CHAPTER VI.

EARLY CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.-MODE OF TREATMENT.

THE second part of our subject is the exhibition of doctrines. This exhibition differs from what is given in books on the history of dogmas, in that the whole of a man's doctrines are presented at once, and the connection of the opinions of one with those of another is left to the reader's own investigation. An objection also may be taken to the mode of presenting these doctrines, in that it does not bring before the mind the consecution of ideas in the writer's conception of the doctrines. Especially the leading idea of the particular writer is not brought so prominently forward as perhaps some would like a. This however is not an objection of any moment. What I wish to present is an accurate statement of what these men did believe; and I venture on an explanation of the central points of these beliefs only when I think that there really were central points, and that these central points are plainly to be seen. It is to be remembered that most of them did not think systematically, and that though it may be of advantage for us to arrange their opinions systematically, yet we do them considerable injustice thereby. For we present as hard intellectual propositions what in them were living and energising truths.

A

Hilgenfeld for instance has urged this objection against Schliemann's presentation of the Clementine doctrines.

I have made a distinction in my treatment of the opinions. of the early and later writers. In the case of the former, up till the time of Irenæus, I have adduced every passage which seemed to me to bear on theological questions. The reason for so doing is, that I wish as far as possible to enable my readers to determine for themselves what doctrines are not mentioned. For the omissions are by far the most significant feature of these writers to our time. Besides this, the language of these writers is more indefinite, and can therefore be more easily distorted, than that of later writers. When we approach the time of Irenæus, doctrines come out more in the shape of direct propositions, and the writers become more conscious not merely of what they believe but of what they do not believe. It is sufficient to adduce these precise statements of theirs, which when once made settle the question of their beliefs.

The one great requisite in the treatment of doctrines is fairness. The temptations to be partial and one sided are exceedingly strong. One must therefore approach these writers with a single desire for historical truth, with a willingness to enter into the thoughts of the writers, and with a resolution as far as possible to relate the truths held by them without any colouring from his own mind.

The two great temptations in the treatment of doctrines are, to forget the effects of the lapse of time, and to seek merely one's own opinions in the statements of the early writers.

In the first case we are apt to forget how totally different the age of the early Christians was from ours, how different the modes of thinking that prevailed among them, and how various were the agencies around them that were influencing their modes of thought and expression.

In the second case we go to the Christian writers with the hope of finding confirmation of our own opinions. We look upon these opinions as the only true ones. We trust that the early Christians also held them, and wherever we see the slightest resemblance to them we pronounce an identity of

beliefs. We shall have more to say of these causes of error when we survey the history of the treatment of doctrines.

At the same time, however, it must be confessed that it is scarcely possible, perhaps I should say it is impossible, for a man of a sound mind to present an objective view of these doctrines without being somewhat influenced by his opinion of the connection and development of the various beliefs. Gradually as he proceeds in his work, a desire for order arises in his mind, and out of the perception of this order arises a certain directive power to him in estimating beliefs.

Now it seems to me that all sects of Christians can get a fair starting point for viewing the development of doctrine in what we may suppose to have been the great beliefs which were preached to the early Christians. We at the present day have a complete New Testament before us-we have the light of many ages reflected on it, the most powerful minds have helped to an understanding of its contents, the most powerful philosophical intellects have endeavoured to develope and systematise its principles. We ought therefore to be in a much better position in the present day for interpreting, systematising, and developing the New Testament doctrines than the early Christians were. Many of them could not read, most of them had no philosophic powers, most of them heard the gospel only through the voice of apostlesto the poor the gospel was preached. Many of the books of the New Testament must have been unknown even to those who could read. In fact "there was a spoken Christianity as well as a written Christianity. The former existed before the latter. It was independent, and for the most important ends complete and sufficient b." This spoken Christianity, this oral gospel, must have been of such a nature that it could be easily understood by the masses—could have been conveyed from one man to another. This oral gospel is our startingpoint. What was it? what were its great truths? They all centered round Christ. The main one was that Christ was

b Professor Godwin: p. 73 of the Essay mentioned afterwards.

the source of a new spiritual life. He was the Son of God, the fulness of God in human form. He showed God to men. His will was one with the Divine will: God's power was his power. He came to the world to save men from sin, to lead men to God. He taught in his lifetime the way of lifeto love God and keep his commandments. He died for men

that He might bring them to God, and He rose again from the dead, sat down at the right hand of God, received all power in heaven and on earth, and from that time was with all those who trusted Him, sustaining them, guiding them, and preparing them for complete holiness. Those who thus trusted Christ would at death go to be with their Lord, would afterwards have their bodies raised up, and would reign with Him in complete sinlessness. Those who rejected Him, on the other hand, could expect nothing but God's wrath. Such would be the main truths proclaimed c.

The existence of a preached Christianity must be ever kept in mind while we treat of the progress of theology. And at the same time we have to remember that the early Christians preferred what they received from living witnesses to what was contained in books. A statement to this effect is made by Papias, and reasons are given for it in Clemens Alexandrinus. What this preached Christianity was, however, we should be utterly unable to realise, had we not had written documents of the age. And accordingly it is in the apostolic writings in which we are to seek for the complete

I refer my readers once for all to Professor Godwin's admirable Essay on the Earliest Form of Christianity, in the Introductory Lectures delivered at the opening of the New College, London, October 1851 (London 1851). Professor Godwin developes, at greater length than I have room for, the main topics of this preached Christianity. He sums up thus: "His humble state, his Divine mission, the nature of his miracles, the perfection of his character, the spirituality of his kingdom, his salvation from sin, his sacrificial death, his exaltation to supreme dignity and universal dominion, his constant presence by his Spirit with his Church, his coming again as the Judge of all men— these were subjects on which oral communications could be made, with all the correctness and completeness needful for an intelligent and cordial acknowledgment of Jesus as the Son of God and the Saviour of men.”—P. 94.

VOL. I.

E

exhibition of the earliest form of Christianity. These writings, as it appears to me, present us with the most astonishing moral phenomenon that human history exhibits. The intensity of the moral heat, if I may so speak, of these writings is something scarcely comprehensible to us. All the philosophers before them sought for some highest good. Even when they allowed that the highest good was to be found in morality, they, by expressing a possible difference, showed that the idea of happiness was present to their minds. In the case of the apostles, the idea of happiness and every other such notion pass entirely out of sight in their anxious longing for complete holiness, for living, as they called it, for Him who was the Life. There cannot be a doubt that in Christ's salvation freedom from a fearful punishment is implied; yet the apostles never once mention this freedom from punishment. The only possible mode in which they can conceive calamity coming upon them is in the anger of their heavenly Father. To be alienated from Him, to incur his displeasure, —all evils were included within that. In fact that was the one evil. And so when they looked forward to a future life, there is not a single expression of anticipation of mere earthly joy, not the slightest hint of mere pleasure. Their whole longing is to be with that Lord who had died to wipe away their sins. This is the main feature of these writings.

In respect to theology there is not the slightest attempt to systematise. There is the most absolute belief of certain great truths. There is a determined, unwavering confidence in Christ as the author and finisher of their faith. But there is not the remotest desire to unravel the puzzles which afterwards beset the theological world. There is in their childlike faith an utter unconsciousness of them. Thus they speak of Christ invariably as one individual being. They knew He was the Son of God. They knew He was real man. But it was the Son of God that became man, just as the child and the grown up man are the same being. How this took place, whether He had two natures or wills, in what metaphysical relation. He stood to the God and Father of all-these and