Footnote 230:[ (return) ]
This is frequent in the Apologists, see also Diogn. 10. 2; but Hermas, Vis. II. 4. 1 (see also Cels. ap Orig. IV. 23) says δια την εκκλησιαν 'ο κοσμος κατηρτισθη (cf. I. 1. 6 and my notes on the passage). Aristides (Apol. 16) declares it as his conviction that "the beautiful things, that is, the world are maintained only for the sake of Christians," see besides the words (I. c.), "I have no doubt that the earth continues to exist (only) on account of the prayers of the Christians." Even the Jewish Apocalyptists wavered between the formulæ, that the world was created for the sake of man and for the sake of the Jewish nation. The two are not mutually exclusive. The statement in the Eucharistic prayer of Didache, 9. 3 εκτισας τα παντα 'ενεκεν του ονοματος σου is singular.
Footnote 231:[ (return) ]
God is named the Father, (1) in relation to the Son (very frequent) (2) as Father of the world (see above) (3) as the merciful one who has proved his goodness, declared his will and called Christians to be his sons (1 Clem. 23. 1, 29. 1, 2 Clem. 1. 4, 8. 4, 10. 1, 14. 1, see the index to Zahn's edition of the Ignatian Epistles, Didache, 1. 5, 9. 2, 3, 10. 2). The latter usage is not very common, it is entirely wanting for example in the Epistle of Barnabas. Moreover God is also called πατηρ της αληθειας as the source of all truth (2 Clem. 3. 1, 20. 5 θεος το αληθειας). The identity of the Almighty God of creation with the merciful God of redemption is the tacit presupposition of all declarations about God in the case of both the cultured and the uncultured. It is also frequently expressed (see above all the Pastoral Epistles), most frequently by Hermas (Vis. 1. 3. 4) so far as the declaration about the creation of the world is there united in the closest way with that about the creation of the Holy Church. As to the designation of God in the Roman Symbol as the "Father Almighty," that threefold exposition just given, may perhaps allow it.
Footnote 232:[ (return) ]
The present dominion of evil demons or of one evil demon, was just as generally presupposed as man's need of redemption, which was regarded as a result of that dominion. The conviction that the world's course (the πολιτεια εν τω κοσμω, the Latins afterwards used the word Sæculum) is determined by the devil, and that the dark one (Barnabas) has dominion, comes out most prominently where eschatological hopes obtain expression. But where salvation is thought of as knowledge and immortality, it is ignorance and frailty from which men are to be delivered. We may here also assume with certainty that these, in the last instance, were traced back by the writers to the action of demons. But it makes a very great difference whether the judgment was ruled by fancy which saw a real devil everywhere active, or whether, in consequence of theoretic reflection, it based the impression of universal ignorance and mortality on the assumption of demons who have produced them. Here again we must note the two series of ideas which intertwine and struggle with each other in the creeds of the earliest period, the traditional religious series resting on a fanciful view of history—it is essentially identical with the Jewish Apocalyptic, see, for example Barn 4—and the empiric moralistic, (see 2 Clem. 1. 2-7, as a specially valuable discussion, or Praed. Petri in Clem, Strom. VI. 5, 39, 40), which abides by the fact that men have fallen into ignorance, weakness and death (2 Clem. 1. 6 'ο βιος 'ημων 'ολος αλλο ουδεν ην ει μη θανατος). But perhaps, in no other point, with the exception of the αναστασις σαρκος has the religious conception remained so tenacious as in this and it decidedly prevailed, especially in the epoch with which we are now dealing. Its tenacity may be explained, among other things, by the living impression of the polytheism that surrounded the communities on every side. Even where the national gods were looked upon as dead idols—and that was perhaps the rule, see Praed. Petri. I. c, 2 Clem. 3. 1, Didache, 6—one could not help assuming that there were mighty demons operative behind them, as otherwise the frightful power of idolatry could not be explained. But on the other hand, even a calm reflection and a temper unfriendly to all religious excess must have welcomed the assumption of demons who sought to rule the world and man. For by means of this assumption which was wide-spread even among the Greeks, humanity seemed to be unburdened, and the presupposed capacity for redemption could therefore be justified in its widest range. From the assumption that the need of redemption was altogether due to ignorance and mortality there was but one step, or little more than one step, to the assumption that the need of redemption was grounded in a condition of man for which he was not responsible, that is, in the flesh. But this step which would have led either to dualism (heretical Gnosis) or to the abolition of the distinction between natural and moral, was not taken within the main body of the Church. The eschatological series of ideas with its thesis that death evil and sin entered into humanity at a definite historical moment when the demons took possession of the world drew a limit which was indeed overstepped at particular points but was in the end respected. We have therefore the remarkable fact that, on the one hand, early Christian (Jewish) eschatology called forth and maintained a disposition in which the Kingdom of God, and that of the world, (Kingdom of the devil) were felt to be absolutely opposed (practical dualism), while, on the other hand, it rejected theoretic dualism. Redemption through Christ, however, was conceived in the eschatological Apocalyptic series of ideas as essentially something entirely in the future, for the power of the devil was not broken, but rather increased (or it was virtually broken in believers and increased in unbelievers), by the first advent of Christ, and therefore the period between the first and second advent of Christ belongs to 'ουτος 'ο αιων (see Barn. 2. 4; Herm. Sim 1; 2 Clem. 6. 3: εστιν δε 'ουτος 'ο αιων και 'ο μελλων δυο εχθροι; 'ουτος λεγει μοιχειαν και φθοραν και φιλαργουριαν και απατην, εκεινος δε τουτοις αποστασσεται, Ignat. Magn. 5. 2). For that very reason, the second coming of Christ must, as a matter of course, be at hand, for only through it could the first advent get its full value. The painful impression that nothing had been outwardly changed by Christ's first advent (the heathen, moreover, pointed this out in mockery to the suffering Christians), must be destroyed by the hope of his speedy coming again. But the first advent had its independent significance in the series of ideas which regarded Christ as redeeming man from ignorance and mortality; for the knowledge was already given, and the gift of immortality could only of course be dispensed after this life was ended, but then immediately. The hope of Christ's return was therefore a superfluity, but was not felt or set aside as such, because there was still a lively expectation of Christ's earthly Kingdom.
Footnote 233:[ (return) ]
No other name adhered to Christ so firmly as that of κυριος; see a specially clear evidence of this, Novatian de trinit. 30, who argues against the Adoptian and Modalistic heretics thus: "Et in primis illud retorquendum in istos, qui duorum nobis deorum controversiam facere præsumunt. Scriptum est, quod negare non possunt: 'Quoniam unus est dominus.' De Christo ergo quid sentiunt? Dominum esse, aut illum omnino non esse? Sed dominum illum omnino non dubitant. Ergo si vera est illorum ratiocinatio, jam duo sunt domini." On κυριος—δεσποτης, see above, p. 119, note.
Footnote 234:[ (return) ]
Specially instructive examples of this are found in the Epistle of Barnabas and the second Epistle of Clement. Clement (Ep. 1) speaks only of faith in God.
Footnote 235:[ (return) ]
See 1 Clem. 59-61. διδαχη, c. 9. 10. Yet Novatian (de trinit. 14) exactly reproduces the old idea, "Si homo tantummodo Christus, cur homo in orationibus mediator invocatur, cum invocatio hominis ad præstandam salutem inefficax judicetur." As the Mediator, High Priest, etc., Christ is of course always and everywhere invoked by the Christians, but such invocations are one thing and formal prayer another. The idea of the congruence of God's will of salvation with the revelation of salvation which took place through Christ, was further continued in the idea of the congruence of this revelation of salvation with the universal preaching of the twelve chosen Apostles (see above, p. 162 ff.), the root of the Catholic principle of tradition. But the Apostles never became "'οι κυριοι" though the concepts διδαχη (λογος) κυριου, διδαχη (κηρυγμα) των αποστολων were just as interchangeable as λογος θεου and λογος χριστου. The full formula would be λογος θεου δια Ιησου Χριστου δια των αποστολων. But as the subjects introduced by δια are chosen and perfect media, religious usage permitted the abbreviation.
Footnote 236:[ (return) ]
In the epistle of Barnabas "Jesus Christ" and "Christ" appear each once, but "Jesus" twelve times: in the Didache "Jesus Christ" once, "Jesus" three times. Only in the second half of the second century, if I am not mistaken, did the designation "Jesus Christ", or "Christ", become the current one, more and more crowding out the simple "Jesus." Yet the latter designation—and this is not surprising—appears to have continued longest in the regular prayers. It is worthy of note that in the Shepherd there is no mention either of the name Jesus or of Christ. The Gospel of Peter also says 'ο κυριος where the other Gospels use these names.
Footnote 237:[ (return) ]
See 1 Clem. 64: 'ο θεος, 'ο εκλεξαμενος τον κυριον Ιησουν Χριστον και 'ημας δι' αυτου εις λαον περιουσιον δωη, κ.τ.λ. (It is instructive to note that wherever the idea of election is expressed, the community is immediately thought of, for in point of fact the election of the Messiah has no other aim than to elect or call the community; Barn. 3. 6: 'ο λαος 'ον 'ητοιμασεν εν τω ηγαπημενωι αυτου). Herm. Sim. V. 2: εκλεξαμενος δουλον τινα πιστον και ευαρεστον V. 6. 5. Justin, Dial. 48: μη αρνεισθαι 'οτι 'ουτος εστιν 'ο Χριστος, εαν φαινηται 'ως ανθρωπος εξ ανθρωπον γεννηθεις και εκλογη γενομενος εις το Χριστον ειναι αποδεικνυηται.
Footnote 238:[ (return) ]
See Barn. 14. 5: Ιησους εις τουτο 'ητοιμασθη, 'ινα ... 'ημας λυτρωσαμενος εκ του σκοτους διαθηται εν 'ημιν διαθηκην λογωι. The same word concerning the Church, I. c. 3. 6. and 5. 7: αυτος εαυτω τον λαον τον καινον ετοιμαζων 14 6.
Footnote 239:[ (return) ]
"Angel" is a very old designation for Christ (see Justin's Dial.) which maintained itself up to the Nicean controversy, and is expressly claimed for him in Novatian's treatise "de trinit." 11. 25 ff. (the word was taken from Old Testament passages which were applied to Christ). As a rule, however, it is not to be understood as a designation of the nature, but of the office of Christ as such, though the matter was never very clear. There were Christians who used it as a designation of the nature, and from the earliest times we find this idea contradicted (see the Apoc. Sophoniæ, ed. Stern, 1886, IV. fragment, p 10: "He appointed no Angel to come to us, nor Archangel, nor any power, but he transformed himself into a man that he might come to us for our deliverance." Cf. the remarkable parallel, ep. ad. Diagn. 7. 2: ... ου, καθαπερ αν τις εικασειεν ανθρωπος, 'υπηρετην τινα πεμψας η αγγελον η αρχοντα η τινα των διεποντων τα επιγεια 'η τινα των πεπιστευμενων τας εν ουρανοις διοικησεις, αλλ' αυτον τον τεχνιτην και δημιουργον των 'ολων. κ.τ.λ.). Yet it never got the length of a great controversy and as the Logos doctrine gradually made way, the designation "Angel" became harmless and then vanished.