Landmarks in the History of Early Christianity
by Kirsopp Lake
Previous Part     1  2  3
Home - Random Browse

Tantalising though many of these problems are, there is no doubt as to the main characteristics of the Christianity of Ephesus and its neighbourhood. Its Christology was the reverse of Adoptionist. It did not think of Jesus as a man who had become divine, but as a God who had become human. Moreover, an identification of this pre-existent being with the Logos of the philosopher was gradually approached in the later Epistles, and finally made in the Prologue to the Fourth Gospel.

The word Logos has an intricate and long history which has often been treated in books on the New Testament: it is quite unnecessary to repeat it at length. But it has not usually been sufficiently noted that the difficulty of the problems raised by it are mainly due to its use in different ways in different systems of thought. The popular Stoic philosophy, with its belief in a God immanent in the universe, could use Logos in the sense of the governing principle of the world, and as little less than a synonym, or, perhaps one should say, description of God. On the other hand, a transcendental theology such as Platonism, believing in a God entirely above all existence in the universe, needed a connecting link between God and the world, and could use Logos in this sense. Finally, a mediatising writer such as Cornutus could explain that the Logos was Hermes, and so triumphantly {124} reconcile philosophy and myth, by giving a mythological meaning to a philosophic term.

All this is clear enough; but the difficulty begins when one asks in which sense the writer of the Fourth Gospel used the phrase. Did he mean that the Logos was the anima mundi? The phrase "the true light which lighteth every one" is susceptible of such a meaning. But it seems more probable that his theology was in the main transcendental, and that the Logos was for him the connecting link between God and the world. But how far is the Prologue really metaphysical and not comparable in its identification of Jesus and the Logos to Cornutus,[16] with his identification of Hermes and the Logos?

Further problems arise if an effort is made to reconstruct fully the Ephesian Christianity of which the Fourth Gospel is the product. After the Prologue the Logos does not seem to be mentioned again; Jesus appears as the supernatural Lord (though this word is not characteristic of the Gospel) who reveals the Father to men. He offers them salvation by regeneration in baptism, and by eating his flesh and blood in the Eucharist. They become supernaturally the children of God. This is the teaching of the Hellenised Church, not of the historic Jesus. But running through the Gospel there is also another line of thought which regards salvation as due to knowledge rather than sacraments. What is the relation to each other of {125} these two ways of regarding salvation? The problem has scarcely been formulated by the students of the Fourth Gospel, much less adequately discussed.

Obviously the tendency of Ephesian Christianity was to minimise the human characteristics of the historic Jesus, and to merge into Docetism. This can be seen in the Fourth Gospel, and in the allied Johannine Epistles. The writer is fully aware of the danger, and protests against Docetism, but his own writings with very small changes would have been admirably adapted for Docetic purposes.[17]

If Ephesian Christianity had never come to Rome, and met its complement in the Adoptionists, it might, in spite of the Fourth Gospel, have degenerated into thorough-going Docetism, or have been represented only by Gnostics. It is hard either to prove or to refute the suggestion that Alexandrian Gnosticism of the Valentinian type came from Ephesus along the Syrian coast, and that the ultimately successful Catholicism of Pantaenus and Clement came from the other stream which passed first northwards and then through Italy to Alexandria. Each of these streams accumulated new ideas on the way: the stream passing through Syria found the Eastern Gnostics of whom Simon Magus is alleged to have been the first. The other stream passed through Rome and found Adoptionism. The combination with this strengthened the belief in the true humanity of Jesus, and in his {126} real divinity, thus providing the groundwork for the Christological development of Irenaeus and his successors in the fourth century.[18]

The man who seems to have brought Ephesian Christianity to Rome was Justin Martyr, sometimes called the Philosopher. This title is somewhat unfair to philosophers, for the only claim which Justin could make to the name was that he had dabbled with little profit in many schools before he was converted to Christianity by an old man who gave him the Christian interpretation of the Old Testament.

Justin is in fact not much more philosophic than Hermas. His Christology is the incarnation of the Logos; but Logos is for him merely the name of a second God who is responsible for creation and redemption. Of the many books which he is said to have written only his two Apologies and his Dialogue with Trypho are extant. The latter is a long rambling exposition of the proof from the Old Testament, in the Septuagint version, that there is a "second God," and that his incarnation in Jesus was foretold. The Apologies also are full of proof from the Old Testament, but contain most valuable statements as to the Christian cult and its sacraments. They are also remarkable for insisting that the heathen religions are due to the clumsy efforts of demons to deceive men by false fulfilments of scripture.


Justin was not a man of commanding intellect, but he seems to have brought Ephesian Christianity to Rome, and so began in that city the synthesis with Greek philosophy which the later Pauline epistles and Fourth Gospel began in Ephesus and Origen completed in Alexandria. He appears to have been martyred in Rome, perhaps owing to the hostility of Crescens, a cynic philosopher with whom he had quarrelled. The acts of his martyrdom are extant; the most significant point in them is his dissociation from other bodies of Christians in Rome.[19] This is seen from the following extract from his examination by Rusticus the Prefect:

"Rusticus the prefect said, 'Where do you assemble?' Justin said, 'Where inclination and ability lead each of us. For do you really think that we all assemble in the same place? That is not the case, because the God of the Christians is not locally circumscribed, but, though he cannot be seen, fills heaven and earth and receives worship and glorification from the faithful in all places.' Rusticus the prefect said, 'Tell me where you assemble or in what place you collect your disciples.' Justin said, 'I am staying above the baths of a certain Martin, the son of Timothinus, and throughout this period (it is my second visit to Rome) I am unacquainted with any other assembly except that in this house. And if {128} any one wished to come with me, I communicated to him the words of truth.'"[20]

It would be possible to fill a volume with the discussion of the development of the Logos doctrine after the time of Justin Martyr. All that can here be done is to note how it passed from Rome to Alexandria—from Justin to Origen—and to compare certain aspects of it with Adoptionist Christianity, and to consider the position which either of these Christologies can take in modern theology.

It is very doubtful whether Justin Martyr or the writer of the Fourth Gospel had any concept of Immaterial Reality. To Justin Martyr, at least, the Logos appears to have been a second God, and his identification of Jesus with the Logos is much more like that of Cornutus—mutatis mutandis—than anything else which we possess. But however this may be, the Logos Christology was invaluable for Origen in finding room in Christian theology for the identification of God with Immaterial Reality. We may paraphrase rather than explain his teaching by saying that he believed in the divinity and unity of Immaterial {129} Reality, but thought also that diversity as well as unity could be predicated of it; that man belonged on one side of his nature to Immaterial Reality, and that, so far as he did so, he shared the attribute of eternity. Like other thinkers, Origen failed to make clear exactly what is the relation between the Immaterial Reality which is eternal and changeless and the Material Reality which is subject to change and time, and is the basis of phenomena. But in some way, he believed, the Logos[21] was that power of Immaterial Reality which stretches out and mingles with the world of matter. It is impossible and undesirable to expound at length this general theory; it must suffice to notice its bearings on Christology.

In the first place, it seems to have overcome the tendency of Logos theology to produce Docetism. The earlier forms of this kind of teaching which represented the Logos as a spirit who came down to rescue humanity offered no real reason for maintaining the true humanity of Jesus. It seems to have been the pressure of recognised fact, which had not yet been forgotten, which made the writer of the Fourth Gospel and of the First Epistle of John protest so strongly against Docetism. The tendency of their teaching by itself was all the other way, and the Acts of John, with their completely unreal humanity of Jesus, are the natural, though no doubt unlooked-for, results of the Ephesian school. But that is not the case with {130} Origen, and cannot be the case with any Christology or theology which really understands the doctrine of Immaterial Reality. It is possible to have a spirit, using the word in the popular and material sense, which looks like a human being, but is not really one, but that cannot be so with Immaterial Reality.

Origen achieved a synthesis with Greek philosophy which enabled Christianity to accept a belief in Immaterial Reality without a Docetic Christology, but it must be remembered that Origen was able to do this largely because he stood in the line of succession from the Fourth Gospel and Justin Martyr. He did not take the word Logos in the same sense as Justin had done, and he permanently changed, and indeed partly confused, Christian terminology by giving the meaning of immaterial to the words spirit and spiritual. They have in the main retained this meaning ever since, but students of the New Testament will do well to remember that this is not the meaning of the words in the original, and that Origen, though neither the first nor the last, is probably the ablest of the long line of theologians who have introduced metaphysics into Christian doctrine by a perverse exegesis of the words of Scripture.

The Catholic Christianity which emerged from the struggle between Adoptionism and the Logos Christology was a curious combination of both. In the strict sense of Christology, Adoptionism was completely abandoned. Jesus was regarded as the eternal Logos who became man, not as the inspired {131} and perfect man who became God. But in the sphere of soteriology the legacy of Adoptionism can clearly be seen. The Christian became the adopted son of God, joint heir with Christ, and this remained part of Catholic teaching. It is not, however, really consistent with the Logos doctrine, and is logically part of Adoptionism. The incoherence introduced at this point was met by the splendid paradox of Irenaeus and Athanasius that God became man in order that man might become God. But splendid though this be, it remains a paradox, and it was diluted very considerably in later theology, which seems to have felt that the abandonment of Adoptionism in the sphere of Christology necessitated its abandonment in the doctrine of salvation. Thus, at least in popular theology, the grandiose conception of the apotheosis of humanity has passed into the far more mythological one of becoming an angel after death—a view very widely held, though perhaps never officially recognised.

What part can either Adoptionism or the Logos Christology play in any modern form of thought? Adoptionism seems to me to have no part or lot in any intelligent modern theology, though it is unfortunately often promulgated, especially in pulpits which are regarded as liberal. We cannot believe that at any time a human being, in consequence of his virtue, became God, which he was not before, or that any human being ever will do so. No doctrine of Christology and no doctrine of salvation which is {132} Adoptionist in essence can come to terms with modern thought.

The doctrine of the Logos is on a different plane. In the form in which it is presented by Justin Martyr it is probably as unacceptable as Adoptionism, but in the form presented by Origen the modern mind constantly feels that the writer is struggling to express its own thoughts, and is attracted to Origen not only by the recognition of a common purpose, but by a consciousness of a common failure, for, at the end, reality transcends thought and language, and the philosophy of Alexandria was no more completely successful than is that of our world.

I have often felt in talking with younger men of the present day how closely they have approached to the position of Origen and how tar they are from him in method. If I may put into my own words the form of thought which seems to animate them, it is something of this kind. They feel that the world in which we live is the expression of some great plan or purpose or pattern which is not yet complete, which shows no sign of finality, but is ever growing in complexity; which resolves itself again and again into simplicity, and then spreads out again on a yet wider scale. The plan or purpose is not a dead mechanical thing; the life which explains it is within and not without it. Men are partly the result, but partly also the instruments or even agents of this purpose. Wisdom is the right understanding of its nature; and righteousness is the attempt to subordinate human purposes {133} to this great purpose of life. For man is not only an effect, he is a cause. When he acts, he brings into existence a new cause of which the results will follow in accordance with the established laws of reality. But there is a moment of choice, when he has it within his power to decide whether he will act or not. If he choose right, his actions will be taken up into the great web of existence, consistently with the great purpose. If he choose wrongly, the results will in the end be destroyed, not without suffering to himself and others.

To a more vivid imagination which thinks in pictures rather than in metaphysical language, life presents itself as a great web which is slowly coming from the loom, and sometimes there seems to be behind the loom the figure of the great weaver; at other times the weaving is being carried on by men and women whose weaving sometimes conforms, sometimes does not, to an infinitely complicated but symmetrical plan which, and here is the paradoxical tragedy, they can only see in the web which has been already woven; but they know that whether what they weave will remain, or not depends upon its being in accord with the pattern. And then the picture changes slightly, and it seems as though the pattern begins to reveal the same features as those dimly discerned in the weaver behind the loom. And yet again the picture changes, and it is not merely the great weaver, but the men and women who are working that reappear with him to live on in the pattern emerging in the web.


That is not the same thing as the Logos Christology or doctrine of salvation as propounded by Origen, but I think that he would have understood it had he lived now. It is not the same thing as the teaching of the Kingdom of God preached by Jesus, yet I do not think that he would have condemned it, for great men understand the thoughts of lesser ones though they themselves fail to be understood. The thoughts and words of Jesus, like those of Origen, were borrowed from his own time and race; they belong to the first century as those of Origen belong to the third. No historical reconstruction can make them adequate for our generation, or even intelligible except to those who have passed through an education in history impossible for most. But the will of Jesus and the will of Origen, if we can reach them through the language and thought of their time, have no such limitations. If I have understood them rightly, both were animated by a desire to accomplish the purpose of God, the God who is life.[22] And that purpose did not appeal to them as the achievement for themselves of any salvation, in this world or in the world to come, beyond the reach of other men, but rather to show them what is the way of life, the natural way, consistent with the purpose of God {135} and the pattern of life. So far as they succeeded, in their teaching they did so because they devoted themselves to expressing clearly what they wished without troubling to ask whether it conformed to what other people said, and they spoke the clearest language which they could find in their own generation.

To do the same thing is the business of preachers and teachers to-day. The man who tries merely to repeat the thoughts or the words of past generations forgets that the call which comes to the teacher is not to repeat what others have said because they have said it, but to say what is true because it is true, and to say it in the language of his own time that it may be intelligible. He will often appear to contradict the thought or the language of Jesus or of Paul or of Origen, but he will be loyal to the purpose which was theirs, and yet so much more than theirs.

[1] This proves that this form of thought is not Semitic; had it been so, the Spirit would scarcely have been masculine.

[2] It would be unfair and misleading to say the doctrine of the Trinity. That doctrine is not the statement of the "threeness" of God, but of the relation which this bears to his unity.

[3] No doubt the "threeness" was emphasised by the habit of three immersions in baptism, whatever the origin of this practice may be, and by philosophic reflections as to the properties of triangles such as are found in Philo.

[4] Illuminating suggestions can be found in F. C. Conybeare's The Key of Truth and in H. Usener's Weihnachtsfest.

[5] In the Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, pp. 335 ff. (especially p. 368), I suggested that the shorter recension of the Epistle to the Romans, the existence of which is proved by the evidence of the Latin breves, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Marcion, and by the textual confusion surrounding the final doxology, may be the same as that which omits all mention of Rome, and that, if so, it was probably written originally for some other destination. This suggestion has met with little approbation from critics, but with even less discussion. I still think that it is worth consideration.

[6] Paulos doulos Iesou Christou kletos apostolos aphorismenos eis eu aggelion theou o proepeggeilato dia ton propheton autou en graphais hagiais peri tou uhiou autou tou genomenou ek spermatos Daueid kata sarka tou hopisthentos uhiou en dunamei kata pneuma hagiosunes ex anastaseos nekron Iesou Christou tou kuriou hemon.

[7] The justification for assuming that the Church at Rome probably had Adoptionist proclivities is the undeniable fact that early in the second century Hermas held this view, and there is no evidence that he was an innovator.

[8] Eprepen gar auto di on ta panta kai di ou ta panta pollous vious eis doxan agagonta ton archegon tes sotepias auton dia pethematon teleiosai. The English translators take agagonta as referring to the same person as auto, but it seems grammatically preferable to construe it as a qualification of archegon.

[9] Though, if the late date for 1 Peter be accepted, 1 Clement is the earlier document. But the chronology of 1 Clement seems to me less certain than it is usually held to be. It depends on two factors, both doubtful: (1) the chronology of the list of Roman bishops in Eusebius and in the Liber Pontificalis; (2) the supposed reference in the epistle to the alleged persecution under Domitian. Against these is the reference to Clement in The Shepherd of Hermas, and the apparently clear testimony of the Canon of Muratori that The Shepherd was written about A.D. 140.

[10] Cf. Sim. ix. 1: "For that Spirit is the Son of God," and the Latin (Vulgate) text of Sim. v. 5. 1, which adds to the explanation of the Parable the exact statement, "Now the Son is the Holy Spirit." It is uncertain whether this is the true text or merely correct explanation, but in general the Latin text is better than that of the Athos MS.,—the only Greek evidence at this point.

[11] See Appendix on pp. 137 ff.

[12] "Especially remembering the words of the Lord Jesus which he spoke when he was teaching gentleness and long-suffering. For he spoke thus: 'Be merciful, that ye may obtain mercy. Forgive, that ye may be forgiven. As ye do, so shall it be done unto you. As ye give, so shall it be given unto you. As ye judge, so shall ye be judged. As ye are kind, so shall kindness be shewn you. With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you.'"

[13] There is no entirely convincing evidence in favour of this tradition. See, however, B. W. Bacon, "The Roman Origin of the Gospel of Mark," in Harvard Theological Studies, vii.

[14] "I answered then and said, This is my first and last saying, that it had been better not to have given the earth unto Adam: or else when it was given him, to have restrained him from sinning. For what profit is it for men now in this present time to live in heaviness, and after death to look for punishment? O thou Adam, what hast thou done? for though it was thou that sinned, thou art not fallen alone, but we all that come of thee. For what profit is it unto us, if there be promised us an immortal time, whereas we have done the works that bring death? And that there is promised us an everlasting hope, whereas ourselves being most wicked are made vain? And that there are laid up for us dwellings of health and safety, whereas we have lived wickedly? And that the glory of the Most High is kept to defend them which have led a wary life, whereas we have walked in the most wicked ways of all? And that there should be shewed a paradise whose fruit endureth for ever, wherein is security and medicine, since we shall not enter into it? For we have walked in unpleasant places. And that the faces of them which have used abstinence shall shine above the stars, whereas our faces shall be blacker than darkness? For while we lived and committed iniquity, we considered not that we should begin to suffer for it after death" (4 Ezra vii. 46-56).

[15] I have at present no clear opinion on the problem, except that I am strongly disinclined to accept the rather popular view which receives Colossians as Pauline and rejects Ephesians. Unless some theory similar to Holtzmann's be accepted, I think that Colossians and Ephesians stand or fall together. The popular distinction is partly due to the fact that Protestant scholarship is more sensitive to the un-Pauline ecclesiology of Ephesians, which it repudiates, than to the un-Pauline Christology of Colossians, to which it adheres.

[16] Tunchanei de Ermes ho logos, on apesteilan pros hemas ex ouranou oi theoi. Cornutus, De Natura Deorum, xvi.

[17] The Leucian Acts of John and Andrew, which seem to have a real connection with the Johannine tradition, represent this Docetic tendency.

[18] I must emphasise the speculative nature of this suggestion. So far as I know, there is not any evidence that Pantaenus was in Rome, or that Clement was influenced by Roman thought. But—merely as a guess—the idea appeals to me as probable in itself.

[19] The address in Rome which Justin gives is obscure, but it is supposed to be the same as the bath called Novation's on the Via Viminalis. See Otto's note on the subject.

[20] Roustikos eparchos eipe; Pou synerchesthe? Iustinos eipen; Entha hekasto proairesis kai dynamis esti; pantos gar nomixeis epi to auto synerchesthai hemas pantas? ouch outos de; dioti ho theos ton Christianon topo ou perigraphetai alla aoratos on ouranon kai ten gen pleroi kai pantachou hupo ton piston prosuneitai kai doxetai. Roustikos eparchos eipen; Eipe, pou synerchesthe e eis poion topon athroixeis tous mathetas sou; Ioustinos eipen; Ego epano meno tinos Martinou tou Timothinou balaneiou, kai para panta ton chronon touton (epedemesa de te Romaion polei touto deuteron) kai ou ginosko allen tina suneleusin ei ne ten ekeiou. kai ei tis ebouleto aphikneisthai par emoi, ekoinonoun auto ton tes aletheias gogon.

[21] The elements of multiplicity, he thinks, are contained in the Logos, which is therefore secondary to the Father.

[22] Perhaps the most significant difference between Jesus and Origen is that Origen was inclined to find the concrete expression of the Purpose of Life in self-realisation—he was in the best sense a Gnostic—while Jesus found it in the service of the weak, ignorant, and sinful, rather than merely in loyal obedience to the strong, wise, and righteous. The two are complementary, not contradictory—but they are not identical.




I am glad to be allowed to quote on this subject from a letter by my friend and former pupil, Dr. F. S. Mackenzie of Montreal, who has spent much time on the study of Hermas. He says:

"In several passages Hermas speaks of a small circle of six superior angels. It is legitimate to look for a reason for his choice of this particular number, and there can be little doubt that the reason may be discovered in Sim. ix., where the Son of God, who appears as lord of the tower, is clearly thought of as the seventh angel, superior to the six who accompany him and who have charge of the building of the tower, as they in turn are superior to all lesser angels and men. Thus the number of the archangels is made complete, according to prevailing apocalyptic enumeration. The contention of some scholars, among whom Zahn is the most outstanding, that Hermas makes a fundamental distinction between the Son of God and all angels, cannot be made good. The lord of the tower in Sim. ix. is not different in kind from the six angels who accompany him in his inspection of the tower. While he is, indeed, much more glorious than the others, nevertheless he and they alike appear as 'glorious men.' They all are angels (Sim. ix. 12. 7-8). Moreover, this angelic Son of God is called Michael in Sim. viii., and is obviously identical with the most revered or glorious angel (semnotatos aggelos) referred to in other places. He is supreme in the angel world. He has all authority over both {138} angels and men. He is lord of the Church, and judge of its members.

"Why is the Son of God, the Christian archangel, called Michael? Michael was one of the seven Jewish archangels; and to him, according to Dan. xii. 1, was to be committed the judgement of the people of God. There are indications in apocalyptic literature that he was regarded as supreme in this angelic circle. Hermas apparently has carried over the name of this Jewish angel, and used it to designate the archangel of the Christians, who are for him, of course, the true Israel. The position of supremacy in the angel world, assigned by pre-Christian righteous men to Michael, is really held by the Son of God. He is in fact the true Michael; and in him all that is foretold of Michael in valid prophecy will be fulfilled. If Hermas regarded the prediction of Dan. xii. 1 as authoritative at all, he must obviously have seen in it a reference to the Christian judgement to be executed by the Son of God. And I consider it highly probable that this may explain the apparent identification of the Son of God with the Jewish angel. Hermas has simply made use of the name to connect his ideas with the Danielic prophecy, and to show how, in his opinion, that prophecy is to be fulfilled. If this be so, then the Son of God is not, strictly speaking, identified with the Jewish Michael, but he may nevertheless be given the name on occasion, because of the fact that in him all that the prophets foretold of the archangel of the people of God will come to pass.

"The term Son of God is used by Hermas in a double sense. On the one hand, it is used of the pre-existent counsellor of God, who may also be called the Holy Spirit, and on the other of the glorified and exalted Jesus, the elect servant, who became the Son of God (Sim. v. 6), or in whom, as is said in Sim. ix. 12, the pre-existent Son became manifest. Because Jesus alone of all men preserved the indwelling Spirit pure, therefore he is the only perfect manifestation of the Spirit or Son of God. And he was rewarded for his fidelity by being adopted into the family of God as joint heir with the Son. {139} Nevertheless he is not, and never can be, one with the pre-existent Son or Spirit.

"One is tempted to argue that this distinction is observed in Similitudes v., viii., and ix., and that the Son of the master of the vineyard, the great spreading tree, and the ancient rock respectively represent the pre-existent Son, while the elect servant, the angel Michael, and the lord of the tower represent the exalted Jesus. Thus all the angelic representations of the Son of God would refer only to the latter. Moreover, there are features in the angelology of Hermas which strengthen such an argument. From Vis. ii. 2. 7, Sim. ix. 24. 4, 25. 2, 27. 3, it seems clear that Christians are believed to become angels at their death. Their rank, however, in the angel world will not be uniform, but will vary according to the excellence of their life on earth. Jesus therefore, because of his unique purity of life, must necessarily be the most highly exalted of all such angels. And so, in point of fact, he is. Of all angels, only he has ever been admitted to a position of co-equality with the pre-existent Son.

"On the other hand, it must be remembered that Hermas at times seems to think of the pre-existent Son or Spirit as an angel (Mand. vi. 2, xi. 9). Moreover, in his representation as the son of the master in the parable of Sim. v., he stands in very much the same relation to the first-created angels as does the lord of the tower in Sim. ix. And finally, there is an undoubted difficulty in supposing that the six archangels are thought of as being obliged to wait from the beginning of time until the exaltation of Jesus for their number to be completed. It still remains an open question whether the Christian archangel, the lord and judge of the Church, is the eternal or the adopted Son of God; and with the uncertainty and obscurity of the data, it may be doubted whether a final judgement in the matter can be given. Hermas does not, in fact, preserve any clear distinction between spirits and angels. He reveals throughout an undoubted fondness for hypostatisation. Even virtues and vices, emotions and passions, are described as spirits or demons as the case may be, and spoken of as if they {140} were possessed of personality. And certainly some allowance ought to be made for this tendency of the author, in the matter of determining his conception of spirits in general, and in particular of the Holy Spirit, who besides having an eternal existence with God, dwells also in every man."



After this passage was ready for the press my friend, Mr. Robert P. Casey, sent me the following criticism: "It can hardly be said that 'we' gain through the loss of our personalities, since 'we' (a personal pronoun) are our personalities. On the other hand, it is quite conceivable that that Immaterial Purpose, which works in and through our personal life, or at least some parts of it, gains by rejecting us after our usefulness is past, seeking its further completion in those who come after us, and thus maintaining a unified and eternal Life through a multiplicity and diversity of lives. That this process is a gain from the point of view of history is apparent, yet it can hardly be said to be 'our' gain if 'we' are destroyed in the process.

"Furthermore, is the archipelago a fair analogy? In the sentence 'If those islands could have thought and spoken...' the fact that they cannot destroys the analogy at its most important point. The allegory fits admirably the relation of the individual life and Immaterial Reality as a whole, but the crux of the problem of immortality from the point of the individual is the relation between (1) the unity established between the intellectual and moral elements (but not many other elements, e.g. evil) of his personal life and the sum total of Immaterial Reality, and (2) the equally real and more obvious unity presented by his own personality, including all his conscious experiences regardless of their value.

"The first unity is, if not everlasting, at least as permanent as history itself, and is by its nature eternal and immaterial. The second unity is apparently transitory, being dependent physically on the brain and nervous system, psychically on the persistence of memory. Thus, to say a man has eternal life is simply to mean that certain of his activities or experiences have the attribute of eternal or immaterial. It, however, leaves untouched the question whether the 'ego' which is conscious of these activities continues after death."


The point seems to me to be well taken, and to express a widely spread and possibly correct opinion; yet I cannot but feel that Mr. Casey is a little too much influenced by the exigencies of language. Of course in all the ordinary dealings of life that which makes me "me" is a number of factors, which, taken together, may be called personality, but the real point at issue is whether in the last analysis these factors are part of "me," or are instruments which "I" use and circumstances under which "I" live. For myself I see no reason to doubt that most of them come to an end with death. But behind all this there seems to me to be something in "me" which is Immaterial, and therefore eternal, and I believe that it is this, not that which now makes up my personality, which really makes me "me."



Abraham, 18, 53 Academics, 88, 89 Achaea, 66 Acts of the Apostles, 36, 38, 48, 61, 64, 66, 85, 86 of John, Leucian. See John Adoptionism, 100, 101, 102, 104, 106-108, 111, 117, 120, 123, 125, 128, 130-132 Age to Come, 20, 22, 25-27, 48, 49, 67, 76 Akiba, 16, 17 Allen, W. C., 54 Alexandria, 123, 125, 127, 128, 132 Alexandrians, 58 Ambrose, 9 Ammonius Saccus, 88 Animism, 2 Antioch, 38, 57-73, 102 missionaries from, 85 Antiochus Epiphanes, 7 Apocalypses, 14, 50 Apostles' Creed, 93 Apotheosis, 8, 131 Apuleius, 4, 83 Aquinas, St. Thomas, 10-12 Aristotle, 10, 88 Asia, 66, 122 Asians, 58 Astronomy, 11 Athanasius, 131 Augustine, 99

Bacon, B. W., 117 Baptism, 84-86, 88, 99, 117, 124 Barnabas, 61, 62, 64 Bartimaeus, 48 Box, G. H., 20 Burkitt, F. C., 64, 84

Caesar, cult of, 6 Caesarea, 61 Caligula, 7 Canon, Christian, 71 Censors, mediaeval, 15 Charles, R. H., 14 Christ. See Jesus Christ, pre-existent, 106 Christians, Greek, 84 Hellenistic, 81 Jewish, 98 Christianity, Adoptionist. See Adoptionism Bible, 72 Catholic, 79, 80, 130 Ephesian, 124-127 Hellenistic, 61 Jewish, 38 Roman, 120 Sabellian, 83 Sacramental, 99 Christology, 55, 90, 111, 120, 130 Docetic, 130 Logos, 130, 131, 134 pre-existent, 100-102, 104-108, 122 Church, the, 40, 91, 110, 111, 139 Cilicians, 58 Clemen, C., 63 Clement, 9, 125, 126 Epistle of, 105, 108-111, 115, 116, 120 Colossians, Epistle to the, 121, 122 Constantinople, 13 Conybeare, F. C., 101 Corinth, 38, 69, 73-97, 103, 105 Corinthians, First Epistle to, 63, 89, 90 Epistles to, 98 Cornelius, 58, 59, 87 Cornutus, 123, 124, 128 Councils, local, 6 Creation, 84 Crescens, 127 Cross, 79 Cults, Graeco-Oriental, 5, 8, 69, 74 sacramental, 4, 12, 105 Cyprian, 103 Cyrenaeans, 58 Cyrus, 53

Damascus, 57-59, 86 Daniel, 20, 50 David, 19, 47, 53, 68, 104, 105 anointed Son of, 21, 25, 27, 48, 67 kingdom of, 22 Davidic king, 21, 52, 54 Desire, 94, 95 Diaspora, Jews of the, 46, 57, 74 Docetic controversy, 91, 125, 129 Domitian, 108 Dorner, J. A., 101

Ecclesiology, 110 Eliezer ben Durdaiya, Rabbi, 28, 29 Emmet, C. W., 63 End of the Age, 22, 67, 90 Energy, 95 Enoch, Book of, 50, 52, 55 Ephesians, Epistle to the, 121, 122 Ephesus, 8, 61, 120-128 Epistles, Johannine, 125 Epistles, Pauline, 38, 85, 120 Eschatology, 23, 76, 77 Eucharist, 99, 124 Eusebius, 10, 108 Experiment, communistic, 46 Ezra, Fourth Book of, 20, 67, 68, 118

Faith, 96 Father, 86, 100, 110, 115 Fatherhood of God. See God Fourth Philosophy, 14, 29, 31

Galatians, Epistle to the, 62, 65 Galilee, 1-35, 39, 73, 86 Gentiles, 86 Gfroerer, A., 63 Gnosticism, 125 God, Fatherhood of, 81 kingdom of, 23 the Son, 81 sovereignty of, 18, 19 Spirit of, 40 supreme, 75, 80, 82, 83 working of, in the world, 34 Golden Age, the, 18 Gore, C., 93 Gospel, Fourth, 9, 81 Gospels, synoptic, 85 Grace, 83, 84 Gravitation, 80

Harnack, A. von, 64, 101 Heaven, 76, 93 Hebrews, Epistle to the, 105, 107, 117, 120 Heitmuller, W., 63 Heliogabalus, 83 Helios, 83 Hell, 76, 93 Hellenism, 46, 73 Hermas, 104, 107, 108, 110, 111, 114-119, 126, 137 Hermes, 123, 124 Herod the Great, 14 Herods, the, 13 High-priests, 12, 19, 106 Hilgenfeld, A., 63 Holtzmann, H. J., 121, 122

Ignatius, 121 Incarnation, 101, 106 Imitatio Christi, 80 Immortality, 84, 85, 88, 92, 108, 118 personal, 90 Irenaeus, 76, 82, 126, 131 Isaiah liii., 52, 53 Isis, 4, 82 Israel, 18, 53, 103 Italy, 125

James, the brother of the Lord, 60 Jehovah, 81, 83 Jehudah I., Rabbi, 29 Jerusalem, 7, 32, 36-56, 57, 58, 60, 61-66, 73, 74 Jesus, authority of, 41 death of, 36, 39 ethics of, 35 glorified, 91, 101, 139 as judge, 67, 70, 79, 94 life of, 37 as Lord, 68-70, 73, 75, 78, 81-86, 103, 106, 110 name of, 88 as pre-existent, 101, 104, 105, 116, 122-126 teaching of, 10, 17-35, 45, 48, 134 Jews, 12-17, 90 John, the Baptist, 84, 85 son of Zebedee, 122 Acts of, 129 First Epistle of, 129 Gospel of, 92, 120, 122, 124, 125, 129, 130 Joppa, 59, 86 Josephus, 14 Judaea, 13 Judaism, 40, 80, 87, 90 Judaistic controversy, 60 Judas of Galilee, 14, 31 Judgement, the, 76, 94 Julian, 78 Justification by Faith, 98 Justin Martyr, 116, 126-128, 130, 132 Juengst, J., 63

King, Davidic. See Davidic King Kingdom of God, 24-26, 29, 48, 68, 69, 79, 134 of Heaven. See Kingdom of God Klausner, J., 20 Koenigsmann, B. L., 63

Law, the, 15, 16, 29, 46, 90, 99, 103 Life, 95, 96 eternal, 26 Logos, 9, 54, 100, 101, 123, 124, 126, 128, 130, 132 Lord, 9, 47, 68, 69, 74, 81, 82, 100, 109, 112 spirit of the, 42 Luke, Gospel of, 27, 36, 37, 48, 54, 92, 116

Maccabees, 7 Mackenzie, F. S., 137 Magic, 85 Marcion, 83, 103 Marius the Epicurean, 2 Mark, Gospel of, 27, 36-38, 40, 48, 49, 51, 52, 54, 116 end of Gospel of, 39, 92 Martin, son of Timothinus, 127 Matthew, Gospel of, 27, 36, 37, 48, 52, 54, 81, 86, 116 Messiah, 19, 22, 27, 40, 46, 47-49, 50, 67, 73 Davidic, 55, 79, 99 days of the, 26 Messianic Age, 19 Metaphysics, 95 Greek, 12 Platonic, 9 Stoic, 89 Michael, 115, 137-139 Middle Ages, 10, 119 Mind, 88 Mishna, the, 47 Mithraism, 75, 82 Mithras, 75, 83 Montefioro, C. G., 28 Moore, G. F., 48 Muratori, Canon of, 108 Mysteries, 4, 38, 88, 89 Mythology, Greek, 2, 3, 5

Nazarenes, synagogue of the, 40, 46 Non-resistance, 33 Norden, E., 64

Origen, 9, 94, 127-130, 132, 134, 135

Pacifism, 33 Palestine, 57 Panaetius, 9 Pantaenus, 125, 126 Paradise, 76 Parousia, 79 Pater, Walter, 2 Patriots, 13 Paul, 36, 57-60, 62, 65, 68, 82, 86, 90, 91, 98, 99, 121, 135 Pentecost, 41, 86 Personality, 96 Peter, 26, 46, 59-61, 86, 87, 107, 108 Pharisees, 13, 15, 16, 29, 32, 90 Philip, 58, 87 Philo, 6, 57 Philosophy, Greek, 3, 5, 6, 9, 99 Platonism, 88, 123 Pliny, 107 Plotinus, 88 Plutarch, 4, 5 Pontius Pilate, 101 Posidonius, 9 Priests, 32 Prophecy, 42 Prophets, 44 Proselytes, 84, 85, 87 Protestantism, 83 Psychical research, 93 Purgatory, 76

Q, 36, 37, 49, 51, 52, 70, 116

Reality, 133 immaterial, 88, 95, 129, 130 material, 129 Redeemer, 103 Redemption, 80 Reformation, the, 11, 83 Regeneration, sacramental, 77, 108 Religion, mystery, 74 Oriental, 3 Remission of sins, 117 Repentance, 27, 79, 118 Resurrection, 22, 76, 79, 85, 90, 105, 108 of the body, 90, 93, 99 Roman Empire, 79 religion in the, 2 Romans, Epistle to the, 102, 107 shorter recension of Epistle to the, 103 Rome, 12, 61, 98-120, 126, 128 cult of, 6 Rufus, 17 Rusticus, 127

Sacraments, 4, 8, 85, 90 Sadduceea, 15, 32, 90 Saints, 83 Salvation, 4, 8, 75, 77, 78, 88 Samaria, 61 Sanhedrim of the Jews, 7 Satan, 41 Saul, 47 Schleiermacher, F., 63 School, Ephesian, 129 Schwanbeck, E. A., 63 Schwartz, E., 64, 66 Schweitzer, A., 23, 24 Scribes, 13, 16, 29 Sects, Jewish, 12 Sermon on the Mount, 79 Servant, 47, 52-53 Seven, the, 59, 87 Shaoshyant, 20 Shema, 16, 17 Sheol, 21 Simon Magus, 125 Sin, 119 Solomon, Psalms of, 52, 54 Son, 86, 100, 112-114 of David, 67 of God, 47, 53, 81, 105, 106, 116, 137-139 of Man, 27, 30, 40, 47, 49-52, 55, 67, 68, 79, 99 pre-existent, 139 Sorof, M., 63 Soteriology, 131 Soul, immortality of the, 21 Spirit, the Holy, 40, 41, 43, 82, 86, 87, 89, 92, 100, 101, 113-116, 138, 140 pre-existence of, 114, 139 Spitta, F., 63 Stephen, 46, 57, 58, 61 Stoics, 9, 88, 123 Subliminal consciousness, 43 Sun, 75 Supreme God. See God Synagogue, 7, 8, 39 Syncretism, 6 Synedria, 6 Syria, 125

Talmud, 15, 32 Jerusalem, 17 Tarsus, 58, 61, 62 Tatian, 78 Temple, 32, 33 Tertullian, 10, 103 Testament, New, 71 Old, 35, 70, 71, 78, 126 Tinnius, 17 Torrey, C. C., 64 Tradition, Aramaic, 37 Trajan, 107 Trinity, doctrine of, 114 Trypho,126 Turnus, 17 Twelve, the, 89 Tyrrell, George, 12

Usener, H., 101

Valentinus, 125 Violet, B., 20

Weiss, B., 63 Weiss, J., 23, 63

Wendt, H., 63 Westcott, B. F., 93 Wisdom of Solomon, 55, 90 Literature, 6, 21, 54

Zahn, Th., 137 Zealots, 14


Printed by R. & R. CLARK, LIMITED, Edinburgh.


A Series of Works by Various Authors







Vol. I. Prolegomena. I. The Jewish, Gentile and Christian Backgrounds. 18s. net.

Vol. II. Prolegomena. II. Criticism. In the Press.

Vol. III. Text and Commentary. In the Press.







Previous Part     1  2  3
Home - Random Browse