§ 34. THE INNER ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH.[95]
From the beginning of the 2nd cent. the episcopal constitution
was gradually built up, and the superiority of one bishop over the
whole body of the other presbyters (§ 17, 6) won by degrees universal
acceptance. The hierarchical tendency inherent in it gained fresh
impetus from two causes: (1) from the gradual disappearance of the
charismatic endowments which had been continued from the Apostolic
Age far down into post-Apostolic times, and the disposition of
ecclesiastical leaders more and more to monopolise the function
of teaching; and (2) from the reassertion of the idea of a special
priesthood as a divine institution and the adoption of Old Testament
conceptions of church officers. The antithesis of _Ordo_ or κλῆρος
(sc. τοῦ θεοῦ) and _Plebs_ or λαός (λαϊκοί) when once expression had
been given to it, tended to become even more marked and exclusive. In
consequence of the successful extension of the churches the functions,
rights and duties of the existing spiritual offices came to be more
precisely determined and for the discharge of lower ecclesiastical
service new offices were created. Thus arose the partition of the
clergy into _Ordines majores_ and _Ordines minores_. As it was in the
provincial capital that common councils were held, which were convened,
at first in consequence of the requirements of the hour, afterwards as
regular institutions (Provincial Synods), the bishop of the particular
capital assumed the president’s chair. Among the metropolitans
pre-eminence was claimed by churches founded by Apostles (_sedes
apostolicæ_), especially those of Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria,
Ephesus and Corinth. To the idea of the =unity and catholicity of
the church=, which was maintained and set forth with ever increasing
decision, was added the idea of the Apostle Peter being the single
individual representative of the church. This latter notion was founded
on the misunderstood word of the Lord, Matt. xvi. 18, 19. Rome, as the
capital of the world, where Peter and Paul suffered death as martyrs
(§ 16, 1), arrogated to itself the name of _Chair_ (Cathedra) _of Peter_
and transferred the idea of the individual representation of the church
to its bishops as the supposed successors of Peter.
§ 34.1. =The Continuation of Charismatic Endowments into
Post-Apostolic Times= has, by means of the Apostolic Didache
recently rendered accessible to us (§ 30, 7), not only received
new confirmation, but their place in the church and their relation
to it has been put in a far clearer light. In essential agreement
with 1 Cor. xii. 28, and Eph. iv. 11 (§ 17, 5), it presents to
us the three offices of Apostle, Prophet and Teacher. The Pastors
and Teachers of the Epistle to the Ephesians, as well as of
the passage from Corinthians, are grouped together in one; and
the Evangelists, that is, helpers of the Apostles, appear now
after the decease of the original Apostles, as their successors
and heirs of their missionary calling under the same title of
Apostles. Hermas indeed speaks only of Apostles and Teachers;
but he himself appears as a Prophet and so witnesses to the
continuance of that office. The place and task of the three
offices are still the same as described in § 17, 5 from Eph.
iv. 11, 12 and ii. 20. These three were not chosen like the
bishops and deacons by the congregations, but appointment and
qualifications for office were dependent on a divine call,
somewhat like that of Acts xiii. 2-4, or on a charism that had
evidently and admittedly been bestowed on them. They are further
not permanent officials in particular congregations but travel
about in the exercise of their teaching function from church to
church. Prophets and Teachers, however, but not Apostles, might
settle down permanently in a particular church.--In reference
exclusively to the =Apostles= the Didache teaches as follows:
In the case of their visiting an already constituted church
they should stay there at furthest only two days and should
accept provision only for one day’s journey but upon no account
any money (Matt. x. 9, 10). Eusebius too, in his Ch. Hist.,
iii. 37, tells that after the death of the twelve the gospel was
successfully spread abroad in all lands by means of itinerating
Apostolic men, whom he designates, however, by the old name of
evangelists, and praises them for having according to the command
of the Lord (Matt. x. and Luke x.) parted their possessions among
the poor, and having adhered strictly to the rule of everywhere
laying only the foundations of the faith and leaving the further
care of what they had planted to the settled pastors.--The
Didache assigns the second place to the =Prophets=: they too,
inasmuch as like the Apostles they are itinerants, are without
a fixed residence; but they are distinguished from the latter by
having their teaching functions directed not to the founding of
a church but only to its edification, and in this respect they
are related to the Teachers. Their distinguishing characteristic,
however, is the possession of the charism of prophesying in the
wider sense, whereas the Teachers’ charism consisted in the λόγος
σοφίας and the λόγος γνώσεως (§ 17, 1). When they enter into a
church as ἐν πνεύματι λαλοῦντες, that church may not, according
to the Didache, in direct opposition to 1 Thess. v. 21; 1 Cor.
xii. 10; xiv. 29; 1 John iv. 1, exercise the right of trying
their doctrine, for that would be to commit the sin against the
Holy Ghost who speaks through them, but the church may inquire
of their life, and thus distinguish true prophets from the
false. If they wish to settle down in a particular church, that
church should make provision for their adequate maintenance by
surrendering to them, after the pattern of the Mosaic law, all
firstlings of cattle, and first fruits of grain and oil and wine,
and also the first portion of their other possessions, “for they
are your high priests.” This phrase means either, that for them
they are with their prophetic gift what the high priests of the
old covenant with their Urim and Thummim were to ancient Israel,
or, as Harnack understands it on the basis of chap. x. 7: τοῖς
προφήταις ἐπιτρέπετε εὐχαριστεῖν ὅσα θέλουσιν, while ordinary
ministers had to confine themselves to the usual formularies,
that they were pre-eminently entrusted with the administration of
the Lord’s Supper which was the crowning part of the worship. If,
however, there were no Prophets present, these first fruits were
to be distributed among the poor.--The rank also of =Teachers=
(διδάσκαλοι, Doctores) is still essentially the same as described
in § 17, 5. As their constant association with the Apostles
and Prophets would lead us to expect, they also were properly
itinerant teachers, who like the Prophets had to minister to
the establishment of existing churches in the Christian life,
in faith and in hope. But when they settled down in a particular
church, whether in consequence of that church’s special needs, or
with its approval in accordance with their own wish, that church
had to provide for their maintenance according to the principle
that the labourer is worthy of his reward. The author of the
Didache, as appears from the whole tenor of his book, was himself
such a teacher. Hermas, who at the same time makes no mention of
the Prophets, speaks only twice and that quite incidentally of
the Teachers, without indicating particularly their duties and
privileges.--The continuance of those three extraordinary offices
down to the end of the 2nd cent. was of the utmost importance.
The numerous churches scattered throughout all lands had not
as yet a firmly established New Testament Canon nor any one
general symbol in the form of a confession of faith, and so
were without any outward bond of union: but these Teachers, by
means of their itinerant mode of life and their authoritative
position, which was for the first time clearly demonstrated by
Harnack, contributed powerfully to the development of the idea
of ecclesiastical unity. According to Harnack, the composition
of the so-called Catholic Epistles and similar early Christian
literature is to be assigned to them, and in this way he would
account for the Apostolic features which are discoverable
in these writings. He would not, however, attribute to them
the fiction of claiming for their works an Apostolic origin,
but supposes that the subsequently added superscriptions
and the author’s name in the address rest upon an erroneous
tradition.--The gradual disappearance of charismatic offices was
mainly the result of the endeavour, that became more and more
marked during the 2nd cent., after the adoption of current social
usages and institutions, which necessarily led to a repression
of the enthusiastic spirit out of which those offices had sprung
and which could scarcely reconcile itself with what seemed
to it worldly compromises and concessions. The fanatical and
eccentric pretension to prophetic gifts in Montanism, with its
uncompromising rigour (§ 40) and its withdrawal from church
fellowship, gave to these charismatic offices their deadly blow.
A further cause of their gradual decay may certainly be found in
their relation to the growing episcopal hierarchy. At the time of
the Didache, which knows nothing of a subordination of presbyters
under the bishop (indeed like Phil. i. 1, it makes no mention
of presbyters), this relation was one of thoroughly harmonious
co-ordination and co-operation. In the 13th chap. the exhortation
is given to choose only faithful and approved men as bishops
and deacons, “for they too discharge for you τὴν λειτουργίαν τῶν
προφητῶν καὶ διδασκάλων and so they represent along with those
the τετιμημένοι among you.” The service of prophets, according
to the Didache, was pre-eminently that of the ἀρχιερεῖς and so
there was entrusted to them the consecration of the elements
in the Lord’s Supper. This service the bishops and deacons
discharged, inasmuch as, in addition to their own special duties
as presidents of the congregation charged with its administration
and discipline, they were required in the absence of prophets
to conduct the worship. Then also they had to officiate as
Teachers (1 Tim. v. 17) when occasion required and the necessary
qualifications were possessed. But this peaceful co-operating
of the two orders undoubtedly soon and often gave place to
unseemly rivalry, and the hierarchical spirit obtruding itself
in the _Protepiscopate_ (§ 17, 6), which first of all reduced
its colleagues from their original equality to a position of
subordination soon asserted itself over against the extraordinary
offices which had held a place co-ordinate with and in the
department of doctrine and worship even more authoritative and
important than that of the bishops themselves. They were only too
readily successful in having their usurpation of their offices
recognised as bearing the authority of a divine appointment.
These soon completed the theory of the hierarchical and
monarchical rank of the clergy and the absurd pretension to
having obtained from God the absolute fulness of His Spirit and
absolute sovereign power.
§ 34.2. =The Development of the Episcopal Hierarchy= was the
result of an evolution which in existing circumstances was not
only natural but almost necessary. In the deliberations and
consultations of the college of presbyters constituting the
ecclesiastical court, just as in every other such assembly, it
must have been the invariable custom to confer upon one of their
number, generally the eldest, or at least the one among them most
highly esteemed, the presidency, committing to him the duty of
the orderly conduct of the debates, as well as the formulating,
publishing and enforcing of their decrees. This president must
soon have won the pre-eminent authority of a _primus inter pares_,
and have come to be regarded as an ἐπίσκοπος of higher rank.
From such a primacy to supremacy, and from that to a monarchical
position, the progress was natural and easy. In proportion as the
official authority, the ἐπισκοπή, concentrated itself more and
more in the president, the official title, ἐπίσκοπος, at first by
way of eminence, then absolutely, was appropriated to him. This
would be all the more easily effected since, owing to the twofold
function of the office (§ 17, 5, 6), he who presided in the
administrative council still bore the title of πρεσβύτερος. It
was not accomplished, however, without a long continued struggle
on the part of the presbyters who were relegated to a subordinate
rank, which occasioned keen party contentions and divisions
lasting down even into the 3rd century (§ 41). But the need of
the churches to have in each one man to direct and control was
mightier than this opposition. That need was most keenly felt
when the church was threatened with division and dissolution
by the spread of heretical and separatist tendencies. The need
of a single president in the local churches was specially felt
in times of violent persecution, and still more just after the
persecution had ceased when multitudes who had fallen away during
the days of trial sought to be again restored to the membership
of the church (§ 39, 2), in order to secure the reorganization
of the institution which, by violence from without and weakness
within, had been so sorely rent. Both in the Old and in the New
Testament there seemed ground for regarding the order of things
that had grown up in the course of time as _jure divino_ and
as existing from the beginning. After the idea of a distinct
sacerdotal class had again found favour, the distribution of
the clergy in the Old Testament into High priest, priests and
Levites was supposed to afford an exact analogy to that of
the episcopate, presbyterate and diaconate. To effect this the
charismatic offices of teaching had to be ignored and their
divinely ordained functions had to be set aside. It was even
supposed that the relative ranks in the offices of the Christian
church must be determined by the corresponding orders in the Old
Testament. Then in the gospels, it seemed as if the relations of
Christ to His disciples corresponded to that of the bishop to the
presbyters; and from the Acts of the Apostles the preponderating
authority of James at the head of the Jerusalem presbytery or
eldership (§ 17, 2) might be used as a witness for the supremacy
of the bishop. The oldest and most important contender for the
monarchical rank of the bishop is the author of the _Ignatian
Epistles_ (§ 30, 5). In every bishop he sees the representative
of Christ, and in the college of presbyters the representatives
of the Apostles. In the _Clementines_ too the bishop appears
as ἐπὶ τῆς Χριστοῦ καθέδρας καθεσθείς. This view also finds
expression in the _Apostolic Constitutions_ (2, 26), and even in
the writings of _Dionysius the Areopagite_ (§ 47, 11). Another
theory, according to which the bishops are successors of the
Apostles and as such heirs of the absolute dominion conferred in
Matt. xiv. 18, 19 upon Peter and through him on all the Apostles,
sprang up in the West and gained currency by means of Cyprian’s
eloquent enunciation of it (§ 34, 7).
§ 34.3. =The Regular Ecclesiastical Offices of the Old Catholic
Age.= The =Ordines Majores= embraced the Bishops, Presbyters
and Deacons. Upon the =Bishop=, elected by the people and the
clergy in common, there devolved in his monarchical position the
supreme conduct of all the affairs of the church. The exclusively
episcopal privileges were these: the ordination of presbyters
and deacons, the absolving of the penitent, according to strict
rule also the consecration of the eucharistic elements, in later
times also the right of speaking at Synods, and in the West also
the confirmation of the baptised. In large cities where a single
church was no longer sufficient daughter churches were instituted.
Country churches founded outside of the cities were supplied
with presbyters and deacons from the city. If they increased
in importance, they chose for themselves their own bishop, who
remained, however, as Χωρεπίσκοπος dependent upon the city bishop.
Thus distinctly official episcopal dioceses came to be formed.
And just as the city bishops had a pre-eminence over the country
bishops, so also the bishops of the chief cities of provinces
soon came as metropolitans to have a pre-eminence over those
of other cities. To them was granted the right of calling and
presiding at the Synods, and of appointing and ordaining the
bishops of their province. The name Metropolitan, however, was
first used in the Acts of the Council of Nicæa in A.D. 325.--The
=Presbyters= were now only the advisers and assistants of the
bishop, whose counsel and help he accepted just in such ways and
at such times as seemed to him good. They were employed in the
directing of the affairs of the church, in the administration of
the sacrament, in preaching and in pastoral work, but only at the
bidding or with the express permission of the bishop. During the
following period for the first time, when demands had multiplied,
and the episcopal authority was no longer in need of being
jealously guarded, were their functions enlarged to embrace
an independent pastoral care, preaching and dispensation of the
sacraments for which they were personally responsible.--In regard
to official position the =Deacons= had a career just the converse
of this; for their importance increased just as the range
of their official functions was enlarged. Seeing that in the
earliest times they had occupied a position subordinate to the
presbyter-bishops, they could not be regarded in this way as
their rivals; and the development of the proto-presbyterate into
a monarchical episcopate was too evidently in their own interests
to awaken any opposition on their part. They therefore stood in a
far closer relation to the bishops than did the presbyters. They
were his confidants, his companions in travel, often also his
deputies and representatives at the Synods. To them he committed
the distribution of the church’s alms, for which their original
charge of the poor qualified them. To these duties were added
also many of the parts of divine service; they baptised under the
commission of the bishop, obtained and prepared the sacramental
elements, handed round the cup, at the close of the service
carried to the sick and imprisoned the body and blood of the Lord,
intimated the beginning and the close of the various parts of
divine service, recited the public prayers, read the gospels, and
kept order during worship. Often, too, they preached the sermon.
In consequence of the preponderating position given to the Old
Testament idea of the priesthood the bishop was compared to the
high priest, the presbyters to the priests, and the deacons to
the Levites, and so too did they already assume the name, from
which the German word “Priester,” English “Priest,” French
“Prêtre,” Italian “Prête,” is derived.
Among the =Ordines Minores= the oldest was the office of =Reader=,
Ἀναγνώστης. In the time of Cyprian this place was heartily
accorded to the Confessors. In later times it was usual to begin
the clerical career with service in the readership. The duties
of this office were the public reading of the longer scripture
portions and the custody of the sacred books. Somewhat later than
the readership the office of the =Subdiaconi=, ὑποδιάκονοι was
instituted. They were assistants to the Deacons, and as such
took first rank among the _Ordines Minores_, and of these were
alone regarded as worthy of ordination. Toward the end of the 3rd
century the office of the =Cantores=, ψαλταί, was instituted for
the conducting of the public service of praise. The =Acolytes=,
who are met with in Rome first about the middle of the 3rd
century, were those who accompanied the bishop as his servants.
The =Exorcists= discharged the spiritual function of dealing with
those possessed of evil spirits, ἐνεργούμενοι, δαιμονιζόμενοι,
over whom they had to repeat the public prayers and the formula
of exorcism. As there was also an exorcism associated with
baptism, the official functions of the exorcists extended to
the catechumens. The =Ostiarii= or =Janitores=, θυρωροί, πυλωροί,
occupied the lowest position.--In the larger churches for the
instruction of the catechumens there were special =Catechists=
appointed, _Doctores audientium_, and where the need was
felt, especially in the churches of North Africa speaking
the Punic tongue, there were also =Interpreters= whose duty
it was to translate and interpret the scripture lessons. To
the =Deaconesses=, for the most part widows or virgins, was
committed the care of the poor and sick, the counselling of
inexperienced women and maidens, the general oversight of
the female catechumens. They had no clerical character.--The
=Ordination= of the clergy was performed by the laying on
of hands. Those were disqualified who had just recently been
baptised or had received baptism only during severe illness
(_Neophyti_, _Clinici_), also all who had been excommunicated
and those who had mutilated themselves.--Continuation, § 45, 3.
§ 34.4. =Clergy and Laity.=--The idea that a priestly mediation
between sinful men and a gracious deity was necessary had been so
deeply implanted in the religious consciousness of pre-Christian
antiquity, pagan as well as Jewish, that a form of public worship
without a priesthood seemed almost as inconceivable as a religion
without a god. And even though the inspired writings of the New
Testament decidedly and expressly taught that the pre-Christian
or Old Testament institution of a special human priesthood
had been abolished and merged in the one eternal mediation
of the exalted Son of God and Son of man, and that there was
now a universal spiritual priesthood of all Christians with
the right and privilege of drawing near even to the heavenly
throne of grace (Heb. iv. 16; 1 Pet. ii. 5, 9; Rev. i. 6), yet,
in consequence of the idea of the permanence of Old Testament
institutions which prevailed, even in the Post-Apostolic Age,
the sacerdotal theory came more and more into favour. This
relapse to the Old Testament standpoint was moreover rendered
almost inevitable by the contemporary metamorphosis of the
ecclesiastical office which existed as the necessary basis of
human organisation (§ 17, 4) into a hierarchical organisation
resting upon an assumed divine institution. For clericalism,
with its claims to be the sole divinely authorised channel for
the communication of God’s grace, was the correlate and the
indispensable support of hierarchism, with its exclusive claims
to legislative, judicial, disciplinary and administrative
precedence in the affairs of the church. The reaction which
Montanism (§ 40) initiated in the interests of the Christian
people against the hierarchical and clerical tendencies spreading
throughout the church, was without result owing to its extreme
extravagance. Tertullian emphasised indeed very strongly the
Apostolic idea of the universal priesthood of all Christians, but
in Cyprian this is allowed to fall quite behind the priesthood
of the clergy and ultimately came to be quite forgotten.--The Old
Catholic Age, however, shows many reminiscences of the original
relation of the congregation to the ecclesiastical officers,
or as it would now be called, of the laity to the clergy. That
the official teaching of religion and preaching in the public
assemblies of the church, although as a rule undertaken by the
_Ordines majores_, might even then in special circumstances and
with due authorisation be discharged by laymen, was shown by
the Catechetical institution at Alexandria and by the case
of Origen who when only a Catechist often preached in the
church. The Apostolic Constitutions, too, 8, 31, supported the
view that laymen, if only they were skilful in the word and of
irreproachable lives, should preach by a reference to the promise:
“They shall be all taught of God.” The repeated expressions of
disapproval of the administration of the eucharist by laymen
in the Ignatian Epistles presupposes the frequent occurrence
of the practice; Tertullian would allow it in case of necessity,
for “_Ubi tres, ecclesia est, licet laici_.” Likewise in
reference to the administration of baptism he teaches that under
ordinary circumstances _propter ecclesiæ honorem_ it should be
administered only by the bishop and the clergy appointed by him
to the work, _alioquin_ (_e.g._ in times of persecution) _etiam
laicis jus est_. This, too, is the decision of the Council
of Elvira in A.D. 306. The report which Cyprian gives of his
procedure in regard to the vast number of the _Lapsi_ of his time
(§ 39, 2; 41, 2) affords evidence that at least in extraordinary
and specially difficult cases of discipline the whole church was
consulted. The people’s right to take part in the choice of their
minister had not yet been questioned, and their assistance at
least in the Synods was never refused.
§ 34.5. =The Synods.=--The Council of Apostles at Jerusalem
(Acts xv.) furnished an example of Synodal deliberation and
issuing of decrees. But even in the pagan world such institutions
had existed. The old religio-political confederacies in Greece
and Asia Minor had indeed since the time of the Roman conquest
lost their political significance; but their long accustomed
assemblies (κοιναὶ σύνοδοι, _Concilia_) continued to meet in
the capitals of the provinces under the presidency of the Roman
governor. The fact that the same nomenclature was adopted seems
to show that they were not without formal influence on the
origin of the institution of the church synod. The first occasion
for such meetings was given by the Montanist movements in Asia
Minor (§ 40, 1); and soon thereafter by the controversies about
the observance of Easter (§ 37, 2). In the beginning of the 3rd
century the Provincial Synods had already assumed the position
of fixed and regularly recurring institutions. In the time of
Cyprian, the presbyters and deacons took an active part in the
Synods alongside of the bishops, and the people generally were
not prevented from attending. No decision could be arrived at
without the knowledge and the acquiescence of the members of the
church. From the time of the Nicene Council, in A.D. 325, the
bishops alone had a vote and the presence of the laity was more
and more restricted. The decrees of Synods were communicated
to distant churches by means of Synodal rescripts, and even
in the 3rd century the claim was made in these, in accordance
with Acts xv., to the immediate enlightenment of the Holy
Spirit.--Continuation, § 43, 2.
§ 34.6. =Personal and Epistolary Intercourse.=--From the very
earliest times the Christian churches of all lands maintained
a regular communication with one another through messengers
or itinerating brethren. The _Teaching of the XII. Apostles_
furnishes the earliest account of this: Any one who comes from
another place in the name of the Lord shall be received as a
brother; one who is on his journey, however, shall not accept the
hospitality of the church for more than two, or at furthest than
three days; but if he chooses to remain in the place, he must
engage in work for his own support, in which matter the church
will help him; if he will not so conduct himself he is to be sent
back as a χριστέμπορος, who has been seeking to make profit out
of his profession of Christ. The Didache knows nothing as yet of
the letters of authentication among the earlier messengers of the
church which soon became necessary and customary. As a guarantee
against the abuse of this custom such συστατικαὶ ἐπιστολαί (2 Cor.
iii. 1) had come into use even in Tertullian’s time, who speaks
of a _Contesseratio hospitalitatis_, in such a form that they
were understood only by the initiated as recognisable tokens of
genuineness, and were hence called _Litteræ formatæ_, or γράμματα
τετυπωμένα. The same care was also taken in respect of important
epistolary communications from one church to another or to other
churches. Among these were included, _e.g._ the Synodal rescripts,
the so-called γράμματα ἐνθρονιστικά by which the newly-chosen
bishops intimated their entrance upon office to the other bishops
of their district, the _Epistolæ festales_ (paschales) regarding
the celebration of a festival, especially the Easter festival
(§ 56, 3), communications about important church occurrences,
especially about martyrdoms (§ 32, 8), etc. According to Optatus
of Mileve (§ 63, 1): “_Totus orbis_” could boast of “_comnmercio
formatarum in una communionis societate concordat_.”
§ 34.7. =The Unity and Catholicity of the Church.=--The fact
that Christianity was destined to be a religion for the world,
which should embrace all peoples and tongues, and should permeate
them all with one spirit and unite them under one heavenly
head, rested upon the presupposition that the church was one and
universal or catholic. The inward unity of the spirit demanded
also a corresponding unity in manifestation. It is specially
evident from the _Teaching of the XII. Apostles_ that the
consciousness of the unity of the church had deeply rooted itself
even in the Post-Apostolic Age (§ 20, 1). “The points which
according to it prove the unity of Christendom are the following:
firstly, the _disciplina_ in accordance with the ethical
requirements of the Lord, secondly, baptism in the name of the
Father, Son and Holy Spirit, thirdly, the order of fasting and
prayer, especially the regular use of the Lord’s Prayer, and
fourthly and lastly, the eucharist, _i.e._ the sacred meal in
partaking of which the church gives thanks to God, the creator of
all things, for the revelation imparted to it through Jesus, for
faith and knowledge and immortality, and implores the fulfilment
of its hope, the overthrow of this world, the coming again of
Christ, and reception into the kingdom of God. He who has this
doctrine and acts in accordance with it is a ‘Christian,’ belongs
to ‘the saints,’ is a ‘brother,’ and ought to be received even
as the Lord” (Harnack). The struggle against the Gnostics had
the effect of transforming this primitive Christian idea of
unity into a consciousness of the necessity of adopting a common
doctrinal formula, which again this controversy rendered much
more definite and precise, to which a concise popular expression
was given in one common _Regula fidei_ (§ 35, 2), and by
means of which the specific idea of catholicity was developed
(§ 20, 2).--The misleading and dangerous thing about this
construction and consolidation of one great Catholic church was
that every deviation from external forms in the constitution and
worship as well as erroneous doctrine, immorality and apostasy,
was regarded as a departing from the one Catholic church, the
body of Christ, and consequently, since not only the body was
put upon the same level with the head, but even the garment of
the body was identified with the body itself, as a separating
from the communion of Christ, involving the loss of salvation
and eternal blessedness. This notion received a powerful
impulse during the 2nd century when the unity of the church
was threatened by heresies, sects and divisions. It reached
its consummation and won the _Magna Charta_ of its perfect
enunciation in Cyprian’s book _De Unitate Ecclesiæ_. In
the monarchical rank of the bishop of each church, as the
representative of Christ, over the college of presbyters, as
representatives of the Apostles, Ignatius of Antioch sees the
guarantee of the church’s unity. According to Cyprian, this unity
has its expression in the Apostolate; in the Episcopate it has
its support. The promise of Christ, Matt. xvi. 18, is given to
Peter, not as the head but as the single representative of the
Apostles (John xx. 21). The Apostolic office, with the promise
attached to it, passed from the Apostles by means of ordination
to the bishops. These, through their monarchical rank, represent
continuously for the several churches (_Ecclesia est in episcopo_),
and through their combined action, for the whole of Christendom,
the unity of the church; _Episcopatus unus est, cujus a singulus
in solidum, pars tenetur_. All the bishops, just as all the
Apostles, have perfect parity with one another; _pares consortio,
jure et honore_. Each of them is a successor of Peter and heir
of the promise given first to Peter but for all.--He who cuts
himself off from the bishops, cuts himself off from the church.
_Habere non potest Deum patrem, qui ecclesiam non habet matrem....
Extra ecclesiam nulla spes salutis._ Alongside of the Apostolic
writings, the tradition which prevailed among the Apostolic
churches (_Sedes apostolicæ_) was regarded as a standard of
catholicity in constitution, worship and doctrine; indeed, it
must even have ranked above the Apostolic writings themselves
in settling the question of the New Testament Canon (§ 36, 8),
until these had secured general circulation and acceptance.
§ 34.8. =The Roman Primacy.=--The claims of the Roman bishopric
to the primacy over the whole church, which reached its fuller
development in the 4th and 5th centuries (§ 46, 7), were founded
originally and chiefly on the assertion that the promise of
Matt. xvi. 18, 19, was given only and exclusively to the Apostle
Peter as the Primate of the Apostles and the head of the church.
This assumption overlooked the fact that in Matt. xviii. 18 and
John xx. 21 ff., this promise was given with reference to all
the Apostles. These claims were further supposed to be supported
by the words addressed to Peter, “strengthen thy brethren”
(Luke xxii. 31), which seemed to accord to Peter a primacy
over his fellow Apostles; and also by the interpretation given
of John xxi. 15 ff., where “lambs” were understood of laymen
and “sheep” of the Apostles. It was likewise assumed that
the bishop of Rome was the successor of Peter, and so the
legitimate and only heir of all his prerogatives. The fable of
the Roman bishopric of Peter (§ 16, 1) was at an early period
unhesitatingly adopted, all the more because no one expected the
results which in later times were deduced from a quite different
understanding of Matt. xvi. 18. During this whole period such
consequences were never dreamt of either by a Roman bishop or by
anybody else. Only this was readily admitted at least by the West
that Rome was the foremost of all the Apostolic churches, that
there the Apostolic tradition had been preserved in its purest
form, and that, therefore, its bishops should have a particularly
influential voice in all questions that were to be judged of
by the whole episcopate, and the Roman bishops were previously
content with taking advantage of this concession in the largest
measure possible.[96]
§ 35. THE ADMINISTRATION OF BAPTISM.[97]
As an indispensable means to participation in salvation and as
a condition of reception into the communion of the church, baptism
was practised from the earliest times. Infant baptism, though not
universally adopted, was yet in theory almost universally admitted to
be proper. Tertullian alone is found opposing it. All adults who desired
baptism had, as Catechumens, to pass through a course of training under
a Christian teacher. Many, however, voluntarily and purposely postponed
their baptism, frequently even to a deathbed, in order that all the
sins of their lives might be certainly removed by baptismal grace. After
a full course of instruction had been passed through, the Catechumens
prepared themselves for baptism by prayer and fasting, and before the
administration of the sacred ordinance they were required to renounce
the devil and all his works (_Abrenuntiare diabolo et pompæ et angelis
ejus_) and to recite a confession of their faith. The controversy as to
whether baptism administered by heretics should be regarded as valid was
conducted with great bitterness during the 3rd century.
§ 35.1. =The Preparation for Receiving Baptism.=--After a
complete exposition of the evangelical moral code in chap. 1-6,
the _Teaching of the XII. Apostles_ proceeds thus: Ταῦτα πάντα
προειπόντες βαπτίσατε εἰς τὸ ὄνομα, etc. At this time, therefore,
besides the necessarily presupposed acquaintance with the chief
points in the gospel history, the initiation into the moral
doctrine of the gospel of the person receiving baptism was
regarded as most essential in the baptismal instruction. In this
passage there is no mention of a doctrinal course of teaching
based upon a symbol. But what here is still wanting is given in
a summary way in chaps. 7 ff. in the instructions about baptism
and the Lord’s supper attached to the baptismal formula and the
eucharistic prayers. This therefore was reserved for that worship
from which the candidates for baptism and the newly baptized had
to gather their faith and hope as to the future completion of the
kingdom of God. First the struggle against Gnosticism obliged the
church to put more to the front the doctrines of faith which were
thereby more fully developed, and to concern itself with these
questions even in the instruction of the Catechumens. The custom,
which the Didache and Justin Martyr show to have been prevalent
in post-Apostolic times, of the baptiser together with others
voluntarily offering themselves taking part with the candidate
for baptism in completing the preparation for the holy ordinance
by observing a two days’ fast, seems soon, so far as the baptiser
and the others were concerned, to have fallen into desuetude,
and is never again mentioned.--Since the development of the
Old Catholic church the preparation of candidates for baptism
has been divided into two portions of very unequal duration,
namely, that of instruction, for which on an average a period
of two years was required, and that of immediate preparation by
prayer and fasting after the instructions had been completed.
During the former period the aspirants were called κατηχοῦμενοι,
_Catechumeni_; during the latter, φωτιζόμενοι, _Competentes_.
As to their participation in the public divine service, the
Catechumens were first of all as ἀκροώμενοι admitted only to the
hearing of the sermon, and had thus no essential privileges over
the unbelievers. They first came into closer connection with
the church only when it was permitted them to take part in
the devotional exercises, yet only in those portions which had
reference to themselves, kneeling as γονυκλίνοντες, while also
the congregation prayed kneeling. Only in cases of dangerous
illness could baptism be given before the Catechumen had
completed his full course (_Baptismus Clinicorum_). The Council
of Neo-Cæsarea soon after A.D. 314 ordained that a Catechumen
who as a γονυκλίνων had been guilty of an open sin, should be
put back to the first stage of the Catechumenate, namely, to that
of the ἀκροᾶσθαι, and if he then again sinned he should be cast
off altogether; and the Œcumenical Council of Nicæa in A.D. 325
demanded that offending (παραπέσοντες) Catechumens should remain
ἀκροώμενοι for three years and only then should be allowed to
take part in the devotional service of the church.[98]
§ 35.2. =The Baptismal Formula.=--In close connection with the
words of institution of baptism (Matt. xxviii. 19) and hence in
a trinitarian framework, an outline of the doctrine common to all
the churches, introduced first of all as a confession of faith
professed by candidates for baptism, obtained currency at a very
early date. Only a few unimportant modifications were afterwards
made upon it, and amid all the varieties of provincial and local
conditions, the formula remained essentially the same. Hence it
could always be properly characterized with Irenæus as ἀκλινής,
and with Tertullian as _immobilis et irreformabilis_. As a token
of membership in the Catholic church it is called the Baptismal
Formula or =Symbolum=. After the introduction of the _Disciplina
arcani_ (§ 36, 4) it was included in that, and hence was kept
secret from heathens and even from catechumens, and first
communicated to the _competentes_. As the “unalterable and
inflexible” test and standard of the faith and doctrine, as
well as an intellectual bond of union between churches scattered
over all the earth, it was called =Regula fidei= and Κανὼν τῆς
ἀληθείας. That we never find it quoted in the Old Catholic Age,
is to be explained from its inclusion in the _disciplina arcani_
and by this also, that the ancient church in common with Jeremiah
(xxxi. 33), laid great stress upon its being engraven not with
pen and ink on paper, but with the pen of the Holy Spirit on the
hearts of believers. Instead then of literal quotation we find
among the fathers of the Old Catholic Age (Irenæus, Tertullian,
Origen, Novatian, etc.) only paraphrastic and explanatory
references to it which, seeing that no sort of official sanction
was accorded them in the church, are erroneously spoken of
as _Regulæ fidei_. These paraphrases, however, are valuable
as affording information about the creed of the early church,
because what is found the same in them all must be regarded as an
integral part of the original document. In harmony with this is
the testimony of Rufinus, about A.D. 390, who in his _Expositio
Symb. apost._ produces three different recensions, namely, the
Roman, the Aquileian and the Oriental. The oldest and simplest
was that used in Rome, traces of which may be found as early
as the middle of the 2nd century. In the time of Rufinus there
was a tradition that this Roman creed had been composed by the
XII. Apostles in Jerusalem at the time of their scattering, as
a universal rule of faith, and had been brought to Rome by Peter.
It is not quite the same as that known among us as the =Apostles’
Creed=. It wants the phrases “Creator of heaven and earth,”
“suffered, dead, descended into hell,” “catholic, communion of
saints, eternal life.” The creed of Aquileia adopted the clause
“_Descendit ad infera_,” and intensified the clause _Carnis
resurrectio_ by the addition of “_hujus_” and the phrase _Deus
pater omnipotens_ by the addition of the anti-Patripassian
predicate (§ 33, 4) _invisibilis et impassibilis_.
§ 35.3. =The Administration of Baptism.=--According to the
showing of the _Teaching of the XII. Apostles_ baptism was
ordinarily administered by a thrice-repeated immersion in flowing
water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
If there be no flowing water at hand, any other kind, even warm
water, may be used, and in case of necessity sprinkling may be
substituted for the thrice-repeated immersion. At a later time
sprinkling was limited to the baptism of the sick, _Baptismus
clinicorum_. We hear nothing of a consecration of the water to
its holy use, nor is there any mention of the renunciation and
exorcism which became customary first in the 3rd century through
the use of a form of adjuration previously employed only in cases
of possession. Upon immersion followed an anointing, χρίσμα
(still unknown to the Didache), as a symbol of consecration to a
spiritual priesthood (1 Pet. ii. 9), and then, in accordance with
Acts viii. 16 f., the laying on of hands as the vehicle for the
communication of the Holy Spirit. Soon the immersion came to be
regarded as the negative part of the ordinance, the putting away
of sin, and the anointing with the laying on of hands as the
positive part, the communication of the Spirit. In the Eastern
church presbyters and deacons were permitted to dispense baptism
including also the anointing. Both, therefore, continued there
unseparated. In the West, however, the bishops claimed the laying
on of hands as their exclusive right, referring in support of
their claim to Acts viii. Where then the bishop did not himself
dispense the baptism, the laying on of hands as well as the
chrismatic anointing was given separately and in addition by him
as =Confirmation=, _Confirmatio_, _Consignatio_, which separation,
even when the baptism was administered by a bishop, soon became
the usual and legal practice. Nevertheless even in the Roman
church there was at the baptism an anointing with oil which had
canonical sanction and was designated _chrism_, without prejudice
to confirmation as an independent act at a later time. The usual
seasons for administering baptism were Easter, especially the
Sabbath of Passion week, baptism into the death of Christ,
Rom. vi. 3, and Pentecost, and in the East also the Epiphany.
The place for the administration of baptism was regarded as
immaterial. With infant baptism was introduced the custom of
having sponsors, ἀνάδοχοι, _sponsores_, who as sureties repeated
the confession of faith in the name of the unconscious infant
receiving the baptism.--Continuation, § 58, 1.
§ 35.4. =The Doctrine of Baptism.=--The Epistle of Barnabas says:
Ἀναβαίνομεν καρποφοροῦντες ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ. Hermas says: _Ascendunt
vitæ assignati_. With Justin the water of baptism is a ὕδωρ τῆς
ζωῆς, ἐξ οὗ ἀναγεννήθημεν, According to Irenæus it effects a
ἕνωσις πρὸς ἀφθαρσίαν. Tertullian says: _Supervenit spiritus de
cœlis,--caro spiritualiter mundatur_. Cyprian speaks of an _unda
genitalis_, of a _nativitas secunda in novum hominem_. Firmilian
says: _Nativitas, quæ est in baptismo, filios Dei generat_.
Origen calls baptism χαρισμάτων θείων ἀρχὴν καὶ πηγήν.--Of the
bloody baptism of martyrdom Tertullian exclaims: _Lavacrum non
acceptum repræsentat et perditum reddit_. Hermes and Clement of
Alexandria maintain that there will be in Hades a preaching and
a baptism for the sake of pious Gentiles and Jews.
§ 35.5. =The Controversy about Heretics’ Baptism.=--The church of
Asia Minor and Africa denied the validity of baptism administered
by heretics; but the Roman church received heretics returning to
the fold of the Catholic church, if only they had been baptized
in the name of Christ or of the Holy Trinity, without a second
baptism, simply laying on the hands as in the case of penitents.
Stephen of Rome would tolerate no other than the Roman custom and
hastened to break off church fellowship with those of Asia Minor
(A.D. 253). Cyprian of Carthage whose ideal of the unity of that
church in which alone salvation was to be obtained seemed to be
overthrown by the Roman practice, and Firmilian of Cæsarea in
Cappadocia, were the most vigorous supporters of the view
condemned by Rome. Three Carthaginian Synods, the last and most
important in A.D. 256, decided unequivocally in their favour.
Dionysius of Alexandria sought to effect a reconciliation by
writing a tenderly affectionate address to Stephen. To this end
even more effectively wrought the Valerian persecution, which
soon afterwards broke out, during which Stephen himself suffered
martyrdom (A.D. 257). Thus the controversy reached no conclusion.
The Roman practice, however, continued to receive more and more
acceptance, and was confirmed by the first Œcumenical Council at
Nicæa in A.D. 325, with the exclusion only of the Samosatians (§
33, 8); likewise also at the Council at Constantinople in A.D.
381, with the exclusion of the Montanists (§ 40, 1), the
Eunomians (§ 50, 3) and the Sabellians (§ 33, 7). These
exceptions, therefore, referred mostly to the Unitarian heretics,
the Montanists being excluded on account of their doctrine of the
Paraclete. Augustine’s successful polemic against the Donatists
(§ 63, 1), in his treatise in seven books _De baptismo_ first
overcame all objections hitherto waged against the validity of
baptism administered by heretics derived from the objectivity of
the sacrament, and henceforth all that was required was that it
should be given in the name of the three-one God.
§ 36. PUBLIC WORSHIP AND ITS VARIOUS PARTS.[99]
There was a tendency from the 2nd century onwards more and more to
dissolve the connection of the Lord’s Supper with the evening _Agape_
(§ 17, 7). Trajan’s strict prohibition of secret societies, _hetæræ_
(§ 22, 2) seems to have given the first occasion for the separation
of these two and for the temporary suppression of the love-feasts.
The Lord’s Supper was now observed during the Sunday forenoon service
and the mode of its observance is described even by Justin Martyr. In
consideration of the requirements of the Catechumens the service was
divided into two parts, a _homiletical_ and a _sacramental_, and from
the latter all unbaptized persons, as well as all under discipline
and those possessed of evil spirits, were excluded. Each part of the
service was regularly closed by a concluding benediction, and in the
West bore the designations respectively of _Missa catechumenorum_
and _Missa fidelium_, while in the East they were distinguished as
λειτουργία τῶν κατηχουμένων and λειτουργία τῶν πιστῶν. In connection
with this there grew up a notion that the sacramental action had
a mysterious character, _Disciplina arcani_. Owing to the original
connection of the Supper with the Agape it became customary to
provide the elements used in the ordinance from the voluntary gifts
brought by the members of the church, which were called _Oblationes_,
προσφοραί,--a designation which helped to associate the idea of
sacrifice with the observance of the Lord’s Supper.
§ 36.1. =The Agape.=--That in consequence of the imperial
edict against secret societies, at least in Asia Minor, the
much suspected and greatly maligned love-feasts (§ 22) were
temporarily abandoned, appears from the report of Pliny to
the Emperor, according to which the Christians of whom he made
inquiries assured him that they had given up the _mos coeundi
ad capiendum cibum promiscuum_. But in Africa they were still
in use or had been revived in the time of Tertullian, who in his
_Apology_ makes mention very approvingly of them, although at
a later period, after he had joined the Montanists, he lashes
them in his book _De Jejuniis_ with the most stinging sarcasm.
Clement of Alexandria too is aware of flagrant abuses committed
in connection with those feasts. They continued longest to be
observed in connection with the services in commemoration of
the dead and on the festivals of martyrs. The Council of Laodicæa,
about the middle of the 4th century, forbade the holding of these
in the churches and the Second Trullan Council in A.D. 692 renewed
this prohibition. After this we find no further mention of them.
§ 36.2. =The Missa Catechumenorum.=--The reading of scripture
(ἀνάγνωσις, _Lectio_,--comp. § 36, 7) formed the chief exercise
during this part of the service. There was unrestricted liberty
as to the choice of the portions to be read. It was the duty of
the Readers, Ἀναγνώσται, to perform this part of the worship,
but frequently Evangelists on the invitation of the Deacons
would read, and the whole congregation showed their reverence
by standing up. At the close of the reading an expository and
practical address (ὁμιλία, λόγος, _Sermo_, _Tractatus_) was given
by the bishop or in his absence by a presbyter or deacon, or even
by a Catechist, as in the case of Origen, and soon, especially in
the Greek church, this assumed the form of an artistic, rhetorical
discourse. The reading and exposition of God’s word were followed
by the prayers, to which the people gave responses. These were
uttered partly by the bishop, partly by the deacons, and were
extemporary utterances of the heart, though very soon they
assumed a stereotyped form. The congregation responded to each
short sentence of the prayer with Κύριε ἐλέησον. In the fully
developed order of public worship of the 3rd century the prayers
were arranged to correspond to the different parts of the service,
for Catechumens, energumens (possessed), and penitents. After
all these came the common prayer of the church for all sorts of
callings, conditions, and needs in the life of the brethren.
§ 36.3. =The _Missa Fidelium_.=--The centre of this part of the
service was the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. In the time of
Justin Martyr the liturgy connected therewith was very simple. The
brotherly kiss followed the common prayer, then the sacramental
elements were brought in to the ministrant who consecrated
them by the prayer of praise and thanksgiving (εὐχαριστία). The
people answered Amen, and thereupon the consecrated elements
were distributed to all those present. From that prayer the whole
ordinance received the name εὐχαριστία, because its consecrating
influence made common bread into the bread of the Supper. Much
more elaborate is the liturgy in the 8th Book of the _Apostolic
Constitutions_ (§ 43, 4), which may be regarded as a fair sample
of the worship of the church toward the end of the 3rd century.
At the close of the sermon during the prayers connected with
that part of the service began the withdrawal successively of
the Catechumens, the energumens and the penitents. Then the _Missa
fidelium_ was commenced with the common intercessory prayer of
the church. After various collects and responses there followed
the brotherly kiss, exhortation against participation in unworthy
pleasures, preparation of the sacramental elements, the sign of
the cross, the consecration prayer, the words of institution, the
elevation of the consecrated elements, all accompanied by suitable
prayers, hymns, doxologies and responses. The bishop or presbyter
distributed the bread with the words, Σῶμα Χριστοῦ; the deacon
passed round the cup with the words, Αἷμα Χριστοῦ, ποτήριον ζωῆς.
Finally the congregation kneeling received the blessing of the
bishop, and the deacon dismissed them with the words, Ἀπολύεσθε
ἐν εἰρήνῃ.--The bread was that commonly used, _i.e._, leavened
bread (κοινὸς ἄρτος); the wine also was, according to the custom
of time, mixed with water (κρᾶμα), in which Cyprian already
fancied a symbol of the union of Christ and the church. In the
African and Eastern churches, founding on John vi. 53, children,
of course, those who had already been baptised, were allowed to
partake of the communion. At the close of the service the deacons
carried the consecrated sacramental elements to the sick and
imprisoned. In many places a portion of the consecrated bread
was taken home, that the family might use it at morning prayer
for the consecration of the new day. No formal act of confession
preceded the communion. The need of such an act in consequence
of the existing disciplinary and liturgical ordinance had not yet
made itself felt.
§ 36.4. =The Disciplina Arcani.=--The notion that the
sacramental part of the divine service, including in this
the prayers and hymns connected therewith, the Lord’s prayer,
administration of baptism and the baptismal formula, as well as
the anointing and the consecration of the priest, was a _mystery_
(μυστικὴ λατρεία, τελετή) which was to be kept secret from all
unbaptised persons (ἀμύητοι) and only to be practised in presence
of the baptised (συμμύσται), is quite unknown to Justin Martyr
and also to Irenæus. Justin accordingly describes in his Apology,
expressly intended for the heathen, in full detail and without
hesitation, all the parts of the eucharistic service. It was in
Tertullian’s time that this notion originated, and it had its
roots in the catechumenate and the consequent partition of the
service into two parts, from the second of which the unbaptised
were excluded. The official Roman Catholic theology, on the other
hand, regards the _disciplina arcani_ as an institution existing
from the times of the Apostles, and from it accounts for the want
of patristic support to certain specifically Roman Catholic dogmas
and forms of worship, in order that they may, in spite of the
want of such support, maintain that these had a place in primitive
Christianity.
§ 36.5. =The Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper.=--Though the idea
was not sharply and clearly defined, there was yet a widespread
and profound conviction that the Lord’s Supper was a supremely
holy mystery, spiritual food indispensable to eternal life,
that the body and blood of the Lord entered into some mystical
connection with the bread and wine, and placed the believing
partaker of them in true and essential fellowship with Christ.
It was in consequence of the adoption of such modes of expression
that the pagan calumnies about _Thyestian feasts_ (§ 22) first
gained currency. Ignatius calls the Lord’s Supper a φάρμακον
ἀθανασίας, the cup a ποτήριον εἰς ἕνωσιν τοῦ αἵματος Χριστοῦ,
and professes εὐχαριστίαν σάρκα εἶναι τοῦ σωτῆρος. Justin Martyr
says: σάρκα καὶ αἷμα ἐδιδάχθημεν εἶναι. According to Irenæus,
it is not _communis panis, sed eucharistia ex duabus rebus
constans, terrena et cœlesti_, and our bodies by means of its
use become _jam non corruptibilia, spem resurrectionis habentia_.
Tertullian and Cyprian, too, stoutly maintain this doctrine, but
incline sometimes to a more symbolical interpretation of it. The
spiritualistic Alexandrians, Clement and Origen, consider that
the feeding of the soul with the divine word is the purpose of
the Lord’s Supper.[100]--Continuation § 58, 2.
§ 36.6. =The Sacrificial Theory.=--When once the sacerdotal
theory had gained the ascendancy (§ 34, 4) the correlated notion
of a sacrifice could not much longer be kept in the background.
And it was just in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper that the
most specious grounds for such a theory were to be found. First
of all the prayer, which formed so important a part of this
celebration that the whole service came to be called from it the
Eucharist, might be regarded as a spiritual sacrifice. Then again
the gifts brought by the congregation for the dispensation of the
sacrament were called προσφοραί, _Oblationes_, names which were
already in familiar use in connection with sacrificial worship.
And just as the congregation offered their contributions to the
Supper, so also the priests offered them anew in the sacramental
action, and also to this priestly act was given the name
προσφέρειν, ἀναφέρειν. Then again, not only the prayer but the
Supper itself was designated a θυσία, _Sacrificium_, though at
first indeed in a non-literal, figurative sense.--Continuation
§ 58, 3.
§ 36.7. =The Use of Scripture.=--In consequence of their
possessing but few portions of Scripture, the references of the
Apostolic Fathers to the New Testament books must necessarily be
only occasional. The synoptic gospels are most frequently quoted,
though these are referred to only as a whole under the name τὸ
εὐαγγέλιον. In Justin Martyr the references become more frequent,
yet even here there are no express citation of passages; only
once, in the Dialogue, is the Revelation of John named. He
mentions as his special source for the life and works of Jesus
the Ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων. What he borrows from this
source is for the most part to be found in our Synoptic Gospels;
but we have not in this sufficient ground for identifying the one
with the other. On the contrary, we find that the citations of our
Lord’s words do not correspond to the text of our gospels, but are
sometimes rather in verbal agreement with the Apocryphal writings,
and still further, that he adopts Apocryphal accounts of the life
of Jesus, _e.g._, the birth of Christ in a cave, the coming of
the Magi from Arabia, the legend that Jesus as a carpenter made
ploughs and yokes, etc., borrowing them from the Ἀπομνημονεύματα
τῶν ἀποστόλων. If one further considers Justin’s account of the
Sunday service as consisting of the reading of the Ἀπομνημονεύματα
or the writings of the Prophets, and thereafter closed by the
expository and hortatory address of the president (προεστώς), he
will be led to the conclusion that his “Apostolic Memoirs” must
have been a Gospel Harmony for church use, probably on the basis
of Matthew’s Gospel drawn from our Synoptic Gospels, with the
addition of some apocryphal and traditional elements. The author
of the Didache too does not construct his “commands of the Lord
communicated by the Apostles” directly from our Synoptic Gospels,
but from a εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ κυρίου which presented a text of
Matthew enriched by additions from Luke. The Diatessaron of
Tatian (§ 30, 10) shows that soon after this the gospel of John,
which was not regarded by Justin or the author of the Didache
as a source for the evangelical history, although there are not
wanting in both manifold references to it, came to be regarded
as a work to be read in combination with these. It was only after
a New Testament Canon had been in the Old Catholic Age gradually
established, and from the vast multitude of books on gospel
history, which even Luke had found existing (i. 1) and which
had been multiplied to an almost incalculable extent both in the
interests of heresy and of church doctrine, our four gospels were
universally recognised as alone affording authentic information
of the life and doctrines of the Lord, that the eclectic gospels
hitherto in use had more and more withdrawn from them the favour
of the church. =Tatian’s Diatessaron= maintained its place longest
in the Syrian Church. Theodoret, † A.D. 457, testifies that in his
diocese he had found and caused to be put away about two hundred
copies. Aphraates (about A.D. 340, § 47, 13) still used it as the
text of his homilies. At the time of publication of the _Doctrina
Addæi_ (§ 32, 6) it was still used in the church of Edessa, and
Ephraim Syrus in A.D. 360 refers to a commentary in the form of
scholia on it in an Armenian translation, in which the passages
commented on are literally reproduced, Theodoret’s charge against
it of cutting out passages referring to the descent of Christ
after the flesh from David, especially the genealogies of Matthew
and Luke, is confirmed by these portions thus preserved. Otherwise
however, it is free from heretical alterations, though not wholly
without apocryphal additions. All the four gospels are in brief
summary so skilfully wrought into one another that no joining
is ever visible. What cannot be incorporated is simply left out,
and the whole historical and doctrinal material is distributed
over the one working year of the synoptists.
§ 36.8. =Formation of a New Testament Canon.=--The oldest
collection of a New Testament Canon known to us was made by the
Gnostic _Marcion_ (§ 27, 11) about A.D. 150. Some twenty years
later in the so-called _Muratorian Canon_, a fragment found by
Muratori in the 18th century with a catalogue in corrupt Latin
justifying the reception of the New Testament writings received
in the Roman church. For later times the chief witnesses are
Irenæus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Eusebius.
The Muratorian Canon and Eusebius are witnesses for the fact that
in the 2nd century, besides the Gospels, the Apostolic Epistles
and the Revelation of John, other so-called Apostolic Epistles
were read at worship in the churches, for instance, the _1st
Ep. of Clement of Rome_, _the Ep. of Barnabas_, _the Shepherd
of Hermas_, in some churches also the apocryphal _Apocalypse
of Peter_ and _Acts of Paul_, in Corinth, an Ep. of the Roman
bishop Soter (A.D. 166-174) to that church, and also _Acts of the
Martyrs_. Montanist as well as Gnostic excesses gave occasion for
the definite fixing of the New Testament Canon by the Catholic
church (§ 40). Since the time of Irenæus, the four Gospels, the
Acts, the 13 Epp. of Paul, the Ep. to the Hebrews (which some
in the West did not regard as Pauline), 1st Peter, and 1st John,
along with the Revelation of John, were universally acknowledged.
Eusebius therefore calls these ὁμολογούμενα. There was still some
uncertainty as to the Ep. of James, 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John
and Jude (ἀντιλεγόμενα). The antilegomena of a second class,
which have no claim to canonicity, although in earlier times they
were much used in churches just like the canonical scriptures,
were called by him νόθα, viz. the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of
Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Ep. of Barnabas, and the
Didache. He would also very willingly have included among these
the Revelation of John (§ 33, 9), although he acknowledged
that elsewhere that is included in the Homologoumena.--=The Old
Testament Canon= was naturally regarded as already completed. But
since the Old Testament had come to the Greek and Latin Church
Teachers in the expanded form of the LXX., they had unhesitatingly
assumed that its added books were quite as sacred and as fully
inspired as those of the Hebrew Canon. Melito of Sardis, however,
about A.D. 170, found it desirable to make a journey of research
through Palestine in order to determine the limits of the Jewish
Canon, and then to draw up a list of the Holy Scriptures of the
Old Testament essentially corresponding therewith. Origen too
informs us that the Jews, according to the number of letters in
their alphabet acknowledged only 22 books, which, however, does
not lead him to condemn this reception of the additional books of
the church. From the end of the 2nd century, the Western church
had =Latin Translations= of the biblical books, the origin of
which is to be sought in North Africa, where in consequence
of prevailing ignorance of the Greek language the need of
such translations was most deeply felt. Even so early as the
beginning of the 5th century we find Jerome († 420) complaining
of _varietas_ and _vitiositas_ of the _Codices latini_, and
declaring: _Tot sunt exemplaria_ (=forms of the text) _paene
quot codices_. Augustine[101] gives preference to the _Itala_
over all others. The name =Itala= is now loosely given to all
fragments of Latin translations previous to that of Jerome.--The
Syriac translation, =the Peshito=, plain or simple (so-called
because it exactly and without paraphrasing renders the words
of the Hebrew and Greek originals) belongs to the 3rd century,
although first expressly referred to by Ephraim. In it 2 Peter,
2 and 3 John and Jude are not found.
§ 36.9. =The Doctrine of Inspiration.=--In earlier times it
was usual, after the example of Philo, to regard the prophetic
inspiration of the sacred writers as purely passive, as ἔκστασις.
Athenagoras compares the soul of the prophet while prophesying
to a flute; Justin Martyr in his _Cohort. ad Græc._ to a lyre,
struck by the Holy Spirit as the _plectrum_, etc. The Montanist
prophets first brought this theory into disrepute. The Apologist
Miltiades of Asia Minor was the first Church Teacher who
vindicated over against the Montanists the proposition: προφήτην
μὴ δεῖν ἐν ἐκστάσει λαλεῖν. The Alexandrians who even admitted
an operation of the Holy Spirit upon the nobler intellects of
paganism, greatly modified the previously accepted doctrine
of inspiration. Origen, for example, teaches a gradual rising
or falling in the measure of inspiration even in the bible,
and determines this according to the more or less prominence
secured by the human individuality of the writers of scripture.
§ 36.10. =Hymnology.=--The _Carmen Christo quasi Deo dicere
secum invicem_ in the report of Pliny (§ 22, 2), may be classed
with the antiphonal responsive hymns of the church. Tertullian
bears witness to a rich use of song in family as well as
congregational worship. So too does Origen. In the composition
of church hymns the heretics seem for a long while to have kept
abreast of the Catholics (Bardesanes and Harmonius, § 27, 5),
but the latter were thereby stirred up to greater exertions.
The Martyr Athenogenes and the Egyptian bishop Nepos are named
as authors of church hymns. We have still a hymn εἰς Σωτῆρα by
Clement of Alexandria. Socrates ascribes to Ignatius, bishop
of Antioch, the introduction of the alternate-song (between
different congregational choirs). More credible is Theodoret’s
statement that the Antiochean monks Flavian and Diodorus had
imported it, about A.D. 260, from the National Syrian into the
Greek-Syrian church.--Continuation § 59, 4, 5.
§ 37. FEASTS AND FESTIVAL SEASONS.[102]
Sunday as a day of joy was distinguished by standing at prayer,
instead of kneeling as at other times, and also by the prohibition
of fasting. Of the other days of the week, Wednesday, the day on
which the Jewish Council decided to put Jesus to death and Judas had
betrayed him, and Friday, as the day of his death, were consecrated
to the memory of Christ’s suffering; hence the _Feria quarta et sexta_
were celebrated as watch days, _dies stationum_, after the symbolism
of the _Militia christiana_ (Eph. vi. 10-17), by public meetings
of the congregation. As days of the Passion, penitence and fasting
they formed a striking contrast to the Sunday. The chief days of the
Christian festival calendar, which afterwards found richer and more
complete expression in the cycle of the Christian year, were thus
at first associated with the weekly cycle. A long continued and wide
spread controversy as to the proper time for celebrating Easter arose
during the 2nd century.
§ 37.1. =The Festivals of the Christian Year.=--The thought
of Christ’s suffering and death was so powerful and engrossing
that even in the weekly cycle one day had not been sufficient.
Still less could one festal day in the yearly cycle satisfy
the hearts of believers. Hence a long preparation for the
festival was arranged, which was finally fixed at forty days,
and was designated the season _Quadragesima_ (τεσσαρακοστή). Its
conclusion and acme was the so-called Great Week, beginning with
the Sunday of the entrance into Jerusalem, culminating in the day
of the crucifixion, Good Friday, and closing with the day of rest
in the tomb. This Great Week or Passion Week was regarded as the
antitype of the Old Testament Passover feast. The Old Catholic
church did not, however, transfer this name to the festival
of the resurrection (§ 56, 4). The day of the resurrection
was rather regarded as the beginning of a new festival cycle
consecrated to the glorification of the redeemer, viz. the season
of _Quinquagesima_ (πεντηκοστή), concluding with the festival
of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the anniversary of the
founding of the Christian church, which has now come to be known
_par excellence_ as _Pentecost_. The fifty intervening days were
simply days of joy. There was daily communion, no fasting, only
standing and not kneeling at prayer. The fortieth day, the day
of the _Ascension_, had a special pre-eminence as a day of festal
celebrations. The festival of Epiphany on 6th January originated
in the East to celebrate the baptism of Christ in Jordan, as the
manifestation of his Messianic rank. As yet there is nowhere any
trace of the Christmas festival.--Continuation, § 56.