e new formula instead of the idea of Messiah, can hardly be explained
without reference to the general religious ideas of the time.]

[Footnote 248: The combination of [Greek: theos] and [Greek: soter] in
the Pastoral Epistles is very important. The two passages in the New
Testament in which perhaps a direct "theologia Christi" may be
recognised, contain likewise the concept [Greek: soter]; see Tit. II.
13; [Greek: prosdechomenoi ten makarian elpida kai epiphaneian tes doxes
tou megalou theou kai soteros hemon Christou Iesou] (cf. Abbot, Journal
of the Society of Bibl. Lit., and Exeg. 1881. June. p. 3 sq.): 2 Pet. I.
1: [Greek: en dikaiosunei tou theou hemon kai soteros 'I. Chr.]. In both
cases the [Greek: hemon] should be specially noted. Besides, [Greek:
theos soter] is also an ancient formula.]

[Footnote 249: A very ancient formula ran "[Greek: theos kai theos
huios]" see Cels. ap. Orig II. 30; Justin, frequently: Alterc. Sim. et
Theoph. 4, etc. The formula is equivalent to [Greek: theos monogenes]
(see Joh. I. 18).]

[Footnote 250: Such conceptions are found side by side in the same
writer. See, for example, the second Epistle of Clement, and even the
first.]

[Footnote 251: See Sec. 6, p. 120. The idea of a [Greek: theopoiesis] was
as common as that of the appearances of the gods. In wide circles,
however, philosophy had long ago naturalised the idea of the [Greek:
logos tou theou]. But now there is no mistaking a new element
everywhere. In the case of the Christologies which include a kind of
[Greek: theopoiesis], it is found in the fact that the deified Jesus was
to be recognised not as a Demigod or Hero, but as Lord of the world,
equal in power and honour to the Deity. In the case of those
Christologies which start with Christ as the heavenly spiritual being,
it is found in the belief in an actual incarnation. These two articles,
as was to be expected, presented difficulties to the Gentile Christians,
and the latter more than the former.]

[Footnote 252: This is usually overlooked. Christological doctrinal
conceptions are frequently constructed by a combination of particular
passages, the nature of which does not permit of combination. But the
fact that there was no universally recognised theory about the nature of
Jesus till beyond the middle of the second century, should not lead us
to suppose that the different theories were anywhere declared to be of
equal value, etc., therefore more or less equally va