius justly remarks, "The view of supererogatory merit
is usual in Hermas." Zeitschrift f. wiss. Theol. 1866, p. 49, etc.

360 THE POST- APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
old covenant must be baptized (in the under-world)
that they may be able to enter into the kingdom of
God (Simil. ix. 16 ; Vis. iii. 3, 5); inasmuch as there
is no trace of opposition to the Apostle Paul, who
is never mentioned ; still further, inasmuch as no
Levitical or peculiarly Mosaic enactments are recom
mended,-— there is no ground whatever for attributing
to the work a " decidedly Judaistic character," as
Hilgenfeld still does, App. Vater, p. 174. It can only
be asserted with reason that the work has a Jewish
Christian colouring because of its ethics (in which
its chief contents lie) setting out with the conception
of law, " the commandments of the Lord ; " without
giving due prominence to the distinction existing
between Christianity and the old covenant. It is
true that repentance is preached ; but Christian faith
as the root of a new life is not brought out or set
forth with emphasis.1

i

B. The Apologists.
Between the writings of the apostolic Fathers and
the works of the great Church teachers standing on
the line that separates the second and third centuries,
the apologists occupy a middle position not merely in
point of time but in fact, inasmuch as they form a
transition series. The most conspicuous among them
is unquestionably Justin the Martyr. The following-
brief remarks will show the standpoint of this Church
teacher who was a converted heathen, a Christian
1 Comp. Uhlhorn, "Ueber die ethischen Anschauungen des Her
mas," in Monatsschrift fur Theol. u. Kirche, by Liicke and Wieseler,
1850, pp. 226, etc, 271, etc., and the article "Hermas" in Theol.
Real-Encyklop. 2nd ed. 1880, vi. 9, etc., especially 13.

THE APOLOGISTS : JUSTIN MARTYR. 361
wearing the philosopher's cloak — how he stood in
relation to the old and new covenants, to Jewish ancl
Gentile Christianity. In the important dialogue with
Tryphon the Jew, which is a justification of Christi
anity against Judaism, Justin says to the Jew : We
believe in one and the same God with you, in the
God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ; but we do not
found our hope on Moses nor on the law ; the law
of Horeb has been done away by the new, ever valid
and eternal law which is Christ Himself, and by the new
covenant (chap, ii.) ; in particular, the ritual law with
circumcision and the regulations about meats, with the
Sabbath, and festivals, sacrifice, and the temple service
has been abolished. As these laws did not exist
before Moses in the time of the patriarchs, yet an
Abel, Enoch, Noah obtained God's favour without
circumcision and sabbatical feasts; and Abraham
himself obtained the promise before the introduction
of circumcision ; these commands should not be
valid novj ; the proper spiritual meaning originally-
lying at the basis of those divine ordinances, their
everlasting import (rd xadoXov xal cpvaet xal alcovia
xaXd), being preserved in Christianity, and not till
then becoming truly apparent (xix. xiii. xiv. etc.).
This view obviously rests on a Pauline basis,
though it is not carried out in a strictly Pauline
dogmatic form ; for the opposition of the old law and
the new comes in place of that between the law and
the gospel. Neither is the plan of salvation repre-

1 Dial, cum Tryphone, in Justin M. Opp. ed. Otto, ii. 1848,
p. 40 : 'O yxp iv Xejpnfi orxXxios «5« vopoos, xxi vpcovv pcovuv, o Se
^txvtovv xarXuis' vopoos Se xxrx voptov rlSiis tov •rpo xvrov ivrxvatv,
xxi otx&nxn ptlrioritrx ylvopeivn rnv -JrpoTipxv opcotus larnatv. Alxvios Tl
v\pt7v vopios xxi TlXivrxtos o Xpiaros ihoSn, etc.

362 THE POST-APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
sented in strict accordance with Pauline doctrine ; for
instead of repentance and faith Justin takes repent
ance, confession of Christ, and observance of His
commandments as the condition of forgiveness (xcv.).1
The dogmatic expression of Paul's mode of thought
is defective, but it is not therefore effaced, nor is it
exchanged for an opposite one.
Over against the view that makes Justin's
doctrinal system belong to Ebionism as a developed
phase of it (Schw egler, Nachapost. Zeit. i. 3 5 9, etc.), we
mention the central significance which the doctrine
of the Logos has in Justin as the divine principle of
all truth and revelation ; the whole Logos (d iras
Xoyos, Apol. ii. 8) has appeared in the person of the
God-man ; but wherever truth is and was, a partial
revelation, a germ (aireppta Xcyos aireppartxbs) of the
same Logos existed. Heathen philosophers and legis
lators, as well as the righteous men and prophets of
the old covenant, were partakers of the Logos in
fragments : they owed all the knowledge of th

e

truth, all the virtue they possessed to it alone, so
that individual heathen as well as Israelites may be
called " Christians " because of the Logos.2 If Justin
traces back all religious truth to Christ as its eternal,
only source, and recognises the existence of divine
truth and life in heathen soil as well as in the
people of Israel, this is a step so decided toward the
recognition of the independence and unique authority
of Christianity as a new and absolutely complete
1 Comp. Ritschl, Altkath. Kirche, 2nd ed. p. 289, etc.
" Apol. i. 46 : Tov Xptarov orpxroroxov rev Siov livxt iotoxv6npolv —
Xoyov ovrx, ev orxv ylvos avilpojWojv f/.lria%l, xxi ot petrol Xoyov fotxaxvns
Xpiartxvoi nat xxv xhoi ivopotaSnaxv, oiov iv 'EXXnai ptiv lotxpxrns xxi
'HpxxXstros xxi ol optotoi xvrols, iv fixpfixpois oi 'Afopxxpi xxi  'HXias xxi
xXXet orexxol, etc, not to mention many other places of similar purport.

EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS. 363
revelation of God, showing at the same time a stand
point so high, and comprehending all that is human,
that he should have been spared from being labelled
as Ebionitic. When Baur (Christenthum der drei ersten
Jahrhunderte, 2nd ed. p. 140, etc.) infers from the
fact that Justin does not recognise Pauline Christi
anity in express terms, never mentioning the Apostle
Paul even by name, that his position with respect to
Paulinism and Ebionism is a wavering and undecided
one, he has not taken into account that in all his
writings Justin has never mentioned by name a single
apostle as such, and no person in the new covenant
except the Lord Himself. How then can such a
conclusion be drawn from the above fact ? J
We here append to Justin the Epistle to Diognetus
formerly ascribed to him, but a long time since with
one accord denied to be his on linguistic and other
grounds, belonging to the middle of the second
century, and consequently to Justin's time.2 This
1 Comp. Engelhardt's Christenthum Justin's, p. 330, etc.
2 After Donaldson (Critical History, ii. 126) conjectured, as we
learn from Harnack's Patres Apost. i. 212, note 5, 1866, though
the conjecture is put forth with much reserve, that the Epistle was
written by a Greek who had wandered into Italy, after the fall of
Constantinople, in the fifteenth century, Overbeck endeavoured in
his Basel programme of 1872, "Ueber den Pseudojustinischen Brief
an Diognet," with great confidence to make good the assertion that
the letter is a, fiction of the post-Constantine time, palmed off in
imitation of the old ecclesiastical apologies as a writing supposed
to be addressed to Diognetus, the teacher of Marcus Aurelius.
This hypothesis has been contradicted by Hilgenfeld, Keim,
Lipsius, Gass, Semisch. A word in its favour, but with limita
tions, was published by Zahn and Harnack, Patres Apost. 1875,
i. 212 etc. It rests on nothing more than conjecture that the
person addressed is identical with the emperor's preceptor, and
that the forger palmed the work upon Justin Martyr. The latter
point is founded exclusively on the futile circumstance that the

364 THE POST-APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
production, one of the finest in contents and form
which we have received from the first centuries, —
a " patristic jewel," x — is distinguished among other
things by the position it takes over against Judaism.
The unknown author unfolding to Diognetus, a
distinguished heathen, the peculiar piety of Christians,
separates it from Judaism as sharply as he does from
heathenism ; 2 and after showing the folly of heathen
idolatry (chap, ii.) states that the Jewish worship
also was not a rational one ; for though the Jews pray
to the one God, they are wanting in the manner of
their adoration, because like the heathen they serve God
with sacrifices as if He needed them (chap, iii.), with
abstinence from certain kinds of food, with a super
stitious observance of the Sabbath, with circumcision,
on which they prided themselves ; also with the
letter was bound up with several works erroneously ascribed to
Justin in a Strassburg MS. now burnt ; while the contents do not
betray by a single word any design of representing Justin as the
author. On the other hand, the Epistle has more than one expres
sion and indication that exclude its composition after the time of
Constantine the Great ; for example, the hatred and persecution of
the Christians (chap. v. etc. ) appear to be things belonging to the
time of the writer. Besides, the expectation of the Redeemer's
impending advent to judgment appears in a vivid way, which
could scarcely exist after Constantine (comp. chap. vii. t>). Over-
beck's remark, approved by Harnack, ante, p. 214, note 11, that the
Christology is more developed than Justin's, rests on the reading in
ix. 1 : avv t» Txtlii olxovepeixeHs, rejected by Harnack himself, and
changed into olxovoptnxws. But this is to make the whole admoni
tion vanish, for the expression orxvrx — olxovo/i.i7v has a simple plain
sense in conformity with familiar Greek usage, while the adverb
elxevopuxoZs seems to belong to the developed theological language
connected with the Trinity.
1 Bunsen, Hippolytus und seine Zeit, i. 138.
2 Chap. i. : Ovti robs vopt,tZ,epeivovs vote ruv 'EXXnvojv hobs XoylZ,ovrxi,
tin rnv '\ovbxlaiv Seio- toxiptovlxv epvXxaaovaiv. Comp. chap. iv. 6:
T«s ptiv ovv xoivns ilxxiornros xxi xorxrns, xxi rns 'lovoxtuv oroXv-
•ff pxypixovvns xxi xXxt^ovilxs ojs opHovs xori%oyrxt Xptartx-.o'i.

EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS. 365
observance of fasts and new moons (chap, iv.).1 The
author uses strong language, throwing in with rela
tion to these things the words : daeBes, ^Xev779 dgiov,
xarayeXaarov, deppoavvy, pcopia. It is plain from
various traits with which his Hellenic culture
harmonizes, that the author was a Gentile Christian
living in a circle in which, with the exception of
Gentile Christians that would know nothing of the
Mosaic law, there were none but heathens and
unbelieving Jews, no Jewish Christians ; and in the
midst of persecutions which had hitherto come not
merely from the heathen but also from the Jews.2
These persecutions must have contributed to the
ever-widening and rugged breach between Jews and
Christians. With this agrees the positive doctrine
of the Epistle, which goes back unmistakeably to Paul
and John, especially in viewing Christ as the incar
nate world-creating Logos (ainbs b rexvlrys xal
Bypiovpybs tcov bXtov, vii. § 2), who interceded for us
that we might be reconciled and justified through
Him.3 Thus we find in the writings of the apostolic
1 Chap. iv. 1 : To yi oripl rxs fipuaus xvruv ^/oipedtis, xxi rnv iripi rx
ffoif&fixrx 'bltaih'xipoovlxv, xxi rnv rns oriptropons o\XxZ,aviixv, xxi rnv
rns vnarilxs xxi vovfenvlxs lipuvilav, xxrxy'lXxarx xxi ovoiv'os x^ix
Xoyov, etc.
2 In chap. v. 17 it is said of Christians : vxo 'levlxluv us xxxi-
<pvXoi oroXipoovvrxi voto 'EXXnuv oiixovrxt. Thus we read in the
history of the martyr-death of Polycarp, that when the command
was given to burn him alive, and the people brought wood for
the purpose, the Jews were those who, us ihs xvruv, showed special
zeal in the affair, Martyrium Polycarpi, chap, xiii., in Dressel,
Patres Apost. p. 400.
3 "Iv« xvopelx poiv oreXXuv iv hxxitf svi xpv/in, ttxxieavvn Se evo; rroXXebs
kv'opoevs otxxiuar,, chap. ix. 5. — It deserves mention that Schwegler
has completely passed over the Epistle to Diognetus with the

366 THE POST- APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
Fathers as well as the other productions of the second
century preceding the anti-Gnostic Church teachers,
with the single exception of the pseudo-Clementines,
neither a Judaistic tendency nor a mediating arrange
ment between Pauline and Ebionitic parties, but
sometimes a decided anti-Jewish mode of thought (in
Barnabas, Clement II, Justin, and the Epistle to
Diognetus) ; sometimes a standpoint which allows
the Pauline doctrinal ground to be seen, connecting
with it at the same time the fundamental ideas con
tained in other apostolic writings, so that the personal
authority of Paul without opposition to Peter is
acknowledged, though with some deviation from the
precise Pauline form (Clement of Rome, Ignatius,
Polycarp). Even in a production farthest removed
from the primitive and powerful freshness, from the
evangelical freedom, the humble, believing, forcible
spirit of the Gentile apostle, like the Shepherd of
Hermas, there appears neither aught that is anti-
Pauline nor anything Judaistic, notwithstanding all
the legality and sanctity of works to which the book
leans. It is true that we cannot but see in the post-
apostolic age a strong propensity to deviate from the
full, pure apostolic doctrine especially Paul's ; nor is
it an obscure fact that the gospel of God's free grace
in Christ the only Saviour, and of justification by
faith, was gradually supplanted, and that a spirit of
legality and self-righteousness began to spring up on
exception of two remarks with which it is briefly dismissed (Nacha-
post Zeitalter, ii. 35, 240) ; while he brings out with great zeal
the smallest fragments if they appear favourable to his Ebionite
hypothesis. But the Epistle has its rights ; why does he not
adapt it to his system ? The promise is made at first that "exist
ing historical materials will be organically incorporated within the
fundamental lines which are traced " (ante, i. 1).

THE GNOSTIC SECT'S. 367
Christian soil ; in short, that the current was driving
on to Catholicism. But we can discover nothing of
a prevailing Ebionism in the Gentile Christian Church
in the post-apostolic age, nothing of a contest between
a Pauline and a Petrine party, between Paulinism and
Ebionism, which, as is said, ran through the whole of
the second century, nor anything of mutual approach
and compromising mediation brought about gradually.
We have been able to find nothing of an arrangement
effected at last. We may touch still further on one
point only. The development of Christian dogma
entered upon a course essentially anti-Jewish with
respect to the doctrine of the Logos, into which as a
central point all the strength of the Church was soon
put. Now it is admitted that the doctrine of Christ's
person necessarily proceeds hand in hand with the
Christian standpoint, so that the lower the view
taken of Christianity, its historical lateness and
authority, the lower is also the view formed of
Christ's person, and vice versa. Accordingly the
opposition to a really Ebionite mode of thinking was
concentrated, in the course of the post-apostolic age,
in the doctrinal development of the Logos-idea.1
Another antithesis took possession of minds during
the whole of the second century — that between
heretical gnosis and Christian truth.
C. The Gnostic Sects.
In this place we do not propose to institute a
comprehensive discussion of Gnosticism and its indi
vidual systems, but only to look at its historical
appearance as a whole with reference to the contrasts
1 Comp. Schwegler, ante, ii. 271.

368 THE post-apostolic period.
between Jewish and Gentile Christianity, Ebionism
and Paulinism. But we cannot entirely overlook
the question regarding the point of time or period
when heretical gnosis began. We have already
presupposed in various ways that its germs began
to stir even in the apostolic time ; and we add
here that the Gnostic sects came forth openly at
the beginning of the second century, according to
historical testimony. The oft - quoted and perhaps
misunderstood fragment of Hegesippus (ap. Eusebius,
H. E. iii. 32, § 7, iv. 22, § 4) says plainly, first,
that at the time when some apostles were still living,
before the reign of Trajan who ascended the imperial
throne a.d. 98, the Church was still a pure virgin
and not disfigured by sects, errorists hiding them
selves in dark lurking holes ; second, when no
apostle or any one else who had heard Jesus was
alive, teachers of error appeared without fear and
openly- (yvpvfj xeepaXy) with their preaching of
•tyevBcbwpos yvcbais. As John and the last eye- and
ear-witnesses of Jesus could not in any case have
lived longer than into the first years of the second
century, this testimony leads to the assumption that
the public appearance of the Gnostic sects coincides
with the beginning of that century. And as it is
self-evident that a mental movement so important
and penetrating does not come definite and finished
at once but is gradually developed, the initiatory
stages of it took place some decades at least before.
Such preliminary stage is formed, for example, by
Cerinthus, the gnosticizing Ebionite, who belongs
even to the later apostolic period, and was the
Apostle John's contemporary. It is also admitted
that Basilides taught about the year 125 at the

THE GNOSTIC SECTS. 369
latest. Still further, since Valentine as well as
Marcion came to Rome about 140, their systems
seem to have been fully developed at the time. But
we know several Gnostic heresies, e.g. those of the
Ophitse, Peratse, etc, of which it may be assumed,
partly because of their less developed material, partly
because they were not yet called after a personal
head, that they were older and more original than
the former. Hence we are Carried back from them
to the threshold of the second century at least, if not
farther. Lastly, we learn from various primitive
documents the bias of that " age of religious turn
ing " to theosophy, to a philosophizing process of
uniting (Ineinsbildung), or the mixing of the old
religions. We know the Hellenic-Oriental and the
Jewish - Hellenistic circle of doctrine that arose
therefrom.1 If, then, the incarnation of God and the
new power of the gospel penetrated this fermenta
tion, an excited activity must have arisen (since faith
and the simple, humble appropriation of saving truth
" does not belong to everybody "), in order to manu
facture all ideas belonging to past and present.
This did not originate in the second century; it
began as early as the second half of the first. The
Alexandrian philosophy of religion, of which Gnos
ticism is in essence nothing but a development, a
variety (Baur, Christenthum, 1st ed. p. 166, etc.;
1 Comp. Lutterbeck, Die neutestamentlichen Lehrbegriffe oder
Untersuchungen iiber das Zeitalter der Religionswende, die Vor-
stufen des Christenthums und die erste Gestaltung desselben, Mainz
1852, 2 vols, a work of great learning, of instructive views, and of
an impartiality often remarkable in a Catholic theologian. It is a
pity that the inspired man has the critical gift no longer, else the
results of solid and unbiassed inquiries would be more apparent in
many directions.
VOL. llr 2 A

370 THE POST-APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
Lutterbeck, i. p. 319), had its flourishing period before
the middle of the first century. If the remark be
fully deserving of assent, that the original basis of
the Ophite system is pre-Christian, especially Alex
andrian-Jewish, receiving a Christian colouring
afterwards (Baur, Gnosis, p. 194, etc., note; Chris
tenthum der drei ersten Jahrhunderte, 2nd ed. p. 195),
all the more natural is the assumption that this
system, as well as many similar to it, had already
begun to unfold in the course of the first century.
In defining the nature of Gnosticism, we distin
guish between its formal and real principle, the
former of which is designated by the name yvcaats.
The formal nature of heretical gnosis is a higher,
apprehensive knowledge, in contrast with faith which
is placed on a lower step — the claim at least to such
knowledge. In fact, its one-sided interest in know
ing, its partially presumptuous pride of perceiving,
its intellectual self-satisfaction,1 its genuine, antique,
heathenish aristocracy of knowledge, its intellectual-
ism, which volatilizes everything into ideas, is patent
to observation. The means used for an alleged
perfect apprehension was allegorical interpretation,
by which the Gnostics were able to metamorphose
into their ideas and convert into the formation of
their systems all history, all biblical truth, even
everything taken from the heathen stories of gods
and from natural science ; comp. Baur, Christenthum,
1 Irenams (i. 21, 4th ed. ; Stieren, i. 232) adduces explanations of
unknown Gnostics, according to which redemption consists entirely
in Gnostic knowledge : Etvxi riXllxv xvtoXvrpuaiv rnviielyvoiatv rev
xppnrov poiyivovs. Tor xyvotxs yxp varipn'poxros xxi vxhvs ylyov'oruv, Si«
yvuaius xxrxXviahtt Txaxv rr]v ix rns xyvolxs avaraaiv' uan Ctvxt rv\v
yvuaiv XT oXvr puatv rov 'ivoov xvtlptltorov' — xxi rxvrnv uvxt XvTpu-
a iv xyn$n.

THE GNOSTIC SECTS. 371
2nd ed. p. 79, etc. The real principle of heretical
gnosis, the essence of its contents, is the totality
of world -religion and world -development taken as
the history of divine revelation, but — and here is
the error — with a putting back of the Christian
element to the pre-Christian. The latter is exem
plified by Marcion himself, notwithstanding the great
prominence he gives to Christianity in its absolute
newness and perfection, over against both Judaism
and heathenism; for what else is his dualism but
the relapse into heathen modes of thought ? The
same is the case in the pseudo- Clementine system,
Christianity being apprehended as purified and
enlarged Judaism. And it is admitted that the
Christian element with Valentine and Basilides is
resolved very much into the religion of nature. It
may be mentioned here that Gnosticism is neither of
heathen - Christian nor of Jewish - Christian origin
exclusively ; nor is it solely of Pauline or Ebionite
birth. History shows that the way to heretical
gnosis stood open on both sides ; the Jewish-
Christian Cerinthus could become a Gnostic as well
as Carpocrates. Ebionism, hostile to Paul, (the
pseudo-Clementines), developed a Gnostic system as
well as the ultra-Pauline Marcion. Even here it is
shown that the national and confessional contrariety
is already pressed into the background by the more
violent contrarieties which were then stirring history
and splitting up Christianity. Turning away from
the pseudo-Clementine system which we touched
upon before, we remark still further; since the Gnostic
view of all religious history and world-development
as a divine revelation commits the fundamental mis
take of twisting back the Christian element into the

372 THE POST- APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
pre-Christian, especially on the standpoint of heathen
nature - religion and philosophy, several errors of
considerable magnitude that overthrow the biblical
ground were planted. First, Pantheism, the deifica
tion of the world, the essence of nature - religion
consisting in the mixing together of God and the
world, in deifying nature, in taking God for nature.
This feature, the abolition of the supernatural (in
God, in Christ), is apparent in all developed systems
of heretical gnosis. Heathen polytheism is also
reflected in the Gnostic systems ; for what else are
the so-called seons with their development than god-
forms and god-history (theogony) in nature-religions,
preserved in personified ideas of divine qualities,
active laws, etc. Thirdly, a fundamental feature in
Gnostic systems is their dualism between the highest
God and the creator of the world (demiurge), the
God of the Christians and the God of the Jews,
spirit and matter, a twofold human race, a dualism
which has deeply penetrating practical consequences,
inasmuch as it brings with it in the field of doctrine
docetism with a denial of the resurrection of the
body; in ethics, an asceticism that mortifies the
body, the rejection of marriage as a demoniacal insti
tution, etc. ; or a pronounced antinomianism, a
flagrant moral latitudinarianism,. inasmuch as the
opposites touch and pass over into one another.
This dualistic feature, which occupies the foreground
in the Syrian Gnostics, Saturnin and Bardesanes,
and next in Marcion, while it is not wanting in
Valentine and others, rests none the less on soil that
lies at the basis of heathen religions. Lastly, in the
fourth place, because the heathenism which runs into
Christianity in the way of Gnosticism is a religion

THE GNOSTIC SECTS. 373
of nature, it appropriates to the Gnostics a mode of
thought which is pre-eminently physical instead of
moral or religious ; since redemption becomes a
nature - process (cpvaet aco^eadai), there is among
mankind a race that must be blessed (a cpvaet aco£b-
ptevov yevos), freedom is perverted into necessity, the
moral element of all religions is misapprehended, the
moral judgment dislocated.
In opposition to this dangerous and fundamentally
destructive doctrine, which contains errors all the
more powerful in proportion to the truth mixed up
with it, the Church's task was to save the truth of
the gospel, and to hold aloft the banner of genuine
apostolic doctrine. To this service the three Fathers
of the Church who usher in the new old-Catholic age,
Irenseus, Clement of Alexandria, and TertuUian, devoted
themselves above all others'. The problem was not
only to refute the errors logically, but chiefly to place
the full light of positive truth upon the candlestick
that it might give light to all that are in the house.
On this account the formal principle of faith must
above all be made good over against the Gnostic
formal principle of one-sided, self-satisfied knowledge ;
the authority of pistis held out against gnosis. This
procedure led to insistence upon Scripture (rightly
understood and simply interpreted), together with
apostolic tradition ; and in connection with it pre
servation of the fundamental facts in the history
of salvation, and that in a realistic way in opposition
to the allegorizing idealism which volatilized into
mere ideas the positive historical kernel of Christianity }
1 The realistic standpoint is taken by Irenaeus in his polemic
against the Gnostics ; comp. the instructive little book of Duncker,
Des heiligen Irenaeus Christologie, 1843, especially p. 10, etc., as

374 THE POST- APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
Accordingly, in regard to the main substance of
heretical Gnosticism and the smuggling of heathenism
into the holy place, the work of the Church champions
was to drive from the field, by means of the biblical
recognition of a supramundane God and creator, all
pantheistic deification of created things, and to set
over against dualism the victorious truth of the one
God the Father of Jesus Christ, who created the
corporeal world as well as spirits, and has already
revealed Himself in the law and old covenant — even
in heathen Hellenic philosophy — and not in the
gospel alone.1 In opposition to docetism this was
united with the assertion of the real humanity of
Christ, His actual death on the cross as the kernel of
the gospel, and the resurrection of the body.2 In
well as the treatise of H. Ziegler, Joachimsthal. Gymn. -Programm,
1868, Des Irenceus Lehre von der Autoritdt der Schrift, der Tradition
und der Kirche, especially pp. 15, etc., 22, etc.
1 Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata, vi. 5, ed. Migne, vol. ii. 261 :
Neojv (iixtinxviv) rj(*.7v otihro (o has) tx yxp 'EXXvivuv xxi lovoxluv TxXxtx,
vpLits Se ol xxtvus xvrov rplru yivit aifiopcivoi, Xpiartxvei. — o xvros Qtos
upctpo7v tx7v otxSnxxtv %opnyos, o xxi Tns iXXnvtxns ipiXoaoipixs oeorhp ro7s
"EXXviat, Si' ns o Txvroxpxrup orxp' "EXXtiai o'o\uZiitxi, vrxpiarnal. Vol. i.
921, lib. i. 27 : Ives xvpiov ivipytix, os ian itovvxpiis xxi aotplx tov
hov," o tx vopoos ro rl ivxyy'lXtov, xxi ov iyiwnai tyefiov o vopoos,
ixinpouv ovros tls awrnplxv. — ii. 23, towards the end, Migne, vol. i. 1096 :
Ou ah pex%lrxt ru ivxyyiXlai o vopoos, avvxon ol xvru' Tlus yxp ov%l, ivos
ovros xpt<po7v ^opnyov rev xvpiov ; iii. 12, vol. i. 1184 : Ei SI o
xvros vopeohrns xptx xxi t'vxyytXiarhs , ov pex% itxi vrori ixvru' £»J
yxp o vopoos Tvivpexrlxos uv xxi yvojanxus voovpoivos. No one ever com
bated the dualism of Marcion more perseveringly and ably than
TertuUian, Adv. Marcionem.
2 Here TertuUian is a master. With a true Pauline spirit does he
enter the lists against docetism, when he testifies, e.g. Adv. Mar
cionem, iii. chap. 5, ed. Oehler, ii. 132 : Totuni christiani nominis
et pondus et fructus, mors Christi negatur, quam tam impresse
apostolus demandat utique veram, summum earn fundamentum
evangelii constituens, et salutis nostrse et pradicationis suae. And

THE GNOSTIC SECTS. 375
opposition to the perverted view which refers back
everything to the processes of nature, compelling all
under the yoke of a natural necessity, the Church
Fathers, especially Clement of Alexandria, defended
human freedom, maintained the moral, and with it
the truly religious character of Christianity with
power and spirit, established the personality of God,
of the Redeemer and of man, preserving its purity and
sanctity to Christian ethics. These great Church
teachers, who defended with heroism and fidelity the
treasures of the Church, the priceless grace of God
in Christ Jesus the God-man, against the errors of
their time, had the everlasting promise, " him that
honoureth me will I also honour." As they were
true keepers of what was entrusted to them and the
Church of their day, the Lord gave them fulness
of gifts ; for it is astonishing to see what sparks of
real light dart forth when they strike with the sword
of the spirit in waging the wars of their Lord ;
astonishing to see the way in which they overthrow
errors with surpassing ability — errors with which a
wisdom made foolishness in much later times
has ventured to oppose the word of God afresh !
Truly must the Church of Christ put closely to
gether all the forces and means it has, concentrating
itself spiritually and morally in order to vanquish
error. Union gives strength ; and nothing but
a united army can hope for victory. Accordingly,
there was then, towards the end of the second
how faithfully does he preserve the sound spirit of the Bible in holding
fast the unity of man's nature consisting in soul and body when he
asks (ante, i. chap. 24, ii. 76) : Quid erat perfeetae bonitatis, quam
totum hominem redigere in salutem. Totum damnatum a creatore,
totum a Deo optimo allectum ? etc.

376 THE POST- APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
century, a powerful impulse in the direction of
unity. It was the time in which the Church
shaped itself with knowledge and will as a compre
hensive whole (exxXyala xadoXtxy), both ideally in
doctrine and really in worship and constitution. To
this unity belongs pre-eminently that unity of doc
trine which was formulated in the rule of faith
(regula fidei), in face of the dismemberment into
Gnostic and other sects. There was another requisite,
viz. to put all the springs of religious knowledge in
one well-room, as it were ; for which reason they
set out with the work of positively attesting and
definitely proving the unity of tradition and Scripture,
the unity of the Old and New Testaments, the unity
of doctrine belonging to the different apostles and
apostolic writings, a unity which had been before pre
supposed for the most part unconsciously.1 That was
a necessary and tight procedure, but one that did not
avoid the mistake of laying overmuch weight upon
unity, and putting ecclesiastical tradition above Scrip
ture, so that evangelical truth and the genuine doctrine
of the apostles was endangered.
By careful searching through apostolic and post-
1 With respect to the unity of Scripture and tradition, comp.
Irenaeus, Adv. Heeres. iii. 1. 1 : Non per alios dispositionem salutis
nostras cognovimus, quam per eos per quos evangelium pervenit ad
nos ; quod quidem tunc prseconaverunt, postea vero per Dei volun-
tatem in scripturis nobis tradiderunt, fundamentum et columnam fidei
nostrae futurum. Comp. Ziegler, Dei Irenceus Lehre von der Autoritat
der Schrift, der Tradition und der Kirche, Berlin 1868, 4to, p. 28,
etc. The union of the apostles among themselves is attested by
Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, vii. 17 : Mix h arxvruv yiyovi ruv
xoroaroXuv uaoeipoioxaxxXlx ovru Ss xxi Txpxo oats. In this view
the apostles were then defended against the reproach raised against
them by the Gnostics that they were not agreed among themselves.
See e.g. TertuUian, De prcescriptione Heereticorum, c. 23.

THE GNOSTIC SECTS. 377
apostolic times, we have obtained a result which in
our opinion is historically well founded, and also
corresponds with the authority of the gospel. In
the apostolic period, comparing the earliest preaching
of the apostles with the later Epistles, we found
by putting the doctrine of the Apostle Paul with
that of a James, a Peter, a John, different stages of
Christian apprehension, manifold types with individual
forms of doctrine, but in no case irreconcilable con
tradictions. We keep to the original sources, the
New Testament writings, without allowing ourselves
to be led astray by unsatisfactory reasons for doubting
the authenticity or historical credibility of the most
important of such writings. If we use them impar
tially and comprehensively, we can neither see in Paul
an assailant of the law, nor in the other apostles men
so far removed from the genuine and pure gospel as
many represent them. On the contrary, the New
Testament gives a picture of the Apostle Paul in which
were united with all freedom height and width of
spirit, an inward constant love for his own people,
and personally a most pious attachment to the law.
We perceive also that the other apostles, whose
sphere of action was originally confined to Israel,
preached with all enthusiasm and self-renunciation
Jesus the Crucified and Risen One, not only as the
Messiah for His people, but also as the one founda
tion of salvation for humanity. But since there
is in Christ's Church in point of fact a " com
munion of saints," the illumination vouchsafed to
a Paul through God's grace, by means of which
he saw the glory of God in the face of Jesus
Christ more clearly, was also communicated to those
who were apostles before him, so that they too

378 THE POST-APOSTOLIC PERIOD.
grew up by this means in all things into Christ
who is the head.
It is true that remarkable and deep differences
appeared in the Churches which the apostles of the
circumcision gathered from among the Jews, and Paul
mostly from among the heathen, so much so that the
two groups in Christendom sometimes came into
collision. But that did not prevent the result of
an actual communion being established and promoted
between Jewish Christian and Gentile Christian
Churches — not merely an external, but an internal
communion, a blending and welding consociation.
After the decease of the majority of the apostles
the contrariety between Jewish and Gentile Christian
Churches continued, but only as a vanishing thing,
since the Jewish Christian community, subordinate
in numbers, went over bodily into the Gentile Chris
tian community, partly under the overpowering
influence of external events such as the destruction
of Jerusalem, partly moved by internal forces such as
the after effects of the Pauline spirit. Hence Jewish
Christian Churches could not prolong their existence
except in single and isolated districts. The portion
of Jewish Christians who adhered to Mosaism as the
main thing, regarding Christianity as essentially
secondary, were reduced to the level of a sect by the
progress of history and pressed out of the Church so
that they passed over at last into Judaism itself.
But it is an unhistorical representation which makes
a struggle between the Pauline and Ebionite spirit
run right through the second century ; and the attain
ment of unity to have come about by mutual con
cessions. On the contrary, the primitive documents
of that period present the narrow Judaistic standpoint

THE GNOSTIC SECTS. 379
as a thing already overpowered ; whereas the results
for which Paul wrestled, though they were not always
apprehended purely and precisely, lie at the basis
of ecclesiastical life in all its forms. In this histori
cal progression we do not recognise the play of
human caprice, but the disposing influence of the
Lord Jesus Christ who rules His Church until all his
enemies are made the footstool of His feet.

Translations of the following Works referred
to by the Author are published by Messrs.
T. & T. Clark :—
Apostolic Fathers (Ante-Nicene Christian Library). 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Apostolic Constitutions (Ante - Nicene Christian Library). 8vo,
10s. 6d.
Auberlen's The Divine Revelation. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Baumgarten's Apostolic Church History. Three vols. 8vo, 27s.
Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament. Three vols. 8vo, 24s. nett.
Bleek's Introduction to the New Testament. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Dorner's Person of Christ. Five vols. 8vo, 52s. 6d.
Gebhardt's Doctrine of the Apocalypse. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Gieseler's Ecclesiastical History. Four vols. 8vo, 42s.
Godet's Commentaries on John. Three vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d. Romans.
Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Grimm's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. [In pre
paration. ]
Hefele's Councils of the Church. Three vols. 8vo, 36s.
Herzog's Encyclopaedia. Three vols. imp. 8vo, 24s. each.
Hippolytus' Writings (Ante-Nicene Library). ) Three vols. 8vo,
Irenseus' Writings (Ante-Nicene Library). ) 31s. 6d.
Justin Martyr (Ante-Nicene Library). 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Konig' s Religious History of Israel. Cr. 8vo, 3s. 6d.
Lange's Commentaries. [See Catalogues.]
Luthardt's St. John the Author of the Fourth Gospel. 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Meyer's Commentary on the New Testament. Twenty vols. £5, 5s.
Muller on the Christian Doctrine of Sin. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Neander's Church History. Nine vols. 8vo, 67s. 6d.
Olshausen's Commentary on Romans. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Origen's Writings. Two vols. 8vo, 22s. 6d.
Philippi's Commentary on Romans. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Reusch's New Testament Scriptures. 8vo, 15s.
Schaff's Church History. [See Catalogues.']
Schurer's History of the Jewish People in the Time of Christ. [In
course of publication.] 10s. 6d. each vol.
TertuUian v. Marcion (Ante-Nicene Library). 8vo, 10s. 6d.
The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Ex. 8vo, 9s.

INDEXES.

I.— INDEX OF PASSAGES.

Only those passages of Scripture are named which are specifically
discussed, or illustrated by the mode of their application.

Matt.

Luke

John

Acts

PAGE

PAGE

xv. 13, .

vol. i. 310

Acts iv. 32,

etc.,

vol. i. 83

xxiii. 15,

. ii. 221

,, v. 11,

etc.

i. 68, 89

xviii. 19, etc.,

. ii. 297

,, vi. 1, etc.

. i. 92

i. 1-4, .

. ii. 118

vii.,

. i. 285
iii. 23, etc.
. ii. 116
,, vii. 56,
etc.,
. i. 287
xvi. 17, .
. ii. 117
,, viii. 1,
3tC,
. i. 77
xvi. 19, etc.,
. ii. 118
,, viii. 5,
3tC,
. i. 114
i. 1, etc.,
. ii. 189
,, viii. 14,
etc.,
. i. 190
i. 11, etc.,
. ii. 200
,, viii. 26,
etc.,
. i. 115
i. 14, .
. ii. 192
,, ix. 2,
. i. 52
i. 18, .
. ii. 195
„ ix. 20,
etc.
. i. 319
i. 29, .
. ii. 209
ix. 31,
. i. 101
iii. 3, etc.,
ii. 184, 199
x. 34,
etc.
. i. 280
iv. 22, etc.,
ii. 181, 200
„ xi. 1,
3tC,
. i. 173
v. 17, .
. ii. 182
xi. 18,
i. 173
v. 25, etc.
. ii. 203
,, xi. 20,
. i. 117
vi. 39, etc.
. ii. 201
xi. 26,
i. 191, 152
viii. 44, etc.,
. ii. 187
xi. 27,
etc.,
. i. 191
x. 16, .
. ii. 201
,, xi. 30,
. i. 93
xiv. 3,
. ii. 201
xii. 13,
etc.,
. i. 87
xvi. 22, .
ii. 201
xii. 17,
. i. 96
i. 13, etc.
. i. 88
,, xiii. 1,
. ii. 320
i. 15, .
. i. 30
xiii. 26,
etc.
. i. 323
ii. 24,
. i. 272
,, xiii. 38,
i. 323
ii. 31, etc.
. i. 273
,,. xiv. 14,
ii. 320
ii. 38, .
. i. 275
,, xiv. 21,
etc.,
i. 161, 326
ii. 39, .
. i. 279
,, XV. 1,
i. 194, 227
ii. 42, 46, etc., i. 41, ii.
„ xv. 21,
. i. 53
297
„ xv. 23,
etc.,
. i. 211
ii. 44, etc.
. i. 84
,, xvi. 3,
. i. 223
iii. 10, etc.
. i. 68
,, xvii. 22,
etc.,
. i. 325
iii. 13, etc.
. i. 269
xvii. 31,
. i. 320
iii. 16, .
. i. 277
xx. 28,
i. 164, 322
iii. 19, etc.
. i. 281
,, xxi. 18,
etc.,
. i. 97
iii. 25, etc.
. i. 278
,, xxi. 20,
etc.,
i. 222, ii.
iv. 12, .
. i. 274
226
382

INDEX.

PAGE

James i. 1, vol. i. 2!>0, :':,

„ i. 13, etc.

. i. 299

„ i. 18, i.

295, 301, ii.

243

i. 25, .

. i. 293

„ ii. 1,

i. 296, 297

,, ii. 14, etc.

i. 303, ii.

240

ii. 20, etc.

i. 304, ii.

240
,, iii. 6,
. i. 299
v. 11, .
. i. 298
v. 14, .
. ii. 322
1 Peter i. 1, etc.
ii. 137, 145
,, i. 10, etc.
. ii. 139
,, i. 18, etc.,
. ii. 141
i. 23, etc.
. ii. 151
ii. 8,
. ii. 152
ii. 21, etc.,
. ii. 141
iii. 6,
. ii. 138
',', iii- 18, •
. ii. 144
,, iii. 19, etc.,
ii. 145, 153
iv. 3,
. ii. 138
,, iv. 6,
ii. 148
„ iv. 8,
. ii. 155
,, v. 1, etc., i
164, ii. 139
2 Peter,
1 John i. 1, etc.,
. ii. 158
. ii. 189
i. 5,
. ii. 182
,, ii. 15, etc.
. ii. 184
,, ii. 18, etc.
. ii. 206
„ iii. 2, etc.
. ii. 205
,, iii. 4,
. ii. 184
iii. 6, 9, .
. ii. 200
iii. 8,
. ii. 185
,, iii. 14, etc.,
. ii. 169
iii. 16, .
. ii. 195
iii. 20, .
. ii. 183
„ iv. 1, etc.,
. ii. 206
iv. 8,
. ii. 182
iv. 10, .
. ii. 197
v- 6,
. ii. 195
v. 20, etc.
ii. 181
Rom. i. 3, etc.,
ii. 7, 51
i. 9,
. ii. 1
,, i. 18, etc.,
i. 352, 360
,, ii. 5, etc.,
. ii. 99
ii. 11, .
. ii. 64
, ii. 14, etc.,
. i. 361
ii. 16, .
. ii. 213
,, iii. 22, etc.
i. 350, ii. 44
,, iv. 5,
. ii. 64
Rom.
24, etc.,
1, ¦
6, etc., 1
1 Cor.
v. 12, etc.
18, .
19, .
20, .
9, etc.,
21, .
23, . i.
9, etc.,
24, .
3, . i,
6, etc.,
11, .
19, etc,
32, .
34, .
vi. vi.
vi.
vii.vii.
viii.viii.viii. viii.viii.viii. ix.ix.ix. x.x.
X.
xi.
xi. xi.
xiv. i.
i.
iii.iii. v.
vi.
vi.
vii.
viii. ix. x.
X.
X.
xii. xv.
xv.xv.xv.
XV.XV.
5,15, .
4, 6,13, .
15, .
25, etc,
32, i.
9, .
2,
30, .
3, etc,
22, etc,
7, etc,
3, .
14,19,
6,1, ¦
4,
16, .
17, •
28,
1, etc,
8, etc., i.
11, .
17, .
20, .
22, etc.
PAGE
vol. ii. 34
. ii. 69
343, ii. 42, 53
i. 353, 358,
ii. 32
ii. 35, 100
. i. 354
. i. 365
. ii. 52
. i. 348
. 356, ii. 69
. i. 348
. i. 349
363, ii. 30
. i. 343
. ii. 55
. ii. 98
. ii. 6
. ii.
. ii.
. ii.
. ii.
. ii.
60
772778
73
26 84
. n.
. ii.
. ii.
ii. 83, 88
351, ii. 101
. ii. 52
. ii. 5, 25
. ii. 67
. i. 346
. ii. 216
. ii. 37
. ii. 97
. ii. 54
. ii. 232
. ii. 12
. i. 316
. ii. 11
. ii. 80
. ii. 74
. ii. 320
ii. 36, 86,
215
314, ii. 61
. ii. 215
ii. 51, 53
. ii. 56
ii. 87, 94,
101
INDEX.

383

PAGE

PAGE
1 Cor.
xv. 45, etc.
vol. i. 356,
Col.
i.
20, etc, vol. ii. 49
ii. 32
J J
ii.
9,
ii. 25, 61
J»
xv. 56, i. 344, 348, 356
ii.
18, etc.
i. 347
2 Cor.
iv. 4, etc.,
. ii. 2, 8
1 Thess
i.
9,
i. 332
)»
iv. 10, etc.
. ii. 54
33
ii.
12, .
ii. 96
I J
v. 1, etc.,
. ii. 90
3 )
ii.
16, .
ii. 222
> )
v. 8,
. ii. 93
33
iv.
14, .
ii. 86
) 7
v. 18, etc.
ii. 2, 34, 40
v.
12, etc, i.
165, 333
3 J
vii. 1,
. i. 347
2 Thess
ii.
1, etc.,
i. 335
33
viii. 9,
. ii. 9
Heb.
i.
1, etc.,
ii. 123
)»
ix. 12, .
. i. 240
1)
ii.
2,
ii. 121
J >
xii. 11, etc.
, . i. 2f
v.
13, .
ii. 131
Gal.
i. 4,
. ii. 36
33
vi.
1, •
ii. 129
33
i. 7, .
. ii. 213
33
vii.
12, •
ii. 133
33
i. 11, .
. ii. 213
vii.
18, .
ii. 121
3)
i. 15, etc.
i. 313, ii. 6,
3 J
viii.
7, .
ii. 121
75
3 3
ix.
14, .
ii. 125
3»
i. 23, etc.
. ii. 214
xi.
1, etc.,
ii. 130
33
ii. 1, etc.,
. i. 193
1 Tim.
i.
3, . ii.
104, 111
3 J
ii. 6,
. i. 215
3)
i.
7, .
i. 187
3»
ii. 10, .
. i. 239
iii.
6, .
ii. 106
J)
ii. 11, etc.
, i. 177, 229
iii.
13, .
ii. 113
33
ii. 13, .
. i. 155
vi.
12, etc.
ii. 107
ii. 20, .
ii. 37, 67
vi.
17, .
ii. 113
))
iii. 13, .
. ii. 43
3 3
vi.
20, .
ii. 105
) )
iii. 19, .
. i. 365
2 Tim.
i.
10,
ii. 108
iii. 24, .
. i. 363
33
ii.
8, .
ii. 109
Jf
iv. 3,
. i. 364
ii.
18, .
ii. 105
?J
iv. 4, etc.
ii. 8, 29
33
ii.
20, .
ii. 115
iv. 9, etc.
. i. 364
iii.
13, .
ii. 113
v. 2, etc.,
i. 224, ii. 232
J)
iv.
6, etc.,
ii. Ill
v. 5, .
. ii. 64
Titus
ii.
14, . ii.
109, 112
v. 11, .
. ii. 37
,,
iii.
5, .
ii. 110
v. 19, etc.
, . i. 346
Apoc.
i.
7, .
ii. 173
v. 25, .
. ii. 67
,,
ii.
6,24,
i. 259
vi. 12, etc.
, . i. 181
, ,
iii.
9,
i. 258
Eph.
iv. 9, etc.,
ii. 56, 59
,,
iii.
14, etc.,
ii. 169
v. 2,
. ii. 47
,,
iv.
2, etc.,
i. 261
Phil.
i. 21, etc.
. ii. 93
,,
v.
6, .
ii. 170
ii. 5, etc.,
ii. 20, 30, 36
,,
vi.
14, .
i. 259
ii. 9, etc.,
ii. 26, 53
j >
vii.
14, .
ii. 170
iii. 9,
. ii. 63
j>
XX.
1, etc.,
ii. 174
Co".
i. 15, etc.
i. 18, .
, . ii. 25
ii. 55, 61
,,
xxi.
24, etc.
ii. 176
384

INDEX.

II.— INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

Abraham, ii. 82, 361.
Acts of the Apostles as a source
of history, i. 7, 266.
Adam, i. 353.
Agabus, i. 191.
Agapse, i. 46, 138, 156 ; ii. 298.
Akiba Rabbi, ii. 262.
Antichrist, i. 336 ; ii. 173, 206,
254, 338.
Antioch, i. 117, 126, 189.
Apocalypse, ii. 163.
xoroxxrxarxais, li. 100.
Apologists, ii. 360.
Apostles, i. 15, 91 ; ii. 255, 318.
Apostolic Convention, i. 192 ; ii.
265.
 Fathers, ii. 332.
Asceticism, ii. 311, 359, 372.
Athens, i. 123.
Baptism, i. 277 ; ii. 80, 110, 130,
153, 300, 312.
Bar-Cochba, ii. 262.
Barnabas, i. 17, 190.
Basilides, ii. 368.
Body, sanctification of, ii. 67.
 its redemption and glorifica
tion, ii. 98.
Breaking of bread, i. 46, 138.
Calling, ii. 74, 129, 336.
Cerinthus, i. 259 ; ii. 354, 356,
368, 371.
Christ, His person, i. 268, 295,
321 ; ii. 2, 123, 168, 189, 234,
333.
 His deity, ii. 5, 24, 124,
142, 169, 189, 274.
 His humanity, i. 268 ; ii.
30, 108, 124, 168, 192, 352.
 His work, i. 270, 295 ; ii.
34, 139, 170, 195, 208, 335.
 His Sufferings and death,
i. 271 ; ii. 36, 61, 126, 137,
157, 170, 195, 345, 358.
 His descent to the under
world, ii. 56, 145, 248.
 His resurrection, i. 267,
273 ; ii. 50, 150, 170, 197.

Christ, His ascension, ii. 58, 127,
197.
 His second coming, i. 281,
308, 333 ; ii. 87, 127, 172, 202,
211, 255, 337.
Christian freedom, i. 148, 227.
 name, i. 152.
Church, i. 100 ; ii. 73.
 of Christ, i. 88, 100, 170 ;
ii. 73, 114, 129, 171, 200, 253,
337.
 of Corinth, i. 126, 128,
182 ; ii. 342, 347.
 at Rome, i. 128, 184 ; ii.
340, 347.
Circumcision, ii. 223, 361, 364.
Collections, i. 22, 237.
Colossian Errorists, i. 187.
Community of goods, early Chris
tian, i. 82.
Conversion, i. 275.
Cornelius, i. 120.
Creation through Christ, ii. 16,
192.
Cross of Christ, ii. 36, 345.
Deacons, i. 168 ; ii. 321.
Death, i. 348, 353.
Devil, i. 300, 358 ; ii. 151, 172
185.
oixxtoavvn hev, ii. 44, 240.
Docetism, ii. 193, 354, 372.
Dualism, ii. 372.
Eating of blood, i. 213.
Ebionism, i. 36 ; ii. 264, 367.
Ebionites, ii. 280.
Elders, i. 93 ; ii. 321.
Eleazar, ii. 261.
Election, i. 330 ; ii. 75.
Elisa Ben Abuja, ii. 287.
Ephesus, i. 127, 256.
Episcopal office, ii. 326.
Wiaxooros, i. 164 ; ii. 321.
Essenes, ii. 285.
Faith, i. 275, 302, 328 ; ii. Ill
199, 239, 343.

INDEX.

385

Fasting, ii. 312.
Firstlings, ii. 290.
Galatia, i. 179.
Gamaliel I, i. 72, 76.
 II. of Jabne, i. 250 : ii.
252.
Gentile Christians, i. 126, 144.
Gentiles, i. 117, 323, 351, 361 ;
ii. 200, 209, 218.
Gifts of love contributed by
Gentile Christians, i. 237.
yXuaffxts XaXuv, i. 27.
Gnosticism, ii. 367.
yvuais, ii. 351, 368.
God, His nature, etc, ii. 4, 168,
181.
Grace, ii. 1, 131, 357.
Hadrian, Emperor, ii. 261.
Hellenists — Grecians — i. 112,
144.
Holy Spirit, i. 275 ; ii. 71, 198.
Hope, i. 332 ; ii. 131.
Humanity, i. 150.
Intermediate state, between
death and the resurrection, ii.
93.
Israel, people of, i. 250, 352 ; ii.
83, 210.
Izates, King of Adiabene, ii. 223.
Jabne (Jamnia), i. 250.
James, the Lord's brother, i. 16,
59, 96, 178, 204, 23a ; ii. 226.
 his Epistle, i. 289.
 comparison with Paul, ii.
237.
Jerusalem, i. 14, 27.
 destroyed, i. 246 ; ii. 263.
Jesus. See Christ.
Jochanan ben Zakkai, i. 248,
250.
John the apostle, i. 16, 48, 103,
204, 256 ; ii. 163, 213.
 his Apocalypse, ii. 163.
 Gospel and Epistles, ii. 177,
207.
 compared with Paul, ii. 250.
Judaizing Christians, i. 35, 80,
144, 222 ; ii. 230.
VOL. II.

Judaizing Christians, their rela
tion to Gentile Christians, i.
145 ; ii. 266.
Judgment, ii. 94, 99, 338.
Justification, i. 305 ; ii. 63, 240,
252.
Kingdom of glory, ii. 95, 132,
155, 172, 211.
xoivuvlx, i. 45, 81, 86.
Last things, ii. 338.
Life and doctrine, i. 264.
Life in the Biblical sense, ii. 228,
332.
Logos, ii. 189, 208, 362, 367.
Lord's Supper, i. 46 ; ii. 80, 298.
Luke, ii. 115.
Luther, i. 218.
Marcion, ii. 369, 371.
Marriage, celibacy, ii. 315.
Martyrdom, ii. 315.
Merit, ii. 359.
Minim, i. 251.
Montanism, ii. 314.
Moral discipline, ii. 316.
Mosaic law, i. 361 ; ii. 72, 121,
345, 351.
Nazarseans, ii. 285.
Nazarites, i. 63, 224.
Nestorians, ii. 289.
VIOJTipol, i. 91.
Old Testament, i. 133, 156; ii.
15, 351.
Ophites, ii. 369.
Paraclete, ii. 314.
Particularism, ii. 220.
Passover lamb, i. 135.
 feast, ii. 38, 303.
 dispute, ii. 303.
Paul the apostle, his personality,
ii. 231.
 his conversion, i. 312 ; ii.
236.
 his work, i. 121, 191.
 his opponents, i. 175.
 his doctrine, i. 311.
2 B

386

INDEX.

Paul the apostle, his relation to
the primitive apostles, ii. 213.
 compared with James, ii.
237.
 compared with Peter, ii.
246.
 compared with John, ii.
250.
 rejected by the Ebionites,
ii. 275.
Pella, i. 248.
Pentecost, i. 26.
Persian Christians, i. 213.
Peter the apostle, i. 15, 48, 103,
120, 204, 229, 232; ii. 155,
159.
 his discourses, i. 266 ; ii.
159.
 compared with James, ii.
246.
 compared with Paul, ii.
247.
 his First Epistle, ii. 137.
 his Second Epistle, ii. 158.
Pharisees, i. 72.
Philip, i. 114.
Polycarp, i. 256.
vpiofivrlpoi, i. 93, 161.
Priesthood, ii. 122, 133, 323.
Frophets, New Testament, i. 191 ;
ii. 314, 319.
Proselytes, i. 115.
Quartodecimans, ii. 304.
Reconciliation, ii. 39, 141.
Regeneration, i. 301 ; ii. 152,
199, 239.
Resurrection of Jesus. See
Christ.
 of the body, ii. 88, 203.
Revelation, i. 359.
Rulers, i. 160.
Sabbath, i. 53, 57, 136 ; ii. 301,
354, 364.

Sacrifice, meaning of, ii. 300, 325.
Sacrificial death of Christ, ii. 1 28,
141.
Sadducees, i. 70.
Salvation, i. 323 ; ii. 336.
Samaritans, i. 114.
Sanctification, i. 331 ; ii. 67,
131.
Sanhedrim, i. 73, 249.
axpi, i. 345.
 in John, ii. 192.
Simeon, ii. 261.
Sin, i. 208, 342, 348; ii. 107;
151, 184, 252.
Sin and grace, ii. 236.
 its forgiveness, i. 275, 323.
Slavery, state of, i. 156.
Songs, spiritual, i. 140.
Stephen, i. 77, 285.
Sunday, i. 136, 142; ii. 301,
353.
Synagogue, i. 51.
Tanaim, i. 250.
Tarphon Rabbi, i. 251.
Teachers, ii. 319.
Teaching, a chief part of Christian
worship, i. 44, 133 ; ii. 107,
337.
Temple in Jerusalem, i. 48, 246.
Timothy, i. 223.
Titus, i. 204, 223.
Trinity, ii. 29, 198.
Valentine, ii. 369, 371.
Women, i. 157.
Word of God, i. 269, 301 ; ii. 79.
Works, i. 302 ; ii. 112, 242.
Worship, Jewish Christian, i. 37.
 Gentile Christian, i. 130.
Zaddok Rabbi, i. 60.
Zwingli, i. 218.
'afixixs, i. 66.

INDEX.

387

III.— LIST OF AUTHORS QUOTED.

Abauzit, ii. 167.
Anger, ii. 117, 273.
Apollonius, ii. 315.
Apostolic Constitutions, i. 253 ;
ii. 302.
Auberlen, ii. 91, etc, 166, 173.
Augustinus, i. 114, 233 ; ii. 285.
Badger, ii. 290.
Bahr, ii. 19, 43, 49.
Barnabas, Epistle of, ii. 293, 300,
349.
Bauer, Bruno, i. 9, etc.
Baumgarten, i. 78, 93, 116, 125,
162, 176, 239, 279, 282, 285.
Baumgarten-Crusius, ii. 191, 203.
Baumlein, ii. 190.
Baur, i. 2, 68, 72, 76, 113, 118,
128, 183, 193, 234, 260, 267,
285, 293, 302, 327, 340 ; ii. 6,
16, 22, 85, 89, 105, 110, 117,
119, 124, 149, 164, 177, 192,
201, 207, 222, 228, 230, 240,
244, 247, 255, 265, 268, 278,
308, 313, 327, 330, 340, 363,
369.
Bede, The Venerable, ii. 183.
Belch, ii. 313.
Bengel, J. Albr, i. 84, 281; ii.
18, 35, 85, 144, 148, 206.
Beyschlag, ii. 10, 13, 32, 140,
170.
Beza, i. 279.
Bleek, i. 11, 209; ii. 135, 164,
171, 177.
Blom, ii. 209.
Boehmer, Just Henning, i. 92.
Bonifas, i. 294, 341 ; ii. 79, 157,
244, 247, 255.
Bonwetsch, ii. 314.
Bryennios, ii. 293, 297, 341.
Bunsen, i. 150 ; ii. 179, 341, 364.
Chrtsostom, i. 266.
Clement of Rome, i. 184, 255 ; ii.
340, 348.
Clement of Alexandria, i. 257 ; ii.
273, 374.
Clementines, ii. 268, 371.

Costa, da, i. 77.
Credner, ii. 176, 187, 226, 272,
286.
Cureton, ii. 327.
Cyprian, i. 92.
Daniel, ii. 213.
De Lagarde, ii. 273.
Delitzsch, i. 248.
Derenbourg, i. 247, 252 ; ii. 262.
De Wette, i. 290 ; ii. 15, 158.
A,oxXH, ii 293, 299, 311, 317,
332.
Dio Cassius, ii. 224.
Diognetus, Epistle to, ii. 302,
363.
Donaldson, ii. 363.
Dorner, ii. 267, 272, 276, 303,
316, 325, 353.
Dove, ii. 296.
Dressel, ii. 179, 271.
Diisterdieck, ii. 178, 182, 196,
207.
Duncker, ii. 373.
Elwert, i. 205.
Engelhardt, ii. 344, 347, 350,
353.
Epiphanius, i. 61, 249 ; ii. 285.
Erasmus, ii. 27.
Erdmann, i. 261 ; ii. 180, 183,
206.
Ernesti, ii. 10, 21, 23, 90.
Eusebius, i. 66, 116, 249 ; ii. 261,
277, 279, 284, 305, 318.
Euthymius, ii. 203.
Ewald, ii. 38.
Frank, ii. 272.
Friedmann, i. 247.
Frommann, ii. 187.
Funk, ii. 296, 338, 350.
Gass, ii. 363.
Gebhardt, ii.- 165, 169, 208.
Georgii, ii. 254.
Gess, i. 338.
Gfrbrer, i. 234.
Gieseler, i. 61, 118 ; ii. 264, 284.

388

INDEX.

Gloag, i. 223.
Godet, ii. 7, 28, 46, 54, 76, 96,
166, 179, 182, 187, 191, 194,
199, 209, 251, 257.
Grabe, ii. 278, 348.
Grate, i. 60, 247 ; ii. 261, 287.
Grant, ii. 289.
Gregory Nazianzen, i. 27.
Grimm, W, i. 256, 290; ii. 178.
Grotius, ii. 257.
Guericke, ii. 165.
Gundert, ii. 341, 347.
Hahn, ii. 147, 186.
Harless, i. 140.
Harnack, Th., i. 46, 56, 133, 140,
144 ; ii. 314, 316.
Harnack, Ad., i. 169 ; ii. 293,
319, 326, 335, 338, 348, 363.
Hase, ii. 12.
Hatch, i. 6, 88, 95, 156, 164, 167,
169 ; ii. 323, 328.
Hauber, ii. 312, 316.
Hauff, ii. 178.
Hausrath, ii. 270.
Hebart, ii. 175.
Hefele, ii. 304, 348.
Hegel, i. 51.
Hegesippus, i. 59 ; ii. 261, 264,
276, 368.
Heinrici, i. 139, 315 ; ii. 11, 25,
33, 39, 81, 89, 95, 97, 100.
Hengel, van, i. 129, 350, 361 ;
ii. 7, 35, 44, 46, 76, 95, 214.
Hengstenberg, ii. 174.
Herder, ii. 167.
Hermas, ii. 317, 358, 366.
Hess, i. 222 ; ii. 225.
Hieronymus (Jerome), i. 217, 234,
235 ; ii. 285, 288.
Hilgenfeld,. i. 155, 256, 327, 340,
365; ii. 30, 34, 105, 115, 117,
187, 268, 272, 317, 324, 327,
331, 338, 340, 344, 348, 356,
363.
Hippolytus, i. 259 ; ii. 18, 179,
278, 313.
Hofling, ii. 299, 326.
Hofmann, von, i. 209, 272, 282,
305, 345 ; ii. 17, 49, 92, 95,
114, 144, 146, 167, 175, 185,
189.

Hblemann, i. 339.
Hofstede de Groot, ii. 179.
Holsten, i. 3, 139, 178, 197, 200,
207, 209, 216, 227, 231, 236,
243, 272, 287, 313, 345, 353 ;
ii. 13, 32, 39, 44, 81, 95, 101.
Holtzmann, ii. 105, 115.
Hooker, i. 167.
Hug, i. 340 ; ii. 136, 350.
Huther, ii. 114, 147, 152, 183.
Hutten, Ulrich von, i. 39.
Ignatius, Epistles, ii. 302, 319,
326, 353, 366.
Irenams, i. 29, 256 ; ii. 116, 280,
307, 357, 370, 373.
Jacobi, ii. 340.
Jakoby, i. 139.
Jebb, i. 267.
Josephus, i. 74, 78 ; ii. 22-1.
Justin, the Martyr, ii. 265, 298,
302, 360.
Kahler, i. 268.
Kautzsch, i. 115.
Kayser, ii. 324.
Keim, i. 155, 197, 206, 256.
Kern, i. 290, 336 ; ii. 243.
Kliefoth, ii. 177.
Kling, i. 125.
Koch, i. 121, 219, 270 ; ii. 140,
152.
Kblling, ii. 104, 114.
Konig, ii. 221, 314.
Kostlin, K. R, i. 261 ; ii. 10,
133, 164, 185, 197, 205, 207,
211, 234, 251, 341, 343.
Kostlin, F. R., ii. 99.
Kohl, i. 267.
Krawutzcki, ii. 293.
Krenkel, i. 256.
Kuebel, i. 302.
Kuhn, ,i. 340.
Laichingen, ii. 141.
Lange, i. 65, 118, 140 ; ii. 31,
254.
Langen, ii. 296.
Lehmann, ii. 270.
Leighton, ii. 153.
Lekebusch, i. 12, 125, 215.

INDEX.

389

Lipsius, i. 153 ; ii. 73, 80, 270,
327, 341.
Lbhe, i. 114, 140, 161 ; ii. 88.
Lorenz, i. 345, 348, 358, 361 ; ii.
31, 45, 51, 76, 85, 99.
Lowe, ii. 258.
Lucian, ii. 333.
Liicke, i. 258, 262 ; ii. 164, 171,
176, 183, 203, 209.
Liitzelberger, i. 256 ; ii. 165.
Luthardt, ii. 178, 189, 203.
Luther, i. 365 ; ii. 182.
Lutterbeck, i. 115, 213 ; ii. 179,
188, 192 247, 256, 369.
Lutz, ii. 45, 221.
Manen, van, i. 328.
Mangold, i. 153 ; ii. 106.
Marcion, i. 235 ; ii. 371. -
Mayer, K. G., ii. 305.
Messner, ii. 128, 150, 251, 254.
Meyer, ii. 19, 85, 203.
Milligan, ii. 165, 209.
Mommsen, ii. 262.
Mone, ii. 213.
Mtiller, Julius, ii. 78, 185.
Munchmeyer, i. 140.
Neander, i. 121, 157, 181, 183,
196, 341 ; ii. 241, 313.
Niedner, i. 225 ; ii. 271, 274.
Niermeyer, ii. 165, 170, 208,
210.
Nitzsch, K. 1mm, i. 55, 269.
Oertel, i. 13, 125.
Oosterzee, van, ii. 114.
Origen, ii. 273, 283.
Osiander, i. 183.
Otto, ii. 104.
Overbeck, i. 10, 31, 69, 76, 91,
121, 173, 195, 215, 235, 267,
276, 280, 282 ; ii. 363.
Paulus, Dr., i. 8, 9, 13.
Pfeifer, i. 303, 313.
Pfleiderer, i. 346, 355, 365; ii.
11, 30, 39, 76, 81, 102, 109,
113, 133, 344, 353.
Philippi, ii. 84.
Photius, ii. 278.
Planck, K., ii. 133.

Plank, C, ii. 233.
Pliny, the younger, ii. 298.
Polycarp, ii. 356, 366.
Polykrates, i. 257 ; ii. 307.
Rabiger, i. 183 ; ii. 8.
Ranke, Leopold, i. 154.
Reifferscheid, i. 267.
Renan, i. 14, 77, 82, 92, 190, 205,
228, 231, 246, 249.
Reuss, Ed., i. 37, 209, 272, 291,
356; ii. 102, 118, 155, I/O,
180, 187, 206, 244, 249, 253,
352.
Riehm, ii. 124, 128, 135.
Riggenbach, i. 328 ; ii. 350.
Ritschl, i. 3, 60, 63, 88, 92, 121
178, 209, 213, 215, 297 ; ii. 43,
157, 233, 254, 269, 277, 279,
288, 313, 316, 324, 341, 345,
349, 356, 359.
Rothe, R, i. 60, 88, 93, 162, 168,
246.
Riickert, i. 179 ; ii. 8. 46, 84, 92.
Sabatier, ii. 296, 338.
Schatf, i. 58, 65, 150, 287, 341;
ii. 246, 256.
Schanz, ii. 190.
Scharling, i. 181, 183, 186.
Schenkel, ii. 109.
Sehleiermacher, ii. 14, 114, 136,
164.
Schliemann, ii. 264, 287.
Schmid, ii. 46, 150, 157, 159,
247 249.
Schmidt, J. E. Chr., i. 327.
Schmidt, Rich., i. 355 ; ii. 11.
Schmidt, Wold, i. 290 ; ii. 237.
Schneckenburger, i. 9, 118, 164,
278, 292 ; ii. 226, 241, 349.
Schnedermann, i. 280.
Schneider, ii. 309.
Schnitzer, ii. 164.
Scholten, i. 257 ; ii. 187, 204.
Schrader, i. 26, 162, 224, 243,
321.
Schiirer, i. 61, 71, 249.
Schultz, Herm, i. 264, 280 ; ii.
28, 45, 221.
Schultz, David, ii. 133.
Schwanbeck, i. 203.

390

INDEX.

Schwegler, i. 3, 60, 62, 123, 199,
256, 290, 323 ; ii. 164, 207, 219,
227, 247, 271, 276, 279, 301,
313, 343, 349, 353, 356, 359,
365.
Semisch, ii. 178, 269, 272, 363.
Sieflert, i. 14, 114.
Soden, von, i. 327.
Spencer, i. 51.
Stanley, i. 61, 92, 168 ; ii. 238,
246, 258.
Steiger, ii. 137.
Stephen, Gobar, ii. 277.
Strauss, D. Fr, ii. 178.
Suetonius, i. 154.
Sulpicius Severus, ii. 263.
Tacitus, i. 146, 154.
TertuUian, i. 235 ; ii. 31, 312,
315, 373.
Testaments of the Twelve Patri
archs, ii. 324.
Theile, i. 247, 292.
Theodoret, ii. 114.
Thiersch, i. 90, 129, 262 ; ii. 136,
167, 347.
Tholuck, i. 160 ; ii. 45, 84, 100.
Thomas Aquinas, ii. 101.
Tischendorf, ii. 292, 324.
Trip, i. 125, 215.
Uhlhorn, i. 246 ; ii. 179, 269,
273, 284, 288, 317, 327, 357, 360.
Umbreit, ii. 99.

Usteri, i. 333, 341, 355 ; ii. 32, 87.
Vies, van der, i. 327.
Vincentius of Lerins, i. 18.
Vinet, i. 86.
Vitringa, i. 92, 95, 135.
Vogel, E. F, i. 256.
Volkmar, ii. 187, 340.
Weiffenbach, i. 303.
Weiss, i. 264, 268, 271, 281, 285,
297, 318, 337, 347, 357, 364 ;
ii. 39, 44, 76, 81, 100, 114, 128,
136, 140, 142, 143, 149, 153,
156, 241, 247, 258.
Weitzel, i. 60 ; ii. 309.
Weizsiicker, i. 44, 165, 209, 270 ;
ii. 279, 295, 353.
Wendt, i. 155.
Westrik, i. 328.
Wieseler, i. 66, 118, 179, 213,
224 ; ii. 30, 37.
Wiesinger, ii. 114.
Witz, i. 286.
Wbrner, ii. 215.
Zahn, ii. 297, 299, 317, 327,
353, 357.
Zeller, i. 24, 31, 72, 75, 121, 194,
203, 214, 223, 287, 312, 321,
324, 341 ; ii. 31, 178, 230, 341.
Ziegler, ii. 374, 376.
Zimmer, i. 236, 312.
Ziillig, ii. 167.

MORRISON AND GIBE, EDINBURGH,
PRINTERS TO HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Just published, in demy 8vo, price 12s.,
AN INTRODUCTION TO THEOLOGY:
ITS PRINCIPLES, ITS BRANCHES, ITS RESULTS,
AND ITS LITERATURE.
By ALFRED CAVE, B.A,
principal, and professor of theology, of hackney COLLEGE, LONDON.
' We can most heartily recommend this work to students of every degree
of attainment, and not only to those who will have the opportunity of utilizing
its aid in the most sacred of the professions, but to all who desire to encourage
and systematize their knowledge and clarify their views of Divine things.' —
Nonconformist and English Independent.
Just published, in crown 8vo, price 4s. 6d.,
THE BIBLE
AN OUTGROWTH OF THEOCRATIC LIFE.
Br D. W. SIMON,
PRINCIPAL OF THE CONGREGATIONAL COLLEGE, EDINBURGH.
- A book of absorbing interest, and well worthy of study.' — Methodist New
Connexion Magazine. Just published, in crown 8vo, price 3s. 6d,
THE RELIGIOUS HISTORY OF ISRAEL
A Discussion of the Chief Problems in Old Testament History, as
opposed to the Development Theorists.
By Dk. FRIEDRICH EDUARD KONIG,
THE UNIVERSITY, LEIPZIG.
Translated by Rev. ALEXANDER J. CAMPBELL, M.A.

' An admirable little volume. . . . By sincere and earnest-minded students
it will be cordially welcomed.' — Freeman.
' Every page of the book deserves study.' — Church Bells.
Just published, in crown 8vo, price 6s. ,
NEW TESTAMENT TEACHING IN
PASTORAL THEOLOGY.
By J. T. BECK, D.D,
PROF. ORD. THEOL, TUBINGEN.
Edited by Professor B. RIGGENBACH.
Translated by Rev. JAS. M'CLYMONT, B.D, and
Rev. THOS. NICOL, B.D.
' The volume contains much which any thoughtful aud earnest Christian
minister will find helpful and suggestive to him for the wise and efficient
discharge of his sacred functions.'— Literary World.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

In Twenty-four handsome 8vo Volumes, Subscription price £6, 6s.,
ANTE-NICENE CHRISTIAN LIBRARY.
A COLLECTION OF ALL THE WORKS OF THE FATHERS OF THE CHRISTIAN-
CHURCH PRIOR TO THE COUNCIL OF NIOEA.
edited by the
Rev. ALEXANDER ROBERTS, D.D, and JAMES DONALDSON, LL.D.

Costents: — Apostolic Fathers, one vol.; Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, one
vol. ; Tatian, Theophilus, The Clementine Recognitions, oue vol. ;
Clement of Alexandria, two vols. ; Irenasus and Hippolytus, three
vols.; TertuUian against Marcion; Cyprian, two vols.; Origen, two
vols. ; TertuUian, three vols. ; Methodius, etc, one vol. ; Apocryphal
Gospels, Acts, and Revelations, one vol. ; Clementine Homilies. Apostolical
CoDSlitutiODS, one vol. ; Arnobius, one vol. ; Dionysius, Gregory
ThauQiaturgus, Syrian Fragments, one vol. ; Lactantius, two vols. ;
Early Liturgies and Remaining Fragments, one vol.
A ny Volume may he had separately, price 10s. 6d, — with the exception of Origen.
Vol. II, 12s.; and the Early Liturgies, Ss.
In Fifteen Volumes, demy 8vo, Subscription price £8, 19s.,
THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTINE.
, EDITED BY MARCUS DODS, D.D.

Contents: — The 'City of God,' two vols. ; Writings in connection with the
Donatist Controversy, one vol. ; The Anti- Pelagian Writings, three
vols. ; ' Letters,' two vols. ; Treatises against Faustus the Manicbasan,
one vol. ; The Harmony of the Evangelists, and the Sermon on the
Mount, one vol. ; On the Trinity, oue vol. ; Commentary on John,
two vols. ; On Christian Doctrine, Enchiridion, On Catechizing, and
On Faith and the Creed, one vol. ; ' Confessions,' with Copious Notes by
Eev. J. G. PlLKINGTON.
Any Worlc may be had separately, price 10s. 6d. per Volume.

SELECTION FROM
ANTE-NICENE LIBRARY AND ST. AUGUSTINE'S
WORKS.

THE Ante-Nicene Library being now completed in 24 Volumes,
and the St. Augustine Series being also complete (with the
exception of the ' Life ') in 15 Volumes, Messrs. Clark will, as in the
case of the Foreign Theological Library, give a Selection of 20
Volumes from both of those series at the Subscription price of Five
Guineas (or a larger number at same proportion).

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

In demy 8vo, Third Edition, price 10s. 6d.,
THE TRAINING OF THE TWELVE;
OR,
EXPOSITION OP PASSAGES IN THE GOSPELS EXHIBITING
THE TWELVE DISCIPLES OF JESUS UNDER
DISCIPLINE FOR THE APOSTLESHIP.
BY A. B. BRUCE, D.D.,
PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, FREE CHURCH COLLEGE, GLASGOW.
'Here we have a really great book on an important, large, and attractive
subject— a book full of loving, wholesome, profound thoughts about the
fundamentals of Christian faith and practice.'— British and Foreign Evangeli
cal Review.
' It is some five or six years since this work first made its appearance, and
now that a second edition has been called for, the author has taken the oppor
tunity to make some alterations which are likely to render it still more accept
able. Substantially, however, the book remains the same, and the hearty
commendation with which we noted its first issue applies to it at least as much
now.' — Rock.

BY THE SAME AUTHOR.

In demy 8vo, Second Edition, price 10s. 6d.,
THE HUMILIATION OF CHRIST,
IN ITS PHYSICAL, ETHICAL, AND OFFICIAL ASPECTS.
SIXTH SERIES OF CUNNINGHAM LECTURES.
' These lectures are able and deep-reaching to a degree not often found in
the religious literature of the day; withal, they are fresh and suggestive. . . .
The learning and tbe deep and sweet spirituality of this discussion will com
mend it to many faithful students of the truth as it is in Jesus.' — Congrega-
tionalist. ' We have not for a long time met with a work so fresh and suggestive as
this of Professor Bruce. . . . We do not know where to look at our English
Universities for a treatise so calm, logical, and scholarly.' — English Independent.
KEIL AND DELITZSCH'S
INTRODUCTION TO AND COMMENTARIES
ON THE OLD TESTAMENT.
In 27 Volumes, demy 8vo.
Messrs. CLARK have resolved to offer complete sets of this work at the
Original Subscription Price of £7, 2s. Single volumes may be had, price
10s. 6d.
' This series is one of great importance to the Biblical scholar ; and as
regards its general execution, it leaves little or nothing to be desired.'— Edin
burgh Review.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

In Three Volumes, 8vo, price 31s. 6d,
THE LIFE OF CHRIST.
By Dr. BERNHARD WEISS,
PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY, BERLIN.
'This book seems destined to hold a very distinguished, if not absolutely
unique place in the criticism of the New Testament. Its fearless search after
truth, its independence of spirit, its extent of research, its thoughtful and dis
criminating tone, must secure for it a very high reputation.' — Congregationalism

BY THE SAME AUTHOR.
In Two Volumes, 8vo, price 21s.,
BIBLICAL THEOLOGY OF THE NEW
TESTAMENT.
' The work which this volume completes is one of no ordinary strength and
acumen. It is an exposition of the books of the New Testament arranged
scientifically, that is, according to the authorship and development. It is the
ripe fruit of many years of New Testament exegesis and theological study.
. . The book is in every way a notable one.' — British Quarterly Review.
In Four Volumes, 8vo, price £2, 2s.,
A SYSTEM OF CHRIST/AN DOCTRINE.
By Dr. I. A. DORNER,
PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY, BERLIN.
' The work has many and great excellences, and is really indispensable to
all who would obtain a thorough acquaintance with the great problems of
theology. It is a great benefit to English students that it should be made
accessible to them in their own language, and in a form so elegant and con
venient.' — Literary Churchman.
In Three Volumes, 8vo, price 31s. 6d,
CHRISTIAN ETHICS.
By Dr. H. MARTENSEN,
BISHOP OF SEELAND.
SCrartsIatEb from tfje ^Uitfjut's ffimnan (Eofticm.
Volume I.— GENERAL ETHICS.
II.— INDIVIDUAL ETHICS.
,, III.— SOCIAL ETHICS.
'It is no ordinary book, and we commend it to the study of all who are
interested in Christian Ethics, as one of the most able treatises on the subject
which has ever yet appeared.' — Watchman.
'Dr. Martensen's work on Christian Dogmatics reveals the strength of
thought as well as the fine literary grace of its author. . . . His chief ethical
writings comprise a system of Christian Ethics, general and special, in three
volumes. Each of these volumes has great and singular excellence, and it
might be generally felt that in them the author has surpassed his own work
on " Christian Dogmatics." ' — Rev. Principal Cairns.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

HERZOG'S
BIBLICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA.

Now complete, in Three Vols. imp. 8vo, price 24s. each,
ENCYCLOPEDIA OR DICTIONARY
OF
asiblical, l&fstoncal, Doctrinal, anO ©tactical Gbeologg.
Based on the Real-Encyclopadie ofEerzog, Plitt, and HaucTc.
Edited by PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D, LL.D.

'A well designed, meritorious work, on which neither industry nor expense
has been spared.' — Guardian.
' This certainly is a remarkable work. ... It will be one without which
no general or theological or biographical library will be complete.' — Freeman.
' The need of such a work as this must be very often felt, and it ought to
find its way into all college libraries, and into many private studies.' —
Christian World.
1 As a comprehensive work of reference, within a moderate compass, we
know nothing at all equal to it in the large department which it deals with.'
— Church Bells.
Now complete, in Four Vols. imp. 8vo, price 12s. 6d. each,
COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT.
tSEittj Illustrations aria Muys.
Edited by PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D.

Volume I.
THE SYNOPTICAL GOSPELS.
Volume ITT.
ROMANS to PHILEMON.

Volume II.
ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL
AND THE
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
Volume IV.
HEBREWS to REVELATION.
'A useful, valuable, and instructive commentary. The interpretation is set
forth with clearness and cogency, and in a manner calculated to commend the
volumes to the thoughtful reader. The book is beautifully got up, and reflects
great credit on the publishers as well as the writers.' — The Bishop of Gloucester.
'There are few better commentaries haviDg a similar scope and object;
indeed, within the same limits, we do not know of one so good upon the whole
of the New Testament.' — Literary World.
1 External beauty and intrinsic worth combine in the work here completed.
Good paper, good type, good illustrations, good binding, please the eye, as
accuracy and thoroughness in matter of treatment satisfy the judgment.
Everywhere the .workmanship is careful, solid, harmonious.' — Methodist
Recorder.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

In Three Vols. 8vo, price £l, lis. 6d.,
A HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES.
Translated from the Fifth and Last German Edition of
Dr. K. R. HAGENBACH
(With Additions from other Sources').
' It possesses an almost unique value as a history of Christian dogma. We
have no English work that can be compared with it.' — British Quarterly
Review. ' It is superfluous to commend a work which has been of such great service.'
— English Churchman. 
BY THE SAME AUTHOR.
In Two Volumes, demy 8vo, price 21s.,
HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION
IN
GERMANY AND SWITZERLAND CHIEFLY.
Translated from the Fourth Revised Edition of the German.
'We highly appreciate for the most part the skill and the proportion, the
vivid portraiture and fine discrimination, and the careful philosophic develop
ment of ideas by which this most readable and instructive work is characterised.'
— Evangelical Magazine.
' Dr. Hagenbach undoubtedly has in an eminent degree many of the higher
qualifications of a historian. He is accurate, candid, and impartial ; and his
insight into the higher springs of the Reformation is only equalled by his
thorough knowledge of the outward progress of that movement.' — Scotsman.

BY THE SAME AUTHOR.
In demy 8vo, price 9s.,
GERMAN RATIONALISM
IN ITS RISE, PROGRESS, AND DECLINE. A CONTRIBUTION TO THE
CHURCH HISTORY OF THE 18th AND 19th CENTURIES.
' This is a volume we have long wished to see in our language. Hagenbach
is a veteran in this field, and this volume is the ablest, and is likely to be the
most useful of his works.' — British Quarterly Review.
In Two Volumes, demy 8vo, price 21s.,
COMMENTARY ON ST. PAULS EPISTLE
TO THE ROMANS.
By FRIEDRICH ADOLPH PHILIPPI.
Translated from the Third Improved and Enlarged Edition.
'A serviceable addition to the Foreign Theological liibr&ry.'— Academy.
1 A commentary not only ample for its critical stores, but also valuable for
its sober exegesis.' — John Bull.
'If the writer is inferior to Meyer in critical acumen, he is at least equal to
him in theological learning and religious insight; and his commentary has
independent worth — it is no mere repetition of other men's labours.'— Church
Bells.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

WORKS BY THE LATE
PATRICK FAIRBAIRN, D.D.,
PRINCIPAL AND PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE FREE CHURCH
COLLEGE, GLASGOW.
In crown 8vo, price 6s.,
PASTORAL THEOLOGY : A Treatise on the Office and
Duties of the Christian Pastor. With, a Biographical Sketch
of the Author.

In crown 8vo, price 7s. 6d.,
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. The Greek Text and
Translation. With Introduction, Expository Notes, and Dis
sertations.
' We cordially recommend this work to ministers and theological students.'
— Methodist Magazine.
1 We have read no book of his with a keener appreciation and enjoyment
than that just published on the Pastoral Epistles.' — Nonconfwmist.

In Two Volumes, demy 8vo, price 21s., Sixth Edition,
THE TYPOLOGY OF SCRIPTURE, viewed in con
nection with the whole Series of the Divine Dispensations.

In demy 8vo, price 10s. 6d., Fourth Edition,
EZEKIEL, AND THE BOOK OF HIS PROPHECY:
An Exposition. With a new Translation.

In demy 8vo, price 10s. 6d., Second Edition,
PROPHECY, viewed in its Distinctive Nature, its
Special Functions, and Proper Interpretation.

In demy 8vo, price 10s. 6d. ,
HERMENEUTICAL MANUAL; or, Introduction to
the Exegetical Study of the Scriptures of the New Testament.

In demy 8vo, price 10s. 6d.,
THE REVELATION OF LAW IN SCRIPTURE, con
sidered with respect both to its own Nature and to its Relative
Place in Successive Dispensations. (The Third Series of the
' Cunningham Lectures.')

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

CHEAP RE-ISSUE OF
STIER'S WORDS OF THE LORD JESUS.
To meet a very general desire that this now well-known Work should
be brought more within the reach of all classes, both Clergy
and Laity, Messrs. Claek are now issuing, for a limited
period, the Eight Volumes, handsomely bound in Four, at the
Subscription Price of
TWO GUINEAS.
' The whole work is a treasury of thoughtful exposition. Its measure of
practical and spiritual application, with exegetical criticism, comnlends it to
the use of those whose duty it is to preach as well as to understand the
Gospel of Cbrist.' — Guardian.

BY THE SAME AUTHOR.
THE WORDS OF THE RISEN SAVIOUR, AND
COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE OF ST. JAMES.
8vo, 10s. 6d.
THE WORDS OF THE APOSTLES EXPOUNDED.
8vo, 10s. 6d.
New and Cheap Edition, in Four Vols., demy 8vo, Subscription Price 28s.,
THE LIFE OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST:
A Complete Critical Examination of the Origin, Contents, and
Connection of the Gospels. Translated from the German of J.
P. Lange, D.D., Professor of Divinity in the University of Bonn.
Edited, with additional Notes, by Marcus Dods, D.D.
' We have great pleasure in recommending this work to our readers. We
are convinced of its value and enormous range.' — Irish Ecclesiastical Gazette.
BENGIL'S GNOMON-CHEAP EDITION.
GNOMON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT:
By John Albert Bengel. Now first translated into English. With
Original Notes, Explanatory and Illustrative. Edited by the
Rev. Andrew R. Fausset, M.A. Five Volume Edition bound
in Three Volumes at the Subscription Price of
TWENTY-FOUR SHILLINGS.
The Five Volume Edition may still be had at the Subscription Price
of £1, lis. 6d.
' Bengel stands out still facile princeps among all who have laboured, or -who
as yet labour, in that important field. He is unrivalled in felicitous brevity,
combined with what seldom accompanies that excellence, namely, perspicuity.
Terse, weighty, and suggestive, he often, as a modern writer observes,
' ' condenses more matter into a line than can be extracted from pages of other
writers." ' — Spurgeon's Commenting and Commentaries.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Just published, in Two Volumes, 8vo (1600 pages), price 24s.,
THE DOCTRINE OF SACRED SCRIPTURE:
A Critical, Historical, and Dogmatic Inquiry into the
Oeigin and Nature op the Old and New Testaments.
By GEORGE T. LADD, D.D.,
PROFESSOR OF MENTAL AND MORAL PHILOSOPHY, YALE COLLEGE.
' This important work is pre-eminently adapted for students, and treats in
an exhaustive manner nearly every important subject of Biblical criticism
which is agitating the religious mind at the present day.' — Contemporary
Review. Just published, in crown 8vo, price 6s.,
STUDIES IN THE CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES.
By ALEXANDER MAIR, D.D.
' This book ought to be immensely popular. . . . Speaking from our owu
experience of works of this character, we have no hesitation in saying that,
for readers in general, we know of no work which is so distinctly suited for
all who can understand a complete subject, made remarkably easy and clear.
. . . That one chapter on the " Unique Personality of Christ" is a masterpiece
of eloquent writing, though it is scarcely fair to mention one portion where
every part is excellent. The beauties of the volume are everywhere apparent,
and therefore will again attract the mind that has been once delighted with
the literary feast.' — Rock.
' Dr. Mail- has made an honest study of Strauss, Renan, Keim, aud
"Supernatural Religion," and his book is au excellent one to put into the
hands of doubters aud inquirers.' — English Churchman.
Just published, in crown 8vo, price 6s.,
CHRISTIAN CHARITY IN THE ANCIENT
CHURCH.
By G. UHLHORN, D.D.
' The historical knowledge this work displays is immense, and the whole
subject is wrought out with great care and skill; it is a most readable, delight
ful, aad instructive volume.' — Evangelical Christendom.
Just published, in demy 8vo, price 10s. 6d.,
THE LORD'S PRAYER:
% practical JHebitation.
By Rev. NEWMAN HALL, LL.B.
' Short, crisp sentences, absolute in form and lucid in thought, convey the.
author's meaning and carry on his exposition. ... He is impatient of dim
lights ; his thoughts are sharply cut and are like crystals in their clearness.'
— British Quarterly Review.
' Well deserves a place in the minister's library.' — Literary World.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

In crown 8vo, price 4s. 6d.,
THE CHRIST.
By ERNEST NAVILLE.
1 They are masterly productions.' — Methodist Recorder.
' We look upon these lectures as a valuable contribution to Christology ;
aDd to young ministers and others interested in the grand and exhaustive
subject, they will be found to be highly stimulating and helpful.' — Literary
World.  " 
BY THE I SAME AUTHOR.
In crown 8vo, price 4s. 6d.,
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
TRANSLATED FROM THE FRENCH.
' The subject is dealt with by M. Naville in a truly philosophic manner,
and at the same time with a brilliancy of illustration that seizes and enchains
the attention, and with a simplicity of style that places the subject within
the reach of all.' — London Quarterly Review.

BY THE SAME AUTHOR.
Just published, in crown 8vo, price 5s.,
MODERN PHYSICS.
HISTORICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES.
In crown 8vo, price 5s.,
MESSIANIC PROPHECY:
ITS ORIGIN, HISTORICAL CHARACTER, AND RELATION TO
NEW TESTAMENT FULFILMENT.
From the German of Dr. EDWARD RIEHM.
' Original and suggestive, and deserving careful consideration.' — Literary
Churchman. ' Its intrinsic excellence makes it a valuable contribution to our Biblical
literature.' — British and Foreign Evangelical Review.
In demy 8vo, price 10s. 6d.,
THE BIBLE DOCTRINE OF MAN.
(SEVENTH SERIES OF CUNNINGHAM LECTURES.)
By JOHN LAIDLAW, D.D.,
' PROFESSOR OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY, NEW COLLEGE, EDINBURGH.

' An important and valuable contribution to the discussion of the anthro
pology of the sacred writings ; perhaps the most considerable that has appeared
in our own language.' — Literary Churchman.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 02215 0297