After the Decian-Valerian persecution (250-260) the Church enjoyed a long
peace, rarely interrupted anywhere by hostile measures, until the outbreak
of the second great general persecution, under Diocletian (303-313), a
space of over forty years. In this period the Church cast off the chiliasm
which had lingered as a part of a primitive Jewish conception of
Christianity (§ 47), and adapted itself to the actual condition of this
present world. Under the influence of scientific theology, especially that
of the Alexandrian school, the earlier forms of Monarchianism disappeared
from the Church, and the discussion began to narrow down to the position
which it eventually assumed in the Arian controversy (§ 48). Corresponding
to the development of the theology went that of the cultus of the Church,
and already in the West abiding characteristics appeared (§ 49). The
cultus and the disciplinary work of the bishops advanced in turn the
hierarchical organization of the Church and the place of the bishops (§
50), but the theory of local episcopal autonomy and the universalistic
tendencies of the see of Rome soon came into sharp conflict (§ 51),
especially over the validity of baptism administered by heretics (§ 52).
In this discussion the North African Church assumed a position which
subsequently became the occasion of the most serious schism of the ancient
Church, or Donatism. In this period, also, is to be set the rise of
Christian Monasticism as distinguished from ordinary Christian asceticism
(§ 53). At the same time, a dangerous rival of Christianity appeared in
the East, in the form of Manichæanism, in which were absorbed nearly all
the remnants of earlier Gnosticism (§ 54).
§ 47. The Chiliastic Controversy
During the third century the belief in chiliasm as a part of the Church’s
faith died out in nearly all parts of the Church. It did not seem called
for by the condition of the Church, which was rapidly adjusting itself to
the world in which it found itself. The scientific theology, especially
that of Alexandria, found no place in its system for such an article as
chiliasm. The belief lingered, however, in country places, and with it
went no little opposition to the “scientific” exegesis which by means of
allegory explained away the promises of a millennial kingdom. The only
account we have of this so-called “Chiliastic Controversy” is found in
connection with the history of the schism of Nepos in Egypt given by
Eusebius, But it may be safely assumed that the condition of things here
described was not peculiar to any one part of the Church, though an open
schism resulting from the conflict of the old and new ideas is not found
elsewhere.
Additional source material: Origen, _De Principiis_, II, 11 (ANF,
IV); Lactantius, _Divini Institutiones_, VII, 14-26 (ANF, VII);
Methodius, _Symposium_, IX, 5 (ANF, VI); _v. infra_, § 48.
Eusebius, _Hist. Ec._, VII, 24. (MSG, 20:693.)
Dionysius was bishop of Alexandria 248-265, after serving as the
head of the Catechetical School, a position which he does not seem
to have resigned on being advanced to the episcopate. His work _On
the Promises_ has, with the exception of fragments preserved by
Eusebius, perished, as has also the work of Nepos, _Against the
Allegorists_. The date of the work of Nepos is not known. That of
the work of Dionysius is placed conjecturally at 255. The
“Allegorists,” against whom Nepos wrote, were probably Origen and
his school, who developed more consistently and scientifically the
allegorical method of exegesis; see above, § 43, _k_.
Besides all these, the two books _On the Promises_ were prepared by him
[Dionysius]. The occasion of these was Nepos, a bishop in Egypt, who
taught that the promises made to the holy men in the divine Scriptures
should be understood in a more Jewish manner, and that there would be a
certain millennium of bodily luxury upon this earth. As he thought that he
could establish his private opinion by the Revelation of John, he wrote a
book on this subject, entitled _Refutation of Allegorists_. Dionysius
opposes this in his books _On the Promises_. In the first he gives his own
opinion of the dogma; and in the second he treats of the Revelation of
John,(73) and, mentioning Nepos at the beginning, writes of him as
follows:
“But since they bring forward a certain work of Nepos, on which they rely
confidently, as if it proved beyond dispute that there will be a reign of
Christ upon earth, I confess that in many other respects I approve and
love Nepos for his faith and industry and his diligence in the Scriptures,
and for his extensive psalmody with which many of the brethren are still
delighted; and I hold the man in the more reverence because he has gone
before us to rest.… But as some think his work very plausible, and as
certain teachers regard the law and the prophets as of no consequence, and
do not follow the Gospels, and treat lightly the apostolic epistles, while
they make promises as to the teaching of this work as if it were some
great hidden mystery, and do not permit our simpler brethren to have any
sublime and lofty thoughts concerning the glorious and truly divine
appearing of our Lord and our resurrection from the dead, and our being
gathered together unto Him, and made like Him, but, on the contrary, lead
them to a hope for small things and mortal things in the kingdom of God,
and for things such as exist now—since this is the case, it is necessary
that we should dispute with our brother Nepos as if he were present.”
Farther on he says:
“When I was in the district of Arsinoe, where, as you know, this doctrine
has prevailed for a long time, so that schisms and apostasies of entire
churches have resulted, I called together the presbyters and teachers of
the brethren in the villages—such brethren as wished being present—and I
exhorted them to make a public examination of this question. Accordingly
when they brought me this book, as if it were a weapon and fortress
impregnable, sitting with them from morning till evening for three
successive days, I endeavored to correct what was written in it.… And
finally the author and mover of this teaching, who was called Coracion, in
the hearing of all the brethren present acknowledged and testified to us
that he would no longer hold this opinion, nor discuss it, nor mention it,
nor teach it, as he was fully convinced by the arguments against it.”
§ 48. Theology of the Second Half of the Third Century under the Influence
of Origen
By the second half of the third century theology had become a speculative
and highly technical science (_a_), and under the influence of Origen, the
Logos theology, as opposed to various forms of Monarchianism (_b_), had
become universal. Under this influence, Paul of Samosata, reviving
Dynamistic Monarchianism, modified it by combining with it elements of the
Logos theology (_c-e_). At the same time there was in various parts of the
Church a continuation of the Asia Minor theological tradition, such as had
found expression in Irenæus. A representative of this theology was
Methodius of Olympus (_f_).
Additional source material: Athanasius, _De Sent. Dionysii_ (PNF,
ser. II, vol. IV).
(_a_) Gregory Thaumaturgus, _Confession of Faith_. (MSG, 46:912)
Gregory Thaumaturgus, or the Wonder-worker, was born about 213 in
Neo-Cæsarea in Pontus. He studied under Origen at Cæsarea in
Palestine from 233 to 235, and became one of the leading
representatives of the Origenistic theology, representing the
orthodox development of that school, as distinguished from Paul of
Samosata and Lucian.
The following Confession of Faith is found only in the _Life of
Gregory Thaumaturgus_, by Gregory of Nyssa. (MSG, 46: 909 _f._)
Its genuineness is now generally admitted; see Hahn, _op. cit._, §
185. According to a legend, it was communicated to Gregory in a
vision by St. John on the request of the Blessed Virgin. It
represents the speculative tendency of Origenism and current
theology after the rise of the Alexandrian school. It should be
noted that it differs markedly from other confessions of faith in
not employing biblical language.
There is one God, the Father of the living Word, His substantive Wisdom,
Power, and Eternal Image, the perfect Begetter of the perfect One, the
Father of the Only begotten Son.
There is one Lord, only One from only One, God from God, the image and
likeness of the Godhead, the active Word, The Wisdom which comprehends the
constitution of all things, and the Power which produced all creation; the
true Son of the true Father, Invisible of Invisible, and Incorruptible of
Incorruptible, and Immortal of Immortal, and Everlasting of Everlasting.
And there is one Holy Spirit having His existence from God, and manifested
by the Son [namely, to men],(74) the perfect likeness of the perfect Son,
Life and Cause of the living [the sacred Fount], Sanctity, Leader of
sanctification, in whom is revealed God the Father, who is over all and in
all, and God the Son, who is through all; a perfect Trinity(75) not
divided nor differing in glory and eternity and sovereignty.
There is, therefore, nothing created or subservient in the Trinity, nor
introduced as if not there before, but coming afterward; for there never
was a time when the Son was lacking to the Father, nor the Spirit to the
Son, but the same Trinity is ever unvarying and unchangeable.
(_b_) Athanasius, _De Sent. Dionysii_, 4, 5, 6, 13-15. (MSG, 25:484 f.,
497 f.)
What has been called the “Controversy of the two Dionysii” was in
reality no controversy. Dionysius of Alexandria [_v. supra_, § 48]
wrote a letter to the Sabellians near Cyrene, pointing out the
distinction of the Father and the Son. In it he used language
which was, to say the least, indiscreet. Complaint was made to
Dionysius, bishop of Rome, that the bishop of Alexandria did not
hold the right view of the relation of the Son to the Father and
of the divinity of the Son. Thereupon, Dionysius of Rome wrote to
Dionysius of Alexandria. In reply, Dionysius of Alexandria pointed
out at length, in a _Refutation and Defence_, his actual opinion
on the matter as a whole, rather than as merely opposed to
Modalistic Monarchianism or Sabellianism. The course of the
discussion is sufficiently clear from the extracts. Athanasius is
writing in answer to the Arians, who had appealed to the letter of
Dionysius in support of their opinion that the Son was a creature,
and that there was when He was not [_v. infra_, § 63]. His work,
from which the following extracts are taken, was written between
350 and 354.
Ch. 4. They (the Arians) say, then, that in a letter the blessed Dionysius
has said: “The Son of God is a creature and made, and not His own by
nature, but in essence alien from the Father, just as the husbandman is
from the vine, or the shipbuilder is from the boat; for that, being a
creature, He was not before He came to be.” Yes. He wrote it, and we, too,
admit that such was his letter. But as he wrote this, so also he wrote
very many other epistles, which ought to be read by them, so that from all
and not from one merely the faith of the man might be discovered.
Ch. 5. At that time [_i.e._, when Dionysius wrote against the Sabellians]
certain of the bishops of Pentapolis in Upper Libya were of the opinion of
Sabellius. And they were so successful with their opinion that the Son of
God was scarcely preached any longer in the churches. Dionysius heard of
this, as he had charge of those churches (_cf._ Canon 6, Nicæa, 325; see
below, § 72), and sent men to counsel the guilty ones to cease from their
false doctrine. As they did not cease but waxed more shameless in their
impiety, he was compelled to meet their shameless conduct by writing the
said letter and to define from the Gospels the human nature of the
Saviour, in order that, since those men waxed bolder in denying the Son
and in ascribing His human actions to the Father, he accordingly, by
demonstrating that it was not the Father but the Son that was made man for
us, might persuade the ignorant persons that the Father is not the Son,
and so by degrees lead them to the true godhead of the Son and the
knowledge of the Father.
Ch. 6. … If in his writings he is inconsistent, let them [_i.e._, the
Arians] not draw him to their side, for on this assumption he is not
worthy of credit. But if, when he had written his letter to Ammonius, and
fallen under suspicion, he made his defence, bettering what he had said
previously, defending himself, but not changing, it must be evident that
he wrote what fell under suspicion by way of “accommodation.”
Ch. 13. The following is the occasion of his writing the other letters.
When Bishop Dionysius had heard of the affairs in Pentapolis and had
written in zeal for religion, as I have said, his letter to Euphranor and
Ammonius against the heresy of Sabellius, some of the brethren belonging
to the Church, who held a right opinion, but did not ask him so as to
learn from himself what he had written, went up to Rome and spake against
him in the presence of his namesake, Dionysius, bishop of Rome. And the
latter, upon hearing it, wrote simultaneously against the adherents of
Sabellius and against those who held the same opinions for uttering which
Arius was cast out of the Church; and he called it an equal and opposite
impiety to hold with Sabellius or with those who say that the Word of God
is a creature, framed and originated. And he wrote also to Dionysius
[_i.e._, of Alexandria] to inform him of what they had said about him. And
the latter straightway wrote back and inscribed a book entitled _A
Refutation and a Defence_.
Ch. 14. … In answer to these charges he writes, after certain prefatory
matter in the first book of the work entitled _A Refutation and a
Defence_, in the following terms:
Ch. 15. “For never was there a time when God was not a Father.” And this
he acknowledges in what follows, “that Christ is forever, being Word and
Wisdom and Power. For it is not to be supposed that God, having at first
no issue, afterward begat a Son. But the Son has his being not of Himself,
but of the Father.”
(_c_) Eusebius, _Hist. Ec._, VII, 27, 29, 30. (MSG, 25:705.)
The deposition of Paul of Samosata.
The controversy concerning Paul’s doctrinal views is sufficiently
set forth in the extract from Eusebius given below. Paul was
bishop of Antioch from about 260 to 268. His works have perished,
with the exception of a few fragments. The importance of Paul is
that in his teaching is to be found an attempt to combine the
Logos theology of Origen with Dynamistic Monarchianism, with
results that appeared later in Arianism, on the one hand, and
Nestorianism, it is thought, on the other.
Ch. 27. After Sixtus had presided over the church of Rome eleven years,
Dionysius, namesake of him of Alexandria, succeeded him. About that time
Demetrianus died in Antioch, and Paul of Samosata received that
episcopate. As he held low and degraded views of Christ, contrary to the
teaching of the Church, namely, that in his nature He was a common man,
Dionysius of Alexandria was entreated to come to the synod. But being
unable to come on account of age and physical weakness, he gave his
opinion on the subject under consideration by a letter. But the other
pastors of the churches assembled from all directions, as against a
despoiler of the flock of Christ, all making haste to reach Antioch.
Ch. 29. During his [Aurelian’s, 270-275] reign a final synod composed of a
great many bishops was held, and the leader of heresy in Antioch was
detected and his false doctrine clearly shown before all, and he was
excommunicated from the Catholic Church under heaven. Malchion especially
drew him out from his hiding-place and refuted him. He was a man learned
also in other matters, and principal of the sophist school of Grecian
learning in Antioch; yet on account of the superior nobility of his faith
in Christ he had been made a presbyter of that parish [_i.e._, diocese].
This man, having conducted a discussion with him, which was taken down by
stenographers, and which we know is still extant, was alone able to detect
the man who dissembled and deceived others.
Ch. 30. The pastors who had assembled about this matter prepared by common
consent an epistle addressed to Dionysius, bishop of Rome, and Maximus of
Alexandria, and sent it to all the provinces.…
After other things they describe as follows the manner of life which he
led: “Whereas he has departed from the rule [_i.e._, of faith], and has
turned aside after base and spurious teachings, it is not necessary—since
he is without—that we should pass judgment upon his practices: as for
instance … in that he is haughty and is puffed up, and assumes worldly
dignities, preferring to be called ducenarius rather than bishop; and
struts in the market-places, reading letters and reciting them as he walks
in public, attended by a bodyguard, with a multitude preceding and
following him, so that the faith is envied and hated on account of his
pride and haughtiness of heart, … or that he violently and coarsely
assails in public the expounders of the Word that have departed this life,
and magnifies himself, not as bishop, but as a sophist and juggler, and
stops the psalms to our Lord Jesus Christ as being novelties and the
productions of modern men, and trains women to sing psalms to himself in
the midst of the church on the great day of the passover.… He is unwilling
to acknowledge that the Son of God came down from heaven. (And this is no
mere assertion, but is abundantly proved from the records which we have
sent you; and not least where he says, ‘Jesus Christ is from below.’)… And
there are the women, the ‘_subintroductæ_,’ as the people of Antioch call
them, belonging to him and to the presbyters and deacons with him.
Although he knows and has convicted these men, yet he connives at this and
their incurable sins, in order that they may be bound to him, and through
fear for themselves may not dare to accuse him for his wicked words and
deeds.…”
As Paul had fallen from the episcopate, as well as from the orthodox
faith, Domnus, as has been said, succeeded to the service of the church at
Antioch [_i.e._, became bishop]. But as Paul refused to surrender the
church building, the Emperor Aurelian was petitioned; and he decided the
matter most equitably, ordering the building to be given to those to whom
the bishops of Italy and of the city of Rome should adjudge it. Thus this
man was driven out of the Church, with extreme disgrace, by the worldly
power.
Such was Aurelian’s attitude toward us at that time; but in the course of
time he changed his mind in regard to us, and was moved by certain
advisers to institute a persecution against us. And there was great talk
about it everywhere. But as he was about to do it, and was, so to speak,
in the very act of signing the decrees against us, the divine judgment
came upon him and restrained him at the very verge of his undertaking.
(_d_) Malchion of Antioch, _Disputation with Paul_. (MSG, 10:247-260.)
The doctrine of Paul of Samosata.
The following fragments are from the disputation of Malchion with
Paul at the Council of Antioch, 268 [see extract from Eusebius,
_Hist. Ec._, VII, 27, 29, 30; see above (_c_)], which Malchion is
said to have revised and published. The passages may be found also
in Routh, _Reliquiæ Sacræ_, second ed., III, 300 _ff._ Fragments
I-III are from the work of the Emperor Justinian, _Contra
Monophysitas_; fragment IV is from the work of Leontius of
Byzantium, _Adversus Nestorianos et Eutychianos_.
I. The Logos became united with Him who was born of David, who is Jesus,
who was begotten of the Holy Ghost. And Him the Virgin bore by the Holy
Spirit; but God generated that Logos without the Virgin or any one else
than God, and thus the Logos exists.
II. The Logos was greater than Christ. Christ became greater through
Wisdom, that we might not overthrow the dignity of Wisdom.
III. In order that the Anointed, who was from David, might not be a
stranger to Wisdom, and that Wisdom might not dwell so largely in another.
For it was in the prophets, and more in Moses, and in many the Lord was,
but more also in Christ as in a temple. For Jesus Christ was one and the
Logos was another.
IV. He who appeared was not Wisdom, for He could not be found in an
outward form, neither in the appearance of a man; for He is greater than
all things visible.
(_e_) Paul of Samosata, _Orationes ad Sabinum_, Routh, _op. cit._, III,
329.
The doctrine of Paul.
Paul’s work addressed to Sabinus has perished with the exception
of a few fragments. See Routh, _op. cit._
I. Thou shouldest not wonder that the Saviour had one will with God; for
just as nature shows us a substance becoming one and the same out of many
things, so the nature of love makes one and the same will out of many
through a manifest preference.
II. He who was born holy and righteous, having by His struggle and
sufferings overcome the sin of our progenitors, and having succeeded in
all things, was united in character to God, since He had preserved one and
the same effort and aim as He for the promotion of things that are good;
and since He has preserved this inviolate, His name is called that above
every name, the prize of love having been freely bestowed upon Him.
(_f_) Epiphanius, _Panarion_, _Hær._ LXV. (MSG, 42:12.)
The doctrine of Paul of Samosata.
Epiphanius was bishop of Salamis, 367-403. His works are chiefly
polemical and devoted to the refutation of all heresies, of which
he gives accounts at some length. He is a valuable, though not
always reliable, source for many otherwise unknown heresies. In
the present case we have passages from Paul’s own writings that
confirm and supplement the statements of the hereseologist.
He [Paul of Samosata] says that God the Father and the Son and the Holy
Spirit are one God, that in God is always His Word and His Spirit, as in a
man’s heart is his own reason; that the Son of God does not exist in a
hypostasis, but in God himself.… That the Logos came and dwelt in Jesus,
who was a man. And thus he says God is one, neither is the Father the
Father, nor the Son the Son, nor the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit, but
rather the one God is Father and in Him is his Son, as the reason is in a
man.… But he did not say with Noetus that the Father suffered, but only,
said he, the Logos came and energized and went back to the Father.
(_g_) Methodius of Olympus, _Symposium_, III, 4, 8. (MSG, 18:65, 73.)
The theology of Origen was not suffered to go without being
challenged by those who could not accept some of his extreme
statements. Among those opposed to him were Peter, bishop of
Alexandria, and Methodius, bishop of Olympus. Both were strongly
influenced by Origen, but the denial of a bodily resurrection and
the eternity of the creation were too offensive. The more
important of the two is Methodius, who combined a strong
anti-Origenistic position on these two points with that
“recapitulation” theory of redemption which has been called the
Asia Minor type of theology and is represented also by Irenæus;
see above, § 27. He has been called the author of the “theology of
the future,” with reference to his relation to Athanasius, in that
he laid the foundation for a doctrine of redemption which
superseded that of the old Alexandrian school, and became
established in the East under the lead of Athanasius and the
Nicene divines generally.
Methodius was bishop of Olympus, in Lycia. The statements that he
also held other sees are unreliable. He died in 311 as a martyr.
Nothing else is known with certainty as to his life. Of his
numerous and well-written works, only one, _The Banquet_, or
_Symposium_, has been preserved entire. His work _On the
Resurrection_ is most strongly opposed to Origen and his denial of
the bodily resurrection.
Ch. 4. For let us consider how rightly he [Paul] compared Adam to Christ,
not only considering him to be the type and image, but also that Christ
Himself became the very same thing, because the Eternal Word fell upon
Him. For it was fitting that the first-born of God, the first shoot, the
Only begotten, even the Wisdom [of God], should be joined to the
first-formed man, and first and first-born of men, and should become
incarnate. And this was Christ, a man filled with the pure and perfect
Godhead, and God received into man. For it was most suitable that the
oldest of the Æons and the first of the archangels, when about to hold
communion with men, should dwell in the oldest and first of men, even
Adam. And thus, renovating those things which were from the beginning, and
forming them again of the Virgin by the Spirit, He frames the same just as
at the beginning.
Ch. 8. The Church could not conceive believers and give them new birth by
the laver of regeneration unless Christ, emptying Himself for their sakes,
that He might be contained by them, as I said, through the recapitulation
of His passion, should die again, coming down from heaven, and, being
“joined to His wife,” the Church, should provide that a certain power be
taken from His side, so that all who are built up in Him should grow up,
even those who are born again by the laver, receiving of His bones and of
His flesh; that is, of His holiness and of His glory. For he who says that
the bones and flesh of Wisdom are understanding and virtue, says most
rightly; and that the side [rib] is the Spirit of truth, the Paraclete, of
whom the illuminated [_i.e._, baptized], receiving, are fitly born again
to incorruption.
(_h_) Methodius of Olympus, _De Resurrect._, I, 13. (MSG, 18:284.)
_De Resur._, I, 13.(76) If any one were to think that the earthly image is
the flesh itself, but the heavenly image is some other spiritual body
besides the flesh, let him first consider that Christ, the heavenly man,
when He appeared, bore the same form of limbs and the same image of flesh
as ours, through which, also, He, who was not man, became man, that, “as
in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” For if it was
not that he might set the flesh free and raise it up that He bore flesh,
why did He bear flesh superfluously, as He purposed neither to save it nor
to raise it up? But the Son of God does nothing superfluous. He did not
take, then, the form of a servant uselessly, but to raise it up and save
it. For He was truly made man, and died, and not in appearance, but that
He might truly be shown to be the first begotten from the dead, changing
the earthly into the heavenly, and the mortal into the immortal.
§ 49. The Development of the Cultus
The Church’s cultus and sacramental system developed rapidly in the third
century. The beginnings of the administration of the sacraments according
to prescribed forms are to be traced to the Didache and Justin Martyr (see
above, §§ 13, 14). At the beginning of the third century baptism was
already accompanied by a series of subsidiary rites, and the eucharist was
regarded as a sacrifice, the benefit of which might be directed toward
specific ends. The further development was chiefly in connection with the
eucharist, which effected in turn the conception of the hierarchy (see
below, § 50). Baptism was regarded as conferring complete remission of
previous sins; subsequent sins were atoned for in the penitential
discipline (see above, § 42). As for the eucharist, the conception of the
sacrifice which appears in the Didache, an offering of praise and
thanksgiving, gradually gives place to a sacrifice which in some way
partakes of the nature of Christ’s sacrificial death upon the cross. At
the same time, the elements are more and more completely identified with
the body and blood of Christ, and the nature of the presence of Christ is
conceived under quasi-physical categories. As representatives of the lines
of development, Tertullian, at the beginning of the century, and Cyprian,
at the middle, may be taken. That a similar development took place in the
East is evident, not only from the references to the same in the writings
of Origen and others, but also from the appearance in the next century of
elaborate services, or liturgies, as well as the doctrinal statements of
writers generally.
(_a_) Tertullian, _De Corona_, 3. (MSL, 2:98.)
The ceremonies connected with baptism.
And how long shall we draw the saw to and fro through this line when we
have an ancient practice which by anticipation has settled the state of
the question? If no passage of Scripture has prescribed it, assuredly
custom, which without doubt flowed from tradition, has confirmed it. For
how can anything come into use if it has not first been handed down? Even
in pleading tradition written authority, you say, must be demanded. Let us
inquire, therefore, whether tradition, unless it be written, should not be
admitted. Certainly we shall say that it ought not to be admitted if no
cases of other practices which, without any written instrument, we
maintain on the ground of tradition alone, and the countenance thereafter
of custom, affords us any precedent. To deal with this matter briefly, I
shall begin with baptism. When we are going to enter the water, but a
little before, in the church and under the hand of the president, we
solemnly profess that we renounce the devil, and his pomp, and his angels.
Hereupon we are thrice immersed, making a somewhat ampler pledge than the
Lord has appointed in the Gospel. Then, when we are taken up (as new-born
children), we taste first of all a mixture of milk and honey; and from
that day we refrain from the daily bath for a whole week. We take also in
congregations, before daybreak, and from the hands of none but the
presidents, the sacrament of the eucharist, which the Lord both commanded
to be eaten at meal-times, and by all. On the anniversary day we make
offerings for the dead as birthday honors. We consider fasting on the
Lord’s Day to be unlawful, as also to worship kneeling. We rejoice in the
same privilege from Easter to Pentecost. We feel pained should any wine or
bread, even though our own, be cast upon the ground. At every forward step
and movement, at every going in and going out, when we put on our shoes,
at the bath, at table, on lighting the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all
the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign
[_i.e._, of the cross].
(_b_) Tertullian, _De Baptismo_, 5-8. (MSL, 1:1314.)
The whole passage should be read as showing clearly that
Tertullian recognized the similarity between Christian baptism and
heathen purifying washings, but referred the effects of the
heathen rites to evil powers, quite in harmony with the Christian
admission of the reality of heathen divinities as evil powers and
heathen exorcisms as wrought by the aid of evil spirits.
Ch. 5. … Thus man will be restored by God to His likeness, for he formerly
had been after the image of God; the image is counted being in His form
[_in effigie_], the likeness in His eternity [_in æternitate_]. For he
receives that Spirit of God which he had then received from His afflatus,
but afterward lost through sin.
Ch. 6. Not that in the waters we obtain the Holy Spirit, but in the water,
under (the witness of angels) we are cleansed and prepared for the Holy
Spirit.…
Ch. 7. After this, when we have issued from the font, we are thoroughly
anointed with a blessed unction according to the ancient discipline,
wherein on entering the priesthood men were accustomed to be anointed with
oil from a horn, wherefore Aaron was anointed by Moses.… Thus, too, in our
case the unction runs carnally, but profits spiritually; in the same way
as the act of baptism itself is carnal, in that we are plunged in the
water, but the effect spiritual, in that we are freed from sins.
Ch. 8. In the next place, the hand is laid upon us, invoking and inviting
the Holy Spirit through benediction.… But this, as well as the former, is
derived from the old sacramental rite in which Jacob blessed his grandsons
born of Joseph, Ephraim, and Manasses; with his hands laid on them and
interchanged, and indeed so transversely slanted the one over the other
that, by delineating Christ, they even portended the future benediction in
Christ. [_Cf._ Gen. 48:13 _f._]
(_c_) Cyprian, _Ep. ad Cæcilium, Ep. 63_, 13-17. (MSL, 4:395.)
The eucharist.
Thascius Cæcilius Cyprianus, bishop of Carthage, was born about
200, and became bishop in 248 or 249. His doctrinal position is a
development of that of Tertullian, beside whom he may be placed as
one of the founders of the characteristic theology of North
Africa. His discussion of the place and authority of the bishop in
the ecclesiastical system was of fundamental importance in the
development of the theory of the hierarchy, though it may be
questioned whether his particular theory of the relation of the
bishops to each other ever was realized in the Church. For his
course during the Decian persecution see §§ 45, 46. He died about
258, in the persecution under Valerian.
In the epistle from which the following extract is taken Cyprian
writes to Cæcilius to point out that it is wrong to use merely
water in the eucharist, and that wine mixed with water should be
used, for in all respects we do exactly what Christ did at the
Last Supper when he instituted the eucharist. In the course of the
letter, which is of some length, Cyprian takes occasion to set
forth his conception of the eucharistic sacrifice, which is a
distinct advance upon Tertullian. The date of the letter is about
253.
Ch. 13. Because Christ bore us all, in that He also bore our sins, we see
that in the water is understood the people, but in the wine is showed the
blood of Christ. But when in the cup the water is mingled with the wine
the people is made one with Christ, and the assembly of believers is
associated and conjoined with Him on whom it believes; which association
and conjunction of water and wine is so mingled in the Lord’s cup that
that mixture cannot be separated any more. Whence, moreover, nothing can
separate the Church—that is, the people established in the Church,
faithfully and firmly continuing in that in which they have believed—from
Christ in such a way as to prevent their undivided love from always
abiding and adhering. Thus, therefore, in consecrating the cup water alone
should not be offered to the Lord, even as wine alone should not be
offered. For if wine only is offered, the blood of Christ begins to be
without us.(77) But if the water alone be offered, the people begin to be
without Christ, but when both are mingled and are joined to each other by
an intermixed union, then the spiritual and heavenly sacrament is
completed. Thus the cup of the Lord is not, indeed, water alone, nor wine
alone, nor unless each be mingled with the other; just as, on the other
hand, the body of the Lord cannot be flour alone or water alone, nor
unless both should be united and joined together and compacted into the
mass of one bread: in which sacrament our people are shown to be one; so
that in like manner as many grains are collected and ground and mixed
together into one mass and made one bread, so in Christ, who is the
heavenly bread, we may know that there is one body with which our number
is joined and united.
Ch. 14. There is, then, no reason, dearest brother, for any one to think
that the custom of certain persons is to be followed, who in times past
have thought that water alone should be offered in the cup of the Lord.
For we must inquire whom they themselves have followed. For if in the
sacrifice which Christ offered none is to be followed but Christ, we ought
certainly to obey and do what Christ did, and what He commanded to be
done, since He himself says in the Gospel: “If ye do whatsoever I command
you, henceforth I call you not servants, but friends” [John 15:14 _f._].…
If Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, is Himself the chief priest of God the
Father, and has first offered Himself a sacrifice to the Father, and has
commanded this to be done in commemoration of Himself, certainly that
priest truly acts in the place of Christ who imitates what Christ did; and
he then offers a true and full sacrifice in the Church of God to God the
Father when he proceeds to offer it according to what he sees Christ
himself to have offered.
Ch. 15. But the discipline of all religion and truth is overturned unless
what is spiritually prescribed be faithfully observed; unless, indeed, any
one should fear in the morning sacrifices lest the taste of wine should be
redolent of the blood of Christ.(78) Therefore, thus the brotherhood is
beginning to be kept back from the passion of Christ in persecutions by
learning in the offerings to be disturbed concerning His blood and His
blood-shedding.… But how can we shed our blood for Christ who blush to
drink the blood of Christ?
Ch. 16. Does any one perchance flatter himself with this reflection—that,
although in the morning water alone is seen to be offered, yet when we
come to supper we offer the mingled cup? But when we sup, we cannot call
the people together for our banquet that we may celebrate the truth of the
sacrament in the presence of the entire brotherhood. But still it was not
in the morning, but after supper that the Lord offered the mingled cup.
Ought we, then, to celebrate the Lord’s cup after supper, that so by
continual repetition of the Lord’s Supper we may offer the mingled cup? It
was necessary that Christ should offer about the evening of the day, that
the very hour of sacrifice might show the setting and the evening of the
world as it is written in Exodus: “And all the people of the synagogue of
the children of Israel shall kill it in the evening.”(79) And again in the
Psalms: “Let the lifting up of my hands be an evening sacrifice.”(80) But
we celebrate the resurrection of the Lord in the morning.
Ch. 17. And because we make mention of His passion in all sacrifices (for
the Lord’s passion is the sacrifice which we offer), we ought to do
nothing else than what He did. For the Scripture says: “For as often as ye
eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show forth the Lord’s death till
He come.”(81) As often, therefore, as we offer the cup in commemoration of
the Lord and His passion, let us do what it is known the Lord did.
§ 50. The Episcopate in the Church
The greatest name connected with the development of the hierarchical
conception of the Church in the third century is without question Cyprian
(see § 49). He developed the conception of the episcopate beyond the point
it had reached in the hands of Tertullian, to whom the institution was
important primarily as a guardian of the deposit of faith and a pledge of
the continuity of the Church. In the hands of Cyprian the episcopate
became the essential foundation of the Church. According to his theory of
the office, every bishop was the peer of every other bishop and had the
same duties to his diocese and to the Church as a whole as every other
bishop. No bishop had any more than a moral authority over any other. Only
the whole body of bishops, or the council, could bring anything more than
moral authority to bear upon an offending prelate. The constitution of the
council was not as yet defined. In several points the ecclesiastical
theories of Cyprian were not followed by the Church as a whole, notably
his opinion regarding heretical baptism (see § 47), but his main
contention as to the importance of the episcopate for the very existence
(_esse_), and not the mere welfare (_bene esse_), of the Church was
universally accepted. His theory of the equality of all bishops was a
survival of an earlier period, and represented little more than his
personal ideal. The following sections should also be consulted in this
connection.
Additional source material: Cyprian deals with the hierarchical
constitution in almost every epistle; see, however, especially the
following: 26:1 [33:1], 51:24 [55:24], 54:5 [59:5], 64:3 [3:3],
72:21 [73:21], 74:16 [75:16] (important for the testimony of
Firmilian as to the hierarchical ideas in the East). _Serapion’s
Prayer Book_, trans. by J. Wordsworth, 1899.
(_a_) Cyprian, _Epistula 68_, 8 [=66]. (MSL, 4:418.)
Although a rebellious and arrogant multitude of those who will not obey
depart, yet the Church does not depart from Christ; and they are the
Church who are a people united to the priest, and the flock which adheres
to its pastor. Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church
and the Church in the bishop; and that if any one be not with the bishop,
he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who
creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they
communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and
one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by
the cement of the priests who cohere with one another.
(_b_) Council of Carthage, A. D. 256. (MSL, 3:1092.)
The council of Carthage, in 256, was held, under the presidency of
Cyprian, to act on the question of baptism by heretics. See § 52.
Eighty-seven bishops were present. The full report of proceedings
is to be found in the works of Cyprian. See ANF, V, 565, and
Hefele, § 6. The theory of Cyprian which is here expressed is that
all bishops are equal and independent, as opposed to the Roman
position taken by Stephen, and that the individual bishop is
responsible only to God.
Cyprian said: … It remains that upon this matter each of us should bring
forward what he thinks, judging no man, nor rejecting from the right of
communion, if he should think differently. For neither does any one of us
set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terrors does any
one compel his colleagues to the necessity of obedience; since every
bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own
proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he
himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our
Lord Jesus Christ, who alone has the power of advancing us in the
government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct here.
(_c_) Cyprian, _Epistula_ 67:5. (MSL, 3:1064.)
The following epistle was written to clergy and people in Spain,
_i.e._, at Leon, Astorga, and Merida, in regard to the ordination
of two bishops, Sabinus and Felix, in place of Basilides and
Martial, who had lapsed in the persecution and had been deprived
of their sees. The passage illustrates the methods of election and
ordination of bishops, and the failure of Cyprian, with his theory
of the episcopate, to recognize in the see of Rome any
jurisdiction over other bishops. Its date appears to be about 257.
You must diligently observe and keep the practice delivered from divine
tradition and apostolic observance, which is also maintained among us, and
throughout almost all the provinces: that for the proper celebration of
ordinations all the neighboring bishops of the same province should
assemble with that people for which a prelate is ordained. And the bishops
should be chosen in the presence of the people, who have most fully known
the life of each one, and have looked into the doings of each one as
respects his manner of life. And this also, we see, was done by you in the
ordination of our colleague Sabinus; so that, by the suffrage of the whole
brotherhood, and by the sentence of the bishops who had assembled in their
presence, and who had written letters to you concerning him, the
episcopate was conferred upon him, and hands were imposed on him in the
place of Basilides. Neither can an ordination properly completed be
annulled, so that Basilides, after his crimes had been discovered and his
conscience made bare, even by his own confession, might go to Rome and
deceive Stephen, our colleague, who was placed at a distance and was
ignorant of what had been done, so as to bring it about that he might be
replaced unjustly in the episcopate from which he had been justly deposed.
§ 51. The Unity of the Church and the See of Rome
In the middle of the third century there were in sharp conflict two
distinct and opposed theories of Church unity: the theory that the unity
was based upon adherence to and conformity with the see of Peter; and the
theory that the episcopate was itself one, and that each bishop shared
equally in it. The unity was either in one see or in the less tangible
unity of an order of the hierarchy. The former was the theory of the Roman
bishops; the latter, the theory of Cyprian of Carthage, and possibly of a
number of other ecclesiastics in North Africa and Asia Minor. Formerly
polemical theology made the study of this point difficult, at least with
anything like impartiality. In the passage given below from Cyprian’s
treatise _On the Unity of the Catholic Church_ the text of the Jesuit
Father Kirch is followed in the most difficult and interpolated chapter 4.
As Father Kirch gives the text it is perfectly consistent with the theory
of Cyprian as he has elsewhere stated it, and that the interpolated text
is not. See, however, P. Battifol, _Primitive Catholicism_, Lond., 1911,
Excursus E.
Additional source material: _V. supra_, § 27; also Mirbt, §§
56-69. The little treatise _De Aleatoribus_ (MSL, 4: 827), from
which Mirbt gives an extract (n. 71), might be cited in this
connection, but its force depends upon its origin. It is wholly
uncertain that it was written either by a bishop of Rome or in
Italy. _Cf._ Bardenhewer. Kirch also gives the text in part, n.
276; for other references, see Kirch.
(_a_) Cyprian, _De Catholicæ Ecclesiæ Unitate_, 4, 5. (MSL, 4:513.)
The tract entitled _On the Unity of the Catholic Church_ is the
most famous of Cyprian’s works. As the theory there developed is
opposed to that which became dominant, and as Cyprian was regarded
as the great upholder of the Church’s constitution, interpolations
were early made in the text which seriously distort the sense.
These interpolations are to-day abandoned by all scholars. The
best critical edition of the works of Cyprian is by W. von Hartel
in the CSEL, but critical texts of the following passage with
references to literature and indication of interpolations may be
found in Mirbt (Prot.), n. 52, and in Kirch (R. C.), n. 234
(chapter 4 only).
Ch. 4. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying: “I say unto thee, that thou art
Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell
shall not prevail against it. I will give thee the keys of the Kingdom of
Heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in
heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed also in
heaven” (Matt. 16:18, 19). [To the same He says after His resurrection:
“Feed my sheep” (John 21:15). Upon him He builds His Church, and to him He
commits His sheep to be fed, and although. _Interpolation._] Upon one he
builds the Church, although also to all the Apostles after His
resurrection He gives an equal power and says, “As the Father has sent me,
I also send you: receive ye the Holy Ghost: whosesoever sins ye retain,
they shall be retained” (John 20:21); yet, that He might show the unity,
[He founded one see. _Interpolation._] He arranged by His authority the
origin of that unity as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the
Apostles were also what Peter was, with a like partnership both of honor
and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity [and the primacy is given
to Peter. _Interpolation._], that there might be shown to be one Church of
Christ [and one see. And they are all shepherds, but the flock is shown to
be one which is fed by the Apostles with unanimous consent.
_Interpolation._]. Which one Church the Holy Spirit also in the Song of
Songs designates in the person of the Lord and says: “My dove, my spotless
one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, chosen of her that
bare her” (Cant. 6:9). Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church
[unity of Peter. _Corrupt reading._] think that he holds the faith? Does
he who strives against and resists the Church [who deserts the chair of
Peter. _Interpolation._] trust that he is in the Church, when, moreover,
the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same things and sets forth the
sacrament of unity, saying, “There is one body and one spirit, one hope of
your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God”? (Eph. 4:4.)
Ch. 5. And this unity we ought to hold firmly and assert, especially we
bishops who preside in the Church, that we may prove the episcopate itself
to be one and undivided. Let no one deceive the brotherhood by a
falsehood; let no one corrupt the truth by a perfidious prevarication. The
episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one in its entirety.
The Church, also, is one which is spread abroad far and wide into a
multitude by an increase of fruitfulness. As there are many rays of the
sun, but one light, and many branches of a tree, but one strength based
upon its tenacious root, and since from one spring flow many streams,
although the multiplicity seems diffused in the liberality of an
overflowing abundance, yet the unity is still preserved in its source.
(_b_) Firmilian of Cæesarea, _Ep. ad Cyprianum_, in Cyprian, _Ep. 74_
[=75]. (MSL, 3:1024.)
The matter in dispute was the rebaptism of those heretics who had
received baptism before they conformed to the Church. See § 52. It
was the burning question after the rise of the Novatian sect.
Stephen, bishop of Rome (254-257), had excommunicated a number of
churches and bishops, among them probably Cyprian himself. See the
epistle of Dionysius to Sixtus of Rome, the successor of Stephen,
in Eusebius, _Hist. Ec._, VII, 5. “He” (Stephen) therefore had
written previously concerning Helenus and Firmilianus and all
those in Cilicia, Cappadocia, Galatia, and the neighboring
countries, saying that he would not communicate with them for this
same cause: namely, that they rebaptized heretics. This attitude
of Stephen roused no little resentment in the East, as is shown by
the indignant tone of Firmilian, who recognizes no authority in
Rome. The text may be found in Mirbt, n. 74, and in part in Kirch,
n. 274. The epistle of Firmilian is to be found among the epistles
of Cyprian, to whom it was written.
Ch. 2. We may in this matter give thanks to Stephen that it has now
happened through his unkindness [inhumanity] that we receive proof of your
faith and wisdom.
Ch. 3. But let these things which were done by Stephen be passed by for
the present, lest, while we remember his audacity and pride, we bring a
more lasting sadness on ourselves from the things he has wickedly done.
Ch. 6. That they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases
which have been handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the
authority of the Apostles, any one may know; also, from the fact that
concerning the celebration of the day of Easter, and concerning many other
sacraments of divine matters, one may see that there are some diversities
among them, and that all things are not observed there alike which are
observed at Jerusalem; just as in very many other provinces also many
things are varied because of the difference of places and names, yet on
this account there is no departure at all from the peace and unity of the
Catholic Church. And this departure Stephen has now dared to make;
breaking the peace against you, which his predecessors have always kept
with you in mutual love and honor, even herein defaming Peter and Paul,
the blessed Apostles, as if the very men delivered this who in their
epistles execrated heretics and warned us to avoid them. Whence it appears
that this tradition is human which maintains heretics, and asserts that
they have baptism, which belongs to the Church alone.
Ch. 17. And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and
manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his
episcopate and contends that he holds the succession of Peter, on whom the
foundation of the Church was laid, should introduce many other rocks and
establish new buildings of many churches, maintaining that there is a
baptism in them by his authority; for those who are baptized, without
doubt, make up the number of the Church.… Stephen, who announces that he
holds by succession the throne of Peter, is stirred with no zeal against
heretics, when he concedes to them, not a moderate, but the very greatest
power of grace.
Ch. 19. This, indeed, you Africans are able to say against Stephen, that
when you knew the truth you forsook the error of custom. But we join
custom to truth, and to the Romans’ custom we oppose custom, but the
custom of truth, holding from the beginning that which was delivered by
Christ and the Apostles. Nor do we remember that this at any time began
among us, since it has always been observed here, that we have known none
but one Church of God, and have accounted no baptism holy except that of
the holy Church.
Ch. 24. Consider with what want of judgment you dare to blame those who
strive for the truth against falsehood.(82) … For how many strifes and
dissensions have you stirred up throughout the churches of the whole
world! Moreover, how great sin have you heaped up for yourself, when you
cut yourself off from so many flocks! For it is yourself that you have cut
off. Do not deceive yourself, since he is really the schismatic who has
made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For
while you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you have alone
excommunicated yourself from all; and not even the precepts of an Apostle
have been able to mould you to the rule of truth and peace.(83)
Ch. 25. How carefully has Stephen fulfilled these salutary commands and
warnings of the Apostle, keeping in the first place lowliness of mind and
meekness! For what is more lowly or meek than to have disagreed with so
many bishops throughout the whole world, breaking peace with each one of
them in various kinds of discord: at one time with the Easterns, as we are
sure is not unknown to you; at another time with you who are in the south,
from whom he received bishops as messengers sufficiently patiently and
meekly as not to receive them even to the speech of common conference;
and, even more, so unmindful of love and charity as to command the whole
brotherhood that no one should receive them into his house, so that not
only peace and communion, but also a shelter and entertainment were denied
to them when they came. This is to have kept the unity of the Spirit in
the bond of peace, to cut himself off from the unity of love, and to make
himself a stranger in all things to his brethren, and to rebel against the
sacrament and the faith with the madness of contumacious discord.… Stephen
is not ashamed to afford patronage to such a position in the Church, and
for the sake of maintaining heretics to divide the brotherhood; and, in
addition, to call Cyprian a false Christ, and a false Apostle, and a
deceitful worker, and he, conscious that all these characters are for
himself, has been in advance of you by falsely objecting to another those
things which he himself ought to bear.
§ 52. Controversy over Baptism by Heretics
In the great persecutions schisms arose in connection with the
administration of discipline (_cf._ § 46). The schismatics held in general
the same faith as the main body of Christians. Were the sacraments they
administered to be regarded, then, as valid in such a sense that when they
conformed to the Catholic Church, which they frequently did, they need not
be baptized, having once been validly baptized; or should their schismatic
baptism be regarded as invalid and they be required to receive baptism on
conforming if they had not previously been baptized within the Church? Was
baptism outside the unity of the Church valid? Rome answered in the
affirmative, admitting conforming schismatics without distinguishing as to
where they had been baptized; North Africa answered in the negative and
required not, indeed, a second baptism, but claimed that the Church’s
baptism was alone valid, and that if the person conforming had been
baptized in schism he had not been baptized at all. This view was shared
by at least some churches in Asia Minor (_cf._ § 51, _b_), and possibly
elsewhere. It became the basis of the Donatist position (_cf._ § 62),
which schism shared with the Novatian schism the opinion, generally
rejected by the Church, that the validity of a sacrament depended upon the
spiritual condition of the minister of the sacrament, _e.g._, whether he
was in schism or not.
Additional source material: Seventh Council of Carthage (ANF, vol.
V); Eusebius, _Hist. Ec._, VII, 7:4-6; Augustine, _De Baptismo
contra Donatistas_, Bk. III (PNF, ser. I, vol. IV).
(_a_) Cyprian, _Ep. ad Jubianum_, _Ep._ 73, 7 [=72]. (MSL, 3:1159, 168.)
A portion of this epistle may be found in Mirbt, n. 70.
Ch. 7. It is manifest where and by whom the remission of sins can be
given, _i.e._, that remission which is given by baptism. For first of all
the Lord gave the power to Peter, upon whom He built the Church, and
whence he appointed and showed the source of unity, the power, namely,
that that should be loosed in heaven which he loosed on earth [John 20:21
quoted]. When we perceive that only they who are set over the Church and
established in the Gospel law and in the ordinance of the Lord are allowed
to baptize and to give remission of sins, we see that outside of the
Church nothing can be bound or loosed, for there there is no one who can
either bind or loose anything.
Ch. 21. Can the power of baptism be greater or of more avail than
confession, than suffering when one confesses Christ before men, and is
baptized in his own blood? And yet, even this baptism does not benefit a
heretic, although he has confessed Christ and been put to death outside
the Church, unless the patrons and advocates of heretics [_i.e._, those
whom Cyprian is opposing] declare that the heretics who are slain in a
false confession of Christ are martyrs, and assign to them the glory and
the crown of martyrdom contrary to the testimony of the Apostle, who says
that it will profit them nothing although they are burned and slain. But
if not even the baptism of a public confession and blood can profit a
heretic to salvation, because there is no salvation outside of the Church,
how much less shall it benefit him if, in a hiding-place and a cave of
robbers stained with the contagion of adulterous waters, he has not only
not put off his old sins, but rather heaped up still newer and greater
ones! Wherefore baptism cannot be common to us and to heretics, to whom
neither God the Father nor Christ the Son, nor the Holy Ghost, nor the
faith, nor the Church itself is common. And wherefore they ought to be
baptized who come from heresy to the Church, so that they who are prepared
and receive the lawful and true and only baptism of the holy Church, by
divine regeneration for the kingdom of God may be born of both sacraments,
because it is written: “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit,
he cannot enter the kingdom of God” [John 3:5].
Ch. 26. These things, dearest brother, we have briefly written to you
according to our modest abilities, prescribing to none and prejudging
none, so as to prevent any one of the bishops doing what he thinks well,
and having the free exercise of his judgment.
(_b_) Cyprian, _Ep. ad Magnum_, _Ep._ 75 [=69]. (MSL, 3:1183.) _Cf._
Mirbt, n. 67.
With your usual diligence you have consulted my poor intelligence, dearest
son, as to whether, among other heretics, they also who come from Novatian
ought, after his profane washing, to be baptized and sanctified in the
Catholic Church, with the lawful, true, and only baptism of the Church. In
answer to this question, as much as the capacity of my faith and the
sanctity and truth of the divine Scriptures suggest, I say that no
heretics and schismatics at all have any right to power. For which reason
Novatian, since he is without the Church and is acting in opposition to
the peace and love of Christ, neither ought to be, nor can be, omitted
from being counted among the adversaries and antichrists. For our Lord
Jesus Christ, when He declared in His Gospel that those who were not with
Him were His adversaries, did not point out any species of heresy, but
showed that all who were not with Him, and who were not gathering with
Him, were scattering His flock, and were His adversaries, saying: “He that
is not with me is against me, and he that gathereth not with me
scattereth” [Luke 11:23]. Moreover, the blessed Apostle John distinguished
no heresy or schism, neither did he set down any specially separated, but
he called all who had gone out from the Church, and who acted in
opposition to the Church, antichrists, saying, “Ye have heard that
Antichrist cometh, and even now are come many antichrists; wherefore we
know that this is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not
of us, for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us” [I
John 2:18 _f._]. Whence it appears that all are adversaries of the Lord
and are antichrists who are known to have departed from the charity and
from the unity of the Catholic Church.
§ 53. The Beginnings of Monasticism
Asceticism in some form is common to almost all religions. It was
practised extensively in early Christianity and ascetics of both sexes
were numerous. This asceticism, in addition to a life largely devoted to
prayer and fasting, was marked by refraining from marriage. But these
ascetics lived in close relations with those who were non-ascetics.
Monasticism is an advance upon this earlier asceticism in that it attempts
to create, apart from non-ascetics, a social order composed only of
ascetics in which the ascetic ideals may be more successfully realized.
The transition was made by the hermit life in which the ascetic lived
alone in deserts and other solitudes. This became monasticism by the union
of ascetics for mutual spiritual aid. This advance is associated with St.
Anthony. See also Pachomius, in § 77.
Additional source material: Pseudo-Clement. _De Virginitate_ (ANF,
VIII, 53); Methodius, _Symposium_ (ANF, VI, 309); the _Lausiac
History of Palladius_, E. C. Butler, _Texts and Studies_,
Cambridge, 1898; _Paradise, or Garden of the Holy Fathers_, trans.
by E. A. W. Budge, London, 1907.
Athanasius, _Vita S. Antonii_, 2-4, 44. (MSG, 26:844, 908.)
Anthony, although not the first hermit, gave such an impetus to
the ascetic life and did so much to bring about some union of
ascetics that he has been popularly regarded as the founder of
monasticism. He died 356, at the age of one hundred and five. His
_Life_, by St. Athanasius, although formerly attacked, is a
genuine, and, on the whole, trustworthy account of this remarkable
man. It was written either 357 or 365, and was translated into
Latin by Evagrius of Antioch (died 393). Everywhere it roused the
greatest enthusiasm for monasticism. The _Life of St. Paul of
Thebes_, by St. Jerome, is of very different character, and of no
historical value.
Ch. 2. After the death of his parents, Anthony was left alone with one
little sister. He was about eighteen or twenty years old, and on him
rested the care of both the home and his sister. Now it happened not six
months after the death of his parents, and when he was going, according to
custom, into the Lord’s house, and was communing with himself, that he
reflected as he walked how the Apostles left all and followed the Saviour,
and how, in the Acts, men sold their possessions and brought and laid them
at the Apostles’ feet for distribution to the needy, and what and how
great a hope was laid up for them in heaven. While he was reflecting on
these things he entered the church, and it happened that at that time the
Gospel was being read, and he heard the Lord say to the rich man: “If thou
wouldest be perfect, go and sell that thou hast and give to the poor; and
come and follow me and thou shalt have treasure in heaven.” Anthony, as
though God had put him in mind of the saints and the passage had been read
on his account, went out straightway from the Lord’s house, and gave the
possessions which he had from his forefathers to the villagers—they were
three hundred acres, productive and very fair—that they should be no more
a clog upon himself and his sister. And all the rest that was movable he
sold, and, having got together much money, he gave it to the poor,
reserving a little, however, for his sister’s sake.
Ch. 3. And again as he went into the Lord’s house, and hearing the Lord
say in the Gospel, “Be not anxious for the morrow,” he could stay no
longer, but went and gave also those things to the poor. He then committed
his sister to known and faithful virgins, putting her in a convent
[_parthenon_], to be brought up, and henceforth he devoted himself outside
his house to ascetic discipline, taking heed to himself and training
himself patiently. For there were not yet many monasteries in Egypt, and
no monk at all knew of the distant desert; but every one of those who
wished to give heed to themselves practised the ascetic discipline in
solitude near his own village. Now there was in the next village an old
man who had lived from his youth the life of a hermit. Anthony, after he
had seen this man, imitated him in piety. And at first he began to abide
in places outside the village. Then, if he heard of any good man anywhere,
like the prudent bee, he went forth and sought him, nor did he turn back
to his own place until he had seen him; and he returned, having got from
the good man supplies, as it were, for his journey in the way of virtue.
So dwelling there at first, he steadfastly held to his purpose not to
return to the abode of his parents or to the remembrance of his kinsfolk;
but to keep all his desire and energy for the perfecting of his
discipline. He worked, however, with his hands, having heard that “he who
is idle, let him not eat,” and part he spent on bread and part he gave to
the needy. And he prayed constantly, because he had learned that a man
ought to pray in secret unceasingly. For he had given such heed to what
was read that none of those things that were written fell from him to the
ground; for he remembered all, and afterward his memory served him for
books.
Ch. 4. Thus conducting himself, Anthony was beloved by all. He subjected
himself in sincerity to the good men he visited, and learned thoroughly
wherein each surpassed him in zeal and discipline. He observed the
graciousness of one, the unceasing prayer of another; he took knowledge of
one’s freedom from anger, and another’s kindliness; he gave heed to one as
he watched, to another as he studied; one he admired for his endurance,
another for his fasting and sleeping on the ground; he watched the
meekness of one, and the long-suffering of another; and at the same time
he noted the piety toward Christ and the mutual love which animated all.
Athanasius describes Anthony’s removal to the desert and the
coming of disciples to him, and weaves into his narrative, in the
form of a speech, a long account of the discipline laid down,
probably by Anthony himself, chs. 16-43. It is to this long speech
that the opening words of the following section refers.
Ch. 44. While Anthony was thus speaking all rejoiced; in some the love of
virtue increased, in others carelessness was thrown aside, the
self-conceit of others was stopped; and all were persuaded to despise the
assaults of the Evil One, and marvelled at the grace given Anthony from
the Lord for the discerning of spirits. So their cells were in the
mountains, like tabernacles filled with holy bands of men who sang psalms,
loved reading, fasted, prayed, rejoiced in the hope of things to come,
labored in almsgiving, and maintained love and harmony with one another.
And truly it was possible to behold a land, as it were, set by itself,
filled with piety and justice. For then there was neither the evil-doer
nor the injured, nor the reproaches of the tax-gatherer; but instead a
multitude of ascetics, and the one purpose of all was to aim at virtue. So
that one beholding the cells again and seeing such good order among the
monks would lift up his voice and say: “How goodly are thy dwellings, O
Jacob, and thy tents, O Israel; as shady glens and as a garden by a river;
as tents which the Lord has pitched, and like cedars near the waters”
[Num. 24:5, 6].
Ch. 45. Anthony, however, returned, according to his custom, alone to his
cell, increased his discipline, and sighed daily as he thought of the
mansions of heaven, having his desire fixed on them and pondering over the
shortness of man’s life.
§ 54. Manichæanism
The last great rival religion to Christianity was Manichæanism, the last
of the important syncretistic religions which drew from Persian and allied
sources. Its connection with Christianity was at first slight and its
affinities were with Eastern Gnosticism. After 280 it began to spread
within the Empire, and was soon opposed by the Roman authorities. Yet it
flourished, and, like other Gnostic religions, with which it is to be
classed, it assimilated more and more of Christianity, until in the time
of Augustine it seemed to many as merely a form of Christianity. On
account of its general character, it absorbed for the most part what
remained of the earlier Gnostic systems and schools.
Additional source material: The most important accessible works
are the so-called _Acta Archelai_ (ANF, V, 175-235), the
anti-Manichæan writings of Augustine (PNF, ser. I, vol. IV), and
Alexander of Lycopolis, _On the Manichæans_ (ANF, VI, 239). On
Alexander of Lycopolis, see DCB. In the opinion of Bardenhewer,
Alexander was probably neither a bishop nor a Christian at all,
but a heathen and a Platonist. Roman edict against Manichæanism in
Kirch, n. 294.
An Nadim, _Fihrist_. (Translation after Kessler, _Mani_, 1889.)
The _Fihrist_, _i.e._, Catalogue, is a sort of history of
literature made in the eleventh century by the Moslem historian An
Nadim. In spite of its late date, it is the most important
authority for the original doctrines of Mani and the facts of his
life, as it is largely made up from citations from ancient authors
and writings of Mani and his original disciples.
(_a_) The Life of Mani.
Mohammed ibn Isak says: Mani was the son of Fatak,(84) of the family of
the Chaskanier. Ecbatana is said to have been the original home of his
father, from which he emigrated to the province of Babylon. He took up his
residence in Al Madain, in a portion of the city known as Ctesiphon. In
that place was an idol’s temple, and Fatak was accustomed to go into it,
as did also the other people of the place. It happened one day that a
voice sounded forth from the sacred interior of the temple, saying to him:
“Fatak, eat no flesh, drink no wine and refrain from carnal intercourse.”
This was repeated to him several times on three days. When Fatak perceived
this, he joined a society of people in the neighborhood of Dastumaisan
which were known under the name of Al-Mogtasilah, _i.e._, those who wash
themselves, baptists, and of whom remnants are to be found in these parts
and in the marshy districts at the present time. These belonged to that
mode of life which Fatak had been commanded to follow. His wife was at
that time pregnant with Mani, and when she had given him birth she had, as
they say, glorious visions regarding him, and even when she was awake she
saw him taken by some one unseen, who bore him aloft into the air, and
then brought him down again; sometimes he remained even a day or two
before he came down again. Thereupon his father sent for him and had him
brought to the place where he was, and so he was brought up with him in
his religion. Mani, in spite of his youthful age, spake words of wisdom.
After he had completed his twelfth year there came to him, according to
his statement, a revelation from the King of the Paradise of Light, who is
God the Exalted, as he said. The angel which brought him the revelation
was called Eltawan; this name means “the Companion.” He spoke to Mani, and
said: “Separate thyself from this sort of faith, for thou belongest not
among its adherents, and it is obligatory upon you to practise continence
and to forsake the fleshly desires, yet on account of thy youth the time
has not come for thee to take up thy public work.” But when he was
twenty-four years old, Eltawan appeared to him and said: “Hail, Mani, from
me and from the Lord who has sent me to thee and has chosen thee to be his
prophet. He commands thee now to proclaim thy truth and on my announcement
to proclaim the truth which is from him and to throw thyself into this
calling with all thy zeal.”
The Manichæans say: He first openly entered upon his work on the day when
Sapor, the son of Ardaschir, entered upon his reign, and placed the crown
upon his head; and this was Sunday, the first day of Nisan (March 20,
241), when the sun stood in the sign Aries. He was accompanied by two men,
who had already attached themselves to his religion; one was called
Simeon, the other Zakwa; besides these, his father accompanied him, to see
how his affairs would turn out.
Mani said he was the Paraclete, whom Jesus, of blessed memory,(85) had
previously announced. Mani took the elements of his doctrine from the
religion of the Magi and Christianity.… Before he met Sapor Mani had spent
about forty years in foreign lands.(86) Afterward he converted Peroz, the
brother of Sapor, and Peroz procured him an audience with his brother
Sapor. The Manichæans relate: He thereupon entered where he was and on his
shoulders were shining, as it were, two candles. When Sapor perceived him,
he was filled with reverence for him, and he appeared great in his eyes;
although he previously had determined to seize him and put him to death.
After he had met him, therefore, the fear of him filled him, he rejoiced
over him and asked him why he had come and promised to become his
disciple. Mani requested of him a number of things, among them that his
followers might be unmolested in the capital and in the other territories
of the Persian Empire, and that they might extend themselves whither they
wished in the provinces. Sapor granted him all he asked.
Mani had already preached in India, China, and among the inhabitants of
Turkestan, and in every land he left behind him disciples.(87)
(_b_) The Teaching of Mani.
The following extract from the same work gives but the beginning
of an extended statement of Mani’s teaching. But it is hoped that
enough is given to show the mythological character of his
speculation. The bulk of his doctrine was Persian and late
Babylonian, and the Christian element was very slight. It is clear
from the writings of St. Augustine that the doctrine changed much
in later years in the West.
The doctrine of Mani, especially his dogmas of the Eternal, to whom be
praise and glory, of the creation of the world and the contest between
Light and Darkness: Mani put at the beginning of the world two eternal
principles. Of these one is Light, the other Darkness. They are separated
from each other. As to the Light, this is the First, the Mighty One, and
the Infinite. He is the Deity, the King of the Paradise of Light. He has
five members or attributes, namely, gentleness, wisdom, understanding,
discretion, and insight; and further five members or attributes, namely,
love, faith, truth, bravery, and wisdom. He asserts that God was from all
eternity with these attributes. Together with the Light-God there are two
other things from eternity, the air and the earth.
Mani teaches further: The members of the air, or the Light-Ether, are
five: gentleness, wisdom, understanding, discretion, and insight. The
members of the Light-Earth are the soft gentle breath, the wind, the
light, the water, and the fire. As to the other Original Being, the
Darkness, its members are also five: the vapor, the burning heat, the
fiery wind, the poison, and the darkness.
This bright shining Primal Being was in immediate proximity with the dark
Primal Being, so that no wall of partition was between them and the Light
touched the Darkness on its broad side. The Light is unlimited in its
height, and also to the right hand and to the left; the Darkness, however,
is unlimited in its depth, and also to the right hand and to the left.
From this Dark-Earth rose Satan, not so that he himself was without
beginning, although his parts were in their elements without beginning.
These parts joined themselves together from the elements and formed
themselves into Satan. His head was like that of a lion, his trunk like
that of a dragon, his wings as those of a bird, his tail like that of a
great fish, and his four feet like the feet of creeping things. When this
Satan had been formed from the Darkness—his name is the First Devil—then
he began to devour and to swallow up and to ruin, to move about to the
right and to the left, and to get down into the deep, so that he
continually brought ruin and destruction to every one who attempted to
overmaster him. Next he hastened up on high and perceived the rays of
light, but felt an aversion to them. Then when he saw how these rays by
reciprocal influence and contact were increased in brilliancy, he became
afraid and crept together into himself, member by member, and withdrew for
union and strengthening back to his original constituent parts. Now once
more he hastened back into the height, and the Light-Earth noticed the
action of Satan and his purpose to seize and to attack and to destroy. But
when she perceived this thereupon the world æon of Insight perceived it,
then the æon of Wisdom, the æon of Discretion, the æon of the
Understanding, and then the æon of Gentleness. Thereupon the King of the
Paradise of Light perceived it and reflected on means to gain the mastery
over him. His armies were indeed mighty enough to overcome him; he had the
wish, however, to accomplish this himself. Therefore he begat with the
spirit of his right hand, with the five æons, and with his twelve elements
a creature, and that was the Primal Man, and him he sent to the conquest
of Darkness.(88)