os] without addition. But these passages are critically suspicious,
see Lightfoot _in loco_. In the same way the "deus Jesus Christus" in
Polyc. Ep. 12. 2, is suspicious, and indeed in both parts of the verse.
In the first, all Latin codd. have "dei filius," and in the Greek codd.
of the Epistle, Christ is nowhere called [Greek: theos]. We have a keen
polemic against the designation of Christ as [Greek: theos] in Clem.
Rom. Homil. XVI. 15 sq.; [Greek: Ho Petros apekrithae ho kurios haemon
oute theous einai ephthenxato para ton ktisanta ta panta oute heauton
theon einai anaegoreusen, huion de theou tou ta panta diakosmaesantos ton
eiponta auton eulogos emakarisen, kai o Simon apekrinato; ou dokei soi
oun ton apo theou theon einai, kai ho Petros ephae: pos touto einai
dunatai, phrason haemin, touto gar haemeis eipein soi ou dunametha, hoti
mae haekousamen par' autou.]]

[Footnote 247: On the further use of the word [Greek: theos] in
antiquity, see above, Sec. 8, p. 120 f.; the formula "[Greek: theos ek
theou]" for Augustus, even 24 years before Christ's birth; on the
formula "dominus ac deus", see John XX. 28; the interchange of these
concepts in many passages beside one another in the anonymous writer
(Euseb. H. E. V. 28. 11). Domitian first allowed himself to be called
"dominus ac deus." Tertullian, Apol. 10. 11, is very instructive as to
the general situation in the second century. Here are brought forward
the different causes which then moved men, the cultured and the
uncultured, to give to this or that personality the predicate of
Divinity. In the third century the designation of "dominus ac deus
noster" for Christ, was very common, especially in the west (see
Cyprian, Pseudo-Cyprian, Novatian; in the Latin Martyrology a Greek
[Greek: ho kurios] is also frequently so translated). But only at this
time had the designation come to be in actual use even for the Emperor.
It seems at first sight to follow from the statements of Celsus (in
Orig. c. Cels. III. 22-43) that this Greek had and required a very
strict conception of the Godhead; but his whole work shews how little
that was really the case. The reference to these facts of the history of
the time is not made with the view of discovering the "theologia
Christi" itself in its ultimate roots--these roots lie elsewhere, in the
person of Christ and Christian experience; but that this experience,
before any technical reflection, had so easily and so surely substituted
th