§ 55. WORSHIP IN GENERAL.
Christian worship freed by Constantine from the pressure of
persecution developed a great wealth of forms with corresponding
stateliness of expression. But doctrinal controversies claimed so
much attention that neither space nor time was left for carrying the
other developments in the same way through the fire of conflict and
sifting. Hence forms of worship were left to be moulded in particular
ways by the spirit of the age, nationality and popular taste. The public
spirit of the church, however, gave to the development an essential
unity, and early differences were by and by brought more and more into
harmony. Only between East and West was the distinction strong enough
to make in various ways an impression in opposition to the levelling
endeavours of catholicity.
The age of Cyril of Alexandria marks an important turning point
in the development of worship. It was natural that Cyril’s
prevailing doctrine of the intimate connection of the divine
and human natures in the person of Christ should have embodied
itself in the services of the church. But this doctrine was
yet at least one-sided theory which did not wholly exclude
its perversion into error. In the dogma, indeed, thanks to
the exertions of Leo and Theodoret, the still extant Monophysite
error had no place given it. But in the worship of the church
it had embedded itself, and here it was not overcome, and its
presence was not even suspected, so, it could now not only
develop itself undisturbed in the direction of worship of saints,
images, relics, of pilgrimages, of sacrifice of the mass, etc.,
but also it could decisively deduce therefrom a development of
dogmas not yet established, _e.g._ in the doctrine of the church,
of the priesthood, of the sacraments, especially of the Lord’s
Supper, etc., etc.
§ 56. FESTIVALS AND SEASONS FOR PUBLIC WORSHIP.
The idea of having particular days of the week consecrated in memory
of special incidents in the work of redemption had even in the previous
period found expression (§ 37), but it now passed into the background
all the more as the church began to apply itself to the construction in
the richest possible form of a Christian year. The previous difference
in the development of East and West occasioned each to take its
own particular course, determined in the one case very much by a
Jewish-Christian, in the other by a Gentile-Christian, tendency.
Nevertheless in the 4th century we find a considerable levelling
of these divergences. This at least was attained unto thereby that
the three chief festivals received an essentially common form in both
churches. But in the 5th and 6th centuries, in the further development
of the Christian year, the two churches parted all the more decidedly
from one another. The Western church especially gave way more and more
unreservedly to the tendency to make the natural year the type and
pattern for the Christian year. Thus the Western Christian year obtained
a richer development and grew up into an institution more vitally and
inwardly related to the life of the people. The luxuriant overgrowth
of saints’ days, however, prevented the church from here reaching its
ideal.
§ 56.1. =The Weekly Cycle.=--Constantine the Great issued a law
in A.D. 321, according to which all magisterial, judicial and
municipal business was stopped on =Sunday=. At a later period
he also forbade military exercises. His successors extended the
prohibition to the public spectacles. Alongside of Sunday the
=Sabbath= was long celebrated in the East by meetings in the
churches, avoidance of fasting and by standing at prayers. The
_Dies stationum_, Wednesday and Friday (§ 37), were observed in
the East as fast days. The West gave up the Wednesday fast, and
introduced in its place the anti-Judaic Sabbath fast.
§ 56.2. =Hours and Quarterly Fasts.=--The number of appointed
_hours of prayer_ (the 3rd, 6th and 9th hours, comp. Dan.
vi. 10-14; Acts ii. 15; iii. 1; x. 9) were increased during
the 5th century to eight (_Horæ canonicæ: Matutina_ or matins
at 3 a.m.; _Prima_ at 6 a.m.; _Tertia_ at 9 a.m.; _Sexta_ at
12 noon; _Nona_ at 3 p.m.; _Vesper_ at 6 p.m.; _Completorium_
at 9 p.m.; and _Mesonyktion_ or Vigils at 12 midnight); yet
generally two of the night hours were combined, so as to
preserve the seven times required in Ps. cxix. 164. This
arrangement of hours was strictly observed by monks and clerics.
The common basis of prayer for devotions at these hours was the
Psalter divided among the seven days of the week. The rest of the
material adapted to the course of the Christian year, consisting
of scripture and patristic readings, legends of martyrs and
saints, prayers, hymns, doxologies, etc. gradually accumulated
so that it had to be abbreviated, and hence the name _Breviarium_
commonly given to such selections. The Roman Breviary, arranged
mainly by Leo the Great, Gelasius and Gregory the Great, gradually
throughout the West drove all other such compositions from the
field. An abbreviation by Haymo, General of the Minorites, in
A.D. 1241 was sanctioned by Gregory IX., but had subsequently
many alterations made upon it. The Council of Trent finally
charged the Papal chair with the task of preparing a new
redaction which the clergy of the whole catholic church would
be obliged to use. Such a production was issued by Pius V. in
A.D. 1568, and then in A.D. 1631 Urban VIII. gave it the form
in which it is still current.--In the West the year was divided
into three-monthly periods, _quatuor tempora_, corresponding to
the seasons of prayer recurring every three hours. There were
harvest prayer and thanksgiving seasons, occupied, in accordance
with Joel ii., with penance, fasting and almsgiving. Leo the
Great brought this institution to perfection. The _quatuor
tempora_, ember days, occur in the beginning of the Quadragesima,
in the week after Pentecost, and in the middle of the 7th and
10th months (Sept. and Dec.), and were kept by a strict fast on
Wednesday, Friday and Saturday with a Sabbath vigil.
§ 56.3. =The Reckoning of Easter.=--At the Council of Nicæa in
A.D. 325 the Roman mode of observing Easter prevailed over that
of Asia Minor (§ 37, 2). Those who adhered to the latter method
were regarded as a sect (_Quartadecimani_ Τεσσαρεσκαιδεκατῖται).
The Council decreed that the first day of full moon after the
spring equinox should be regarded as the 14th Nisan, and that the
festival of the resurrection should be celebrated on the Sunday
following. The bishop of Alexandria undertook the astronomical
determination of the festival on each occasion, because there
astronomical studies were most diligently prosecuted. He
published yearly, usually about Epiphany, a circular letter,
_Liber paschalis_, giving to the other churches the result of
the calculation, and took advantage generally of the opportunity
to discuss the ecclesiastical questions of the day. First of all
at Alexandria, probably to prevent for all time a combination
of the Jewish and Christian Easter festivals, the practice was
introduced of keeping the feast when the 14th and 16th of the
new moon fell upon Friday and Sunday, not on the same Sunday
but eight days later,--a practice which Rome also, and with her
a great part of the West, adopted in the 5th century (§ 77, 3).
A further difference existed as to the point of time with
which the day of full moon was to be regarded as beginning.
The Easter Canon of Hippolytus (§ 31, 3) had calculated it in
a very unsatisfactory manner according to a sixteen-years’ cycle
of the moon, after the course of which the day of full moon would
again occur on the same day of the year. In Alexandria the more
exact nineteen-years’ cycle of Anatolius was adopted, according
to which the day of full moon had an aberration of about one
day only in 310 years, and even this was caused rather by
the imperfection of the Julian year of 365 days with three
intercalary days in 400 years. But in Rome the reckoning was
made as the basis of an eighty-four years’ cycle which had indeed
the advantage of completing itself not only on the same day of
the year but on the same day of the week; while, on the other
hand, it had this drawback that after eighty-four years it had
fallen about a day behind the actual day of full moon. There was
also this further difference that in Alexandria the 21st of March
was regarded as the day when day and night were equal, and at
Rome, but wrongly, the 18th of March. The cycle of 532 (28 ✕ 19)
years reckoned in A.D. 452 by Victorius, a bishop of Aquitaine,
was assimilated to the Alexandrian, without, however, losing
the advantage of the eighty-four years’ cycle above referred
to, which, however, it succeeded in obtaining only by once in
every period of nineteen years fixing the equinox on the 20th
of March. The Roman abbot Dionysius Exiguus (§ 47, 23), finally,
in A.D. 525 harmonized the Roman and the Alexandrian reckoning
by setting up a ninety-five years’ cycle (5 ✕ 19), and this cycle
was introduced throughout all the West by Isidore of Seville
and the Venerable Bede (§ 90, 2). The error occasioned by the
inexactness of the Julian calendar continued till the Gregorian
reform of the calendar (§ 149, 3).
§ 56.4. =The Easter Festivals.=--The pre-eminence of the
Christian festival of victory (the resurrection) over that
of suffering, especially among the Greeks, led, even in the
4th century to the former as the fruit of the latter being drawn
into the paschal season, and distinguished as πάσχα ἀναστάσιμον
from that as πάσχα σταυρώσιμον, and also at last to the adoption
of the one name of Paschal or Easter Festival and to the regarding
of the whole Quadragesima season as a preparation for Easter.
The Saxon name Easter is derived from the old German festival
of Ostara the goddess of spring which was celebrated at the same
season.--With the beginning of the Quadragesima the whole mode
of life assumes a new form. All amusements were stopped, all
criminal trials sisted and the din of traffic in streets and
markets as far as possible restricted. The East exempted Sunday
and Sabbath from the obligation of fasting, with the exception
of the last Sabbath as the day of Christ’s rest in the grave,
but the West exempted only Sunday. Gregory the Great, therefore,
fixed the beginning of the Quadragesima on Wednesday of the
seventh week before Easter, _Caput jejunii, Dies cinerum_, Ash
Wednesday, so called because the bishop strewed ashes on the
heads of believers with a warning reference to Gen. iii. 19,
comp. xviii. 27. With the Tuesday preceding, Shrove Tuesday
(from _shrive_, to confess), ended the carnival season (_carni
valedicere_) which, beginning with 6th Jan. or the feast of the
three holy kings, reached its climax in the last days, from three
to eight, before Ash Wednesday. On this closing day the people
generally sought indemnification for the approaching strict
fast by an unmeasured abandoning of themselves to pleasure. From
Italy where this custom arose and was most fully carried out,
it subsequently found its way into the other lands of the West.
In opposition to these unspiritual proceedings the period of
the Easter festivals was begun three weeks earlier with the 10th
Sunday before Easter (_Septuagesima_). The Hallelujah of the Mass
was silenced, weddings were no more celebrated (_Tempus clausum_),
monks and clerics already began the fast. The Quadragesima
festival reached its climax in the last, the _great_ week. It
began with Palm Sunday (ἑορτὴ τῶν βαΐων) and ended with the great
Sabbath, the favourite time for baptisms (Rom. vi. 3). Thursday
as the memorial day of the institution of the Lord’s Supper,
and Friday as the day of Christ’s death, Good Friday, were days
of special importance. A solemn night service, Easter vigils,
marked the transition to the joyous Easter celebrations. The old
legend that on this night Christ’s second coming would take place
rendered the service peculiarly solemn. Easter morning began with
the jubilant greeting: The Lord is risen, and the response, He is
risen indeed. On the following Sunday, the Easter Octave, _Pascha
clausum_, ἀντίπασχα, the Easter festival was brought to a close.
Those baptized on the great Sabbath wore for the last time their
white baptismal dress. Hence this sabbath was called _Dominica
in albis_; subsequently, in accordance with the Introitus
from 1 Pet. ii. 2, Quasimodogeniti; and by the Greeks, καινὴ
κυριακή. The joyous celebrations of Easter extended over all
the Quinquagesima period between Easter and Pentecost. Ascension
day, _Festum ascensionis_, ἑορτὴ τῆς ἀναλήψεως, and Pentecost,
πεντεκοστή, were introduced as high festivals by vigil services;
and the latter was concluded by the Pentecost-Octave, by the
Greeks called κυριακὴ τῶν ἁγίων μαρτυρησάντων and at a much later
date styled by the Latins Trinity Sunday. The Festival-Octaves,
ἀπολύσεις, had an Old Testament pattern in the עֲצֶרֶת of the Feast
of Tabernacles, Lev. xxiii. 26.
§ 56.5. =The Christmas Festivals.=--The first traces of the
Christmas festival (_Natalis Christi_, γενέθλια) in the Roman
church are found about A.D. 360. Some decades later they appear
in the Eastern church. The late introduction of this festival
is to be explained from the disregard of the birthday and the
prominence given to the day of the death of Christ in the ancient
church; but Chrysostom even regarded it as the μητρόπολις πασῶν
τῶν ἑορτῶν. Since the 25th of March as the spring equinox was
held as the day of creation, the day of the incarnation, the
conception of Christ, the second Adam, as the beginning of the
new creation was held on the same day, and hence 25th Dec. was
chosen as the day of Christ’s birth. The Christian festival thus
coincided nearly with the heathen _Saturnalia_, in memory of
the Golden Age, from 17th to 23rd Dec., the _Sigillaria_, on
the 24th Dec., when children were presented with dolls and images
of clay and wax, sigilla, and the _Brumalia_, on 25th Dec., _Dies
natalis invicti solis_, the winter solstice. It was considered
no mere chance coincidence that Christ, the eternal Sun,
should be born just on this day. The Christmas festival too
was introduced by a vigil and lasted for eight days, which in
the 6th century became the _Festum circumcisionis_. The revelling
that characterised the New Year Festival of the pagans, caused
the ancient church, to observe that day as a day of penance and
fasting. The feast of the Epiphany on the 6th Jan. (§ 37, 1) was
also introduced in the West during the 4th century but obtained
there a Gentile-Christian colouring from Luke ii. 21 and was
kept as the festival of the first fruits of the Gentiles and
received the name of the Festival of the three holy kings. For
even Tertullian in accordance with Ps. lxxii. 10 had made the
Magi kings; it was concluded that they were three because of
the three gifts spoken of; and Bede, about A.D. 700, gives their
names as Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar. By others this festival
was associated with Christ’s first miracle at the marriage in
Cana, and also with the feeding of the 5,000 in the wilderness.
After the analogy of the Easter festival since the 6th century
a longer preliminary celebration has been connected with the
Christmas festival. In the Eastern church, beginning with the
14th of Nov., it embraced six Sundays with forty fast days, as
the second Quadragesima of the year. In the Latin church, as
the season of Advent, it had only four Sundays, with a three
weeks’ fast.
§ 56.6. =The Church Year= was in the East a symbolic adaptation
of the natural year only in so far as it brought with it the
Christianising of the Jewish festivals and the early recognition
of Western ideas about the feasts. Only on the high festivals,
Christmas, Easter and Pentecost are they retained; on the
other Sundays and festivals they never obtained expression.
The Easter festival was considered the beginning of the church
year; thereafter the Quadragesima or Epiphany; and finally,
the Old Testament beginning of the year in September. The whole
church year was divided into four parts according to the _Lectio
continua_ of the gospel, and the Sundays were named thereafter.
The κυριακὴ πρώτη τοῦ Ματθαίου was immediately after Pentecost.
The =Latin Church Year= begins with the season of Advent, and
distinguishes a _Semestre Domini_ and a _Semestre ecclesiæ_.
But only the former was fully developed: Christmas, Easter,
Pentecost with the Sundays belonging to them, representing the
founding, developing and completing of the history of salvation.
To a corresponding development of the second half we find early
contributions, _e.g._ the Feast of Peter and Paul on 29th June
as festival of the founding of the church by the Apostles, the
Feast of the leading martyr Laurentius (§ 22, 5) on 10th August
as memorial of the struggle prescribed to the _Ecclesia militans_,
and the Feast of Michael on 29th September with reference to the
completion in the _Ecclesia triumphans_. That in these feasts we
have already the germs of the three festivals of the community
of the church which were to correspond to the three festivals of
the Lord’s history appears significantly in the early designation
of the Sundays after Pentecost as _Dominica post Apostolos, post
Laurentium, post Angelos_. But it never was distinctly further
carried out. This deeply significant distribution was overlaid
by saint worship, which overflowed the _Semestre Domini_. The
principle of Christianising the Pagan rites was legitimated by
Gregory the Great. He instructed the Anglo-Saxon missionaries
to the effect (§ 77, 4), that they should convert the heathen
temples into churches and heathen festivals into ecclesiastical
festivals and days of martyrs, _ut duræ mentes gradibus vel
passibus non autem saltibus eleventur_. The saints henceforth
take the place of gods of nature and the church year reproduced
with a Christian colouring all the outstanding points in the
natural year.--As the last festival connected with the history
of the Lord, the Feast of the Glorification, ἁγία μεταμόρφωσις,
was held in the East on 6th August. According to tradition
the scene was enacted on Mt. Tabor, hence the feast was called
Θαβώριον. The Latin church adopted it first in the 15th century
(_F. transfigurationis_).[170]
§ 56.7. =The Church Fasts= (§ 37, 3).--In the Greek church the
ordinance of fasting was more strict than in the Latin. In one
period, however, we have a system of fasts embracing four great
fasting seasons: The Quadragesima of Easter and of Christmas, the
period of from three to five weeks from the Pentecost Octave (the
Greek Feast of All Saints) to that of Peter and Paul on 29th June,
and the fourteen days before the Ascension of Mary on 15th August.
There were also the νηστεῖαι προεόρτιοι on the evenings previous
to other festivals; and finally, the weekly recurring fasts
of Wednesday and Friday. The strictest was the pre-Easter fast,
observed with gradually advancing rigidness. On Sexagesima Sunday
flesh was eaten for the last time, then followed the so-called
Butter week, when butter, cheese, milk and eggs were still
allowed; but thereafter complete avoidance of all fattening
food was enjoined, reaching during the great week to the
utmost possible degree of abstinence. In the West instead
of Wednesday, Saturday was taken along with Friday, and down
to the 13th century it was enjoined that nothing should be
eaten on these two days of the week, as also on the quarterly
days (_quatuor tempora_) and the evenings preceding the feasts
of the most famous Apostles and martyrs, the vigil fasts, until
3 p.m. (_Semijejunium_) or even till 6 p.m. (_Plenum jejunium_);
while in the longer seasons of fasting before Easter and before
Christmas the injunction was restricted to avoidance of all fat
foods (_Abstinentia_).--Continuation § 115, 1.
§ 57. WORSHIP OF SAINTS, RELICS AND IMAGES.[171]
Though with the times of persecution martyrdom had ceased, asceticism
where it was preached with unusual severity gave a claim to canonisation
which was still bestowed by the people’s voice regarded as the voice of
God. Forgotten saints were discovered by visions, and legend insensibly
eked out the poverty of historical reminiscences with names and facts.
The veneration of martyrs rose all the higher the more pitiable the
present generation showed in its lukewarmness and worldliness over
against the world-conquering faith of that great cloud of witnesses.
The worship of Mary, which came in as a result of the Nestorian
controversy, was later of being introduced than that of the martyrs,
but it almost immediately shot far ahead and ranked above the adoration
of all the other saints. The adoration of Angels, of which we find the
beginnings even in Justin and Origen, remained far behind the worship
of the saints. Pilgrimages were zealously undertaken, from the time
when the emperor’s mother Helena, in A.D. 326, went as a pilgrim to
holy places in Palestine and afterwards marked these out by building
on them beautiful churches. The worship of images was introduced first
in the age of Cyril of Alexandria and was carried out with peculiar
eagerness in the art-loving East. The Western teachers, however,
and even Gregory the Great himself, only went the length of becoming
decoration, using images to secure more impressiveness in teaching and
greater liveliness in devotion. In the West, however, still more than
in the East, veneration of relics came into vogue.
§ 57.1. =The Worship of Martyrs and Saints= (§ 39, 5).[172]--At
a very early period churches were built upon the graves of
Martyrs (_Memoria_, _Confessio_, μαρτύριον), or their bones
were brought into churches previously built (_Translationes_).
New edifices were dedicated in their names, those receiving
baptism were named after them. The days of their death were
observed as special holy seasons with vigil services, Agape
and oblations at their graves. In glowing discourses the orators
of the church, in melodious hymns the poets, sounded forth
their praises. The bones of the martyrs were sought out with
extraordinary zeal and were looked upon and venerated as
supremely sacred. Each province, each city and each calling
had its own patron saint (_Patronus_). Perhaps as early as the
3rd century several churches had their martyr calendars, _i.e._
lists of those who were to have the day of their death celebrated.
In the 4th century this custom had become universal, and from the
collection of the most celebrated calendars, with the addition
of legendary stories of the lives and sufferings of martyrs or
saints (_Legendæ_, so called because they were wont to be _read_
at the memorial services of the individuals referred to), sprang
up the _Martyrologies and Legends of the Saints_, among the
Greeks called _Menologies_ from μήν, a month. Most esteemed
in the West was the martyrology of the Roman church, whose
composition has been recently put down, equally with and upon
the same grounds as that of the so called _Liber Comitis_,
§ 59, 3, to the time of Jerome as the chief representative of
Western theological learning. This collection formed the basis
of the numerous Latin martyrologies of the Middle Ages (§ 90, 9).
A rich choice was afforded by these catalogues of saints to
those wishing names to use at baptism or confirmation; the saint
preferred became thereby the patron of him who took his name. The
three great Cappadocians in the East and Ambrose in the West were
the first to open the floodgates for the invocation of saints
by their proclaiming that the glorified saints through communion
with the Lord shared in His attribute of omniprescence and
omniscience; while Augustine rather assigned to the angels
the task of communicating the invocations of men to the saints.
In the liturgies prayers for the saints were now displaced by
invocations for their intercession. In this the people found
a compensation for the loss of hero, genius and _manes_ worship.
The church teachers at least wished indeed to make a marked
distinction between _Adoratio_ and _Invocatio_, λατρεία and
δουλεία, rendering the former to God only. A festival of All the
Martyrs was celebrated in the East as early as the 4th century
on the Pentecost octave (§ 56, 4). In the West, Pope Boniface IV.,
in A.D. 610, having received from the Emperor Phocas the Pantheon
as a gift and having converted it into a church of the most
Blessed Virgin and all the Martyrs, founded a _Festum omnium
Sanctorum_, which was not, however, generally recognised before
the 9th century (1st Nov.). Owing to the great number of saints
one or more had to be assigned to each day in the calendar. The
day fixed was usually that of the death of the saint. The only
instance of the celebration of a birthday was the festival
of John the Baptist (_Natalis S. Joannis_). The 24th June was
fixed upon by calculating from Christmas (acc. to Luke i. 26),
and its occurring in the other half of the year from that of
Christ afforded a symbolical parallel to John iii. 30. As an
appendage to this we meet even in the 5th century with the
_F. decollationis S. Joannis_ on 29th Aug. On the second day
of the Christmas festival the Feast of the Proto-martyr Stephen
was celebrated as the first fruits of the incarnation of God;
on the third, the memory of the disciple who lay on the Master’s
breast; on the fourth, the innocent children of Bethlehem
(_F. innocentium_) as the _flores_ or _primitiæ martyrum_. The
festival of the Maccabees (πανήγυρις τῶν Μακκαβαίων) leads yet
further back as the memorial of the heroic mother and her seven
sons under Antiochus Epiphanes. It was observed as early as the
4th century and did not pass out of use till the 13th. Among the
festivals of Apostles that of Peter and Paul (_F. Apost. Petri
et Pauli_) on 29th June, as the solemnization of their common
martyrdom at Rome, was universally observed. But Rome celebrated
besides a double _F. Cathedræ Petri_, for the _Cathedra Romana_
on 18th Jan., and for the _Cathedra Antiochena_ on 22nd Feb.
For a long time a symbolical arrangement of the calendar days
prevailed; the patriarchs of the Old Testament were put in the
time before Christmas, the later saints of the old dispensation
in the Quadragesima, and the Apostles and Founders of the church
after Pentecost, then the Martyrs, next the Confessors, and
finally, the Virgins as prototype of the perfected church.
§ 57.2. =The Worship of Mary and Anna.=[173]--The εὐλογουμένη ἐν
γυναιξί who herself full of the Holy Ghost had prophesied: ἰδοὺ
γὰρ, ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν μακαριοῦσι με πᾶσαι αἱ γενεαί, was regarded
as the highest ideal of all virginity. All the reverence, which
the church accorded to virginity, culminated therefore in her.
Even Tertullian alongside of the Pauline contrasts Adam and
Christ, placed this other, Eve and Mary. The _perpetua virginitas
b. Mariæ_ was an uncontested article of faith from the 4th century.
Ambrose understood of her Ezek. xliv. 3, and affirmed that she
was born _utero clauso_; Gregory the Great saw an analogy between
this and the entering of the Risen One through closed doors
(John xx. 19); and the second Trullan Council, in A.D. 692,
confessed: ἀλόχευτον τὸν ἐκ τῆς παρθένου θεῖον τόκον εἶναι.
Irenæus, Tertullian, Origen, Basil, Chrysostom, had indeed
still found something in her worthy of blame, but even Augustine
refuses to admit that she should be reckoned among sinners: _Unde
enim scimus, quid ei plus gratiæ collatum fuerit ad vincendum
omni ex parte peccatum?_ Yet for a long time this veneration of
Mary made little progress. This was caused partly by the absence
of the glory of martyrdom, partly by its development in the
church being forestalled and distorted by the heathenish and
godless Mariolatry of the Collyridians, an Arabian female sect
of the 4th century, which offered to the Holy Virgin, as in
heathen times to Ceres, cakes of bread (κολλυρίδα). Epiphanius,
who opposed them, taught: ἐν τιμῇ ἔστω Μαρία, ὁ δὲ Πατὴρ καὶ Υἱὸς
καὶ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα προσκυνείσθω, τὴν δὲ Μαρίαν οὐδεὶς προσκυνείτω.
On the Antidicomarianites, see § 62, 2. The victory of those who
used the term θεοτόκος in the Nestorian controversy gave a great
impulse to Mariolatry. Even in the 5th century, the festival
of the Annunciation, _F. annunciationis, incarnationis_, ἑορτὴ
τοῦ εὐαγγελισμοῦ, τοῦ ἀσπασμοῦ, was held on the 25th March.
With this was also connected in the West the festival of the
Purification of Mary, _F. purificationis_ on 2nd Feb., according
to Luke ii. 22. On account of the candles used in the service
it was called the Candlemas of Mary, _F. candelarum, luminum_,
Luke ii. 32. In consequence of an earthquake and pestilence in
A.D. 542, Justinian founded the corresponding ἑορτὴ τῆς ὑπαπάντης,
_F. occursus_, only that here the meeting with Simeon and Anna
(Luke ii. 24) is put in the foreground. Both festivals, the
Annunciation and the Purification, had the same dignity as those
dedicated to the memory of our Lord. From the endeavour to put
alongside of each of the festivals of the Lord a corresponding
festival of Mary, about the end of the 6th century the Feast
of the Ascension of Mary (πανήγυρις κοιμήτεως, _F. assumptionis,
dormitionis M._) was introduced and celebrated on 15th Aug.;
and in the 7th century, the Feast of the Birth of Mary (_F.
nativitatis M._), on 8th Sept. The former was founded on the
apocryphal legend (§ 32, 4), according to which Christ with the
angels brought the soul of his just departed mother, and, on the
following day, its glorified body, to heaven, and there united
it again with the soul.--The first traces of a =veneration of
Anna= around whom, as the supposed wife of Joachim and mother of
the Virgin, the apocryphal gospels of the childhood had already
gathered a mass of romantic details, are found in the 4th century
in Gregory of Nyssa and Epiphanius. Justinian I. in A.D. 550
built a church of St. Anna in Constantinople. In the East the
25th of July was celebrated as the day of her death, the 9th Sept.
as the day of her marriage, and the 9th Dec. as the day of her
conception. In the West the veneration of Anna was later of being
introduced. It became popular in the later Middle Ages and was
made obligatory on the whole catholic church by Gregory XIII.
in A.D. 1584. The day fixed was 26th July. Yet Leo III. in the
8th century had allowed a pictorial representation of the legend
of St. Joachim and St. Anna to be put in the church of St. Paul
in Rome.--Continuation § 104, 7, 8.
§ 57.3. =Worship of Angels.=--The idea of guardian angels
of nations, cities, individuals, was based on Deut. xxxii. 8
(in the LXX.); Dan. x. 13, 20, 21; xii. 1; Matt. xviii. 10;
Acts xii. 15, even as early as the 2nd century. Ambrose
required the invocation of angels. But when the Phrygian sect
of the Angelians carried the practice the length of idolatrous
worship, the Council at Laodicea in the 4th century opposed
it, and Epiphanius placed it in his list of heresies. Supposed
manifestations of the Archangel Michael led to the institution
from the 5th century of the feast of Michael observed on 29th
Sept., as a festival of the angels collectively representing
the idea of the church triumphant.
§ 57.4. =Worship of Images= (§ 38, 3).--The disinclination of
the ancient church to the pictorial representations of the person
of Christ as such, and also the unwillingness to allow religious
pictures in the churches, based upon the prohibition of images
in the decalogue, was not yet wholly overcome in the 4th century.
Eusebius of Cæsarea, with reference to the statues of Paneas
(§ 13, 2) and other images of Christ and the Apostles, speaks
of an ἐθνικὴ συνηθεία. He administered a severe reproof to the
emperor’s sister, Constantia, and referred to the prohibition
of the decalogue, when she expressed a wish to have an image
of Christ. Asterius, bishop of Amasa in Pontus († A.D. 410),
earnestly declaimed against the custom of people of distinction
wearing clothes embroidered with pictures from the gospel history,
and recommends them rather to have Christ in their hearts. The
violent zealot, Epiphanius, the most decided opponent of all
religious idealism, tore the painted curtain of a Palestinian
village church in Anablatha with the injunction to wrap therewith
a beggar’s corpse. But Greek love of art and the religious needs
of the people gained the victory over Judaic-legal rigorism
and abstract spiritualism. Here too the age of Cyril marks
the turning point. In the 5th century authentic miraculous
pictures of Christ, the Apostles and the God-mother (εἰκόνες
ἀχειροποίητοι), made their appearance, and with them began image
worship properly so called, with lighting of candles, kissing,
burning incense, bowing of the knee, prostrations (προσκύνησις
τιμητική). Soon all churches and church books, all palaces
and cottages, were filled with images of Christ and the saints
painted or drawn by the monks. Miracle after miracle was wrought
beside, upon or through them. In this, however, the West did not
keep pace with the East. Augustine complains of image worship
and advises to seek Christ in the bible rather than in images.
Gregory the Great, while blaming the violence of Serenus, bishop
of Massilia in breaking the images, wishes that in churches
images should be made to serve _ad instruendas solummodo mentes
nescientium_. The Nestorians who were strongly opposed to images,
expressly declared that the hated Cyril was the originator of
_Iconolatry_.
§ 57.5. =Worship of Relics= (§ 39, 5).--The veneration for
relics (λείψανα) proceeded from a pious feeling in human nature
and is closely associated with that higher reverence which the
church paid to its martyrs. It began with public assemblies
at the graves of martyrs, memorial celebrations and services
in connection with the translations of their bones held in
the churches. Soon no church, no altar (Rev. vi. 9), could be
built without relics. When the small number of known martyrs
proved insufficient, single parts of their bodies were divided
to different churches. But dreams and visions showed rich stores
previously unthought of in remnants of the bones of martyrs
and saints. The catacombs especially proved inexhaustible mines.
Miracles and signs vouched for their genuineness. Theodosius I.
already found it necessary in A.D. 386, to prohibit the traffic
in relics. Besides bones, were included also clothes, utensils,
instruments of torture. They healed the sick, cast out devils,
raised the dead, averted plagues, and led to the discovery of
offenders. The healed expressed their gratitude in votive tablets
and in presentations of silver and golden figures of the healed
parts. A scriptural foundation was sought for this veneration of
relics in 2 Kings xiii. 21; Ecclesiastic. xlvi. 14; Acts xix. 12.
According to a legend commonly believed in the 5th century,
but unknown to Eusebius and the Bordeaux pilgrim of A.D. 333,
Helena, mother of Constantine, found in A.D. 326 the Cross of
Christ along with the crosses of the two thieves. The one was
distinguished from the others by a miracle of healing or of
raising from the dead. The pious lady left one half of the cross
to the church of the Holy Sepulchre and sent the rest with the
nails to her son, who inlaid the wood in his statues and some of
the nails in his diadem, while of the rest he made a bit for his
horse. Since the publication of the _Doctrina Addaei_, § 32, 6,
it has become apparent that this Helena legend is just another
version of the old Edessa legend about the Byzantine saint,
according to which the wife of the emperor Claudius converted
by Peter is represented in precisely similar circumstances as
having found the cross. To pious and distinguished pilgrims
permission was given to take small splinters of the wood
kept in Jerusalem, so that soon bits of the cross were spread
and received veneration throughout all the world. According
to a much later report a σταυρώσιμος ἡμέρα on 14th Sept. was
observed in the East as early as the 4th century in memory of
the finding of the cross. From the time of Gregory the Great a
_F. inventionis S. Crucis_ was observed in the West on 3rd May.
The festival of the exaltation of the cross, σταυροφανεία, _F.
exaltationis S. Crucis_, on 14th Sept., was instituted by the
emperor Heraclius when the Persians on their being conquered
in A.D. 629, were obliged to restore the cross which they had
taken away.
§ 57.6. =The Making of Pilgrimages.=--The habit of making
pilgrimages (pilgrim=peregrinus) to sacred places also rested
upon a common tendency in human nature. The pilgrimage of Helena
in A.D. 326 found numerous imitators, and even the conquest
of Palestine by the Saracens in the 7th century did not quench
pilgrims’ ardour. Next to the sacred places in Palestine, Sinai,
the grave of Peter and Paul at Rome (_Limina Apostolorum_), the
grave of Martin of Tours (§ 47, 14) and the supposed scene in
Arabia of the sufferings of Job, as a foreshadowing of Christ’s,
were the spots most frequented by pilgrims. Gregory of Nyssa
in an Epistle Περὶ τῶν ἀπιόντων εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα most vigorously
opposed the immoderate love of pilgrimages, especially among
monks and women. In the strongest language he pointed out the
danger to true religion and morality; and even Jerome so far
gave way to reason as to say: _Et de Hierosolymis et de Brittania
æqualiter patet aula cœlestis_. Chrysostom and Augustine, too,
opposed the over estimating of this expression of pious feeling.
§ 58. THE DISPENSATION OF THE SACRAMENTS.
During this period nothing was definitely established as to the idea
and number of the sacraments (μυστήρια). The name was applied to the
doctrines of grace in so far as they transcended the comprehension of
the human understanding, as well as to those solemn acts of worship by
which grace was communicated and appropriated in an incomprehensible
manner to believers, so that only in the 12th century (§ 104, 2) were
the consecrations and blessings hitherto included therein definitely
excluded from the idea of the sacrament under the name Sacramentalia.
It was, however, from the first clearly understood that Baptism and the
Lord’s Supper were essentially the sacramental means of grace. Yet even
in the 3rd century, anointing and laying on of hands as an independent
sacrament of Confirmation (_Confirmatio_, χρίσμα) was separated
from the idea of baptism, and in the West, from the administration
of baptism. The reappearance of the idea of a special priesthood as
a divine institution (§ 34, 4) gave also to Ordination the importance
of a sacrament (§ 45, 1). Augustine whom the Pelagians accused
of teaching by his doctrine of original sin and concupiscence that
God-ordained marriage was sinful, designated Christian marriage, with
reference to Eph. v. 32, a sacrament (§ 61, 2) in order more decidedly
to have it placed under the point of view of the nature sanctified by
grace. Pseudo-Dionysius, in the 6th century (§ 47, 11), enumerates six
sacraments: Baptism, Chrism, Lord’s Supper, Consecration of Priests
and Monks and the Anointing of the Dead (τῶν κεκοιμημένων). On Extreme
Unction, comp. § 61, 3.
§ 58.1. =Administration of Baptism= (§ 35, 4).--The postponing
of baptism from lukewarmness, superstition or doctrinal prejudice,
was a very frequent occurrence. The same obstacles down to the
6th century stood in the way of infant baptism being regarded
as necessary. Gregory of Nyssa wrote Πρὸς τοὺς βραδύνοντας
εἰς τὸ βάπτισμα, and with him all the church fathers earnestly
opposed the error. In case of need (_in periculo mortis_) it
was allowed even by Tertullian that baptism might be dispensed
by any baptized layman, but not by women. The institution of
godfather was universal and founded a spiritual relationship
within which marriage was prohibited not only between the
godparents themselves, but also between those and the baptized
and their children. The usual ceremonies preceding baptism were:
The covering of the head by the catechumens and the uncovering
on the day of baptism; the former to signify the warding
off every distraction and the withdrawing into oneself. With
exorcism was connected the ceremony of breathing upon (John
xx. 22), the touching of the ears with the exclamation: Ephphatha
(Mark vii. 34), marking the brow and breast with the sign of
the cross; in Africa also the giving of salt acc. to Mark ix. 50,
in Italy the handing over of a gold piece as a symbol of the
pound (Luke xiii. 12 f.) entrusted in the grace of baptism. The
conferring of a new name signified entrance into a new life.
At the renunciation the baptized one turned him to the setting
sun with the words: Ἀποτάσσομαί σοι Σατανᾶ καὶ πασῇ τῇ λατρείᾳ
σου; to the rising sun with the words: Συντάσσομαί σοι Χριστέ.
The dipping was thrice repeated: in the Spanish church, in the
anti-Arian interest, only once. Sprinkling was still confined
to _Baptismus Clinicorum_ and was first generally used in the
West in infant baptism in the 12th century, while the East still
retained the custom of immersion.
§ 58.2. =The Doctrine of the Supper= (§ 36, 5).--The doctrine
of the Lord’s Supper was never the subject of Synodal discussion,
and its conception on the part of the fathers was still in a high
degree uncertain and vacillating. All regarded the holy supper as
a supremely holy, ineffable mystery (φρικτόν, _tremendum_), and
all were convinced that bread and wine in a supernatural manner
were brought into relation to the body and blood of Christ; but
some conceived of this relation spiritualistically as a dynamic
effect, others realistically as a substantial importation to
the elements, while most vacillated still between these two
views. Almost all regarded the miracle thus wrought as μεταβολή,
_Transfiguratio_, using this expression, however, also of the
water of baptism and the anointing oil. The spiritualistic theory
prevailed among the Origenists, most decidedly with Eusebius of
Cæsarea, less decidedly with Athanasius and Gregory Nazianzen,
and again very decidedly with Pseudo-Dionysius. In the West
Augustine and his disciples, even including Leo the Great, favour
the spiritualistic view. With Augustine the spiritualistic view
was a consequence of his doctrine of predestination; only to the
believer, _i.e._ to the elect can the heavenly food be imparted.
Yet he often expresses himself very strongly in a realistic
manner. The realistic view was divided into a dyophysitic or
consubstantial and a monophysitic or transubstantial theory.
A decided tendency toward the idea of transubstantiation was
shown by Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, Hilary of Poitiers,
and Ambrose. The view of Gregory of Nyssa is peculiar: As by
Christ during His earthly life food and drink by assimilation
passed into the substance of His body, so now bread and wine
by the almighty operation of God by means of consecration is
changed into the glorified body of Christ and by our partaking
of them are assimilated to our bodies. The opposing views were
more sharply distinguished in consequence of the Nestorian
controversy, but the consistent development of dyophysitism
in the eucharistic field was first carried out by Theodoret
and Pope Gelasius († A.D. 496). The former says: μένει γὰρ
ἐπὶ τῆς προτέρας οὐσίας; and the latter: _Esse non desinit
substantia vel natura panis et vini.... Hoc nobis in ipso Christo
Domino sentiendum_ (Christological), _quod in ejus imagine_
(Eucharistical), _profitemur_. The massive concrete popular
faith had long before converted the μεταβολή into an essential,
substantial transformation. Thence this view passed over into
the liturgies. Gallican and Syrian liturgies of the 5th century
express themselves unhesitatingly in this direction. Also
the tendency to lose the creaturely in the divine which still
continued after the victory of Dyophysitism at Chalcedon, told
in favour of the development of the dogma and about the end of
our period the doctrine of Transubstantiation was everywhere
prevalent.[174]--Continuation § 91, 3.
§ 58.3. =The Sacrifice of the Mass= (§ 36, 6).--Even in the
4th century the body of Christ presented by consecration in
the Supper was designated a sacrifice, but only in the sense
of a representation of the sacrifice of Christ once offered.
Gradually, however, the theory prevailed of a sacramental
memorial celebration of the sacrifice of Christ in that of
an unbloody but actual repetition of the same. To this end
many other elements than those mentioned in § 36, 6 co-operated.
Such were especially the rhetorical figures and descriptions
of ecclesiastical orators, who transferred the attributes of the
one sacrifice to its repeated representations; the re-adoption of
the idea of a priesthood (§ 34, 4) which demanded a corresponding
conception of sacrifice; the pre-eminent place given to the
doctrine of sacraments; the tendency to place the sacrament
under the point of view of a magically acting divine power, etc.
The sacrificial idea, however, obtained its completion in its
application to the doctrine of Purgatory by Gregory the Great
(§ 61, 4). The _oblationes pro defunctis_ which had been in use
from early times became now masses for the souls of individuals;
their purpose was not the enjoyment of the body and blood
of Christ by the living and the securing thereby continued
communion with the departed, but only the renewing and repeating
of the atoning sacrifice for the salvation of the souls of the
dead, _i.e._ for the moderating and shortening of purgatorial
sufferings. The redeeming power of the sacrifice of the eucharist
was then in an analogous manner applied to the alleviation of
earthly calamities, sufferings and misfortunes, in so far as
these were viewed as punishments for sin. For such ends, then,
it was enough that the sacrificing priest should perform the
service (_Missæ solitariæ_, Private Masses). The partaking
of the membership was at last completely withdrawn from the
regular public services and confined to special festival
seasons.--Continuation § 88, 3.
§ 58.4. =The Administration of the Lord’s Supper.=--The sharp
distinction between the _Missa Catechumenorum_ and the _Missa
Fidelium_ (§ 36, 2, 3) lost its significance after the general
introduction of infant baptism, and the name _Missa_, mass, was
now restricted to the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper properly so
called. In the Eastern and North African churches the communion
of children continued common; the Western church forbade it in
accordance with 1 Cor. xi. 28, 29. The _Communis sub una_ (sc.
_specie_), _i.e._ with bread only, was regarded as a Manichæan
heresy (§ 29, 3). Only in North Africa was it exceptionally
allowed in children’s communion, after a little girl from natural
aversion to wine had vomited it up. In the East, as early as the
4th century, one observance of the Lord’s Supper in the year was
regarded as sufficient; but Western Councils of the 5th century
insisted upon its observance every Sunday and threatened with
excommunication everyone who did not communicate at least on
the three great festivals. The elements of the supper were still
brought as presents by the members of the church. The bread
was that in common use, therefore usually leavened. The East
continued this practice, but the West subsequently, on symbolical
grounds, introduced the use of unleavened bread. The colour of
the wine was regarded as immaterial. Subsequently white wine was
preferred as being free from the red colouring matter. The mixing
of the wine with water was held to be essential, and was grounded
upon John xix. 34; or regarded as significant of the two natures
in Christ. Only the Armenian Monophysites used unmixed wine.
The bread was broken. To the sick was often brought in the
East instead of the separate elements bread dipped in wine.
Subsequently also, first in children’s communion and in the
Greek church only, bread and wine together were presented in
a spoon. The consecrated elements were called εὐλογίαι after
1 Cor. x. 16. The εὐλογίαι left over (περισσεύουσα) were after
communion divided among the clergy. At a later period only so
much was consecrated as it was thought would be needed for use
at one time. The overplus of unconsecrated oblations was blessed
and distributed among the non-communicants, the catechumens
and penitents. The name εὐλογίαι was now applied to those
elements that had only been blessed which were also designated
ἀντίδωρα. The old custom of sending to other churches or bishops
consecrated sacramental elements as a sign of ecclesiastical
fellowship was forbidden by the Council at Laodicea in the
4th century.--Continuation § 104, 3.
§ 59. PUBLIC WORSHIP IN WORD AND SYMBOL.
The text of the sermon was generally taken from the bible portion
previously read. The liturgy attained a rich development, but the
liturgies of the Latin and Greek churches were fundamentally different
from one another. Scripture Psalms, Songs of Praise with Doxologies
formed the main components of the church service of song. Gnostics
(§ 27, 5), Arians (§ 50, 1), Apollinarians and Donatists found hymns
of their own composition very popular. The church was obliged to outbid
them in this. The Council at Laodicea, however, in A.D. 360, sought to
have all ψαλμοὶ ἰδιωτικοί banished from the church, probably in order
to prevent heretical poems being smuggled in. The Western church did
not discuss the subject; and Chrysostom at least adorned the nightly
processions which the rivalry of the Arians in Constantinople obliged
him to make, with the solemn singing of hymns.
§ 59.1. =The Holy Scriptures= (§ 36, 7, 8).--The doubts about
the genuineness of particular New Testament writings which
had existed in the days of Eusebius, had now greatly lessened.
Fourteen years after Eusebius, Athanasius in his 39th Festal
Letter of A.D. 367 gave a list of canonical scriptures in which
the Eusebian antilegomena of the first class (§ 36, 8) were
without more ado enumerated among the κανονιζόμενα. From these
he distinguished the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Esther,
Judith, and Tobit, as well as the Διδαχὴ καλουμένη τῶν Ἀποστόλων
and the Shepherd of Hermas as ἀναγινωσκόμενα, _i.e._ as books
which from their excellent moral contents had been used by
the fathers in teaching the catechumens and which should be
recommended as affording godly reading. The Council at Laodicea
gave a Canon in which we miss only the Apocalypse of John,
objected to probably on account of the unfavourable view of
chiliasm entertained by the church at that time (§ 33, 9);
as regards the Old Testament it expressly limited the public
readings in churches to the 22 bks. of the Hebrew canon. The
Council at Hippo, in A.D. 393, gave synodic sanction for the
first time in the West to that Canon of the New Testament which
has from that time been accepted.--The question as to the value
of the books added to the Old Testament in the LXX. remained
undecided down to the time of the Reformation. The Greek church
kept to the Athanasian distinction of these as ἀναγινωσκόμενα
from the κανονιζόμενοι, until the confession of Dositheus in
A.D. 1629 (§ 152, 3) in its anti-Calvinistic zeal maintained
that even those books should be acknowledged as γνήσια τῆς
γραφῆς μέρη. In the North African church Tertullian and Cyprian
had characterized them without distinction as holy scripture.
Augustine followed them, though not altogether without hesitation:
_Maccab. scripturam non habent Judæi ... sed recepta est ab
ecclesia non inutilitor, si sobrie legatur vel audiatur_; and
the Synods at Hippo in A.D. 393 and at Carthage in A.D. 397 and
A.D. 419 put them without question into their list of canonical
books, adding this, however, that they would ask the opinion of
the transmarine churches on the matter. Meanwhile too in Rome
this view had prevailed and Innocent I. in A.D. 405 expressly
homologated the African list. Hilary of Poitiers and Rufinus on
the other hand upheld the view of Athanasius, and Jerome in his
_Prologus galeatus_ after enumerating the books of the Hebrew
Canon went so far as to say: _Quidquid extra hos est, inter
Apocrypha ponendum_, and elsewhere calls the addition to Daniel
merely _næniæ_. In the _Præfatio in libros Salom._, he expresses
himself more favourably of the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus,
Judith, Tobit and Maccabees: _legit quidem ecclesia, sed inter
canonicas scripturas non recipit ... legat ad ædificationem
plebis sed non ad auctoritatem dogmatum confirmandam_. This
view prevailed throughout the whole of the Middle Ages among
the most prominent churches down to the meeting of the Council
of Trent (§ 136, 4); whereas the Tridentine fathers owing
to the rejection of the books referred to by the Protestants
(§ 161, 8), and their actual or supposed usefulness in supporting
anti-Protestant dogmas, _e.g._ the meritoriousness of good works,
Tob. iv. 11, 12; intercession of saints, 2 Macc. xv. 12-14;
veneration of relics, Ecclus. xlvi. 14; xlix. 12; masses
for souls and prayers for the dead, 2 Macc. xii. 43-46, felt
themselves constrained to pronounce them canonical.--The
inconvenient _Scriptio continua_ in the biblical Codices led
first of all the Alexandrian deacon Euthalius, about A.D. 460,
by stichometric copies of the New Testament in which every line
(στίχος) embraced as much as with regard to the sense could
be read without a pause. He also undertook a division of the
Apostolic Epistles and the Acts into chapters (κεφάλαια). An
Alexandrian church teacher, Ammonius, even earlier than this,
in arranging for a harmony of the gospels had divided the gospels
in 1,165 chapters and added to the 355 chapters of Matthew’s
gospel the number of the chapter of parallel passages in the
other gospels. Eusebius of Cæsarea completed the work by his
“Evang. Canon,” for he represents in ten tables which chapters
are found in all the four, in three, in two or in one of the
gospels.[175]--Jerome made emendations upon the corrupt text
of the Itala by order of Damasus, bishop of Rome, and then made
from the Hebrew a translation of the =Old Testament= of his own,
which, joined to the revised translation of the New Testament,
after much opposition gradually secured supremacy throughout all
the West under the name of the =Vulgata=. The Monophysite Syrians
got from Polycarp in A.D. 508 at the request of bishop Xenajas
or Philoxenus of Mabug, a new slavishly literal translation of
the New Testament. This so-called Philoxenian translation was,
in A.D. 616, corrected by Thomas of Charcal, provided after
the manner of the Hexapla of Origen with notes--the Harclensian
translation--and in A.D. 617 enlarged by a translation of the
Old Testament executed by bishop Paulus of Tella in Mesopotamia
according to the Hexapla text of the LXX.--Diligent =Scripture
Reading= was recommended by all the fathers, with special fervour
by Chrysostom, to the laity as well as the clergy. Yet the
idea gained ground that the study of Scripture was the business
of monks and clerics. The second Trullan Council, in A.D. 692,
forbade under severe penalties that scripture should be understood
and expounded otherwise than had been done by the old fathers.
§ 59.2. =The Creeds of the Church.=
I. =The Nicæno-Constantinopolitan Creed.=--The Nicene Creed
(§ 50, 1, 7) did not =in the East= succeed in dislodging
the various forms of the Baptismal formula (§ 35, 2);
indeed, owing to the statement of this third article
restricting itself to a mere καὶ εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα ἅγιον
it was little fitted to become a universal symbol. But
what the _Nicænum_ in spite of its unexampled pretensions
never won, the so-called _Nicæno-Constantinopolitanum_
of A.D. 451, not being chargeable with the deficiency
referred to, actually achieved. The idea prevailing
until quite recently that this Symbol originated at
the so-called second œcumenical Council at Constantinople
in A.D. 381 as an enlargement of the Nicene confession,
has now been shown to be quite erroneous. After the Romish
theologian Vincenzi laboured to prove that this was a
production forged by the Greeks in the interests of their
“heretical” doctrine of the procedure of the Holy Spirit
from the Father only (§ 50, 7), Harnack on the basis of
the researches of Caspari and Hort reached the following
results: The so-called Nicæno-Constantinopolitan Creed is
identical with the creed recommended by Epiphanius in his
_Anchoratus_, about A.D. 373, as genuinely apostolic-Nicene;
the creed of the Anchoratus is that which forms the subject
of Cyril’s Catechetical Lectures (§ 47, 10), probably at
a later date revised, enriched by the introduction of the
most important phrases from the Nicænum and an additional
section on the Holy Spirit (comp. § 50, 5, 7), and
issued in his own name by Cyril while bishop of Jerusalem
(A.D. 351-386) as a Baptismal formula for the church of
Jerusalem; this new recension of the Jerusalem Symbol
was probably laid before the Council at Constantinople
in A.D. 381 by Cyril as a proof of his own orthodoxy that
had always been somewhat questionable and as such passed
over into the Acts which are now lost; thus at least is
it most simply explained how even in A.D. 451 it could be
quoted in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon alongside
of the Nicene as the Constantinopolitan; in proportion
then as the Council of Constantinople of A.D. 381 came
to be regarded as an œcumenical Council (§ 50, 4), this
creed, erroneously ascribed to that Council, had accorded
to it the rank of an œcumenical Symbol.
II. =The Apostles’ Creed.=--The Roman church and with it the
whole =West=, standing upon the supposed Apostolic origin
of their symbol, did not suffer it to be dislodged by the
Nicænum nor to be assimilated by any importations from
it. Nevertheless during the period when the Roman chair
was dominated by the Byzantine court theology (§ 52, 3)
the so-called _Nicæno-Constantinopolitanum_ succeeded in
displacing the old Western creed, aided by the opposition
to the Arianism that was being driven forward by the
Visigoths and Ostrogoths in Italy and Spain (§ 76, 2, 7),
which demanded a more decidedly anti-Arian formula.
After this danger had been long overcome, the desire
was expressed in the 9th century for a shorter creed
that might serve as a baptismal formula and as the basis
of catechetical teaching. They fell back, however, not
upon the old Roman creed, but upon a more modern Gallic
expansion of it, which forms what is called by us now
the Apostles’ Creed. Owing to the reverence shown to the
Roman church this creed soon found its way throughout
all the West, and arrogated to itself here the name
of an œcumenical Symbol, although it has never been
acknowledged by the Greek church. The legend of its
apostolic origin was carried out still further by the
assertion that each of the twelve Apostles composed one
article as his contribution to the formula (συμβολή).
Laurentius Valla and Erasmus were the first to dispute
its apostolic origin.
III. =The Athanasian Creed.=--The so-called Athanasian Symbol,
which from its opening words is also known as _Symb._
“_Quicunque_,” sprang up in the end of the 5th century
out of the opposition of Western Catholicism to German
Arianism, so that it is doubtful whether it had its
origin in Gaul, Spain or North Africa. In short, sharply
accentuated propositions it sets forth first of all the
Nicene-Constant. doctrine of the Trinity in its fuller
form as developed by Augustine (§ 50, 7), then in the
second part the dogmatic results of the Nestorian and
Eutychian controversies (§ 52, 3, 4), and in the severest
terms makes eternal salvation dependent on the acceptance
of all these beliefs. The earliest certain trace of its
existence is found in Cæsarius of Arles (A.D. 503-543) who
quotes some sentences borrowed from it as of acknowledged
authority. The idea that Athanasius was its author arose
in the 8th century and was soon accepted throughout the
West as an undoubted truth. It was first taken notice of
by the Greek church in the 11th century, and on account
of the _filioque_ (§ 67, 1) was pronounced heretical.[176]