1. _Origin and Growth._--The crucifixion of Jesus Christ resulted in the
scattering of his followers, but within a short time they became
convinced that he had risen from the dead, and would soon return to set
up the expected Messianic kingdom, and so to accomplish the true work of
the Messiah (cf. Acts i. 6 ff.). They were thus enabled to retain the
belief in his Messiahship which his death had threatened to destroy
permanently. This belief laid upon them the responsibility of bringing
as many of their countrymen as possible to recognize him as Messiah, and
to prepare themselves by repentance and righteousness for the coming
kingdom (cf. Acts ii. 21, 38, iii. 19 sq.). It was with the sense of
this responsibility that they gathered again in Jerusalem, the political
and religious metropolis of Judaism. In Jerusalem the new movement had
its centre, and the church established there is rightly known as the
mother church of Christendom. The life of the early Jewish disciples, so
far as we are able to judge from our meagre sources, was very much the
same as that of their fellows. They continued faithful to the
established synagogue and temple worship (cf. Acts iii. 1), and did not
think of founding a new sect, or of separating from the household of
Israel (cf. Acts x. 14, xv. 5, xxi. 21 sq.). There is no evidence that
their religious or ethical ideals differed in any marked degree from
those of the more serious-minded among their countrymen, for the
emphasis which they laid upon the need of righteousness was not at all
uncommon. In their belief, however, in the Messiahship of Jesus, and
their consequent assurance of the speedy establishment by him of the
Messianic kingdom, they stood alone. The first need of the hour,
therefore, was to show that Jesus was the promised Messiah in spite of
his crucifixion, a need that was met chiefly by testimony to the
resurrection, which became the burden of the message of the early
disciples to their fellow-countrymen (cf. Acts ii. 24 ff., iii. 15 ff.,
v. 31). It was this need which led also to the development of Messianic
prophecy and the ultimate interpretation of the Jewish Bible as a
Christian book (see BIBLE). The second need of the hour was to bring the
nation to repentance and righteousness in order that the kingdom might
come (cf. Acts iii. 19). The specific gospel of Jesus, the gospel of
divine fatherhood and human brotherhood, received no attention in the
earliest days, so far as our sources enable us to judge.
Meanwhile the new movement spread quite naturally beyond the confines of
Palestine and found adherents among the Jews of the dispersion, and at
an early day among the Gentiles as well. Many of the latter had already
come under the influence of Judaism, and were more or less completely in
sympathy with Jewish religious principles. Among the Christians who did
most to spread the gospel in the Gentile world was the apostle Paul,
whose conversion was the greatest event in the history of the early
Church. In his hands Christianity became a new religion, fitted to meet
the needs of all the world, and freed entirely of the local and national
meaning which had hitherto attached to it. According to the early
disciples Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, and had significance only in
relation to the expected Messianic kingdom. To establish that kingdom
was his one great aim. For the Gentiles he had no message except as they
might become members of the family of Israel, assuming the
responsibilities and enjoying the privileges of proselytes. But Paul saw
in Jesus much more than the Jewish Messiah. He saw in Christ the divine
Spirit, who had come down from heaven to transform the lives of men, all
of whom are sinners. Thus Jesus had the same significance for one man as
for another, and Christianity was meant as much for Gentiles as for
Jews. The kingdom of which the early disciples were talking was
interpreted by Paul as righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost
(Rom. xiv. 17), a new principle of living, not a Jewish state. But Paul
taught also, on the basis of a religious experience and of a distinct
theory of redemption (see McGiffert's _Apostolic Age_, ch. iii.), that
the Christian is freed from the obligation to observe the Jewish law. He
thus did away with the fundamental distinction between Jews and
Gentiles. The transformed spiritual life of the believer expresses
itself not in the observance of the Jewish law, but in love, purity and
peace. This precipitated a very serious conflict, of which we learn
something from the Epistle to the Galatians and the Book of Acts (xv.
and xxii.). Other fundamental principles of Paul's failed of
comprehension and acceptance, but the belief finally prevailed that the
observance of Jewish law and custom was unnecessary, and that in the
Christian Church there is no distinction between the circumcised and the
uncircumcised. Those Jewish Christians who refused to go with the rest
of the Church in this matter lived their separate life, and were
regarded as an heretical sect known as the Ebionites.
It was Christianity in its universal form which won its great victories,
and finally became permanently established in the Roman world. The
appeal which it made to that world was many-sided. It was a time of
moral reformation, when men were awaking to the need of better and purer
living. To all who felt this need Christianity offered high moral
ideals, and a tremendous moral enthusiasm, in its devotion to a beloved
leader, in its emphasis upon the ethical possibilities of the meanest,
and in its faith in a future life of blessedness for the righteous. It
was a time of great religious interest, when old cults were being
revived and new ones were finding acceptance on all sides. Christianity,
with its one God, and its promise of redemption and a blessed
immortality based upon divine revelation, met as no other contemporary
faith did the awakening religious needs. It was a time also of great
social unrest. With its principle of Christian brotherhood, its emphasis
upon the equality of all believers in the sight of God, and its
preaching of a new social order to be set up at the return of Christ, it
appealed strongly to multitudes, particularly of the poorer classes.
That it won a permanent success, and finally took possession of the
Roman world, was due to its combination of appeals. No one thing about
it commended it to all, and to no one thing alone did it owe its
victory, but to the fact that it met a greater variety of needs and met
them more satisfactorily than any other movement of the age.
Contributing also to the growth of the Church was the zeal of its
converts, the great majority of whom regarded themselves as missionaries
and did what they could to extend the new faith. Christianity was
essentially a proselytizing religion, not content to appeal simply to
one class or race of people, and to be one among many faiths, but
believing in the falsity or insufficiency of all others and eager to
convert the whole world. Moreover, the feeling of unity which bound
Christians everywhere together and made of them one compact whole, and
which found expression before many generations had passed in a strong
organization, did much for the spread of the Church. Identifying himself
with the Christian circle from the 2nd century on, a man became a member
of a society existing in all quarters of the empire, every part
conscious of its oneness with the larger whole and all compactly
organized to do the common work. The growth of the Church during the
earlier centuries was chiefly in the middle and lower classes, but it
was not solely there. No large number of the aristocracy were reached,
but in learned and philosophical circles many were won, attracted both
by Christianity's evident ethical power and by its philosophical
character (cf. the Apologists of the 2nd century). That it could seem at
once a simple way of living for the common man and a profound philosophy
of the universe for the speculative thinker meant much for its
success.[1]
But it did not win its victory without a struggle. Superstition,
misunderstanding and hatred caused the Christians trouble for many
generations, and governmental repression they had to suffer
occasionally, as a result of popular disturbances. No systematic effort
was made by the imperial authorities to put an end to the movement until
the reign of Decius (250-251), whose policy of suppression was followed
by Diocletian (303 ff.) and continued for some years after his
abdication. In spite of all opposition the Church steadily grew, until
in 311 the emperor Galerius upon his death-bed granted toleration (see
Eusebius _H.E._ x.4, and Lactantius, _De mortibus persecutorum_, 34),
and in 313 the emperors Constantine and Licinius published the edict of
Milan, proclaiming the principle of complete religious liberty, and
making Christianity a legal religion in the full sense (see Eusebius x.
5, and Lactantius 48. Seeck, _Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte_, xii.
381 sq., has attempted to show that the edict of Milan had no
significance, but without success).
Constantine, recognizing the growing strength of the Church and wishing
to enlist the loyal support of the Christians, treated them with
increasing favour, and finally was baptized upon his death-bed (337).
Under his successors, except during the brief reign of Julian (361-363),
when the effort was made to reinstate paganism in its former place of
supremacy, the Church received growing support, until, under Theodosius
the Great (379-395), orthodox Christianity, which stood upon the
platform adopted at Nicaea in 325, was finally established as the sole
official religion of the state, and heathen worship was put under the
ban. The union between Church and State thus constituted continued
unbroken in the East throughout the middle ages. The division of the
Empire resulted finally in the division of the Church, which was
practically complete by the end of the 6th century, but was made
official and final only in 1054, and the Eastern and Western halves, the
Greek Catholic and the Roman Catholic Churches, went each its separate
way. (See Theodosian Code, book 16, for the various imperial edicts
relating to the Church, and for fuller particulars touching the relation
between Church and Empire see the articles CONSTANTINE; GRATIAN;
THEODOSIUS; JUSTINIAN.)
For a long time after the establishment of Christianity as the state
religion, paganism continued strong, especially in the country
districts, and in some parts of the world had more adherents than
Christianity, but at length the latter became, at any rate nominally,
the faith of the whole Roman world. Meanwhile already before the
beginning of the 3rd century it went beyond the confines of the Empire
in Asia, and by the end of our period was strong in Armenia, Persia,
Arabia and even farther east. It reached the barbarians on the northern
and western borders at an early day, and the Goths were already
Christians of the Arian type before the great migrations of the 4th
century began. Other barbarians became Christian, some in their own
homes beyond the confines of the Empire, some within the Empire itself,
so that when the hegemony of the West passed from the Romans to the
barbarians the Church lived on. Thenceforth for centuries it was not
only the chief religious, but also the chief civilizing, force at work
in the Occident. Losing with the dissolution of the Western Empire its
position as the state church, it became itself a new empire, the heir of
the glory and dignity of Rome, and the greatest influence making for the
peace and unity of the western world.
2. _The Christian Life._--The most notable thing about the life of the
early Christians was their vivid sense of being a people of God, called
and set apart. The Christian Church in their thought was a divine, not a
human, institution. It was founded and controlled by God, and even the
world was created for its sake (cf. the _Shepherd of Hermas_, Vis. ii.
4, and 2 Clement 14). This conception, which came over from Judaism,
controlled all the life of the early Christians both individual and
social. They regarded themselves as separate from the rest of the world
and bound together by peculiar ties. Their citizenship was in heaven,
not on earth (cf. Phil. iii. 20, and the epistle to Diognetus, c. 5),
and the principles and laws by which they strove to govern themselves
were from above. The present world was but temporary, and their true
life was in the future. Christ was soon to return, and the employments
and labours and pleasures of this age were of small concern. Some went
so far as to give up their accustomed vocations, and with such Paul had
to expostulate in his epistles to the Thessalonians. A more or less
ascetic mode of life was also natural under the circumstances. Not
necessarily that the present world was evil, but that it was temporary
and of small worth, and that a Christian's heart should be set on higher
things. The belief that the Church was a supernatural institution found
expression in the Jewish notion of the presence and power of the Holy
Spirit. It was believed among the Jews that the Messianic age would be
the age of the Spirit in a marked degree, and this belief passed over
into the Christian Church and controlled its thought and life for some
generations. The Holy Spirit was supposed to be manifest in various
striking ways, in prophecy, speaking with tongues and miracle working.
In this idea Paul also shared, but he carried the matter farther than
most of his contemporaries and saw in the Spirit the abiding power and
ground of the Christian life. Not simply in extraordinary phenomena, but
also in the everyday life of Christians, the Holy Spirit was present,
and all the Christian graces were the fruits (cf. Gal. v. 22). A result
of this belief was to give their lives a peculiarly enthusiastic or
inspirational character. Theirs were not the everyday experiences of
ordinary men, but of men lifted out of themselves and transported into a
higher sphere. With the passing of time the early enthusiasm waned, the
expectation of the immediate return of Christ was widely given up, the
conviction of the Spirit's presence became less vivid, and the conflict
with heresy in the 2nd century led to the substitution of official
control for the original freedom (see below). The late 2nd century
movement known as Montanism was in essence a revolt against this growing
secularization of the Church, but the movement failed, and the
development against which it protested was only hastened. The Church as
an institution now looked forward to a long life upon earth and adjusted
itself to the new situation, taking on largely the forms and customs of
the world in which it lived. This did not mean that the Church ceased to
regard itself as a supernatural institution, but only that its
supernatural character was shown in a different way. A Christian was
still dependent upon divine aid for salvation, and his life was still
supernatural at least in theory. Indeed, the early conviction of the
essential difference between the life of this world and that of the next
lived on, and, as the Church became increasingly a world-institution,
found vent in monasticism, which was simply the effort to put into more
consistent practice the other-worldly life, and to make more
thoroughgoing work of the saving of one's soul. Contributing to the same
result was the emphasis upon the necessity of personal purity or
holiness, which Paul's contrast between flesh and spirit had promoted,
and which early took the supreme place given by Christ to love and
service. The growing difficulty of realizing the ascetic ideal in the
midst of the world, and within the world-church, inevitably drove
multitudes of those who took their religion seriously to retire from
society and to seek salvation and the higher life, either in solitude,
or in company with kindred spirits.
There were Christian monks as early as the 3rd century, and before the
end of the 4th monasticism (q.v.) was an established institution both in
East and West. The monks and nuns were looked upon as the most
consistent Christians, and were honoured accordingly. Those who did not
adopt the monastic life endeavoured on a lower plane and in a less
perfect way to realize the common ideal, and by means of penance to
atone for the deficiencies in their performance. The existence of
monasticism made it possible at once to hold up a high moral standard
before the world and to permit the ordinary Christian to be content with
something lower. With the growth of clerical sacerdotalism the higher
standard was demanded also of the clergy, and the principle came to be
generally recognized that they should live the monastic life so far as
was consistent with their active duties in the world. The chief
manifestation of this was clerical celibacy, which had become widespread
already in the 4th century. Among the laity, on the other hand, the
ideal of holiness found realization in the observance of the ordinary
principles of morality recognized by the world at large, in attendance
upon the means of grace provided by the Church, in fasting at stated
intervals, in eschewing various popular employments and amusements, and
in almsgiving and prayer. Christ's principle of love was widely
interpreted to mean chiefly love for the Christian brotherhood, and
within that circle the virtues of hospitality, charity and helpfulness
were widely exercised; and if the salvation of his own soul was regarded
as the most important affair of every man, the service of the brethren
was recognized as an imperative Christian duty. The fulfilling of that
duty was one of the most beautiful features of the life of the early
Church, and it did perhaps more than anything else to make the Christian
circle attractive.
3. _Worship._--The primitive belief in the immediate presence of the
Spirit affected the religious services of the Church. They were regarded
in early days as occasions for the free exercise of spiritual gifts. As
a consequence the completest liberty was accorded to all Christians to
take such part as they chose, it being assumed that they did so only
under the Spirit's prompting. But the result of this freedom was
confusion and discord, as is indicated by Paul's First Epistle to the
Corinthians (see chapters xi., xiv.). This led to the erection of
safeguards, which should prevent the continuance of the unseemly
conditions (on Paul's action in the matter, see McGiffert's _Apostolic
Age_, p. 523). Particular Christians were designated to take charge of
the services, and orders of worship were framed out of which grew
ultimately elaborate liturgies (see LITURGY). The Lord's Supper first
took on a more stereotyped character, and prayers to be used in
connexion with it are found already in the _Didach[=e]_ (chapters ix.
and x.). The development cannot here be traced in detail. It may simply
be said that the general tendency was on the one hand toward the
elaboration and growing magnificence of the services, especially after
the Church had become a state institution and had taken the place of the
older pagan cults, and on the other hand toward the increasing solemnity
and mystery of certain parts, particularly the eucharist, the sacred
character of which was such as to make it sacrilegious to admit to it
the unholy, that is, outsiders or Christians under discipline (cf.
_Didach[=e]_, ix.). It was, in fact, from the Lord's table that
offending disciples were first excluded. Out of this grew up in the 3rd
or 4th century what is known as the _arcani disciplina_, or secret
discipline of the Church, involving the concealment from the uninitiated
and unholy of the more sacred parts of the Christian cult, such as
baptism and the eucharist, with their various accompaniments, including
the Creed and the Lord's Prayer. The same interest led to the division
of the services into two general parts, which became known ultimately as
the _missa catechumenorum_ and the _missa fidelium_,--that is, the more
public service of prayer, praise and preaching open to all, including
the catechumens or candidates for Church membership, and the private
service for the administration of the eucharist, open only to full
members of the Church in good and regular standing. Meanwhile, as the
general service tended to grow more elaborate, the _missa fidelium_
tended to take on the character of the current Greek mysteries (see
EUCHARIST; Hatch, _Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the
Christian Church_, 1890; Anrich, _Das antike Mysterienwesen in seinem
Einfluss auf das Christentum_, 1894; Wobbermin, _Religionsgeschichtliche
Studien zur Frage der Beeinflussung des Urchristentums durch das antike
Mysterienwesen_, 1896). Many of the terms in common use in them were
employed in connexion with the Christian rites, and many of the
conceptions, particularly that of sharing in immortality by communion
with deity, became an essential part of Christian doctrine. Thus the
early idea of the services, as occasions for mutual edification through
the interchange of spiritual gifts, gave way in course of time to the
theory that they consisted of sacred and mysterious rites by means of
which communion with God is promoted. The emphasis accordingly came to
be laid increasingly upon the formal side of worship, and a value was
given to the ceremonies as such, and their proper and correct
performance by duly qualified persons, i.e. ordained priests, was made
the all-important thing.
4. _The Church and the Sacraments._--According to Paul, man is flesh and
so subject to death. Only as he becomes a spiritual being through
mystical union with Christ can he escape death and enjoy eternal life in
the spiritual realm. In the Epistle to the Ephesians the Christian
Church is spoken of as the body of Christ (iv. 12 ff., v. 30); and
Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, early in the 2nd century, combined the two
ideas of union with Christ, as the necessary condition of salvation, and
of the Church as the body of Christ, teaching that no one could be saved
unless he were a member of the Church (cf. his Epistle to the Ephesians
4, 5, 15; Trall. 7; Phil. 3, 8; Smyr. 8; Magn. 2, 7). Traces of the same
idea are found in Irenaeus (cf. _Adv. Haer._ iii. 24, 1, iv. 26, 2), but
it is first clearly set forth by Cyprian, and receives from him its
classical expression in the famous sentence "Salus extra ecclesiam non
est" (Ep. 73, 21; cf. also Ep. 4, 4; 74, 7; and _De unitate ecclesiae_,
6: "habere non potest Deum patrem qui ecclesiam non habet matrem"). The
Church thus became the sole ark of salvation, outside of which no one
could be saved.
Intimately connected with the idea of the Church as an ark of salvation
are the sacraments or means of grace. Already as early as the 2nd
century the rite of baptism had come to be thought of as the sacrament
of regeneration, by means of which a new divine nature is born within a
man (cf. Irenaeus, _Adv. Haer._ i. 21, 1, iii. 17, 1; and his newly
discovered _Demonstration of the Apostolic Teaching_, chap. 3), and the
eucharist as the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, feeding upon
which one is endowed with immortality (cf. Irenaeus, _Adv. Haer._ iv.
18, 5, v. 2, 2). In the early days the Church was thought of as a
community of saints, all of whose members were holy, and as a
consequence discipline was strict, and offenders excluded from the
Church were commonly not readmitted to membership but left to the mercy
of God. The idea thus became general that baptism, which had been almost
from the beginning the rite of entrance into the Church, and which was
regarded as securing the forgiveness of all pre-baptismal sins, should
be given but once to any individual. Meanwhile, however, discipline grew
less strict (cf. the _Shepherd of Hermas_, Vis. v. 3; M. iv. 7; Sim.
viii. 6, ix. 19, 26, &c.); until finally, under the influence of the
idea of the Church as the sole ark of salvation, it became the custom to
readmit all penitent offenders on condition that they did adequate
penance. Thus there grew up the sacrament of penance, which secured for
those already baptized the forgiveness of post-baptismal sins. This
sacrament, unlike baptism, might be continually repeated (see PENANCE).
In connexion with the sacraments grew up also the theory of clerical
sacerdotalism. Ignatius had denied the validity of a eucharist
administered independently of the bishop, and the principle finally
established itself that the sacraments, with an exception in cases of
emergency in favour of baptism, could be performed only by men regularly
ordained and so endowed with the requisite divine grace for their due
administration (cf. Tertullian, _De Exhort. cast. 7; De Bapt. 7, 17; De
Praescriptione Haer. 41_; and Cyprian, _Ep. 67._ For the later influence
of the Donatist controversy upon the sacramental development see
DONATISTS). Thus the clergy as distinguished from the laity became true
priests, and the latter were made wholly dependent upon the former for
sacramental grace, without which there is ordinarily no salvation (see
ORDER, HOLY).
5. _Christian Doctrine._--Two tendencies appeared in the thought of the
primitive Church, the one to regard Christianity as a law given by God
for the government of men's lives, with the promise of a blessed
immortality as a reward for its observance; the other to view it as a
means by which the corrupt and mortal nature of man is transformed, so
that he becomes a spiritual and holy being. The latter tendency appeared
first in Paul, afterwards in the Gospel and First Epistle of John, in
Ignatius of Antioch and in the Gnostics. The former found expression in
most of our New Testament writings, in all of the apostolic fathers
except Ignatius, and in the Apologists of the 2nd century. The two
tendencies were not always mutually exclusive, but the one or the other
was predominant in every case. Towards the end of the 2nd century they
were combined by Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons. To him salvation bears a
double aspect, involving both release from the control of the devil and
the transformation of man's nature by the indwelling of the Divine. Only
he is saved who on the one hand is forgiven at baptism and so released
from the power of Satan, and then goes on to live in obedience to the
divine law; and on the other hand receives in baptism the germ of a new
spiritual nature and is progressively transformed by feeding upon the
body and blood of the divine Christ in the eucharist. This double
conception of salvation and of the means thereto was handed down to the
Church of subsequent generations and became fundamental in its thought.
Christianity is at once a revealed law which a man must keep, and by
keeping which he earns salvation, and a supernatural power whereby his
nature is transformed and the divine quality of immortality imparted to
it. From both points of view Christianity is a supernatural system
without which salvation is impossible, and in the Christian Church it is
preserved and mediated to the world.
The twofold conception referred to had its influence also upon thought
about Christ. The effect of the legal view of Christianity was to make
Christ an agent of God in the revelation of the divine will and truth,
and so a subordinate being between God and the world, the Logos of
current Greek thought. The effect of the mystical conception was to
identify Christ with God in order that by his incarnation the divine
nature might be brought into union with humanity and the latter be
transformed. In this case too a combination was effected, the idea of
Christ as the incarnation of the Logos or Son of God being retained and
yet his deity being preserved by the assertion of the deity of the
Logos. The recognition of Christ as the incarnation of the Logos was
practically universal before the close of the 3rd century, but his deity
was still widely denied, and the Arian controversy which distracted the
Church of the 4th century concerned the latter question. At the council
of Nicaea in 325 the deity of Christ received official sanction and was
given formulation in the original Nicene Creed. Controversy continued
for some time, but finally the Nicene decision was recognized both in
East and West as the only orthodox faith. The deity of the Son was
believed to carry with it that of the Spirit, who was associated with
Father and Son in the baptismal formula and in the current symbols, and
so the victory of the Nicene Christology meant the recognition of the
doctrine of the Trinity as a part of the orthodox faith (see especially
the writings of the Cappadocian fathers of the late 4th century, Gregory
of Nyssa, Basil and Gregory Nazianzen).
The assertion of the deity of the Son incarnate in Christ raised another
problem which constituted the subject of dispute in the Christological
controversies of the 4th and following centuries. What is the relation
of the divine and human natures in Christ? At the council of Chalcedon
in 451 it was declared that in the person of Christ are united two
complete natures, divine and human, which retain after the union all
their properties unchanged. This was supplemented at the third council
of Constantinople in 680 by the statement that each of the natures
contains a will, so that Christ possesses two wills. The Western Church
accepted the decisions of Nicaea, Chalcedon and Constantinople, and so
the doctrines of the Trinity and of the two natures in Christ were
handed down as orthodox dogma in West as well as East.
Meanwhile in the Western Church the subject of sin and grace, and the
relation of divine and human activity in salvation, received especial
attention; and finally, at the second council of Orange in 529, after
both Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism had been repudiated, a moderate
form of Augustinianism was adopted, involving the theory that every man
as a result of the fall is in such a condition that he can take no steps
in the direction of salvation until he has been renewed by the divine
grace given in baptism, and that he cannot continue in the good thus
begun except by the constant assistance of that grace, which is mediated
only by the Catholic Church. This decision was confirmed by Pope
Boniface II., and became the accepted doctrine in the Western Church of
the middle ages. In the East, Augustine's predestinationism had little
influence, but East and West were one in their belief that human nature
had been corrupted by the fall, and that salvation therefore is possible
only to one who has received divine grace through the sacraments.
Agreeing as they did in this fundamental theory, all differences were of
minor concern.
In general it may be said that the traditional theology of the Church
took its material from various sources--Hebrew, Christian, Oriental,
Greek and Roman. The forms in which it found expression were principally
those of Greek philosophy on the one hand and of Roman law on the other
(see CHRISTIANITY).
6. _Organization._--The origin and early development of ecclesiastical
organization are involved in obscurity. Owing to the once prevalent
desire of the adherents of one or another polity to find support in
primitive precept or practice, the question has assumed a prominence out
of proportion to its real importance, and the few and scattered
references in early Christian writings have been made the basis for
various elaborate theories.
In the earliest days the Church was regarded as a divine institution,
ruled not by men but by the Holy Spirit. At the same time it was
believed that the Spirit imparted different gifts to different
believers, and each gift fitted its recipient for the performance of
some service, being intended not for his own good but for the good of
his brethren (cf. 1 Cor. xii.; Eph. iv. 11). The chief of these was the
gift of teaching, that is, of understanding and interpreting to others
the will and truth of God. Those who were endowed more largely than
their fellows with this gift were commonly known as apostles, prophets
and teachers (cf. Acts xiii. 1; 1 Cor. xii. 28; Eph. ii. 20, iii. 5, iv.
11; _Didach[=e]_, xi.). The apostles were travelling missionaries or
evangelists. There were many of them in the primitive Church, and only
gradually did the term come to be applied exclusively to the twelve and
Paul. There is no sign that the apostles, whether the twelve or others,
held any official position in the Church. That they had a large measure
of authority of course goes without saying, but it depended always upon
their brethren's recognition of their possession of the divine gift of
apostleship, and the right of Churches or individuals to test their
claims and to refuse to listen to them if they did not vindicate their
divine call was everywhere recognized. Witness, for instance, Paul's
reference to false apostles in 2 Cor. xi. 13, and his efforts to
establish his own apostolic character to the satisfaction of the
Corinthians and Galatians (1 Cor. ix. 1 ff.; 2 Cor. x. 13; Gal. i. 8
ff.); witness the reference in Rev. ii. 2 to the fact that the Church at
Ephesus had tried certain men who claimed to be apostles and had found
them false, and also the directions given in the _Didach[=e]_ for
testing the character of those who travelled about as apostles. The
passage in the _Didach[=e]_ is especially significant: "Concerning the
apostles and prophets, so do ye according to the ordinance of the
gospel. Let every apostle when he cometh to you be received as the Lord.
But he shall not abide more than a single day, or if there be need a
second likewise. But if he abide three days he is a false prophet. And
when the apostle departeth let him receive nothing save bread until he
findeth shelter. But if he ask money he is a false prophet" (ch. xi.).
It is clear that a man who is to be treated in this way by the
congregation is not an official ruler over it.
Between the apostles, prophets and teachers no hard-and-fast lines can
be drawn. The apostles were commonly missionary prophets, called
permanently or temporarily to the special work of evangelization (cf.
Acts xiii. 1; _Did_. xi.), while the teachers seem to have been
distinguished both from apostles and prophets by the fact that their
spiritual endowment was less strikingly supernatural. The indefiniteness
of the boundaries between the three classes, and the free interchange of
names, show how far they were from being definite offices or orders
within the Church. Apostleship, prophecy and teaching were only
functions, whose frequent or regular exercise by one or another, under
the inspiration of the Spirit, led his brethern to call him an apostle,
prophet or teacher.
But at an early day we find regular officers in this and that local
Church, and early in the 2nd century the three permanent offices of
bishop, presbyter and deacon existed at any rate in Asia Minor (cf. the
Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch). Their rise was due principally to the
necessity of administering the charities of the Church, putting an end
to disorder and confusion in the religious services, and disciplining
offenders. It was naturally to the apostles, prophets and teachers, its
most spiritual men, that the Church looked first for direction and
control in all these matters. But such men were not always at hand, or
sometimes they were absorbed in other duties. Thus the need of
substitutes began to be felt here and there, and as a consequence
regular offices within the local Churches gradually made their
appearance, sometimes simply recognized as charged with responsibilities
which they had already voluntarily assumed (cf. 1. Cor. xvi. 15),
sometimes appointed by an apostle or prophet or other specially inspired
man (cf. Acts xiv. 23; Titus i. 5; 1 Clement 44), sometimes formally
chosen by the congregation itself (cf. Acts vi., _Did._ xi.). These men
naturally acquired more and more as time passed the control and
leadership of the Church in all its activities, and out of what was in
the beginning more or less informal and temporary grew fixed and
permanent offices, the incumbents of which were recognized as having a
right to rule over the Church, a right which once given could not
lawfully be taken away unless they were unfaithful to their trust. Not
continued endowment by the Spirit, but the possession of an
ecclesiastical office now became the basis of authority. The earliest
expression of this genuinely official principle is found in Clement's
Epistle to the Corinthians, ch. xliv. Upon these officers devolved
ultimately not only the disciplinary, financial and liturgical duties
referred to, but also the still higher function of instructing their
fellow-Christians in God's will and truth, and so they became the
substitutes of the apostles, prophets and teachers in all respects (cf.
1 Tim. iii. 2, v. 17; Titus i. 9; _Did._ 15; 1 Clement 44; Justin's
first _Apology_, 67).
Whether in the earliest days there was a single officer at the head of a
congregation, or a plurality of officers of equal authority, it is
impossible to say with assurance. The few references which we have look
in the latter direction (cf., for instance, Acts vi.; Phil. i. 1; 1
Clement 42, 44; _Did._ 14), but we are not justified in asserting that
they represent the universal custom. The earliest distinct evidence of
the organization of Churches under a single head is found in the
Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch, which date from the latter part of the
reign of Trajan (c. 116). Ignatius bears witness to the presence in
various Churches of Asia Minor of a single bishop in control, with whom
are associated as his subordinates a number of elders and deacons. This
form of organization ultimately became universal, and already before the
end of the 2nd century it was established in all the parts of
Christendom with which we are acquainted, though in Egypt it seems to
have been the exception rather than the rule, and even as late as the
middle of the 3rd century many churches there were governed by a
plurality of officers instead of by a single head (see Harnack, _Mission
und Ausbreitung des Christenthums_, pp. 337 seq.). Where there were one
bishop and a number of presbyters and deacons in a church, the
presbyters constituted the bishop's council, and the deacons his
assistants in the management of the finances and charities and in the
conduct of the services. (Upon the minor orders which arose in the 3rd
and following centuries, and became ultimately a training school for the
higher clergy, see Harnack, _Texte und Untersuchungen_, ii. 5; English
translation under the title of _Sources of the Apostolic Canons_, 1895.)
Meanwhile the rise and rapid spread of Gnosticism produced a great
crisis in the Church of the 2nd century, and profoundly affected the
ecclesiastical organization. The views of the Gnostics, and of Marcion
as well, seemed to the majority of Christians destructive of the gospel,
and it was widely felt that they were too dangerous to be tolerated. The
original dependence upon the Spirit for light and guidance was
inadequate. The men in question claimed to be Christians and to enjoy
divine illumination as truly as anybody, and so other safeguards
appeared necessary. It was in the effort to find such safeguards that
steps were taken which finally resulted in the institution known as the
Catholic Church. The first of these steps was the recognition of the
teaching of the apostles (that is, of the twelve and Paul) as the
exclusive standard of Christian truth. This found expression in the
formulation of an apostolic scripture canon, our New Testament, and of
an apostolic rule of faith, of which the old Roman symbol, the original
of our present Apostles' Creed, is one of the earliest examples. Over
against the claims of the Gnostics that they had apostolic authority,
either oral or written, for their preaching, were set these two
standards, by which alone the apostolic character of any doctrine was to
be tested (cf. Irenaeus, _Adv. Haer._ i. 10, iii. 3, 4; and Tertullian,
_De Prescriptione Haer. passim_). But these standards proved inadequate
to the emergency, for it was possible, especially by the use of the
allegorical method, to interpret them in more than one way, and their
apostolic origin and authority were not everywhere admitted. In view of
this difficulty, it was claimed that the apostles had appointed the
bishops as their successors, and that the latter were in possession of
special divine grace enabling them to transmit and to interpret without
error the teaching of the apostles committed to them. This is the famous
theory known as "apostolic succession." The idea of the apostolic
appointment of church officers is as old as Clement of Rome (see 1
Clement 44), but the use of the theory to guarantee the apostolic
character of episcopal teaching was due to the exigencies of the Gnostic
conflict. Irenaeus (_Adv. Haer._ iii. 3 ff., iv. 26, iv. 33, v. 20),
Tertullian (_De prescriptione_, 32), and Hippolytus (_Philosophumena_,
bk. i., preface) are our earliest witnesses to it, and Cyprian sets it
forth clearly in his epistles (e.g. Ep. 33, 43, 59, 66, 69). The Church
was thus in possession not only of authoritative apostolic doctrine, but
also of a permanent apostolic office, to which alone belonged the right
to determine what that doctrine is. The combination of this idea with
that of clerical sacerdotalism completed the Catholic theory of the
Church and the clergy. Saving grace is recognized as apostolic grace,
and the bishops as successors of the apostles become its sole
transmitters. Bishops are therefore necessary to the very being of the
Church, which without them is without the saving grace for the giving of
which the Church exists (cf. Cyprian, _Ep._ 33, "ecclesia super
episcopos constituitur"; 66, "ecclesia in episcopo"; also _Ep._ 59, and
_De unitate eccles._ 17).
These bishops were originally not diocesan but congregational, that is,
each church, however small, had its own bishop. This is the organization
testified to by Ignatius, and Cyprian's insistence upon the bishop as
necessary to the very existence of the Church seems to imply the same
thing. Congregational episcopacy was the rule for a number of
generations. But after the middle of the 3rd century diocesan episcopacy
began to make its appearance here and there, and became common in the
4th century under the influence of the general tendency toward
centralization, the increasing power of city bishops, and the growing
dignity of the episcopate (cf. canon 6 of the council of Sardica, and
canon 57 of the council of Laodicea; and see Harnack, _Mission und
Ausbreitung_, pp. 319 seq.). This enlargement of the bishop's parish and
multiplication of the churches under his care led to a change in the
functions of the presbyterate. So long as each church had its own bishop
the presbyters constituted simply his council, but with the growth of
diocesan episcopacy it became the custom to put each congregation under
the care of a particular presbyter, who performed within it most of the
pastoral duties formerly discharged by the bishop himself. The
presbyters, however, were not independent officers. They were only
representatives of the bishop, and the churches over which they were set
were all a part of his parish, so that the Cyprianic principle, that the
bishop is necessary to the very being of the Church, held good of
diocesan as well as of congregational episcopacy. The bishop alone
possessed the right to ordain; through him alone could be derived the
requisite clerical grace; and so the clergy like the laity were
completely dependent upon him.
The growth of the diocesan principle promoted the unity of the churches
gathered under a common head. But unity was carried much further than
this, and finally resulted in at least a nominal consolidation of all
the churches of Christendom into one whole. The belief in the unity of
the entire Church had existed from the beginning. Though made up of
widely scattered congregations, it was thought of as one body of Christ,
one people of God. This ideal unity found expression in many ways.
Intercommunication between the various Christian communities was very
active. Christians upon a journey were always sure of a warm welcome and
hospitable entertainment from their fellow-disciples. Messengers and
letters were sent freely from one church to another. Missionaries and
evangelists went continually from place to place. Documents of various
kinds, including gospels and apostolic epistles, circulated widely. Thus
in various ways the feeling of unity found expression, and the
development of widely separated parts of Christendom conformed more or
less closely to a common type. It was due to agencies such as these that
the scattered churches did not go each its own way and become ultimately
separate and diverse institutions. But this general unity became
official, and expressed itself in organization, only with the rise of
the conciliar and metropolitan systems. Already before the end of the
2nd century local synods were held in Asia Minor to deal with Montanism,
and in the 3rd century provincial synods became common, and by the
council of Nicaea (canon 5) it was decreed that they should be held
twice every year in every province. Larger synods representing the
churches of a number of contiguous provinces also met frequently; for
instance, in the early 4th century at Elvira, Ancyra, Neo-Caesarea and
Arles, the last representing the entire Western world. Such gatherings
were especially common during the great doctrinal controversies of the
4th century. In 325 the first general or ecumenical council,
representing theoretically the entire Christian Church, was held at
Nicaea. Other councils of the first period now recognized as ecumenical
by the Church both East and West are Constantinople I. (381), Ephesus
(431), Chalcedon (451), Constantinople II. (553). All these were called
by the emperor, and to their decisions he gave the force of law. Thus
the character of the Church as a state institution voiced itself in
them. (See COUNCIL.)
The theory referred to above, that the bishops are successors of the
apostles, and as such the authoritative conservators and interpreters of
apostolic truth, involves of course the solidarity of the episcopate,
and the assumption that all bishops are in complete harmony and bear
witness to the same body of doctrine. This assumption, however, was not
always sustained by the facts. Serious disagreements even on important
matters developed frequently. As a result the ecumenical council came
into existence especially for the purpose of settling disputed questions
of doctrine, and giving to the collective episcopate the opportunity to
express its voice in a final and official way. At the council of Nicaea,
and at the ecumenical councils which followed, the idea of an infallible
episcopate giving authoritative and permanent utterance to apostolic and
therefore divine truth, found clear expression, and has been handed down
as a part of the faith of the Catholic Church both East and West. The
infallibility of the episcopate guarantees the infallibility of a
general council in which not the laity and not the clergy in general,
but the bishops as successors of the apostles, speak officially and
collectively.
Another organized expression of the unity of the Church was found in the
metropolitan system, or the grouping of the churches of a province under
a single head, who was usually the bishop of the capital city, and was
known as the metropolitan bishop. The Church thus followed in its
organization the political divisions of the Empire (cf. for instance
canon 12of the council of Chalcedon, which forbids more than one
metropolitan see in a province; also canon 17 of the same council: "And
if any city has been or shall hereafter be newly erected by imperial
authority, let the arrangement of ecclesiastical parishes follow the
political and municipal forms"). These metropolitan bishops were common
in the East before the end of the 3rd century, and the general existence
of the organization was taken for granted by the council of Nicaea (see
canons 4,6,7). In the West, on the other hand, the development was much
slower.
Meanwhile the tendency which gave rise to the metropolitan system
resulted in the grouping together of the churches of a number of
contiguous provinces under the headship of the bishop of the most
important city of the district, as, for instance, Antioch, Ephesus,
Alexandria, Rome, Milan, Carthage, Arles. In canon 6 of the council of
Nicaea the jurisdiction of the bishops of Alexandria, Rome and Antioch
over a number of provinces is recognized. At the council of
Constantinople (381) the bishop of Constantinople or New Rome was ranked
next after the bishop of Rome (canon 3), and at the council of Chalcedon
(451) he was given authority over the churches of the political dioceses
of Pontus, Asia and Thrace (canon 28). To the bishops of Rome,
Constantinople, Antioch and Alexandria was added at the council of
Chalcedon (session 7) the bishop of Jerusalem, the mother church of
Christendom, and the bishops thus recognized as possessing supreme
jurisdiction were finally known as patriarchs.
Meanwhile the Roman episcopate developed into the papacy, which claimed
supremacy over the entire Christian Church, and actually exercised it
increasingly in the West from the 5th century on. This development was
forwarded by Augustine, who in his famous work _De civitate Dei_
identified the Church with the kingdom of God, and claimed that it was
supreme over all the nations of the earth, which make up the _civitas
terrena_ or earthly state. Augustine's theory was ultimately accepted
everywhere in the West, and thus the Church of the middle ages was
regarded not only as the sole ark of salvation, but also as the ultimate
authority, moral, intellectual and political. Upon this doctrine was
built, not by Augustine himself but by others who came after him, the
structure of the papacy, the bishop of Rome being finally recognized as
the head under Christ of the _civitas Dei_, and so the supreme organ of
divine authority on earth (see PAPACY and POPE).
_Historical Sources of the First Period._--These are of the same
general character for Church history as for general history--on the
one hand monumental, on the other hand documentary. Among the
monuments are churches, catacombs, tombs and inscriptions of
various kinds, few antedating the 3rd century, and none adding
greatly to the knowledge gained from documentary sources (see
De Rossi, _Roma sotteranea_, 1864 ff., and its English abridgment
by Northcote and Brownlow, 1870; André Pératé, _L'Archéologie
chrétienne_, 1892; W. Lowrie, _Monuments of the Early Church_, 1901,
with good bibliography). The documents comprise imperial edicts,
rescripts, &c, liturgies, acts of councils, decretals and letters of
bishops, references in contemporary heathen writings, and above all
the works of the Church Fathers. Written sources from the 1st and
2nd centuries are relatively few, comprising, in addition to some
scattered allusions by outsiders, the New Testament, the Apostolic
Fathers, the Greek Apologists, Clement of Alexandria, the old
Catholic Fathers (Irenaeus, Tertullian and Hippolytus) and a few
Gnostic fragments. For the 3rd, and especially the 4th and following
centuries, the writers are much more numerous; for instance, in the
East, Origen and his disciples, and later Eusebius of Caesarea,
Athanasius, Apollinaris, Basil and the two Gregories, Cyril of
Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Ephraim the Syrian, Cyril of
Alexandria, Pseudo-Dionysius; in the West, Novatian, Cyprian,
Commodian, Arnobius, Lactantius, Hilary, Ambrose, Rufinus,
Jerome, Augustine, Prosper, Leo the Great, Cassian, Vincent of
Lerins, Faustus, Gennadius, Ennodius, Avitus, Caesarius, Fulgentius
and many others.
There are many editions of the works of the Fathers in the original,
the most convenient, in spite of its defects, being that of J.P. Migne
(_Patrologia Graeca_, 166 vols., Paris, 1857 ff.; _Patrologia Latina_,
221 vols., 1844 ff.). Of modern critical editions, besides those
containing the works of one or another individual, the best are the
Berlin edition of the early Greek Fathers (_Die griechischen
christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderie_, 1897 ff.),
and the Vienna edition of the Latin Fathers (_Corpus scriptorum
ecclesiasticorum Latinorum_, 1867 ff.), both of first-rate importance.
There is a convenient English translation of most of the writings of
the ante-Nicene Fathers by Roberts and Donaldson (_Ante-Nicene
Christian Library_, 25 vols., Edinburgh, 1868 ff., American reprint in
nine vols., 1886 ff.). A continuation of it, containing selected works
of the Nicene and post-Nicene period, was edited by Schaff and others
under the title _A Select Library of Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers_
(series 1 and 2; 28 vols., Buffalo and New York, 1886 ff.).
On early Christian literature, in addition to the works on Church
history, see especially the monumental _Geschichte der altchristlichen
Litteratur bis Eusebius_, by Harnack (1893 ff.). The brief _Geschichte
der altchristlichen Litteratur in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten_, by
G. Krüger (1895, English translation 1897) is a very convenient
summary. Bardenhewer's _Patrologie_ (1894) and his _Geschichte der
altkirchlichen Litteratur_ (1902 ff.) should also be mentioned. See
also Smith and Wace's invaluable _Dictionary of Christian Biography_
(1877 ff.). (A. C. Mcg.)