CHAPTER III

THE NAMES OF CHRISTIAN BELIEVERS

JESUS called those who gathered round him "disciples" (aaO q Trai); he called himself the "teacher"\1/ (this is historically certain), while those whom he had gathered addressed him as teacher,\^2/ and described themselves as disciples (just as the adherents of John the Baptist were also termed disciples of John). From this it follows that the relation of Jesus to his disciples during his lifetime was determined, not by the conception of Messiah, but by that of teacher. As yet the Messianic dignity of Jesus -- only to be revealed at his return -- remained a mystery of faith still dimly grasped. Jesus himself did not claim it openly until his entry into Jerusalem.

\1/ The saying addressed to the disciples in Matt. xxiii. 8 ( ὐμε î ς μ ὴ κληθητε ῤαββεί . ε ἷ ς γάρ ἐστιν ὐμ ῶ ν ό διδάσκαλος , πάντες δἐ ὐμε î ς ἀδελφοί ἐστε )     is very noticeable. One would expect μαθηταί instead of ἀδελφοί here ; but the latter is quite appropriate, for Jesus is seeking to emphasize the equality of all his disciples and their obligation to love one another. It deserves notice, however, that the apostles were not termed "teachers," or at least very rarely, with the exception of Paul.

\2/ Parallel to this is the term   ἐπιστάτης , which occurs more than once in Luke.

After the resurrection his disciples witnessed publicly and confidently to the fact that Jesus was the Messiah, but they still continued to call themselves " disciples "-which proves how tenacious names are when once they have been affixed. The twelve confidants of Jesus were called " the twelve disciples " (or, "the twelve").\3/ From Acts (cp. i., vi., ix., xi., xiii.-xvi., xviii., xxi.) we learn that although, strictly speaking, " disciples " [400] had ceased to be applicable, it was retained by Christians for one or two decades as a designation of themselves, especially by the Christians of Palestine.' Paul never employed it, however, and gradually, one observes, the name of of οίμαθηταί (with the addition of τονκυρίον ) came to be exclusively applied to personal disciples of Jesus, i.e., in the first instance to the twelve, and thereafter to others, also, ² as in Papias, Irenseus, etc. In this way it became a title of honour for those who had them­selves seen the Lord (and also for Palestinian Christians of the primitive age in general?), and who could therefore serve as evidence against heretics who subjected the person of Jesus to a docetic decomposition. Confessors and martyrs during the second and third centuries were also honoured with this high title of “ disciples of the Lord." They too became, that is to say, personal disciples of the Lord. Inasmuch as they attached themselves to him by their confession and he to them (Matt. x. 32), they were promoted to the same rank as the primitive personal disciples of Jesus; they were as near the Lord in glory as were the latter to him during his earthly sojourn. ^{\6/ [401]}

^\3/ Οί μαθηταί ( is not a term exclusively reserved for the twelve in the primitive age. All Christians were called by this name. The term ἠ μαθήτρια also occurs (cp. Acts ix. 36, and Gosp. Pet. 50).

\4/ In Acts xxi. 16 a certain Mnason is called ἀρχα î ος μαθητής , which implies perhaps that he is to be regarded as a personal disciple of Jesus, and at any rate that he was a disciple of the first generation. One also notes that, according to the source employed by Epiphanius (Har., xxix. 7), μαθηταί   was the name of the Christians who left Jerusalem for Pella. I should not admit that Luke is following an unjustifiable archaism in using the term μαθηταί   so frequently in Acts.

\5/ Is not a restriction of the idea voiced as early as Matt. x. 42 ( υς

\6/ During the period subsequent to Acts it is no longer possible, so far as I know, to prove the use of μαθηταί (without the addition of τον κυρίον or χριστου ) as a term used by all adherents of Jesus to designate themselves ; that is, if we leave out of account, of course, all passages -and they are not altogether infre­quent-in which the word is not technical. Even with the addition of TOO Kuptau, the term ceases to be a title for Christians in general by the second century.-One must not let oneself he misled by late apochryphal books, nor by the apologists of the second century. The latter often describe Christ as their teacher, and themselves (or Christians generally) as disciples, but this has no connection, or at best an extremely loose connection, with the primitive terminology. It is moulded, for apologetic reasons, upon the terminology of the philosophic schools, just as the apologists chose to talk about "dogmas" of the Christian teaching, and "theology" (see my Doganensgeschichte, I.ls) PP. q82 f.; Eng. trans., ii. 176 f.). As everyone is aware, the apologists knew perfectly well that, strictly speaking, Christ was not a teacher, but rather lawgiver ( νομοθέτης ), law (vdµos), Logos (λ όγος ), Savioec ( σωτήρ ), and judge ( κριτής ), [401b] so that an expression like κυριακή διδασκαλία , or " the Lord's instructions " (apologists and Clem., Strom, VI. xv. 124, VI. xviii. 165, VII. x. 57, VII. xv. go, VII. xviii. 165), is not to be adduced as a proof that the apologists considered Jesus to be really their teacher. Rather more weight would attach to διδαχή κυρίου (the title of the well-known early catechism), and passages like i Clem. xiii. i ( των λόγων τον κυρίου ' Ιησού ο & ς έλίλησεν διδασκων = the word of the Lord Jesus which he spoke when teaching); Polyc. 2 ( μνημονειίαντες &1 ειπεν ό κύριος διδάσκων = remembering what the Lord said as he taught) ; Ptolem., ad Flor. v. ( ή διδασκαλία του σωτήρος ) and Apost. Constil., p. 25 (Texte U. Unters., ii., part 5- λόγούς τον διδασκαλον ήμών =the words of our teacher); p. 28 (lire i r oeV 6 Stbdatca A os Tbv Yproy=when the teacher asked for bread); p. 30 ( προέλεγεν δτε έδίδασκεν =he' foretold when he taught). But, apropos of these passages, we have to recollect that the Apostolic Consti­tutions is a work of fiction, which makes the apostles its spokesmen (thus it is that Jesus is termed ό διδάσκαλο s in the original document underlying the Con­stitutions, i.e., the disciples call him by this name in the fabricated document).­There are numerous passages to prove that martyrs and confessors were those, and those alone, to' whom the predicate of " disciples of Jesus " was attached already, in the present age, since it was they who actually followed and imitated Jesus. Compare, e.g., Ignat., ad Ephes. i. (d λπ f( ω έπιτυχείν & ' Ρώμη θηρίο , =my hope is to succeed in fighting with beasts at Rome, so that I may succeed in being a disciple); ad Rom. iv. ( ( τότε εσομαι μαθητης άληθ f ης τος Χριστούν ", δτε ουδέ τλ σώμά μου δ κόσμος ό 4 € τα =then shall I be a true disciple of Christ, when the world no longer sees my body; ad Rom. V.   (έν τοίς άδικήμασιν αυτι ' μάλλον μαθητεύομα = through their misdeeds I became more a disciple than ever) ; Mart. Polyc. xvii. (τόν ufοv τον θεού προοκυνουμεν , τονς δέ μαρτυρας ώ s μαθητά s κα ! μιμητ &$ του " κυρ ~ ου άγαπώμεν =we worship the Son of God, and love the martyrs as disciples and imitators of the Lord). When Novatian founded his puritan church, he seems to have tried to resuscitate the idea of every Christian being a disciple and imitator of Christ.

The term "disciples" fell into disuse, because it no longer expressed the relationship in which Christians now found them­selves.,placed. It meant at once too little and too much. Con­sequently other terms arose, although these did not in every 'instance become technical.

The Jews, in the first instance, gave their renegade com­patriots special names of their own, in particular "Nazarenes," "Galileans," and perhaps also "Poor" (though it is probably quite correct to take this as a self-designation of Jewish Christians, since "Ebionim" in the Old Testament is a term of respect). But these titles really did not prevail except in small circles. "Nazarenes" alone enjoyed and for long retained a somewhat extensive circulation.\7/ [402]

\7/ The first disciples of Jesus were called Galileans (cp. Acts i. 11, ii. 7), which primarily was a geographical term to denote their origin, but was also [402b] intended to heap scorn on the disciples as semi-pagans. The name rarely became a technical term, however. Epictetus once employed it for Christians (Arrian, Diss., IV. vii. 6). Then Julian resurrected it (Greg. Naz., Oral. iv. αινατομει ό 'Ιουλιανος περί τήν προσηyορίαν , Γαλιλαίους άντι Χριστιανών όνομάσας τε καί καλεισθαι νομοθετήσας ... υνομα [Γαλιλαϊοι ] τών οϋk είωθότων) and  employed it as a tern of abuse, although in this as in other points he was only following in the footsteps of Maximinus Daza, or of his officer Theoteknus, an opponent of Christianity (if this Theoteknus is to be identified with Daza's officer), who (according to the Aria T heo(loti Ancyazzni, c. xxxi.) dubbed Theodotus πμοστάτης τών Γαλιλαίων, , or " the ringleader of the Galileans." These Acta, how­ever, are subsequent to Julian. We may assume that the Christians were already called " Galileans" in the anti-Christian writings which Daza caused to be circu­lated. The Philopatris of pseudo-Lucian, where "Galileans " also occurs, has nothing whatever to do with our present purpose ; it is merely a late Byzantine forgery. With the description of Christians as " Galileans," however, we may compare the title of " Phrygians " given to the Montanists.-Τhe name " Ebi­οnites" (or poor) is not quite obvious. Possibly the Christian believers got this name from their Jewish opponents simply because they were poor, and accepted the designation. More probably, however, the Palestinian Christians called them­selves by this name on the basis of the Old Testament. Recently, flilgenfeld has followed the church-fathers, Tertullian, Epiphanius (Hcer., xxx. r8), etc., in holding that the Ebionites must be traced back to a certain Ebion who founded the sect ; Dalman also advocates this derivation. Technically, the Christians were never described as " the poor " throughout the empire ; the passage in Minuc., Oclav. xxxvi., is not evidence enough to establish such a theory. 1rhe term "Nazarenes " or "Nazoreans " (a Jewish title for all Jewish Christians, according to Jerome, Ft. cxii. _13, and a common Persian and Mohammedan title for Christians in general) occurs first of all in Acts xxiv. 5, where Paul is described by Tertullian the orator as πρωτοστάτης τής τών Ναζωρα l ων αιρέσεως . As Jesus him­self is called 6 NαcwpαIor in the gospels, there seems to be no doubt that his adherents were so named by their opponents ; it is surprising, though not unex­ampled. The very designation of Jesus as ό Ναζωρα ῑ ος   is admittedly a problem. Did the title come really from Ναζωρέτ ( Ναζωρά ) the town ? Furthermore, Matt, ii. 23 presents a real difficulty. And finally, Epiphanius knows a pre-Christian sect of Jewish Nazarenes xviii. ; their pre-Christian origin is repeated in ch. xxix. 6) in Galaaditis, Basanitis, and other trans-Jordanic districts. They had distinctive traits of their own, and Epiphanius (Hcer. xxix.) distinguishes them from the Jewish Christian sect of the same name as well as from the Nasireans (cp. Beer., xxix. 5), observing (between xx. and xxi., at the conclusion of'his first book) that all Christians were at first called Nazoreans by the Jews. Epiphanius concludes by informing us that before Christians got their name at Antioch, they were for a short while called " Jessmans," which he connects with the Therapeutw of Philo. Epiphanius is known to have fallen into the greatest confusion over the primitive sects, as is plain from this very passage. We might therefore pass by his pre-Christian Nazarenes without more ado, were it not for the difficulty con­nected with ό Ναζωρα ῑ οςas a title of Jesus (and “ Nazarenes "as a title for his [403b] adherents). This has long been felt by scholars, and W. B. Smith, in a lecture at St. Louis (reprinted in The Monist, Jan. 1905, pp. 25-45), has recently tried to clear up the problem by means of a daring hypothesis. He conjectures that Jesus had nothing to do with Nazareth, in fact that this town was simply invented and maintained by Christians, on the basis of a wrong interpretation of ό Ναζωρα ῑ ος . Ναζωρα ῑ ος   is to be understood as a title equivalent to "Nazar-ja" (God is guardian), in the sense of ό σωτήρ   =Jesus, etc. This is not the place to examine the hypothesis ; it will be a welcome find for the "historical religion" school. An unsolved problem undoubtedly there is ; but probably, despite Epiphanius and Smith, the traditional explanation may answer all purposes, the more so as the pre-Christian Nazarenes had nothing that reminds us of the early Christians. Epiphanius says that they were Jews, lived like Jews (with circumcision, the Sabbath, festivals, rejecting fate and astronomy), acknowledged the fathers from Adam to Moses (Joshua), but rejected the Pentateuch (!!). Moses, they held, did receive a law, but not the law as known to the Jews. They observed the law part from all its sacrificial injunctions, and ate no flesh, holding that the books of ,Moses had been falsified. Such is the extent of Epiphanius' knowledge. Are we really to believe that there was a pre-Christian Jewish sect across the Jordan, called Nazarenes, who rejected sacrifice and the eating of flesh? And, supposing this were credible, what could be the connection between them and Jesus, since their sole characteristic, noted by Epiphanius, viz., the rejection of sacrifice and flesh, does not apply to Jesus and the primitive Christians? Is it not more likely that Epiphanius, who simply says the "report" of them had reached him, was wrong in giving the name of Nazarenes to gnostic Jewish Christians, about whom he was imperfectly informed, or to some pre-Christian Jewish sect which lived across the Jordan? Or is there some confusion here between Nazirites and Nazarenes ?

The Christians called themselves " God's people," " Israel in spirit ( κατ ἀ πνε û μα )," " the seed of Abraham," " the chosen people," " the twelve tribes," " the elect," " the servants of God," [403] “believers," " saints," " brethren," and the "church of God."\8/ Of these names the first seven (and others of a similar char­acter) never became technical terms taken singly, but, so to speak, collectively. They show how the new community felt itself to be heir to all the promises and privileges of the Jewish nation. At the same time, "the elect"\9/and "the servants of God"\10/ came very near being technical expressions.

\8/ So far as I know, no title was ever derived from the name of " Jesus" in the primitive days of Christianity.-On the question whether Christians adopted the name of "Friends" as a technical title, see the first Excursus at the close of this chapter.

\9/ Cp. Mintec. Felix, xi. " Elect" is opposed to οί πολλοί . Hence the latter is applied by Papias to false Christians (Ens., H.E., iii. 39), and by Heracleon the gnostic, on the other hand, to ordinary Christians (Clem., Strom. IV. ix. 73)­

\10/ Cp. the New Testament, and especially the " Shepherd " of Hermas.

From the usage and vocabulary of Paul, Acts, and later writings,\11/ it follows that believers" ( πιστοί ) was a technical [404] term. In assuming the name of "believers" (which originated, we may conjecture, on the soil of Gentile Christianity), Christians felt that the decisive and cardinal thing in their religion was the message which had made them what they were, a message which was nothing else than the preaching of the one God, of his son Jesus Christ, and of the life to come.

\11/ Von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff is perhaps right in adducing also Min. Felix, xiv., where Cacilius calls Octavius "pistorum praecipuus et postremus philosophus" (" chief of believers and lowest of philosophers "). " Pistores" here does not mean [404b] " millers," but is equivalent to πιστων . The pagan in Macarius Magnes (III. xvii.) also calls Christians ή των πιστων φρατρία . From Celsus also one may conclude that the term πιστοί was technical (Orig., c. Cels., I. ix.). The pagans employed it as an opprobrious name for their opponents, though the Christians wore it as a name of honour ; they were people of mere '- belief " instead of people of intelligence and knowledge, i, e., people who were not only credulous but also believed what was absurd (see Lucian's verdict on the Christians in Proteuς Peregr^-inus).-In Noricum an inscription has been found, dating from the fourth century (C.I.L., vol. iii. Supplem. Pars Poster., No. 13,529), which describes a woman as " Christiana fidelis," i.e., probably as a baptized Christian. " Fidelis " in the Canon of Elvira means baptized Christian, and " Christianus " means catechumen. The name of " Pistus " was afterwards a favourite name among Christians : two bishops of this name were at the Council of Niceea. The opposite of "fidelis" was "paganus" (see below).

The three characteristic titles, however, are those of "saints," "brethren," and " the church of God," all of which hang together. The abandonment of the term "disciples" for these self-chosen titles\12/ marks the most significant advance made by those who believed in Jesus (ep. Weizsacker, op. cit., pp. 36 f. ; Eng. trans., i.'pp. 43 f.). They took the name of "saints," because they were sanctified by God and for God through the holy Spirit sent by Jesus, and because they were conscious of being truly holy and partakers in the future glory despite all the sins that [405] daily clung to them.\13/ It remains the technical term applied by Christians to one another till after the middle of the second century (cp. Clem. Rom., Hertnas, the Didache, etc.) ; thereafter it gradually disappears,\14/ as Christians had no longer the courage to call themselves ^a saints," after all that had happened. Be­sides, what really distinguished_. Christians from one another by this time was the difference between the clergy and the laity (or the leaders and the led), so that the name "saints" became quite obliterated ; it was only recalled in hard times of per­secution. In its place, " holy orders " arose (martyrs, confessors, ascetics, and finally-during the third century-the bishops), while "holy media" (sacraments), whose fitful influence covered Christians who were personally unholy, assumed still greater prominence than in the first century. People were no longer conscious of being personally holy,\15/ but then they had holy martyrs, holy ascetics, holy priests, holy ordinances, holy writings, and a holy doctrine.

\12/ They are the usual expressions in Paul, but he was by no means the first to employ them ; on the contrary, he must have taken them over from the Jewish Christian communities in Palestine. At the same time they acquired a deeper content in his teaching. In my opinion, it is impossible to maintain the view (which some would derive from the New Testament) that the Christians at Jerusalem were called "the saints," κατ ’ ἐδοχήν , and it is equally erroneous to conjecture that the Christianity of the apostolic and post-apostolic ages embraced a special and inner circle of people to whom the title of "saints" was exclusively applied. This cannot be made out, either from t Tim. v. 1o, or from Heb. xiii. 24, or from Did. iv. 2, or from any other passage, although there was at a very early period a circle of ascetics, i.e., of Christians who, in this sense, were specially " holy." The expression " the holy apostles " in Eph. iii. 5 is extremely surpris­ing ; I do not think it likely that Paul used such a phrase. -The earliest attribute of the word "church," be it noted, was "holy"; cp. the collection of passages in Hahn-Harnack's Bibliothek a'er Symbole (3), p. 388, and also the expressions "holy people" ( ἕ θνος ἅ γιον , καὀς ἅ γιος ), "holy priesthood."

\13/The actual and sensible guarantee of holiness lay in the holy media, the "charismata," and the power of expelling demons. The latter possessed not merely a real but a personal character of their own. For the former , see r Cor . vii. 14 : τ4: ήγίασται ό άνήρ ό απιστος εν τη γυναικί , και ήγίασται ή γυνή ή ίάπιστος εν τψ άδελφψ ' ε πεί αρα τα τέκνα ύμcων άκαθαρτα έστιν , νυν δέ αγια εστιν . .

\14/ But Gregory Thaumaturgus still calls Christians in general " the saints," in the seventh of his canons.

\15/ The church formed by Novatian in the middle of the third century called itself "the pure" (KαOαpof), but we cannot tell whether this title was an original forma­tion or the resuscitation of an older name. I do not enter into the question of the names taken by separate Christian sects and circles (such as the Gnostics, the Spiritualists, etc. ).

Closely bound up with the name of "saints " was that of brethren " (and " sisters "), the former denoting the Christians' relationship to God and to the future life (or βασιλεία το û θεοû , the kingdom of God), the latter the new relationship in which they felt themselves placed towards their fellow-men, and, above all, towards their fellow-believers (cp. also the not infrequent title of "brethren in the Lord"). After Paul, this title became so common that the pagans soon grew familiar with it, ridicul­ing and besmirching it, but unable, for all that, to evade the impression which it made. For the term did correspond to the conduct of Christians.\16/ They termed themselves a brotherhood [406] ( ἀδεκφόης ; cp. 1 Pet. ii. 17, v. 9, etc.) as well as brethren ( ἀδεκφοί ), and to realize how fixed and frequent was the title, to realize how truly it answered to their life and conduct,\17/ one has only to study, not merely the New Testament writings (where Jesus himself employed it and laid great emphasis upon it \18/), but Clemens Romanus, the Didache, and the writings of the apologists.\19/ Yet even the name of " the brethren," though it outlived that of "the saints," lapsed after the close\20/ of the third century ; or rather, it was only ecclesiastics who really continued to call each other "brethren,"\21/ and when a priest gave the title of "brother" to a layman, it denoted a special mark of honour.\22/ "Brethren" ("fratres") survived only in [407] sermons, but confessors were at liberty to address ecclesiastics and even bishops by this title (ep. Cypr., Ep. liii.).\23/

^\16/ See the opinions of pagans quoted by the apologists, especially Tertull., Apo1. [406b] xxxix., and Minuc., Octav., ix., xxxi., with Lucian's Prot. Peregrines. Tertullian avers that pagans were amazed at the brotherliness of Christians : " See how they love one another ! "-In pagan guilds the name of " brother " is also found, but­so far as I ani aware-it is not common. From Acts xxii. 5, xxviii. 21, we must infer that the Jews also called each other "brethren," but the title cannot have had the significance for them that it possessed for Christians. Furthermore, as Jewish teachers call their pupils "children" (or "sons" and "daughters"), and are called by them in turn "father," these appellations also occur very frequently in the relationship between the Christian apostles and teachers and their pupils (cp. the numerous passages in Paul, Barnabas, etc. ).

\17Details on this point, as well as on the import of this fact for the Christian mission, in Book II. Chap. III.

^\18/Cp. Matt. xxiii. 8 (see above, p. _399), and xii. 48, where Jesus says of the disciples, ἰδο ὺ ἠ μητηρ μου κα ì οἰ ἀδελφοί μον . Thus they are not merely brethren, but his brethren. This was familiar to Paul (cp. Rom. Viii. 29, πρωτότοκος ἐν   πολλο î ς ἀδελφο î ς ), but afterwards it became rare, though Tertullian does call the flesh " the sister of Christ" (de Resurr. ix., cp. de Carne, vii. ).

\19/Apologists of a Stoic cast, like Tertullian (Apol. xxxix. ), did not confine the name of "brethren" to their fellow-believers, but extended it to all men " Fratres etiam vestri sumus, lure naturae matris unius" (" We are your brethren also in virtue of our common mother Nature").

^\20/ It still occurs, though rarely, in the third century ; cp., e.g., Hippolytus in the Philosophumena, and the Ada Pionii, ix. Theoretically, of course, the name still survived for a considerable time ; cp., e.g., Lactant., Div. Inst., v. 15 : "Nec alia causa est cur nobis invicem fratrum nomen impertiamus, nisi quia pares esse nos credimus" [p. 168]; August., Ep. xxiii. I : "Non to latet praeceptum esse nobis divinitus, ut etiam eis qui negant se fratres nostros esse dicamus, fratres nostri estis."

^\21/ By the third century, however, they had also begun to style each other " dominus."

\22/ Eusebius describes, with great delight, how the thrice-blessed emperor addressed the bishops and Christian people, in his numerous writings, as &Seltool ἀδελφυ ì κα ì συνθεράποντε s   ( Vita Const., iii. 24).

\23/ The gradual restriction of " brethren" to the clergy and the confessors is the

surest index of the growing organization and privileges of the churches.

Since Christians in the apostolic age felt themselves to be " saints ^, " ^, . and " brethren," and, in this sense, to be the true Israel and at the same time God's new creation,\24/ they required a solemn title to bring out their complete and divinely appointed character and unity. As " brotherhood" ( ἀδελφότης , see above) was too one-sided, the name they chose was that of " church " or "the church of God" ( ἐκκλησία , ἐκκλησία το û θεοû ). This

was a masterly stroke. It was the work,\25/ not of Paul, nor even of.Jesus, but of the Palestinian communities, which must have described themselves as קהל . Originally, it was beyond question a collective term;\26/ it was the most solemn expression of the Jews for their worship\27/ as a collective body, and as such it was taken over by the Christians. But ere long it was applied to the individual communities, and then again to the general meeting for worship. Thanks to this many-sided usage, together with its religious colouring (" the church called by God") and the possibilities of personification which it offered, the conception and the term alike rapidly came to the front.\28/ [408] Its acquisition rendered the capture of the term "synagogue"\29/ a superfluity, and, once the inner cleavage had taken place, the very neglect of the latter title served to distinguish Christians sharply from Judaism and its religious gatherings even in terminology. From the outset, the Gentile Christians learned to think of the new religion as a "church" and as "churches." This did not originally involve an element of authority, but such an element lies hidden from the first in any spiritual magnitude which puts itself forward as at once an ideal and an actual fellowship of men. It possesses regulations and traditions of its own, special functions and forms of organization, and these become authoritative ; withal, it supports the individual and at the same time guarantees to him the content of its testimony. Thus, as early as 1 Tim. iii. 15 we read: οίκος θεού , ἥ τις έστιν έκκλησία θεού t ώντσς , στύλος κα ì έδραίωμα τής άληθείας . " Ecclesia mater " frequently occurs in the literature of the second century. Most important of all, however, was the fact that ἐκκλησία was conceived of, in the first instance, not simply as an earthly but as a heavenly and transcendental entity.\30/ He who belonged to the ἐκκλησία ceased to have the rights of a citizen on earth;\31/ instead of these lie acquired all assured citizenship in heaven. This transcendental meaning of the term still retained [409] vigour and vitality during the second century, but in the course of the third it dropped more and more into the rear.\32/

\24/ On the titles of "a new people" and "a third race," see Book II Chap. VI.

^\25/ Paul evidently found it in circulation ; the Christian communities in Jerusalem and Judea already styled themselves ἐκκλησίαι (Gal. i. 22). Jesus did not coin the term ; for it is only put into his lips in Matt. xvi. 18 and xviii, 17, both of which passages are more than suspect from a critical standpoint (see Holtzmann, ad loc.) ; moreover, all we know of his preaching well-nigh excludes the possibility that he entertained any idea of creating.a special ἐκκλησία (so' Matt. xvi. 18), or that he ever had in view the existence of a number of ἐκκλησίαι (so Matt. xviii. 17).

^\26/ This may be inferred from the Pauline usage of the term itself, apart from the fact that the particular application of all such terms is invariably later than their general meaning. In Acts xii. i, Christians are first described as   οἰ ἀπ ò της ἐκκλησία (Kngvfas.

\27/קהל (usually rendered ἐκκλησία in LXX.) denotes the community in relation to God, and consequently is more sacred than the profaner עדה regularly translated by συναγσίας in the LXX.). The acceptance of ἐκκλησία is thus intelligible for the same reason as that of " Israel," " seed of Abraham," etc. Among the Jews, ἐκκλησία lagged far behind συναγσίας in practical use, and this was all in favour of the Christians and their adoption of the term.

\28/ Connected with the term ἐκκλησία is the term ὀ λαός , which frequently occurs as a contrast to τα εθνη . It also has, of course, Old Testament associations of its own.

\29/ On the employment of this term by Christians, see my note on Hernr., Mand. xi. It was not nervously eschewed, but it never became technical, except in one or two cases. On the other hand, it is said of the Jewish Christians in Epiph., Haer., xxx. I8, "They have presbyters and heads of synagogues. They call their church a synagogue and not a church ; they are proud of no name but Christ ^' s ^" ( πρεσβυτέρους ούτοι έχουσι καί άρχισνναγώγους ' συναγωγήν δέ ούτοι καλουσι τήν έαντών έκκλησίαν και ουχί έκκλησίαν ' τψ Χριστψ δέ όνόματι μύνον σεμνύνονται ). Still, one may doubt if the Jewish Christians really forswore the name קהל ( ἐκκλησία ); that they called their gatherings and places of meeting συναγωγσί , may be admitted.

\30/ The ecclesia is in heaven, created before the world, the Eve of the heavenly Adam, the Bride of Christ, and in a certain sense Christ himself. These Pauline ideas were never lost sight of. In Hermas, in 1'apias, in Second Clement, in Clement of Alexandria, etc., they recur. Tertullian writes (de P(enit, x.) : " In uno et altero Christus est, ecclesia vero Christus. ergo cum to ad fratrum genua pro­tendis, Christum contrectas, Christum exoras" ("In a company of one or two Christ is, but the Church is Christ. Hence, when you throw yourself at your brother's knee, you touch Christ with your embrace, you address your entreaties to Christ").

^\31/ The self-designation of Christians as "strangers and sojourners" became almost technical in the first century (cp. the-.epistles of Paul, i Peter, and [409b] Hebrews), while παροικία (with , παροικειν = to sojourn) became actually a technical term for the individual community in the world (cp. also Herm., Simil. I., on this).

\32/ Till far down into the third century (cp. the usage of Cyprian) the word "secta" was employed by Christians quite ingenuously to denote their fellowship. It was not technical, of course, but a wholly neutral term.

During the course of the second century the term ἐκκλησία acquired the attribute of "catholic " (in addition to that of " holy "). This predicate does riot contain anything which implies a secularisation of the church, for "catholic" originally meant Christendom as a whole in contrast to individual churches (έκκλησiα καθολική=πάσα ή έκκλησία ). The conception of "all the churches " is thus identical with that of "the church in general." But a certain dogmatic element did exist from the very outset in the conception of the general church, as the idea was that this church had been diffused by the apostles over all the earth. Hence it was believed that only what existed every­where throughout the church could be true, and at the same time absolutely true, so that the conceptions of "all Christendom," "Christianity spread over all the earth," and " the true church," came to be regarded at a pretty early period as identical. In this way the term "catholic " acquired a pregnant meaning, and one which in the end was both dogmatic and political. As this was not innate but an innovation, it is not unsuitable to speak of ^-pre-catholic and catholic Christianity. The term " catholic church" occurs first of all in Ignatius (Smyrn., viii. 2 : παον ϋν φανη ό έπίσκοτος , έκεί τό τλήθυς έστω ' ώσπερ υπιιν ϋν η Χριστός 'Ιησούς, έκεί ή καθολική έκκλησης), who writes "Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; just as wherever Christ Jesus is, there is the catholic church." Here, however, the words do not yet denote a new conception of the church, in which it is represented as an empirical and authoritative society. In Mart. Polyc. Inscr., xvi. 2, xix. 2, the word is prob­ably an interpolation ("catholic" being here equivalent to "orthodox": η εν Σμύρνη καθολική εκκλησία ). From Iren., iii. 15. 2 (" Valentiniani eos qui stmt ab ecclesia ` communes ' et `ecclesiasticos' dicunt"="The Valentinians called those who [410] belong to the Church by the name of communes' and `ecc.lesiastici "') it follows that the orthodox Christians were called "catholics" and "ecclesiastics " at the period of the Valentinian heresy.\33/ Irenaeus himself does not employ the term; but the thing is there (cp. i. 10. 2; ii. 9. 1, etc. ; similarly Serapion in Euseb., II.E., v. 19, π â σα ἠ ἐν κόσμω ἀδελιφότη s ). After the Mart..Polyc. the term "catholic," as a description of the orthodox and visible church, occurs in the Muratorian fragment (where "catholica" stands without "ecclesia" at all, as is frequently the case in later years throughout the West), in an anonymous anti-Montanist writer (Eus., H.E., v 16. 9), in Tertullian (e.g., de Prwscript., xxvi., xxx. ; adv. Marc., iv. 4, iii. 912), in Clem. Alex (Strong., vii. 1.7, 106 f.), in Hippolytus (Philos., ix. 12), in Mart. Pionii (2. 9. 13. 19), in Pope Cornelius (Cypr., Epist. xlix. 2), and in Cyprian. The expression " catholica traditio " occurs in Tertullian (de Monog. ii.), "fides catholica" in Cyprian (Ep. xxv.), κανών καθολικός in Mart. Polyc. (Mosq. ad fin.), and Cyprian (Ep. lxx. 1), and "catholica fides et religio" in Mart. Pionii (18). Else­where the word appears in different connections throughout the early Christian literature. In the Western symbols the addition of "catholica" crept in at a comparatively late period, i.e., not before the third century. In the early Roman symbol it does not occur.

\33/Εκκλησιαστικοί , however, was-also a term for orthodox Christians as opposed to heretics during the third century. This is plain from the writings of Origen ; cp. Horn. in Luc. XVI., vol. v. _P. 143 (" ego quia opto esse ecclesiasticus et non ab haeresiarcha aliquo, sed a Christi vocabulo nuncupari "), Hom. in jesaiam VII., vol. xiii. p. 291, Hom. in Ezech. II. 2, vol. xiv. P • 34 (" dicor ecclesias­ticus"), Horn. in Ezech. III. 4, vol. xiv. p. 47 ("ecclesiastici," as opposed to Valentinians and the followers of Basilides), Hom. in Ezeclz. VI. 8, vol, xiv. p. 9o (cp. 120), etc.

We now come to the name "Christians," which became the cardinal title of the faith. The Roman authorities certainly employed it from the days of Trajan downwards (cp. Pliny and the rescripts, the "cognitiones de Christianis"), and probably even forty or fifty years earlier (1 Pet. iv. 16 ; Tacitus), whilst it was by this name that the adherents of the new religion were known among the common people (Tacitus ; cp. also the well­known passage in Suetonius). [411]

Luke has told us where this name arose. After describing the foundation of the (Gentile Christian) church at Antioch, he proceeds (xi. 26) : χρηματίσαι τπρώτως εν ' Αντιοχεία ιούς ' μαθιρτάς Χριστιαναύ s [ Χρηστιανούς ]. It is needless to suppose

that the name was given immediately after the establishment of the church, but neither need we assume that any considerable in­terval elapsed between the one fact and the other.\34/ Luke does not tell us who gave the name, but he indicates it clearly enough.\35/ It was not the Christians (otherwise he would not have written Χρηματίσαι for they simply could not have given it -to themselves. The essentially inexact nature of the verbal form precludes any such idea. And for the same reason it could not have originated with the Jews. It was among the pagans that the title arose, among pagans who heard that a lean called " Christ " [Chrestus] was the lord and master of the new sect. Accordingly they struck out\36/ the name of "Christians," as though "Christ" were a proper name, just as they spoke of " Herodiani," " Marciani," etc.\37/ At first, of [412] course, Christians did not adopt the title. It does not occur in Paul or anywhere in the New Testament as a designation applied by Christians to themselves, for in the only two passages\38/ where it does occur it is quoted from the lips of an opponent, and even in the apostolic fathers (so-called) we look for it in vain. The sole exception is Ignatius,\39/ who employs it quite frequently a fact which serves admirably to corroborate the narrative of Acts, for Ignatius belonged to Antioch\40/ Thus the name not only originated in Antioch, but, so far as we know, it was there that it first became employed by Christians as a title. By the days of Trajau the Christians of Asia Minor had probably been in possession of this title for a considerable period, but its general vogue cannot he dated earlier than the close of Hadrian's reign or that of Pius. Tertullian, however, employs it as if it had been given by the Christians to themselves.\41/ [413]

\34/ In my opinion, the doubts cast by Baur and Lipsius upon this statement of the book of Acts are not of serious weight. Adjectival formations in - ιανος are no doubt Latin, and indeed late Latin, formations (in Kiihner-Blass's grammar they are not so much as noticed) ; but even in the first century they must have per­meated the Greek vernacular by means of ordinary intercourse. In the New Testament itself, we find 'Hρωδιαωο ί  (Mark iii. 6, xii. 13, Matt. xxii. a6), Justin writes Mαpκ ι αvo ί , Ο ὐαλεμτινιανοί , Βασιλιδιανοί , Σατορνιλιανοί (Dial, xxxv. ), and similar formations are of frequent occurrence subsequently. If one wishes to be very circumspect, one may conjecture that the name was first coined by the 1Zoman magistrates in Antioch,^-and then passed into currency among the common people. The Christians themselves hesitated for long to use the name ; this, however, is far from surprising, and therefore it cannot be brought forward as an argument against the early origin of the term.

^\35/ The reason why he did not speak out clearly was perhaps because the pagan origin of the name was already felt by him to be a drawback. But it is not necessary to assume this.

^\36/ Possibly they intended the name originally to be written "Chrestus" (not Christus "), an error which was widely spread among opponents of Christianity during the second century; cp. Justin's Apol., I. iv., Theophil., ad Azdol, I. i., Tert., Apol. iii., Lact., Inslit., iv. 7. 5, with Suetonius, Claud. 25, and Tacitus (see below). But this conjecture is not necessary, although pagans had a pretty common proper name in "Chrestus " (but no "Christus "), and they may have thought from the very first that a man of this name was the founder of the sect.

^\37/ "Christians " therefore simply means adherents of a man called Christ. Cp. Aristides, Apol. ii.: of οί Χριστιανοι γε r εαλογουνται άπο ' Ιησου Χριστου . Eusebius Demonslr., i. 5) gives another explanation of the name : " The friends of God [412b] under the old covenant are called χριστοί as we are called χριστιανοί ." Which is, of course, erroneous. Justin (Dial. Ixiii .) writes : και οτι τοiς είς αυτον πιστεύουσιν , ώς ούσι μι ¢" ψυχη εν μιg σνναγωγη" και μιg έκκλησία , ό λόγος του Θεοϋ ώ r θυγατρί , τη " έκκληστία τή έξ όνόματος αυτοϋ γενομένη κα ~ μετασχούση τοϋ όνόματος αυτοϋ - Χριστιανοι γάρ πάντες καλούμεθα [ εΥρηται ], όμοΙως φανερώς οι λόγοι κηρύσσωοι , κ . τ . λ . (" The word of God addresses those who believe in him as being of one soul, in one assembly, and in one church, as to a daughter, to the church born of his name and partaking of his name-for we are all called Christians : so the words proclaim," etc.). Trypho answers (clxiv.) : έστω νμϊν , τιων δξ ε ' Θνών , κύριος και Χριστο s και θεος y νωριζόμενο s, ώς αί γραφαι σημαίνουσιν , οΙτινες καα άπο του όν d ματος αυτοϋ Χριστιανο l καλεισθαι παντες d σχηκατε • ήμεϊς δέ , του θεος το " ν και αυτον τον " τον