by Adolph (von) Harnack
translated and edited by James Moffatt
Second, enlarged and revised English edition;
London: Williams and Norgate / New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1908 (from
the 2nd German edition)..
Theological Translation Library, volumes 19-20
From the German, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten (1902, revised 1906, 1915, and finally 1924)
[[in addition to the 1908 ET in
electronic form, an updated version
is being prepared which incorporates changes in the 4th German edition
and other revisions by RAK for use in 2004
THE MISSION-PREACHING IN WORD AND DEED
The unity and the variety which characterized the preaching of Christianity from the very first constituted the secret of its fascination and a vital condition of its success. On the one hand, it was so simple that it could be summed up in a few brief sentences and understood in a single crisis of the inner life; on the other hand, it was so versatile and rich, that it vivified all thought and stimulated every emotion. It was capable, almost from the outset, of vying with every noble and worthy enterprise, with any speculation, or with any cult of the mysteries. It was both new and old; it was alike present and future. Clear and transparent, it was also profound and full of mystery. It had statutes, and yet rose superior to any law. It was a doctrine and yet no doctrine, a philosophy and yet something different from philosophy. Western Catholicism, when surveyed as a whole, has been described as a complexio oppositorum, but this was also true of the Christian propaganda in its earliest stages. Consequently, to exhibit the preaching and labors of the Christian mission with the object of explaining the amazing success of Christianity, we must try to get a uniform grasp of all its component factors.
We shall proceed then to describe:--
1. The religious characteristics of the mission-preaching.
2. The gospel of salvation and of the Savior.
3. The gospel of love and charity. [[85]]
4. The religion of the Spirit and power, of moral earnestness and holiness.
5. The religion of authority and of reason, of mysteries and transcendentalism.
6. The message of a new People and of a Third race (or the historical and political consciousness of Christendom).
7. The religion of a Book, and of a historical realization.
8. The conflict with polytheism and idolatry.
In the course of these chapters we hope to do justice to the wealth of the religion, without impairing or obscuring the power of its simplicity.\1/ One point must be left out, of course: that is, the task of following the development of Christian doctrine into the dogmas of the church's catechism, as well as into the Christian philosophy of religion propounded by Origen and his school. Doctrine, in both of these forms, was unquestionably of great moment to the mission of Christianity, particularly after the date of its earliest definition (relatively speaking) about the middle of the third century. But such a subject would require a book to itself. I have endeavored, in the first volume of my History of Dogma (third edition) to deal with it, and to that work I must refer any who may desire to see how the unavoidable gaps of the present volume are to be filled up.\2/
\1/ At the Scilitan martyrdom the proconsul remarks; "Et nos religiosi sumus, et simplex est religio nostra" ("We also are religious, and our religion is simple"). To which Speratus the Christian replies: "Si tranquillas praebueris aures tuas, dico mysterium simplicitatis" ("If you give me a quiet hearing, I shall tell you the mystery of simplicity").
\2/ Cp. my Grundriss der Dogmengeschichte (4th ed., 1905).
CHAPTER 1
RELIGIOUS CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MISSION-PREACHING
"Missionary Preaching" is a term which may be taken in a double sense. Its broader meaning covers all the forces of influence, attraction, and persuasion which the gospel had at its command, all the materials that it collected and endowed with life and power as it developed into a syncretistic religion during the first three centuries. The narrower sense of the term embraces simply the crucial message of faith and the ethical requirements of the gospel. Taking it in the latter sense, we shall devote the present chapter to a description of the fundamental principles of the missionary preaching. The broader conception has a wide range. The Old Testament and the new literature of Christianity, healing and redemption, gnosis and apologetic, myth and sacrament, the conquest of demons, forms of social organization and charity -- all these played their part in the mission-preaching and helped to render it impressive and convincing. Even in the narrower sense of the term, our description of the mission-preaching must be kept within bounds, for the conception of the crucial message of faith and its ethical requirements is bound up naturally with the development of dogma, and the latter (as I have already remarked) cannot be exhibited without over-stepping the precincts of the present volume. At the same time, these limitations are not very serious, since, to the best of our knowledge, mission-preaching (in the narrower sense of the term) was fairly extinct after the close of the second century. Its place was taken by the instruction of catechumens, by the training of the household in and for the Christian faith, and by the worship of the church. Finally, we must eschew the error of imagining that everyone who came over to Christianity was won [[87]] by a missionary propaganda of dogmatic completeness. So far as our sources throw light on this point, they reveal a very different state of things, and this applies even to the entire period preceding Constantine. In countless instances, it was but one ray of light that wrought the change. One person would be brought over by means of the Old Testament, another by the exorcising of demons, a third by the purity of Christian life; others, again, by the monotheism of Christianity, above all by the prospect of complete expiation, or by the prospect which it held out of immortality, or by the profundity of its speculations, or by the social standing which it conferred. In the great majority of cases, so long as Christianity did not yet propagate itself naturally, one believer may well have produced another, just as one prophet anointed his successor; example (not confined to the case of the martyrs) and the personal manifestation of the Christian life led to imitation. A complete knowledge of Christian doctrine, which was still a plant of very tender growth in the second century, was certainly the attainment of a small minority. "Idiotae, quorum semper maior pars est," says Tertullian [where??] ("The uneducated are always in a majority with us"). Hippolytus bewails the ignorance even of a Roman bishop [where??]. Even the knowledge of the Scriptures, though they were read in private, remained of necessity the privilege of an individual here and there, owing to their extensiveness and the difficulty of understanding them.\1/
\1/ Bishops and theologians, in the West especially, are always bewailing the defective knowledge of the Bible among the laity, and even among the clergy. Cp. also Clement of Alexandria [where??].
The earliest mission-preaching to Jews ran thus: "The kingdom of God is at hand; repent."\2/ The Jews thought they knew what was the meaning of the kingdom of heaven and of its advent; but they had to be told the meaning of the repentance that secured the higher righteousness, so that "God's kingdom" also acquired a new meaning. [[88]]
\2/ The earliest mission-preaching (Matt.10.7 f.) with which the disciples of Jesus were charged, ran: κηρύσσετε λέγοντες ὅτι ῎Ηγγικεν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν. Although repentance is not actually mentioned, it is to be supplied from other passages. The prospect of power to do works of healing is also held out to them (ἀσθενοῦντας θεραπεύετε, νεκροὺς ἐγείρετε, λεπροὺς καθαρίζετε, δαιμόνια ἐκβάλλετε).
The second stage in the mission-preaching to Jews was determined by this tenet: "The risen Jesus is the Messiah [cp. Matt.10.32], and will return from heaven to establish his kingdom."\3/
\3/ Cp. the confession of the resurrection common to primitive Christianity, in 1 Cor. 15.4 f.
The third stage was marked by the interpretation of the Old Testament as a whole (i.e., the law and the prophets) from the standpoint of its fulfillment in Jesus Christ, along with the accompanying need of securing and formulating that inwardness of disposition and moral principle which members of the Messianic church, who were called and kept by the Holy Spirit, knew to be their duty.\4/ This must have made them realize that the observance of the law, which had hitherto prevailed, was inadequate either to cancel sin or to gain righteousness; also that Jesus the Messiah had died that sins might be forgiven (γνωστὸν ἔστω ὑμῖν, ὅτι διὰ τούτου ὑμῖν ἄφεσις ἁμαρτιῶν καταγγέλλεται ἀπὸ πάντων ὧν οὐκ ἠδυνήθητε ἐν νόμῳ Μωϋσέως δικαιωθῆναι).\5/ [[89]]
\4/ To "imitate" or "be like" Christ did not occupy the place one would expect among the ethical counsels of the age. Jesus had spoken of imitating God and bidden men follow himself, whilst the relationship of pupil and teacher readily suggested the formula of imitation. But whenever he was recognized as Messiah, as the Son of God, as Savior, and as Judge, the ideas of imitation and likeness had to give way, although the apostles still continued to urge both in their epistles, and to hold up the mind, the labors, and the sufferings of Jesus as an example. In the early church the imitation of Christ never became a formal principle of ethics (to use a modern phrase) except for the virtuoso in religion, the ecclesiastic, the teacher, the ascetic, or the martyr; it played quite a subordinate role in the ethical teaching of the church. Even the injunction to be like Christ, in the strict sense of the term, occurs comparatively seldom. Still, it is interesting to collect and examine the passages relative to this point; they show that whilst a parallel was fully drawn between the life of Christ and the career and conduct of distinguished Christians such as the confessors, the early church did not go the length of drawing up general injunctions with regard to the imitation of Christ. For one thing, the Christology stood in the way, involving not imitation but obedience; for another thing, the literal details of imitation seemed too severe. Those who made the attempt were always classed as Christians of a higher order (though even at this early period they were warned against presumption), so that the Catholic theory of "evangelic counsels" has quite a primitive root.
\5/ Acts 13.38; up to this point, I think, the Jewish Christian view is clearly stated in the address of Paul at Antioch, but the further development of the idea ἐν τούτῳ πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων δικαιοῦται ("by whom everyone who believes is justified ") is specifically Pauline. Taken as a whole, however, the speech affords a fine example of missionary preaching to the Jews. From 1 Cor. 15.3 it follows that the tenet, "Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures," was not simply Pauline, but common to Christianity in general. Weizsacker (op. cit,, [[89b]] pp. 60 f.; Eng. trans., 1.74 f.) rightly lays great stress on the fact that previous to Paul and alongside of him, even within Jewish Christian circles (as in the case of Peter), the view must have prevailed that the law and its observance were not perfectly adequate to justification before God, and that a sotereological significance attached to Jesus the Messiah or to his death.
"You know that when you were pagans you were led away to dumb idols" (1 Cor. 12.2). "You turned to God from idols, to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, who delivers us from the wrath to come''' (1 Thess. 1.9-10). Here we have the mission-preaching to pagans in a nutshell. The "living and true God" is the first and final thing; the second is Jesus, the Son of God, the judge, who secures us against the wrath to come, and who is therefore "Jesus the Lord." To the living God, now preached to all men, we owe faith and devoted service; to God's Son as Lord, our due is faith and hope.\6/
\6/ When questioned upon the "dogma" of Christians, Justin answered: ῞Οπερ εὐσεβοῦμεν εἰς τὸν τῶν Χριστιανῶν θεόν, ὃν ἡγούμεθα ἕνα τούτων ἐξ ἀρχῆς ποιητὴν καὶ δημιουργὸν τῆς πάσης κτίσεως, ὁρατῆς τε καὶ ἀοράτου, καὶ κύριον ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν παῖδα θεοῦ, ὃς καὶ προκεκήρυκται ὑπὸ τῶν προφητῶν μέλλων παραγίνεσθαι τῷ γένει τῶν ἀνθρώπων σωτηρίας κῆρυξ καὶ διδάσκαλος καλῶν μαθημάτων (Acts of Justin 2.5 [B recension] = "It is that whereby we worship the God of the Christians, whom we consider to be One from the beginning, the maker and fashioner of the whole creation, visible and invisible, and also the Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, whom the prophets foretold would come to the race of men, a herald of salvation and a teacher of good disciples").
The contents of this brief message -- objective and subjective, positive and negative -- are inexhaustible. Yet the message itself is thoroughly compact and complete. It is objective and positive as the message which tells of the only God, who is spiritual, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, the creator of heaven and earth, the Lord and Father of men, and the great disposer of human history;\7/ furthermore, it is the message which tells of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who came from heaven,[[90]] made known the Father, died for sins, rose, sent the Spirit hither, and from his seat at God's right hand will return for the judgment;\8/ finally, it is the message of salvation brought by Jesus the Savior, that is, freedom from the tyranny of demons, sin, and death, together with the gift of life eternal.
\7/ In this respect the speech put by Luke (Acts 17.22-30) into the mouth of Paul at the Areopagus is typical and particularly instructive. It exhibits, at the same time, an alliance with the purest conceptions of Hellenism. We must combine this speech with First Thessalonians, in order to understand how the fundamentals of mission-preaching were laid before pagans, and also in order to get rid of the notion that Galatians and Romans are a model of Paul's preaching to pagan audiences. The characteristic principles of the mission-preaching (both negative and positive) are also preserved, with particular lucidity, in the fragmentary Kerugma Petri, an early composition which, as the very title indicates, was plainly meant to be a compendium of doctrine for missionary purposes.
\8/ Thaddaeus announces to Abgar a missionary address for the next day, and gives the following preliminary outline of its contents (Eus. H.E. 1.13.20): κηρύξω καὶ σπερῶ ἐν αὐτοῖς τὸν λόγον τῆς ζωῆς, περί τε τῆς ἐλεύσεως τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ καθὼς ἐγένετο, καὶ περὶ τῆς ἀποστολῆς αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἕνεκα τίνος ἀπεστάλη ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός, καὶ περὶ τῆς δυνάμεως καὶ τῶν ἔργων αὐτοῦ καὶ μυστηρίων ὧν ἐλάλησεν ἐν κόσμῳ, καὶ ποίᾳ δυνάμει ταῦτα ἐποίει, καὶ περὶ τῆς καινῆς αὐτοῦ κηρύξεως, καὶ περὶ τῆς μικρότητος καὶ περὶ τῆς ταπεινώσεως, καὶ πῶς ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἀπέθετο καὶ ἐσμίκρυνεν αὐτοῦ τὴν θεότητα, καὶ ἐσταυρώθη, καὶ κατέβη εἰς τὸν ῎Αιδην, καὶ διέσχισε φραγμὸν τὸν ἐξ αἰῶνος μὴ σχισθέντα, καὶ ἀνήγειρεν νεκροὺς καὶ κατέβη μόνος, ἀνέβη δὲ μετὰ πολλοῦ ὄχλου πρὸς τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ ("I will preach and sow the word of God, concerning the advent of Jesus, even the manner of his birth: concerning his mission, even the purpose for which the Father sent him: concerning the power of his works and the mysteries he uttered in the world, even the nature of this power: concerning his new preaching and his abasement and humiliation, even how he humbled himself and died and debased his divinity and was crucified and went down to Hades and burst asunder the bars which had not been severed from all eternity, and raised the dead, descending alone but rising with many to his Father").
Then it is objective and negative, since it announces the vanity of all other gods, and forms a protest against idols of gold and silver and wood, as well as against blind fate and atheism.
Finally, it is subjective, as it declares the uselessness of all sacrifice, all temples, and all worship of man's devising, and opposes to these the worship of God in spirit and in truth, assurance of faith, holiness and self-control, love and brotherliness, and lastly the solid certainty of the resurrection and of life eternal, implying the futility of the present life, which lies exposed to future judgment.
This new kind of preaching excited extraordinary fears and hopes: fears of the imminent end of the world and of the great reckoning, at which even the just could hardly pass muster; hopes of a glorious reign on earth, after the denouement, and of a paradise which was to be filled with precious delights and overflowing with comfort and bliss. Probably no religion had ever proclaimed openly to men such terrors and such happiness.
To wide circles this message of the one and almighty God no [[91]] longer came as a surprise. It was the reverse of a surprise. What they had vaguely divined, seemed now to be firmly and gloriously realized. At the same time, as "Jesus and the Resurrection" were taken for new daemons in Athens (according to Acts 17.18), and considered to be utterly strange, this doctrine must have been regarded at first as paradoxical wherever it was preached. This, however, is not a question into which we have here to enter. What is certain is, that "the one living God, as creator," "Jesus the Savior,"\9/ "the Resurrection" (ἡ ἀνάστασις), and ascetic "self-control" (ἡ ἐγκρατεία) formed the most conspicuous articles of the new propaganda. Along with this the story of Jesus must have been briefly communicated (in the statements of Christology), the resurrection was generally defined as the resurrection of the flesh, and self-control primarily identified with sexual purity, and then extended to include renunciation of the world and mortification of the flesh.\10/ [[92]]
\9/ One of the distinctive ideas in Christianity was the paradox that the Savior was also the Judge, an idea which gave it a special pre-eminence over other religions. -- "Father and Son," or "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit": the dual and the triple formula interchange, but the former is rather older, though both can be traced as far back as Paul. Personally I should doubt if it was he who stamped the latter formula. Like the "Church," "the new People," "the true Israel," "apostles, prophets, and teachers," "regeneration," etc., it was probably created by the primitive circle of disciples. -- The preaching of Jesus was combined with the confession of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and with the church, the forgiveness of sins, and the resurrection of the body. The Roman symbol is our earliest witness to this combination, and it was probably the earliest actual witness; it hardly arose out of the work of missions, in the narrower sense of the term, but out of the earlier catechetical method.
\10/ Hermas 26.1 (Mand. 1): Πρῶτον πάντων πίστευσον ὅτι εἷς ἐστιν ὁ θεός, ὁ τὰ πάντα κτίσας καὶ καταρτίσας, κτλ. ("First of all, believe that God is one, even he who created and ordered all things," etc.), is a particularly decisive passage as regards the first point (viz., the one living God); see Praedic. Petri in Clem., Strom. 5.6.48, 6.5.39, 6.6.48 (the twelve disciples dispatched by Jesus with the charge to preach to all the inhabitants of the world, that they may know God is one; εὐαγγελίσασθαι τοὺς κατὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην ἀνθρώπους, γινώσκειν ὅτι εἷς θεός ἐστιν). In Chap. 2 of his Apology, Aristides sets forth the preaching of Jesus Christ; but when he has to summarize Christianity, he is contented to say that "Christians are those who have found the one true God." Cp., e.g., Chap. 15: "Christians . . . have found the truth. . . . They know and trust in God, the creator of heaven and earth, through whom and from whom are all things, beside whom there is none other, and from whom they have received commandments which are written on their hearts and kept in the faith and expectation of the world to come." (Cp. also the Apology of pseudo-Melito.) The other three points are [[92b]] laid down with especial clearness in the Acta Theclae, where Paul is said (1.5) to have handed down πάντα τὰ λόγια κυρίου καὶ τῆς γεννήσεως καὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως τοῦ ἠγαπημένου ("all the sayings of the Lord and of the birth and resurrection of the Beloved"), and where the contents of his preaching are described as λόγος θεοῦ περὶ ἐγκρατείας καὶ ἀναστάσεως ("the word of God upon self-control and the resurrection"). The last-named pair of ideas are to be taken as mutually supplementary; the resurrection or eternal life is certain, but it is conditioned by ἐγκρατεία, which is therefore put first. Cp., for example, Vita Polycarpi 14: ἔλεγεν τὴν ἁγνείαν πρόδρομον εἶναι τῆς μελλούσης ἀφθάρτου βασιλείας ("he said that purity was the precursor of the incorruptible kingdom to come").
The most overwhelming element in the new preaching was the resurrection of the flesh, the complete "restitutio in integrum," and the kingdom of glory. Creation and resurrection were the beginning and the end of the new doctrine. The hope of resurrection which it aroused gave rise to a fresh estimate of the individual value, and at the same time to quite inferior and sensuous desires. Faith in the resurrection of the body and in the millennium soon appeared to pagans to be the distinguishing feature of this silly religion. And the pagans were right. It was the distinguishing feature of Christianity at this period. Justin explains that all orthodox Christians held this doctrine and this hope. "Fiducia christianorum resurrectio mortuorum, illa credentes sumus," Tertullian writes (de Resurr. 1 [[[ET??]]), adding (in ch. 21) that this must not be taken allegorically, as the heretics allege, since "verisimile non est, ut ea species sacramenti, in quam fides tota committitur, in quam disciplina tota conititur, ambigue annuntiata et obscura proposita videatur" ([[[ET??]] the gospel is too important to be stated ambiguously; see further what follows). The earliest essays of a technical character by the teachers of the Catholic church were upon the resurrection of the flesh. It was a hope, too, which gave vent to the ardent desires of the oppressed, the poor, the slaves, and the disappointed upon earth: "We want to serve no longer, our wish is to reign soon" (Tert., de Orat. 5). "Though the times of this hope have been determined by the sacred pen, lest it should be fixed previous, I think, to the return of Christ, yet our prayers pant for the close of this age, for the passing of this world to the great day of the Lord, for the day of wrath and retribution" (Cum et tempora totius spei fida sunt sacrosancto stilo, ne liceat eam ante constitui quam in adventum, opinor, Christi, vota [[93]] nostra suspirant in saeculi huius occasum, in transitum mundi quoque ad diem domini magnum, diem irae et retributionis.-- Tert., de Resurr. 22). "May grace come and this world pass away! The Lord comes!" is the prayer of Christians at the Lord's Supper (Did. 10). In many circles this mood lasted even after the beginning of the third century, but it reached its height during the reign of Marcus Aurelius.\11/
\11/ Origen (de Princ. 2.11.2) has described in great detail the views of the chiliasts, whom he opposed as, even in his day, a retrograde party. His description proves that we cannot attribute too [[[ie overemphasize??]] sensuous opinions to them. They actually reckoned upon "nuptiarum conventiones et filiorum procreationes." [[[ET??]] Compare the words of Irenaeus in the fifth book of his large work upon the millennium, where he follows "apostolic tradition" and attaches himself to Papias. ***
From the outset "wisdom,"
"intelligence," "understanding," and
"intellect" had a very wide scope. Indeed, there was hardly mission
propaganda of any volume which did not over-flow into the "gnostic"
spirit, i.e.,
the spirit of Greek philosophy. The play of imagination
was at once unfettered and urged to its highest flights by the settled
conviction (for we need not notice here the circles where a different
view prevailed) that Jesus, the Savior, had come down from heaven. It
was, after all, jejune to be informed, "We are the offspring of God"
(Acts 17.28); but to be
told that God became man and was incarnate
in order that men might be divine -- this was the apex and climax of
all
knowledge. It was bound up with the speculative idea (1) that, as the
incarnation was a cosmic and divine event, it must therefore involve a
reviving and heightened significance for the whole creation; and (2)
that the soul of man, hitherto divided from its primal source in God by
forces and barriers of various degrees, now found the way open for its
return to God, while every one of those very forces which had formerly
barred the path was also liberated and transformed into a step and
intermediate stage on the way back. Speculations upon God, the world,
and the soul were inevitable, and they extended to the nature of the
church. Here, too, the earthly and historical was raised to the level
of the cosmic and transcendental.
At first the contrast between a "sound" gnosis and a heretical only
emerged by degrees in the propaganda, although from the very outset it
was felt that certain speculations seemed to imperil [[94]] the
preaching of the gospel itself.\12/ The extravagances of the "gnosis"
which penetrated all the syncretistic religion of the age, and issued
in dualism and docetism, were corrected primarily by a "sound"
gnosis, then by the doctrine of Christian freedom, by a sober, rational
theology and ethics, by the realism of the saving facts in the history
of Jesus, by the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, but
ultimately and most effectively by the church prohibiting all
"innovations" and fixing her tradition. From this standpoint Origen's
definition of gospel preaching (Hom.
in Joh. 32.9) is extremely
instructive. After quoting Hermas 26 = Mand.
1 (the one God,
the
Creator), he adds: "It is also necessary to believe that Jesus Christ
is Lord, and to believe all the truth concerning his deity and
humanity, also to believe in the Holy Spirit, and that as free agents
we are punished for our sins and rewarded for our good actions."
\12/ One of the most remarkable and suggestive phenomena of the time is the fact that wherever a ''dangerous" speculation sprang up, it was combated in such a way that part of it was taken over. For example, contrast Ephesians and Colossians with the "heresies" which had emerged in Phrygia (at Colosse); think of the "heresies" opposed by the Johannine writings, and then consider the Gnostic contents of the latter; compare the theology of Ignatius with the "heresies attacked in the Ignatian epistles"; think of the great gnostic systems of the second century, and then read their opponent Irenseus. "Vincendi vincentibus legem dederunt"! Such was the power of these Hellenistic, syncretistic ideas! It looks almost as if there had been a sort of disinfectant process, the "sound" doctrine being inoculated with a strong dilution of heresy, and thus made proof against virulent infection.
By the second century Christianity was being preached in very different ways. The evangelists of the Catholic church preached in one way throughout the East, and in another throughout the West, though their fundamental position was identical; the Gnostics and Marcionites, again, preached in yet another way. Still Tertullian was probably not altogether wrong in saying that missions to the heathen were not actively promoted by the latter; the Gnostics and the Marcionites, as a rule, confined their operations to those who were already Christians. After the gnostic controversy, the anti-gnostic rule of faith gradually became the one basis of the church's preaching. The ethical and impetuous element retreated behind [[95]] the dogmatic, although the emphasis upon self-control and asceticism never lost its vogue.
At the transition from the second to the third century, theology had extended widely, but the mission-preaching had then as ever to remain comparatively limited. For the "idiotae" it was enough, and more than enough, to hold the four points which we have already mentioned. Scenes like those described in Acts (8.26-38) were constantly being repeated, mutatis mutandis, especially during the days of persecution, when individual Christians suffered martyrdom joyfully; and this, although an orthodox doctrine of considerable range was in existence, which (in theory, at any rate) was essential. For many the sum of knowledge amounted to nothing more than the confession of the one God, who created the world, of Jesus the Lord, of the judgment, and of the resurrection; on the other hand, some of the chief arguments in the proof from prophecy, which played so prominent a part in all preaching to Jews and pagans (see Chapter 8), were disseminated far and wide; and as the apologists are always pointing in triumph to the fact that "among us," "tradesmen, slaves, and old women know how to give some account of God, and do not believe without evidence," the principles of the Christian conception [[96]] of God must have been familiar to a very large number of people.\13/
\13/ Together with the main articles in the proof from prophecy (i.e., a dozen passages or so from the Old Testament), the corresponding parts of the history of Jesus were best known and most familiar. An inevitable result of being viewed in this light and along this line was that the history of Jesus (apart from the crucifixion) represents almost entirely legendary materials (or ideal history) to a severely historical judgment. Probably no passage made so deep an impression as the birth-narratives in Matthew and especially in Luke. The fact that the story of the resurrection did not in its details prove a similar success, was due to a diversity of the narratives in the authoritative scriptures, which was so serious that the very exegetes of the period (and they were capable of almost anything!) failed to give any coherent or impressive account of what transpired. Hence the separate narratives in the gospels relating to the resurrection did not possess the same importance as the birth-narratives. "Raised on the third day from the dead, according to the scripture" : this brief confession was all that rivaled the popularity of Luke 1-2. and the story of the wise men from the East. The notion that the apostles themselves compiled a quintessence of Christian doctrine was widely current; but the greatest difference of opinion prevailed as to what the quintessence consisted of. The Didache marks the beginning of a series of compositions which were supposed to have been written by the apostles collectively, or to contain an authoritative summary of their regulations.
These four points, then -- the one living God, Jesus our Savior and Judge, the resurrection of the flesh, and self-control -- combined to form the new religion. It stood out in bold relief from the old religions, and above all from the Jewish; yet in spite of its hard struggle with polytheism, it was organically related to the process of evolution which was at work throughout all religion, upon the eastern and the central coasts of the Mediterranean. The atmosphere from which those four principles drew their vitality was the conception of recompense -- i.e., the absolute supremacy of the moral element in life on the one hand, and the redeeming cross of Christ upon the other. No account of the principles underlying the mission-preaching of Christianity is accurate, if it does not view everything from the standpoint of this conception : the sovereignty of morality, and the assurance of redemption by the forgiveness of sins, based on the cross of Christ.\14/ "Grace,''' i.e., forgiveness, did play a leading role, but grace never displaced recompense. From the very first, morality was inculcated within the Christian churches in two ways: by the Spirit of Christ and by the conception of judgment and of recompense. Yet both were marked by a decided bent to the future, for the Christ of both was "he who was to return." To the mind of primitive Christianity the "present" and the "future" were sharply opposed to each [[97]] other, and it was this opposition which furnished the principle of self-control with its most powerful motive.\15/ It became, indeed, with many people a sort of glowing passion. The church which prayed at every service, "May grace come and this world pass away: maranatha," was the church which gave directions like those which we read in the opening parable of Hermas.\16/ "From [[98]] the lips of all Christians this word is to be heard: The world is crucified to me, and I to the world" (Celsus, cited by Origen, 5.64).\17/
\14/ Redemption by the forgiveness of sins was, strictly speaking, considered to take place once and for all. The effects of Christ's death were conferred on the individual at baptism, and all his previous sins were blotted out. Many teachers, like Paul, presented the cross of Christ as the content of Christianity. Thus Tertullian (de Carne 5), protesting against the docetism of Marcion, which impaired the death of Christ upon the cross, calls out, "O spare the one hope of the whole world" (parce unicae spei totius orbis). The cross exerts a protective and defensive influence over the baptized (against demons), but it does not bestow any redeeming deliverance from sin. Speculations on the latter point do not arise till later. As a mystery, of course, it is inexhaustible, and therefore it is impossible to state its influence. Pseudo-Barnabas and Justin are already mystagogues of the cross; cp. Ep. Barn. 11-12, and Justin's Apol. 1.55, where he triumphantly claims that "the wicked demons never imitated the crucifixion, not even in the case of any of the so-called sons of Zeus" (οὐδαμοῦ οὐδ’ ἐπί τινος τῶν λεγομένων υἱῶν τοῦ Διὸς τὸ σταυρωθῆναι ἐμιμήσαντο). Cp, further Minucius, Octav. 29; Tert, ad. Nat. 1.12, etc.
\15/ Cp. 2 Clem., ad Cor. 6.3-6: ἔστιν δὲ οὗτος ὁ αἰὼν καὶ ὁ μέλλων δύο ἐχθροί. (4.) οὗτος λέγει μοιχείαν καὶ φθορὰν καὶ φιλαργυρίαν καὶ ἀπάτην, ἐκεῖνος δὲ τούτοις ἀποτάσσεται. (5.) οὐ δυνάμεθα οὖν τῶν δύο φίλοι εἶναι· δεῖ δὲ ἡμᾶς τούτῳ ἀποταξαμένους ἐκείνῳ χρᾶσθαι. (6.) οἰόμεθα, ὅτι βέλτιόν ἐστιν τὰ ἐνθάδε μισῆσαι, ὅτι μικρὰ καὶ ὀλιγοχρόνια καὶ φθαρτά, ἐκεῖνα δὲ ἀγαπῆσαι, τὰ ἀγαθὰ τὰ ἄφθαρτα ("This age and the future age are two enemies. The one speaks of adultery, corruption, avarice, and deceit; the other bids farewell to these. We cannot, therefore, be friends of both; we must part with the one and embrace the other. We judge it better to hate the things which are here, because they are small and transient and corruptible, and to love the things that are yonder, for they are good and incorruptible").
\16/ Here is the passage (Hermas 50 = Sim. 1); it will serve to represent a large class. "You know that you servants of God dwell in a foreign land, for your city is far from this city. If, then, you know the city where you are to dwell, why provide yourselves here with fields and expensive luxuries and buildings and chambers to no purpose? He who makes such provision for this city has no mind to return to his own city. Foolish, double-minded, wretched man! Seest thou not that all these things are foreign to thee and controlled by another? For the lord of this city shall say, 'I will not have thee in my city; leave this city, for thou keepest not my laws.' Then, possessor of fields and dwellings and much property besides, what wilt thou do with field, and house, and all thine other gains, when thou art expelled by him? For the lord of this land has a right to tell thee, 'Keep my laws, or leave my land.' What then shalt thou do, thou who hast already a law over thee in thine own city? For the sake of thy fields and other possessions wilt thou utterly repudiate thy law and follow the law of this city? Beware! It may be unwise for thee to repudiate thy law. For shouldst thou wish to return once more to thy city, thou shalt not be allowed in: thou shalt be shut out, because thou didst repudiate its law. So beware. Dwelling in a foreign land, provide thyself with nothing more than a suitable competency; and whenever the master of this city expels thee for opposing his law, be ready to leave his city and seek thine own, keeping thine own law cheerfully and unmolested. So beware, you that serve God and have him in your heart; perform his works, mindful of his commandments and of the promises he has made, in the faith that he will perform the latter if the former be observed. Instead of fields, then, buy souls in trouble, as each of you is able; visit widows and orphans, and neglect them not; expend on such fields and houses, which God has given to you [i.e., on the poor], your wealth and all your pains. The Master endowed you with riches that you might perform such ministries for him. Far better is it to buy fields, possessions, houses of this kind; thou wilt find them in thine own city when thou dost visit it. Such expenditure is noble and cheerful; it brings joy, not fear and sorrow. Practise not the expenditure of pagans, then: that ill becomes you, as God's servants. Practise your proper expenditure, in which you may rejoice. Do not stamp things falsely; [[98b]] never touch other people's property, nor lust after it, for it is evil to lust after what belongs to other people. Do thine own task and thou shalt be saved." For all the rigor of his counsel, however, it never occurs to Hermas that the distinction of rich and poor should actually cease within the church. This is plain, if further proof be needed, from the next parable. The progress of thought upon this question in the church is indicated by the tractate of Clement of Alexandria entitled "Quis dives salvetur?" Moreover, the saying already put into the lips of Jesus in John 12.8 ("the poor ye have always with you"), a saying which was hardly inserted without some purpose, shows that the abolition of the distinction between rich and poor was never contemplated in the church.
\17/ The pessimistic attitude of the primitive Christians towards the world cannot be too strongly emphasised. (Marcion called his fellow-confessors συνταλαίπωροι καὶ συμμισούμενοι, "partners in the suffering of wretchedness and of hatred." -- Tert., adv. Marc. 4.9). This is confirmed by the evidence even of Tertullian, and of Origen himself. Let one instance suffice. In Hom. 8 ad. Levit., t. 9 pp. 316 f., Origen remarks that in the Scriptures only worldly men, like Pharaoh and Herod, celebrate their birthdays, whereas "the saints not only abstain from holding a feast on their birthdays, but, being filled with the Holy Spirit, curse that day" (Sancti non solum non agunt festivitatem in die natali suo, sed a spiritu sancto repleti exsecrantur hunc diem). The true birthday of Christians is the day of their death. Origen recalls Job, in this connection; but the form which his pessimism assumes is bound up, of course, with special speculative ideas of his own.
This resolute renunciation of the world was really the first thing which made the church competent and strong to tell upon the world. Then, if ever, was the saying true : "He who would do anything for the world must have nothing to do with it." Primitive Christianity has been upbraided for being too un-worldly and ascetic. But revolutions are not effected with rosewater, and it was a veritable revolution to overthrow polytheism and establish the majesty of God and goodness in the world -- for those who believed in them, and also for those who did not. This could never have happened, in the first instance, had not men asserted the vanity of the present world, and practically severed themselves from it. The rigor of this attitude, however, hardly checked the mission-preaching; on the contrary, it intensified it, since instead of being isolated it was set side by side with the message of the Savior and of salvation, of love and charity. And we must add, that for all its trenchant forms and the strong bias it imparted to the minds of men towards the future, the idea of recompense was saved from harshness and [[99]] inertia by its juxtaposition with a feeling of perfect confidence that God was present, and a conviction of his care and of his providence. No mode of thought was more alien to early Christianity than what we call deism. The early Christians knew the Father in heaven; they knew that God was near them and guiding them; the more thoughtful were conscious that he reigned in their life with a might of his own. This was the God they proclaimed. And thus, in their preaching, the future became already present; hard and fast recompense seemed to disappear entirely, for what further "recompense" was needed by people who were living in God's presence, conscious in every faculty of the soul, aye, and in every sense of the wisdom, power, and goodness of their God? Moods of assured possession and of yearning, experiences of grace and phases of impassioned hope, came and went in many a man besides the apostle Paul. He yearned for the prospect of release from the body, and thus felt a touching sympathy for everything in bondage, for the whole creation in its groans. But it was no harassing or uncertain hope that engrossed all his heart and being; it was hope fixed upon a strong and secure basis in his filial relationship to God and his possession of God's Spirit.\18/
\18/ It was only in rare cases that the image of Christ's person as a whole produced what may be termed a "Christ-emotion," which moved people to give articulate expression to their experiences. Ignatius is really the only man we can name alongside of Paul and John. Yet in how many cases of which we know nothing, this image of Christ must have been the dominating power of human life! In some of the dying confessions of the martyrs, and in the learned homilies of Origen, it emerges in a very affecting way.
It is hardly necessary to point out
that, by proclaiming repentance
and strict morals on the one hand, and offering the removal of sins and
redemption on the other hand, the Christian propaganda involved an
inner cleavage which individual Christians must have realized in very
different ways. If this removal of sins and redemption was bound up
with the sacrament or specifically with the sacrament of baptism, then
it came to this, that thousands were eager for this sacrament and
nothing more, satisfied with belief in its immediate and magical
efficacy, and devoid of any serious attention to the moral law. Upon
the other hand, the moral demand could weigh so heavily on [[100]] the
conscience that redemption came to be no more than the reward and prize
of a holy life. Between these two extremes a variety of standpoints was
possible. The propaganda of the church made a sincere effort to assign
equal weight to both elements of its message; but sacraments are
generally more welcome than moral counsels, and that age was
particularly afflicted with the sacramental mania. It added to the
mysteries the requisite quality of naivete,
and at the same time the
equally requisite note of subtlety.
CHAPTER 2
THE GOSPEL OF THE SAVIOR AND OF SALVATION\1/
\1/ This chapter is based on a fresh revision of Section 6 in my study on "Medicinisches aus der ältesten Kirchengeschichte" (Texte and Unters. 8, 1892).
The gospel, as preached by Jesus; is a religion of redemption, but it is a religion of redemption in a secret sense. Jesus proclaimed a new message (the near approach of God's kingdom, God as the Father, as his Father), and also a new law, but he did his work as a Savior or healer, and it was amid work of this kind that he was crucified. Paul, too, preached the gospel as a religion of redemption.
Jesus appeared among his people as a physician. "The healthy need not a physician, but the sick" (Mark 2.17, Luke 5.31). The first three gospels depict him as the physician of soul and body, as the Savior or healer of men. Jesus says very little about sickness; he cures it. He does not explain that sickness is health; he calls it by its proper name, and is sorry for the sick person. There is nothing sentimental or subtle about Jesus; he draws no fine distinctions, he utters no sophistries about healthy people being really sick and sick people really healthy. He sees himself surrounded by crowds of sick folk; he attracts them, and his one impulse is to help them. Jesus does not distinguish rigidly between sicknesses of the body and of the soul; he takes them both as different expressions of the one supreme ailment in humanity. But he knows their sources. He knows it is easier to say, "Rise up and walk," than to say, "Thy sins are forgiven thee" (Mark 2.9).\2/ [[102]] And he acts accordingly. No sickness of the soul repels him -- he is constantly surrounded by sinful women and tax-gatherers. Nor is any bodily disease too loathsome for Jesus. In this world of wailing, misery, filth, and profligacy, which pressed upon him every day, he kept himself invariably vital, pure, and busy.
\2/Or are we to interpret the passage in another way? Is it easier to say, "Thy sins are forgiven thee"? In that case, "easier" evidently must be taken in a different sense.
In this way he won men and women to be his disciples. The circle by which he was surrounded was a circle of people who had been healed.\3/ They were healed because they had believed on him, i.e., because they had gained health from his character and words. To know God meant a sound soul. This was the rock on which Jesus had rescued them from the shipwreck of their life. They knew they were healed, just because they had recognized God as the Father in his Son. Henceforth they drew health and real life as from a never-failing stream.
\3/ An old legend of Edessa regarding Jesus is connected with his activity as a healer of men. At the close of the third century the people of Edessa, who had become Christians during the second half of the second century, traced back their faith to the apostolic age, and treasured up an alleged correspondence between Jesus and their King Abgar. This correspondence is still extant (cp. Euseb., H.E. 1.13). It is a naïve romance. The king, who is severely ill, writes thus "Abgar, toparch of Edessa, to Jesus the excellent Savior, who has appeared in the country of Jerusalem; greeting. I have heard of thee and of thy cures, performed without medicine or herb. For, it is said, thou makest the blind to see, and the lame to walk; thou cleansest lepers, thou expellest unclean spirits and demons, thou healest those afflicted with lingering diseases, and thou raisest the dead. Now, as I have heard all this about thee, I have concluded that one of two things must be true: either thou art God, and, having descended from heaven, doest these things, or else thou art a son of God by what thou doest. I write to thee, therefore, to ask thee to come and cure the disease from which I am suffering. For I have heard that the Jews murmur against thee, and devise evil against thee. Now, I have a very small, yet excellent city, which is large enough for both of us." To which Jesus answered: "Blessed art thou for having believed in me without seeing me. For it is written concerning me that those who have seen me will not believe in me, while they who have not seen me will believe and be saved. But as to thy request that I should come to thee, I must fulfill here all things for which I have been sent, and, after fulfilling them, be taken up again to him who sent me. Yet after I am taken up, I will send thee one of my disciples to cure thy disease and give life to thee and thine." The narrative then goes on to describe how Thaddaeus came to Edessa and cured the king by the laying on of hands, without medicine or herbs, after he had confessed his faith. "And Abdus, the son of Abdus, was also cured by him of gout."
"Ye will say unto me this parable: Physician, heal thyself" (Luke 4.23). He who helped so many people, seemed himself [[103]] to be always helpless. Harassed, calumniated, threatened with death by the authorities of his nation, and persecuted in the name of the very God whom he proclaimed, Jesus went to his cross. But even the cross only displayed for the first time the full depth and energy of his saving power. It put the copestone on his mission, by showing men that the sufferings of the just are the saving force in human history.
"Surely he hath borne our sickness and carried our sorrows; by his stripes we are healed."\4/ This was the new truth that issued from the cross of Jesus. It flowed out, like a stream of fresh water, on the arid souls of men and on their dry morality. The morality of outward acts and regulations gave way to the conception of a life which was personal, pure, and divine, which spent itself in the service of the brethren, and gave itself up ungrudgingly to death. This conception was the new principle of life. It uprooted the old life swaying to and fro between sin and virtue; it also planted a new life whose aim was nothing short of being a disciple of Christ, and whose strength was drawn from the life of Christ himself. The disciples went forth to preach the tidings of "God the Savior," of that Savior and physician whose person, deeds, and sufferings were man's salvation.\5/ Paul was giving vent to no sudden or extravagant emotion, but expressing with quiet confidence what he was fully conscious of at every moment, when he wrote to the Galatians (2.20), "I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me. For the life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave up himself for me." Conscious of this, the primitive Christian missionaries were ready to die daily. And that was just the reason why their cause did not collapse.
\4/ Cp. 1 Pet. 2.24, οὗ τῷ μώλωπι αὐτοὶ ἰάθητε. [[[ET, text var?]]
\5/ Luke 2.11, ἐτέχθη ὑμῖν σωτὴρ, ὅς ἐστιν Χριστὸς κύριος ; John 4.42, οἴδαμεν ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ἀληθῶς ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου; Tit. 2.11, ᾿Επεφάνη ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ σωτήριος πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις; Tit. 3.4, ἡ χρηστότης καὶ ἡ φιλανθρωπία ἐπεφάνη τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ. By several Christian circles, indeed, the title "Savior" was reserved for Jesus and for Jesus only. Irenaeus (1.1.3) reproaches the Valentinian Ptolemaeus for never calling Jesus κύριος but only σωτήρ, and, as a matter of fact, in the epistle of Ptolemaeus to Flora, Jesus is termed σωτήρ exclusively.
In the world to which the apostles preached their new [[104]] message, religion had not been intended originally for the sick, but for the sound. The Deity sought the pure and sound to be his worshippers. The sick and sinful, it was held, are a prey to the powers of darkness; let them see to the recovery of health by some means or another, health for soul and body -- for until then they are not pleasing to the gods. It is interesting to observe how this conception is still dominant at the close of the second century, in Celsus, the enemy of Christendom (Orig., c. Cels. 3.59 f.). "Those who invite people to participate in other solemnities, make the following proclamation: 'He who hath clean hands and sensible speech (is to draw near)'; or again, 'He who is pure from all stain, conscious of no sin in his soul, and living an honorable and just life (may approach).' Such is the cry of those who promise purification from sins.\6/ But let us now hear what sort of people these Christians invite. 'Anyone who is a sinner,' they say, 'or foolish, or simple-minded -- in short, any unfortunate will be accepted by the kingdom of God.' By 'sinner' is meant an unjust person, a thief, a burglar, a poisoner, a sacrilegious man, or a robber of corpses. Why, if you wanted an assembly of robbers, these are just the sort of people you would summon!"\7/ Here Celsus has stated, as lucidly as one could desire, the cardinal difference between Christianity and ancient religion.\8/
\6/ The meaning is that even to mysteries connected with purification those only were bidden who had led upon the whole a good and a just life.
\7/ Porphyry's position is rather different. He cannot flatly set aside the saying of Christ about the sick, for whose sake he came into the world. But as a Greek he is convinced that religion is meant for intelligent, just, and inquiring people. Hence his statement on the point (in Mac. Magnes, 4.10) is rather confused.
\8/ Origen makes a skillful defense of Christianity at this point. "If a Christian does extend his appeal to the same people as those addressed by a robber-chief, his aim is very different. He does so in order to bind up their wounds with his doctrine, in order to allay the festering sores of the soul with those remedies of faith which correspond to the wine and oil and other applications employed to give the body relief from pain" (3.60). "Celsus misrepresents facts when he declares that we hold God was sent to sinners only. It is just as if he found fault with some people for saying that some kind and gracious [φιλανθρωπότατος, an epithet of Aesculapius] monarch had sent his physician to a city for the benefit of the sick people in that city. God the Word was thus sent as a physician for sinners, but also as a teacher of divine mysteries for those who are already pure and sin no more" (3.61).
But, as we have already seen (Book 1, Chapter 3), the [[105]] religious temper which Christianity encountered, and which developed and diffused itself very rapidly in the second and third centuries, was no longer what we should term "ancient." Here again we see that the new religion made its appearance "when the time was fulfilled." The cheerful, naive spirit of the old religion, so far as it still survived, lay a-dying, and its place was occupied by fresh religious needs. Philosophy had set the individual free, and had discovered a human being in the common citizen. By the blending of states and nations, which coalesced to form a universal empire, cosmopolitanism had now become a reality. But there was always a reverse side to cosmopolitanism, viz., individualism. The refinements of material civilization and mental culture made people more sensitive to the element of pain in life, and this increase of sensitiveness showed itself also in the sphere of morals, where more than one Oriental religion came forward to satisfy its demand. The Socratic philosophy, with its fine ethical ideas, issued from the heights of the thinker to spread across the lowlands of the common people. The Stoics, in particular, paid unwearied attention to the "health and diseases of the soul," moulding their practical philosophy upon this type of thought. There was a real demand for purity, consolation, expiation, and healing, and as these could not be found elsewhere, they began to be sought in religion. In order to secure them, people were on the look-out for new sacred rites. The evidence for this change which passed over the religious temper lies in the writings of Seneca, Epictetus, and many others; but a further testimony of much greater weight is afforded by the revival which attended the cult of Aesculapius during the Imperial age.\9/ As far back as 290 B.C.E., Aesculapius of Epidaurus had been summoned to Rome on the advice of the Sibylline books. He had his sanctuary on the island in the Tiber, and close to it, just as at the numerous shrines of Asclepius in Greece, there stood a sanatorium in which sick persons waited for the injunctions [[106]] which the god imparted during sleep. Greek physicians followed the god to Rome, but it took a long time for either the god or the Greek doctors to become popular. The latter do riot seem at first to have recommended themselves by their skill. "In 219 B.C.E. the first Greek surgeon became domiciled in Rome. He actually received the franchise, and was presented by the State with a shop 'in compito Acilio.' But this doctor made such unmerciful havoc among his patients by cutting and cauterizing, that the name of surgeon became a synonym for that of a butcher."\10/ Things were different under the Caesars. Though the Romans themselves still eschewed the art of medicine, considering it a kind of divination, skilled Greek doctors were in demand at Rome itself, and the cult of that "deus clinicus," Aesculapius, was in full vogue. From Rome his cult spread over all the West, fusing itself here and there with the cult of Serapis or some other deity, and accompanied by the subordinate cult of Hygeia and Salus, Telesphorus and Somnus. Furthermore, the sphere of influence belonging to this god of healing widened steadily; he became "savior" pure and simple, the god who aids in all distress, the "friend of man" (φιλανθρωπότατος).\11/ The more men sought deliverance and healing in religion, the greater grew this god's [[107]] repute. He belonged to the old gods who held out longest against Christianity, and therefore he is often to be met with in the course of early Christian literature. The cult of Aesculapius was one of those which were most widely diffused throughout the second half of the second century, and also during the third century. People traveled to the famous sanatoria of the god, as they travel today to baths. He was appealed to in diseases of the body and of the soul; people slept in his temples, to be cured; the costliest gifts were brought him as the ΘΕΟΣ ΣΩΤΗΡ ("God the Savior"); and people consecrated their lives to him, as innumerable inscriptions and statues testify. In the case of other gods as well, healing virtue now became a central feature. Zeus himself and Apollo (cp., e.g., Tatian, Orat. 8) appeared in a new light. They, too, became "saviors." No one could be a god any longer, unless he was also a savior.\12/ Glance over Origen's great reply to Celsus, and you soon discover that one point hotly disputed by these two remarkable men was the question whether Jesus or Aesculapius was the true Savior. Celsus champions the one with as much energy and credulity as Origen the other. The combination of crass superstition and sensible criticism presented by both men is an enigma to us at this time of day. We moderns can hardly form any clear idea of their mental bearings. In 3.3 Origen observes: "Miracles occurred in all lands, or at least in many places. Celsus himself admits in his book that, Esculapius healed diseases and revealed the future in all cities that were devoted to him, such as Tricca, Epidaurus, Cos, and Pergamum." According to 3.22 Celsus charged the Christians with being unable to make up their minds to call Aesculapius a god, simply because he had been first a man. Origen's retort is that the Greek tradition made Zeus slay Aesculapius with a thunderbolt. Celsus (3.24) declared it to be an authentic fact that a great number of Greeks and barbarians had seen, and still saw, no mere wraith of Aesculapius, but the god himself engaged in healing and helping man, whereas the disciples of Jesus had merely seen a phantom. Origen is very indignant at this, but his counter-assertions are [[108]] weak. Does Celsus also appeal to the great number of Greeks and barbarians who believe in Aesculapius? Origen, too, can point to the great number of Christians, to the truth of their scriptures, and to their successful cures in the name of Jesus. But then he suddenly alters his defense, and proceeds (3.25) to make the following extremely shrewd observation: "Even were I going to admit that a demon named Aesculapius had the power of healing bodily diseases, I might still remark to those who are amazed at such cures or at the prophecies of Apollo, that such curative power is of itself neither good nor bad, but within reach of godless as well as of honest folk; while in the same way it does not follow that he who can foretell the future is on that account an honest and upright man. One is not in a position to prove the virtuous character of those who heal diseases and foretell the future. Many instances may be adduced of people being healed who did not deserve to live, people who were so corrupt and led a life of such wickedness that no sensible physician would have troubled to cure them. . . The power of healing diseases is no evidence of anything specially divine." From all these remarks of Origen, we can see how high the cult of Aesculapius was ranked, and how keenly the men of that age were on the lookout for "salvation."
\9/ For the cult of Aesculapius, see von Wilamowitz-Moellendorf's Isyllos von Epidauros (1886), pp. 36 f., 44 f., 116 f., and Usener's Gotternamen (1896), pp. 147 f., 350, besides Ilberg's study of Aesculapius in Teubner's Neuen Jahrbuchern, 2, 1901, and the cautious article by Thramer in Pauly-Wissowa's Real. Encykl. (2.1642 f.).
\10/ Preller-Jordan, Rom. Mythologie, 2. p. 243. Pliny observes: "Mox a saevitia secandi urendique transisse nomen in carnificem et in taedium artem omnesque medicos" ("Owing to cruelty in cutting and cauterizing, the name of surgeon soon passed into that of butcher, and a disgust was felt for the profession and for all doctors").
\11/ The cult was really humane, and it led the physicians also to be humane. In a passage from the Παραγγελίαι of pseudo-Hippocrates we read : "I charge you not to show yourselves inhuman, but to take the wealth or poverty (of the patient) into account, in certain cases even to treat them gratis" -- the repute of the ἰατροὶ ἀνάργυροι is well known -- "and to consider future gratitude more than present fame. If, therefore, the summons for aid happens to be the case of an unknown or impecunious man, he is most of all to be assisted; for wherever there is love to one's neighbor, it means readiness to act" (9.258 Littré, 3.321 Erm.; a passage which Ilberg brought under my notice, cp. also the Berl. Philol. Wochenschrift for March 25, 1893). How strongly the Christians themselves felt their affinity to humane physicians is proved by a striking instance which Ilberg quotes (loc. cit., from 6.90 Littré, 2.123 Erm.). Eusebius writes (H. E. 10.4.11) that Jesus, "like some excellent physician, in order to cure the sick, examines what is repulsive, handles sores, and reaps pain himself from the sufferings of others." This passage is literally taken from the treatise of pseudo-Hippocrates περὶ φυσῶν ὀ μὲν γὰρ ἰητρὸς ὁρεῖ τε δεινά, θιγγάνει τε ἀηδέων ἐπ’ ἀλλοτρίῃσί δὲ ξυμφορῇσιν ἰδίας καρποῦται λύπας.
\12/ Corresponding to this, we have Porphyry's definition of the object of philosophy as ἡ τῆς ψυχῆς σωτηρία (the salvation of the soul).
Into this world of craving for salvation the preaching of Christianity made its way. Long before it had achieved its final triumph by dint of an impressive philosophy of religion, its success was already assured by the fact that it promised and offered salvation -- a feature in which it surpassed all other religions and cults. It did more than set up the actual Jesus against the imaginary Aesculapius of dreamland. Deliberately and consciously it assumed the form of "the religion of salvation or healing," or "the medicine of soul and body," and at the same time it recognized that one of its chief duties was to care assiduously for the sick in body.\13/ We shall now select one or two examples out of the immense wealth of material, to throw light upon both of these points.
\13/ The New Testament itself is so saturated with medicinal expressions, employed metaphorically, that a collection of them would fill several pages. [[[add bibliog note??]]
Take, first of all, the theory. Christianity never lost hold [[109]] of its innate principle; it was, and it remained, a religion for the sick. Accordingly it assumed that no one, or at least hardly any one, was in normal health, but that men were always in a state of disability. This reading of human nature was not confined to Paul, who looked on all men outside of Christ as dying, dying in their sins; a similar, though simpler, view was taught by the numerous unknown missionaries of primitive Christianity. The soul of man is sick, they said, a prey to death from the moment of his birth. The whole race lies a-dying. But now "the goodness and the human kindness of God the Savior" have appeared to restore the sick soul.\14/ Baptism was therefore conceived as a bath for regaining the soul's health, or for "the recovery of life";\15/ the Lord's Supper was valued as "the potion of immortality,"\16/ and penitence was termed "vera de satisfactione medicina" (the true medicine derived from the atonement, Cypr., de Lapsis 15). At the celebration of the sacrament, thanks were offered for the "life" therein bestowed (Did. 9-10). The conception of "life" acquired a new and deeper meaning. Jesus had already spoken of a "life" beyond the reach of death, to be obtained by the sacrifice of a man's earthly life. The idea and the term were taken up by Paul and by the fourth evangelist, who summed up in them the entire blessings of religion. With the tidings of immortality, the new religion confronted sorrow, misery, sin, and death. So much, at least, the world of paganism could understand. It could understand the promise of bliss and immortality resembling that of the blessed gods. And not a few pagans understood the justice of the accompanying condition that one had to submit to the regime of the religion, that the soul had to be pure and holy before it could become immortal. Thus they grasped the message of a great Physician who preaches "abstinence" and bestows the gift of "life."\17/ [[110]] Anyone who had felt a single ray of the power and glory of the new life reckoned his previous life to have been blindness, [[111]] disease, and death -- a view attested by both the apostolic fathers and the apologists.\18/ "He bestowed on us the light, he spoke to us as a father to his sons, he saved us in our lost estate….Blind were we in our understanding, worshipping stones and wood and gold and silver and brass, nor was our whole life aught but death."\19/ The mortal will put on, nay, has already put on, immortality, the perishable will be robed in the imperishable: such was the glad cry of the early Christians, who took up arms against a sea of troubles, and turned the terror of life's last moment into a triumph. "Those miserable people," says Lucian in the Proteus Peregrinus, "have got it into their heads that they are perfectly immortal." He would certainly have made a jest upon it had any occurred to his mind; but whenever this nimble scoffer is depicting the faith of Christians, there is a remarkable absence of anything like jesting.
\14/ Tit. 3.4 : ἡ χρηστότης καὶ ἡ φιλανθρωπία ἐπεφάνη τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν θεοῦ ... ἔσωσεν ἡμᾶς. See the New Testament allusions to σωτήρ.
\15/ Tert., de Baptism. 1, etc., etc.; Clement (Paedag. 1.6.29) calls baptism παιωνίον φαρμάκον. Tertullian describes it as "aqua medicinalis."
\16/ Ignatius, Justin, and Irenaeus.
\17/ Clement of Alexandria opens. his Paedagogus by describing his Logos as the physician who heals suffering (1.1.1., τὰ πάθη ὁ παραμυθητικὸς λόγος ἰᾶται). He [[110b]] distinguishes the λόγος προτρεπτικός, ὑποθετικός, and παραμυθητικός, to which is added further ὁ διδακτικός. And the Logos is Christ. Gregory Thaumaturgus also calls the Logos a physician, in his panegyric on Origen (16). In the pseudo-Clementine homilies, Jesus, who is the true prophet, is always the physician; similarly Peter's work everywhere is that of the great physician who, by the sole means of prayer and speech, heals troops of sick folk (see especially Bk. 7). Simon Magus, again, is represented as the wicked magician, who evokes disease wherever he goes. Origen has depicted Jesus the physician more frequently and fully than anyone else. One at least of his numerous passages on the subject may be cited (from Hom. 8, in Levit., ch. 1. vol. 9. pp. 312 f): "Medicum dici in scripturis divinis dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, etiam ipsius domini sententia perdocemur, sicut dicit in evangeliis [here follows Matt. 9.12 f.]. Omnis autem medicus ex herbarum succis vet arborurn vet etiam metallorum venis vel animantium naturis profectura corporibus medicamenta componit. Sed herbas istas si quis forte, antequam pro ratione artis componantur, adspiciat, si quidem in agris aut montibus, velut foenum vile conculcat et praeterit. Si vero eas intra medici scholam dispositas per ordinem viderit, licet odorem tristem, fortem et austerum reddant, tamen suspicabitur eas curae vel remedii aliquid continere, etiamsi nondurn quae vel qualis sit sanitatis ac remedii virtus agnoverit. Haec de communibus medicis diximus. Veni nunc ad Jesum coelestem medicum, intra ad hanc stationem medicinae eius ecclesiam, vide ibi languentium iacere multitudinem. Venit mulier, quae et partu immunda effecta est, venit leprosus, qui extra castra separatus est pro immunditia leprae, quaerunt a medico remedium, quomodo sanentur, quomodo mundentur, et quia Jesus hic, qui medicus est, ipse est et verbum dei, aegris suis non herbarum succis, sed verborum sacramentis medicamenta conquirit. Quae verborum medicamenta si quis incultius per libros tamquam per agros videat esse dispersa, ignorans singulorum dictorum virtutem, ut vilia haec et nullum sermonis cultum habentia praeteribit. Qui sero ex aliqua parte didicerit animarum apud Christum esse medicinam, intelliget profecto ex hic libris, qui in ecclesiis recitantur, tamquam ex agris et montibus, salutares herbas adsumere unumquemque debere, sermonum dumtaxat vim, ut si quis illi est in anima languor, non tam exterioris frondis et corticis, quam succi interioris hausta virtute sanetur" ("The Lord himself teaches us, in the gospels, that our Lord Jesus Christ is called a physician in the Holy Scriptures. Every physician compounds his medicines for the good of the body from the juices of herbs or trees, or even from the veins of metals or living creatures. Now, supposing that anyone sees these herbs in their natural state, ere they are prepared by skill of art, he treads on them like common straw and passes by them, on mountain or field. But if he chances to see them arranged in the laboratory of a herbalist or physician, he will suspect that, for all their bitter and heavy and unpleasant odors, they have some healing and healthful virtue, though as yet he does not know the nature or the quality of this curative element. So much for our ordinary physicians. Now look at Jesus the heavenly physician. Come inside his room of healing, the church. Look at the multitude of impotent folk lying there. Here comes a woman unclean from childbirth, a leper expelled from the camp owing to his unclean disease; they ask the physician for aid, for a cure, for cleansing; and because this Jesus the Physician is also the Word of God, he [[111b]] applies, not the juices of herbs, but the sacraments of the Word to their diseases. Anyone who looked at these remedies casually as they lay in books, like herbs in the field, ignorant of the power of single words, would pass them by as common things without any grace of style. But he who ultimately discovers that Christ has a medicine for souls, will find from these books which are read in the churches, as he finds from mountains and fields, that each yields healing herbs, at least strength won from words, so that any weakness of soul is healed not so much by leaf and bark as by an inward virtue and juice").
\18/ That the vices were diseases was a theme treated by Christian teachers as often as by the Stoics. Cp., e.g., Origen, in Ep. ad Rom, Bk. 2. (Lommatzsch, 6.91 f.) : "Languores quidem animae ab apostolo in his (Rom. 2.8) designantur, quorum medelam nullus inveniet nisi prius morborum cognoverit causas et ideo in divinis scripturis aegritudines animae numerantur et remedia describuntur, ut hi, qui se apostolicis subdiderint disciplinis, ex his, quae scripta sunt, agnitis languoribus suis curati possint dicere : 'Lauda anima mea dominum, qui sanat omnes languores tuos'" ("The apostle here describes the diseases of the soul; their cure cannot be discovered till one diagnoses first of all the causes of such troubles, and consequently Holy Scripture enumerates the ailments of the soul, and describes their remedies, in order that those who submit to the apostolic discipline may be able to say, after they have been cured of diseases diagnosed by aid of what is written: 'Bless the Lord, O my soul, who healeth all thy diseases'").
\19/ 2 Clem. [[[title??], Ep. ad Cor. 1. Similar expressions are particularly common in Tatian, but indeed no apology is wholly devoid of them.
While the soul's health or the new life is a gift, however, it is a gift which must be appropriated from within. There was a great risk of this truth being overlooked by those who were accustomed to leave any one of the mysteries with the sense of [[112]] being consecrated and of bearing with them super mundane blessings as if they were so many articles. It would be easy also to show how rapidly the sacramental system of the church lapsed into the spirit of the pagan mysteries. But once the moral demand, i.e., the purity of the soul, was driven home, it proved such a powerful factor that it held its own within the Catholic church, even alongside of the inferior sacramental system. The salvation of the soul and the lore of that salvation never died away; in fact, the ancient church arranged all the details of her worship and her dogma with this end in view. She consistently presented herself as the great infirmary or the hospital of humanity: pagans, sinners, and heretics are her patients, ecclesiastical doctrines and observances are her medicines, while the bishops and pastors are the physicians, but only as servants of Christ, who is himself the physician of all souls.\20/ Let me give one or two instances of this. "As the good of the body is health, so the good of the soul is the knowledge of God," says Justin.\21/ "While we have time to be healed, let us put ourselves into the hands of God the healer, paying him recompense. And what recompense? What but repentance from a sincere heart" (2 Clem., ad Cor. 9). "Like some excellent physician, in order to cure the sick, Jesus examines what is repulsive, handles sores, and reaps pain himself from the sufferings of others; he has himself saved us from the very jaws of death -- us who were not merely diseased and suffering from terrible ulcers and wounds already mortified, but were also lying already among the dead . . .; he who is the giver of life and of light, our great physician,\22/ king and [[113]] lord, the Christ of God."\23/ "The physician cannot introduce any salutary medicines into the body that needs to be cured, without having previously eradicated the trouble seated in the body or averted the approaching trouble. Even so the teacher of the truth cannot convince anyone by an address on truth, so long as some error still lurks in the soul of the hearer, which forms an obstacle to his arguments" (Athenagoras, de resurr. 1). "Were we to draw from the axiom that 'disease is diagnosed by means of medical knowledge,' the inference that medical knowledge is the cause of disease, we should be making a preposterous statement. And as it is beyond doubt that the knowledge of salvation is a good thing, because it teaches men to know their sickness, so also is the law a good thing, inasmuch as sin is discovered thereby."\24/
\20/ Celsus, who knew this kind of Christian preaching intimately, pronounced the Christians to be quacks. "The teacher of Christianity," he declares, "acts like a person who promises to restore a sick man to health and yet hinders him from consulting skilled physicians, so as to prevent his own ignorance from being exposed." To which Origen retorts, "And who are the physicians from whom we deter simple folk?" He then proceeds to show that they cannot be the philosophers, and still less those who are not yet emancipated from the coarse superstition of polytheism (3.74).
\21/ Fragm. 9 (Otto, Corp. Apol. 3, p. 258). Cp. also the beautiful wish expressed at the beginning of 3 John: περὶ πάντων εὔχομαί σε εὐοδοῦσθαι καὶ ὑγιαίνειν, καθὼς εὐοδοῦταί σου ἡ ψυχή (ver. 2).
\22/ Cp. Ep. ad Diogn. 9.6, pseudo-Justin, de Resurr. 10: "Our physician, Jesus Christ"; Clem., Paedag. 1.2.6.1: "The Logos of the Father is the only [[113b]] Paeonian physician for human infirmities, and the holy charmer (ἐπῳδὸς ἅγιος) for the sick soul" (whereupon he quotes Ps. 82.2-3): "The physician's art cures the diseases of the body, according to Democritus, but wisdom frees the soul from its passions. Yet the good instructor, the Wisdom, the Logos of the Father, the creator of man, cares for all our nature, healing it in body and in soul alike -- he ὁ πανακὴς τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος ἰατρός. ῾Ο σωτὴρ (the all-sufficient physician of humanity, the Savior)," whereupon he quotes Mark 2.2. See also ibid., 1.6.36, and 1.12.100. "Hence the Logos also is called Savior, since he has devised rational medicines for men; he preserves their health, lays bare their defects, exposes the causes of their evil affections, strikes at the root of irrational lusts, prescribes their diet, and arranges every antidote to heal the sick. For this is the greatest and most royal work of God, the saving of mankind. Patients are irritated at a physician who has no advice to give on the question of their health. But how should we not render thanks to the divine instructor," etc. (Paedag. 1.8.64-65).
\23/ Eus., H.E. 5.4.11 (already referred to on p. 106). Cp. also the description of the Bible in Aphraates as "the books of the wise Physician," and Cypr., de Op. 1: "Christ was wounded to cure us of our wounds. . . . When the Lord at his coming had healed that wound which Adam caused," etc. Metaphors from disease are on the whole very numerous in Cyprian; cp., e.g., de Habitu 2; de Unitate 3; de Lapsis 14, 34.
\24/ Origen, opposing the Antinomians in Comm. in Rom. 3.6 (Lommatzsch, 6. p. 195), Hom. in Jerem. 19.3. Similarly Clem., Paedag. 1.9.88: "As the physician who tells a patient that he has fever is not an enemy to him -- since the physician is not the cause of the fever but merely detects it (οὐκ αἴτιος, ἀλλὰ ἔλεγχός) neither is one who blames a diseased soul ill-disposed to that person." Cp. Methodius (Opp. 1. p. 52, Bonwetsch): "As we do not blame a physician who explains how a man may become strong and well," etc.; see also 1.65: "For even those who undergo medical treatment for their bodily pains do not at once regain health, but gladly bear pain in the hope of their coming recovery."
As early as 2 Tim. 2.17, the word of heretics is said to eat [[114]] "like a gangrene." This expression recurs very frequently, and is elaborated in detail. "Their talk is infectious as a plague" (Cyprian, de Lapsis, 34). "Heretics are hard to cure," says Ignatius (ad Ephes. 7, δυσθεράπευτος), " . . . there is but one physician, Jesus Christ our Lord." In the pastoral epistles the orthodox doctrine is already called "sound teaching" as opposed to the errors of the heretics.
Most frequently, however, bodily recovery is compared to penitence. It is Ignatius again who declares that "not every wound is cured by the same salve. Allay sharp pains by soothing fomentations."\25/ "The cure of evil passions," says Clement at the opening of his Paedagogus, "is effected by the Logos through admonitions; he strengthens the soul with benign precepts like soothing medicines; and directs the sick to the full knowledge of the truth."\26/ "Let us follow the practice of physicians (in the exercise of moral discipline), says Origen, "and only use the knife when all other means have failed, when application of oil and salves and soothing poultices leave the swelling still hard."\27/ An objection was raised by Christians who disliked repentance, to the effect that the public confession of sin which accompanied the penitential discipline was at once an injury to their self-respect and a misery. To which Tertullian replies (de Poen. 10): "Nay, it is evil that ends in misery. Where repentance is undertaken, misery ceases, because it is turned into what is salutary. It is indeed a misery to be cut, and cauterized, and racked by some pungent powder; but the excuse for the offensiveness of means of healing that may be unpleasant, is the cure they work." This is exactly Cyprian's [[115]] point, when he writes\28/ that "the priest of the Lord must employ salutary remedies.\29/ He is an unskilled physician who handles tenderly the swollen edges of a wound and allows the poison lodged in the inward part to be aggraved by simply leaving it alone. The wound must be opened and lanced; recourse must be had to the strong remedy of cutting out the corrupting parts. Though the patient scream out in pain, and wail or weep, because he cannot bear it -- afterwards he will be grateful, when he feels that he is cured." But the most elaborate comparison of a bishop to a surgeon occurs in the Apostolic Constitutions (2.41). "Heal thou, O bishop, like a pitiful physician, all who have sinned, and employ methods that promote saving health. Confine not thyself to cutting or cauterizing or the use of corrosives, but employ bandages and lint, use mild and healing drugs, and sprinkle words of comfort as a soothing balm. If the wound be deep and gashed, lay a plaster on it that it may fill up and be once more like the rest of the sound flesh. If it be dirty, cleanse it with corrosive powder, i.e., with words of censure. If it has proud flesh, reduce it with sharp plasters, i.e., with threats of punishment. If it spreads further, sear it, and cut off the putrid flesh -- mortify the man with fastings. And if after all this treatment thou findest that no soothing poultice, neither oil nor bandage, can be applied from head to foot of the patient, but that the disease is spreading and defying all cures, like some gangrene that corrupts the entire member; then, after great consideration and consultation with other skilled physicians, cut off the putrified member, lest the whole body of the church be corrupted. So be not hasty to cut it off, nor rashly resort to the saw of many a tooth, but first use the lancet to lay open the abscess, that the body may be kept free from pain by the removal of the deep-seated cause of the disease. But if thou seest anyone past repentance and (inwardly) past feeling, [[116]] then cut him off as an incurable with sorrow and lamentation."\30/
\25/ Ad Polyc. 2. The passage is to be taken allegorically. It is addressed to Bishop Polycarp, who has been already counselled to"bear the maladies of all" (1); wisely and gently is the bishop to treat the erring and the spiritually diseased. In the garb given it by Ignatius, this counsel recurs very frequently throughout the subsequent literature; see Lightfoot's learned note. Also Clem. Alex., Fragm. (Dindorf, 3.499) : "With one salve shalt thou heal thyself and thy neighbor (who slanders thee), if thou acceptest the slander with meekness"; Clem. Hom. 10.18: "The salve must not be applied to the sound member of the body, but to the suffering"; and Hermes Trismeg., περὶ βοτ. χυλ., p. 331: "Do not always use this salve."
\26/ 1.1.3 [1.9.83.2 !], ἤπια φάρμακα (see Homer).
\27/ In l. Jesu Nave, 8.6 (Lomm. 11.71). Cp. Hom. in Jerem. 16.1.
\29/ Cp. pseudo-Clem., Ep. ad Jac. 2: "The president (the bishop) must hold the place of a physician (in the church), instead of behaving with the violence of an irrational brute."
\30/ Cp. Clem. Alex., Paedag, 1.8.64 f.: "Many evil passions are cured by punishment or by the inculcation of sterner commands. . . .Censure is like a surgical operation on the passions of the soul. The latter are abscesses on the body of the truth, and they must be cut open by the lancet of censure. Censure is like the application of a medicine which breaks up the callosities of the passions, and cleanses the impurities of a lewd life, reducing the swollen flesh of pride, and restoring the man to health and truth once more." Cp. 1.9.83; also Methodius, Opp. 1. 1. p. 115 (ed. Bonwetsch).
It must be frankly admitted that this constant preoccupation with the "diseases" of sin had results which were less favorable. The ordinary moral sense, no less than the aesthetic, was deadened.\31/ If people are ever to be made better, they must be directed to that honorable activity which means moral health; whereas endless talk about sin and forgiveness exercises, on the contrary, a narcotic influence. To say the least of it, ethical education must move to and fro between reflection on the past (with its faults and moral bondage) and the prospect of a future (with its goal of aspiration and the exertion of all one's powers). The theologians of the Alexandrian school had some sense of the latter, but in depicting the perfect Christian or true gnostic they assigned a disproportionate space to knowledge and correct opinions. They were not entirely emancipated from the Socratic fallacy that the man of knowledge will be invariably a good man. They certainly did surmount the "educated" man's intellectual pride on the field of religion and morality.\32/ In Origen's treatise against Celsus, whole sections of great excellence are devoted to the duty and possibility of even the uneducated person acquiring [[117]] health of soul, and to the supreme necessity of salvation from sin and weakness.\33/ Origen hits the nail upon the head when he remarks (7.60) that "Plato and the other wise men of Greece, with their fine sayings, are like the physicians who confine their attention to the better classes and despise the common man, whilst the disciples of Jesus carefully study to make provision for the great mass of men."\34/ Still, Origen's idea is that, as a means of salvation, religion merely forms a stage for those who aspire to higher levels. His conviction is that when the development of religion has reached its highest level, anything historical or positive becomes of as little value as the ideal of redemption and salvation itself. On this level the spirit, filled by God, no longer needs a Savior or any Christ of history at all. "Happy," he exclaims (Comm. in Joh. 1.22 ; Lomm., 1. p. 43), "happy [[[repeated??] are they who need no longer now God's Son as the physician of the sick or as the shepherd, people who now need not any redemption, but wisdom, reason, and righteousness alone." In his treatise against Celsus (3.61 f.) he draws a sharp distinction between two aims and boons in the Christian [[118]] religion, one higher and the other lower. "To no mystery, to no participation in wisdom 'hidden in a mystery,' do we call the wicked man, the thief, the burglar, etc., but to healing or salvation. For our doctrine has a twofold appeal. It provides means of healing for the sick, as is meant by the text, 'The whole need not a physician, but the sick.' But it also unveils to those who are pure in soul and body 'that mystery which was kept secret since the world began, but is now made manifest by the Scriptures of the prophets and the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.' . . . God the Word was indeed sent as a physician for the sick, but also as a teacher of divine mysteries to those who are already pure and sin no more."\35/
\31/ It was at this that the Emperor Julian especially took umbrage, and not without reason. As a protest against the sensuousness of paganism, there grew up in the church an aesthetic of ugliness. Disease, death, and death's relics -- bones and putrefaction -- were preferred to health and beauty, whilst Christianity sought to express her immaterial spirit in terms drawn from the unsightly remnants of material decay. How remote was all this artificial subtlety of an exalted piety from the piety which had pointed men to the beauty of the lilies in the field! The Christians of the third and fourth centuries actually begin to call sickness health, and to regard death as life.
\32/ Clem. Alex., Strom. 7.7.48.4: ὡς δὲ ὁ ἰατρὸς ὑγείαν παρέχεται τοῖς συνεργοῦσι πρὸς ὑγείαν, οὕτως καὶ ὁ θεὸς τὴν ἀίδιον σωτηρίαν τοῖς συνεργοῦσι πρὸς γνῶσίν τε καὶ εὐπραγίαν ("Even as the physician secures health for those who cooperate with him to that end, so does God secure eternal salvation for those who cooperate with him for knowledge and good conduct").
\33/ C. Cels. 3.54: "We cure every rational being with the medicine of our doctrine."
\34/ In 7.59. there is an extremely fine statement of the true prophet's duty of speaking in such a way as to be intelligible and encouraging to the multitude, and not merely to the cultured. "Suppose that some food which is wholesome and fit for human nourishment, is prepared and seasoned so delicately as to suit the palate of the rich and luxurious alone, and not the taste of simple folk, peasants, laborers, poor people, and the like, who are not accustomed to such dainties. Suppose again that this very food is prepared, not as epicures would have it, but to suit poor folk, laborers, and the vast majority of mankind. Well, if on this supposition the food prepared in one way is palatable to none but epicures, and left un-tasted by the rest, while, prepared in the other way, it ministers to the health and strength of a vast number, what persons shall we believe are promoting the general welfare most successfully -- those who cater simply for the better classes, or those who prepare food for the multitude? If we assume that the food in both cases is equally wholesome and nourishing, it is surely obvious that the good of men and the public welfare are better served by the physician who attends to the health of the multitude than by him who will merely attend to a few." And Origen was far removed from anything like the narrow-mindedness of orthodoxy, as is plain from this excellent remark in 3.13: "As only he is qualified in medicine who has studied in various schools and attached himself to the best system after a careful examination of them all . . . so, in my judgment, the most thorough knowledge of Christianity is his who has carefully investigated the various sects of Judaism and of Christianity."
\35/ So Clem. Alex., Paed. 1.1.3.1-3: ῎Ισον δ’ οὐκ ἔστιν ὑγίεια καὶ γνῶσις, ἀλλ’ ἣ μὲν μαθήσει, ἣ δὲ ἰάσει περιγίνεται. (2.) Οὐκ ἂν οὖν τις νοσῶν ἔτι πρότερόν τι τῶν διδασκαλικῶν ἐκμάθοι πρὶν ἢ τέλεον ὑγιᾶναι· οὐδὲ γὰρ ὡσαύτως πρὸς τοὺς μανθάνοντας ἢ κάμνοντας ἀεὶ τῶν παραγγελμάτων ἕκαστον λέγεται, ἀλλὰ πρὸς οὓς μὲν εἰς γνῶσιν, πρὸς οὓς δὲ εἰς ἴασιν. (3.) Καθάπερ οὖν τοῖς νοσοῦσι τὸ σῶμα ἰατροῦ χρῄζει, ταύτῃ καὶ τοῖς ἀσθενοῦσι τὴν ψυχὴν παιδαγωγοῦ δεῖ, ἵν’ ἡμῶν ἰάσηται τὰ πάθη, εἶτα δὲ εἰς διδασκάλου ὃς καθηγήσηται, καθαρὰν πρὸς γνώσεως ἐπιτηδειότητα εὐτρεπίζων τὴν ψυχήν, δυναμένην χωρῆσαι τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν τοῦ λόγου ("Health and knowledge are not alike; the one is produced by learning, the other by healing. Before a sick person, then, could learn any further branch of knowledge, he must get quite well. Nor is each injunction addressed to learners and to patients alike; the object in one case is knowledge, and in the other a cure. Thus, as patients need the physician for their body, so do those who are sick in soul need, first of all, an instructor, to heal our pains, and then a teacher who shall conduct the soul to all requisite knowledge, disposing it to admit the revelation of the Word").
Origen unites the early Christian and the philosophic conceptions of religion. He is thus superior to the pessimistic fancies which seriously threatened the latter view. But only among the cultured could he gain any following. The Christian people held fast to Jesus as the Savior.
No one has yet been able to show that the figure of Christ which emerges in the fifth century, probably as early as the fourth, and which subsequently became the prevailing type in all pictorial representations, was modeled upon the figure of Aesculapius. The two types are certainly similar; the qualities predicated of both are identical in part; and no one has hitherto explained satisfactorily why the original image of the youthful Christ was displaced by the later. Nevertheless, we have no [[119]] means of deriving the origin of the Callixtine Christ from Aesculapius as a prototype, so that in the meantime we must regard such a derivation as a hypothesis, which, however interesting, is based upon inadequate evidence. There would be one piece of positive evidence forthcoming, if the statue which passed for a likeness of Jesus in the city of Paneas (Caesarea Philippi) during the fourth century was a statue of Aesculapius. Eusebius (H.E. 6.18) tells how he had seen there, in the house of the woman whom Jesus had cured of an issue of blood, a work of art which she had caused to be erected out of gratitude to Jesus. "On a high pedestal beside the gates of her house there stands the brazen image of a woman kneeling down with her hands outstretched as if in prayer. Opposite this stands another brazen image of a man standing up, modestly attired in a cloak wrapped twice round his body, and stretching out his hand to the woman. At his feet, upon the pedestal itself, a strange plant is growing up as high as the hem of his brazen cloak, which is a remedy for all sorts of disease. This statue is said to be an image of Jesus. Nor is it strange that the Gentiles of that age, who had received benefit from the Lord, should express their gratitude in this fashion." For various reasons it is unlikely that this piece of art was intended to represent Jesus, or that it was erected by the woman with an issue of blood; on the contrary, the probability is that the statuary was thus interpreted by the Christian population of Paneas, probably at an early period.\36/ If the statue originally represented Aesculapius, as the curative plant would suggest, we should have here at least one step between "Aesculapius the Savior" and "Christ the Savior." But this interpretation of a pagan savior or healer is insecure; and even were it quite secure, it would not justify any general conclusion being drawn as yet upon the matter. At any rate we are undervaluing the repugnance felt even by Christians of the fourth century for the gods of paganism, if we consider ourselves entitled to think of any conscious transformation of the figure of Aesculapius into that of Christ.\37/ [[120]]
\36/ Cp. Hauck, Die Entstehung des Christus-typus (1880), p. 8 f.
\37/ In the eyes of Christians, Aesculapius was both a demon and an idol; no Christian could take him as a model or have any dealings with him. Some [[120b]] Roman Christians, who were devotees of learning, are certainly reported in one passage (written by a fanatical opponent, it is true) to have worshipped Galen (Eus., H. E. 5.28); but no mention is made of them worshipping Aesculapius. In addition to the passages cited above, in which early Christian writers deal with Aesculapius (who is probably alluded to also as far back as Apoc. 2.23), the following are to be noted : Justin, Apol. 1, 21, 22, 25, 54 (passages which are radically misunderstood when it is inferred from them that Justin is in favor of the god); Tatian, Orat. 21; Theoph., ad Autol. 1.9; Tertull., de Anima 1. (a passage which is specially characteristic of the aversion felt for this god) ; Cyprian's Quod Idola 1; Orig., c. Cels. 3.3, 22-25, 28, 42. Clement explains him in Protr. 2.26.7, after the manner of Euhemerus: Τὸν γὰρ εὐεργετοῦντα μὴ συνιέντες θεὸν ἀνέπλασάν τινας σωτῆρας Διοσκούρους καὶ ῾Ηρακλέα ἀλεξίκακον καὶ ᾿Ασκληπιὸν ἰατρόν ("Through not understanding the God who was their benefactor, they fashioned certain saviors, the Dioscuri . . . and Aesculapius the physician"). A number of passages (e.g., Protr. 2.30.1, ἰατρὸς φιλάργυρος ἦν, "he was an avaricious physician," and 4.52) show how little Clement cared for him.
Hitherto we have been considering the
development of Christianity as
the religion of "healing," as expressed in parables, ideas, doctrine,
and penitential discipline. It now remains for us to show that this
character was also stamped upon its arrangements for the care of bodily
sickness.
"I was sick and ye visited me. . . . As ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." In these words the founder of Christianity set the love that tends the sick in the center of his religion, laying it on the hearts of all his disciples. Primitive Christianity carried it in her heart; she also carried it out in practice.\38/ Even from the fragments of our extant literature, although that literature was not written with any such intention, we can still recognize the careful attention paid to works of mercy. At the outset we meet with directions everywhere to care for sick people. "Encourage the faint-hearted, support the weak," writes the apostle Paul to the church of Thessalonica (1 Thess. 5.14), which in its excitement was overlooking the duties lying close at hand. In the prayer of the church, preserved in the first epistle of Clement, supplications are expressly offered for those who are sick in soul and body.\39/ "Is any man sick? Let him call for the elders of [[121]] the church," says Jas. 5.14 -- a clear proof that all aid in cases of sickness was looked upon as a concern of the church.\40/ This comes out very plainly also in the epistle of Polycarp (6.1), where the obligations of the elders are displayed as follows: "They must reclaim the erring, care for all the infirm, and neglect no widow, orphan, or poor person." Particulars of this duty are given by Justin, who, in his Apology (ch. 67), informs us that every Sunday the Christians brought free-will offerings to their worship; these were deposited with the president (or bishop), "who dispenses them to orphans and widows, and to any who, from sickness or some other cause, are in want." A similar account is given by Tertullian in his Apology (ch. 39), where special stress is laid on the church's care for old people who are no longer fit for work. Justin is also our authority for the existence of deacons whose business it was to attend the sick.
\38/ Cp. the beautiful sentences of Lactantius, Div. Inst. 6.12 (especially p. 529, Brandt): Aegros quoque quibus defuerit qui adsistat, curandos fovendosque suscipere summae humanitatis et magnae operationis est ("It is also the greatest kindness possible and a great charity to undertake the care and maintenance of the sick, who need some one to assist them").
\39/ 1 Clem. 59: τοὺς ἀσθενεῖς (such is the most probable reading) ἴασαι, ... ἐξανάστησον τοὺς ἀσθενοῦντας, παρακάλεσον τοὺς ὀλιγοψυχοῦντας ("Heal the sick, . . .. raise up the weak, encourage the faint-hearted"). Cp. the later formulas of prayer for the sick in App. Constit. 8.10 and onwards; cp Binterim, Denkwürdigkeiten, 6.3, pp. 17 f.
\40/ Cp. 1 Cor. 12.26: "If one member suffers, all the members suffer with it."
Not later than the close of the third century, the veneration of the saints and the rise of chapels in honor of martyrs and saints led to a full-blown imitation of the Aeculapius cult within the church. Cures of sickness and infirmities were sought. Even the practice of incubation must have begun by this time, if not earlier; otherwise it could not not have been so widely diffused in the fourth century. The teachers of the church had previously repudiated it as heathenish; but, as often happens in similar circumstances, it crept in, though with some alteration of its ceremonies.
In its early days the church formed a permanent establishment for the relief of sickness and poverty, a function which it continued to discharge for several generations. It was based on the broad foundation of the Christian congregation; it acquired a sanctity from the worship of the congregation; and its operations were strictly centralized. The bishop was the superintendent (Apost. Constit. 3.4), and in many cases, especially in Syria and Palestine, he may have actually been a physician [[122]] himself.\41/ His executive or agents were the deacons and the order of "widows." The latter were at the same time to be secured against want, by being taken into the service of the church (cp. 1 Tim. 5.16). Thus, in one instruction dating from the second century,\42/ we read that, "In every congregation at least one widow is to be appointed to take care of sick women; she is to be obliging and sober, she is to report cases of need to the elders, she is not to be greedy or addicted to drink, in order that she may be able to keep sober for calls to service during the night."\43/ She is to "report cases of need to the elders," i.e., she is to remain an assistant (cp. Syr. Didasc. 15.79 f.). Tertullian happens to remark (de Praescr. 41) in a censure of women belonging to the heretical associations, that "they venture to teach, to debate, to exorcise, to promise cures, probably even to baptize." In the Eastern Church the order of widows seems to have passed on into that of "deaconesses" at a pretty early date, but unfortunately we know nothing about this transition or about the origin of these "deaconesses."\44/
\41/ Achelis (Texte u. Unters. 25.2 [1904], p. 381) attempts to prove that the author of the Syriac Didascalia was at once a bishop and a physician; he shows (p. 383) that similar combinations were not entirely unknown (cp. de Rossi's Roma Sotter., tav. 21.9, epitaph from San Callisto, Διονυσιου ιατρου πρεσβυτερου; Zenobius, physician and martyr in Sidon in the reign of Diocletian, Eus., H.E. 8.13; a physician and bishop in Tiberias, Epiph., Her. 30.4; Theodotus, physician and bishop in Laodicea Syr.; Basilius, episcopus artis inedicinae gnarus, at Ancyra, Jerome, de Vir. Ill. 89; in Can. Hipp. 3.18, the gift of healing is asked for the bishop and presbyter at ordination, while 8.53 presupposes that anyone who possessed this gift moved straightway to be enrolled among the clergy). Cp. Texte u. Unters. 8.4. pp. 1-14 ("Christian doctors").
\42/ Cp. Texte u. Unters. 2.5. p. 23.
\43/ "But thou, O widow, who art shameless, seest the widows, thy comrades, or thy brethren lying sick, yet troublest not to fast or pray for them, to lay hands on them or to visit them, as if thou wert not in health thyself or free" (Syr. Didasc. 15.80).
\44/ They are first mentioned in Pliny's letter to Trajan.
In the primitive church female assistants were quite thrown into the shadow by the men. The deacons were the real agents of charity. Their office was onerous; it was exposed to grave peril, especially in a time of persecution, and deacons furnished no inconsiderable proportion of the martyrs. "Doers of good works, looking after all by day and night" -- such is their description (Texte u. Unters. 2.5, p. 24), one of their [[123]] main duties being to look after the poor and sick.\45/ How much they had to do and how much they did, may be ascertained from Cyprian's epistles and the genuine Acts of the Martyrs.\46/ Nor were the laity to be exempted from the duty of tending the sick, merely because special officials existed for that purpose. "The sick are not to be overlooked, nor is anyone to say that he has not been trained to this mode of service. No one is to plead a comfortable life, or the unwonted character of the duty, as a pretext for not being helpful to other people" -- so runs a letter of pseudo-Justin (c. 17) to Zenas and Serenus. The author of the pseudo-Clementine epistle "de virginitate" brings out with special clearness the fact that to imitate Christ is to minister to the sick, a duty frequently conjoined with that of "visiting orphans and widows" (visitare pupillos et viduas). Eusebius (de mart. Pal. 11.22) bears this testimony to the character of Seleucus, that like a father and guardian he had shown himself a bishop and patron of orphans and destitute widows, of the poor and of the sick. Many similar cases are on record. In a time of pestilence especially, the passion of tender mercy was kindled in the heart of many a Christian. Often had Tertullian (Apolog. 39) heard on pagan lips the remark, corroborated by Lucian, "Look how they love one another!"\47/ [[124]]
\45/ Cp. Ep. pseudo-Clem. ad Jacob. 12: Οἱ μὲν οὖν τῆς ἐκκλησίας διάκονοι τοῦ ἐπισκόπου συνετῶς ῥεμβόμενοι ἔστωσαν ὀφθαλμοί, ἑκάστου τῆς ἐκκλησίας πολυπραγμονοῦντες τὰς πράξεις, {τίς μέλλει ἁμαρτάνειν, ἵνα νουθεσίᾳ καταληφθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ προκαθεζομένου τάχα οὐ μὴ τελέσῃ τὸ ἁμάρτημα· (2.) τοὺς λειποτάκτας ἐπιστρεφέτωσαν, τοῦ μὴ ἐπιλείπειν τοὺς συνερχομένους τῶν λόγων ἐπακούειν, ὅπως τὰς ἑκάστοτε τῇ καρδίᾳ προσπιπτούσας ἀθυμίας ἔκ τε βιωτικῶν συνπτώσεων καὶ ὁ μιλιῶν κακῶν λόγῳ ἀληθείας καθαίρεσθαι δύνωνται· ἐπεὶ γὰρ ἂν χρόνῳ πολλῷ χερσεύσωσιν, πυρὸς ἔργον γίνονται.} (3.) τοὺς δὲ καὶ κατὰ σάρκα νοσοῦντας μανθανέτωσαν καὶ τῷ ἀγνοοῦντι πλήθει προσαντιβαλλέτωσαν, ἵν’ ἐπιφαίνωνται, καὶ τὰ δέοντα ἐπὶ τῇ τοῦ προκαθεζομένου γνώμῃ παρεχέτωσαν ("Let the deacons of the church move about intelligently and act as eyes for the bishop, carefully inquiring into the actions of every church member . . . let them find out those who are sick in the flesh, and bring such to the notice of the main body who know nothing of them, that they may visit them and supply their wants, as the president may judge fit").
\46/ In the epistles which he wrote to the church from his hiding-place, he is always reminding them not to neglect the sick.
\47/ I merely note in passing the conflict waged by the church against medical sins like abortion (Did. 2.2; Barn. 19.5; Tert., Apol. 9; Minuc. Felix., 30.2; Athenag.; Suppl. 35; Clem., Paed. 2.10, 96, etc.), and the unnatural morbid vices of paganism. It was a conflict in which the interests of the church were truly human; she maintained the value and dignity of human life, refusing to allow it to be destroyed or dishonored at any stage of its development. With regard to these offences, she also exerted some influence upon the State legislation, in and after the fourth century, although even in the third century the latter had already approximated to her teaching on such points.
As regards therapeutic methods, the case stood as it stands today. The more Christians renounced and hated the world, the more skeptical and severe they were against ordinary means of healing (cp., e.g., Tatian's Oratio 17-18). There was a therapeutic "Christian science," compounded of old and new superstitions, and directed against more than the "daemonic" cures (see the following section). Compare, by way of proof, Tertullian's Scorp. 1: "We Christians make the sign of the cross at once over a bitten foot, say a word of exorcism, and rub it with the blood of the crushed animal." Evidently the sign of the cross and the formula of exorcism were not sufficient by themselves.
CHAPTER 3
THE CONFLICT WITH DEMONS\1/
\1/ Based on the essay from which the previous section has largely borrowed. Cp. on this point Weinel, Die Wirkungen des Geistes und der Geister im nachapost. Zeitalter (1899), pp. 1 f., and the article "Dämonische" in the Protest. Real Encykl., 4 (3), by J. Weiss.
During the early centuries a belief in demons, and in the power they exercised throughout the world, was current far and wide. There was also a corresponding belief in demon possession, in consequence of which insanity frequently took the form of a conviction, on the part of the patients, that they were possessed by one or more evil spirits. Though this form of insanity still occurs at the present day, cases of it are rare, owing to the fact that wide circles of people have lost all belief in the existence and activity of demons. But the forms and phases in which insanity manifests itself always depend upon the general state of culture and the ideas current in the social environment, so that whenever the religious life is in a state of agitation, and a firm belief prevails in the sinister activity of evil spirits, "demon possession" still breaks out sporadically. Recent instances have even shown that a convinced exorcist, especially if he is a religious man, is able to produce the phenomena of "possession" in a company of people against their will, in order subsequently to cure them. "Possession" is also infectious. Supposing that one case of this kind occurs in a church, and that it is connected by the sufferer himself, or even by the priest, with sin in general or with some special form of sin; supposing that he preaches upon it, addressing the church in stirring language, and declaring that this is really devil's play, then the first case will [[126]] soon be followed by a second and by a third.\2/ The most astounding phenomena occur, many of whose details are still inexplicable. Everything is doubled -- the consciousness of the sufferer, his will, his sphere of action. With perfect sincerity on his own part (although it is always easy for frauds to creep in here), the man is at once conscious of himself and also of another being who constrains and controls him from within. He thinks and feels and acts, now as the one, now as the other; and under the conviction that he is a double being, he confirms himself and his neighbors in this belief by means of actions which are at once the product of reflection and of an inward compulsion. Inevitable self-deception, cunning actions, and the most abject passivity form a sinister combination. But they complete our idea of a psychical disease which usually betrays extreme susceptibility to "suggestion," and, therefore, for the time being often defies any scientific analysis, leaving it open to anyone to think of special and mysterious forces in operation. In this region there are facts which we cannot deny, but which we are unable to explain.\3/ Furthermore, there are "diseases" in this region which only attack superhuman individuals, who draw from this "disease" a new life hitherto undreamt of, an energy which triumphs over every obstacle, and a prophetic or apostolic zeal. We do not speak here of this kind of "possession"; it exists merely for faith -- or unbelief.
\2/ Tertullian (de Anima 9) furnishes an excellent example of the way in which morbid spiritual states (especially visions) which befell Christians in the church assemblies depended upon the preaching to which they had just listened. One sister, says Tertullian, had a vision of a soul in bodily form, just after Tertullian had preached on the soul (probably it was upon the corporeal nature of the soul). He adds quite ingenuously that the content of a vision was usually derived from the scriptures which had just been read aloud, from the psalms, or from the sermons.
The mere message or preaching of Christianity was not of course enough to cure the sick. It had to be backed by a convinced belief or by some person who was sustained by this belief. The cure was wrought by the praying man and not by prayer, by the Spirit and not by the formula, by the exorcist and not by exorcism. Conventional means were of no use except in cases where the disease became an epidemic and almost general, or in fact a conventional thing itself, as we must assume it often to have been during the second century. The exorcist then became a mesmerist, probably also a deluded impostor. But wherever a strong individuality was victimized by the demon of fear, wherever the soul was literally convulsed by the grip of that power of darkness from which it was now fain to flee, the will could only be freed from its bondage by some strong, holy, outside will. Here and there cases occur of what modern observers, in their perplexity, term "suggestion." But "suggestion" was one thing to a prophet, and another thing to a professional exorcist.
In the form in which we meet it
throughout the later books of the
Septuagint [[[Old Greek], or in the New Testament, or in the Jewish
literature of the
Imperial age, belief in the activity of demons was a comparatively late
development in Judaism. But during [[128]] that period it was in
full bloom.\4/ And it was about this
time that it also began to spread apace among
the Greeks and Romans. How the latter came by it, is a question to
which no answer has yet been given. It is impossible to refer the form
of belief in demons which was current throughout the empire, in and
after the second century, solely
to
Jewish or even to Christian
sources. But the naturalizing of this belief, or, more correctly, the
development along quite definite lines of that early Greek belief in
spirits, which even the subsequent philosophers (e.g.,
Plato) had
supported -- all this was a process to which Judaism and
Christianity may
have contributed, no less than other Oriental religions, including
especially the Egyptian, whose priests had been at all times
famous for exorcism.\5/
In the second century a regular class of exorcists
existed, just as at the present day in Germany there are "Naturarzte,"
or Nature physicians, side by side with skilled doctors. Still,
sensible people remained skeptical, while the great jurist Ulpian
refused (at a time when, as now, this was a burning question) to
recognize such practitioners as members of the order of physicians. He
was even doubtful, of course, whether "specialists" were physicians in
the legal sense of the term.\6/
[[129]]
\4/ Cp. the interesting passage in Joseph., Ant. 8.[2.5] 45 f.: παρέσχε δ’ αὐτῷ [i.e. Solomon] μαθεῖν ὁ θεὸς καὶ τὴν κατὰ τῶν δαιμόνων τέχνην εἰς ὠφέλειαν καὶ θεραπείαν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις· ἐπῳδάς τε συνταξάμενος αἷς παρηγορεῖται τὰ νοσήματα καὶ τρόπους ἐξορκώσεων κατέλιπεν, οἷς οἱ ἐνδούμενοι (46.) τὰ δαιμόνια ὡς μηκέτ’ ἐπανελθεῖν ἐκδιώξουσι. καὶ αὕτη μέχρι νῦν παρ’ ἡμῖν ἡ θεραπεία πλεῖστον ἰσχύει ("God enabled [Solomon] to learn the arts valid against demons, in order to aid and heal mankind. He composed incantations for the alleviation of disease, and left behind him methods of exorcism by which demons can be finally expelled from people. A method of healing which is extremely effective even in our own day"). Compare also the story that follows this remark. [[[expand] The Jews must have been well known as exorcists throughout the Roman empire.
\5/ And also the Persian.
\6/ Cp. the remarkable passage in Dig. Leg. 13. c. 1.3: Medicos fortassis quis accipiet etiam eos qui alicuius partis corporis vel certi doloris sanitatem pollicentur: ut puta si auricularis, si fistulae vel dentium, non tamen si incantavit, si inprecatus est si ut vulgari verbo impostorum utar, exorcizavit: non sunt ista medicinae genera, tametsi sint, qui hos sibi profuisse cum praedicatione adfirmant ("Perchance we should admit as physicians those also who undertake to cure special parts of the body or particular diseases, as, for example, the ear, ulcers, or the teeth; yet not if they employ incantations or spells, or -- to use the term current among such impostors -- if they 'exorcise.' Though there are people who loudly maintain that they have been helped thereby.'')
The characteristic features of belief in demons during the second century were as follows.\7/ In the first place, the belief made its way upwards from the obscurity of the lower classes into the upper classes of society, and became far more important than it had hitherto been; in the second place, it was no longer accompanied by a vigorous, naïve, and open religion which kept it within bounds; furthermore, the power of the demons, which had hitherto been regarded as morally indifferent, now came to represent their wickedness; and finally, when the new belief was applied to the life of individuals, its consequences embraced psychical diseases as well as physical. In view of all these considerations, the extraordinary spread of belief in demons, and the numerous outbursts of demonic disease, are to be referred to the combined influence of such well-known factors as the dwindling of faith in the old religions, which characterized the Imperial age, together with the rise of a feeling on the part of the individual that he was free and independent, and therefore flung upon his inmost nature and his own responsibility. Free now from any control or restraint of tradition, the individual wandered here and there amid the lifeless, fragmentary, and chaotic debris of traditions belonging to a world in process of dissolution; now he would pick up this, now that, only to discover, himself at last driven, often by fear and hope, to find a deceptive support or a new disease in the absurdest of them all.\8/
\7/ The scientific statement and establishment of this belief, in philosophy, goes back to Xenocrates; after him Posidonius deserves special mention. Cp. Apuleius, de Deo Socratis.
\8/ Jas. 3.15 speaks of a σοφία δαιμονιώδης.
Such was the situation of affairs encountered by the gospel. It has been scoffingly remarked that the gospel produced the very diseases which it professed itself able to cure. The scoff is justified in certain cases, but in the main it recoils upon the scoffer. The gospel did bring to a head the diseases which it proceeded to cure. It found them already in existence, and intensified them in the course of its mission. But it also cured them, and no flight of the imagination can form any idea of what would have come over the ancient world or the Roman [[130]] empire during the third century, had it not been for the church. Professors like Libanius or his colleagues in the academy at Athens, are of course among the immortals; people like that could maintain themselves without any serious change from century to century. But no nation thrives upon the food of rhetoricians and philosophers. At the close of the fourth century Rome had only one Symmachus, and the East had only one Synesius. But then, Synesius was a Christian.
In what follows I propose to set down, without note or comment, one or two important notices of demon-possession and its cure from the early history of the church. In the case of one passage I shall sketch the spread and shape of belief in demons. This Tertullian has described, and it is a mistake to pass Tertullian by. -- In order to estimate the significance of exorcism for primitive Christianity, one must remember that according to the belief of Christians the Son of God came into the world to combat Satan and his kingdom. The evangelists, especially Luke, have depicted the life of Jesus from the temptation onwards as an uninterrupted conflict with the devil; what he came for was to destroy the works of the devil. In Mark (1.32) we read how many that were possessed were brought to Jesus, and healed by him, as he cast out the demons (1.34). "He suffered not the demons to speak, for they knew him" (see also Luke 4.34, 41). In 1.39 there is the general statement: "He preached throughout all Galilee in the synagogues and cast out the demons." When he sent forth the twelve disciples, he conferred on them the power of exorcising (3.15), a power which they forthwith proceeded to exercise (6.13; for the Seventy, see Luke 10.17); whilst the scribes at Jerusalem declared he had Beelzebub,\9/ and that he cast out demons with the aid of their prince.\10/ The tale of the "unclean spirits" who entered a herd of swine is quite familiar (5.2), forming, as it does, one of the most curious fragments of the sacred story, which has vainly taxed the powers of believing [[131]] and of rationalistic criticism. Another story which more immediately concerns our present purpose is that of the Canaanite woman and her possessed daughter (7.25 f.). Matt. 7.15 f. (Luke 9.38) shows that epileptic fits, as well as other nervous disorders (e.g., dumbness, Matt. 12.22, Luke 11.14), were also included under demon-possession. It is further remarkable that even during the lifetime of Jesus exorcists who were not authorized by him exorcised devils in his name. This gave rise to a significant conversation between Jesus and John (Mark 9.38). John said to Jesus, "Master, we saw a man casting out demons in thy name, and we forbade him, because he did not follow us." But Jesus answered, "Forbid him not. No one shall work a deed of might in my name and then deny me presently; for he who is not against us, is for us." On the other hand, another saying of our Lord numbers people who have never known him (Matt. 7.22) among those who cast out devils in his name. From one woman among his followers Jesus was known afterwards to have cast out "seven demons" (Mark 16.9, Luke 8.2), and among the mighty deeds of which all believers were to be made capable, the unauthentic conclusion of Mark's gospel enumerates exorcism (16.17).\11/
\9/ John the Baptist was also said to have been possessed (cp. Matt. 11.18).
\10/ Jesus himself explains that he casts out demons by aid of the spirit of God (Matt. 12.28), but he seems to have been repeatedly charged with possessing the devil and with madness (cp. John 7.20, 8.48 f., 10.20).
It was as exorcisers that Christians
went out into the great world,
and exorcism
formed one very powerful method of their mission and
propaganda. It was a question not simply of exorcising and vanquishing
the demons that dwelt in individuals, but also of purifying all public
life from them. For the age was ruled by the black one and his hordes
(Barnabas 20.1); it "lieth in the evil one," ἐν τῷ πονηρῷ κεῖται (1 John 5.19). Nor was this mere theory;
it was a
most
vital
conception of existence. The whole world and the circumambient
atmosphere were filled with devils; not merely idolatry, but every
phase and form of life was ruled by them. They sat on thrones, they
hovered around cradles. The earth was literally a hell, though it was
and continued to be a creation of God. To encounter this hell and all
its devils, Christians had command of weapons that were invincible.
Besides the evidence drawn from the age of their holy scriptures,
[[132]] they
pointed to the power of exorcism committed to them, which routed evil
spirits, and even forced them to bear witness to the truth of
Christianity. "We," says
Tertullian towards the close of his Apology
(ch. 46), "we [[[??] have stated our case fully,
as well as the evidence
for the correctness of our statement -- that is, the
trustworthiness and
antiquity of our sacred writings, and also the testimony borne by the
demonic powers themselves (in our favor)." Such was the stress laid on
the activity of the exorcists.\12/
\12/ In the pseudo-Clementine epistle "on Virginity" (1.10), the reading of Scripture, exorcism, and teaching are grouped as the most important functions in religion.
In Paul's epistles,\13/
in Pliny's letter, and in the Didache,
they
are never mentioned.\14/
But from Justin downwards, Christian
literature is crowded with allusions to exorcisms, and every large
church at any rate had exorcists. Originally these men were honored as
persons endowed with special grace, but afterwards they constituted a
class by themselves, in the lower hierarchy, like lectors and
sub-deacons. By this change they lost their pristine standing.\15/ The
church sharply distinguished between exorcists who employed the name of
Christ, and pagan sorcerers, magicians, etc.; but she could not
protect herself adequately against mercenary impostors, and several of
her exorcists were just as dubious characters as her "prophets."\16/
The
hotbed of religious frauds was in Egypt, as we learn from Lucian's
Peregrinus
Proteus, from Celsus, and from Hadrian's [[133]] letter to
Servian.\17/ At a very early
period pagan exorcists appropriated the names of the
patriarchs (cp. Orig., c. Cels.
1.22), of Solomon, and even
of
Jesus Christ, in their magical formulae; even Jewish exorcists soon
began to introduce the name of Jesus in their incantations.\18/ The
church, on the contrary, had to warn her own exorcists not to imitate
the heathen. In the pseudo-Clementine de
Virginitate
we read (1.12) :
"For those who are brethren in Christ it is fitting and right and
comely to visit people who are vexed with evil spirits, and to pray and
utter exorcisms over them, in the rational language of prayer
acceptable to God, not with a host of fine words neatly arranged and
studied in order to win the reputation among men of being eloquent and
possessed of a good memory. Such folk are just like a sounding pipe, or
a tinkling cymbal, of not the least use to those over whom they
pronounce their exorcisms. They simply utter terrible words and scare
people with them, but never act according to a true faith such as that
enjoined by the Lord when he taught that 'this kind goeth not out save
by fasting and prayer offered unceasingly, and by a mind earnestly bent
(on God).' Let then make
holy requests and entreaties to God,
cheerfully, circumspectly, and purely, without hatred or malice. For
such is the manner in which we are to visit a sick (possessed) brother
or a sister . . . without
guile or covetousness or noise or
talkativeness or pride or any behavior alien to piety, but with the
meek and lowly spirit of Christ. Let them exorcise the sick with
fasting and with prayer; instead of using elegant phrases, neatly
arranged and ordered, let them act frankly like men who have received
the gift of healing from God, to God's glory. By your fastings and
prayers and constant watching, together with all the rest of your good
works, mortify the [[134]]
works of the flesh by the power of the Holy Spirit.
He who acts thus is a temple of the Holy Spirit of God. Let him cast
out demons, and God will aid him therein. . . . The Lord has given the
command to 'cast out demons' and also enjoined the duty of healing in
other ways, adding, 'Freely ye have received, freely give.' A great
reward from God awaits those who serve their brethren with the gifts
which God has bestowed upon themselves." Justin writes (Apol. 2.6): "The Son of God
became
man in order to destroy the demons. This
you can now learn from what transpires under your own eyes. For many of
our Christian people have healed a large number of demoniacs throughout
the whole world, and also in your own city, exorcising them in the name
of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate; yet all other
exorcists, magicians, and dealers in drugs failed to heal such people.
Yea, and such Christians continue still to heal them, by rendering the
demons impotent and expelling them from the men whom they possessed."
In his dialogue against the Jews (85),
Justin also writes: "Every
demon exorcised in the name of the Son of God, the First-born of all
creatures, who was born of a virgin and endured human suffering, who
was crucified by your nation under Pontius Pilate, who died and rose
from the dead and ascended into heaven -- every demon exorcised
in this
name is mastered and subdued. Whereas if you exorcise in the name of
any king or righteous man, or prophet, or patriarch, who has been one
of yourselves, no demon will be subject to you. . . . Your exorcists, I
have already said, are like the Gentiles in using special arts,
employing fumigation and magic incantations." From this passage we
infer that the Christian formulae of exorcism contained the leading
facts of the story of Christ.\19/
And Origen says as much, quite
unmistakably, in his reply to Celsus (1.6): "The power of exorcism
lies in the name of Jesus, which is uttered as the stories of his life
are being narrated."\20/ [[135]]
\16/ Cp. the apologists, Origen's reply to Celsus, and the injunction in the Canons of Hippolytus (Texte u. Unters. 6.4, pp. 83 f.): "Οἰωνιστής vel magus vet astrologus, hariolus, somniorum interpres, praestigiator . . . vel qui phylacteria conficit . . . hi omnes et qui sunt similes his neque instruendi neque baptizandi sunt." [[[ET] Observe also the polemic against the magical arts of the Gnostics.
\17/ Vopiscus, Saturn. 8: "Nemo illic archisynagogus Judaeorum, nemo Samarites, nemo Christianorum presbyter, non mathematicus, non haruspex, non aliptes."
Naturally one feels very skeptical in reading how various parties in Christianity denied each other the power of exorcism, explaining cures as due either to mistakes or to deception. So Irenaeus (2.31.2): "The adherents of Simon and Carpocrates and the other so-called workers of miracles were convicted of acting as they acted, not by the power of God, nor in truth, nor for the good of men, but to destroy and deceive men by means of magical illusions and universal deceit. They do more injury than good to those who believe in them, inasmuch as they are deceivers. For neither can they give sight to the blind or hearing to the deaf, nor can they rout any demons save those sent by themselves if they can do even that."\21/ With regard to his own church, Irenaeus (cp. below, ch. 4) was convinced that the very dead were brought back to life by its members. In this, he maintains, there was neither feint, nor error, nor deception, but astounding fact, as in the case of our Lord himself. "In the name of Jesus, his true disciples, who have received grace from him, do fulfill a healing ministry in aid of other men, even as each has received the free gift of grace from him. Some surely and certainly drive out demons, so that it frequently happens that those thus purged from demons also believe and become members of the church.\22/ Others again, possess a fore-knowledge of the future, with visions and [[136]] prophetic utterances. . . . And what shall I more say? For it is impossible to enumerate the spiritual gifts and blessings which, all over the world, the church has received from God in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and which she exercises day by day for the healing of the pagan world, without deceiving or taking money from any person. For as she has freely received them from God, so also does she freely give" (ἰατροὶ ἀνάργυροι).
The popular notion prevalent among the early Christians, as among the later Jews, was that, apart from the innumerable hosts of demons who disported themselves unabashed throughout history and nature, every individual had beside him a good angel who watched over him, and an evil spirit who lay in wait for him (cp., e.g., the "Shepherd" of Hermas). If he allowed himself to be controlled by the latter, he was thereby "possessed," in the strict sense of the word; i.e., sin itself was possession. This brings out admirably the slavish dependence to which any man is reduced who abandons himself to his own impulses, though the explanation is naively simple. In the belief in demons, as that belief dominated the Christian world in the second and third centuries, it is easy to detect features which stamp it as a reactionary movement hostile to contemporary culture. Yet it must not be forgotten that the heart of it enshrined a moral and consequently a spiritual advance,. viz., in a quickened sense of evil, as well as in a recognition of the power of sin and of its dominion in the world. Hence it was that a mind of such high culture as Tertullian's could abandon itself to this belief in demons. It is interesting to notice how the Greek and Roman elements are bound up with the Jewish Christian in his detailed statement of the belief (in the Apology), and I shall now quote this passage in full. It occurs in connection with the statement that while demons are ensconced behind the dead gods of wood and stone, they are forced by Christians to confess what they are, viz., not gods at all, but unclean spirits. At several points we catch even here the tone of irony and sarcasm over these "poor devils" which grew so loud in the Middle Ages, and yet never shook belief in theist. But, on the whole, the description is extremely serious. [[137]] People who fancy at this time of day that they would possess primitive Christianity if they only enforced certain primitive rules of faith, may perhaps discover from what follows the sort of coefficients with which that Christianity was burdened.\23/
"We Christians," says Tertullian (ch.
22 f.), "affirm the
existence of certain spiritual beings. Nor is their name new. The
philosophers recognize demons; Socrates himself waited on a demon's
impulse, and no wonder -- for a demon is said to have been his
companion
from childhood, detaching his mind, I have no doubt, from what was
good! The poets, too, recognize demons, and even the ignorant masses
use
them often in their oaths. In fact, they appeal in their curses to
Satan, the prince of this evil gang, with a sort of instinctive
knowledge of him in their very souls. Plato himself does not deny the
existence of angels, and even the magicians attest both kinds of
spiritual beings. But it is our sacred scriptures which record how
certain angels, who fell of their own free will, produced a still more
fallen race of demons, who were condemned by God together with their
progenitors and with that prince to whom we have already alluded. Here
we cannot do more than merely describe their doings. The ruin of man
was their sole aim. From the outset man's overthrow was essayed by
these spirits in their wickedness. Accordingly they proceed to inflict
diseases and evil accidents of all kinds on our bodies, while by means
of violent assaults they produce sudden and extraordinary excesses of
the soul. Both to soul and to body they have access by their subtle and
extremely fine substance. Invisible and intangible, those spirits are
not visible in the act; it is in their effects that [[138]] they are
frequently
observed, as when, for example, some mysterious
poison in the breeze blights the blossom of fruit trees and the grain,
or nips theta in the bud, or destroys the ripened fruit, the poisoned
atmosphere exhaling, as it were, some noxious breath. With like
obscurity, the breath of demons and of angels stirs up many a
corruption in the soul by furious passions, vile excesses, or cruel
lusts accompanied by varied errors, the
worst of which
is that these
deities commend themselves to the ensnared and deluded souls of men,
in order to get their favorite food of flesh -- fumes and of blood
offered up to the images and statues of the gods.\24/ And what more
exquisite food could be theirs than to divert then from the thought of
the true God by means of false illusions? How these illusions are
managed, I shall now explain. Every spirit is winged; angel and demon
alike. Hence in an instant they are everywhere. The whole world is just
one place to them. 'Tis as easy for them to know as to announce any
occurrence; and as people are ignorant of their nature, their velocity
is taken for divinity. Thus they would have themselves sometimes
thought to be the authors of the events which they merely report -- and
authors, indeed, they are, not of good, but occasionally of evil
events. The purposes of Divine providence were also caught up by them
of old from the lips of the prophets, and at present from the public
reading of their works. So picking up in this way a partial knowledge
of the future, they set up a rival divinity for themselves by
purloining prophecy. But well do your Croesuses and Pyrrhuses know the
clever ambiguity with which these oracles were framed in view of the
future.….As they dwell in the air,
close to the stars, and in touch
with the clouds, they can discern the preliminary processes in the sky,
and thus are able to promise the rain whose coming they already feel.
Truly they are most kind in their concern for health! First of all,
they make you ill; then, to produce the impression of a miracle, they
enjoin the use of remedies which are either unheard of or have quite an
opposite effect; lastly, by withdrawing their injurious influence, they
get the credit of [[139]]
having worked a cure. Why, then, should I speak
further of their other tricks or even of their powers of deception as
spirits -- of the Castor apparitions, of water carried in a sieve, of a
ship towed by a girdle, of a beard reddened at a touch -- things done
to
get men to believe in stones as gods, instead of seeking after the true
God?
"Moreover, if magicians call up ghosts
and even bring forward the
souls of the dead, if they strangle boys in order to make the oracle
speak, if they pretend to perform many a miracle by means of their
quackery and juggling, if they even send dreams by aid of those angels
and demons whose power they have invoked (and, thanks to them, it has
become quite a common thing for the very goats and tables to divine),
how much more keen will be this evil power in employing all its
energies to do, of its own accord and for its own ends, what serves
another's purpose? Or, if
the deeds of angels and demons are exactly the
same as those of your gods, where is the pre-eminence of the latter,
which must surely be reckoned superior in might to all else? Is it not
a more worthy conception that the former make themselves gods by
exhibiting the very credentials of the gods, than that the gods are on
a level with angels and demons? Locality, I suppose you will say,
locality makes a difference; in a temple you consider beings to be gods
whom elsewhere you would not recognize as such! . . .
"But hitherto it has been merely a question of words. Now for facts, now for a proof that `gods' and 'demons' are but different statues for one and the same substance. Place before your tribunals any one plainly possessed by a demon. Bidden speak by any Christian whatsoever, that spirit will confess he is a demon, just as frankly elsewhere he will falsely pretend to be a god.\25/ Or, if you like, bring forward any one of those who are supposed to be divinely possessed, who conceive divinity from the fumes which they inhale bending over an altar, and ("ructando curantur") are delivered of it by retching, giving vent to it in gasps. Let the heavenly virgin herself, who promises rain, let that teacher o£ healing arts, Aesculapius, ever ready to prolong [[140]] the life of those who are on the point of death, with Socordium, Tenatium (?), and Asclepiadotum -- let them then and there shed the blood of that daring Christian, if -- in terror of lying to a Christian -- they fail to admit they are demons. Could any action be more plain? Any proof more cogent? Truth in its simplicity stands here before your eyes; its own worth supports it; suspicion there can be none. Say you, it is a piece of magic or a trick of some sort? . . .What objection can be brought against something exhibited in its bare reality? If, on the one hand, they (the demons) are really gods, why do they pretend (at our challenge) to be demons? From fear of us? Then your so-called 'Godhead' is subordinated to us, and surely no divinity can be attributed to what lies under the control of men. . . . So that 'Godhead' of yours proves to be no godhead at all; for if it were, demons would not pretend to it, nor would gods deny it. . . . Acknowledge that there is but one species of such beings, namely, demons, and that the gods are nothing else. Look out, then, for gods! For now you find that those whom you formerly took for such, are demons."
In what follows, Tertullian declares
that the demons, on being
questioned by Christians, not only confess they are themselves demons,
but also confess the Christian's God as the true God. "Fearing God in
Christ, and Christ in God, they become subject to the servants of God
and Christ. Thus at our touch and breath, overpowered by the
consideration and contemplation of the (future) fire, they leave human
bodies at our command, reluctantly and sadly, and -- in your
presence -- shamefacedly. You believe their lies; they believe them
when
they tell the truth about themselves. When anyone lies, it is not to
disgrace but to glorify himself. . . .
Such
testimonies from your so-called
deities usually result in a making people Christians."
In ch. 27. Tertullian
meets the obvious retort that if demons
were actually subject to Christians, the latter could not possibly
succumb helplessly to the persecutions directed against them.
Tertullian contradicts this. The demons, he declares, are certainly
like slaves under the control of the Christians, but like
good-for-nothing slaves they sometimes blend fear and contumacy, eager
to injure those of whom they stand in awe. "At [[141]] a distance they
oppose
us, but at close quarters they beg for mercy. Hence, like slaves that
have broken loose from workhouses, or prisons, or mines, or any form of
penal servitude, they break out against us, though they are in our
power,
well aware of their
impotence, and yet rendered the more
abandoned thereby. We resist this horde unwillingly, the same as if
they were still unvanquished, stoutly maintaining the very position
which they attack, nor is our triumph over them ever more complete than
when we are condemned for our persistent faith."
In ch. 37. Tertullian once more sums up the service which Christians render to pagans by means of their exorcists. "Were it not for us, who would free you from those hidden foes that are ever making havoc of your health in soul and body -- from those raids of the demons, I mean, which we repel from you without reward or hire?" He says the same thing in his address to the magistrate Scapula (2): "We do more than repudiate the demons: we overcome them, we expose then daily to contempt, and exorcise them from their victims, as is well known to many people."\26/ This endowment of Christians must therefore have been really acknowledged far and wide, and in a number of passages Tertullian speaks as if every Christian possessed it.\27/ It would be interesting if we could only ascertain how far these cures of psychical diseases were permanent. Unfortunately, nothing is known upon the point, and yet this is a province where nothing is more common than a merely temporary success.
\27/ Cp., for example, de Corona 11. Other Christian writers also express themselves to the same effect, e.g., the speech of Peter in the pseudo-Clementine Homilies (9.19), which declares that Christians at baptism obtain a gift of healing other people by means of exorcisms: "Sometimes the demons will flee if you but look on them, for they know those who have surrendered themselves to God, and flee in terror because they honor such people" (ἐνίοτε δὲ [οἱ δαίμονες] μόνον ἐνιδόντων ὑμῶν φεύξονται· ἴσασιν γὰρ τοὺς ἀποδεδωκότας ἑαυτοὺς τῷ θεῷ, διὸ τιμῶντες αὐτοὺς πεφοβημένοι φεύγουσιν).
Like Tertullian, Minucius Felix in his "Octavius" has also treated this subject, partly in the same words as Tertullian (ch. 27).\28/ The apologist Theophilus (ad Autolyc. 2.8) writes: [[142]] "The Greek poet spoke under the inspiration, not of a pure, but of a lying spirit, as is quite obvious from the fact that even in our own day possessed people are sometimes still exorcised in the name of the true God, whereupon their lying spirits themselves confess that they are demons, the actual demons who formerly were at work in the poets." This leads us to assume that the possessed frequently cried out the name of "Apollo" or of the Muses at the moment of exorcising. As late as the middle of the third century Cyprian also speaks, like earlier authors, of demonic cures wrought by Christians (ad Demetr. 15): "O if thou wouldst but hear and see the demons when they are adjured by us, tormented by spiritual scourges, and driven from the possessed bodies by racking words; when howling and groaning with human voices (!), and feeling by the power of God the stripes and blows, they have to confess the judgment to come! Come and see that what we say is true. And forasmuch as thou sayest thou dost worship the gods, then believe even those whom thou dost worship. Thou wilt see how those whom thou implorest implore us; how those of whom thou art in awe stand in awe of us. Thou wilt see how they stand bound under our hands, trembling like prisoners -- they to whom thou dost look up with veneration as thy lords. Verily thou wilt be made ashamed in these errors of thine, when thou seest and hearest how thy gods, when cross-questioned by us, at once yield up the secret of their being, unable, even before you, to conceal those tricks and frauds of theirs."\29/ Similarly in the treatise To Donatus (ch. 5) : "In Christianity there is conferred (upon pure chastity, upon a pure mind, upon pure speech) the gift of healing the sick by rendering poisonous potions harmless, [[143]] by restoring the deranged to health, and thus purifying them from ignominious pains, by commanding peace for the hostile, rest for the violent, and gentleness for the unruly, by forcing under stress of threats and invective -- a confession from unclean and roving spirits who have come to dwell within mankind, by roughly ordering them out, and stretching them out with struggles, howls, and groans, as their sufferings on the rack increase, by lashing them with scourges, and burning them with fire. This is what goes on, though no one sees it; the punishments are hidden, but the penalty is open. Thus what we have already begun to be, that is, the Spirit we have received, comes into its kingdom." The Christian already rules with regal power over the entire host of his raging adversary.\30/
\28/
"Adjurati (daemones) per
deum verum et solum inviti
miseris
corporibus inhorrescunt, et vel exiliunt statim vel evanescunt
gradatim, prout fides patientis adiuvat aut gratia curantis adspirat.
Sic
Christianos de proximo fugitant, quos longe in coetibus
per vos
lacessebant," etc.
\29/ See also Quod Idola Dei non sint (7), and Cypr., Ep. 69.15: "Hodie etiam geritur, ut per exorcistas voce humana et potestate divina flagelletur et uratur et torqueatur diabolus, et cum exire se et homines dei dimittere saepe dicat, in eo tamen quod dixerit fallat. . . . cum tamen ad aquam salutarem adque ad baptismi sanctificationem venitur, scire debemus et fidere [which sounds rather hesitating], quia illic diabolus opprimitur" ("This goes on today as well, in the scourging and burning and torturing of the devil at the hands of exorcists, by means of the human voice and the divine power, and in his declaring that he will go out and leave the men of God alone, yet proving untrue in what he says. . . . However, when the water of salvation and the sanctification of baptism is reached, we ought to know and trust that the devil is crushed there").
\30/ Compare with this Lactantius, Divin. Instit. 2.15, 4.27, who repeats in part the description of Cyprian, but lays special emphasis on the sign of the cross as a means of salvation from demons.
Most interesting of all are the discussions between Celsus and Origen on demons and possessed persons, since the debate here is between two men who occupied the highest level of contemporary culture.\31/ Celsus declared that Christians owed the power they seemed to possess to their invocation and adjuration of certain demons.\32/ Origen retorted that the power of banishing demons was actually vested in the name of Jesus and the witness of his life, and that the name of Jesus was so powerful that it operated by itself even when uttered by immoral persons (c. Cels. 1.6). Both Origen and Celsus, then, believed in demons; and elsewhere (e.g., 1.24 f.) Origen adduces the old idea of the power exercised by the utterance of certain "names"; [[144]] in fact, he indicates a secret "science of names" which confers power on the initiated, although of course one had to be very careful to recite the names in the proper language.\33/ "When recited in the Egyptian tongue, the one class is specially efficacious in the case of certain spirits whose power does not extend beyond such things and such a sphere, whilst the other class is effective with some spirits if recited in Persian, and so forth." "The name of Jesus also comes under this science of names, as it has already expelled numerous spirits from the souls and bodies of mankind and shown its power over those who have thus been freed from possession."\34/ Origen several times cites the fact of successful exorcism (1.46.67), and the fact is not denied by Celsus, who admits even the "miracles" of Jesus. Only, his explanation was very different (68). "The magicians," he said, "undertake still greater marvels, and men trained in the schools of Egypt profess like exploits, people who for a few pence will sell their reverend arts in the open market-place, expelling demons from people, blowing diseases away with their breath, calling up the spirits of the heroes, exhibiting expensive viands, with tables, cakes, and dainties, which are really non-existent, and setting inanimate things in motion as if they really possessed life, whereas they have but the semblance of animals. If any juggler is able to perform feats of this kind, must we on that account regard him as 'God's son'? Must we not rather declare that such accomplishments are merely the contrivances of knaves possessed by evil demons?" Christians are jugglers or sorcerers or both; Christ also was a master of demonic arts -- such was the real opinion of Celsus.\35/ Origen was at great pains to controvert this very [[145]] grievous charge (see, e.g., 1.68). And he succeeded. He could appeal to the unquestionable fact that all Christ's works were wrought with the object of benefiting men.\36/ Was it so with magicians? Still, in this reproach of Celsus there lay a serious monition for the church and for the Christians, a monition which more than Celsus canvassed. As early as the middle of the second century a Christian preacher had declared, "The name of the true God is blasphemed among the heathen by reason of us Christians; for if we fulfill not the commands of God, but lead an unworthy life, they turn away and blaspheme, saying that our teaching is merely a fresh myth and error."\37/ From the middle of the second century onwards the cry was often raised against Christians, that they were jugglers and necromancers, and not a few of them were certainly to blame for such a charge.\38/ Cures of demon-possession practised by unspiritual men as a profession must have produced a repellent impression on more serious people, despite the attractive power which they did exercise (Tert., Apol. 23, "Christianos facere consuerunt"). Besides, frivolous or ignorant Christians must often have excused themselves for their sins by pleading that a demon had seduced them, or that it was not they who did the wrong but the demon.\39/ But there was hardly any chance of the matter being cleared up in the third century. Christians and pagans alike were getting more and more entangled in the belief in demons. In their dogmas and their philosophy of religion, polytheists certainly became more and more attenuated as a sublime monotheism [[146]] was evolved; but in practical life they plunged more helplessly than ever into the abysses of an imaginary world of spirits. The protests made by sensible physicians were all in vain.\40/
\31/ Origen (in Hom. 15.5, in Jesu Nave 11, pp. 141 f.) has developed a theory of his own to explain the suppression of demons by the church, especially in the light of its bearing upon the spread of Christianity. "Anyone who vanquishes a demon in himself, e.g., the demon of lewdness, puts it out of action; the demon is cast into the abyss, and cannot do any harm to anyone. Hence there are far fewer demons now than before; hence, also, a large number of demons having been overthrown, the heathen are new free to believe, as they would not be did whole legions of demons exist as formerly" ("Et inde est quod plurimo daemonum numero iam victo ad credulitatem venire gentes relaxantur, qui utique nullatenus sinerentur, si integras eorum, sicut prius fuerant, subsisterent legiones").
\32/
The ethical principles of Christianity, says Celsus (1.4 f.), are
common to
Christians and philosophers alike, while the apparent
strength of the former lies in the names of a few demons and in
incantations.
\33/ περὶ ὀνομάτων τις δύνηται τὰ ἐν ἀπορρήτοις φιλοσοφεῖν.
\35/
He gives his opinion of the Gnostic exorcisers in particular in 6.39 f.
\36/
Cp., e.g.,
3.28, and 1.68.
\37/ 2 Clem. 13.3, μῦθόν τινα καὶ πλάνην.
\38/ Origen, who himself admits that Christian exorcists were usually uneducated people, asserts deliberately and repeatedly that they employed neither magic nor sorcery but prayer alone and "formulae of exorcism which are so plain that even the plainest man can make use of them" (c. Cels. 7.4: σὺν οὐδενὶ περιέργῳ καὶ μαγικῷ ἢ φαρμακευτικῷ πράγματι ἀλλὰ μόνῃ εὐχῇ καὶ ὁρκώσεσιν ἁπλουστέραις καὶ ὅσα ἂν δύναιτο προσάγειν ἁπλούστερος ἄνθρωπος. Cp. Comm. in Matth. 13.7, vol. 3, p. 224).
\39/ Cp. Origen, de Princip. 3.2.1: "Hence some of the less intelligent believers think that all human transgressions arise from their [i.e., the demons'] antagonistic powers, which constrain the mind of the sinner" ("Unde et simpliciores quique domino Christo credentium existimant, quod omnia peccata, quaecumque commiserint homines, ex istis contrariis virtutibus mentem delinquentium perurgentibus fiant").
\40/
So the famous physician Posidonius at the close of the fourth
century, of whom Philostorgius (H.E.
8.10, reported by Photius) narrates: "He said,
though incorrectly, that it was not by the incentive of demons that men
grew frenzied, but that it
was the bad juices of certain sick bodies
which wrought the mischief; since the power of demons was in no whit
hostile to the nature of man" (λέγειν δ’ αὐτὸν ὅμως οὐκ ὀρθῶς οὐχὶ δαιμόνων ἐπιθέσει τοὺς ἀνθρώπους
ἐκβακχεύεσθαι, ὑγρῶν δέ τινων κακοχυμίαν τὸ
πάθος ἐργάζεσθαι. μηδὲ γὰρ εἶναι τὸ παράπαν ἰσχὺν δαιμόνων ἀνθρώπων φύσιν ἐπηρεάζουσαν).
In
its missionary
activities the
Christian religion presented itself as something more than the gospel
of
redemption and of ministering love; it was also the religion of the
Spirit and
of power. No doubt, it verified its character as Spirit and power by
the very
fact that it brought redemption and succor to mankind, freeing them
from demons
(see above, pp. 125 f.) and from the misery of life. But the witness of
the
Spirit had a wider reach than even this. “I came to you in weakness and
fear
and with great trembling; nor were my speech and preaching in
persuasive words
of wisdom but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power" (1 Cor. 2.3,
4). Though Paul in these words is certainly thinking of his conflict
with
demons and of their palpable defeat, he is by no means thinking of that
alone,
but also of all the wonderful deeds that accompanied the labors of the
apostles
and the founding of the church. These were not confined to his own
person. From
all directions they were reported, in connection with other
missionaries as
well. Towards the close of the first century, when people came to look
back
upon the age in which the church had been established, the course of
events was
summed up in these words (Heb. 2.3): “Salvation began by
being spoken
through
the Lord, and was confirmed for us by those who heard it, while God
accompanied [[200]]
their
witness by signs and wonders and manifold miracles
and
distributions of the holy Spirit."
(3) Some are inspired who have power to clothe their experience in words -- prophets to explain the past, to interpret and to fathom the present, and to foretell the future.\4/ Their prophecies relate to the general course of history, but also to the fortunes of individuals, to what individuals are to do or leave undone.
(5) Others are so filled with the Spirit that they lose consciousness and break out in stammering speech and cries, or in unintelligible utterances -- which can be interpreted, however, by those who have the gift.
(6) Into the hands of others, again, the Spirit slips a pen, either in an ecstasy or in exalted moments of spiritual tension; they not merely speak but write as they are bidden.CHAPTER 7
THE TIDINGS OF THE
NEW PEOPLE AND OF THE THIRD RACE:
THE HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL
CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRISTENDOM
I
The gospel was preached simultaneously as the consummation of Judaism, as a new religion, and as the restatement and final expression of man's original religion. Nor was this triple aspect preached merely by some individual missionary of dialectic gifts; it was a conception which emerged more or less distinctly in all missionary preaching of any scope. Convinced that Jesus, the teacher and the prophet, was also the Messiah who was to return ere long to finish off his work, people passed from the consciousness of being his disciples into that of being his people, the people of God: ῾Υμεῖς δὲ γένος ἐκλεκτόν, βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα, ἔθνος ἅγιον, λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν (1 Pet. 2.9: "Ye are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for possession"); and in so far as they felt themselves to be a people, Christians knew they were the true Israel, at once the new people and the old.
This conviction that they were a people -- i.e., the transference of all the prerogatives and claims of the Jewish people to the new community as a new creation which exhibited and realized whatever was old and original in religion -- this at once furnished adherents of the new faith with a political and historical self-consciousness. Nothing more comprehensive or complete or impressive than this consciousness can be conceived. Could there be any higher or more comprehensive conception than that of the complex of momenta afforded by the Christians' [[241]] estimate of themselves as "the true Israel," "the new people," "the original people," and "the people of the future," i.e., of eternity? This estimate of themselves rendered Christians impregnable against all attacks and movements of polemical criticism, while it further enabled them to advance in every direction for a war of conquest. Was the cry raised, "You are renegade Jews " -- the answer came, "We are the community of the Messiah, and therefore the true Israelites." If people said, "You are simply Jews," the reply was, "We are a new creation and a new people." If, again, they were taxed with their recent origin and told that they were but of yesterday, they retorted, "We only seem to be the younger People; from the beginning we have been latent; we have always existed, previous to any other people; we are the original people of God." If they were told, "You do not deserve to live," the answer ran, "We would die to live, for we are citizens of the world to come, and sure that we shall rise again."
There were one or two other quite definite convictions of a general nature specially taken over by the early Christians at the very outset from the stores accumulated by a survey of history made from the Jewish standpoint. Applied to their own purposes, these were as follows: -- (1) Our people is older than the world; (2) the world was created for our sakes; (3) the world is carried on for our sakes; we retard the judgment of the world; (4) everything in the world is subject to us and must serve us; (5) everything in the world, the beginning and course and end of all history, is revealed to us and lies transparent to our eyes; (6) we shall take part in the judgment of the world and ourselves enjoy eternal bliss.\1/ In various early Christian documents, dating from before the middle of the second century, these convictions find expression, in homilies, apocalypses, epistles, and apologies,\2/ and nowhere else did [[242]] Celsus vent his fierce disdain of Christians and their shameless, absurd pretensions with such keenness as at this point.\3/
\1/ By means of these two convictions, Christians made out their case for a position superior to the world, and established a connection between creation and history.
\2/ Cp. the epistles of Paul, the apocalypse of John, the "Shepherd" of Hermas ([[[new #] Vis. 2.4.1), the second epistle of Clement (14), and the Apologies of Aristides and Justin (2.7). Similar statements occur earlier in the Jewish apocalypses.
\3/ He is quite aware that these pretensions are common to Jews and Christians, that the latter took them over from the former, and that both parties contended for the right to their possession. Μετὰ ταῦτα , observes Origen (c. Cels. 4.23), συνήθως ἑαυτῷ γελῶν τὸ ᾿Ιουδαίων καὶ Χριστιανῶν γένος πάντας παραβέβληκε νυκτερίδων ὁρμαθῷ ἢ μύρμηξιν ἐκ καλιᾶς προελθοῦσιν ἢ βατράχοις περὶ τέλμα συνεδρεύουσιν ἢ σκώληξιν ἐν βορβόρου γωνίᾳ ἐκκλησιάζουσι καὶ πρὸς ἀλλήλους διαφερομένοις, τίνες αὐτῶν εἶεν ἁμαρτωλότεροι, καὶ φάσκουσιν ὅτι πάντα ἡμῖν ὁ θεὸς προδηλοῖ καὶ προκαταγγέλλει, καὶ τὸν πάντα κόσμον καὶ τὴν οὐράνιον φορὰν ἀπολιπὼν καὶ τὴν τοσαύτην γῆν παριδὼν ἡμῖν μόνοις πολιτεύεται καὶ πρὸς ἡμᾶς μόνους ἐπικηρυκεύεται καὶ πέμπων οὐ διαλείπει καὶ ζητῶν, ὅπως ἀεὶ συνῶμεν αὐτῷ. Καὶ ἐν τῷ ἀναπλάσματί γε ἑαυτοῦ παραπλησίους ἡμᾶς ποιεῖ σκώληξι, φάσκουσιν ὅτι ὁ θεός ἐστιν, εἶτα μετ’ ἐκεῖνον ἡμεῖς ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ γεγονότες πάντῃ ὅμοιοι τῷ θεῷ, καὶ ἡμῖν πάντα ὑποβέβληται, γῆ καὶ ὕδωρ καὶ ἀὴρ καὶ ἄστρα, καὶ ἡμῶν ἕνεκα πάντα, καὶ ἡμῖν δουλεύειν τέτακται. Λέγουσι δ’ ἔτι παρ’ αὐτῷ οἱ σκώληκες, ἡμεῖς δηλαδή, ὅτι νῦν, ἐπειδή τινες <ἐν> ἡμῖν πλημμελοῦσιν, ἀφίξεται θεὸς ἢ πέμψει τὸν υἱόν, ἵνα καταφλέξῃ τοὺς ἀδίκους, καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ σὺν αὐτῷ ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἔχωμεν. Καὶ ἐπιφέρει γε πᾶσιν ὅτι ταῦτα <μᾶλλον> ἀνεκτά, σκωλήκων καὶ βατράχων, ἢ ᾿Ιουδαίων καὶ Χριστιανῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους διαφερομένων ("In the next place, laughing as usual at the race of Jews and Christians, he likens them all to a flight of bats, or a swarm of ants crawling out of their nest, or frogs in council on a marsh, or worms in synod on the corner of a dunghill, quarrelling as to which of them is the greater sinner, and declaring that 'God discloses and announces all things to us beforehand; God deserts the whole world and the heavenly region and disregards this great earth in order to domicile himself among us alone; to us alone he makes his proclamations, ceasing not to send and seek that we may company with him for ever.' And in his representation of us, he likens us to worms that declare 'there is a God, and next to him are we whom he has made in all points like unto himself, and to whom all things are subject -- land and water, air and stars; all things are for our sakes, and are appointed to serve us.' As he puts it, the worms, i.e., we Christians, declare also that 'since certain of our number commit sin, God will come or send his son to burn up the wicked and to let the rest of us have life eternal with himself.' To all of which he subjoins the remark that such discussions would be more tolerable among worms and frogs than among Jews and Christians").
But for Christians who knew they were
the old and the new People, it
was not enough to set this self-consciousness
over against the Jews
alone, or to contend with them for the possession of the promises and
of the sacred book; settled on the soil of the Greek and Roman
empires, they had to define [[243]]
their position with regard to this
realm and its "people."\4/
The apostle Paul had already done so, and in
this he was followed by others.
\4/ This controversy
occupies the history
of the first generation, and stretches even further down. Although the
broad lines of the position taken up by Christians on this field were
clearly marked out, this did not exclude the possibility of various
attitudes being assumed, as may be seen from my study in the third
section of the first volume of the Texte
u.
Untersuchungen (1883), upon
"the anti-Jewish polemic
of the early church."
In classifying mankind Paul does speak in one passage of "Greeks and barbarians" alongside of Jews (Rom. 1.14), and in another of "barbarians and Scythians" alongside of Greeks (Col. 3.11); but, like a born Jew and a Pharisee, he usually bisects humanity into circumcised and uncircumcised -- the latter being described, for the sake of brevity, as "Greeks."\5/ Beside or over against these two "peoples" he places the church of God as a new creation (cp., e.g., 1 Cor. 10.32, "Give no occasion of stumbling to Jews or Greeks or to the church of God"). Nor does this mere juxtaposition satisfy him. He goes on to the conception of this new creation as that which is to embrace both Jews and Greeks, rising above the differences of both peoples into a higher unity. The people of Christ are not a third people to him beside their neighbors. They represent the new grade on which human history reaches its consummation, a grade which is to supersede the previous grade of bisection, cancelling or annulling not only national but also social and even sexual distinctions.\6/ Compare, e.g., Gal. 3.28: οὐκ ἔνι ᾿Ιουδαῖος οὐδὲ ῞Ελλην, οὐκ ἔνι δοῦλος οὐδὲ ἐλεύθερος, οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ· πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, or Gal. 5.6: ἐν γὰρ Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ οὔτε περιτομή τι ἰσχύει οὔτε ἀκροβυστία, ἀλλὰ πίστις δι’ ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη (cp. 6.15, οὔτε γὰρ περιτομή τί ἐστιν οὔτε ἀκροβυστία, ἀλλὰ καινὴ κτίσις, and 2 Cor. 5.17). 1 Cor. 12.13: ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι ἡμεῖς πάντες εἰς ἓν σῶμα ἐβαπτίσθημεν, εἴτε ᾿Ιουδαῖοι εἴτε ῞Ελληνες, εἴτε δοῦλοι εἴτε ἐλεύθεροι. [[244]]. Coloss. 3.11: ὅπου οὐκ ἔνι ῞Ελλην καὶ ᾿Ιουδαῖος, περιτομὴ καὶ ἀκροβυστία, βάρβαρος, Σκύθης, δοῦλος, ἐλεύθερος. Most impressive of all is Ephes. 2.11 f.: μνημονεύετε ὅτι ποτὲ ὑμεῖς τὰ ἔθνη ἐν σαρκί, οἱ λεγόμενοι ἀκροβυστία ὑπὸ τῆς λεγομένης περιτομῆς ἐν σαρκὶ χειροποιήτου, (12.) ὅτι ἦτε τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ χωρὶς Χριστοῦ, ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι τῆς πολιτείας τοῦ ᾿Ισραὴλ καὶ ξένοι τῶν διαθηκῶν τῆς ἐπαγγελίας, ἐλπίδα μὴ ἔχοντες καὶ ἄθεοι ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ. (13.) νυνὶ δὲ ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ ὑμεῖς οἵ ποτε ὄντες μακρὰν ἐγενήθητε ἐγγὺς ἐν τῷ αἵματι τοῦ Χριστοῦ. (14.) Αὐτὸς γάρ ἐστιν ἡ εἰρήνη ἡμῶν, ὁ ποιήσας τὰ ἀμφότερα ἓν καὶ τὸ μεσότοιχον τοῦ φραγμοῦ λύσας, τὴν ἔχθραν, ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ, (15.) τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασιν καταργήσας, ἵνα τοὺς δύο κτίσῃ ἐν αὑτῷ εἰς ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον ποιῶν εἰρήνην, (16.) καὶ ἀποκαταλλάξῃ τοὺς ἀμφοτέρους ἐν ἑνὶ σώματι. Finally, in Rom. 9-11 Paul promulgates a philosophy of history, according to which the new People, whose previous history fell within the limits of Israel, includes the Gentile world, now that Israel has been rejected, but will embrace in the end not merely "the fulness of the Gentiles" (πλήρωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν) but also "all Israel" (πᾶς ᾿Ισραήλ).
\5/ Even in the passage from Colossians the common expression "Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision" ( ῞Ελλην καὶ ᾿Ιουδαῖος, περιτομὴ καὶ ἀκροβυστία) is put first; "barbarian, Scythian, bond and free" (βάρβαρος, Σκύθης, δοῦλος, ἐλεύθερος) follows as a rhetorical amplification.
\6/ It was in the conception of Christ as the second Adam that the conception of the new humanity as opposed to the old, a conception which implies a dual division, was most deeply rooted. The former idea obviously played a leading part in the world of Pauline thought, but it was not introduced for the first time by him; in the Messianic system of the Jews this idea already held a place of its own. In Paul and in other Christian thinkers the idea of a dual classification of mankind intersects that of a triple classification, but both ideas are at one in this, that the new humanity cancels the old.
Greeks
(Gentiles), Jews, and the
Christians as the new People (destined to embrace the two
first) -- this triple division now becomes frequent in early Christian
literature, as one or two examples will show.\7/ [[245]]
\7/ For Christians as the new People, see the "Shepherd" of Hermas, and Barn. 5.7 (Χριστὸς) ἑαυτῷ τὸν λαὸν τὸν καινὸν ἑτοιμάζων (Christ preparing himself the new people); 7.5, ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν μέλλοντα τοῦ λαοῦ μου τοῦ καινοῦ προσφέρειν τὴν σάρκα (Christ about to offer his flesh for the sins of the new people); 13.6, Βλέπετε, ἐπὶ τίνων τέθεικεν, τὸν λαὸν τοῦτον [new and evidently young] εἶναι πρῶτον (ye see that this people is the first); 2 Clem. ad Cor. 2.3, ἔρημος ἐδόκει εἶναι ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ λαὸς ἡμῶν, νυνὶ δὲ πιστεύσαντες πλείονες ἐγενόμεθα τῶν δοκούντων ἔχειν θεόν ("Our people seemed to be forsaken of God, but now we have become more numerous by our faith than those who seemed to possess God"); Ignat., ad Ephes. 19-20; Aristides, Apol. 16. ("truly this people is new, and a divine admixture is in them"); Orac. Sibyll. 1.383 f., βλαστὸς νέος ἀνθήσειεν ἐξ ἐθνῶν ("a fresh growth shall blossom out of the Gentiles" [see also 7.38]). Bardesanes also calls the Christians a new race. Clement (Paed. 1.5.15.2, on Zech. 9.9) remarks: Οὐκ ἤρκει τὸ πῶλον εἰρηκέναι μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ νέον προσέθηκεν αὐτῷ, τὴν ἐν Χριστῷ νεολαίαν τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος καὶ ἀγήρω μετὰ ἁπλότητος ἀιδιότητα ἐμφαίνων ("To say 'colt' was not enough; 'young' had to be added, in order to bring out the youth of humanity in Christ . . ."); and in 1.5.20.7 he observes, Νέοι τοίνυν ὁ λαὸς ὁ καινὸς πρὸς ἀντιδιαστολὴν τοῦ πρεσβυτέρου λαοῦ, τὰ νέα μαθόντες ἀγαθά ("In contradistinction to the older people, the new people are young because they have learned the new blessings"). See also 1.7.58.1, καὶ γὰρ ἦν ὡς ἀληθῶς διὰ μὲν Μωσέως παιδαγωγὸς ὁ κύριος τοῦ λαοῦ τοῦ παλαιοῦ, δι’ αὑτοῦ δὲ τοῦ νέου καθηγεμὼν λαοῦ, πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον ("For it was really the Lord who instructed the ancient people by Moses; but the new people he directs himself, face to face"). The expression "new people" was retained for a long while in those early days; cp., e.g., Constant., ad s. Coet. 19, κατὰ χρόνον τοῦ Τιβερίου ἠ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἐξέλαμψε παρουσία . . . ἠ τε νέα τοῦ δήμου διαδοχὴ συνέστη, κ.τ.λ. ("About the time of Tiberius the advent of the [[245b]] Savior flashed on the world....and the new succession of the people arose," etc.). On the other hand, Christians are also the "non-gens," since they are not a nation; cp. Orig., Hom. 1. in Ps. 36. (vol. 12. p. 155): "Nos sumus 'non gens' [Deut. 32.21], qui pauci ex ista civitate credimus, et alii ex alia, et nusquam gens integra ab initio credulitatis videtur assumpta. Non enim sicut Iudaeorum gens erat vel Aegyptiorum gens ita etiam Christianorum genus gens est una vel integra, sed sparsim ex singulis gentibus congregantur." -- For Christians as a distinctive genus, or as the genus of the truly pious, see Mart. Polyc. 3.2, ἠ γενναιότης τοῦ θεοφιλοῦς καὶ θεοσεβοῦς γένους τῶν Χριστιανῶν ("the brave spirit of the God-beloved and God-fearing race of Christians"); 14.1, πᾶν τὸ γένος τῶν δικαίων ("the whole race of the righteous"); Martyr. Ignat. Antioch. 2.1, τὸ τῶν Χριστιανῶν θεοσεβὲς σύστημα [[[γένος ?] (the pious race of Christians). Also Melito, in Eus., H.E. 4.26.5, τὸ τῶν θεοσεβῶν γένος ("the race of the pious"), Arnobius, 1.1 ("Christiana gens"), pseudo-Josephus, Testim. de Christo (τὸ φῦλον τῶν Χριστιανῶν -- the tribe of the Christians); Orac. Sibyll. 4.136, εὐσεβέων φῦλον , etc. Several educated Christians correlated the idea of a new and at the same time a universal people with the Stoic cosmopolitan idea, as, for example, Tertullian, who points out more than once that Christians only recognise one state, i.e., the world. Similarly, Tatian writes (Orat. 28): "I repudiate your legislation ; there ought to be only one common polity for all men" (τῆς παρ’ ὑμῖν κατέγνων νομοθεσίας. μίαν μὲν γὰρ ἐχρῆν εἶναι καὶ κοινὴν ἁπάντων τὴν πολιτεία). This democratic and cosmopolitan feature of Christianity was undoubtedly of great use to the propaganda among the lower and middle classes, particularly throughout the provinces. Religious equality was felt, up to a certain degree, to mean political and social equality as well.
The fourth evangelist makes Christ say (10.16): "And other sheep have I which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one flock, one shepherd." And again, in a profound prophetic utterance (4.21 f.): "The hour cometh when neither in this mountain [that of the Samaritans, who stand here as representatives of the Gentiles] nor in Jerusalem shall ye worship the Father; ye worship what ye know not; we worship what we know, for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth." This passage is of importance, because it is something more than a merely formal classification; it defines, in a positive manner, the three possible religious standpoints and apportions them among the different peoples. First of all, there is ignorance of God, together with an external and therefore an erroneous worship (=the Gentiles, or Samaritans); secondly, there is a true knowledge of God together with a wrong, external worship (= the Jews); and thirdly, there is true knowledge of God together with worship that is inward and [[246]] therefore true (=the Christians). This view gave rise to many similar conceptions in early Christianity; it was the precursor of a series of cognate ideas which formed the basis of early Christian speculations upon the history of religion. It was the so-called "gnostics" in particular who frankly built their systems upon ideas of this kind. In these systems, Greeks (or pagans), Jews, and Christians sometimes appear as different grades; sometimes the two first are combined, with Christians subdivided into "psychic" (ψύχικοι) and "pneumatic" (πνευμάτικοι) members; and finally a fourfold division is also visible, viz., Greeks (or pagans), Jews, churchfolk, and "pneumatic" persons.\8/ During that period, when religions were undergoing transformation, speculations on the history of religion were in the air; they are to be met with even in inferior and extravagant systems of religion.\9/ But from all this we must turn back to writers of the Catholic church with their triple classification.
\8/ It is impossible here to go into the question of how this ethnological division of humanity intersected and squared with the other religious division made by the gnostics, viz., the psychological (into ''hylic," "psychic," and "pneumatic" persons).
\9/ With regard to the religious system of the adherents of Simon Magus, we have this fragmentary and obscure piece of information in Irenaeus (1.23): Simon taught that "he himself was he who had appeared among the Jews as the Son, who had descended in Samaria as the Father, and made his advent among other nations as the holy Spirit" ("Semetipsum esse qui inter Judaeos quidem quasi fllius apparuerit, in Samaria autem quasi pater descenderit, in reliquis vero gentibus quasi spiritus sanctus adventaverit").
In one early Christian document from the opening of the second century, of which unfortunately we possess only a few fragments (i.e., the Preaching of Peter, in Clem., Strom. 6.5.39-41), Christians are warned not to fashion their worship on the model of the Greeks or of the Jews (τοῦτον τὸν θεὸν σέβεσθε μὴ κατὰ τοὺς ῞Ελληνας [6.5.39.4] . . . μηδὲ κατὰ ᾿Ιουδαίους σέβεσθε [6.5.41.2]). Then we read: ὥστε καὶ ὑμεῖς ὁσίως καὶ δικαίως μανθάνοντες ἃ παραδίδομεν ὑμῖν, (6.) φυλάσσεσθε, καινῶς τὸν θεὸν διὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ σεβόμενοι εὕρομεν γὰρ ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς καθὼς ὁ κύριος λέγει· ‹ἰδοὺ διατίθεμαι ὑμῖν καινὴν διαθήκην, οὐχ ὡς διεθέμην τοῖς πατράσιν ὑμῶν ἐν ὄρει (7.) Χωρήβ.› νέαν ἡμῖν διέθετο· τὰ γὰρ ῾Ελλήνων καὶ ᾿Ιουδαίων παλαιά, (8.) ἡμεῖς δὲ οἱ καινῶς αὐτὸν τρίτῳ γένει σεβόμενοι Χριστιανοί ("So [[247]] do you keep what you have learnt from us holily and justly, worshipping God anew through Christ. For we find in the scriptures, as the Lord saith, Behold I make a new covenant with you, not as I made it with your fathers in Mount Horeb. A new covenant he has made with us, for that of the Greeks and Jews is old, but ye who worship him anew in the third manner are Christians" [6.5.41.5-8]).\10/
\10/ The term "religio Christiana" does not occur till Tertullian, who uses it quite frequently. The apologists speak of the distinctive θεοσέβεια of Christians.
This writer also distinguishes Greeks, Jews, and Christians, and distinguishes them, like the fourth evangelist, by the degree of their knowledge and worship of God. But the remarkable thing is his explicit assumption that there are three classes, neither more nor less, and his deliberate description of Christianity as the new or third genus of worship. There are several similar passages which remain to be noticed, but this is the earliest of them all. Only, it is to be remarked that Christians do not yet call themselves "the third race"; it is their worship which is put third in the scale. The writer classifies humanity, not into three peoples, but into three groups of worshippers.
Similarly the unknown author of the epistle to Diognetus. Only, with him the conception of three classes of worshippers is definitely carried over into that of three peoples ("Christians esteem not those whom the Greeks regard as gods, nor do they observe the superstition of the Jews. . . .[thou enquirest] about the nature of this fresh development or interest which has entered life now and not previously," ch. 1; cp. also ch. 5: "They are attacked as aliens by the Jews, and persecuted by the Greeks"). This is brought out particularly in his endeavor to prove that as Christians have a special manner of life, existing socially and politically by themselves, they have a legitimate claim to be ranked as a special "nation."
In his Apology to the Emperor Pius, Aristides distinctly arranges human beings in three "orders," which are equivalent to nations, as Aristides assigns to each its genealogy -- i.e., its historical origin. He writes (ch.2.2): φανερὸν γάρ ἐστιν ἡμῖν, ὦ βασιλεῦ, ὅτι τρία γένη εἰσὶν ἀνθρώπων ἐν τῷδε τῷ κόσμῳ. ὧν [[248]] εἰσὶν οἱ τῶν παρ’ ὑμῖν λεγομένων θεῶν προσκυνηταὶ καὶ ᾿Ιουδαῖοι καὶ Χριστιανοί· αὐτοὶ δὲ πάλιν οἱ τοὺς πολλοὺς σεβόμενοι θεοὺς εἰς τρία διαιροῦνται γένη, Χαλδαίους τε καὶ ῞Ελληνας καὶ Αἰγυπτίους (then follows the evidence for the origin of these nations, whilst the Christians are said to "derive their genealogy from Jesus Christ").\11/
How seriously Irenaeus took this idea of the Christians as a special people, is evident from his remarks in 4.30. The gnostics had attacked the Jews and their God for having appropriated the gold and silver vessels of the Egyptians. To which Irenaeus retorts that it would be much more true to accuse Christians of robbery, inasmuch as all their possessions originated with the Romans. "Who has the better right to gold and silver? The Jews, who took it as a reward for their labor in Egypt? or we, who have taken gold from the Romans and the rest of the nations, though they were not our debtors?" This argument would be meaningless unless Irenaeus regarded Christians as a nation which was sharply differentiated from the rest of the peoples and had no longer anything to do with them. As a matter of fact, he regarded the exodus of Israel from Egypt as a type of the "profectio ecclesiae e gentibus" ([[[ET] 4.30.4).
The religious philosophy of history set forth by Clement of Alexandria rests entirely upon the view that these two nations, [[249]] Greeks and Jews, were alike trained by God, but that they are now (see Paul's epistle to the Ephesians) to be raised into the higher unity of a third nation. It may suffice to bring forward three passages bearing on this point. In Strom. 3.10.70.1-2, he writes (on the saying "where two or three are gathered together," etc.): Εἴη δ’ ἂν καὶ ἡ ὁμόνοια τῶν πολλῶν ἀπὸ τῶν τριῶν ἀριθμουμένη μεθ’ ὧν ὁ κύριος, ἡ μία ἐκκλησία, ὁ εἷς ἄνθρωπος, τὸ γένος τὸ ἕν. (2.) ἢ μή τι μετὰ μὲν τοῦ ἑνὸς τοῦ ᾿Ιουδαίου ὁ κύριος νομοθετῶν ἦν, προφητεύων δὲ ἤδη καὶ τὸν ῾Ιερεμίαν ἀποστέλλων εἰς Βαβυλῶνα, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς ἐξ ἐθνῶν διὰ τῆς προφητείας καλῶν, συνῆγε λαοὺς τοὺς δύο, τρίτος δὲ ἦν ἐκ τῶν δυεῖν κτιζόμενος εἷς εἰς καινὸν ἄνθρωπον, ᾧ δὴ ἐμπεριπατεῖ τε καὶ κατοικεῖ ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ ("Now the harmony of the many, calculated from the three with whom the Lord is present, might signify the one church, the one man, the one race. Or was the Lord legislating with the one Jew [at Sinai], and then, when he prophesied and sent Jeremiah to Babylon, calling some also from the heathen, did he collect the two peoples together, while the third was created out of the twain into a new man, wherein he is now resident, dwelling within the church"). Again, in Strom. 5.14.98.4, on Plato's Republic, 3. p. 415: εἰ μή τι τρεῖς τινας ὑποτιθέμενος φύσεις, τρεῖς πολιτείας, ὡς ὑπέλαβόν τινες, διαγράφει, καὶ ᾿Ιουδαίων μὲν ἀργυρᾶν [a corrupt passage, incorrectly read as early as Eus., Prepar. 13.13; on the margin of L there is the lemma, ῾Ελλήνων σιδηρὰν ἢ χαλκήν, Χριστιαωῶν χρυσῆν], ῾Ελλήνων δὲ τὴν τρίτην, Χριστιανῶν δέ, ᾗ <ὁ> χρυσὸς ὁ βασιλικὸς ἐγκαταμέμικται, τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα ("Unless he means by his hypothesis of three natures to describe, as some conjecture, three polities, the Jews being the silver one, and the Greeks the third [the lemma running thus: "The Greeks being the iron or brass one, and the Christians the gold one"], along with the Christians, with whom the regal gold is mixed, even the holy Spirit"). Finally, in Strom. 6.5.42.2: ἐκ γοῦν τῆς ῾Ελληνικῆς παιδείας, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐκ τῆς νομικῆς εἰς τὸ ἓν γένος τοῦ σῳζομένου συνάγονται λαοῦ οἱ τὴν πίστιν προσιέμενοι, οὐ χρόνῳ διαιρουμένων τῶν τριῶν λαῶν, ἵνα τις φύσεις ὑπολάβοι τριττάς, . . . ("From the Hellenic discipline, as also from that of the law, those who accept the faith are gathered into the one race of the people who are saved -- not [[250]] that the peoples are separated by time, as though one were to suggest three different natures," etc.).\12/
\12/ Clement (Strom. 2.15.67) once heard
a "wise man" explain that Gentiles ("seat of the ungodly"), Jews ("way
of sinners"), and heretics ("seat of the scornful") were meant in
Ps. 1.1. This addition of ''heretics" is simply due to the passage
under discussion.
Evidence may be led also from other early Christian writers to show that the triad of "Greeks (Gentiles), Jews, and Christians" was the church's basal conception of history.\13/ It was employed with especial frequency in the interpretation of biblical stories. Thus Tertullian enlists it in his exposition of the prodigal son (de Pudic. 8 f.); Hippolytus (Comm. in Daniel, ed. Bonwetsch, p. 32) finds the Christians in Susanna, and the Greeks and Jews in the two elders who lay snares for her; while pseudo-Cyprian (de Mont. Sina et Sion, 7) explains that the two thieves represent the Greeks and Jews. But, so far as I am aware, the blunt expression "We Christians are the third race" only occurs once in early Christian literature subsequent to the Preaching of Peter (where, moreover, it is simply Christian worship which is described as the third class), and that is in the pseudo-Cyprianic tract de Pascha Computus (c. 17), written in 242-243 C.E. Unfortunately, the context of the expression is not quite clear. Speaking of hell-fire, the author declares it has consumed the opponents of Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, "et ipsos tres pueros a dei filio protectos -- in mysterio nostro qui sumus tertium genus hominum -- non vexavit" ("Without hurting, however, those three lads, protected by the Son of God -- in the mystery which pertains to us who are the third race of mankind"). It is hard to see how the writer could feel he was reminded of Christians as the third race of men by the three children who were all-pleasing in God's sight, although they were cast into the fiery furnace; still, reminded he was, and at any rate the inference to be drawn from the passage is that he must have been familiar with the description of Christians as a "third race." What sense he attached to it, we [[251]] are not yet in a position to determine with any certainty; but we are bound to assume, in the first instance, from our previous investigations, that Christians were to him a third race alongside of the Greeks (Gentiles) and Jews. Whether this assumption is correct or false, is a question to be decided in the second section of our inquiry.
\13/ The letter of Hadrian to Servianus (Vopisc., Saturnin. 8) is to be included among these witnesses, if it is a Christian fabrication: "Hunc (nummum) Christiani, hunc Judaei, hunc omnes venerantur et gentes" ("Christians, Jews, and all nations worship this one thing, money").
II
The consciousness of being a people,
and of being indeed the primitive
and the new people,
did not remain abstract or unfruitful in the
church; it was developed in a great variety of directions.\14/ In this
respect also the synagogue had led the way at every point, but
Christianity met its claim by making that claim her own and extending
it, wherever this was possible, beyond the limits within which Judaism
had confined it.
There were three cardinal directions in which the church voiced her peculiar consciousness of being the primitive people. (1) She demonstrated that, like any other people, she had a characteristic life. (2) She tried to show that so far as the philosophical learning, the worship, and the polity of other peoples were praiseworthy, they were plagiarized from the Christian religion. (3) She began to set on foot, though merely in the shape of tentative ideas, some political reflections upon her own actual importance within the world-empire of Rome, and also upon the positive relation between the latter and herself as the new religion for the world.
1. The proofs advanced by early Christianity with regard to its πολιτεία [citizenship] were twofold. The theme of one set was stated by Paul in Philippians 3.20: "Our citizenship (πολιτεία) is in [[252]] heaven" (cp. Heb. 13.13 f.: "Let us go outside the camp....for here we have no permanent city, but we seek one which is to come"). On this view Christians feel themselves pilgrims and sojourners on earth, walking by faith and not by sight; their whole course of life is a renunciation of the world, and is determined solely by the future kingdom towards which they hasten. This mode of life is voiced most loudly in the first similitude of Hermas, where two cities with their two lords are set in opposition -- one belonging to the present, the other to the future. The Christian must have nothing whatever to do with the former city and its lord the devil; his whole course of life must be opposed to that of the present city, with its arrangements and laws. In this way Christians were able emphatically to represent themselves as really a special people, with a distinctive course of life; but they need not have felt surprised when people took them at their word, and dismissed them with the remark: Πάντες οὖν ἑαυτοὺς φονεύσαντες πορεύεσθε ἤδη παρὰ τὸν θεὸν καὶ ἡμῖν πράγματα μὴ παρέχετε ("Go and kill yourselves, every one of you; begone to God at once, and don't bother us"), quoted by Justin, 2 Apol. 4.1.
This, however, represented but one side
of the proof that
Christianity had a characteristic life and order of its own. With equal
energy an attempt was made to show that there was a polity realized in
Christianity which was differentiated from that of other nations by its
absolute morality (see above, pp. 205 f.). As early as the apostolic
epistles, no point of dogma is more emphatically brought forward than
the duty of a holy life, by means of which Christians are to shine as
lights amid a corrupt and crooked generation. "Not like the Gentiles,"
nor like the Jews, but as the people of God -- that is the watchword.
Every sphere of life, down to the most intimate and trivial, was put
under the control of the Spirit and re-arranged; we have only to read
the Didache in order to find out the earnestness with which Christians
took "the way of life." In line with this, a leading section in all
the Christian apologies was occupied by the exposition of the Christian
polity as a polity which was purely ethical, the object being in every
case to show that this Christian polity was in accordance with the
highest moral [[253]]
standards, standards which even its opponents had
to recognize, and that for this very reason it was opposed to the
polity of the other nations. The Apologies
of Justin (especially 1.14 f.), Aristides (15), Tatian and Tertullian
especially, fall to be
considered in this light.\15/ The conviction that they are in
possession of a distinctive polity is also voiced in the notion of
Christians as the army of the true God and of Christ.\16/
\15/ The belauded
description in the
epistle to Diognetus (5.6) is a
fine piece of rhetoric, but not much more than that. The author manages
to express three aspects, as it were, in a single breath: the
Christian polity as the climax of morals, the Christian aloofness from
the world, and the inwardness by which this religion was enabled to
live in the midst of the world and adapt itself to all outward
conditions without any loss of purity. A man who is able to weave these
ideas into one perfect woof, either stands on the high level of the
fourth evangelist -- a position to which the author can hardly be
promoted -- or else incurs the suspicion of paying no serious attention
to any one of the three ideas in question.
2. The strict morality, the monotheistic view of the world, and the subordination of the entire life of man, private and social, to the regulations of a supreme ethical code -- all this is "what has been from the very first" ("quod ab initio fuit"). Now as the church finds this once more repeated in her own life, she recognizes in this phenomenon the guarantee that she herself, though apparently the youngest of the nations, is in reality the oldest. Furthermore, as she undertakes to bring forward proof for this conviction by drawing upon the books of Moses, which she appropriated for her own use (cp. Tatian, Theophilus, [[254]] Clement, Tertullian, and Julius Africanus), she is thereby dethroning the Jewish people and claiming for herself the primitive revelation, the primitive wisdom, and the genuine worship.\17/ Hence she acquires the requisite insight and courage, not merely to survey and appropriate for herself the content of all connected with revelation, wisdom, and worship that had appeared on the horizon of other nations, but to survey and estimate these materials as if they were merely copies made from an original in her own possession. We all know the space devoted by the early Christian apologies to the proof that Greek philosophy, so far as it merited praise and was itself correct, had been plagiarized from the primitive literature which belonged to Christians. The efforts made in this direction culminate in the statement that "Whatever truth is uttered anywhere has come from us." The audacity of this assertion is apt to hide from us at this time of day the grandeur and vigor of the self-consciousness to which it gives expression. Justin had already claimed any true piece of knowledge as "Christian," whether it occurred in Homer, the tragedians, the comic poets, or the philosophers. Did it never dawn on him, or did he really suspect, that his entire standpoint was upset by such an extension of its range, and that what was specifically "Christian" was transformed into what was common to all men? Clement of Alexandria, at any rate, who followed him in this line of thought, not merely foresaw this inference, but deliberately followed it up.
\17/ Note in passing that this marks the beginning in general of the universal chronography of history, and consequently of the general Christian outlook upon the entire course of human history.
By comparing itself with philosophy,
early Christianity gave itself
out as a "philosophy," while those who professed it were
"philosophers."
This, however, is one form of its self-consciousness which must not be
overrated, for it is almost exclusively confined to the Christian
apologetic and polemic. Christians never doubted, indeed, that their
doctrine was really the truth, and therefore the true philosophy. But
then it was infinitely more than a philosophy. It was the wisdom of
God. They too were different from mere philosophers; they were God's
[[255]] people, God's
friends. It suited their polemic, however, to
designate Christianity as philosophy, or "barbarian" philosophy, and
adherents of Christianity as "philosophers." And that for two reasons.
In the first place, it was the only way of explaining to outsiders the
nature of Christian doctrine -- for to institute a positive comparison
between it and pagan religions
was a risky procedure. And in the second place, this presupposition
made it possible for Christians to demand from the State as liberal
treatment for themselves as that accorded to philosophy and to
philosophic schools. It is in this light, pre-eminently, that we must
understand the favorite parallel drawn by the apologists between
Christianity and philosophy. Individual teachers who were at the head
either of a school (διδασκαλεῖον) within the church
or of an independent school, did take the parallel more seriously;\18/
but such persons were in a certain sense merely adjuncts of catholic
Christendom.\19/
\18/ Such teachers, with their small groups, hardly felt themselves to be the "primitive people." Their consciousness of entire independence was expressed in the titles of "gifted "and "learned." We shall have to discuss the Christian διδασκαλεῖα [instruction] and its significance for the Christian propaganda in another connection; but we can well understand how pagans found the Christians' claim to be "learned" and "philosophers" a peculiarly ridiculous and presumptuous pretension. On their part, they dubbed Christians as credulous, and scoffed at them as πιστοί ("believers"), who put faith in foreign fables and old wives' gossip.
\19/ They have nothing to do with the primitive shape assumed by Christianity, that of Jesus as the teacher and the disciples as his pupils.
The charge of plagiarism was not merely levelled against philosophy, so far as philosophy was genuine, but also against any rites and methods of worship which furnished actual or alleged parallels to those of Christianity. Little material of this kind was to be found in the official cults of the Greeks and Romans, but this deficiency was more than remade up for by the rich spoil which lay in the mysteries and the exotic cults, the cult of Mithra, in particular, attracting the attention of Christian apologists in this connection at a very early period. The verdict on all such features was quite simple: the demons, it was argued, had imitated Christian rites in the cults of paganism. If it could not be denied that those pagan rites and sacraments were older than their Christian parallels, the plea readily suggested itself that the demons had given a [[256]] distorted copy of Christianity previous to its real appearance, with the object of discrediting it beforehand. Baptism, the Lord's supper, the rites of expiation, the cross, etc., are instances in point. The interests of dogma are always able to impinge on history, and they do so constantly. But here we have to consider some cases which are specially instructive, since the Christian rites and sacraments attained their final shape under the influence of the mysteries and their rites (not, of course, the rites of any special cultus, but those belonging to the general type of the mysteries), so that dogma made the final issue of the process its first cause. Yet even in this field the quid pro quo appears in a more favorable light when we notice that Christendom posits itself as the original People at the dawn of human history, and that this consciousness determines their entire outlook upon that history. For, in the light of this presupposition, the Christians' confiscation of those pagan rites and ceremonies simply denotes the assertion of their character as ideally human and therefore divine. Christians embody the fundamental principles of that divine revelation and worship which are the source of human history, and which constitute the primitive possession of Christianity, although that possession has of course lain undiscovered till the present moment.
3. The most interesting side of the Christian consciousness of being a people, is what may be termed, in the narrower sense of the word, the political. Hitherto, however, it has been studied less than the others. The materials are copious, but up till now little attention has been paid to them. I shall content myself here with laying bare the points of most inportance.\20/\20/ Tertullian's
sentence (Apol. 38): "Nulla
magis res nobis aliena quam publica; unam omnium
rempublicam agnoscimus, mundum" ("Nothing is more alien to us
than politics; we acknowledge but one universal state, the world")
has a Stoic tinge; at best, it may be taken with a grain of salt.
Besides, people who despise the state always pursue a very active
policy of their own.
The political consciousness of the primitive church was based on three presuppositions. There was first of all the political element in the Jewish apocalyptic, which was called forth by the demand of the imperial cultus and the terror of the persecution. Then there was the rapid transference of the gospel from [[257]] the Jews to the Greeks, and the unmistakable affinity between Christianity and Hellenism, as well as between the church and the world-wide power of Rome. Thirdly, there was the fall and ruin of Jerusalem and the Jewish state. The first of these elements stood in antithesis to the two others, so that in this way the political consciousness of the church came to be defined in opposite directions and had to work itself out of initial contradictions.
The politics of Jewish apocalyptic viewed the world-state as a diabolic state, and consequently took up a purely negative attitude towards it. This political view is put uncompromisingly in the apocalypse of John, where it was justified by the Neronic persecution, the imperial claim for worship, and the Domitianic reign of terror. The largest share of attention, comparatively speaking, has been devoted by scholars to this political standpoint, in so far as it lasted throughout the second and the third centuries, and quite recently (1901) Neumann has discussed it thoroughly in his study of Hippolytus. The remarkable thing is that although Christians were by no means nunmerous till after the middle of the second century, they recognized that Christianity formed the central point of humanity as the field of political history as well as its determining factor. Such a self-consciousness is perfectly intelligible in the case of Judaism, for the Jews were really a large nation and had a great history behind them. But it is truly amazing that a tiny set of people should confront the entire strength of the Roman empire, that it should see in the persecution of the Christians the chief role of that empire, and that it should make [[258]] the world's history culminate in such a conflict.\21/ The only explanation of this lies in the fact that the church simply took the place of Israel, and consequently felt herself to be a people; this implied that she was also a political factor, and indeed the factor which ranked as decisive alongside of the state and by which in the end the state was to be overcome. Here we have already the great problem of "church and state" making its appearance, and the uncompromising form given to it at this period became normal for succeeding ages. The relationship between these two powers assumed other forms, but this form continued to lie concealed beneath them all.
\21/ Tertullian was the first who was able to threaten the state with the great number of Christians (Apol. 37, written shortly before 200 C.E.), for up till then people had merely endeavored to hold out the terrors of the calamities at the close of the world and the return of Christ. Although Christians still lacked a majority in the empire, still (from the outset) a substitute for this, so to speak, was found in the telling fact of the broad diffusion of Christianity throughout the whole empire and beyond its bounds. Even as early as the first generations, the fact that Christians were to be found everywhere strengthened and molded their self-consciousness. In contrast to nations shut up within definite boundaries, even though these were as large as those of the Parthians, Tertullian calls Christians (Apol. 37) the "gens totius orbis," i.e., the people of the whole world. And this had been felt long before even Tertullian wrote.
This, however, is only one side of the question. The transition of the gospel from the Jews to the Greeks, the unmistakable affinity between Christianity and Hellenismn, as well as between the church and the Roman world-power, and finally the downfall of the Jewish state at the hands of Rome -- these factors occasioned ideas upon the relation of the empire to the church which were very different from the aims of the accepted apocalyptic. Any systematic treatment of this view would be out of place, however; it would give a wrong impression of the situation. The better way will be, as we are dealing merely with tentative ideas, to get acquainted with the most important features and look at them one after another.
2 Thess. 2.5-7 is the oldest passage in
Christian literature in
which a positive meaning is attached to the Roman empire. It is
represented there, not as the realm of antichrist, but, on the
contrary, as the restraining power by means of which the final terrors
and the advent of antichrist are held in check. For by τὸ κατέχον
(ὁ κατέχων), "that which (or he who)
restrains," we must understand the Roman empire. If this be so, it
follows that the church and the empire could not be considered merely
as diametrically opposed to each other.
Rom. 13.1 f. makes
this quite plain, and proceeds to draw the
inference that civil authority is θεοῦ διάκονος ("a
minister of God"), appointed by God for the suppression of
wickedness; resistance to it means resistance to a divine ordinance.
Consequently one must not merely yield to its force, but obey it for
conscience' sake. The very payment of taxes is a moral [[259]] duty.
The author of 1 Pet. 2.13 ff. expresses himself in similar
terms.\22/ But he goes a step further, following up the fear of
God directly with honor due to the emperor (πάντας τιμήσατε, τὴν ἀδελφότητα ἀγαπᾶτε, τὸν
θεὸν
φοβεῖσθε, τὸν βασιλέα τιμᾶτε, 2.17).\23/ Nothing could be
more loyal than this
conception, and it is noticeable that the author was writing in Asia
Minor, among the provinces where the imperial cultus flourished.
\22/ Cp. Tit. 3.1. With regard to Paul's language in Romans, one may recollect what a quiet and happy time the early years of Nero were.
\23/ Greek Christians usually called the emperor βασιλεύς ("king"), a common title in the East, where it had not the same servile associations as "rex" had on the lips of people in the West. But βασιλεύς was also a title of the Lord Christ (κύριος Χριστός) which Christians dared not avoid uttering (not merely on account of "the kingdom of God," βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ, but also because Jesus had called himself by this name: John 18.33 f.). This occasioned a painful dilemma, though prudent Christians made strenuous efforts to repudiate the apparent treason which their religious usage of this title inevitably suggested, and to make it clear that by "kingdom" and "king" they understood nothing earthly or human, but something divine (so already Justin's Apol. 1.6). Some hotspurs, no doubt, declared to their judges that they recognised only one king or emperor (God or Christ), and so drew upon themselves just punishment. But these cases were very rare. Christ was also called "imperator" in the West, but not in writings intended for publicity.
Luke begins his account of Christ with the words (2.1): ᾿Εγένετο δὲ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις ἐξῆλθεν δόγμα παρὰ Καίσαρος Αὐγούστου ἀπογράφεσθαι πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην. As has been correctly surmised, the allusion to the emperor Augustus is meant to be significant. It was the official and popular idea that with Augustus a new era dawned for the empire; the imperial throne was its "peace," the emperor its savior (σωτήρ). Behind the earthly savior, Luke makes the heavenly appear -- he, too, is bestowed upon the whole world, and what he brings is peace (ver. 14, ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη).\24/ Luke hardly intended to set Augustus and Christ in hostile opposition; even Augustus and his kingdom are a sign of the new era. This may also be [[260]] gathered front the book of Acts, which in my opinion has not any consciously political aim; it sees in the Roman empire, as opposed to Judaism, the sphere marked out for the new religion, it stands entirely aloof from any hostility to the emperor, and it gladly lays stress upon such facts as prove a tolerant mood on the part of the authorities towards Christians in the past.
\24/ Even the expression used in Eph. 2.14, Αὐτὸς γάρ ἐστιν ἡ εἰρήνη ἡμῶν ("he is our peace"), is modelled on the language applied to the emperor in Asia Minor. I have shown elsewhere how strongly this language has influenced the terminology of Luke in the above-mentioned passage of his gospel. No doubt we have to think of Micah 5.4, in connection with Eph. 2.14 and Luke 2.14. But this converging of different lines was quite characteristic of the age and the idea in question.
Justin (1 Apol. 12.1) writes to the emperor: ᾿Αρωγοὶ δ’ ὑμῖν καὶ σύμμαχοι πρὸς εἰρήνην ἐσμὲν πάντων μᾶλλον ἀνθρώπων ("We, more than any others, are your helpers and allies in promoting peace"), admitting thereby that the purpose of the empire was beneficial (pax terrena), and that the emperors sought to effect this purpose. Also, in describing Christians as the power best adapted to secure this end -- inasmuch as they shun all crime, live a strictly moral life, and teach a strict morality, besides scaring and exorcising those supreme enemies of mankind, the demons -- he too, in a certain sense, affirms a positive relationship between the church and the state.\25/
\25/ Wherever
mention is made of the
power of the Christian people which upholds the state and frees
humanity, it is always these two factors which are in view -- their
strict morality and their power over demons. Others also wield the
former weapon, though not so well. But the second, the power over
demons, pertains to Christians alone, and therefore they render an
incomparable service to the state and to the human race, small though
their numbers may be. From this conviction there grew up in
Christianity the consciousness of being the power which conserves and
emancipates mankind in this world.
When the author of the epistle to Diognetus differentiates Christians from the world (the state) as the soul from the body (ch. 6) and elaborates his account of their relationship in a series of antitheses, he is laying down at the same time a positive relation between the two magnitudes in question: ᾿Εγκέκλεισται μὲν ἡ ψυχὴ τῷ σώματι, συνέχει δὲ αὐτὴ τὸ σῶμα· καὶ Χριστιανοὶ κατέχονται μὲν ὡς ἐν φρουρᾷ τῷ κόσμῳ, αὐτοὶ δὲ συνέχουσι τὸν κόσμον ("The soul is shut up in the body, and yet holds the body together; so Christians are kept within the world as in a prison, yet they hold the world together," 6.7). Similarly Justin (2 Apol. 7).
All this implies already a positive
political standpoint, but
[[261]] the furthest
step in this direction was taken subsequently by
Melito (in Eus., H.E. 4.26).\26/
It is no mere accident that he writes in loyal Asia Minor. By noting
Luke's suggestion with regard to Augustus, as well as all that had been
already said elsewhere upon the positive relations subsisting between
the church and the world-empire, Melito could advance to the following
statement of the situation in his Apology
to
Marcus Aurelius: --
\26/ I might also include here the remark of Athenagoras in his "Supplicatio" to the emperors (18.2): ἔχοιτε ἀφ’ ἑαυτῶν καὶ τὴν ἐπουράνιον βασιλείαν ἐξετάζειν· ὡς γὰρ ὑμῖν πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ πάντα κεχείρωται ἄνωθεν τὴν βασιλείαν εἰληφόσιν -- βασιλέως γὰρ ψυχὴ ἐν χειρὶ θεοῦ”, φησὶ τὸ προφητικὸν πνεῦμα -- οὕτως ἑνὶ τῷ θεῷ καὶ τῷ παρ’ αὐτοῦ λόγῳ υἱῷ νοουμένῳ ἀμερίστῳ πάντα ὑποτέτακται ("May you be able to discover the heavenly kingdom by considering yourselves! For as all things are subject to you, father and son, who have received the kingdom from above -- since the king's soul is in the hand of God, saith the spirit of prophecy, -- so are all things subordinate to the one God and to the Logos proceeding from him, even the Son, who is not apprehended apart from him").
"This philosophy of ours certainly did flourish at first among a barbarian people. But springing up in the provinces under thy rule during the great reign of thy predecessor Augustus, it brought rich blessings to thine empire in particular. For ever since then the power of Rome has increased in size and splendor; to this hast thou succeeded as its desired possessor, and as such shalt thou continue with thy son if thou wilt protect the philosophy which rose under Augustus and has risen with the empire, a philosophy which thine ancestors also held in honor along with other religions. The most convincing proof that the flourishing of our religion has been a boon to the empire thus happily inaugurated, is this -- that the empire has suffered no mishap since the reign of Augustus, but, on the contrary, everything has increased its splendor and fame, in accordance with the general prayer."
Melito's ideas need no analysis; they are plainly and clearly stated.\27/ The world-empire and the Christian religion are foster-sisters; they form a pair; they constitute a new stage of human history; the Christian religion means blessing and welfare to the empire, towards which it stands as the inward to the outward. Only when Christianity is protected and permitted to develop [[262]] itself freely, does the empire continue to preserve its size and splendor. Unless one is to suppose that Melito simply wanted to flatter -- a supposition for which there is no ground, although there was flattery in what he said -- the inference is that in the Christianity which formed part of the world-empire he really recognized a co-ordinate and sustaining inward force. Subsequent developments justified this view of Melito, and in this light his political insight is marvellous. But still more marvellous is the fact that at a time like this, when Christians were still a feeble folk, he actually recognized in Christianity the one magnitude parallel to the state, and that simply on the ground of religion -- i.e., as being a spiritual force which was entrusted with the function of supporting the state.\28/
\28/ Cp. also Orig., c. Cels. 8.70: ᾿Αλλ’ οἱ καθ’ ὑπόθεσιν Κέλσου πάντες ἂν πεισθέντες ῾Ρωμαῖοι εὐχόμενοι περιέσονται τῶν πολεμίων ἢ οὐδὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν πολεμήσονται, φρουρούμενοι ὑπὸ θείας δυνάμεως, τῆς διὰ πεντήκοντα δικαίους πέντε πόλεις ὅλας ἐπαγγειλαμένης διασῶσαι ("According to the notion of Celsus, if all the Romans are brought to believe, they will either overcome their foes by praying, or refrain from fighting altogether, being guarded by that power divine which promised to save five entire cities for the sake of fifty just persons").
There is yet another early Christian
writer on whom the analogy of
Christendom and the world-empire dawned (a propos of its ecumenical range);
only, he attempted to explain it in a very surprising fashion, which
betrayed a deep hostility towards the empire. Hippolytus writes (in Dan. 4.9): "For as our Lord
was born in the forty-second year of the emperor Augustus, whence the
Roman empire developed, and as the Lord also called all nations and
tongues by means of the apostles and fashioned believing Christians
into a people,
the people of the Lord, and the people which consists of
those who bear a new name -- so was all this imitated to the letter by
the empire of that day, ruling 'according to the working of Satan': for
it also collected to itself the noblest of every nation, and, dubbing
them Romans, got ready for the fray. And that is the reason why the
first census took place under Augustus, when our Lord was born at
Bethlehem; it was to get the men of this world, who enrolled for our
earthly king, called Romans, while those who believed in a heavenly
king were termed Christians, bearing on their foreheads the sign of
victory over death." [[263]]
The ecumenical range of the Roman empire is, therefore, a Statanic aping of Christianity. As the demons purloined Christian philosophy and aped the Christian cultus and sacraments, so also did they perpetrate a plagiarism against the church by founding the great imperial state of Rome! This is the self-consciousness of Christendom expressed in perhaps the most robust, but also in the most audacious form imaginable! The real cosmopolitan character of Christianity is stated by Octavius (Min. Felix, 33) thus: "Nos gentes nationesque distinguimus: deo una domus est mundus hic totus" ("We draw distinctions between nations and races, but to God the whole of this world is one household").
Origen's political views are more
accurate, but how extravagant are
his ideas! In chapters 67-75 of his eighth book against Celsus, by
dint of a fresh interpretation given to a primitive Christian
conception, and a recourse to a Platonic idea, he propounds the idea
that the church, this κόσμος τοῦ κόσμου (in Joh. 6.38), or universe of the
universe, is the future kingdom of the whole
world, destined to embrace the Roman empire and humanity itself, to
amalgamate and to replace the various realms of this world.. Cp. ch.
68: "For if, in the words of Celsus, all were to do as we do, then
there is no doubt whatever that even the barbarians would become
law-abiding and humane, so soon as they obeyed the Word of God; then
would all religions vanish, leaving that of Christ alone to reign. And
reign it will one day, as the Word never ceases to gain soul after
soul." This means the reversal of the primitive Christian hope. The
church now presents itself as the civilizing and cohesive power which
is to create, even in the present age, a state that shall embrace an
undivided humanity. Origen, of course, is not quite sure whether this
is feasible in the present age. No further away than ch. 72, a propos of the question (to which
Celsus gave a negative answer) whether Asia, Europe, and Libya, Greeks
and barbarians alike, could agree to recognize one system of laws, we
find him writing as follows: "Perhaps," he says, "such a result would
not indeed be possible to those who are still in the body; but it would
not be impossible to those who are released from the body"
(Καὶ τάχα ἀληθῶς ἀδύνατον μὲν τὸ τοιοῦτο τοῖς ἔτι
ἐν [[264]] σώμασι οὐ μὴν ἀδύνατον
καὶ ἀπολυθεῖσιν αὐτῶν).\29/ In
2.30. he writes: "In the
days of Jesus, righteousness arose and
fulness of peace, beginning with his birth. God prepared the nations
for his teaching, by causing the Roman emperor to rule over all the
world; there was no longer to be a plurality of kingdoms, else would
the nations have been strangers to one another, and so the apostles
would have found it harder to carry out the task laid on them by Jesus,
when he said, 'Go and teach all nations.'"
\29/ I do not understand, any more than Origen did, the political twaddle which Celsus (71) professes to have heard from a Christian. It can hardly have come from a Christian, and it is impossible nowadays to ascertain what underlay it. I therefore pass it by.
In his reply to Celsus (3.29-30), this
great father of the
church, who was at the same time a great and sensible statesman,
submits a further political consideration, which is not high-flown this
time, but sober. It has also the advantage of being impressive and to
the point. Although the passage is somewhat lengthy. I quote it here,
as there is nothing like it in the literature of early Christianity
[Greek text in Hist. Dogma,
2.126]: --
"Apollo, according to Celsus, required the Metapontines to consider Aristeas as a god. But the Metapontines considered Aristeas was a man, and perhaps not even a respectable man, and this conviction of theirs seemed to them more valid than the declaration of the oracle that Aristeas was a god and deserving of divine honor. Consequently they would not obey Apollo, and no one regarded Aristeas as a god. But with regard to Jesus, we may say that it proved a blessing to the human race to acknowledge him as God's son, as God appearing in a human soul and body.....God, who sent Jesus, brought to nought all the conspiracies of the demons and gave success to the gospel of Jesus over the whole earth for the conversion and amelioration of mankind, causing churches everywhere to be established, which should be ruled by other laws than those of superstitious, licentious, and evil men. For such is the character of the masses who constitute the assemblies throughout the various towns. Whereas, the churches or assemblies of God, whom Christ instructs, are 'lights in the world,' compared to the [[265]] assemblies of the districts among which they live as strangers. For who would not allow that even the inferior members of the church, and such as take a lower place when judged by the standard of more eminent Christians -- even these are far better people than the members of profane assemblies?
"Take the church of God at Athens; it is a peaceable and orderly body, as it desires to please God, who is over all. Whereas the assembly of the Athenians is refractory, nor can it be compared in any respect to the local church or assembly of God. The same may be said of the church of God at Corinth and the local assembly of the people, as also of the church of God at Alexandria and the local assembly in that city. And if any candid person hears this and examines the facts of the case with a sincere love for the truth, he will admire him who conceived the design and was able to realize it, establishing churches of God to exist as strangers amid the popular assemblies of the various cities. Furthermore, if one compares the council of the Church of God with that of the cities, one by one, it would be found that many a councillor of the church is worthy to be a leader in God's city, if such a city exists in the world; whereas other councillors in all parts of the world show not a trait of conduct to justify the superiority born of their position, which seems to give them precedence over their fellow-citizens. Such also is the result of any comparison between the president of the church in any city and the civic magistrates. It will be found that, in the matter of conduct, even such councillors and presidents of the church as are extremely defective arid indolent compared to their more energetic colleagues, are possessed of virtues which are in general superior to those of civic councillors and rulers."
At this point I shall break off the present part of our investigation. The evidence already brought forward will suffice to give some idea of how Christians held themselves to be the new People and the third race of mankind, and also of the inferences which they drew from these conceptions. But how did the Greeks and Romans regard this phenomenon of Christianity with its enormous claims? This is a question to which justice must be done in an excursus.
EXCURSUS
CHRISTIANS AS A THIRD RACE, IN THE JUDGMENT OF THEIR OPPONENTS
For a proper appreciation of the Greek and Roman estimate of Christianity, it is essential, in the first instance, to recollect how the Jews were regarded and estimated throughout the empire, since it was generally known that the Christians had emanated from the Jews.
Nothing is more certain than that the Jews were distinguished throughout the Roman empire as a special people in contrast to all others. Their imageless worship (ἀθεότης), their stubborn refusal to participate in other cults, together with their exclusiveness (ἀμιξία), marked them off from all nations as a unique people.\1/ This uniqueness was openly acknowledged by the [[267]] legislation of Caesar. Except for a brief period, the Jews were certainly never expected to worship the emperor. Thus they stood alone by themselves amid all the other races who were included in, or allied to, the Roman empire. The blunt formula "We are Jews" never occurs in the Greek and Roman literature, so far as I know;\2/ but the fact was there, i.e., the view was widely current that the Jews were a national phenomenon by themselves, deficient in those traits which were common to the other nations.\3/ Furthermore, in every province and town the Jews, and the Jews alone, kept themselves aloof from the neighboring population by means of their constitutional position and civic demeanor. Only, this very uniqueness of character was taken to be a defect in public spirit and patriotism, as well as an insult and a disgrace, from Apollonius Molon and Posidonius down to Pliny, Tacitus, and later authors,\4/ although one or two of the more intelligent writers did not miss the "philosophic" character of the Jews.\5/
\1/ There were also
their special customs
(circumcision, prohibition of swine's flesh, the sabbath, etc.), but
these did not contribute so seriously as ἀθεότης and ἀμιξία to
establish the character of the Jews
for uniqueness; for customs either identical or somewhat similar were
found among other Oriental peoples as well. For ἀθεότης (cp. my essay
on "The Charge of Atheism in
the First Three Centuries," Texte
u. Unters. 28.4), see Pliny,
Hist. Nat. 13.4.46: "gens
contumelia numinum insignis" ("a race distinguished by its
contempt for deities"); Tacit., Hist.
5.5: "Judaei mente sola unumque numen intellegunt . .
.
igitur nulla simulacra urbibus suis, nedum templis sistunt ; non
regibus haec adolatio non Caesaribus honor" ("the Jews
conceive of their deity as one, by the mind alone....hence there are
no images erected in their cities or even in their temples. This
reverence is not paid to kings, nor this honor to the Caesars");
Juv., Satir. 14.97: "nil
praeter nubes et caeli numen adorant" ("they
venerate simply the clouds and the deity of the sky"), etc. For
μισανθρωπία and ἀμιξία, see
Tacit. (loc.cit.): "Apud ipsos
fides obstinata, misericordia in promptu, sed
adversus omnes alios hostile odium" ("Among themselves their
honesty is inflexible, their compassion quick to move, but to all other
persons they show the hatred of antagonism"); and earlier still,
Apollonius Molon (in Joseph., Apion.
2.14). Cp. Schurer's Gesch. des
jud.
Volk., 3.(3), p. 418 [Eng. trans.,
2.2.295].
\2/ Yet, cp. Epist. Aristeas 16 (ed. Wendland, 1900, p. 6): Τὸν γὰρ πάντων ἐπόπτην καὶ κτίστην θεὸν οὗτοι σέβονται, ὃν καὶ πάντες, ἡμεῖς δέ, βασιλεῦ, προσονομάζοντες ἑτέρως Ζῆνα καὶ Δία.
\3/ In Egypt a clear-cut triple division obtained -- Egyptians, Greeks, and Jews. Cp. Schurer 3(3), p. 23 [Eng, trans., 2.2.231].
\4/ Apollonius Molon in
Joseph., Apion. 2.15, "The
most stupid of
the barbarians, ἄθεοι, μισάνθρωποι"; Seneca (in
August., de Civit. 6.11),
"sceleratissima gens"; Tacitus (Hist.
5.8), "despectissima pars servientium -- taeterrima gens";
Pliny (loc. cit.), Marcus
Aurelius (in Ammian, 22.5),
and Caecilius (in Min. Felix,
10), ''Judaeorum misera gentilitas."
\5/ Aristotle (according to Clearchus [fragment 6, TLG]), "philosophers among the Syrians" (φιλόσοφοι παρὰ Σύροις) ; Theophrastus (according to Porphyry, de abstinentia 2.26), "since they are a race of philosophers" (ἅτε φιλόσοφοι τὸ γένος ὄντες) ; Strabo (16.2.35, pp. 760 f.); and Varro (in August., de Civit. 4.31).
Disengaging itself from this Jewish
people, Christianity now
encountered the Greeks and Romans. In the case of Christians, some of
the sources of offence peculiar to the Jews were absent; but the
greatest offence of all appeared only in heightened colors, viz., the
ἀθεότης and the ἀμιξία (μισανθρωπία). Consequently
the Christian religion
was described as a "superstitio nova et malefica"
(Suet., Nero,
16), as a "superstitio prava, immodica"
(Plin., Ep. 10.96, 97), as an
"exitiabilis superstitio" (Tacit., Annal.
15.44), and as a "vana et demens superstitio" (Min. Felix, 9), while the
Christians
themselves were characterized [[268]]
as "per flagitia
invisi," and blamed for their "odium generis
humani." \6/
\6/ Tacitus (loc. cit.); cp. Tertull., Apol. 35, "publici hostes"; 37, "hostes maluistis vocare generis humani Christianos" (you prefer to call Christians the enemies of the human race); Minuc. 10, "pravae religionis obscuritas"; 8, "homines deploratae, inlicitae ac desperatae factionis" (reprobate characters, belonging to an unlawful and desperate faction); "plebs profanae coniurationis"; 9, "sacraria taeterrima impiae citionis" (abominable shrines of an impious assembly); "eruenda et execranda consensio" (a confederacy to be rooted out and detested).
Several sensible people during the course
of the second century
certainly took a different view. Lucian saw in Christians half crazy,
credulous fanatics, yet he could not altogether refuse them his
respect. Galen explained their course of life as philosophic, and spoke
of them in terms of high esteem.\7/ Porphyry also treated them,
and especially their theologians, the gnostics and Origen, as
respectable opponents.\8/ But the vast majority of authors
persisted in regarding them as an utter abomination. "Latebrosa et
lucifuga natio," cries the pagan
Caecilius (in Minut. Felix, 8 f.), " in
publicum muta,
in angulis garrula; templa ut busta despiciunt, deos despuunt, rident
sacra . . . occultis se notis et insignibus noscunt et amant mutuo
paene
antequam noverint . . . cur nullas aras habent, templa nulla, nulla
nota
simulacra . . . nisi illud quod colunt et interprimunt, aut punieudum
est aut pudendum? unde autem vel quis ille aut ubi deus unicus,
solitarius, destitutus, quem non [[269]] gens libera, non
regna, non
saltem Romana superstitio noverunt? Judaeorum sola et misera gentilitas
unum et ipsi deum, sed palam, sed templis, aris, victimis
caeremoniisque coluerunt, cuius adeo nulla vis ac potestas est, ut sit
Romanis numinibus cum sua sibi natione captivus. At iam Christiani
quanta monstra, quae portenta confingunt." \9/ What people
saw -- what Caecilius saw before him -- was a descending series, with
regard to the numina and cultus: first Romans, then Jews, then
Christians.
\7/ The passage is extant only in the Arabic (see above, p. 212).
\8/ Of the historical basis of the Christian religion and its sacred books in the New Testament, Porphyry and the Neoplatonists in general formed no more favorable opinion than did Celsus, while even in the Old Testament they found (agreeing thus far with the Christian gnostics) a great deal of folly and falsehood. The fact is, no one, not even Celsus, criticised the gospel history so keenly and disparagingly as Porphyry. Still, much that was to be found in the books of Moses and in John appeared to them of value. Further, they had a great respect for the Christian philosophy of religion, and endeavored in all seriousness to come to terms with it, recognizing that it approximated more nearly than that of the gnostics to their own position. The depreciatory estimate of the world and the dualism which they found in gnosticism seemed to them a frivolous attack upon the Godhead. Per contra Porphyry says of Origen: ''His outward conduct was that of a Christian and unlawful. But he thought like a Greek in his views of matter and of God, and mingled the ideas of the Greeks with foreign fables" (in Eus., H.E. 6.19). On the attitude of Plotinus towards the gnosis of the church and gnosticism, cp. Karl Schmidt in Texte u. Unters. N.F. 5. part 4.
\9/ "A people who skulk and shun the light of day, silent in public but talkative in holes and corners. They despise the temples as dead-houses, they scorn the gods, they mock sacred things. . . . they recognize each other by means of secret tokens and marks, and love each other almost before they are acquainted. Why have they no altars, no temples, no recognized images. . . . unless what they worship and conceal deserves punishment or is something to be ashamed of? Moreover, whence is he, who is he, where is he, that one God, solitary and forsaken, whom no free people, no realm, not even a Roman superstition, has ever known? The lonely and wretched race of the Jews worshipped one God by themselves, but they did it openly, with temples, altars, victims, and ceremonies, and he has so little strength and power that he and all his nation are in bondage to the deities of Rome! But the Christians! What marvels, what monsters, do they feign!"
So monstrous, so repugnant are those Christians (of whose faith and life Caecilius proceeds to tell the most evil tales), that they drop out of ordinary humanity, as it were. Thus Caecilius indeed calls them a "natio," but he knows that they are recruited from the very dregs of the nations, and consequently are no "people" in the sense of a "nation." The Christian Octavius has to defend them against this charge of being a non-human phenomenon, and Tertullian goes into still further details in his Apology and in his address ad Nationes. In both of these writings the leading idea is the refutation of the charge brought against Christianity, of being something exceptional and utterly inhuman. "Alia nos opinor, natura, Cyropennae [Cynopae?] aut Sciapodes," we read in Apol. 8, "alii ordines dentium, alii ad incestam libidinem nervi? . . . homo est enim et Christianus et quod et tu" ("We are of a different nature, I suppose! Are we Cyropennae or Sciapodes? Have we different teeth, different organs for incestuous lust?. . . . Nay, a Christian too is a man, he is whatever you are." In Apol. 16, Tertullian is obliged to refute wicked lies told about Christians which, if true, would make Christians out to be quite [[270]] an exceptional class of human beings. Whereas, in reality, "Christiani homines sunt vobiscum degentes, eiusdem victus, habitus, instructus, eiusdem ad vitam necessitatis. neque enim Brachmanae aut Indorum gymnosophistae sumus, silvicolae et exules vitae. . . . si caeremonias tuas non frequento, attamen et illa die homo sum" (Apol. 42: "Christian men live beside you, share your food, your dress, your customs, the same necessities of life as you do. For we are neither Brahmins nor Indian gymnosophists, inhabiting the woods, and exiles from existence. If I do not attend your religious ceremonies, none the less am I a human being on the sacred day"). "Cum concutitur imperium, concussis etiam ceteris membris eius utique et nos, licit extranei a turbis aestimemur, in aliquo loco casus invenimur" (Apol. 31: "When the state is disturbed and all its other members affected by the disturbance, surely we also are to be found in some spot or another, although we are supposed to live aloof from crowds." It is evident also from the nicknames and abusive epithets hurled at them, that Christians attracted people's attention as something entirely strange (cp., e.g., Apol. 1).\10/
\10/ Hence the request made to Christians is quite intelligible: "Begone from a world to which you do not belong, and trouble us not." Cp. the passage already cited [p. 252] from Justin's 2 Apol. 4, where Christians are told by their opponents, Πάντες οὖν ἑαυτοὺς φονεύσαντες πορεύεσθε ἤδη παρὰ τὸν θεὸν καὶ ἡμῖν πράγματα μὴ παρέχετε ("Go and kill yourselves, every one of you; begone to God at once, and don't bother us"). Tertullian relates (ad Scap. 5) how Arrius Antoninus, the proconsul of Asia, called out to the Christians who crowded voluntarily to his tribunal in a time of persecution, "You miserable wretches; if you want to die, you have precipices and ropes." Celsus (in Orig., c. Cels. 8.55) writes: "If Christians decline to render due honor to the gods or to respect those appointed to take charge of the religious services, let them not grow up to manhood or marry wives or have children or take any part in the affairs of this life, but rather be off with all speech, leaving no posterity behind them, that such a race may become utterly extinct on earth." Hatred of the empire and emperor, and uselessness from the economic standpoint -- these were standing charges against Christians, charges which the apologists (especially Tertullian) were at great pains to controvert. Celsus tries to show Christians that they were really trying to cut off the branch on which they sat (8.68): "Were all to act as you do, the emperor would soon be left solitary and forlorn, and affairs world presently fall into the hands of the wildest and most lawless barbarians. Then it would be all over with the glory of [[271b]] your worship and the true wisdom among men." As the Christians were almost alone among religionists in being liable to this charge of enmity to the empire, they were held responsible by the populace, as everybody knows, for any great calamities that occurred. The passages in Tertullian bearing on this point are quite familiar; but one should also compare the parallel statements in Origen (in Matt. Comment Ser. 39). Henceforth Christians appear a special group by themselves. Maximinus Daza, in his rescript to Sabinus (Eus., H.E. 9.9a.1), speaks of the ἔθνος τῶν Χριστιανῶν (the nation of the Christians), and the edict of Galerius reluctantly admits that Christians succeeded in combining the various nations into a relative unity by means of their commandments (Eus., H.E. 8.17.7): τοσαύτη αὐτοὺς πλεονεξία κατειλήφει ὡς μὴ ἕπεσθαι τοῖς ὑπὸ τῶν πάλαι καταδειχθεῖσιν, . . . ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὴν αὐτῶν πρόθεσιν καὶ ὡς ἕκαστος ἐβούλετο, οὕτως ἑαυτοῖς καὶ νόμους ποιῆσαι καὶ τούτους παραφυλάσσειν καὶ ἐν διαφόροις διάφορα πλήθη συνάγειν ("Such arrogance had seized them and such senselessness had mastered them, that instead of following the institutions of their ancestors. . . . they framed laws for themselves according to their own purpose, as each desired, and observed these laws, and thus held various gatherings in various places").
In his two books ad Nationes, no less than in the Apology, all these arguments also find contemporary expression. Only in the former one further consideration supervenes, which deserves [[271]] special attention, namely, the assertion of Tertullian that Christians were called "genus tertium" (the Third race) by their opponents. The relevant passages are as follows:
Ad Nat. 1.8: "Plane, tertium genus dicimur. An Cyropennae aliqui vel Sciapodes vel aliqui de subterraneo Antipodes? Si qua istic apud vos saltem ratio est, edatis velim primum et secundum genus, ut ita de tertio constet. Psammetichus quidem putavit sibi se de ingenio exploravisse prima generis. dicitur enim infantes recenti e partu seorsum a commercio hominum alendos tradidisse nutrici, quam et ipsam propterea elinguaverat, ut in totum exules vocis humanae non auditu formarent loquellam, sed de suo promentes eam primam nationem designarent cuius sonum natura dictasset. Prima vox 'beccos' renuntiata est; interpretatio eius 'panis' apud Phrygas nomen est; Phryges primum genus exinde habentur. . . . sint nunc primi Phryges, non tamen tertii Christiani. Quantae enim aliae gentium series post Phrygas? verum recogitate, ne quos tertium genus dicitis principem locum obtineant, siquidem non ulla gens non Christiana. itaque quaecunque gens prima, nihilominus Christiana. ridicula dementia novissimos diciti et tertios nominatis. sed de superstitione tertium genus deputamur, non de natione, ut sint Romani, Judaei, dehinc Christiani. ubi autem Graeci? vel si in Romanorum suberstitionibus censentur, quoniam quidem etiam deos Graeciae Roma sollicitavit, ubi [[272]] saltem Aegyptii, et ipsi, quod sciam, privatae curiosaeque religionis? porro si tam monstruosi, qui tertii loci, quales habendi, qui primo et secundo antecedunt?" ("We are indeed called the third race of men! Are we monsters, Cyropennae, or Sciopades, or some Antipodeans from the underworld? If these have any meaning for you, pray explain the first and second of the races, that we may thus learn the 'third.' Psammetichus thought he had ingeniously hit upon primeval man. He removed, it is said, some newly born infants from all human intercourse and entrusted their upbringing to a nurse whom he had deprived of her tongue, in order that being exiled entirely from the sound of the human voice, they might form their words without hearing it, and derive them from their own nature, thus indicating what was the first nation whose language was originally dictated by nature. The first word they uttered was 'beccos,' the Phrygian word for bread. The Phrygians, then, are held to be the first race. . . . If, then, the Phrygians are the first race, still it does not follow that the Christians are the third. For how many other races successively came after the Phrygians? But take heed lest those whom you call the third race take first place, since there is no nation which is not Christian. Whatever nation, therefore, is the first, is nevertheless Christian now. It is senseless absurdity for you to call us the latest of nations and then to dub us the Third. But, you say, it is on the score of religion and not of nationality that we are considered to be third; it is the Romans first, then the Jews, and after that the Christians. What about the Greeks then? Or supposing that they are reckoned among the various Roman religions (since it was from Greece that Rome borrowed even her deities), where do the Egyptians at any rate come in, since they possess a religion which, so far as I know, is all their own, and full of secrecy? Besides, if those who occupy the third rank are such monsters, what must we think of those who precede them in the first and second?").
Further, in ad Nat. 1.20. (after showing that the charges brought against Christians recoil upon their adversaries the heathen), Tertuilian proceeds: "Habetis et vos tertium genus etsi non de tertio ritu, attamem de tertio sexu. Illud aptius de [[273]] viro et femina viris et feminis iunctum" ("You too have your 'third race' [i.e., of eunuchs], though it is not in the way of a third religion, but of a third sex. Made up of male and female in conjunction, it is better suited to pander to men and women!")
Add also a passage fromn the treatise Scorpiace (10: a word to heretics who shunned martyrdom): "Illic constitues et synagogas Judaeorum fontes persecutionum, apud quas apostoli flagella perpessi sunt, et populos nationum cum suo quidem circo, ubi facile conclamant : 'Usque quo genus tertium?'" ("Will you set up there [i.e., in heaven] also synagogues of the Jews -- which are fountains of persecution -- before which the apostles suffered scourging, and heathen crowds with their circus, forsooth, where all are ready to shout, 'How long are we to endure this third race?'").
From these passages we infer:
1. That "the third race" (genus tertium) as a designation of Christians on the lips of the heathen was perfectly common in Carthage about the year 200. Even in the circus people cried, "Usque quo genus tertium?"
2. That this designation referred exclusively to the Christian method of conceiving and worshipping God. The Greeks, Romans, and all other nations passed for the first race (genus primum), in so far as they mutually recognized each other's gods or honored foreign gods as well as their own, and had sacrifices amid images. The Jews (with their national God, their exclusiveness, and a worship which lacked images but included sacrifice) constituted the second race (genus alterum).\11/ The Christians, again (with.their spiritual God, their lack of images and sacrifices, and the contempt for the gods -- contemnere deos -- which they shared with the Jews\12/), formed the Third race (genus tertium).
\11/ Cp. ad Nat. 1.8.
\12/ Cp. what is roundly asserted in ad Nat. 1.8: "It is on the score of religion and not of nationality that we are considered to be third; it is the Romans first, then the Jews, and after that the Christians." Also, 1.20: "Tertium genus [dicimur] de ritu" ("We are called a third race on the ground of religion"). It seems to me utterly impossible to suppose that Tertullian might have been mistaken in this interpretation of the title in question.
3. When Tertullian talks as if the whole system of classification [[274]] could denote the chronological series of the nations, it is merely a bit of controversial dialectic. Nor has the designation of "the Third race" (genus tertium) anything whatever to do either with the virginity of Christians, or, on the other hand, with the sexual debaucheries set down to their credit.\13/
\13/ Passages may indeed be pointed out in which either virginity (or unsexual character) or unnatural lust is conceived as "genus tertium" (a third race), or as a race (genus) in general (Tertull., de Virg. Vel. 7: "Si caput mulieris vir est, ubique et virginis, de qua fit mulier illa quae nupsit, nisi si virgo tertium genus est monstrosum aliquod sui capitis." ''If the man is the head of the woman, he is also the head of the virgin, for out of a virgin comes the woman who marries; unless she is some monstrosity with a head of its own, a third race"). Cp. op cit., 5, where the female sex is "genus secundi hominis"; pseudo-Cypr., de Pudic. 7, "Virginitas neutrius est sexus"; and Clem. Alex., Paedag. 2.10.85.2, οὐδὲ γὰρ αἰδοῖα ἔχει τὸ αὐτὸ ζῷον ἅμα ἄμφω, ἄρρενος καὶ θήλεος,καθὼς ὑπειλήφασί τινες, ἑρμαφροδίτους τερατολογοῦντες καὶ τρίτην ταύτην μεταξὺ θηλείας καὶ ἄρρενος ἀνδρόγυνον καινοτομοῦντες φύσιν [a similar sexual analogy]. Cp., on the other hand, op. cit., 1.4.11, where there is a third condition common to both sexes, viz., that of being human beings and also children; also Lampridius, Alex. Sever. 23: "Idem tertium genus hominum eunuchos dicebat" ("He said eunuchs were a third race of mankind"). Obviously, however, such passages are irrelevant to the point now under discussion.
All these results\14/ were of vital importance to the impression made by Christianity (and Judaism) upon the pagan world.\15/ As early as the opening of the second century Christians designate their religion as "the third method" of religion (cp. the [[275]] evidence above furnished by the Preaching of Peter), and frankly declare, about the year 240 C.E., "We are the third race of mankind" (cp. the evidence of the treatise de Pascha Computus).\16/ Which proves that the pagans did borrow this conception, and that (even previously to 200 C.E.) they described the Jews as the second and the Christians as the third race of men.\17/ This they did for the same reason as the Christians, on account of the nature of the religion in question.
\15/ I add, Judaism -- for hitherto in our discussion we could not determine with absolute certainty whether any formula was current which distinguished the Jews from all other peoples with regard to their conception and worship of God. Now it is perfectly plain. The Jews ranked in this connection as an independent magnitude, a ''genus alterum."
\16/ It is now clear that we were right in conjecturing above that the Romans were to pseudo-Cyprian the first race, and the Jews the second, as opposed to the Third race.
It is indeed amazing! One had certainly no idea that in the consciousness of the Greeks and Romans the Jews stood out in such bold relief from the other nations, and the Christians from both, or that they represented themselves as independent "genera," and were so described in an explicit formula. Neither Jews nor Christians could look for any ample recognition, little as the demarcation was intended as a recognition at all.\18/
\18/ Thanks to Varro, who had a genius for classification, people had been accustomed among literary circles, in the first instance, to grade the gods and religions as well. Perhaps it was under the influence of his writings (and even Tertullian makes great play with them in his treatise ad Nationes) that the distinction of Jews and Christians as "the second and third ways" obtained primarily among the learned, and thence made its way gradually into the minds of the common people. It is utterly improbable that this new classification was influenced by the entirely different distinction current among the Egyptians (see above), of the three γένη (Egyptians, Greeks, and Jews). Once it was devised, the former conception must have gone on working with a logic of its own, setting Judaism and Christianity in a light which was certainly not intended at the outset. It developed the conception of three circles, of three possible religions! Strangely enough, Tertullian never mentions the ''genus tertium" in his Apology, though it was contemporaneous with the ad Nationes. Was the fact not of sufficient importance to him in encountering a Roman governor?
The polemical treatises against Christians prove that the triple formula "Romans, etc., Jews, and Christians" was really never absent from the minds of their opponents. So far as we are [[276]] acquainted with these treatises, they one and all adopt this scheme of thought: the Jews originally parted company with all other nations, and after leaving the Egyptians, they formed an ill-favored species by themselves, while it is from these very Jews that the Christians have now broken off, retaining all the worst features of Judaism and adding loathsome and repulsive elements of their own. Such was the line taken by Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian in their anti-Christian writings. Celsus speaks of the γένος of the Jews, and opposes both γένη in the sharpest manner to all other nations, in order to show that when Christians, as renegade Jews, distinguish themselves from this γένος -- a γένος which is, at least, a people -- they do so to their own loss. He characterizes Christians (8.2) as ἀποτειχιζόντων ἑαυτοὺς καὶ ἀπορρηγνύντων ἀπὸ τῶν λοιπῶν ἀνθρώπων ("people who separate themselves and break away front the rest of mankind"). For all that, everything in Christianity is simply plagiarized from a plagiarism, or copied from a copy. Christians per se have no new teaching (μάθημα, 1.4; cp. 2.5. and 4.14). That they have any teaching at all to present, is simply due to the fact that they have kept back the worst thing of all, viz., their στασιάζειν πρὸς τὸ κοινόν ("their revolt against the common weal").\19/ Porphyry -- who, I imagine, is the anti-Christian controversialist before the mind of Eusebius in his Preparatio 1.2 -- begins by treating Christians as a sheer impossibility, inasmuch as they will not and do not belong to the Greeks or to the barbarians.\20/ Then he goes on to say: καὶ μηδ’ αὐτῷ τῷ παρὰ ᾿Ιουδαίοις τιμωμένῳ θεῷ κατὰ τὰ παρ’ αὐτοῖς προσανέχειν νόμιμα, καινὴν δέ τινα καὶ ἐρήμην ἀνοδίαν ἑαυτοῖς συντεμεῖν, μήτε τὰ ῾Ελλήνων μήτε τὰ ᾿Ιουδαίων φυλάττουσαν ("Nor do they adhere to the rites of the God worshipped by the Jews according to their customs, but fashion some new and solitary vagary for themselves of which there is no trace in Hellenism or Judaism"). So that he also gives the triple classification. Finally, Julian (Neumann, p.164) likewise [[277]] follows the division of ῞Ελληνες, ᾿Ιουδαῖοι, and Γαλιλαῖοι [Greeks, Jews, Galileans]. The Galileans are neither Greeks nor Jews; they have come from the Jews, but have separated from them and struck out a path of their own. "They have repudiated every noble and significant idea current among us Greeks, and among the Hebrews who are descended from Moses; yet they have lifted from both sources everything that adhered to these imitations like an ill-omened demon, taking their godlessness from the levity of the Jews, and their careless and lax way of living from our own thoughtlessness and vulgarity."
\19/ The τρίτον γένος which Celsus mentions rather obscurely in 5.61 has nothing to do with the third race which is our present topic. It refers to distinctions within Christianity itself.
Plainly, then, Greek and Jews and Christians were distinguished throughout upon the ground of religion, although the explicit formula of "the third race" occurs only in the West. After the middle of the third century, both empire and emperor learnt to recognize and dread the third race of worshippers as a "nation," as well as a race. They were a state within the state. The most instructive piece of evidence in this connection is the account of Decius given by Cyprian (Ep. 55.9): "Multo patientius et tolerabilius audivit levari adversus se aemulum principem quam constitui Romae dei sacerdotem" ("He would hear of a rival prince being set up against himself with far more patience and equaninmity than of a priest of God being appointed at Rome"). The terrible edict issued by this emperor for the persecution of Christians is in the first instance the practical answer given by the state to the claims of the "New People" and to the political view advocated by Melito and Origen. The inner energy of the new religion comes out in its self-chosen title of "the New People" or "the Third race" just as plainly as in the testimony extorted from its opponents, that in Christianity a new genus of religion had actually emerged side by side with the religions of the nations and of Judaism. It does not afford much direct evidence upon the outward spread and strength of Christianity, for the former estimate emerged, asserted itself, and was recognized at an early period, when Christians were still, in point of numbers, a comparatively small society.\21/ But it must have been [[ 278]] of the highest importance for the propaganda of the Christian religion, to be so distinctly differentiated from all other religions and to have so lofty a consciousness of its own position put before the world.\22/ Naturally this had a repelling influence as well on certain circles. Still it was a token of power, and power never fails to succeed.
\21/ They could not have been utterly insignificant, however; otherwise this estimate would be incredible. In point of numbers they must have already rivalled the Jews at any rate.
\22/ Judaism already owed no small amount of her propaganda to her apologetic and, within her apologetic, to the valuation of herself which it developed. Cp. Schurer, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, 3.(3), pp. 107 f. [Eng. trans., 2.3.249 f.].
THE RELIGION OF A BOOK AND A HISTORICAL REALIZATION
Christianity, unlike Islam, never was
and never became the religion
of a book in the strict sense of the term (not until a much later
period, that of rigid Calvinism, did the consequences of its
presentation as the religion of a book become really dangerous, and
even then the rule of faith remained at the helm). Still, the book of
Christianity -- i.e.,
in the first instance, the Old Testament -- did exert
an influence which brought it to the verge of becoming the religion of
a book. Paul, of course, when we read him aright, was opposed to this
development, and wide circles throughout Christendom -- both the
gnostics
and the Marcionites -- even went the length of entirely repudiating the
Old Testament or of ascribing it to another god altogether, though he
too was righteous and dependent on the most high God.\1/ But in the
catholic church this gnostic
criticism was indignantly rejected, whilst
the complicated position adopted by the apostle Paul towards the book
was not understood at all. The Old Testament, interpreted
allegorically, continued to be the
sacred book
for these Christians, as
it was for the Jews, from whom they aimed to wrest it.
\1/ Cp., for example, the letter of Ptolemaeus to Flora, with my study of it in the Sitzungsberichte d. K. Pr. Akad. d. Wiss., May 15, 1902.
This attitude to the Old Testament is
quite intelligible. What other
religious society could produce a book like it?\2/ How overpowering
and lasting must have been the impression made by it on Greeks,
educated and uneducated alike, once they [[280]] learnt to understand
it! Many details might be strange or obnoxious, but the instruction and
inspiration of its pages amply made up for that. Its great
antiquity -- stretching in some parts, as men held, to thousands of
years -- was already proof positive of its imperishable value; its
contents seemed in part a world of mysteries and in part a compendium
of the profoundest wisdom.\3/
By its inexhaustible wealth, by its variety,
comprehensiveness, and extensive character, it seemed like a literary
cosmos, a second creation which was the twill of the first.\4/ This
indeed was the deepest impression which it made. The opinion most
widely held by Greeks who came in contact with the Old Testament was
that this was a book which was to be coupled with the universe, and
that a similar verdict could be passed upon both of them. Variously as
they might still interpret it, the fact of its being a parallel
creation to the world, equally great and equally comprehensive, and of
both issuing from a single author, appeared indubitable even to the
gnostics and the Marcionites, whilst the members of the catholic church
recognized in this divine author the most high God himself!\5/ In the
entire history of human thought, when did any other book earn such an
opinion?\6/
\2/ It had this
double advantage, that it
was accessible in Greek,
and also that the Hebrew original was familiar. On the Septuagint, see
the studies by Nestle and Deissmann, besides the epistle of Aristeas
(ed. Wendland, 1900).
\3/ In his treatise de Pallio Tertullian exclaims triumphantly, "Your history only reaches back to the Assyrians; we are in possession of the history of the whole world" ("Ferme apud vos ultra stilus non solet. ab Assyriis, si forte, aevi historiae patescunt. qui vero divinas lectitamus, ab ipsius mundi natalibus compotes sumus").
\4/ Hence the numerous names for the book, partly due to its origin, partly to its contents (σωτήρια γράμματα -- salvific letters).
\5/ Certain gnostics distinguished the god of creation and the god of the Old Testament. This distinction prevailed wherever nature was depreciated in comparison with the religious attainments of the pre-Christian era. Nature is fierce and fatal; the law is, relatively speaking, moral.
\6/ Attacks by gnostics and pagans were not awanting, but the latter must have seldom assailed it on the whole. When they busied themselves seriously with the book, they almost invariably respected it. "Unde scis illos libros (veteri Testamenti) unius veri et veracissimi dei spiritu esse humano generi ministratos?" (Aug., Confess. 6.5, 7: "Whence knowest thou that these books have been imparted to mankind by the spirit of the one true and most truthful God?") -- this is a Manichaean or gnostic objection.
The Old Testament certainly was an
enormous help to the Christian
propaganda, and it was in vain that the Jews protested.\7/ [[281]] We
have one positive
testimony, in the following passage from Tatian
(Orat.
29), that for many people
the Old Testament formed the real
bridge by which they crossed to Christianity. "When I was paying
earnest heed to what was profitable," he writes, "some barbarian
writings came into my
hands which were too old for Greek ideas and too
divine for Greek errors. These I was
led to
trust, owing to their very
simplicity of expression and the unstudied character of their authors,
owing to their intelligible description of creation, their
foreknowledge of the future, the excellence of their precepts, and the
fact of their embracing the universe under the sole rule of God. Thus
was my soul instructed by God, and I understood how other teachings
lead to condemnation, whilst these writings abolish the bondage that
prevails throughout the world and free us from a plurality of rulers
and tyrants innumerable. They furnish us, not with something which we
had not already received, but with something which had been received
but which, thanks to error, had been lost."\8/
\7/
Their right to the book was simply denied; their
misinterpretation of it proved that it was no longer theirs; the
opinion was even current (cp. Barnabas [[281b]] epist.) that it
never
had been
theirs, and that they had appropriated it unfairly. "In Judaeorum
oleastro insiti sumus," says Tertullian ([[[ET] de Testim. 5, after Rom. 11); but
the oleaster had
thereby lost its very right to exist.
\8/ Cp. also Justin, Dial. c. Tryph. 7.1 ff.: ᾿Εγένοντό τινες πρὸ πολλοῦ χρόνου πάντων τούτων τῶν νομιζομένων φιλοσόφων παλαιότεροι, μακάριοι καὶ δίκαιοι καὶ θεοφιλεῖς, θείῳ πνεύματι λαλήσαντες καὶ τὰ μέλλοντα θεσπίσαντες, ἃ δὴ νῦν γίνεται· προφήτας δὲ αὐτοὺς καλοῦσιν. οὗτοι μόνοι τὸ ἀληθὲς καὶ εἶδον καὶ ἐξεῖπον ἀνθρώποις, μήτ’ εὐλαβηθέντες μήτε δυσωπηθέντες τινά, μὴ ἡττημένοι δόξης, ἀλλὰ μόνα ταῦτα εἰπόντες ἃ ἤκουσαν καὶ ἃ εἶδον ἁγίῳ πληρωθέντες πνεύματι. (2.) συγγράμματα δὲ αὐτῶν ἔτι καὶ νῦν διαμένει, κ.τ.λ. . . . (8.1) ἐμοῦ δὲ παραχρῆμα πῦρ ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ ἀνήφθη, καὶ ἔρως ἔχει με τῶν προφητῶν καὶ τῶν ἀνδρῶν ἐκείνων, οἵ εἰσι Χριστοῦ φίλοι ("Long ago there were certain men, more ancient than all those who are esteemed philosophers, men blessed and righteous and beloved of God, who spoke by the spirit of God, and foretold what would come to pass, even what is now coming to pass. Their name is that of prophets. They alone saw the truth and proclaimed it to men, neither reverencing nor dreading any man....but only saying what they saw and heard, being filled with the holy spirit. Writings of theirs are still extant.....A fire was at once kindled in my soul, and I was seized with a passion for the prophets and for those who are the friends of Christ").
This confession is particularly noticeable, not merely on account of the explicit manner in which it brings out the significance of the Old Testament for the transition to Christianity, but also for its complete and clear statement of the [[282]] reasons for this influence. In the first place, the form of this book made a deep impression, and it is characteristic of Tatian the Greek, though he would remain a Greek no longer, that its form is the first point which he singles out. The vigorous style of the prophets and psalmists captivated the man who had passed through the schools of rhetoric and philosophy. Vigor coupled with simplicity -- this was what made the book seem to him so utterly different from those treatises and unwieldy tomes in which their authors trade desperate efforts to attain clearness of thought upon questions of supreme moment. The second item mentioned by the apologist is the narrative of creation in Genesis. This also is significant and quite intelligible. Every Greek philosopher had his cosmology, and here was a narrative of creation that was both lucid and comprehensible. It did not look like a philosophy, nor did it look like an ordinary myth; it was an entirely new genre, something between and above them both. It can only have been inspired by God himself! The third feature which struck Tatian was the prophecies of the book. A glance at the early Christian writers, and especially at the apologists, reveals the prominent and indeed the commanding role played by the argument from prophecy, and this argument could only be led by means of the Old Testament. The fourth item was the moral code. Here Tatian was certainly thinking in the first instance of the decalogue, which even the gnostics, for all their critical attitude towards the book as a whole, considered only to require completion, and which was therefore distinguished by them from the rest of the Old Testament.\9/ To Gentile Christians the decalogue invariably meant the sum of morals, which only the sayings of the Sermon on the Mount could render more profound.\10/ Finally, the fifth item mentioned by the apologist is the rigid monotheism which stamps the whole volume.
\9/ Cp. the epistle of
Ptolemaeus to Flora.
\10/ Cp. the Didache.
This list really includes all the
elements in the Old Testament
which seemed of special weight and marked its origin as divine. But in
a survey of the services rendered by it to the Christian church
throughout the first two centuries, the following points stand out
clearly. [[283]]
1. Christians borrowed from the Old Testament its monotheistic cosmology and view of nature. Though the gospels and epistles presuppose this, they do not expressly state it, and in the Old Testament books people found exactly what they required, viz., in the first place, innumerable passages proclaiming and inculcating monotheism, and also challenging polytheism, and in the second place many passages which extolled God as the creator of heaven and earth and depicted his creation.
2. From the Old Testament it could be proved that the appearance and the entire history of Jesus had been predicted hundreds and even thousands of years ago; and further, that the founding of the New People which was to be fashioned out of all nations upon earth,\11/ had from the very beginning been prophesied and prepared for (cp. pp. 240 f.).\12/
\11/ The apologists refute
the idea that the Jewish proselytes were this
new people. It was an obvious objection. But Christians alone have
adherents ἐκ παντὰς γένους ἀνθρώπων [from every human race].
\12/ To cite but a single passage, compare the Preaching of Peter (Clem. Alex., Strom. 6.15.128.1-2): ἡμεῖς δὲ ἀναπτύξαντες τὰς βίβλους ἃς εἴχομεν τῶν προφητῶν, ἃ μὲν διὰ παραβολῶν, ἃ δὲ δι’ αἰνιγμάτων, ἃ δὲ αὐθεντικῶς καὶ αὐτολεξεὶ τὸν Χριστὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν ὀνομαζόντων, εὕρομεν καὶ τὴν παρουσίαν αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸν θάνατον καὶ τὸν σταυρὸν καὶ τὰς λοιπὰς κολάσεις πάσας ὅσας ἐποίησαν αὐτῷ οἱ ᾿Ιουδαῖοι, καὶ τὴν ἔγερσιν καὶ τὴν εἰς οὐρανοὺς ἀνάληψιν πρὸ τοῦ ῾Ιεροσόλυμα κτισθῆναι, καθὼς ἐγέγραπτο ταῦτα πάντα, (2.) ἃ ἔδει αὐτὸν παθεῖν καὶ μετ’ αὐτὸν ἃ ἔσται. ταῦτα οὖν ἐπιγνόντες ἐπιστεύσαμεν τῷ θεῷ διὰ τῶν γεγραμμένων εἰς αὐτόν ("Unrolling the books of the prophets in our possession, which name Christ Jesus partly in parables, partly in enigmas, and partly in plain expressions and in so many words, we find his advent, death, cross, and the other punishments inflicted on him by the Jews, his resurrection and his ascension into heaven, previous to the fall of Jerusalem, even as it is written, 'All these things which he had to suffer, and which shall be after him.' Learning all this, we believed in God by means of what had been written about him"). This writer explains, then, that on the ground of the Old Testament he came to believe in God the Father of Jesus Christ. Tertull., Apol. 46: "Ostendimus totum statum nostrum, et quibus modis probare possimus ita esse sicut ostendimus, ex fide scilicet et antiquitate divinarum litterarum, item ex confessione spiritualium potestatum" [i.e., the testimony which the demons exorcised by us are forced to bear] ("We have stated all our case, and also shown you how we are able to prove it, viz., from the trustworthy character and great age of our sacred writings, and likewise from the confession of the powers of spiritual evil"). These, then, were the two decisive proofs.
Their own religion appeared, on the basis of this book, to be the religion of a history which was the fulfillment of prophecy; what remained still in the future could only be a brief space of time, and even in its course everything would be fulfilled in accordance with what had been prophesied. The certain [[284]] guarantee for this was afforded by what had already been fulfilled. By aid of the Old Testament, Christian teachers dated back their religion to the very beginning of things, and connected it with the creation. This formed one of the most impressive articles of the mission-preaching among educated people, and thereby Christianity got a hold which was possessed by no religion except Judaism. But one must take good care not to imagine that to the minds of these Christians the Old Testament was pure prophecy which still lacked its fulfillment. The Old Testament was indeed a book of prophecies, but for that very reason it had didactic significance as the complete revelation of God, which needed no manner of addition whatsoever, and excluded any subsequent modification. The historical fulfillment -- "lex radix evangeliorum" (Tert., Scorp. 2) -- of these revelations merely attested their truth in the eyes of all the world. Indeed, the whole gospel was thus put together from the Old Testament. Handbooks of this kind must have been widely circulated in different though similar editions.
3. Proofs from the Old Testament were increasingly employed to justify principles and institutions adopted by the Christian church (not merely imageless, spiritual worship, the abolition of the ceremonial law and its precepts, with baptism and the Lord's supper, but also -- though hesitatingly -- the Christian priesthood, the episcopate, and the new organizations within the cultus).
4. The book was used for the purpose of exhortation, following the formula of "a minori ad maius." If God had praised or punished this or that in the past, how much more, it was argued, are we to look for similar treatment from him, we who are now living in the last days and who have received "the calling of promise."
5. From the Old Testament (i.e., from
its prophetic denunciations)
Christians proved that the Jewish people had no covenant with God
(cp. pp. 66 f.).\13/ [[285]]
\13/ How impressive was the argument -- you see, the Jewish nation is dispersed, the temple is destroyed, the sacrifices have ceased, the princes of the house of Juda have disappeared! Compare the extensive use of these facts by Eusebius in his Church History.
6. Christians edified themselves by means of the Old Testament and its sayings about trust in God, about God's aid, about humility, and about holy courage, as well as by means of its heroic spirits and its prophets, above all, by the psalms.
What has been summarized in these
paragraphs is enough to indicate
the importance of the Old Testament for primitive Christianity and its
mission.\14/ Be it
remembered, however, that [[286]]
a large portion of its
contents was allegorized, i.e.,
criticized and re-interpreted. Without
this, a great deal of the Old Testament would have been unacceptable to
Christians. Anyone who refused such re-reading of its contents had to
reject the book in whole or part.\15/
After the rise of the New Testament, which was the most important and independent product of the primitive church, and which legitimized its faith as a new religion, certain aspects of [[287]] the Old Testament fell into the background. Still, these were not numerous. Plainly, there were vital points at which the former could not undertake to render the service done by the latter. No doubt any statement of Christian morality always went back to the words of Jesus as its primary source. Here the Old Testament had to retire. But elsewhere the latter held its own. It was only in theory, not in practice, that an imperceptible revolution occurred. The conflict with gnosticism, and the formation of the New Testament which took place in and with that conflict, made it plain to the theologians of the catholic church that the simple identification of the Old Testament and the gospel was by no means a matter of course. The first theologians of the ancient catholic church, Irenaeus and Tertullian, already relax this absolute identification; they rather approximate to the conception of the apostle Paul, viz., that the Old Testament and the old covenant mark quite a different level from that of the New. The higher level of the new covenant is recognized, and therewith the higher level of the New Testament as well. Now in theory this led to many consequences of no small moment, for people learned to assign higher value to the specific significance of the Christian religion when it was set in contrast to the Old Testament -- a point on which the gnostics had insisted with great energy. But in practice this change of estimate did not seriously affect the use of the Old Testament. If one could now hold theoretically that much of the Old Testament was "demutatum, suppletunl, iutplet.unt, perfectum," and even "expunctun" by the New Testament (Tert., de Orat. 1), the third century saw the Old Testament allegorized and allegorically employed as direct evidence for the truths of Christianity. Indeed people really ceased to allegorize it. As the churches became stocked with every kind of sacred ceremony, and as they carefully developed priestly, sacrificial and sacramental ideas, people now began to grow careless and reckless in applying the letter of Old Testament ceremonial laws to the arrangements of the Christian organization and worship. In setting itself up as a legislative body, the church had recourse to the Old Testament in a way that Paul had severely censured; it fell back on the law, [[288]] though all the while it blamed the Jews and declared that their observance of the law was quite illicit. In dogma there was now greater freedom from the Old Testament than had been the case during the second century; Christological problems occupied the foreground, and theological interests shifted from problems of θεός and λόγος to those of the Trinity and of Christology, as well as to Christocentric mysteries. In the practice of the church, however, people employed the Old Testament more lavishly than their predecessors, in order to get a basis for usages which they considered indispensable. For a purpose of this kind the New Testament was of little use.
The New Testament as a whole did not generally play the same role as the Old Testament in the mission and practice of the church. The gospels certainly ranked on a level with the Old Testament, and actually eclipsed it; through them the words of Jesus gleamed and sparkled, and in them his death and resurrection were depicted. But the epistles never enjoyed the same importance -- particularly as many passages in them, in Paul especially, landed the fathers of the church in sore difficulties, above all during the conflict with gnosticism.\16/ Augustine was the first to bring the Pauline gospel into prominence throughout the West; in the East, it never emerged at all from the shadow. As for the Johannine theology, it left hardly any traces upon the early church. Only one or two sections of it proved effective. As a whole, it remained a sealed book, though the same may be said of the Pauline theology.\17/
\16/ The second epistle of Peter already bewails this, and one can see from the great work of Irenaeus what difficulties were raised by the Pauline doctrines of predestination, sin, freedom, and grace. Tertullian felt these difficulties still more keenly than Irenaeus, but as a Montanist he could solve them by means of the Paraclete; cp., e.g., de Resurr. 63: "Deus pristina instrumenta manifestis verborum et sensum luminibus ab omni ambiguitatis obscuritate purgavit" ("God has now purged from all the darkness of ambiguity those ancient scriptures, by the plain light of their language and their meanings," i.e., by the new prophecy).
\17/ Along with the Bible, i.e., primarily with the Old Testament, a considerable literature of apocalypses and allied writings entered the Christian churches. These also contained cosmological and philosophical materials. Tertullian conjectures that pagan philosophers may have been acquainted with them, but he speaks very slightingly of them (de Anima, 2): "Quid autem, si philosophi etiam illa incursaverunt quae penes nos apocryphorum confessione damnantur, certos nihil recipiendum quod non conspiret germanae, et ipso iam aevo pronatae propheticae paraturae, [[289]] quando et pseudoprophetarum meminerimus et multo prius apostatarum spirituum," etc. ("What if the philosophers have also attacked those writings which we condemn under the title of 'apocryphal,' convinced as we are that nothing should be received unless it tallies with the true prophetic system which has also arisen in the present age, since we do not forget the existence of false prophets and apostate spirits long before them," etc.); cp. de Resurr. 63, where he says that the gnostics "arcana apocryphorum superducunt, blasphemiae fabulas" ("introduce apocryphal mysteries and blasphemous fables").
CHAPTER 9
THE CONFLICT WITH POLYTHEISM AND IDOLATRY
1. In combating "demons" (pp. 125 f.)
and in taking the field
against the open immorality which was part and parcel of polytheism
(pp. 205 f.), the early church was waging war against polytheism. But
it did not rest content with this onset. Directly, no doubt, the "dumb
idols" were weakened by this attack; still, they continued to be a real
power, particularly in the circles from which the majority of
Christians were drawn. Nowadays, the polemic against the gods of
Olympus, against Egyptian cats and crocodiles, or against carved and
cast and chiseled idols, seems to our eyes to have been cheap and
superfluous. It was not a difficult task, we may fairly add;
philosophers like the Cynics and satirists like Lucian supplied a
wealth of material, and the intellect and moral sense alike had long
ago outgrown that sort of deity. But it was by no means superfluous.
Had it been unnecessary, the apologists from Aristides to Arnobitls
would never have pursued this line of controversy with such zest, the
martyr Apollonius would never have troubled to deliver his long polemic
before the senate, and Tertullian, an expert in heathen laws and
customs, would never have deemed it necessary to refute polytheism so
elaborately in his defense before the presiding magistrate. Yet even
from this last-named refutation we see how disreputable (we might
almost say, how shabby) the public system of gods and sacrifices had
already become. It was scoffed at on the stage; half-dead animals of no
value were offered in sacrifice;\1/ the idols were [[291]] dishonored,
the
temples were profaned.\2/ The whole business lay under a mass of
disgust, disdain, derision,
and nausea. But it would be a serious mistake to suppose that this
feeling was universal. Not merely was everything kept going officially,
but many minds still clung to such arrangements and ceremonies. The old
cults were freshened by the influx of the new religions, and a new
significance was often lent even to their most retrograde elements.
Besides, whether the public system of religion was flourishing or
entirely withered, it by no means represented the sole existing
authority. In every town and province, at Rome as well as at
Alexandria, in Spain, in Asia, in Egypt, there were household gods and
family gods, with household customs of religion, and all manner of
superstitions and ceremonies. These rarely rise above the surface of
literature, but inscriptions, tombs, and magical papyri have brought
them nearer us. Here every household function has its guardian spirit;
every event is under one controlling god. And this religious world,
this second-class religion, it must he remembered, was living and
active everywhere.
\2/ Tert., Apol. 42: "Every day, you
complain,
the
temple-receipts are dwindling away. How few people nowadays put in
their contributions!" Cp. Arnobius, 1.24.
As a rule, the apologists contented
themselves with assailing the
official world of gods.\3/
Their method aimed, in the first place, at
rousing the moral sense against these so-called "gods" by branding
their abominable vices; in the second place, it sought to exhibit the
folly and absurdity of what was taught or told about the gods; and,
thirdly, it aimed at exposing the origin of the latter. The apologists
showed that the gods were an empty nothing, illusions created by the
demons who lay in wait behind their dead puppets and introduced them in
order [[292]] to
control
men by this means. Or, following the track of Euhemerus, they showed
that the so-called
gods were nothing but dead men.\4/
Or, again, they pointed out that
the whole thing was a compound of vain fables and deceit, and very
often the product of covetous priestcraft. In so doing they displayed
both wit and irony, as well as a very strong feeling of aversion. We do
not know, of course, how much of all this argument and feeling was
original. As has been already remarked, the Stoic, Sceptic, and Cynic
philosophers (in part, the Epicureans also) had preceded Christianity
along this line, and satires upon the gods were as cheap as
blackberries in that age. Consequently, it is needless to illustrate
this point by the citation of individual passages. A perusal of the
Apology
of Aristides, which is of no great size, is quite sufficient to
give one an idea of this kind of polemic; the Oratio ad Graecos
of
pseudo-Justin may also be consulted, and especially the relevant
sections in the Apology of
Tertullian.
\3/
Household superstitions perhaps seemed to them too unimportant, or
else they counted upon these being dragged down of their own accord in
the collapse of the public superstitions. On this point they certainly
made a miscalculation. -- A scene at Ephesus is related in Acts, which
may
be adduced at this point. Thanks to Paul's preaching, the converts were
roused to bring out the books of magic which they had at home and to
burn them (Acts 19.19).
But there are few parallels to this scene in
the literature of early Christianity.
\4/ The Euhemeristic vein was neither the oldest nor the most popular, however, among Christian writers.
The duty of keeping oneself free from
all contamination with
polytheism ranked as the supreme
duty of the Christian. It took
precedence of all others. It was regarded as the negative side of the
duty of confessing one's faith, and the "sin of idolatry" was
more
strictly dealt with in the Christian church than any sin whatsoever.\5/
Not for long, and not
without great difficulty, did the church make
up her mind to admit that forgiveness could be extended to this
offence, and what forced her first to this conclusion was the stress of
the terrible consequences of the Decian outburst (i.e., after
250 C.E.).\6/ This we can well understand,
for exclusiveness was the
condition of her existence as a church. If she made terms with
polytheism at a single point, [[293]]
it was all over with her distinctive
character. Such was the position of affairs, at any rate until about
the middle of the third century. After that she could afford to be less
anxious, since the church as an institution had grown so powerful, and
her doctrine, cultus, and organization had developed in so
characteristic a fashion by that time, that she stood out as a sharply
defined magnitude sui generis,
even when, consciously or unconsciously,
she went half-way to meet polytheism in disguise, or showed herself
rather lenient towards it.
\5/ Cp. Tertull., de Idol. 1: "Principale crimen generis humani, summus saeculi reatus, tota causa iudicii, idolatria" ("Idolatry is the principal crime of mankind, the supreme guilt of the world, the entire reason of judgment"). In the opening chapter of this treatise Tertullian endeavors to prove that all the cardinal vices (e.g., adultery, murder, etc.) are included in idolatry.
But as the duty of confession did not
involve the duty of pushing
forward to confess, or indeed of denouncing oneself,\7/ (in the
epistle of the church of Smyrna to the church of Philomelium an
explicit protest is even entered against this practice, while
elsewhere\8/ the
Montanist craving for martyrdom is also censured), so to protest
against polytheism did not involve the obligation of
publicly protesting against it of one's own accord.\9/ There were
indeed
cases in which a Christian who was standing as a spectator in court
audibly applauded a confessor, and in consequence of this was himself
arrested. Such cases were mentioned with approval, for it was held that
the Spirit had impelled the spectator. But open abuse of the emperor or
of the gods was not sanctioned any more than rebellion; in fact, all
unprovoked insults and all upsetting of images were rebuked.\10/ Here
and there, however, such incidents must have occurred, for in the
[[294]]
sixtieth canon of Elvira we read: "Si quis idola fregerit et ibidem
fuerit occisus, quatenus in evangelio scriptum non est neque invenietur
sub apostolis unquam factum, placuit in numerum eum non recipi
martyrum" ("If anyone shall have broken an idol and been slain in the
act, he
shall not be reckoned among the martyrs, seeing that no such command is
to be found in scripture, nor will any such deed be found to be
apostolic").
\8/ The Acts of Perpetua relate, without any censure, how Saturus voluntarily announced that he was a Christian. But then these Acts are Montanist.
\9/ It was not quite the same thing when Christians trooped into court, in order to force the magistrate either to have them all killed or to spare them all; cp. Tertull., ad Scap. 5: Arrius Antoninus in Asia cum persequeretur instanter, omnes illius civitatis Christiani ante tribunalia eius se manu facta obtulerunt. tum ille paucis duci jussis reliquis ait: ὦ δειλοὶ, εἰ θέλετε ἀποθνήσκειν, κρημνοὺς ἣ βρόχους ἔχετε (cp. above, p. 270).
2. In order to combat polytheism
effectively, one could not stop
short
of the philosophers, not even of the most distinguished of their
number, for they had all some sort of connection with idol-worship. But
at this stage of their polemic the apologists diverged in different
directions. All were agreed that no philosopher had discovered the
truth in its purity and perfection; and further, that no philosopher
was in a position to demonstrate with certainty the truth which he had
discovered, to spread it far and wide, or to make men so convinced of
it as to die for it. But one set of apologists were quite content with
making this strict proviso; moreover, they delighted in the harmony of
Christianity and philosophy; indeed, like Justin, they would praise
philosophers for their moral aims and profound ideas. The Christian
teachers in Alexandria even went the length of finding a parallel to
the Jewish law in Greek philosophy.\11/ They found affinities with
Plato's doctrine of God and metaphysics, and with the Stoic ethic. They
recognized philosophers like Seneca as their fellows to some
extent.\12/ They saw in
Socrates a hero and forerunner of the truth.
Others, again, would not hear of philosophy or philosophers; the best
service they could render the gospel-mission was, in their opinion, to
heap coarse abuse on both. Tatian went to incredible lengths in this
line, and was guilty of shocking injustice. Theophilus fell little
short of him, while even Tertullian, for all his debt to the Stoics,
came dangerously near to Tatian. But these apologists were under an
entire delusion if they imagined they were accomplishing very much by
dint of all their calumnies. So far as we are in a position to judge,
it was the methods, not of these extremists, but of Justin, Clement,
and Origen, that impressed the Greek [[295]] world of culture. Yet
even the
former had probably a public of their own. Most people either do not
think at all, or else think in the
crudest antitheses, and such natures would likely be impressed by
Tatian's invectives. Besides, it is impossible to ignore the fact that
neither he nor Tertullian were mere calumniators. They were honest
men. Wherever they came upon the slightest trace of polytheism, all
their moral sense rose in revolt; in polytheism, they were convinced,
no good was to be found, and hence they gave credit to any calumnies
which a profligate literature put at their disposal. Now traces of
polytheism were thickly sown throughout all the philosophers, including
even the most sublime of their number. Why, Socrates himself had
ordered a cock to be slain, after he was dead, in honor of Aesculapius!
The irony of the
injunction was not understood. It was
simply viewed as a recognition of idolatry. So even Socrates the hero
had to be censured. Yet, whether half-admirers or keen opponents of
philosophy, the apologists to a man occupied philosophic ground, and
indeed Platonic ground. They attacked philosophy, but they brought it
inside the church and built up the doctrinal system of the church on
the outlines of Platonism and with the aid of Platonic material (see
below, the epilogue of this book).
\11/
Cp. my lecture on "Socrates and the Early Church" (l900).
3. From the practical point of view, what was of still greater moment than the campaign against the world and worship of the gods, was the campaign against the apotheosis of men. This struggle, which reached its height in the uncompromising rejection of the imperial cultus, marked at the same time the resolute protest of Christianity against the blending of religion and patriotism, and consequently against that cultus of the state in which the state (personified in the emperor) formed itself the object of the cultus. One of the cardinal aims and issues of the Christian religion was to draw a sharp line between the worship of God and the honor due to the state and to its leaders. Christianity tore up political religion by the roots.
The imperial cultus was of a twofold
nature.\13/ In both aspects it
was an Oriental, not a Greek or a Roman phenomenon; [[296]] yet this
worship of
the dead Caesars and of the living Caesar, with its adoration of the
imperial images, was dovetailed, not only without any difficulty, but
inevitably, into the "caeremoniae
Romanae," once the empire had
become imperial. From the first the headquarters of the former (i.e., the
worship of
the dead Caesars) were in Rome,
whence it passed into the provinces as
the most vital element of the state religion. The latter (i.e., the
worship of the living Caesar) originated in the East, but as early as
the first century it was adopted by Caligula and Domitian, and during
the second century it became quite common (in the shape of adoration
paid to the imperial images). The rejection of either cult was a crime
which came under the head of sacrilege as well as of high treason, and
it was here
that the repressive measures taken by the state against
Christianity almost invariably started, inasmuch as the state
did not
concede Christianity the same liberty on this point as she granted to
Judaism. Had the Christians merely turned round against Olympus and hit
upon some compromise with
the imperial cultus, they would in all
probability have been left entirely unmolested -- such is Tertullian's
blunt assertion in his Apology
(28 f.). Nearly all the
encounters
between individual Christians and the regulations of the empire
resolved themselves into a trial for treason. The positive value of the
imperial cultus for the empire has been stated recently and
impressively by von Wilamowitz-Moellendorf.\14/ [[297]]
\16/
Their origin dates from the very earliest times, but we do not know
what considerations led to their institution.
\17/ This high estimate of the emperors as "second to God alone" does not, however, affect the conviction that they could never be Christians. At least it does not in the case of Tertullian (cp. Apol. 21: "Et Caesares credidissent super Christo, si aut Caesares non essent necessarii saeculo, ant si et Christiani potuissent esse Caesares" -- "The Caesars, too, would have believed in Christ, if they had not been necessary to the world as Caesars, or if they could have been Caesars and Christians as well"). Sixty years later a different view prevailed throughout the East. Not only was it reported widely that Alexander Severus and Philip had become secretly Christians, but even so prominent a teacher as Dionysius of Alexandria believed this legend and did not take umbrage at it.
The general position of the church did
not alter upon this point
during the third century; it adhered to its sharp denial of
apotheosis in the shape of the imperial cultus.\18/ But at another
point
apotheosis gradually filtered into the church with elemental force,
namely, through the worship of the apostles and the martyrs. As early
as the apocryphal Acts, written towards the close of the second and the
opening of the third century, we find the apostles appearing as
semi-divine; in fact, [[299]]
even by the year 160 C.E.,
the pagans in Smyrna
were afraid that the Christians would pay divine honors to the martyred
Polycarp, while Lucian scoffs at the impostor Peregrinus, with his
cheap martyrdom, passing for a god amongst the Christians. Both fear
and scoff were certainly baseless as yet. But they were not
baseless three generations afterwards. Towards the close of the third
century there were already a number of chapels in existence,
consecrated to the apostles, patriarchs, martyrs, and even the
archangels; people had a predilection for passing the night at the
graves of the saints, and a cultus of the saints had been worked out in
a wide variety of local forms, which afforded an indispensable means of
conserving those ancient cults to which the common people still
clung.\19/ Theoretically, the line
between the worship of God and this cultus of
deliverers and intercessors was sharply drawn throughout the third
century, although one Christian root for the latter cultus is evident
in the communion of the saints. As things stood, however, the
distinction between the two was constantly blurred in the course of
practical experience.\20/
For all its monotheism, the Christian
religion at the close of the third century represented a religion which
was exceptionally strong in saints and angels and deliverers, in
miraculous relics, and so forth; on this score it was able to challenge
any cult whatsoever. Porphyry (the pagan quoted in Macar. Magnes, 4.21)
was quite alive to
this. He wrote as follows: "If,
therefore, you
declare that beside God there are angels who are not subject to
suffering and death, and are
incorruptible in nature -- just the
beings we
call gods, inasmuch [[300]]
as
they stand near the godhead -- then what is all the dispute about, with
regard to names? Or are we to consider it merely a difference of
terminology? . . . So, if anyone likes to call them either gods or
angels -- for names are, on the whole, of no great moment, one and the
same goddess, for example, being called Athene and Minerva, and by
still other names among the Egyptians and the Syrians -- then it makes
no
great difference, as their divine nature is actually attested even by
yourselves in Matt. 22.29-31."\21/
\18/
Dionysius of Alexandria (Eus., H.E.
7.23) no doubt applied
Isa. 43.19 to Gallienus,
who was friendly disposed towards the
Christians. But this was mere rhetoric.
\19/ Cp. Eus., Mart. Pal., p. 102 (Texte u. Unters. 15.4).
\20/ Origen attacks only a moiety of polytheistic superstition and its expressions; cp. Hom. 8.4 in Jesum Nave (vol. 11. p. 67): Illi qui, cum Christiani sint, solemnitates gentium celebrant, anathema in ecclesias introducunt. Qui de astrorum cursibus vitam hominum et gesta perquirunt, qui volatus avium et cetera huiusmodi, quae in saeculo prius observabantur, inquirunt, de Jericho anathema inferunt in ecclesiarn, et polluunt castra domini et vinci faciunt populum dei" ("Those who, even though they are Christians, celebrate the festivals of pagans, bring anathema into the churches. Those who make out the life and deeds of men from the courses of the stars, who study the flight of birds, and engage in similar practices, which they formerly observed in the world, bring the anathema of Jericho on the church; they pollute the camp of the Lord, and cause God's people to be overcome"). He could and should have mentioned a great deal more; only in such directions he was no longer sensitive to polytheism.
\21/ Porphyry then proceeds, in his attack upon the cheap criticism leveled by Christians (see above) at idolatry: "When, therefore, it is admitted that the angels share in the divine nature, it is not, on the other hand, the belief of those who pay seemly honor to the gods, that God is composed of the wood or stone or brass from which the image is manufactured, nor is it their opinion that, whenever a hit of the image is broken off, some injury is thereby inflicted on the power of the god in question. Images and temples of the gods have been created from all antiquity for the sake of forming reminders to men. Their object is to make those who draw near them think of God thereby, or to enable them, after ceasing from work, and abstaining from anything else, to address their vows and prayers to him, that each may obtain from him whatever he is in need of. For when any person gets an image or picture of some friend prepared for himself, he certainly does not believe that his friend is to be found in the image, or that his members exist actually inside the different portions of the representation. His idea rather is that the honor which he pays to his friend finds expression in the image. And while the sacrifices offered to the gods do not bring them any honor, they are meant as a testimony to the goodwill of their worshippers, implying that the latter are not ungrateful to the gods." The majority of Christians by this time scarcely held so pure and spiritual a view of the matter as this "worshipper of idols."
4. The warfare against polytheism was also waged by means of a thoroughgoing opposition to the theatre and to all the games. Anyone who considers the significance\22/ of these features in ancient life and their close connection with idolatry, knows [[301]] what a polemic against them implied.\23/ But we may point out that existence, in case of vast numbers of people, was divided into daily drudgery and -- "panis et circenses" (free food and the theatre). No member of the Christian church was allowed to be an actor or gladiator, to teach acting (see Cypr., Epist. 2), or to attend the theatre.\24/ The earliest flash of polemic occurs in the Oratio of Tatian (22-23), and it was followed by others, including the treatises of Tertullian and pseudo-Cyprian (Novatian) de Spectaculis, and the discussions of Lactantius.\25/ [[302]] These writings by themselves are enough to show that the above prohibitions were not universally obeyed.\26/ The passion for public games was almost irresistible, and Tertullian has actually to hold out hopes of the spectacle afforded by the future world as a compensation to Christians who were robbed of their shows in the present.\27/ Still, the conflict with these shows was by no means in vain. On the contrary, its effects along this line were greater than along other lines. By the time that Constantine granted privileges to the church, public opinion had developed [[303]] to such a pitch that the state immediately adopted measures for curtailing and restricting the public spectacles.\28/
\22/ For what follows, see Bigelmair's Die Beteiligung der Christen am offentlichen Leben in vorconstantinischer Zeit (1902).
\23/
Tert., de
Spect. 4: "Quid
erit summum ac praecipuum, in quo
diabolus et pompae et angeli eius censeantur, quam idololatria? . .
. Igitur si ex idololatria universam spectaculorum paraturam
constare constiterit, indubitate praeiudicatum erit etiam ad
spectacula pertinere renuntiationis nostrae testimonium in lavacro,
quae diabolo et pompae et angelic eius sint mancipata, scil. per
idololatriam. Commemorabimus origines singulormn, quibus incunabulis
in saeeulo adoleverint, exinde titulos quorundam, quibus nominibus
nuncupentur, exinde apparatus, quibus superstitionibus instruantur,
tum loca, quibus praesidibus dicantur, tum artes, quibus auctoribus
deputentur. Si quid ex his non ad idolum pertinuerit, id neque ad
idololatriam neque ad nostram eiurationem pertinebit" ("Where, more
than in idolatry, will you find the devil with his pomp and [[301b]]
angels? . .
. Therefore, if it can be proven that the whole business of the shows
depends upon idolatry, unquestionably we shall have anticipated the
conclusion that the confession of renouncing the world which we make in
baptism, refers to these shows which have been handed over to the devil
and his pomp and angels, i.e.,
on
account of their idolatry. We shall
now exhibit their separate sources, the nurseries in which they have
grown to maturity in the world; next the titles of some of them, the
names by which they are called; after that, their contents, the
superstitions by which they are supported; then their seats, the
patrons to which they are dedicated; and finally their arts, the
authors to whom they are to be referred. If any of these is found to
have no connection with an idol, then it is irrelevant to idolatry and
irrelevant also to our oath of abjuration"). Novatian, de Spect. 2:
"Quando id quod in honore alicuius idoli ab ethnicis agitur [sc. the
theatrical spectacles] a fidelibus christianis spectaculo
frequentatur, et idololatria gentilis asseritur et in contumeliam dei
religio vera et divina calcatur" ("Since whatever is performed by
pagans in honor of any idol is attended by faithful Christians in the
public spectacles, and thus pagan idolatry is maintained, whilst the
true and divine religion is trodden under foot in contempt of God").
\24/ Minuc. Felix, 12: "Vos vero suspensi interim atque solliciti honestis voluptatibus abstinetis, non spectacula visitis, non pompis interestis, convivia publica absque vobis, sacra certamina" ("But meantime, anxious and unsettled, you are abstaining from respectable enjoyments; you attend no spectacles, you take no part in public displays, public banquets and the sacred contest you decline").
\25/
Instit. 6.20-21; see also
Arnob., 4.35 f. -- Along with the
games, participation in public festivals was also forbidden, as these
were always bound up with polytheism. Cp. the seventh canon of Ancyra:
περὶ τῶν συνεστιαθέντων ἐν ἑορτῇ ἐθνικῇ, ἐν τόπῳ ἀφωρισμένῳ τοῖς
ἐθνικοῖς, ἴδια βρώματα ἐπικομισαμένων καὶ φαγόντων, ἔδοξε διετίαν
ὑποπεσόντας δεχθῆναι ("With regard to those who have sat down at a
pagan banquet, in a place set apart for pagans, even though they
brought and ate their own food, it seems good to us that they be
received after they have done penance for two years"). In this
connection, Tertullian, de Idol.
13-16, is particularly
important. All public festivals, he declares, are to be avoided, since
they are held either owing to wantonness or to timidity. "If we rejoice
with the world, it is to be feared that we shall also mourn with the
world." Here, of course, it is plain that Tertullian is in a minority.
The majority of Christians at Carthage saw nothing wrong in attending
public or private feasts; in fact, it was considered rather a dangerous
mark of the factious spirit to abstain from them. "'Let your works
shine,' is Christ's rule," says Tertullian in his cry of complaint.
[[302b]] "But here are
all our shops and doors shining! Nowadays you
will find
more doors unilluminated and unwreathed among the pagans than among the
Christians! What do you think about the custom? If it is meant as honor
to an idol, then certainly it is idolatry to honor an idol. If, again,
it is done for the sake of some man, then let us remember that all
idolatry is worship paid to men (the gods of the pagans having been
formerly men themselves)." "I know how one Christian brother was
severely punished in a vision on that very night, because his slaves
had decorated his gateway with wreaths on the sudden proclamation of
some public thanksgiving." Tertullian only draws the line at
well-established family feasts such as those at the assumption of the
toga virilis, betrothals, marriages, and name-givings, since these are
not necessarily contaminated with idolatry, and since the command to
observe no particular days does not apply in these instances. "One may
accept an invitation to such functions, provided that the title of the
invitation does not run 'to assist at a sacrifice.' Except in the
latter event, I can please myself as much as I like. Since Satan has so
thoroughly entangled the world in idolatry, it must be allowable for us
to attend certain ceremonies, if thereby we stipulate that we are under
obligations to a man and not to an idol."
\26/ Novatian, de Spect. 1: "Quoniam non desunt vitiorum assertores blandi et indulgentes patroni qui praestant vitiis auctoritatem et quod est deterius censuram scripturarum caelestium in advocationem criminum convertunt, quasi sine culpa innocens spectaculorum ad remissionem animi appetatur voluptas -- nam et eo usque enervatus est ecclesiasticae disciplinae vigor et ita omni languore vitiorum praecipitatur in peius ut non iam vitiis excusatio sed auctoritas detur -- placuit paucis vos non nunc instruere [i.e., de spectaculis], sed instructos admonere" ("Plausible advocates of vice are not awanting, nor are complaisant patrons who lend their authority to vice and -- what is worse -- twist the rebuke of scripture into a defense of crimes; as if any innocent pleasure could be sought from public shows by way of relaxation for the mind. The vigor of ecclesiastical discipline has become so weakened and so deteriorated by all the languor produced by vices, that wickedness wins no longer an apology but actual authority for itself. Consequently I have determined not now to instruct you [on public shows], but in a few words to admonish those who have been instructed").
\27/
De Spect. 30, with its closing
sentence, "Ceterum qualia
illa sunt, quae nec oculus vidit nec auris audivit nec in cor hominis
ascenderunt? Credo, circa et utraque cavea et omni stadio gratiora"
("But what are the things that eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor
have entered into the heart of man? Superior, I imagine, to the circus,
the theatre, the amphitheatre, and any racecourse!").
\28/ Against games of chance, cp. the treatise of pseudo-Cyprian (Victor) adversus Aleatores, and a number of cognate passages in other writings.
5. A sharp attack was also made upon luxury, in so far as it was bound up in part with polytheism and certainly betrayed a senseless and pagan spirit. Cp. the Paedagogus of Clement, and Tertullian's writings "de cultu femiuarum." It was steadily maintained that the money laid out upon luxuries would be better spent in charity. But no special regulations for the external life of Christians were as yet drawn up.
6. With regard to the question of how far a Christian could take part in the manners and customs and occupations of' daily life without denying Christ and incurring the stain of idolatry, there was a strict attitude as well as a lenient, freedom as well as narrowness, even within the apostolic age. Then the one burning question, however, seems to have been that of food offered to idols, or whether one could partake of meals provided by unbelievers. In those days, as the large majority of Christians belonged to the lower classes, they had no representative duties, but were drawn from working people of the lower orders, from day-laborers, in fact, whose simple occupation hardly brought them into any kind of relation to public life, and consequently exempted them from any conflict in this sphere. Presently, however, a change came over the situation. A host of difficult and vexatious problems poured upon the churches. Even the laxer party would do nothing that ran counter to the will of God. They, too, had scriptural proofs ready to support their position, and corollaries from scriptural principles. "Flee from one city to another" was the command they pled when they prudently avoided persecution. "I have power over all things," "We must be all things to all men" -- so they followed the apostle in declaring. They knew how to defend even attendance at public spectacles from scripture. Novatian (de Spect. 2) sorrowfully quotes their arguments as follows: "Where, they ask, are such scriptures? Where are such things prohibited? Nay, was not Elijah the charioteer of Israel? Did not David himself dance before the ark? We read [[304]] of horns, psalteries, trumpets, drums, pipes, harps, and choral dances. The apostle, too, in his conflict with evil sets before us the struggle of the caestus and our wrestling with the spiritual powers of wickedness. Again, he takes illustrations front the racecourse, and holds out to us the prize of the crown. Why, then, may not a faithful Christian look at things of which the sacred books could write?"
This defense of attendance at the games sounds almost frivolous. But there were many graver conflicts on this subject, which one can follow with serious interest.
Participation in feasts and in
convivial gatherings already
occasioned such conflicts to a large extent, but it was the question of
one's occupation that was really crucial. Can a Christian engage in
business generally in the outside world without incurring the stain of
idolatry? Though the strict party hardly tabooed a single occupation on
the score of principle, yet they imposed such restrictions as amounted
almost to a prohibition. In his treatise de Idololatria,
Tertullian
goes over a series of occupations, and his conclusion is the same in
almost every case: better leave it alone, or be prepared to abandon it
at any moment. To the objection, "But I have no means of livelihood,"
the reply follows, "A Christian need never be afraid of starving."\29/
\29/
Cp. especially the sharp remarks in ch. 12 f. a propos of
the
passages from the gospels, which conclude: "Nemo eorum, quos dominus
allege, non habeo, dixit, quo vivam. Fides famem non timet. Scit etiam
famem non minus sibi contemnendam propter deum quam omne mortis
genus; didicit non respicere vitam, quanto magis victum? Quotusquisque
haec adimplevit? sed quae penes homines difficilia, penes deum
facilia?" ("None of those whom the Lord chose for himself ever said, I
have
no means of livelihood. Faith has no fear of starvation. Faith knows it
must despise starvation as much as any kind of death, for the sake of
God. Life it has learnt not to respect; how much more, food? How many,
you ask, have answered to these conditions? Ah well, what is hard with
men is easy with God").
Tertullian especially prohibits the
manufacture of idols (4 f.), as
was only natural. Yet there were Christian workmen who knew no other
trade, and who tried to shelter themselves behind the text, "Let every
man abide in the calling wherein he was called" (1 Cor. 7.20). They
also pointed out that Moses had a serpent manufactured in the
wilderness. From [[305]]
Tertullian's charges it is quite evident that the
majority in the church connived at such people and their practices.
"From idols they pass into the church; from the workshop of the
adversary they come to the house of God; to God the Father they raise
hands that fashion idols; to the Lord's body they apply hands that have
conferred bodies upon idols. Nor is this all. They are not content to
contaminate what they receive from other hands, but even hand on to
others what they have themselves contaminated. Manufacturers of idols
are actually elected to ecclesiastical office!" (7).
As against these lax members of the church, Tertullian prohibits the manufacture, not only of images and statues, but also of anything which was even indirectly employed in idol-worship. Carpenters, workers in stucco, joiners, slaters, workers in gold-leaf, painters, brass-workers, and engravers -- all must refrain from manufacturing the slightest article required for idol worship; all must refuse to participate in any work (e.g., in repairs) connected therewith (ch. 8).
Similarly, no one is allowed to
practice as an astrologer or a
magician. Had not the magi to depart home "by another way"?\30/ Nor
can
any Christian be a schoolmaster or a professor of learning, since such
professions frequently bring people into contact with idolatry.\31/
Knowledge of the pagan gods has to be diffused; their names, genealogy
and myths have to be [[306]]
imparted; their festivals and holy days have to be
observed, "since it is by means of them that the teacher's fees are
reckoned." The first payment of any new scholar is devoted by the
teacher to Minerva. Is the contamination of idolatry any the less
because in this case it leads to something else? It may be asked, if
one is not to be a teacher of pagan learning, ought one then to be a
pupil? But Tertullian is quite ready to be indulgent on this point,
for -- "how can we repudiate secular studies which are essential to the
pursuit of religious studies?" A remarkable passage (10).\32/
\31/ Mathematics was also suspect. Even in the beginning of the fourth century there was opposition offered in Emesa to Eusebius being promoted to the episcopate, on the ground that he practiced mathematical studies (Socrates, H.E. 2.9).
\32/ The perusal of bad and seductive literature was, of course, always prohibited, so soon as this danger became felt. If one must not listen to blasphemous or heretical speeches, far less must one handle books of this character. What Dionysius of Alexandria relates about his own practice, only proves the rule (Eus., H.E. 7.7): "I have busied myself," he writes to Philemon, the Roman presbyter, "with the writings and also the traditions of the heretics, staining my soul for a little with their utterly abominable ideas, yet deriving this benefit from them, that I refute them for myself and loathe them all the more. One of the presbyters sought to dissuade me, fearing lest I might become mixed up with the mire of their iniquity and so injure my own soul. I felt he was quite right, but a divine vision came to confirm me, and a voice reached me with the clear command: 'Read all that you come across, for you can estimate and prove everything; and this capacity has been from the first the explanation of your faith.' I accepted the vision, as it tallied with the apostolic word spoken to the stronger Christians, `Be skilled moneychangers.'" Cp. Didasc. Apost. 2. (ed. Achelis, p. 5): "Keep away from all heathen writings, for what hast thou to do with strange words or laws and false prophecies, which indeed seduce young people from the faith? What dost thou miss in God's Word, that thou dost plunge into these pagan histories? If thou wilt read histories, there are the books of Kings; if wise men and philosophers, there are the prophets, with whom thou shalt find more wisdom and understanding than in all the wise men and philosophers; for these are the words of the one and the only wise God. If thou cravest hymns, there are the psalms of David; and if thou wantest information about the beginning of all things, there is the book of Genesis by the great Moses; if thou wilt have laws and decrees, there are his laws…..Keep thyself therefore from all those strange things, which are contrary." General prohibitions of definite books under pain of punishment begin with Constantine's order regarding the writings of Arius and other heretics (Eus., Vita Const. 3.66; for the prohibition of the writings of Eunomius, ep. Philostorgius, H.E. 11.5). -- Whether one should quote pagan philosophers and poets, and, if so, how, remained a problem. The apologists made ample use of them, as we know. Paul's citations from profane literature are striking (Tit. 1.12, 1 Cor. 15.33, Acts 17.28); since Origen's treatment of them, they have often been discussed and appealed to by the more liberal. Origen (Hom. 31., in Luc., vol. 5. p. 202) thought: "Ideo assumit Paulus verba etiam de his qui foris sent, tit sanctificet eos."
Then comes trade. Tertullian is
strongly inclined to prohibit [[307]]
trade
altogether owing to its origin in covetousness and its connection,
however indirectly, with idolatry.\33/ It provides material for
the temple
services. What more need be said? "Even supposing that these very
wares -- frankincense, I mean, and other foreign wares -- used in
sacrificing
to
idols, are also of use to people as medicinal salves, and particularly
to us Christians in our preparations for a burial, still you are
plainly promoting idolatry, so long as processions, ceremonies, and
sacrifices to idols are furnished at the cost of danger, loss,
inconvenience, schemes, discussion, and commercial ventures." "With
what face can a Christian dealer in incense, who happens to pass by a
temple, spit on the smoking altars, and puff aside their fumes, when he
himself has provided material for those very altars?" (11).\34/ The
taking of interest on money was not differentiated from usury, and was
strictly prohibited. But the prohibition was not adhered to.
Repeatedly, steps had to be taken against even the clergy, the
episcopate, and the church widows for taking interest or following
occupations tinged with usury.\35/
\33/ Tertullian stands here pretty much by himself. We find even a man like Irenaeus (cp. 4.30.1) had no objections to a Christian engaging in trade.
\34/ The clergy themselves were not absolutely forbidden to trade; only restrictions were laid on them (cp. the nineteenth canon of Elvira).
Can a Christian hold a civil
appointment? Joseph and Daniel did;
they kept themselves free from idolatry, said the liberal party in the
church. But Tertullian is unconvinced. "Supposing," he says, "that any
one holder of an office were to succeed in coming forward with the mere
title of the office, without either sacrificing or lending the sanction
of his presence to a sacrifice, without farming out the supply of
sacrificial victims, without handing over to other people the care of
the temples or superintending their revenues, without holding
spectacles either at his own or at the state's expense, without
presiding at such spectacles, without proclaiming or announcing any
ceremony, without even taking an oath, and moreover -- in [[308]]
regard to other
official business -- without passing judgment of life or death on
anyone
or on his civil standing. . . . without either condemning or laying
down ordinances of punishment, without chaining or imprisoning, or
torturing a single person -- well, supposing all that to be possible,
then there is nothing to be said against a Christian being an
official!" Furthermore, the badges of officials are all mixed up with
idolatry.
"If you have abjured the pomp of the devil, know that whatever part of
it you touch is idolatry to you" (17-18).
This involves the impossibility of any Christian being a military
officer. But may he not be a private and fill subordinate positions in
the army? "'The inferior ranks do not need to sacrifice, and have
nothing to do with capital punishments.' True, but it is unbecoming for
anyone to accept the military oath of God and also that of man, or to
range himself under the standard of Christ and also under that of the
devil, or to bivouac in the camp of light and also in the camp of
darkness; no soul can be indebted to both, to Christ and to the devil."
You point to the warriors of Israel, to Moses and Joshua, to the
soldiers who came to John the Baptist, to the centurion who believed.
But "subsequently the Lord disarmed Peter, and in so doing unbuckled
the sword of every soldier. Even in peace it is not to be worn" (19).
Furthermore, in ordinary life a good
deal must be entirely
proscribed. One must abjure any phrase in which the gods are named.
Thus one dare not say "by Hercules," or "as true as heaven" (medius
fidius), or use any similar expletive (20). And no one is
tacitly to
accept an adjuration addressed to himself, from fear of being
recognized as a Christian if he demurs to it.\36/ Every pagan blessing
must be rejected; accept it, and you are accursed of God. "It is a
denial of God for anyone to dissemble on any occasion whatsoever and
let himself pass for a pagan. All denial of God is idolatry, just as
all idolatry is denial of God, be it in word or in deed" (21-22).
Even the pledge [[309]]
exacted from Christians as a guarantee when money is
borrowed, is a denial of God, though the oath is not sworn in words
(23).
"Such are the reefs and shoals and straits of idolatry, amid which faith has to steer her course, her sails filled by the Spirit of God." Yet after the close of the second century the large majority of Christians took quite another view of the situation, and sailed their ship with no such anxieties about her track.\37/ Coarse forms of idolatry were loathed and severely punished, but during the age of Tertullian, at least, little attention was paid any longer to such subtle forms as were actually current. Moreover, when it suits his point to do so, Tertullian himself in the Apology meets the charge of criminal isolation brought against Christians, by boasting that "we share your voyages and battles, your agriculture and your trading" (42), remarking in a tone of triumph that Christians are to be met with everywhere, in all positions of state, in the army, and even in the senate. "We have left you nothing but the temples." Such was indeed the truth. The facts of the case show that Christians were to be found in every line of life, and that troubles occasioned by one's occupation must have been on the whole very rare (except in the case of soldiers; see below, Bk. 4. Ch. 2).\38/ Nor was the sharp criticism passed by Tatian, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and even (though for different reasons, of course) by Origen, upon the state as such, and upon civil relations, translated very often into practice.\39/ The kingdom of [[310]] Christ, or the world-empire of the Stoics, or some platonic republic of Christian philosophy, might be played off against the existing state, as the highest form of social union intended by God, but all this speculation left life untouched, at least from the close of the second century onwards. The Paedagogus of Clement already furnishes directions for managing to live a [[311]] Christian life in the world. By the close of our period, the court, the civil service, and the army were full of Christians.\40/
\37/ Read the second and third books of Clement's Paedagogus. The author certainly does not belong to the lax party, but he does not go nearly the length of Tertullian. On the other hand, he lashes (Paed. 3.11.80) mere "Sunday Christianity": "They drop the heavenly inspiration of the congregation when they leave the meeting-place, and become like the great majority with whom they associate. Or rather, in laying aside the affected and specious mask of solemnity, they show their real nature, undisguised. After listening reverently to the word of God, they leave what they have heard within the church itself, and go outside to amuse themselves in godless society with music," etc.
\38/ Of course, as Tertullian sarcastically observes (Apol. 43), "pimps, panders, assassins, poisoners and sorcerers, with sacrificial augurs, diviners, and astrologers, very reasonably complain of Christians being a profitless race!" As early as Acts 19. we read of tradesmen in Ephesus who lived by the cult of Diana feeling injured by Christians.
\39/ Still, Caecilius (in Min. Felix, 8) describes Christians as a "natio in publico muta, in angulis garrula (a people tongue-tied in public, but talkative in corners), honores et purpuras despiciunt (despising honors and purple robes)." [[310b]] Cp. Tatian, Orat. 11.1: βασιλεύειν οὐ θέλω, πλουτεῖν οὐ βούλομαι, τὴν στρατηγίαν παρῄτημαι, . . . δοξομανίας ἀπήλλαγμαι ("I have no desire to reign -- no wish to be rich. I decline all leadership..…I am void of any frenzy for fame"); Speratus (in Martyr. Scil.): "Ego imperium huius saeculi non cognosco" ("of the kingdom of this world I know nothing"); Tertull., Apol. 42: "Christianus nec aedilitatem affectat ("the Christian has no ambition to be aedile"), and his critique of Roman laws in chaps 4-6 of the Apology. On the charge of ''infructuositas in negotio" (barrenness in affairs), see Tert., de Pallio 5, where all that is said of the pallium applies to Christians: "Ego, inquit, nihil foro, nihil campo, nihil curiae debeo, nihil officio advigilo, nulla rostra praeoccupo, nulla praetoria observo, canales non odoro, cancellos non adoro, subsellia non contundo, iura non conturbo, causas non elatro, non iudico, non milito, non regno, secessi de populo. in me unicum negotium mihi est; nisi aliud non curo quam ne curem. vita meliore magis in secessu fruare quam in promptu. sed ignavam infamabis. scilicet patriae et imperio reique vivendum est. erat olim ista sententia. nemo alii nascitur moriturus sibi. certe cum ad Epicuros et Zenones ventum est, sapientes vocas totum quietis magisterium, qui eam summae atque unicae voluptatis nomine consecravere," etc. ("I," quoth the cloak, "I owe no duty to the forum, the hustings, or the senate-house. I keep no obsequious vigils, I haunt no platforms, I boast no great houses, I scent no cross-roads, I worship no lattices, I do not wear out the judicial bench, I upset no laws, I bark in no pleadings at the bar; no judge am I, no soldier, and no king. I have withdrawn from the people. My peculiar business is with myself. No care have I save to shun care. You, too, would enjoy a better life in retreat than in publicity. But you will decry me as indolent. 'We must live,' forsooth, 'for country, empire, and estate.' Well, our view prevailed in days gone by. None, it was said, is born for another's ends, since to himself he is to die. At all events, when you come to the Epicureans and Zenos, you dub all the teachers of quietism 'sages'; and they have hallowed quietism with the name of the 'unique' and 'supreme' pleasure"). Apolog. 38 f: "Nec ulla magis res aliena quam publica . . . unam omnium rempublicam agnoscimus, mundum ("Nothing is so alien to us as political affairs…..We recognize but one universal commonwealth, viz., the universe"). On the absence of any home-feeling among Christians, see Diognet. 5.5: Πατρίδας οἰκοῦσιν ἰδίας, ἀλλ’ ὡς πάροικοι· μετέχουσι πάντων ὡς πολῖται, καὶ πανθ’ ὑπομένουσιν ὡς ξένοι· πᾶσα ξένη πατρίς ἐστιν αὐτῶν, καὶ πᾶσα πατρὶς ξένη ("They inhabit their own countries, but merely as sojourners; they share in everything as citizens and endure everything as strangers. Every foreign country is a fatherland to them, and every fatherland is foreign"); also Clem., Paed. 3.8.41.1: πατρίδα ἐπὶ γῆς οὐκ ἔχομεν ("On earth we have no fatherland"); Vita Polycarpi, 6: παντὶ δούλῳ θεοῦ πᾶς ὀ κόσμος πόλις, πατρὶς δὲ ἡ ἐπουράνιος ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ· ἐνταῦθα δὲ παροικεῖν, ἀλλ' οὐ κατοικεῖν =, ὡς ξένοι καὶ παρεπίδημοι τετάγμεθα (cp. also 30). Not without reason does Celsus (Orig. 8.68) [[311b]] remark to his Christian opponent: "Were all to behave as you do, the emperor would ere long be left solitary and deserted, and the affairs of this world would presently fall into the hands of the most wild and lawless barbarians." He proceeds to point out that, in the event of this, Christianity would cease to exist, and that the Roman Empire consequently was the support of Christianity. To which Christians replied that, on the contrary, it was they alone who upheld the empire.
Between the second century and the third (the line may be drawn about 180 C.E.) a vital change took place. In the former, Christians for the most part had the appearance of a company of people who shunned the light and withdrew from public life, an immoral, nefarious set who held aloof from actual life; in the third century, paganism, to its alarm, discovered in Christianity a foe which openly and energetically challenged it in every sphere, political, social, and religious. By this time the doctrine of Christianity was as familiar as its cultus, discipline, and organization; and just as Christian basilicas rose everywhere after the reign of Gallienus beside the older temples, so Christians rose to every office in the state. So far as regards the civil and social status of Christianity, the period dating from 250 C.E., belongs on the whole to the fourth century rather than to the preceding age.
\40/ It is not surprising that Origen proves the existence of a numerous class of Christians who believed everything, were devoted to the priests, and yet were destitute of any moral principle. What does surprise us is that he assigns heaven to them, simply because they were believers! (Hom. 10.1, in Jesum Nave, vol. 11. p. 102, Hom. 20.1, pp. 182 f.). It is also significant, in this connection, that Augustine's mother, Monica, was concerned about the adultery of her young son, but that she did not warn him about banquets till he became a Manichean (cp. Confess. 3).
Still, it was significant, highly
significant indeed, that gross and
actual idolatry was combated to the bitter end. With it Christianity
never came to terms.\41/
\41/ Nor did the sects of Christianity, with rare exceptions. In one or two cases the rarefied intellectualism and spiritual self-confidence of the gnostics made all external conduct, including any contact with idols, a matter of entire indifference, while open confession of one's faith was held to be useless and, in fact, suicidal (cp. the polemic against this in Iren. 4.33.9; Clem., Strom. 4.4.16; and Tertull., Scotpiace adv. Gnost.). But the opponents of heresy taxed the gnostics in such cases also with a denial of their Christian position on principle, where no such denial existed whatsoever (cp. what has been said on Heracleon, p. 210), while at the same time they described the freer attitude of the gnostics towards the eating of sacrificial meat as an apostasy.