Two forgotten creeds.
Benjamin Wisner Bacon.
(Harvard Theological Reviev/. Vol. 6. 1913 )

- YALE "WlMUYEU^flir Y°

TWO FORGOTTEN CREEDS

BENJAMIN WISNER BACON
*«# -'

"¦MWUBBHI IllllllnliiHilimmi.

Reprinted from
THE HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
Volume J8f$ July, 1913

294 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

TWO FORGOTTEN CREEDS
BENJAMIN WISNER BACON
Yale University
For the modern theologian there is an all-encompassing bond of
perfectness in the New Testament in the doctrine of the Logos,
found in the Johannine gospel and epistles. It links together
the christology of the Synoptic writings, Mark, Matthew, Luke-
Acts, and that of the epistles. It combines the primitive doctrine
of Jesus the faithful "Servant" of God, glorified and exalted to
God's right hand — a doctrine of "apotheosis," as Baur called it
— with the Pauline doctrine of "incarnation," — Christ a pre-
existent being, agent of creation, in the form and likeness of God,
but self-emptied and abased, made for a little while lower than
the angels, that for the suffering of death he might be made eter
nally higher than they, heir and lord of the creation. In the one —
the Petrine christology, as we may call it because it is mainly rep
resented in the speeches of Peter in Acts 2-5 — the residence in
heaven is an episode. God has taken up his faithful Servant
for a short interval to his own right hand, delivering him out of
the power of death, that, when his people have repented of their
wicked rejection of him, he may send him again as the Christ,
to restore the kingdom to Israel and reign forever on the throne of
David in the renewed and glorified Jerusalem. In the other chris
tology — the Pauline — the residence on earth is the episode. The
drama's beginning and ending is in heaven. Viewed thus "under
the aspect of the eternal" the brief period of abasement, poverty,
and suffering, undertaken for the "reconciliation" of the animate
world, is scarcely a moment of time. For our sakes the eternal
Son of God "became poor," he emptied himself and took upon
him the form of a slave, and became obedient unto death, yea,
even the (slave's) death of the cross; but therefore also "God
highly exalted him and gave him the Name which is above every
name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, and
every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of
God the Father."

TWO FORGOTTEN CREEDS 295
Here, combined already by Paul, are two doctrines of the son-
ship of Jesus literally as wide apart as heaven and earth. The
one had been propagated on Hebrew soil, where the Messianic
hope^had been gradually transcendentalized until the Redeemer
of Israel could only be conceived as operating from "the clouds of
heaven." The other had been propagated on Hellenistic soil,
where doctrines of the descent, conflict, and ascent of redeemer-
gods (aflatar-doctrines) furnished the moulds of thought, as having
long been the most vital element of popular religion.
Centuries of perpetual adjustment and adaptation have veiled
for us the difficulties of harmonizing these two opposite modes of
rehgious thinking. Having been taught the creeds of Christen
dom from our childhood, we think it nothing strange that our
rehgion should have this double ancestry, and throughout its
history should have found the chief task among all its doctrinal
debates to be the work of so defining its doctrine of Jesus as Lord
3^ to lose no atom of value from either its Hebrew or its Hellenistic
inheritance. But time was when the amalgamation was still a
problem. Beyond all other factors in the adjustment wherein
the charch ultimately rested was the Johannine element, an
adaptation to their problem of the logos-doctrine of Heraclitus and
the Stoics. A full generation after the death of Paul there ap
peared at Ephesus, birthplace of Heraclitus and chief seat of the
mission work of Paul, a gospel which reinterpreted the story of
Jesus as it had become current through the Synoptic writers.
Everywhere the new gospel was recognized as "the spiritual
gospel," because it presented the story of Jesus in its theological
significance. At the beginning it supplied that Pauline doctrine
of pre-existence so conspicuously lacking in its predecessors. In
deed, it exhibited the entire life of Jesus, including his death and
resurrection, as a "manifestation of the glory" of the incarnate
Logos, enlightening and "reconciling" the world. The gospel
story no longer appeared merely that of a man who from time to
time in his earthly career, and ultimately in his resurrection, had
been "glorified." The transfiguration extended throughout.
In view of its late appearance, and the fact that it does not seem
to have been originally put forth under any apostolic authority.
the march of the Fourth Gospel and its accompanying epistles

296 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
toward general acceptance in the church must be deemed rapid.
Opposition was made at Rome, and lasted well into the third
century; but this opposition assailed the Ephesian canon as a whole,
being particularly directed at the Book of Revelation. It arose
through dislike of the doctrine of Montanus and his followers,
who had brought with them from Phrygia these "Johannine"
writings and rested on them. The obnoxious feature accordingly
was not the logos-doctrine of the gospel, but the millenarian
doctrine of Revelation, which is not really akin to the gospel and
epistles. For this reason we hear much less of the opposition to
these. With the exclusion of the Montanists and the very gen
eral discrediting of Revelation, opposition to the gospel soon
faded out. "Johannine" christology became the generally re
ceived orthodoxy of the church Catholic, as indeed the doctrine of
the logos in somewhat different forms had already found accept
ance in Ignatius (a.d. 115) and Justin (153), though without appeal
to "John." In these two writers, both intimately connected with
Ephesus, it is just possible (in Ignatius scarcely possible) to make
out traces of acquaintance with the Fourth Gospel. But both,
while the authority to which they appeal is drawn from Synoptic
tradition, yet have a doctrine of the logos kindred to that of the
Johannine writings. Justin's form of the doctrine may even be
said to be modelled after it. Here is the great and significant
difference between the last quarter of the second century and the
earher time. It is not that there is no logos-doctrine in the earher
(Paul himself has a pronounced doctrine of the logos, though he
avoids the word), but that after a.d. 175 the doctrine begins to
be "Johannine" and to appeal to the Fourth Gospel as authority.
When we come to Irenaeus (185-200), the battle for Johannine
christology is already almost won. Now the authority of the
Apostle John is directly invoked in its favor. Irenaeus, indeed,
still inveighs against "those wretched men" (anti-montanists)
who in their dislike of "the gift of the Spirit" recently poured
out (in Phrygia) "reject that aspect of evangelic truth presented
by John's gospel, setting aside both the gospel and the prophetic
Spirit" (in the book of Revelation). But the opponents of the
Ephesian scriptures were fighting against fate. Already the
canon of four gospels which Irenaeus advocates had been generally

TWO FORGOTTEN CREEDS 297
adopted in Syria (Tatian, Theophilus of Antioch), and Irenaeus
himself was quite in harmony with the prevailing disposition of
the church. Men were ready to welcome the Fourth Gospel as
at least on a par with its predecessors. For the orthodox mind
of the second century it met a long-felt want. Gentile thinkers,
trained in the school of Paul but unable to find in the older gospels
adequate anchorage for their doctrines of pre-existence and in
carnation, felt that at last the story of Jesus had been adequately
presented. Clement of Alexandria expresses the mind of the age
in asserting that John had read the work of his predecessors
and had approved it as correctly relating "the external things,"
but wrote his own gospel at the solicitation of friends (an infer
ence from Jn. 21 u) to present the spiritual significance of the
matter. How interesting, then, it would be, might we but bring again
to life some unsophisticated Christian of Rome of the period
before the doctrine of the logos had made its way thither, and
draw out his christological ideas! There is the letter of Clement,
written to the Corinthians on behalf of the church in Rome, about
a.d. 95. Clement knows the letters of Paul and quotes them.
He refers specifically to that which the Apostle had written to
the Corinthians (our First Corinthians; Second Corinthians is
not mentioned). With the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews
he shows himself very familiar. He has traces of acquaintance
with First Peter and James, though they are not referred to under
any names. He also in two passages quotes at some length
words of Jesus. The first quotation corresponds to Mt. 5 7, 6 14,
7 1, 2 and Lk. 6 31, 36-38; the second corresponds to Mt. 26 24,
18 6 and Lk. 22 22, 17 1, 2. Neither quotation employs the terms
of either of our gospels. Both are introduced with the formula,
"Remember the words of the Lord Jesus." Beyond this Clement
is scarcely affected by any New Testament writing. "Scripture"
to him, as to the New Testament writers, is still simply "the
Law and the Prophets" — with considerable latitude as regards
canonicity. Clement recalls, and expects his readers to recall,
"the good Apostles Peter and Paul," who after many labors and
sufferings had "gone to their appointed place of glory." He re
peats in one or two passages expressions which remind us of Paul's

298 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
doctrine of pre-existence. He tells us (42 l) that "Jesus Christ
was sent forth from God." In particular he adopts the phraseol
ogy of Hebrews 1 3-5, 7, 13 in speaking of Jesus (ch. 36) as the
adopted Son of God, a mirror of the Father. In short, catholicity
is almost his distinctive trait. But Clement is too strictly de
pendent for his religious ideas * on training of Jewish type, to show
any trace of real sympathy with Hellenistic doctrines of redemp
tion. One may question whether even his reverence for Paul
makes him actually share the doctrine of his christological au
thority with regard to the self-abasement (kenosis) of Christ Jesus,
though he seems to echo Paul's thought in referring to Christ
(ch. 16) as "the sceptre of God" who "came not in the pomp of
arrogance or of pride, though he might have done so, but in lowliness
of mind, according as the Holy Spirit spake concerning him,"
quoting thereupon Is. 53 1-12. In reality Clement's fundamental
conception of Christ is identical with that which forms the small
distinctive element of First Peter. There are even many passages
where he unmistakably rests upon this epistle, though his con
ception of Jesus as the suffering "Servant" of Deutero-Isaiah
cannot be solely derived from it. This conception is fragmen-
tarily traceable in nearly all the New Testament writings, though
in none does it form the distinctive note save in documents which
directly or indirectly put forward the name of Peter. Luke-
Acts has a special application of it; First Peter mingles it with
its copious borrowings from Paul; Clement makes it predomi
nant. Elsewhere it comes to the surface only in a few ritual
prayers and other incorporated early material distinguished by
a peculiar employment of the Isaian messianic title, the "Servant"
(wcus) of God. We naturally expect no traces in Clement of the
Johannine doctrine of the logos. As already stated, it is not even
clear that he fully entered into the doctrine of pre-existence
which he found in Paul and Hebrews.
With greater reason we might expect to find in Clement's
christology some trace at least of the primitive "Adoptionism"
1 Hamack (Sitzungsberiehte of the Berlin Academy, 1909) takes exception
to the general critical judgment which pronounces Clement a Jew. Harnack,
however, would not deny that his religious ideas show in marked degree their
Jewish schooling.

TWO FORGOTTEN CREEDS 299
which characterizes our Gospel of Mark. This gospel represents
the earliest known attempt to outline the career of Jesus. It is
so early that although many allusions exist to further evangelic
material, scarcely any of it has survived save that here included.
When our first and third gospels were written (90-100), scarcely
anything else of a narrative character was deemed worthy of ad
mission. The Gospel of Mark, we should infer, was a writing
of extraordinary influence and authority, and ancient tradition
and modern criticism concur in assigning its origin to Rome, not
far from a.d. 75. Now the anecdotes of Mark are put together
in the supreme interest of the evangelist's christology. The pur
pose, from the story of the baptism with the voice from heaven
to the testimony of the centurion at the foot of the cross, and of
the angels at the empty tomb, is to prove Jesus to be the Son of
God. For this the words and deeds of Jesus are related, espe
cially the wonders wrought by him, and the voices and signs
from heaven at the beginning, middle, and end of his ministry.
But Mark's picture of "Jesus the Son of God," while unavoidably
embodying certain traits of the portrait of the suffering Servant,
makes a radical alteration of the type. Not "the meekness and
lowliness of Christ" are the predominant traits, but a "demon
stration of the Spirit and of power."
To Paul, as doubtless to other evangelizing "apostles" of the
new faith, the phenomena of the Spirit, miracles, "prophecy,"
"tongues," had been the proof that Jesus after his exaltation was
endowed with "the powers of the age to come." They were
the ocular proof to hearers of the gospel message that he had
ascended to the right hand of God, from whence he was "pour
ing forth" the Spirit. The "gifts" and miracles were a guarantee
to behevers of their inheritance "reserved in heaven" for a new
age about to dawn. Neither Paul, nor Hebrews, nor First Peter
suggests in any way any occurrence of them before Jesus had
been glorified. On the contrary, "he was crucified through weak
ness." Mortality, suffering, subjection to the common lot of those
"born of women," are the features emphasized in his earthly
career. In Mark's collection of anecdotes the "gifts" and "pow
ers" are carried back into the hitherto neglected period of Jesus'
earthly career. The reader now learns — for the first time, so far

300 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
as we are informed — that Jesus was not first "declared to be the
Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead"
(Rom. 1 s), but that he was so declared from the moment when
the Baptist (the promised Elias) anointed him, and "the Spirit"
with all its gifts of revelation and power descended "into" him.
At that moment a "voice from heaven" declared his true charac
ter. The manifestation, as Mark further relates, had been re
peated and emphasized in the presence of three intimate disciples
immediately after Jesus' declaration that as the Christ he must
suffer the death of the cross, and pains are taken to explain how
the story had failed to become current until "after the Son of
Man was risen from the dead." In fact, the most brilliant char
acterization of the Gospel of Mark which has appeared in our
generation finds its distinctive editorial characteristic to be just
here. The evangelist has introduced a supernatural Being upon
the stage; he finds himself continually obliged to explain how this
could be and yet produce so shght effect even on the disciples;
and he meets the difficulty by an adaptation of Paul's doctrine
of the hardening of Israel.2 Jesus purposely "concealed" his
messiahship. The appearance of the Gospel of Mark could make nothing less
than an epoch in the history of christology. It is not likely to
have been the only, or even the first, attempt to prove Jesus the
Son of God from the events of his earthly career; but it was at
any rate so much the most important that it practically super
seded all others. But from Mark alone it is impossible to de
rive any doctrine of the person of Christ which transcends "adop-
tionism." As Wellhausen says: "In Mark Jesus descends into
the Jordan a simple man. He comes up out of it the Son of God."
"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ" in this gospel
parallels the beginning of the Christian life of every believer.
Normally, the convert's experience is expressed in the phrase,
"And when they were baptized, the Spirit fell upon them and they
spake with tongues and prophesied" (Acts 10 44 ff., 19 5 ff.).
To Paul life under control of the Spirit had been the proof of
"adoption" (Rom. 8 14). It was natural that Mark should
conceive the sonship of Jesus in similar terms. But Paul had also
2 With Mk. 4 11 £. compare Rom. 11 8.

TWO FORGOTTEN CREEDS 301
a doctrine of a pre-existent Christ, a doctrine which he nowhere
brings into express relation to the primitive christology of exalta
tion of the "Servant" (Is. 52 13, Ps. 110 l), and this finds
no expression whatever in Mark. That Jesus had been exalted
to "the right hand of God" far above all angels, principalities,
and powers was matter of common behef. That was implied in
the common confession of Jesus as Lord. The distinctively
Pauline doctrine, which finds no place even in the later Synoptic
literature, though adopted in Hebrews and First Peter, is the
identification of the glorified Christ with the pre-existent Spirit.
To Paul "the Lord is the Spirit" (2 Cor. 3 17), through whom,
as the divine Wisdom, the world was created, and by whom "all
things consist." The creation of the world was to him in so real a
sense the act of Christ that those who "have Christ's mind" are
thereby admitted to the secret (/Auo-Ti?piov) of the cosmos, in a
manner which no mere cosmological speculation can rival (1
Cor. 2 6-16, 8 6). As Christ was manifest in the creative Wis
dom of God, the agent and "artificer" of the universe according to
Hebrew philosophy, and the "effluence" from God that "holdeth
all things together" (Wisd. 1 7, 7 21-8 l), so also he was mani
fest in the giving of the Torah, always to orthodox Judaism the
supreme Wisdom (Dt. 4 6; compare, for instance, Ecclus. 24 23-
29). Paul agrees with the author of Baruch (Bar. 3 9-4 l) that
the words of Dt. 30 12, 13, on which he builds his own, "Say
not, Who shall ascend into heaven? Who shall descend into the
abyss? The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart,"
apply to the divine Wisdom-Spirit. He goes beyond Baruch and
orthodox Judaism when he specifically identifies this redemptive
Wisdom-Spirit with Christ (Rom. 10 6-9), and the "word" with
"the word of faith which we preach."
This was the new point of Pauline christological doctrine, not
that Jesus had been exalted far above all angels, principalities,
and powers, but that "he that descended [into the lower parts of
the earth] is the same also that afterward ascended" (Eph. 4 10).
This, accordingly, is what Paul labors to prove from Script
ure, as well as from the present testimony of the outpoured
Spirit. We observe, then, that it is from the Pauline epistles and
not from Synoptic tradition that our fourth evangelist derives

302 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
his conception of Jesus as having unbroken remembrance while
on earth of "the glory which he had with the Father before the
world was," and as able to tell "heavenly things," the things which
he had "seen with his Father," as none but an incarnate heavenly
being could (Jn. 3 12 f., 31 f., 17 5). Paul thought of Jesus as a
being who, "though he was rich, yet for your sakes became poor,"
who "emptied himself" and took on him "the form of a slave,"
and yet in the "emptying" had not relinquished identity of
consciousness. His "mind" still retained the consciousness of
the creative purpose, his will was the same will which set the
example of supreme self-abasement and obedience unto death (2
Cor. 8 9, Phil. 2 7 ff., 1 Cor. 2 11-16). To understand the New
Testament, nothing is more vital than an appreciation of this
amalgamation of Pauline with Synoptic christology as we see it
ultimately accomplished in the Johannine writings. Our present
purpose is to look at two relatively forgotten writings from the
very midst of the transition.
There was small reluctance on the part of Paul's fellow-laborers
in the faith to accept his "mystery of godliness," even though it did
not profess to have been "received." The pre-existence of Jesus as
the divine Wisdom-Spirit seemed to them a perfectly reasonable
belief. But how and when the descent and incarnation of this
Wisdom-Spirit had taken place Paul had omitted to state. Hence
the incessant restatements regarding "the beginning of the gos
pel." To Mark, as we have said, the beginning was Jesus'
adoption to sonship by the descent "into" him of the Spirit at
his baptism, impelling him to his career. Jesus had experienced
to the full what to believers is partial. In the language of an
early uncanonical gospel, "The whole fountain of the Holy Ghost
descended upon him." The obverse of this emphasis on the
baptismal adoption in Mark is the omission of an important
element of the primitive christology— the fact that Jesus had been
"of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1 3, 9 s;
compare Heb. 7 14, Clement of Rome 32 l). Mark not only omits
the genealogy, but places in the mouth of Jesus an argument to
prove that the basing of the claims of the Christ on his Davidic
pedigree is a mere fallacy of "the scribes" (Mk. 12 35-37). With
the author of Hebrews Mark holds that the office of the Christ
is "without a genealogy."

TWO FORGOTTEN CREEDS 303
The average modern Christian naturally reads the Gospel of
Mark through several pairs of spectacles furnished by later evan
gelists and interpreters. Are they not all orthodox men, Chris
tian men? And does it not follow that they all say the same?
But ancient readers saw decided differences. Cerinthus and
those who drew a distinction between the spiritual aeon Christ
and the man Jesus, preferred this gospel, because (to their view)
it represented that the man Jesus became at his baptism the
"receptacle" of the Christ-Spirit, which again withdrew from him
before the tragic end.3 Conversely, orthodox evangehsts hastened
to amend its all too vulnerable "beginning." Matthew and Luke
not only restore the genealogies establishing Jesus' descent from
David, but present independently new narratives of his birth,
to prove in forms the most emphatic the Jewish mind could con
ceive that Jesus had not become "the Son of God" at his baptism,
but had been such from his mother's womb. But even this, as
our fourth evangelist perceives, is far from satisfying the require
ment of the Pauline doctrine. The "beginning" according to
John is with the logos "in the bosom of the Father" before the
foundation of the world.
The facts we cite indicate how great readjustments of thought
would be sure to follow, and did follow, the appearance of our
Gospel of Mark. Its doctrine of the sonship of Jesus was not a
mere commonplace of the times. If Clement, writing his long
epistle from the same community and only a score of years there
after, shows no trace whatever of acquaintance with it, and pre
sents a conception of Jesus modelled wholly after the pattern of
the suffering Servant of Deutero-Isaiah and First Peter, we must
lay it to predisposition and not to ignorance; for Mark cannot
have been unknown to him. To some of Clement's contempo
raries at Rome its christology must have come as the solution of a
great problem. There is evidence that the Roman church was
agitated over the questions raised by the opening chapters of
Matthew about a.d. 119. Certainly it had then not yet been
affected by the logos-doctrine of the Ephesian evangelist. Mark's
gospel was to Clement far from new, but it surely stands for what
was then advanced christology. Especially would it appeal to the
1 Irenaeus, Haer. i, 3013, iii, 117.

304 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
convert of gentile birth, harmonizing his ideas of the divine Lord,
the Son of the Kving God, whom he had learned in the church to
worship as redeemer and giver of eternal life, with the httle he
could learn from tradition regarding Jesus' earthly career. How
instructive, then, if we could hght upon the testimony of some
primitive Roman Christian, a convert from paganism, forced
as best he could to adjust to the doctrine of the church his ideas
of the attainment of immortality through aid of redeemer-gods!
How would he deal with Paul's "mystery" of Christ on the one
side, and with Petrine tradition on the other?
Now in the things which we are saying the chief point is this.
We have such a witness, a contemporary of Clement at Rome,
one who refers to Clement by name as still charged with the par
ticular duty of "sending to foreign cities" such writings as we
know he had sent to Corinth, and that which our author hopes
he will now put in circulation.4
Hermas, the Roman freedman, author of the primitive Chris
tian allegory entitled The Shepherd, is better known to us in matters
of personal character and history than almost any other Chris
tian of his day. Much appears in the book itself. In addition
we learn from the Muratorian Fragment (a.d. 185) that it was
"written very recently [as compared with the apostolic writings],
in our own times, in the city of Rome, during the bishopric of his
brother Pius" (a.d. 138-154). The lateness of the date thus as
signed is probably an exaggeration due to the fragmentist's strong
disapproval of the canonical standing others were according to
the book. The contents are quite too primitive to admit it.
Obviously it would be irreconcilable with the mention of Clement
as foreign secretary of the church, unless this reference were the
subtle device of a forger, and the Shepherd is anything but subtle.
Moreover, the heresies of Marcion (140) and Valentinus (145)
have not yet appeared above the horizon. Finally, the remark
ably strong position occupied by the book among the writings
admitted to public reading in the church, in spite of its more than
meagre literary pretensions, would be unaccountable after 140.
The fragmentist, an opponent of the " Cataphrygian " (Montan-
ist) heresy, is forced to protest against the Shepherd being "read
4 Hermas, Vis. ii, 4.

TWO FORGOTTEN CREEDS 305
in church to the people" as if it could be numbered "among
the prophets" or the "writings of the apostles." Still, he does
not treat the book with the severity of TertuUian. It is not to
him "adulterous" or apocryphal. He thinks "it ought to be
read" as edifying, though not as authoritative. The fragmentist
accordingly, at about a.d. 185, stands at the parting of the ways.
He has a double battle to fight. Hermas must be excluded; the
Johannine writings must be included. But the support of the
Shepherd could hardly have been so strong, had the book been as
"recent" as its opponent declares. In a.d. 185 at Rome Hermas
represented the old theology, John the new.
Hermas, then, may be regarded as a later contemporary of
Clement. But what a difference! Clement's sixty-five chapters
are occupied in about one-third their length by copious extracts
from the Greek Old Testament, a Bible which he almost knows
by heart, not only making its exposition the basis of all his own
instruction but commending it to his readers as "oracles of God"
which "cannot be broken" and must be "searched into" for all
truth. Of the ideas of Hellenistic redemption-religions he shows
no trace whatever. No wonder his conception of Christ is almost
a transcript of the suffering "Servant" of Deutero-Isaiah. Her
mas, in a writing of considerably more than twice the length, has
but one "Scripture" quotation. It is not too long to cite in full:
" 'The Lord is nigh unto them that turn unto him,' as it is written
in Eldad and Modal, who prophesied to the (chosen) people in
the wilderness."5 The contrast is not all to be accounted for by
difference of subject. Hermas does indeed rely upon his "angel
of prophecy" as the source of authority and edification rather
than "the Scriptures" which are looked to by Clement. But
while he knows something of their general story, and certainly
would not have denied their authority, he has nothing of the con
trol over them which to a teacher of Jewish training like Clement
makes them the indispensable medium of both his thought and
his expression. The contrast is that between a convert from
Judaism and one who, like Ignatius, uses moulds of thought in
herited from the pagan world.
6 Hennas, Vis. ii, 3. Eldad and Modat was an apocryphal romance of which
little is now known. Its characters were taken from Num. 11 27.

306 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
In respect to New Testament writings the contrast is far less
marked, though mainly because Clement himself quotes so little
from them. Hermas too has probably read Hebrews, though as
compared with Clement his reflection of its phraseology is very
slight. He has, however, a relatively large number of reflections
of the so-called Epistle of James. Here and there he shows traces
of acquaintance with the two epistles of Paul most used by Cle
ment, First Corinthians and Ephesians, and also some with First
Peter. But these relations, while of value as showing the type of Chris
tian thought prevalent at Rome at the beginning of the second
century, are of subordinate interest. What most concerns us is
to observe how the mind of Hermas is affected by the doctrine
of Jesus as redeemer of the world; for such was the missionary
proclamation of the new faith.
Hermas' employments of gospel material are too slight for the
determination of literary dependence with precision. In most
cases the utmost we can say is that he shows acquaintance with
Synoptic tradition, passages recalling the phraseology of Mat
thew being, as usual, relatively frequent, with no certain trace
of either Luke or John. On the other hand, if we ask by what
influence his conception of Jesus as "Son of God" has been
formed, the contrast with Clement is marked. For the first time
outside the New Testament itself we come upon traces of the
employment of our second gospel. Actual passages from Mark
are not cited, but Hermas' doctrine of the person of Christ is
hardly explicable without it. In particular his employment of
the title "Son of God" seems to show Mark's influence, standing
as it does in extraordinary contrast with Clement. The latter
in all his long epistle has but one occurrence of the title, namely,
that where (36 4) he briefly reproduces the argument of Heb. 1 5 ff.
Equally striking is the total absence from Hermas of any mention
of the names "Jesus" and "Christ," which occur forty-eight times
in Clement.
We come thus after preliminaries which, if protracted, have
not been without their definite purpose, to the particular phe
nomenon which justifies the title under which we write. Hermas'
doctrine of "the Son of God" is emphatically a "creed outworn."

TWO FORGOTTEN CREEDS 307
If any reader doubts the fact, we shall venture to class him with
those who, if once familiar with this practical but somewhat prolix
father, have not recently refreshed their memories, and who may
therefore be willing to take a second look.
At the outset we encounter little that need seem strange in a
church nourished upon the Pauline epistles. In the ninth Simili
tude the interpreting "Shepherd," who (be it observed) is not
Christ but "the angel of repentance," explains the significance of
Hermas' vision of the great tower founded on a rock in the midst
of waters. It represents the church, the (new) chosen people,
the stones which compose it being brought through the water
(in baptism) and built into it by angels. Chapter 12 runs as fol
lows : — "First of all, sir," say I, "explain this to me. The rock and the
gate,6 what is it?" "This rock," saith he, "and gate, is the Son of
God." "How, sir," say I, "is the rock ancient but the gate recent? "
"Listen," saith he, "and understand, foolish man. The Son of
God is older than all His creation, so that he became the Father's
adviser in His creation. Therefore also he is ancient." "But the
gate, why is it recent, sir?" say I. "Because," saith he, "he was
manifested in the last days of the consummation : therefore the gate
was made recent, that they which are to be saved may enter through
it into the kingdom of God. Didst thou see," saith he, "that the
stones which came through the gate have gone to the building of
the tower, but those which came not through it were cast away
again to their own place?" "I saw, sir," say I. "Thus," saith
he, "no one shall enter into the kingdom of God, except he receive
[in baptism] the name of his Son. . . . Didst thou see," saith he,
"the multitude that is building the tower?" "I saw it, sir," say
I. "They," saith he, "are all glorious angels. With these, then,
the Lord is surrounded as a wall, but the gate is the Son of God;
there is this one entrance only to the Lord. No one, then, shall
enter in unto Him otherwise than through his Son. Didst thou
see," saith he, "the six men, and the glorious and mighty man in
the midst of them, him that walked about the tower and rejected
the stones from the building?" "I saw him, sir," say I. "The
glorious man," saith he, "is the Son of God, and those six are the
glorious angels who guard him on the right hand and on the left.
6 The doctrine of Christ as the gate (irvXij; not Bvpa, "door") plays an impor
tant part in early Christian apologetic (cf . Hegesippus' account of the martyrdom
of James in Euseb. H. E. ii, 23 8). The reference is to Ps. 118 20. "This is the
gate of the Lord, the righteou^ shall enter in by it.''

308 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
Of these glorious angels not one," saith he, "shall enter in unto
God without him; whosoever shall not receive his name, shall not
enter into the kingdom of God."
We are familiar from the Pauline epistles with the idea of Christ
as the creative Wisdom of God, which in Pseudo-Barnabas
(cir. 133) already takes the definite form that "God said to the
Son, Let us make man in our image."7 Revelation (1 4, 3 l, 4 5,
and 5 6) has familiarized us more or less with the (Persian) "seven
spirits of God" ever before his throne and "sent forth into all the
earth." If we can adjust our minds to the mixture of metaphors
by which at the same time the "Beloved Son" of God is first the
Rock on which "the whole creation is sustained," including the
tower the stones of which are the redeemed people of God, and
secondly the Gate which admits to the tower, and thirdly the great
and glorious Man surpassing in stature the tower itself (though
he walks around it and in it) — if we can further deliberately close
our minds to any thought of the historical Jesus, and think only
in terms of "the heavenly Man," the second Adam, and similar
transcendental beings of the unseen world, we shall have no great
difficulty in taking Hermas' point of view. From having had
practically no significance in Clement, that phase of the doctrine
of the person of Christ which is concerned with the pre-existence
has suddenly occupied the field of vision. Hermas adopts almost
the language of 1 Pet. 1 20, sharing Clement's use of this epistle
but with a widely different christology. As Wisdom-Spirit Christ
was the counsellor and agent of God in creation, "sustainer of the
universe" and Rock of its foundation. He had also become by in
carnation and glorification at the end of time, the Gate of access
to the kingdom of God. First Peter 1 20 adopts in similar phrase
the doctrine of Paul. But how does Hermas relate this tran
scendental drama of divinity to the story of the Prophet of Naz
areth? What of the work of his ministry, his cross, his resurrec
tion? Do these actually have no place in Hermas' scheme of
salvation? The answer to our question is contained in Hermas'
fifth Simihtude, his "parable," as he terms it, of the vineyard.8
7 Barn. 5 5. In Irenaeus the utterance of God in Gen. 1 26 is said to be ad
dressed to "his Wisdom.''
8 Hermas, Sim. v, 2-7; cf. Mk. 12 1-8 and Is. 5 1-7.

TWO FORGOTTEN CREEDS 309
Hear the parable which I shall tell thee relating to fasting.9 A
certain man had an estate and many slaves, and a portion of his estate
he planted as a vineyard; and choosing out a certain slave who was
trusty and well pleasing, held in honor, he called him to him, and
saith unto him: "Take this vineyard which I have planted, and
fence it till I come, but do nothing else to the vineyard. Now keep
this my commandment, and thou shalt be free in my house." Then
the master of the slave went away to travel abroad. When, then,
he had gone away, the slave took and fenced the vineyard; and
having finished the fencing of the vineyard, he noticed that the
vineyard was full of weeds. So he reasoned within himself, saying,
"This command of my lord I have carried out. I will next dig
this vineyard, and it shall be neater when it is digged; and when it
hath no weeds it will yield more fruit, because not choked by the
weeds." He took and digged the vineyard, and all the weeds that
were in the vineyard he plucked up. And that vineyard became
very neat and flourishing, when it had no weeds to choke it. After
a time the master of the slave and of the estate came, and he went
into the vineyard. And seeing the vineyard neatly fenced and
digged as well, and all the weeds plucked up, and the vines flourish
ing, he rejoiced exceedingly at what his slave had done. So he
called his beloved son, who was his heir, and the friends who were
his advisers, and told them what he had commanded his slave, and
how much he had found done. And they rejoiced with the slave
at the testimony which his master had borne to him. And he saith to
them: "I promised this slave his freedom if he should keep the
commandment which I commanded him; but he kept my com
mandment and did a good work besides to my vineyard, and pleased
me greatly. For this work, therefore, which he hath done I desire
to make him joint-heir with my son, becavse, when the good thought
struck him, he did not neglect it, but fulfilled it." In this pur
pose the son of the master agreed with him, that the slave should
be made joint-heir with the son. After some few days his master
made a feast, and sent to him many dainties from the feast. But
when the slave received the dainties sent to him by the master,
he took what was sufficient for him, and distributed the rest to
his fellow-slaves. And his fellow-slaves, when they received the
dainties, rejoiced, and began to pray for him, that he might find
greater favor with the master, because he had treated them so
handsomely. All these things which had taken place his master
heard, and again rejoiced greatly at his deed. So the master called
9 The preceding chapter relates to the fast which Hermas has been observing,
and which he calls "keeping a station." The Shepherd has applied to it doctrine
reminding us of Is. 58 and Mk. 2 18-22.

310 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
together again his friends and his son, and announced to them
the deed that he had done with regard to his dainties which he
had received; and they still more approved of his resolve, that his
slave should be made joint-heir with his son.
In spite of some apparent reminiscences of the gospel parable of
the householder who, going to a far country to return again, ap
points to his slaves their various tasks,10 we have little difficulty in
recognizing that here, as the Shepherd presently explains, "The
lord of the estate is He that created all things and set them in
order and endowed them with power." We might perhaps also
recognize, without resort to the key, that "the vines are this
people whom He himself planted (Ps. 80, Is. 5 1-7) ; and the fences
are the holy angels of the Lord who keep together his people; and
the weeds which are plucked up from the vineyard are the trans
gressions of the servants of God." But where does Jesus Christ
appear? Is Christ the "slave," who was intrusted with the vine
yard and did more than he was commanded? Or is he "the
beloved son, who was the heir" of the master, whose place is never
regarded otherwise than in the mansion, along with "the lord of
the estate" and "the friends who were his advisers"? The slave
is a faithful and obedient worker, who when he has done all is
not restricted to the confession, "We are unprofitable servants, we
have done that which it was our duty to do" ( Lk. 17 10), but can
lay claim to more. His obedience earned him his freedom. His
works of supererogation drew to him the gracious favor of the lord
of all, who with the approval of the beloved son, the heir, and the
counsellor friends (afterwards explained to be "the holy angels
which were first created"), gave him participation in the inheri
tance. As a foretaste of this he receives "dainties" from the mas
ter's table, and these he shares with his fellow-slaves, obtaining
thus their intercession which still further assures his master's favor.
In some respects this may correspond to our idea of the ministry of
Jesus, but it certainly is not that of Mark, nor of the Synoptists,
still less that of John. So far as sonship is attributed to the slave
at all, it is only by anticipation. He is, indeed, destined to ulti
mate exaltation, and receives a token of it in gifts of "dainties"
from the heavenly table, which are subsequently explained to be
" Mt. 25 14-30 and parallels.

TWO FORGOTTEN CREEDS 311
"the commandments which God gave to his people through his
Son." But aside from this there is nothing in this present world,
if ever, to separate the slave from his fellow-slaves. He does not
even intercede for them, but they for him. On the whole one is
more disposed to look to "the beloved son, the heir," as the rep
resentative of Christ, and the slave as only a type of faithful
Christians who in the end become sons according to Paul's saying :
"If children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ"
(Rom. 8 17).
It is time, then, that we called in to our aid the angel-inter
preter. For Hermas, too, had misgivings as to the propriety
of this representation, and asks: "Wherefore, sir, is the Son of
God represented in the parable in the guise of a slave?" The
answer is instructive: —
"Listen," said he; "the Son of God is not represented in the
guise of a slave, but is represented in great power and lordship."
"How, sir?" say I; "I do not understand." "Because," saith he,
"God planted the vineyard, that is, he created the (chosen) people,
and delivered them over to his Son. And the Son placed the angels
in charge of them, to watch over them; and the Son himself cleansed
their sins, by laboring much and enduring many toils; for no one
can dig without toil or labor. Having himself then cleansed the sins
of his people he showed them the paths of life, giving them the law
which he received from his Father. Thou seest," saith he, "that
he is himself Lord of the (chosen) people, having received all au
thority from his Father. But how that the lord took his son
and the glorious angels as advisers concerning the inheritance of
the slave, listen. The holy pre-existent Spirit, which created the
whole creation, God made to descend into the flesh which he chose
and dwell there. This flesh, therefore, in which the Holy Spirit
dwelt, was subject unto the Spirit, walking honorably in holiness
and purity, without in any way defiling the Spirit. When, then,
it had lived honorably in chastity, and had labored with the Spirit,
and had co-operated with it in everything, behaving itself boldly
and bravely, he chose it as a partner with the Holy Spirit; for the
career of this flesh pleased the Lord, seeing that while it possessed
the Holy Spirit upon the earth it was not defiled. He therefore
took the Son as adviser and the glorious angels also, that this flesh
too, having served the Spirit unblamably, might have some place
of sojourn, and might not seem to have lost the reward for its service;
for all flesh' which is found undefiled and unspotted, wherein the
Holy Spirit dwelt, shall receive a reward. Now thou hast the
interpretation of this parable also."

312 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
At first glance the reader of this succinct history of redemption
is not likely to be struck with the resemblance to the prologue
of the Gospel of John, though in point of fact the author of John
1 1-5, 9-14, 16-18, is really dealing in his own way with the same
problem. The confusing thing to the modern reader is the use
of the term "Son of God," which is the only term used by Hermas
for the Redeemer. He applies it primarily to "the holy pre-
existent Spirit, the creator of the whole creation," and thinks of
the entire work of redemption (wherein the cross plays no part
whatever) as effected by this Spirit. The Spirit-Son, accordingly,
resembles the "Wisdom of God" in the Sapiential books much
more closely than the Greek logos; for it is not merely a creative,
but also a redemptive, Spirit, "loving mankind," going to seek
them as they wander in the paths of folly, "in every generation
entering into holy souls and making men to be prophets and
friends of God." u In this sense the Spirit-Son "cleansed the sins
of the (chosen) people." As the creative logos in John 1 1-18
was from the beginning "the light of men" coming into the world
and enlightening it, though unrecognized, "coming to his own
though his own people received him not," — as the logos ulti
mately "became flesh and tabernacled among us," so also in
Hermas' more primitive christology the Spirit-Son received charge
of "the people" from the. beginning. He at once appointed the
angels, who in Jewish angelology are called "the watchers," "to
watch over them." This is represented in the allegory as the
"fencing" of the vineyard. The Spirit-Son next engaged in the
disciplinary process of the Old Testament revelation, "weeding
out" the wickednesses of the (chosen) people, and "giving them
the law which he received from his Father." At this point in
the interpretation no distinction is made between the Mosaic
and the Christian law, though previously the "dainties" of the
"parable" had been explained to be the "commandments which
[God] gave to his people through his Son." Hermas makes no
real distinction. Both are thought of together as "showing the
paths of hfe." But at this point comes a break. The Shepherd,
having shown how the Spirit-Son had been in his own person
"Lord of the (chosen) people," — as against the "watcher" angels
u Wisdom 1 6, 7 23-27.

TWO FORGOTTEN CREEDS 313
of the gentile nations,12— proceeds to the specific incarnation of
gospel story. It belonged to God's administration of his vine
yard to cause the Spirit-Son to "dwell down" in the flesh that
he chose. When in the particular instance in view (the ministry
of Jesus) "this flesh in which the Holy Spirit dwelt had been com
pletely subject to it, walking honorably in holiness and purity,"
doing even more than the commandment, the glorious first-created
angels13 were called in council together with the Spirit-Son,
with the result that "this flesh" was made immortal. As
specific type of mortal man, he was given a "place of sojourn" in
the heavenly court and made co-heir with the Spirit-Son. Such
is Hermas' understanding of the doctrine that Jesus was "de
clared to be the Son of God with power by the resurrection from
the dead" (Rom. 1 3). He was the supreme exemplar and
nothing more.
We are dealing with a naive attempt to explain how "the holy
pre-existent Spirit which created the whole creation" can be the
son and heir of God (according to Paul's teaching that "the Lord
is the Spirit"), without at the same time doing injustice to the
"Petrine" christology of the "exalted" Servant. Hermas' creed is
the antithesis of that of his earlier contemporary Clement; for he
approaches the matter from the standpoint of Greek dualism, while
Clement approaches it from that of Hebrew messianism. Neither
could survive; for both lack the solvent of the Johannine doctrine
of the logos. Hermas is not in reality a trinitarian at all. For all
that logic requires, he might be a unitarian. In point of fact he
is neither. We can call him nothing else than a "dualitarian."
The only strictly divine beings in his heavenly court are the Father
and the pre-existent Spirit-Son. He has an "adoptionist" doc
trine of a certain sort, but it does not affect the earthly hfe of
Jesus; for the slave does not really become the Son of God until
taken up into heaven. The title is applied to him generally, but
only in a proleptic sense. While on earth Jesus was a "vessel of
12 Compare Clement's interpretation in ch. 29 of Dt. 32 8 £. (LXX).
13 That is, the six archangels "that were created first of all, unto whom the
Lord delivered all his creation to increase and to build it, and to be masters of all
creation" (Vis. iii, 4). Hermas' heavenly court has points of strong resemblance
to the Mazdean. Alongside of Ahura and Mithras stand the six Amesha-spentas
and the host of Fravashis.

314 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
the Spirit" in the same sense that Paul is so called in Acts, though
in higher degree. This sense is made unmistakable by the Shep
herd's application of the "parable" which immediately follows:
"I was right glad, sir," say I, "to hear this interpretation."
"Listen, now," saith he. "Keep this thy flesh pure and undefiled,
that the Spirit which hath descended to dwell in it may bear witness
to it, and thy flesh may be justified. See that it never enter into
thine heart that this flesh of thine is corruptible, and so thou abuse
it in some defilement. For if thou defile thy flesh, thou shalt defile
the Holy Spirit also."
Like his orthodox contemporaries, Hermas is emphatic on the
doctrine of "the resurrection of the flesh," u and applies to it the
practical teaching of Rom. 8 1-17, whether he can see his way to
reconcile it with 1 Cor. 15 50 or not. But except as to the slave's
taking the lead and setting the example for his fellow-slaves, who
also receive the "commandments" the Spirit gives him, there is
no distinction between its "dwelling down" in him and its
"dwelling down" in Hermas or in other men.
Especially instructive is the contrast between Hermas' inter
pretation of the "cleansing of the sins of the people" and Clem
ent's. In Clement, as in First Peter and the New Testament
generally, this is the work of the suffering "Servant," by whose
stripes we were healed. Not so here. In Hermas it is the work of
the pre-existent Spirit-Son, who "weeded out the transgressions
of the servants of God" not by a vicarious sacrifice, but by the
laborious husbandry of the Old Testament dispensation. Death
of the Spirit-Son was of course inconceivable. The death of
Jesus is never mentioned, or even alluded to.15
These two almost contemporary writings from the church at
Rome in the sub-apostohc age, Clement and Hermas, may prob
ably be taken as fairly typical respectively of the Jewish and
gentile elements among Paul's converts. We see in them the
effect produced upon their minds by the doctrine of Jesus as the
-"The original Greek of the so-called Apostles' Creed has "I believe in the
resurrection of the flesh" (crapKos), not "body" (aap.aroi).
w Harnack, in his recent reconstruction of the primitive Aramaic source Q,
notes as the most astounding fact in connection with it, that it yields "no trace
of that which in Mark is the chief theme, Jesus' death and resurrection." Sprilche
und Reden Jesu, p. 171.

TWO FORGOTTEN CREEDS 315
Son of God as it came to them from Petrine and Pauline sources
respectively. "Creeds outworn" they are; and such are not
generally esteemed to be interesting or profitable. But when
one is seeking a genuinely historical understanding of his own
creed, there is nothing like a return to this forgotten past, a time
when the great problem of adjustment of Jewish and gentile re
ligious thought was still unsolved, and when the Gospel of John
was still below the horizon.16
16 Since this article was placed in the editor's hands an important study by
J. v. Walter, of Breslau, of the christology of Hermas as exhibited in the pas
sage here considered (Sim. V.), has appeared in the Zts. f. utl. Wiss. xiv 2 (1913).
Von Walter explains the inconsistencies as due to later supplementation by the
author. Sim. V 6 4b-7 was added to obviate the objection to the parable
which would be felt by any orthodox reader of Heb. 1-2, that the slave (Jesus)
was placed on a lower rank than the angels. In this interpretation the slave is
only "the flesh" in which the holy, pre-existent Spirit dwelt, and which served
it, whereas the parable both calls the slave himself the Son of God, and speaks
only of his service to "the people" in obedience to "the Lord." If this rea
soning be admitted, we have still further interesting evidence of the clash of
christological opinion before the introduction of the logos-doctrine as a solvent.
In fact the very pages of Hermas in themselves considered will exemplify the
collision between apotheosis doctrines and incarnation doctrines.

08867 9833