History of Dogma Volume I Part 14

Eph. 9. 15, Herm Mand. V. etc. The designation of Christians as priests is not often found.]

[Footnote 274: Justin, Apol. I. 9. Dial. 117 [Greek: hoti men oun kai euchai ka eucharistiai, hupo ton axion ginomenai teleiai monai kai euarestoi eisi toi theoi thusiai kai autos phemi], see also still the later Fathers: Clem. Strom. VII. 6. 31: [Greek: hemeis di euches timomen ton theon kai tauten ten thusian aristen kai hagiotaten meta dikaiosunes anapempomen toi dikaioi logoi], Iren. III. 18. 3, Ptolem ad. Floram. 3: [Greek: prosphoras prospherein prosetaxen hemin ho soter alla ouchi tas di alogon zoon he touton ton domiamaton alla dia pneumatikon ainon kai doxon kai eucharistias ka dia tes eis tous plesion koinonias kai eupoiias].]

[Footnote 275: The Jewish regulations about fastings together with the Jewish system of sacrifice were rejected, but on the other hand, in virtue of words of the Lord, fasts were looked upon as a necessary accompaniment of prayer and definite arrangements were already made for them (see Barn. 3, Didache 8, Herm. Sim. V. 1. ff). The fast is to have a special value from the fact that whatever one saved by means of it is to be given to the poor (see Hermas and Aristides, Apol. 15, "And if any one among the Christians is poor and in want, and they have not overmuch of the means of life, they fast two or three days in order that they may provide those in need with the food they require"). The statement of James I. 27 [Greek: threskeia kathara kai amiantos para to theo kai patri haute estin episkeptesthai orphanous kai cheras en te thlipsei auton], was again and again inculcated in diverse phraseology (Polycarp Ep. 4, called the Widows [Greek: thusiasterion] of the community). Where moralistic views preponderated as in Hermas and 2 Clement good works were already valued in detail, prayers, fasts, alms appeared separately, and there was already introduced especially under the influence of the so-called deutero-canonical writings of the Old Testament the idea of a special meritoriousness of certain performances in fasts and alms (see 2 Clem. 16. 4). Still the idea of the Christian moral life as a whole occupied the foreground (see Didache cc. 1-5) and the exhortations to love G.o.d and one's neighbour, which as exhortations to a moral life were brought forward in every conceivable relation, supplemented the general summons to renounce the world just as the official diaconate of the churches originating in the cultus, prevented the decomposition of them into a society of ascetics.]

[Footnote 276: For details, see below in the case of the Lord's Supper.

It is specially important that even charity, through its union with the cultus, appeared as sacrificial wors.h.i.+p (see e.g. Polyc. Ep. 4. 3).]

[Footnote 277: The idea of sacrifice adopted by the Gentile Christian communities, was that which was expressed in individual prophetic sayings and in the Psalms, a spiritualising of the Semitic Jewish sacrificial ritual which, however, had not altogether lost its original features. The entrance of Greek ideas of sacrifice cannot be traced before Justin. Neither was there as yet any reflection as to the connection of the sacrifice of the Church with the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross.]

[Footnote 278: See my Texte und Unters. z Gesch. d. Altchristl. Lit. II.

1. 2, p. 88 ff., p. 137 ff.]

[Footnote 279: There neither was a "doctrine" of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, nor was there any inner connection presupposed between these holy actions. They were here and there placed together as actions by the Lord.]

[Footnote 280: Melito, Fragm. XII. (Otto. Corp. Apol. IX. p. 418).

[Greek: Duo suneste ta aphesin hamartematon parechomena, pathos dia Xriston kai baptisma].]

[Footnote 281: There is no sure trace of infant baptism in this epoch; personal faith is a necessary condition (see Hermas, Vis. III. 7. 3; Justin, Apol. 1. 61). "Prius est praedicare posterius tinguere" (Tertull.

"de bapt." 14).]

[Footnote 282: On the basis of repentance. See Praed. Petri in Clem.

Strom. VI. 5. 43, 48.]

[Footnote 283: See especially the second Epistle of Clement; Tertull.

"de bapt." 15: "Felix aqua quae semel abluit, quas ludibrio peccatoribus non est."]

[Footnote 284: The sinking and rising in baptism, and the immersion, were regarded as significant, but not indispensable symbols (see Didache. 7). The most important pa.s.sages for baptism are Didache 7; Barn. 6. 11; 11. 1. 11 (the connection in which the cross of Christ is here placed to the water is important; the tertium comp. is that forgiveness of sin is the result of both); Herm. Vis. III. 3, Sim. IX 16.

Mand. IV. 3 ([Greek: hetera metanoia ouk estin ei me ekeine, hote eis hudor katebemen kai elabomen aphesin hamartion hemon ton proteron]); 2 Clem. 6. 9; 7. 6; 8. 6. Peculiar is Ignat. ad. Polyc. 6. 2: [Greek: to baptisma humon meneto hos hopla]. Specially important is Justin, Apol.

I. 61. 65. To this also belong many pa.s.sages from Tertullian's treatise "de bapt."; a Gnostic baptismal hymn in the third pseudo-Solomonic ode in the Pistis Sophia, p. 131, ed. Schwartze; Marcion's baptismal formula in Irenaeus 1. 21. 3. It clearly follows from the seventh chapter of the Didache, that its author held that the p.r.o.nouncing of the sacred names over the baptised, and over the water, was essential, but that immersion was not; see the thorough examination of this pa.s.sage by Schaff, "The oldest church manual called the teaching of the twelve Apostles" pp.

29-57. The controversy about the nature of John's baptism in its relation to Christian baptism, is very old in Christendom; see also Tertull. "de bapt." 10. Tertullian sees in John's baptism only a baptism to repentance, not to forgiveness.]

[Footnote 285: In Hermas and 2 Clement. The expression probably arose from the language of the mysteries: see Appuleius, "de Magia", 55: "Sacrorum pleraque initia in Graecia partic.i.p.avi. Eorum quaedam signa et monumenta tradita mihi a sacerdotibus sedulo conservo." Ever since the Gentile Christians conceived baptism (and the Lord's Supper) according to the mysteries, they were of course always surprised by the parallel with the mysteries themselves. That begins with Justin. Tertullian, "de bapt." 5, says: "Sed enim nationes extraneae, ab omni intellectu spiritalium potestatum eadem efficacia idolis suis subministrant. Sed viduis aquis sibi mentiuntur. Nam et sacris quibusdam per lavacrum initiantur, Isidis alicujus aut Mithrae; ipsos etiam deos suos lavationibus efferunt. Ceterum villas, domos, templa totasque urbes aspergine circ.u.mlatae aquae; expiant pa.s.sim. Certe ludis Apollinaribus et Eleusiniis tinguuntur, idque se in regenerationem et impunitatem periuriorum suorum agere praesumunt. Item penes veteres, quisquis se homicidio infecerat, purgatrices aquas explorabat." De praescr. 40: "Diabolus ipsas quoque res sacramentorum divinorum idolorum mysteriis aemulatur. Tingit et ipse quosdam, utique credentes et fideles suos; expositionem delictorum de lavacro repromitt.i.t. et si adhuc memini, Mithras signat illic in frontibus milites suos, celebrat et panis oblationem et imaginem resurrectionis inducit ... summum pontificem in unius nuptiis statuit, habet et virgines, habet et continentes." The ancient notion that matter has a mysterious influence on spirit, came very early into vogue in connection with baptism. We see that from Tertullian's treatise on baptism and his speculations about the power of the water (c. 1 ff.). The water must, of course, have been first consecrated for this purpose (that is, the demons must be driven out of it). But then it is holy water with which the Holy Spirit is united, and which is able really to cleanse the soul. See Hatch, "The influence of Greek ideas, etc.," p. 19. The consecration of the water is certainly very old: though we have no definite witnesses from the earliest period.

Even for the exorcism of the baptised before baptism I know of no earlier witness than the Sentent. Lx.x.xVII. episcoporum (Hartel. Opp.

Cypr. I. p. 450, No. 37: "primo per ma.n.u.s impositionem in exorcismo, secundo per baptismi regenerationem").]

[Footnote 286: Justin is the first who does so (I. 61). The word comes from the Greek mysteries. On Justin's theory of baptism, see also I. 62.

and Von Engelhardt, "Christenthum Justin's," p. 102 f.]

[Footnote 287: Paul unites baptism and the communication of the Spirit; but they were very soon represented apart, see the accounts in the Acts of the Apostles, which are certainly very obscure, because the author has evidently never himself observed the descent of the Spirit, or anything like it. The ceasing of special manifestations of the Spirit in and after baptism, and the enforced renunciation of seeing baptism accompanied by special shocks, must be regarded as the first stage in the sobering of the churches.]

[Footnote 288: The idea of the whole transaction of the Supper as a sacrifice, is plainly found in the Didache, (c. 14), in Ignatius, and, above all, in Justin (I. 65 f.) But even Clement of Rome presupposes it, when in (cc. 40-44) he draws a parallel between bishops and deacons and the Priests and Levites of the Old Testament, describing as the chief function of the former (44. 4) [Greek: prospherein ta dora]. This is not the place to enquire whether the first celebration had, in the mind of its founder, the character of a sacrificial meal; but, certainly, the idea, as it was already developed at the time of Justin, had been created by the churches. Various reasons tended towards seeing in the Supper a sacrifice. In the first place, Malachi I. 11, demanded a solemn Christian sacrifice: see my notes on Didache, 14. 3. In the second place, all prayers were regarded as sacrifice, and therefore the solemn prayers at the Supper must be specially considered as such. In the third place, the words of inst.i.tution [Greek: touto poieite], contained a command with regard to a definite religious action. Such an action, however, could only be represented as a sacrifice, and this the more that the Gentile Christians might suppose that they had to understand [Greek: poiein] in the sense of [Greek: thuein]. In the fourth place, payments in kind were necessary for the "agapae" connected with the Supper, out of which were taken the bread and wine for the Holy celebration; in what other aspect could these offerings in the wors.h.i.+p be regarded than as [Greek: prosphorai] for the purpose of a sacrifice?

Yet the spiritual idea so prevailed that only the prayers were regarded as the [Greek: thusia] proper, even in the case of Justin (Dial. 117).

The elements are only [Greek: dora, prosphorai] which obtain their value from the prayers, in which thanks are given for the gifts of creation and redemption, as well as for the holy meal, and entreaty is made for the introduction of the community into the Kingdom of G.o.d (see Didache, 9. 10). Therefore, even the sacred meal itself is called [Greek: eucharistia] (Justin, Apol. I. 66: [Greek: he trophe haute chaleitai par' hemin eucharistia]). Didache, 9. 1; Ignat., because it is [Greek: trophe eucharistetheisa]. It is a mistake to suppose that Justin already understood the body of Christ to be the object of [Greek: poiein], and therefore thought of a sacrifice of this body (I. 66). The real sacrificial act in the Supper consists rather, according to Justin, only in the [Greek: eucharistian poiein], whereby the [Greek: koinos artos]

becomes the [Greek: artos tes eucharistias]. The sacrifice of the Supper in its essence, apart from the offering of alms, which in the practice of the Church was closely united with it, is nothing but a sacrifice of prayer: the sacrificial act of the Christian here also is nothing else than an act of prayer (see Apol. I. 13, 65-67; Dial. 28, 29, 41, 70, 116-118).]

[Footnote 289: Justin lays special stress on this purpose. On the other hand, it is wanting in the Supper prayers of the Didache, unless c. 9. 2 be regarded as an allusion to it.]

[Footnote 290: The designation [Greek: thusia] is first found in the Didache, c. 14.]

[Footnote 291: The Supper was regarded as a "Sacrament" in so far as a blessing was represented in its holy food. The conception of the nature of this blessing as set forth in John VI. 27-58, appears to have been the most common. It may be traced back to Ignatius, ad Eph. 20.2: [Greek: hena arton klontes hos estin pharmakon athanasias, antidotos tou me apothanein alla zen en Iesou Christou dia pantos]. Cf Didache, 10.3: [Greek: hemin echariso pneumatiken trophen kai poton kai zoen aionion], also 10.21: [Greek: eucharistoumen soi huper tes gnoseos kai pisteos kai athanasias]. Justin Apol. 1. 66: [Greek: ek tes trophes tautes haima kai sarkes kata metabolen trephontai hemon kata metabolen] that is, the holy food, like all nourishment, is completely transformed into our flesh; but what Justin has in view here is most probably the body of the resurrection. The expression, as the context shews, is chosen for the sake of the parallel to the incarnation). Iren. IV. 18. 5; V. 2. 2 f. As to how the elements are related to the body and blood of Christ, Ignatius seems to have expressed himself in a strictly realistic way in several pa.s.sages, especially ad. Smyr. 7-1: [Greek: eucharistias kai proseuches apechontai dia to me h.o.m.ologein, ten eucharistian sarka einai tou soteros hemon Iesou Christou, ten huper ton hamartion hemon pathousan]. But many pa.s.sages shew that Ignatius was far from such a conception, and rather thought as John did. In Trall. 8, faith is described as the flesh, and love as the blood of Christ; in Rom. 7, in one breath the flesh of Christ is called the bread of G.o.d, and the blood [Greek: agape aphthartos]. In Philad. 1, we read: [Greek: haima I. Chr.

hetis estin chara aionios kai paramonos]. In Philad. 5, the Gospel is called the flesh of Christ, etc. Hofling is therefore right in saying (Lehre v. Opfer, p. 39): "The Eucharist is to Ignatius [Greek: sarx] of Christ, as a visible Gospel, a kind of Divine inst.i.tution attesting the content of [Greek: pistis], viz., belief in the [Greek: sarx pathousa], an inst.i.tution which is at the same time, to the community, a means of representing and preserving its unity in this belief." On the other hand, it cannot be mistaken that Justin (Apol. I. 66) presupposed the ident.i.ty, miraculously produced by the Logos, of the consecrated bread and the body he had a.s.sumed. In this we have probably to recognise an influence on the conception of the Supper, of the miracle represented in the Greek Mysteries: [Greek: Ouch hos koinon arton oude koinon poma tauta lambanomen, all' hon tropon dia logou theou sarkopoietheis Iesous Christos ho soter hemon kai sarka ka haima huper soterias hemon eschen, houtos kai ten di' euches logou tou par' autou eucharistetheisan trophen, ex es haima ka sarkes kata metabolen trephontai hemon, ekeinou tou sarkopoiethentos Iesou kai sarka kai haima edidachthemen einai] (See Von Otto on the pa.s.sage). In the Texte u. Unters. VII. 2. p. 117 ff., I have shewn that in the different Christian circles of the second century, water and only water was often used in the Supper instead of wine, and that in many regions this custom was maintained up to the middle of the third century (see Cypr. Ep. 63). I have endeavoured to make it further probable, that even Justin in his Apology describes a celebration of the Lord's Supper with bread and water. The latter has been contested by Zahn, "Bread and wine in the Lord's Supper, in the early Church," 1892, and Julicher, Zur Gesch. der Abendmahlsfeier in der aeltesten Kirche (Abhandl. f Weiszacker, 1892, p. 217 ff.]

[Footnote 292: Ignatius calls the thank-offering the flesh of Christ, but the concept "flesh of Christ" is for him itself a spiritual one. On the contrary, Justin sees in the bread the actual flesh of Christ, but does not connect it with the idea of sacrifice. They are thus both as yet far from the later conception. The numerous allegories which are already attached to the Supper (one bread equivalent to one community; many scattered grains bound up in the one bread, equivalent to the Christians scattered abroad in the world, who are to be gathered together into the Kingdom of G.o.d; one altar, equivalent to one a.s.sembly of the community, excluding private wors.h.i.+p, etc.), cannot as a group be adduced here.]

[Footnote 293: Cf. for the following my arguments in the larger edition of the "Teaching of the Apostles" Chap 5, (Texte u. Unters II. 1. 2).

The numerous recent enquiries (Loening, Loofs, Reville etc.) will be found referred to in Sohm's Kirchenrecht. Vol. I. 1892, where the most exhaustive discussions are given.]

[Footnote 294: That the bishops and deacons were, primarily, officials connected with the cultus, is most clearly seen from 1 Clem. 40-44, but also from the connection in which the 14th Chap. of the Didache stands with the 15th (see the [Greek: oun], 15. 1) to which Hatch in conversation called my attention. The [Greek: philoxenia], and the intercourse with other communities (the fostering of the "unitas") belonged, above all, to the affairs of the church. Here, undoubtedly, from the beginning lay an important part of the bishop's duties. Ramsay ("The Church in the Roman Empire," p. 361 ff.) has emphasised this point exclusively, and therefore one-sidedly. According to him, the monarchical Episcopate sprang from the officials who were appointed _ad hoc_ and for a time, for the purpose of promoting intercourse with other churches.]

[Footnote 295: Sohm (in the work mentioned above) seeks to prove that the monarchical Episcopate originated in Rome and is already presupposed by Hermas. I hold that the proof for this has not been adduced, and I must also in great part reject the bold statements which are fastened on to the first Epistle of Clement. They may be comprehended in the proposition which Sohm, p. 158, has placed at the head of his discussion of the Epistle. "The first Epistle of Clement makes an epoch in the history of the organisation of the Church. It was destined to put an end to the early Christian const.i.tution of the Church." According to Sohm (p. 165), another immediate result of the Epistle was a change of const.i.tution in the Romish Church, the introduction of the monarchical Episcopate. That, however, can only be a.s.serted, not proved; for the proof which Sohm has endeavoured to bring from Ignatius' Epistle to the Romans and the Shepherd of Hermas, is not convincing.]

[Footnote 296: See, above all, 1 Clem. 42, 44, Acts of the Apostles, Pastoral Epistles, etc.]

[Footnote 297: This idea is Romish. See Book II. chap, 11 C.]

[Footnote 298: We must remember here, that besides the teachers, elders, and deacons, the ascetics (virgins, widows, celibates, abstinentes) and the martyrs (confessors) enjoyed a special respect in the Churches, and frequently laid hold of the government and leading of them. Hermas enjoins plainly enough the duty of esteeming the confessors higher than the presbyters (Vis. III. 1. 2). The widows were soon entrusted with diaconal tasks connected with the wors.h.i.+p, and received a corresponding respect. As to the limits of this there was, as we can gather from different pa.s.sages, much disagreement. One statement in Tertullian shews that the confessors had special claims to be considered in the choice of a bishop (adv. Valent. 4: "Speraverat Episcopatum Valentinus, quia et ingenio poterat et eloquio. Sed alium ex martyrii praerogativa loci pot.i.tum indignatus de ecclesia authenticae regulae abrupit"). This statement is strengthened by other pa.s.sages; see Tertull. de fuga; 11.

"Hoc sentire et facere omnem servum dei oportet, etiam minoris loci, ut maioris fieri possit, si quem gradum in persecutionis tolerantia ascenderit"; see Hippol in the Arab. canons, and also Achelis, Texte u.

Unters VI. 4. pp. 67, 220; Cypr. Epp. 38. 39. The way in which confessors and ascetics, from the end of the second century, attempted to have their say in the leading of the Churches, and the respectful way in which it was sought to set their claims aside, shew that a special relation to the Lord, and therefore a special right with regard to the community, was early acknowledged to these people, on account of their achievements. On the transition of the old prophets and teachers into wandering ascetics, later into monks, see the Syriac Pseudo-Clementine Epistles, "de virginitate," and my Abhandl i d. Sitzungsberichten d. K.

Pr. Akad. d. Wissensch. 1891, p. 361 ff.]

[Footnote 299: See Weizsacker, Gott Gel. Anz. 1886, No. 21, whose statements I can almost entirely make my own.]

CHAPTER IV

THE ATTEMPTS OF THE GNOSTICS TO CREATE AN APOSTOLIC DOGMATIC, AND A CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY; OR, THE ACUTE SECULARISING OF CHRISTIANITY.

-- 1. _The Conditions for the Rise of Gnosticism._

The Christian communities were originally unions for a holy life, on the ground of a common hope, which rested on the belief that the G.o.d who has spoken by the Prophets has sent his Son Jesus Christ, and through him revealed eternal life, and will shortly make it manifest. Christianity had its roots in certain facts and utterances, and the foundation of the Christian union was the common hope, the holy life in the Spirit according to the law of G.o.d, and the holding fast to those facts and utterances. There was, as the foregoing chapter will have shewn, no fixed Didache beyond that.[300] There was abundance of fancies, ideas, and knowledge, but these had not yet the value of being the religion itself. Yet the belief that Christianity guarantees the perfect knowledge, and leads from one degree of clearness to another, was in operation from the very beginning. This conviction had to be immediately tested by the Old Testament, that is, the task was imposed on the majority of thinking Christians, by the circ.u.mstances in which the Gospel had been proclaimed to them, of making the Old Testament intelligible to themselves, in other words, of using this book as a Christian book, and of finding the means by which they might be able to repel the Jewish claim to it, and refute the Jewish interpretation of it. This task would not have been imposed, far less solved, if the Christian communities in the Empire had not entered into the inheritance of the Jewish propaganda, which had already been greatly influenced by foreign religions (Babylonian and Persian, see the Jewish Apocalypses), and in which an extensive spiritualising of the Old Testament religion had already taken place. This spiritualising was the result of a philosophic view of religion, and this philosophic view was the outcome of a lasting influence of Greek philosophy and of the Greek spirit generally on Judaism. In consequence of this view, all facts and sayings of the Old Testament in which one could not find his way, were allegorised. "Nothing was what it seemed, but was only the symbol of something invisible. The history of the Old Testament was here sublimated to a history of the emanc.i.p.ation of reason from pa.s.sion." It describes, however, the beginning of the historical development of Christianity, that as soon as it wished to give account of itself, or to turn to advantage the doc.u.ments of revelation which were in its possession, it had to adopt the methods of that fantastic syncretism. We have seen above that those writers who made a diligent use of the Old Testament, had no hesitation in making use of the allegorical method.

That was required not only by the inability to understand the verbal sense of the Old Testament, presenting diverging moral and religious opinions, but, above all, by the conviction, that on every page of that book Christ and the Christian Church must be found. How could this conviction have been maintained, unless the definite concrete meaning of the doc.u.ments had been already obliterated by the Jewish philosophic view of the Old Testament?

This necessary allegorical interpretation, however, brought into the communities an intellectual philosophic element, a _gnosis_, which was perfectly distinct from the Apocalyptic dreams, in which were beheld angel hosts on white horses, Christ with eyes as a flame of fire, h.e.l.lish beasts, conflict and victory.[301] In this [Greek: gnosis], which attached itself to the Old Testament, many began to see the specific blessing which was promised to mature faith, and through which it was to attain perfection. What a wealth of relations, hints, and intuitions seemed to disclose itself, as soon as the Old Testament was considered allegorically, and to what extent had the way been prepared here by the Jewish philosophic teachers! From the simple narratives of the Old Testament had already been developed a theosophy, in which the most abstract ideas had acquired reality, and from which sounded forth the h.e.l.lenic canticle of the power of the Spirit over matter and sensuality, and of the true home of the soul. Whatever in this great adaptation still remained obscure and unnoticed, was now lighted up by the history of Jesus, his birth, his life, his sufferings and triumph.

The view of the Old Testament as a doc.u.ment of the deepest wisdom, transmitted to those who knew how to read it as such, unfettered the intellectual interest which would not rest until it had entirely transferred the new religion from the world of feelings, actions and hopes, into the world of h.e.l.lenic conceptions, and transformed it into a metaphysic. In that exposition of the Old Testament which we find, for example, in the so-called Barnabas, there is already concealed an important philosophic, h.e.l.lenic element, and in that sermon which bears the name of Clement (the so-called second Epistle of Clement), conceptions such as that of the Church, have already a.s.sumed a bodily form and been joined in marvellous connections, while, on the contrary, things concrete have been transformed into things invisible.

But once the intellectual interest was unfettered, and the new religion had approximated to the h.e.l.lenic spirit by means of a philosophic view of the Old Testament, how could that spirit be prevented from taking complete and immediate possession of it, and where, in the first instance, could the power be found that was able to decide whether this or that opinion was incompatible with Christianity? This Christianity, as it was, unequivocally excluded all polytheism, and all national religions existing in the Empire. It opposed to them the one G.o.d, the Saviour Jesus, and a spiritual wors.h.i.+p of G.o.d. But, at the same time, it summoned all thoughtful men to knowledge, by declaring itself to be the only true religion, while it appeared to be only a variety of Judaism.

It seemed to put no limits to the character and extent of the knowledge, least of all to such knowledge as was able to allow all that was transmitted to remain, and at the same time, abolish it by transforming it into mysterious symbols. That really was the method which every one must and did apply who wished to get from Christianity more than practical motives and super-earthly hopes. But where was the limit of the application? Was not the next step to see in the Evangelic records also new material for spiritual interpretations, and to ill.u.s.trate from the narratives there, as from The Old Testament, the conflict of the spirit with matter, of reason with sensuality? Was not the conception that the traditional deeds of Christ were really the last act in the struggle of those mighty spiritual powers whose conflict is delineated in the Old Testament, at least as evident as the other, that those deeds were the fulfilment of mysterious promises? Was it not in keeping with the consciousness possessed by the new religion of being the universal religion, that one should not be satisfied with mere beginnings of a new knowledge, or with fragments of it, but should seek to set up such knowledge in a complete and systematic form, and so to exhibit the best and universal system of life as also the best and universal system of knowledge of the world? Finally, did not the free and yet so rigid forms in which the Christian communities were organised, the union of the mysterious with a wonderful publicity, of the spiritual with significant rites (baptism and the Lord's Supper), invite men to find here the realisation of the ideal which the h.e.l.lenic religious spirit was at that time seeking, viz., a communion which in virtue of a Divine revelation, is in possession of the highest knowledge, and therefore leads the holiest life, a communion which does not communicate this knowledge by discourse, but by mysterious efficacious consecrations, and by revealed dogmas? These questions are thrown out here in accordance with the direction which the historical progress of Christianity took. The phenomenon called Gnosticism gives the answer to them.[302]

-- 2. _The Nature of Gnosticism._

The Catholic Church afterwards claimed as her own those writers of the first century (60-160) who were content with turning speculation to account only as a means of spiritualising the Old Testament, without, however, attempting a systematic reconstruction of tradition. But all those who in the first century undertook to furnish Christian practice with the foundation of a complete systematic knowledge, she declared false Christians, Christians only in name. Historical enquiry cannot accept this judgment. On the contrary, it sees in Gnosticism a series of undertakings, which in a certain way is a.n.a.logous to the Catholic embodiment of Christianity, in doctrine, morals, and wors.h.i.+p. The great distinction here consists essentially in the fact that the Gnostic systems represent the acute secularising or h.e.l.lenising of Christianity, with the rejection of the Old Testament,[303] while the Catholic system, on the other hand, represents a gradual process of the same kind with the conservation of the Old Testament. The traditional religion on being, as it were, suddenly required to recognise itself in a picture foreign to it, was yet vigorous enough to reject that picture; but to the gradual, and one might say indulgent remodelling to which it was subjected, it offered but little resistance, nay, as a rule, it was never conscious of it. It is therefore no paradox to say that Gnosticism, which is just h.e.l.lenism, has in Catholicism obtained half a victory. We have, at least, the same justification for that a.s.sertion--the parallel may be permitted--as we have for recognising a triumph of 18th century ideas in the first Empire, and a continuance, though with reservations, of the old regime.

From this point of view the position to be a.s.signed to the Gnostics in the history of dogma, which has. .h.i.therto been always misunderstood, is obvious. _They were, in short, the Theologians of the first century._[304] They were the first to transform Christianity into a system of doctrines (dogmas). They were the first to work up tradition systematically. They undertook to present Christianity as the absolute religion, and therefore placed it in definite opposition to the other religions, even to Judaism. But to them the absolute religion, viewed in its contents, was identical with the result of the philosophy of religion for which the support of a revelation was to be sought. They are therefore those Christians who, in a swift advance, attempted to capture Christianity for h.e.l.lenic culture, and h.e.l.lenic culture for Christianity, and who gave up the Old Testament in order to facilitate the conclusion of the covenant between the two powers, and make it possible to a.s.sert the absoluteness of Christianity.--But the significance of the Old Testament in the religious history of the world, lies just in this, that, in order to be maintained at all, it required the application of the allegoric method, that is, a definite proportion of Greek ideas, and that, on the other hand, it opposed the strongest barrier to the complete h.e.l.lenising of Christianity. Neither the sayings of Jesus, nor Christian hopes, were at first capable of forming such a barrier. If, now, the majority of Gnostics could make the attempt to disregard the Old Testament, that is a proof that, in wide circles of Christendom, people were at first satisfied with an abbreviated form of the Gospel, containing the preaching of the one G.o.d, of the resurrection and of continence, a law and an ideal of practical life.[305] In this form, as it was realised in life, the Christianity which dispensed with "doctrines" seemed capable of union with every form of thoughtful and earnest philosophy, because the Jewish foundation did not make its appearance here at all. But the majority of Gnostic undertakings may also be viewed as attempts to transform Christianity into a theosophy, that is, into a revealed metaphysic and philosophy of history, with a complete disregard of the Jewish Old Testament soil on which it originated, through the use of Pauline ideas,[306] and under the influence of the Platonic spirit. Moreover, comparison is possible between writers such as Barnabas and Ignatius, and the so-called Gnostics, to the effect of making the latter appear in possession of a completed theory, to which fragmentary ideas in the former exhibit a striking affinity.