Philosophy of Religion, or the Origin of the Scientific Theology and
Dogmatic of the Church: Clement and Origen
(1) The Alexandrian Catechetical School and Clement of Alexandria
Schools and Teachers in the Church at the end of the second and the
beginning of the third century; scientific efforts (Alogi in Asia Minor,
Cappadocian Scholars, Bardesanes of Edessa, Julius Africanus, Scholars
in Palestine, Rome and Carthage); The Alexandrian Catechetical School.
Clement; The temper of Clement and his importance in the History of
Dogma; his relation to Irenæus, to the Gnostics and to primitive
Christianity; his philosophy of Religion; Clement and Origen
(2) The system of Origen
Introductory: The personality and importance of Origen; The Elements of
Origen's theology; its Gnostic features; The relative view of Origen;
His temper and final aim: relation to Greek Philosophy; Theology as a
Philosophy of Revelation, and a cosmological speculation; Porphyry on
Origen; The neutralising of History, esoteric and exoteric Christianity;
Fundamental ideas and arrangement of his system; Sources of truth,
doctrine of Scripture.
I. The Doctrine of God and its unfolding
Doctrine of God; Doctrine of the Logos; Clement's doctrine of the Logos;
Doctrine of the Holy Spirit; Doctrine of Spirits.
II. Doctrine of the Fall and its consequences
Doctrine of Man
III. Doctrine of Redemption and Restoration
The notions necessary to the Psychical; The Christology; The
Appropriation of Salvation; The Eschatology; Concluding Remarks: The
importance of this system to the following period.
DIVISION I
BOOK II.
THE LAYING OF THE FOUNDATIONS.
CHAPTER I.
HISTORICAL SURVEY.
The second century of the existence of Gentile-Christian communities was
characterised by the victorious conflict with Gnosticism and the
Marcionite Church, by the gradual development of an ecclesiastical
doctrine, and by the decay of the early Christian enthusiasm. The
general result was the establishment of a great ecclesiastical
association, which, forming at one and the same time a political
commonwealth, school and union for worship, was based on the firm
foundation of an "apostolic" law of faith, a collection of "apostolic"
writings, and finally, an "apostolic" organisation. This institution was
_the Catholic Church_.[1] In opposition to Gnosticism and Marcionitism,
the main articles forming the estate and possession of orthodox
Christianity were raised to the rank of apostolic regulations and laws,
and thereby placed beyond all discussion and assault. At first the
innovations introduced by this were not of a material, but of a formal,
character. Hence they were not noticed by any of those who had never, or
only in a vague fashion, been elevated to the feeling and idea of
freedom and independence in religion. How great the innovations actually
were, however, may be measured by the fact that they signified a
scholastic tutelage of the faith of the individual Christian, and
restricted the immediateness of religious feelings and ideas to the
narrowest limits. But the conflict with the so-called Montanism showed
that there were still a considerable number of Christians who valued
that immediateness and freedom; these were, however, defeated. The
fixing of the tradition under the title of apostolic necessarily led to
the assumption that whoever held the apostolic doctrine was also
essentially a Christian in the apostolic sense. This assumption, quite
apart from the innovations which were legitimised by tracing them to the
Apostles, meant the separation of doctrine and conduct, the preference
of the former to the latter, and the transformation of a fellowship of
faith, hope, and discipline into a communion "eiusdem sacramenti," that
is, into a union which, like the philosophical schools, rested on a
doctrinal law, and which was subject to a legal code of divine
institution.[2]
The movement which resulted in the Catholic Church owes its right to a
place in the history of Christianity to the victory over Gnosticism and
to the preservation of an important part of early Christian tradition.
If Gnosticism in all its phases was the violent attempt to drag
Christianity down to the level of the Greek world, and to rob it of its
dearest possession, belief in the Almighty God of creation and
redemption, then Catholicism, inasmuch as it secured this belief for the
Greeks, preserved the Old Testament, and supplemented it with early
Christian writings, thereby saving--as far as documents, at least, were
concerned--and proclaiming the authority of an important part of
primitive Christianity, must in one respect be acknowledged as a
conservative force born from the vigour of Christianity. If we put aside
abstract considerations and merely look at the facts of the given
situation, we cannot but admire a creation which first broke up the
various outside forces assailing Christianity, and in which the highest
blessings of this faith have always continued to be accessible. If the
founder of the Christian religion had deemed belief in the Gospel and a
life in accordance with it to be compatible with membership of the
Synagogue and observance of the Jewish law, there could at least be no
impossibility of adhering to the Gospel within the Catholic Church.
Still, that is only one side of the case. The older Catholicism never
clearly put the question, "What is Christian?" Instead of answering that
question it rather laid down rules, the recognition of which was to be
the guarantee of Christianism. This solution of the problem seems to be
on the one hand too narrow and on the other too broad. Too narrow,
because it bound Christianity to rules under which it necessarily
languished; too broad, because it did not in any way exclude the
introduction of new and foreign conceptions. In throwing a protective
covering round the Gospel, Catholicism also obscured it. It preserved
Christianity from being hellenised to the most extreme extent, but, as
time went on, it was forced to admit into this religion an ever greater
measure of secularisation. In the interests of its world-wide mission it
did not indeed directly disguise the terrible seriousness of religion,
but, by tolerating a less strict ideal of life, it made it possible for
those less in earnest to be considered Christians, and to regard
themselves as such. It permitted the genesis of a Church, which was no
longer a communion of faith, hope, and discipline, but a political
commonwealth in which the Gospel merely had a place beside other
things.[3] In ever increasing measure it invested all the forms which
this secular commonwealth required with apostolic, that is, indirectly,
with divine authority. This course disfigured Christianity and made a
knowledge of what is Christian an obscure and difficult matter. But, in
Catholicism, religion for the first time obtained a formal dogmatic
system. Catholic Christianity discovered the formula which reconciled
faith and knowledge. This formula satisfied humanity for centuries, and
the blessed effects which it accomplished continued to operate even
after it had itself already become a fetter.
Catholic Christianity grew out of two converging series of developments.
In the one were set up fixed outer standards for determining what is
Christian, and these standards were proclaimed to be apostolic
institutions. The baptismal confession was exalted to an apostolic rule
of faith, that is, to an apostolic law of faith. A collection of
apostolic writings was formed from those read in the Churches, and this
compilation was placed on an equal footing with the Old Testament. The
episcopal and monarchical constitution was declared to be apostolic, and
the attribute of successor of the Apostles was conferred on the bishop.
Finally, the religious ceremonial developed into a celebration of
mysteries, which was in like manner traced back to the Apostles. The
result of these institutions was a strictly exclusive Church in the form
of a communion of doctrine, ceremonial, and law, a confederation which
more and more gathered the various communities within its pale, and
brought about the decline of all nonconforming sects. The confederation
was primarily based on a common confession, which, however, was not only
conceived as "law," but was also very soon supplemented by new
standards. One of the most important problems to be investigated in the
history of dogma, and one which unfortunately cannot be completely
solved, is to show what necessities led to the setting up of a new canon
of Scripture, what circumstances required the appearance of living
authorities in the communities, and what relation was established
between the apostolic rule of faith, the apostolic canon of Scripture,
and the apostolic office. The development ended with the formation of a
clerical class, at whose head stood the bishop, who united in himself
all conceivable powers, as teacher, priest, and judge. He disposed of
the powers of Christianity, guaranteed its purity, and therefore in
every respect held the Christian laity in tutelage.
But even apart from the content which Christianity here received, this
process in itself represents a progressive secularising of the Church,
This would be self-evident enough, even if it were not confirmed by
noting the fact that the process had already been to some extent
anticipated in the so-called Gnosticism (See vol. I. p. 253 and
Tertullian, de præscr. 35). But the element which the latter lacked,
namely, a firmly welded, suitably regulated constitution, must by no
means be regarded as one originally belonging and essential to
Christianity. The depotentiation to which Christianity was here
subjected appears still more plainly in the facts, that the Christian
hopes were deadened, that the secularising of the Christian life was
tolerated and even legitimised, and that the manifestations of an
unconditional devotion to the heavenly excited suspicion or were
compelled to confine themselves to very narrow limits.
But these considerations are scarcely needed as soon as we turn our
attention to the second series of developments that make up the history
of this period. The Church did not merely set up dykes and walls against
Gnosticism in order to ward it off externally, nor was she satisfied
with defending against it the facts which were the objects of her belief
and hope; but, taking the creed for granted, she began to follow this
heresy into its own special territory and to combat it with a scientific
theology. That was a necessity which did not first spring from
Christianity's own internal struggles. It was already involved in the
fact that the Christian Church had been joined by cultured Greeks, who
felt the need of justifying their Christianity to themselves and the
world, and of presenting it as the desired and certain answer to all the
pressing questions which then occupied men's minds.
The beginning of a development which a century later reached its
provisional completion in the theology of Origen, that is, in the
transformation of the Gospel into a scientific system of ecclesiastical
doctrine, appears in the Christian Apologetic, as we already find it
before the middle of the second century. As regards its content, this
system of doctrine meant the legitimising of Greek philosophy within the
sphere of the rule of faith. The theology of Origen bears the same
relation to the New Testament as that of Philo does to the Old. What is
here presented as Christianity is in fact the idealistic religious
philosophy of the age, attested by divine revelation, made accessible to
all by the incarnation of the Logos, and purified from any connection
with Greek mythology and gross polytheism.[4] A motley multitude of
primitive Christian ideas and hopes, derived from both Testaments, and
too brittle to be completely recast, as yet enclosed the kernel. But the
majority of these were successfully manipulated by theological art, and
the traditional rule of faith was transformed into a system of doctrine,
in which, to some extent, the old articles found only a nominal
place.[5]
This hellenising of ecclesiastical Christianity, by which we do not mean
the Gospel, was not a gradual process; for the truth rather is that it
was already accomplished the moment that the reflective Greek confronted
the new religion which he had accepted. The Christianity of men like
Justin, Athenagoras, and Minucius is not a whit less Hellenistic than
that of Origen. But yet an important distinction obtains here. It is
twofold. In the first place, those Apologists did not yet find
themselves face to face with a fixed collection of writings having a
title to be reverenced as Christian; they have to do with the Old
Testament and the "Teachings of Christ" ([Greek: didagmata Christou]).
In the second place, they do not yet regard the scientific presentation
of Christianity as the main task and as one which this religion itself
demands. As they really never enquired what was meant by "Christian," or
at least never put the question clearly to themselves, they never
claimed that their scientific presentation of Christianity was the first
proper expression of it that had been given. Justin and his
contemporaries make it perfectly clear that they consider the
traditional faith existing in the churches to be complete and pure and
in itself requiring no scientific revision. In a word, the gulf which
existed between the religious thought of philosophers and the sum of
Christian tradition is still altogether unperceived, because that
tradition was not yet fixed in rigid forms, because no religious
utterance testifying to monotheism, virtue, and reward was as yet
threatened by any control, and finally, because the speech of philosophy
was only understood by a small minority in the Church, though its
interests and aims were not unknown to most. Christian thinkers were
therefore still free to divest of their direct religious value all
realistic and historical elements of the tradition, while still
retaining them as parts of a huge apparatus of proof, which accomplished
what was really the only thing that many sought in Christianity, viz.,
the assurance that the theory of the world obtained from other sources
was the truth. The danger which here threatened Christianity as a
religion was scarcely less serious than that which had been caused to it
by the Gnostics. These remodelled tradition, the Apologists made it to
some extent inoperative without attacking it. The latter were not
disowned, but rather laid the foundation of Church theology, and
determined the circle of interests within which it was to move in the
future.[6]
But the problem which the Apologists solved almost offhand, namely, the
task of showing that Christianity was the perfect and certain
philosophy, because it rested on revelation, and that it was the highest
scientific knowledge of God and the world, was to be rendered more
difficult. To these difficulties all that primitive Christianity has up
to the present transmitted to the Church of succeeding times contributes
its share. The conflict with Gnosticism made it necessary to find some
sort of solution to the question, "What is Christian?" and to fix this
answer. But indeed the Fathers were not able to answer the question
confidently and definitely. They therefore made a selection from
tradition and contented themselves with making it binding on Christians.
Whatever was to lay claim to authority in the Church had henceforth to
be in harmony with the rule of faith and the canon of New Testament
Scriptures. That created an entirely new situation for Christian
thinkers, that is, for those trying to solve the problem of
subordinating Christianity to the Hellenic spirit. That spirit never
became quite master of the situation; it was obliged to accommodate
itself to it.[7] The work first began with the scientific treatment of
individual articles contained in the rule of faith, partly with the view
of disproving Gnostic conceptions, partly for the purpose of satisfying
the Church's own needs. The framework in which these articles were
placed virtually continued to be the apologetic theology, for this
maintained a doctrine of God and the world, which seemed to correspond
to the earliest tradition as much as it ran counter to the Gnostic
theses. (Melito), Irenæus, Tertullian and Hippolytus, aided more or less
by tradition on the one hand and by philosophy on the other, opposed to
the Gnostic dogmas about Christianity the articles of the baptismal
confession interpreted as a rule of faith, these articles being
developed into doctrines. Here they undoubtedly learned very much from
the Gnostics and Marcion. If we define ecclesiastical dogmas as
propositions handed down in the creed of the Church, shown to exist in
the Holy Scriptures of both Testaments, and rationally reproduced and
formulated, then the men we have just mentioned were the first to set up
dogmas[8]--dogmas but no system of dogmatics. As yet the difficulty of
the problem was by no means perceived by these men either. Their
peculiar capacity for sympathising with and understanding the
traditional and the old still left them in a happy blindness. So far as
they had a theology they supposed it to be nothing more than the
explanation of the faith of the Christian multitude (yet Tertullian
already noted the difference in one point, certainly a very
characteristic one, viz., the Logos doctrine). They still lived in the
belief that the Christianity which filled their minds required no
scientific remodelling in order to be an expression of the highest
knowledge, and that it was in all respects identical with the
Christianity which even the most uncultivated could grasp. That this was
an illusion is proved by many considerations, but most convincingly by
the fact that Tertullian and Hippolytus had the main share in
introducing into the doctrine of faith a philosophically formulated
dogma, viz., that the Son of God is the Logos, and in having it made the
_articulus constitutivus ecclesiæ_. The effects of this undertaking can
never be too highly estimated, for the Logos doctrine is Greek
philosophy _in nuce_, though primitive Christian views may have been
subsequently incorporated with it. Its introduction into the creed of
Christendom, which was, strictly speaking, the setting up _of the first
dogma in the Church_, meant the future conversion of the rule of faith
into a philosophic system. But in yet another respect Irenæus and
Hippolytus denote an immense advance beyond the Apologists, which,
paradoxically enough, results both from the progress of Christian
Hellenism and from a deeper study of the Pauline theology, that is,
emanates from the controversy with Gnosticism. In them a religious and
realistic idea takes the place of the moralism of the Apologists,
namely, the deifying of the human race through the incarnation of the
Son of God. The apotheosis of mortal man through his acquisition of
immortality (divine life) is the idea of salvation which was taught in
the ancient mysteries. It is here adopted as a Christian one, supported
by the Pauline theology (especially as contained in the Epistle to the
Ephesians), and brought into the closest connection with the historical
Christ, the Son of God and Son of man (filius dei et filius hominis).
What the heathen faintly hoped for as a possibility was here announced
as certain, and indeed as having already taken place. What a message!
This conception was to become the central Christian idea of the future.
A long time, however, elapsed before it made its way into the dogmatic
system of the Church.[9]
But meanwhile the huge gulf which existed between both Testaments and
the rule of faith on the one hand, and the current ideas of the time on
the other, had been recognized in Alexandria. It was not indeed felt as
a gulf, for then either the one or the other would have had to be given
up, but as a _problem_. If the Church tradition contained the assurance,
not to be obtained elsewhere, of all that Greek culture knew, hoped for,
and prized, and if for that very reason it was regarded as in every
respect inviolable, then the absolutely indissoluble union of Christian
tradition with the Greek philosophy of religion was placed beyond all
doubt. But an immense number of problems were at the same time raised,
especially when, as in the case of the Alexandrians, heathen syncretism
in the entire breadth of its development was united with the doctrine of
the Church. The task, which had been begun by Philo and carried on by
Valentinus and his school, was now undertaken in the Church. Clement led
the way in attempting a solution of the problem, but the huge task
proved too much for him. Origen took it up under more difficult
circumstances, and in a certain fashion brought it to a conclusion. He,
the rival of the Neoplatonic philosophers, the Christian Philo, wrote
the first Christian dogmatic, which competed with the philosophic
systems of the time, and which, founded on the Scriptures of both
Testaments, presents a peculiar union of the apologetic theology of a
Justin and the Gnostic theology of a Valentinus, while keeping steadily
in view a simple and highly practical aim. In this dogmatic the rule of
faith is recast and that quite consciously. Origen did not conceal his
conviction that Christianity finds its correct expression only in
scientific knowledge, and that every form of Christianity that lacks
theology is but a meagre kind with no clear consciousness of its own
content. This conviction plainly shows that Origen was dealing with a
different kind of Christianity, though his view that a mere relative
distinction existed here may have its justification in the fact, that
the untheological Christianity of the age with which he compared his own
was already permeated by Hellenic elements and in a very great measure
secularised.[10] But Origen, as well as Clement before him, had really a
right to the conviction that the true essence of Christianity, or, in
other words, the Gospel, is only arrived at by the aid of critical
speculation; for was not the Gospel veiled and hidden in the canon of
both Testaments, was it not displaced by the rule of faith, was it not
crushed down, depotentiated, and disfigured in the Church which
identified itself with the people of Christ? Clement and Origen found
freedom and independence in what they recognized to be the essence of
the matter and what they contrived with masterly skill to determine as
its proper aim, after an examination of the huge apparatus of tradition.
But was not that the ideal of Greek sages and philosophers? This
question can by no means be flatly answered in the negative, and still
less decidedly in the affirmative, for a new significance was here given
to the ideal by representing it _as assured beyond all doubt, already
realised_ in the person of Christ and incompatible with polytheism. If,
as is manifestly the case, they found joy and peace in their faith and
in the theory of the universe connected with it, if they prepared
themselves for an eternal life and expected it with certainty, if they
felt themselves to be perfect only through dependence on God, then, in
spite of their Hellenism, they unquestionably came nearer to the Gospel
than Irenæus with his slavish dependence on authority.
The setting up of a scientific system of Christian dogmatics, which was
still something different from the rule of faith, interpreted in an
Antignostic sense, philosophically wrought out, and in some parts proved
from the Bible, was a private undertaking of Origen, and at first only
approved in limited circles. As yet, not only were certain bold changes
of interpretation disputed in the Church, but the undertaking itself, as
a whole, was disapproved.[11] The circumstances of the several
provincial churches in the first half of the third century were still
very diverse. Many communities had yet to adopt the basis that made them
into Catholic ones; and in most, if not in all, the education of the
clergy--not to speak of the laity--was not high enough to enable them to
appreciate systematic theology. But the schools in which Origen taught
carried on his work, similar ones were established, and these produced a
number of the bishops and presbyters of the East in the last half of the
third century. They had in their hands the means of culture afforded by
the age, and this was all the more a guarantee of victory because the
laity no longer took any part in deciding the form of religion. Wherever
the Logos Christology had been adopted the future of Christian Hellenism
was certain. At the beginning of the fourth century there was no
community in Christendom which, apart from the Logos doctrine, possessed
a purely philosophical theory that was regarded as an ecclesiastical
dogma, to say nothing of an official scientific theology. But the system
of Origen was a prophecy of the future. The Logos doctrine started the
crystallising process which resulted in further deposits. Symbols of
faith were already drawn up which contained a peculiar mixture of
Origen's theology with the inflexible Antignostic _regula fidei_. One
celebrated theologian, Methodius, endeavoured to unite the theology of
Irenæus and Origen, ecclesiastical realism and philosophic spiritualism,
under the badge of monastic mysticism. The developments of the following
period therefore no longer appear surprising in any respect.
As Catholicism, from every point of view, is the result of the blending
of Christianity with the ideas of antiquity,[12] so the Catholic
dogmatic, as it was developed after the second or third century on the
basis of the Logos doctrine, is Christianity conceived and formulated
from the standpoint of the Greek philosophy of religion.[13] This
Christianity conquered the old world, and became the foundation of a new
phase of history in the Middle Ages. The union of the Christian religion
with a definite historical phase of human knowledge and culture may be
lamented in the interest of the Christian religion, which was thereby
secularised, and in the interest of the development of culture which was
thereby retarded(?). But lamentations become here ill-founded
assumptions, as absolutely everything that we have and value is due to
the alliance that Christianity and antiquity concluded in such a way
that neither was able to prevail over the other. Our inward and
spiritual life, which owes the least part of its content to the empiric
knowledge which we have acquired, is based up to the present moment on
the discords resulting from that union.
These hints are meant among other things to explain and justify[14] the
arrangement chosen for the following presentation, which embraces the
fundamental section of the history of Christian dogma.[15] A few more
remarks are, however, necessary.
1. One special difficulty in ascertaining the genesis of the Catholic
rules is that the churches, though on terms of close connection and
mutual intercourse, had no real _forum publicum_, though indeed, in a
certain sense, each bishop was _in foro publico_. As a rule, therefore,
we can only see the advance in the establishment of fixed forms in the
shape of results, without being able to state precisely the ways and
means which led to them. We do indeed know the factors, and can
therefore theoretically construct the development; but the real course
of things is frequently hidden from us. The genesis of a harmonious
Church, firmly welded together in doctrine and constitution, can no more
have been the natural unpremeditated product of the conditions of the
time than were the genesis and adoption of the New Testament canon of
Scripture. But we have no direct evidence as to what communities had a
special share in the development, although we know that the Roman Church
played a leading part. Moreover, we can only conjecture that
conferences, common measures, and synodical decisions were not wanting.
It is certain that, beginning with the last quarter of the second
century, there were held in the different provinces, mostly in the East,
but later also in the West, Synods in which an understanding was arrived
at on all questions of importance to Christianity, including, e.g., the
extent of the canon.[16]
2. The degree of influence exercised by particular ecclesiastics on the
development of the Church and its doctrines is also obscure and
difficult to determine. As they were compelled to claim the sanction of
tradition for every innovation they introduced, and did in fact do so,
and as every fresh step they took appeared to themselves necessary only
as an explanation, it is in many cases quite impossible to distinguish
between what they received from tradition and what they added to it of
their own. Yet an investigation from the point of view of the historian
of literature shows that Tertullian and Hippolytus were to a great
extent dependent on Irenæus. What amount of innovation these men
independently contributed can therefore still be ascertained. Both are
men of the second generation. Tertullian is related to Irenæus pretty
much as Calvin to Luther. This parallel holds good in more than one
respect. First, Tertullian drew up a series of plain dogmatic formulæ
which are not found in Irenæus and which proved of the greatest
importance in succeeding times. Secondly, he did not attain the power,
vividness, and unity of religious intuition which distinguish Irenæus.
The truth rather is that, just because of his forms, he partly destroyed
the unity of the matter and partly led it into a false path of
development. Thirdly, he everywhere endeavoured to give a conception of
Christianity which represented it as the divine law, whereas in Irenæus
this idea is overshadowed by the conception of the Gospel as real
redemption. The main problem therefore resolves itself into the question
as to the position of Irenæus in the history of the Church. To what
extent were his expositions new, to what extent were the standards he
formulated already employed in the Churches, and in which of them? We
cannot form to ourselves a sufficiently vivid picture of the interchange
of Christian writings in the Church after the last quarter of the second
century.[17] Every important work speedily found its way into the
churches of the chief cities in the Empire. The diffusion was not merely
from East to West, though this was the general rule. At the beginning of
the fourth century there was in Cæsarea a Greek translation of
Tertullian's Apology and a collection of Cyprian's epistles.[18] The
influence of the Roman Church extended over the greater part of
Christendom. Up till about the year 260 the Churches in East and West
had still in some degree a common history.
3. The developments in the history of dogma within the period extending
from about 150 to about 300 were by no means brought about in the
different communities at the same time and in a completely analogous
fashion. This fact is in great measure concealed from us, because our
authorities are almost completely derived from those leading Churches
that were connected with each other by constant intercourse. Yet the
difference can still be clearly proved by the ratio of development in
Rome, Lyons, and Carthage on the one hand, and in Alexandria on the
other. Besides, we have several valuable accounts showing that in more
remote provinces and communities the development was slower, and a
primitive and freer condition of things much longer preserved.[19]
4. From the time that the clergy acquired complete sway over the
Churches, that is, from the beginning of the second third of the third
century, the development of the history of dogma practically took place
within the ranks of that class, and was carried on by its learned men.
Every mystery they set up therefore became doubly mysterious to the
laity, for these did not even understand the terms, and hence it formed
another new fetter.
Footnotes:
[Footnote 1: Aubé (Histoire des Persécutions de l'Eglise, Vol. II. 1878,
pp. 1-68) has given a survey of the genesis of ecclesiastical dogma. The
disquisitions of Renan in the last volumes of his great historical work
are excellent, though not seldom exaggerated in particular points. See
especially the concluding observations in Vol. VII. cc. 28-34. Since the
appearance of Ritschl's monograph on the genesis of the old Catholic
Church, a treatise which, however, forms too narrow a conception of the
problem, German science can point to no work of equal rank with the
French. Cf. Sohm's Kirchenrecht, Vol. I. which, however, in a very
one-sided manner, makes the adoption of the legal and constitutional
arrangements responsible for all the evil in the Church.]
[Footnote 2: Sohm (p. 160) declares: "The foundation of Catholicism is
the divine Church law to which it lays claim." In many other passages he
even seems to express the opinion that the Church law of itself, even
when not represented as divine, is the hereditary enemy of the true
Church and at the same time denotes the essence of Catholicism. See,
e.g., p. 2: "The whole essence of Catholicism consists in its declaring
legal institutions to be necessary to the Church." Page 700: "The
essence of Church law is incompatible with the essence of the Church."
This thesis really characterises Catholicism well and contains a great
truth, if expressed in more careful terms, somewhat as follows: "The
assertion that there is a divine Church law (emanating from Christ, or,
in other words, from the Apostles), which is necessary to the spiritual
character of the Church and which in fact is a token of this very
attribute, is incompatible with the essence of the Gospel and is the
mark of a pseudo-Catholicism." But the thesis contains too narrow a view
of the case. For the divine Church law is only one feature of the
essence of the Catholic Church, though a very important element, which
Sohm, as a jurist, was peculiarly capable of recognising. The whole
essence of Catholicism, however, consists in the deification of
tradition generally. The declaration that the empirical institutions of
the Church, created for and necessary to this purpose, are apostolic, a
declaration which amalgamates them with the essence and content of the
Gospel and places them beyond all criticism, is the peculiarly
"Catholic" feature. Now, as a great part of these institutions cannot be
inwardly appropriated and cannot really amalgamate with faith and piety,
it is self-evident that such portions become continued: legal
ordinances, to which obedience must be rendered. For no other relation
to these ordinances can be conceived. Hence the legal regulations and
the corresponding slavish devotion come to have such immense scope in
Catholicism, and well-nigh express its essence. But behind this is found
the more general conviction that the empirical Church, as it actually
exists, is the authentic, pure, and infallible creation: its doctrine,
its regulations, its religious ceremonial are apostolic. Whoever doubts
that renounces Christ. Now, if, as in the case of the Reformers, this
conception be recognised as erroneous and unevangelical, the result must
certainly be a strong detestation of "the divine Church law." Indeed,
the inclination to sweep away all Church law is quite intelligible, for
when you give the devil your little finger he takes the whole hand. But,
on the other hand, it cannot be imagined how communities are to exist on
earth, propagate themselves, and train men without regulations; and how
regulations are to exist without resulting in the formation of a code of
laws. In truth, such regulations have at no time been wanting in
Christian communities, and have always possessed the character of a
legal code. Sohm's distinction, that in the oldest period there was no
"law," but only a "regulation," is artificial, though possessed of a
certain degree of truth; for the regulation has one aspect in a circle
of like-minded enthusiasts, and a different one in a community where all
stages of moral and religious culture are represented, and which has
therefore to train its members. Or should it not do so? And, on the
other hand, had the oldest Churches not the Old Testament and the
[Greek: diataxeis] of the Apostles? Were these no code of laws? Sohm's
proposition: "The essence of Church law is incompatible with the essence
of the Church," does not rise to evangelical clearness and freedom, but
has been formed under the shadow and ban of Catholicism. I am inclined
to call it an Anabaptist thesis. The Anabaptists were also in the shadow
and ban of Catholicism; hence their only course was either the attempt
to wreck the Church and Church history and found a new empire, or a
return to Catholicism. Hermann Bockelson or the Pope! But the Gospel is
above the question of Jew or Greek, and therefore also above the
question of a legal code. It is reconcilable with everything that is not
sin, even with the philosophy of the Greeks. Why should it not be also
compatible with the monarchical bishop, with the legal code of the
Romans, and even with the Pope, provided these are not made part of the
Gospel.]
[Footnote 3: In the formation of the Marcionite Church we have, on the
other hand, the attempt to create a rigid oecumenical community, held
together solely by religion. The Marcionite Church therefore had a
founder, the Catholic has none.]
[Footnote 4: The historian who wishes to determine the advance made by
Græco-Roman humanity in the third and fourth centuries, under the
influence of Catholicism and its theology, must above all keep in view
the fact that gross polytheism and immoral mythology were swept away,
spiritual monotheism brought near to all, and the ideal of a divine life
and the hope of an eternal one made certain. Philosophy also aimed at
that, but it was not able to establish a community of men on these
foundations.]
[Footnote 5: Luther, as is well known, had a very profound impression of
the distinction between Biblical Christianity and the theology of the
Fathers, who followed the theories of Origen. See, for example, Werke,
Vol. LXII. p. 49, quoting Proles: "When the word of God comes to the
Fathers, me thinks it is as if milk were filtered through a coal sack,
where the milk must become black and spoiled."]
[Footnote 6: They were not the first to determine this circle of
interests. So far as we can demonstrate traces of independent religious
knowledge among the so-called Apostolic Fathers of the post-apostolic
age, they are in thorough harmony with the theories of the Apologists,
which are merely expressed with precision and divested of Old Testament
language.]
[Footnote 7: It was only after the apostolic tradition, fixed in the
form of a comprehensive collection, seemed to guarantee the
admissibility of every form of Christianity that reverenced that
collection, that the hellenising of Christianity within the Church began
in serious fashion. The fixing of tradition had had a twofold result. On
the one hand, it opened the way more than ever before for a free and
unhesitating introduction of foreign ideas into Christianity, and, on
the other hand, so far as it really also included the documents and
convictions of primitive Christianity, it preserved this religion to the
future and led to a return to it, either from scientific or religious
considerations. That we know anything at all of original Christianity is
entirely due to the fixing of the tradition, as found at the basis of
Catholicism. On the supposition--which is indeed an academic
consideration--that this fixing had not taken place because of the
non-appearance of the Gnosticism which occasioned it, and on the further
supposition that the original enthusiasm had continued, we would in all
probability know next to nothing of original Christianity today. How
much we would have known may be seen from the Shepherd of Hermas.]
[Footnote 8: So far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the idea of
dogmas, as individual theorems characteristic of Christianity, and
capable of being scholastically proved, originated with the Apologists.
Even as early as Justin we find tendencies to amalgamate historical
material and natural theology.]
[Footnote 9: It is almost completely wanting in Tertullian. That is
explained by the fact that this remarkable man was in his inmost soul an
old-fashioned Christian, to whom the Gospel was _conscientia religionis,
disciplina vitæ_ and _spes fidei_, and who found no sort of edification
in Neoplatonic notions, but rather dwelt on the ideas "command,"
"performance," "error," "forgiveness." In Irenæus also, moreover, the
ancient idea of salvation, supplemented by elements derived from the
Pauline theology, is united with the primitive Christian eschatology.]
[Footnote 10: On the significance of Clement and Origen see Overbeck,
"Über die Anfänge der patristischen Litteratur" in d. Hist. Ztschr, N.
F., Vol, XII. p. 417 ff.]
[Footnote 11: Information on this point may be got not only from the
writings of Origen (see especially his work against Celsus), but also
and above all from his history. The controversy between Dionysius of
Alexandria and the Chiliasts is also instructive on the matter.]
[Footnote 12: The three or (reckoning Methodius) four steps of the
development of church doctrine (Apologists, Old Catholic Fathers,
Alexandrians) correspond to the progressive religious and philosophical
development of heathendom at that period: philosophic moralism, ideas of
salvation (theology and practice of mysteries), Neoplatonic philosophy,
and complete syncretism.]
[Footnote 13: "Virtus omnis ex his causam accipit, a quibus provocatur"
(Tertull., de bapt. 2.)]
[Footnote 14: The plan of placing the apologetic theology before
everything else would have much to recommend it, but I adhere to the
arrangement here chosen, because the advantage of being able to
represent and survey the outer ecclesiastical development and the inner
theological one, each being viewed as a unity, seems to me to be very
great. We must then of course understand the two developments as
proceeding on parallel lines. But the placing of the former parallel
before the latter in my presentation is justified by the fact that what
was gained in the former passed over much more directly and swiftly into
the general life of the Church, than what was reached in the latter.
Decades elapsed, for instance, before the apologetic theology came to be
generally known and accepted in the Church, as is shown by the long
continued conflict against Monarchianism.]
[Footnote 15: The origin of Catholicism can only be very imperfectly
described within the framework of the history of dogma, for the
political situation of the Christian communities in the Roman Empire had
quite as important an influence on the development of the Catholic
Church as its internal conflicts. But inasmuch as that situation and
these struggles are ultimately connected in the closest way, the history
of dogma cannot even furnish a complete picture of this development
within definite limits.]
[Footnote 16: See Tertullian, de pudic. 10: "Sed cederem tibi, si
scriptura Pastoris, quæ sola moechos amat, divino instrumento meruisset
incidi, si non ab omni concilio ecclesiarum etiam vestrarum inter
aprocrypha et falsa iudicaretur;" de ieiun. 13: "Aguntur præsterea per
Græcias illa certis in locis concilia ex universis ecclesiis, per quæ et
altiora quæque in commune tractantur, et ipsa repræsentatio totius
nominis Christiani magna veneratione celebratur." We must also take into
account here the intercourse by letter, in which connection I may
specially remind the reader of the correspondence between Dionysius,
Bishop of Corinth, Euseb., H. E. IV. 23, and journeys such as those of
Polycarp and Abercius to Rome. Cf. generally Zahn, Weltverkehr und
Kirche währeud der drei ersten Jahrhunderte, 1877.]
[Footnote 17: See my studies respecting the tradition of the Greek
Apologists of the second century in the early Church in the Texte und
Unters. z. Gesch. der alt christl. Litteratur, Vol. I. Part I. 2.]
[Footnote 18: See Euseb., H. E. II. 2; VI. 43.]
[Footnote 19: See the accounts of Christianity in Edessa and the far
East generally. The Acta Archelai and the Homilies of Aphraates should
also be specially examined. Cf. further Euseb., H. E. VI. 12, and
finally the remains of the Latin-Christian literature of the third
century--apart from Tertullian, Cyprian and Novatian--as found partly
under the name of Cyprian, partly under other titles. Commodian,
Arnobius, and Lactantius are also instructive here. This literature has
been but little utilised with respect to the history of dogma and of the
Church.]
I. FIXING AND GRADUAL SECULARISING OF CHRISTIANITY AS A CHURCH
CHAPTER II
THE SETTING UP OF THE APOSTOLIC STANDARDS FOR ECCLESIASTICAL
CHRISTIANITY. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.[20]
We may take as preface to this chapter three celebrated passages from
Tertullian's "de præscriptione hæreticorum." In chap. 21 we find: "It is
plain that all teaching that agrees with those apostolic Churches which
are the wombs and origins of the faith must be set down as truth, it
being certain that such doctrine contains that which the Church received
from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, and Christ from God." In
chap. 36 we read: "Let us see what it (the Roman Church) has learned,
what it has taught, and what fellowship it has likewise had with the
African Churches. It acknowledges one God the Lord, the creator of the
universe, and Jesus Christ, the Son of God the creator, born of the
Virgin Mary, as well as the resurrection of the flesh. It unites the Law
and the Prophets with the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles. From
these it draws its faith, and by their authority it seals this faith
with water, clothes it with the Holy Spirit, feeds it with the
eucharist, and encourages martyrdom. Hence it receives no one who
rejects this institution." In chap. 32 the following challenge is
addressed to the heretics: "Let them unfold a series of their bishops
proceeding by succession from the beginning in such a way that this
first bishop of theirs had as his authority and predecessor some one of
the Apostles or one of the apostolic men, who, however, associated with
the Apostles."[21] From the consideration of these three passages it
directly follows that three standards are to be kept in view, viz., the
apostolic doctrine, the apostolic canon of Scripture, and the guarantee
of apostolic authority, afforded by the organisation of the Church, that
is, by the episcopate, and traced back to apostolic institution. It will
be seen that the Church always adopted these three standards together,
that is simultaneously.[22] As a matter of fact they originated in Rome
and gradually made their way in the other Churches. That Asia Minor had
a share in this is probable, though the question is involved in
obscurity. The three Catholic standards had their preparatory stages,
(1) in short kerygmatic creeds; (2) in the authority of the Lord and the
formless apostolic tradition as well as in the writings read in the
Churches; (3) in the veneration paid to apostles, prophets, and
teachers, or the "elders" and leaders of the individual communities.
A. _The Transformation of the Baptismal Confession into the Apostolic
Rule of Faith._
It has been explained (vol. I. p. 157) that the idea of the complete
identity of what the Churches possessed as Christian communities with
the doctrine or regulations of the twelve Apostles can already be shown
in the earliest Gentile-Christian literature. In the widest sense the
expression, [Greek: kanôn tês paradoseôs] (canon of tradition),
originally included all that was traced back to Christ himself through
the medium of the Apostles and was of value for the faith and life of
the Church, together with everything that was or seemed her inalienable
possession, as, for instance, the Christian interpretation of the Old
Testament. In the narrower sense that canon consisted of the history and
words of Jesus. In so far as they formed the content of faith they were
the faith itself, that is, the Christian truth; in so far as this faith
was to determine the essence of everything Christian, it might be termed
[Greek: kanôn tês pisteôs, kanôn tês alêtheias] (canon of the faith,
canon of the truth).[23] But the very fact that the extent of what was
regarded as tradition of the Apostles was quite undetermined ensured the
possibility of the highest degree of freedom; it was also still
allowable to give expression to Christian inspiration and to the
intuition of enthusiasm without any regard to tradition.
We now know that before the violent conflict with Gnosticism short
formulated summaries of the faith had already grown out of the
missionary practice of the Church (catechising). The shortest formula
was that which defined the Christian faith as belief in the Father, Son,
and Spirit.[24] It appears to have been universally current in
Christendom about the year 150. In the solemn transactions of the
Church, therefore especially in baptism, in the great prayer of the
Lord's Supper, as well as in the exorcism of demons,[25] fixed formulæ
were used. They embraced also such articles as contained the most
important facts in the history of Jesus.[26] We know definitely that not
later than about the middle of the second century (about 140 A.D.) the
Roman Church possessed a fixed creed, which every candidate for baptism
had to profess;[27] and something similar must also have existed in
Smyrna and other Churches of Asia Minor about the year 150, in some
cases, even rather earlier. We may suppose that formulæ of similar plan
and extent were also found in other provincial Churches about this
time.[28] Still it is neither probable that all the then existing
communities possessed such creeds, nor that those who used them had
formulated them in such a rigid way as the Roman Church had done. The
proclamation of the history of Christ predicted in the Old Testament,
the [Greek: kerygma tês alêtheias], also accompanied the short baptismal
formula without being expressed in set terms.[29]
Words of Jesus and, in general, directions for the Christian life were
not, as a rule, admitted into the short formulated creed. In the
recently discovered "Teaching of the Apostles" ([Greek: Didachê tôn
apostolôn]) we have no doubt a notable attempt to fix the rules of
Christian life as traced back to Jesus through the medium of the
Apostles, and to elevate them into the foundation of the confederation
of Christian Churches; but this undertaking, which could not but have
led the development of Christianity into other paths, did not succeed.
That the formulated creeds did not express the principles of conduct,
but the facts on which Christians based their faith, was an unavoidable
necessity. Besides, the universal agreement of all earnest and
thoughtful minds on the question of Christian morals was practically
assured.[30] Objection was not taken to the principles of morality--at
least this was not a primary consideration--for there were many Greeks
to whom they did not seem foolishness, but to the adoration of Christ as
he was represented in tradition and to the Church's worship of a God,
who, as creator of the world and as a speaking and visible being,
appeared to the Greeks, with their ideas of a purely spiritual deity, to
be interwoven with the world, and who, as the God worshipped by the Jews
also, seemed clearly distinct from the Supreme Being. This gave rise to
the mockery of the heathen, the theological art of the Gnostics, and the
radical reconstruction of tradition as attempted by Marcion. With the
freedom that still prevailed Christianity was in danger of being
resolved into a motley mass of philosophic speculations or of being
completely detached from its original conditions. "It was admitted on
all sides that Christianity had its starting-point in certain facts and
sayings; but if any and every interpretation of those facts and sayings
was possible, if any system of philosophy might be taught into which the
words that expressed them might be woven, it is clear that there could
be but little cohesion between the members of the Christian communities.
The problem arose and pressed for an answer: What should be the basis of
Christian union? But the problem was for a time insoluble. For there was
no standard and no court of appeal." From the very beginning, when the
differences in the various Churches began to threaten their unity,
appeal was probably made to the Apostles' doctrine, the words of the
Lord, tradition, "sound doctrine", definite facts, such as the reality
of the human nature (flesh) of Christ, and the reality of his death and
resurrection.[31] In instruction, in exhortations, and above all in
opposing erroneous doctrines and moral aberrations, this precept was
inculcated from the beginning: [Greek: apolipômen tas kenas kai mataias
phrontidas, kai elthômen epi ton eukleê kai semnon tês paradoseôs hêmôn
kanona] ("Let us leave off vain and foolish thoughts and betake
ourselves to the glorious and august canon of our tradition"). But the
very question was: What is sound doctrine? What is the content of
tradition? Was the flesh of Christ a reality? etc. There is no doubt
that Justin, in opposition to those whom he viewed as pseudo-Christians,
insisted on the absolute necessity of acknowledging certain definite
traditional facts and made this recognition the standard of orthodoxy.
To all appearance it was he who began the great literary struggle for
the expulsion of heterodoxy (see his [Greek: syntagma kata pasôn tôn
gegenêmenôn haireseôn]); but, judging from those writings of his that
have been preserved to us, it seems very unlikely that he was already
successful in finding a fixed standard for determining orthodox
Christianity.[32]
The permanence of the communities, however, depended on the discovery of
such a standard. They were no longer held together by the _conscientia
religionis_, the _unitas disciplinæ_, and the _foedus spei_. The
Gnostics were not solely to blame for that. They rather show us merely
the excess of a continuous transformation which no community could
escape. The gnosis which subjected religion to a critical examination
awoke in proportion as religious life from generation to generation lost
its warmth and spontaneity. There was a time when the majority of
Christians knew themselves to be such, (1) because they had the "Spirit"
and found in that an indestructible guarantee of their Christian
position, (2) because they observed all the commandments of Jesus
([Greek: entolai Iêsou]). But when these guarantees died away, and when
at the same time the most diverse doctrines that were threatening to
break up the Church were preached in the name of Christianity, the
fixing of tradition necessarily became the supreme task. Here, as in
every other case, the tradition was not fixed till after it had been to
some extent departed from. It was just the Gnostics themselves who took
the lead in a fixing process, a plain proof that the setting up of
dogmatic formulæ has always been the support of new formations. But the
example set by the Gnostics was the very thing that rendered the problem
difficult. Where was a beginning to be made? "There is a kind of
unconscious logic in the minds of masses of men when great questions are
abroad, which some one thinker throws into suitable form."[33] There
could be no doubt that the needful thing was to fix what was
"apostolic," for the one certain thing was that Christianity was based
on a divine revelation which had been transmitted through the medium of
the Apostles to the Churches of the whole earth. It certainly was not a
single individual who hit on the expedient of affirming the fixed forms
employed by the Churches in their solemn transactions to be apostolic in
the strict sense. It must have come about by a natural process. But the
confession of the Father, Son, and Spirit and the _kerygma_ of Jesus
Christ had the most prominent place among these forms. The special
emphasising of these articles, in opposition to the Gnostic and
Marcionite undertakings, may also be viewed as the result of the "common
sense" of all those who clung to the belief that the Father of Jesus
Christ was the creator of the world, and that the Son of God really
appeared in the flesh. But that was not everywhere sufficient, for, even
admitting that about the period between 150 and 180 A.D. all the
Churches had a fixed creed which they regarded as apostolic in the
strict sense--and this cannot be proved,--the most dangerous of all
Gnostic schools, viz., those of Valentinus, could recognise this creed,
since they already possessed the art of explaining a given text in
whatever way they chose. What was needed was an apostolic creed
_definitely interpreted_; for it was only by the aid of a definite
interpretation that the creed could be used to repel the Gnostic
speculations and the Marcionite conception of Christianity.
In this state of matters the Church of Rome, the proceedings of which
are known to us through Irenæus and Tertullian, took, with regard to the
fixed Roman baptismal confession ascribed to the Apostles, the following
step: The Antignostic interpretation required by the necessities of the
times was proclaimed as its self-evident content; the confession, thus
explained, was designated as the "Catholic faith" ("fides catholica"),
that is the rule of truth for the faith; and its acceptance was made the
test of adherence to the Roman Church as well as to the general
confederation of Christendom. Irenæus was not the author of this
proceeding. How far Rome acted with the coöperation or under the
influence of the Church of Asia Minor is a matter that is still
obscure,[34] and will probably never be determined with certainty. What
the Roman community accomplished practically was theoretically
established by Irenæus[35] and Tertullian. The former proclaimed the
baptismal confession, definitely interpreted and expressed in an
Antignostic form, to be the apostolic rule of truth (regula veritatis),
and tried to prove it so. He based his demonstration on the theory that
this series of doctrines embodied the faith of the churches founded by
the Apostles, and that these communities had always preserved the
apostolic teaching unchanged (see under C).
Viewed historically, this thesis, which preserved Christianity from
complete dissolution, is based on two unproved assumptions and on a
confusion of ideas. It is not demonstrated that any creed emanated from
the Apostles, nor that the Churches they founded always preserved their
teaching in its original form; the creed itself, moreover, is confused
with its interpretation. Finally, the existence of a _fides catholica_,
in the strict sense of the word, cannot be justly inferred from the
essential agreement found in the doctrine of a series of
communities.[36] But, on the other hand, the course taken by Irenæus was
the only one capable of saving what yet remained of primitive
Christianity, and that is its historical justification. A _fides
apostolica_ had to be set up and declared identical with the already
existing _fides catholica_. It had to be made the standard for judging
all particular doctrinal opinions, that it might be determined whether
they were admissible or not.
The persuasive power with which Irenæus set up the principle of the
apostolic "rule of truth," or of "tradition" or simply of "faith," was
undoubtedly, as far as he himself was concerned, based on the facts that
he had already a rigidly formulated creed before him and that he had no
doubt as to its interpretation.[37] The rule of truth (also [Greek: hê
hypo tês ekklêsias kêryssomenê alêtheia] "the truth proclaimed by the
Church;" and [Greek: to tês alêtheias sômation], "the body of the
truth") is the old baptismal confession well known to the communities
for which he immediately writes. (See I. 9. 4; [Greek: houtô de kai ho
ton kanona tês alêtheias aklinê en heautô katechôn hon dia tou
baptismatos eilêphe], "in like manner he also who retains immovably in
his heart the rule of truth which he received through baptism"); because
it is this, it is apostolic, firm and immovable.[38]
By the fixing of the rule of truth, the formulation of which in the case
of Irenæus (I. 10. 1, 2) naturally follows the arrangement of the
(Roman) baptismal confession, the most important Gnostic theses were at
once set aside and their antitheses established as apostolic. In his
apostolic rule of truth Irenæus himself already gave prominence to the
following doctrines:[39] the unity of God, the identity of the supreme
God with the Creator; the identity of the supreme God with the God of
the Old Testament; the unity of Jesus Christ as the Son of the God who
created the world; the essential divinity of Christ; the incarnation of
the Son of God; the prediction of the entire history of Jesus through
the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament; the reality of that history; the
bodily reception ([Greek: ensarkos analêpsis]) of Christ into heaven;
the visible return of Christ; the resurrection of all flesh ([Greek:
anastasis pasês sarkos, pasês anthropôtêtos]), the universal judgment.
These dogmas, the antitheses of the Gnostic regulæ,[40] were
consequently, as apostolic and therefore also as Catholic, removed
beyond all discussion.
Tertullian followed Irenæus in every particular. He also interpreted the
(Romish) baptismal confession, represented it, thus explained, as the
_regula fidei_,[41] and transferred to the latter the attributes of the
confession, viz., its apostolic origin (or origin from Christ), as well
as its fixedness and completeness.[42] Like Irenæus, though still more
stringently, he also endeavoured to prove that the formula had descended
from Christ, that is, from the Apostles, and was incorrupt. He based his
demonstration on the alleged incontestable facts that it contained the
faith of those Churches founded by the Apostles, that in these
communities a corruption of doctrine was inconceivable, because in them,
as could be proved, the Apostles had always had successors, and that the
other Churches were in communion with them (see under C). In a more
definite way than Irenæus, Tertullian conceives the rule of faith as a
rule for the faith,[43] as the law given to faith,[44] also as a "regula
doctrinæ" or "doctrina regulæ" (here the creed itself is quite plainly
the regula), and even simply as "doctrina" or "institutio."[45] As to
the content of the _regula_, it was set forth by Tertullian in three
passages.[46] It is essentially the same as in Irenæus. But Tertullian
already gives prominence within the _regula_ to the creation of the
universe out of nothing,[47] the creative instrumentality of the
Logos,[48] his origin before all creatures,[49] a definite theory of the
Incarnation,[50] the preaching by Christ of a _nova lex_ and a _nova
promissio regni coelorum_,[51] and finally also the Trinitarian economy
of God.[52] Materially, therefore, the advance beyond Irenæus is already
very significant. Tertullian's _regula_ is in point of fact a
_doctrina_. In attempting to bind the communities to this he represents
them as schools.[53] The apostolic "lex et doctrina" is to be regarded
as inviolable by every Christian. Assent to it decides the Christian
character of the individual. Thus the Christian _disposition and life_
come to be a matter which is separate from this and subject to
particular conditions. In this way the essence of religion was split
up--the most fatal turning-point in the history of Christianity.
But we are not of course to suppose that at the beginning of the third
century the actual bond of union between all the Churches was a fixed
confession developed into a doctrine, that is, definitely interpreted.
This much was gained, as is clear from the treatise _de præscriptione_
and from other evidence, that in the communities with which Tertullian
was acquainted, mutual recognition and brotherly intercourse were made
to depend on assent to formulæ which virtually coincided with the Roman
baptismal confession. Whoever assented to such a formula was regarded as
a Christian brother, and was entitled to the salutation of peace, the
name of brother, and hospitality.[54] In so far as Christians confined
themselves to a doctrinal formula which they, however, strictly applied,
the adoption of this practice betokened an advance. The scattered
communities now possessed a "lex" to bind them together, quite as
certainly as the philosophic schools possessed a bond of union of a real
and practical character[55] in the shape of certain briefly formulated
doctrines. In virtue of the common apostolic _lex_ of Christians the
Catholic Church became a reality, and was at the same time clearly
marked off from the heretic sects. But more than this was gained, in so
far as the Antignostic interpretation of the formula, and consequently a
"doctrine," was indeed in some measure involved in the _lex_. The extent
to which this was the case depended, of course, on the individual
community or its leaders. All Gnostics could not be excluded by the
wording of the confession; and, on the other hand, every formulated
faith leads to a formulated doctrine, as soon as it is set up as a
critical canon. What we observe in Irenæus and Tertullian must have
everywhere taken place in a greater or less degree; that is to say, the
authority of the confessional formula must have been extended to
statements not found in the formula itself.
We can still prove from the works of Clement of Alexandria that a
confession claiming to be an apostolic law of faith,[56] ostensibly
comprehending the whole essence of Christianity, was not set up in the
different provincial Churches at one and the same time. From this it is
clearly manifest that at this period the Alexandrian Church neither
possessed a baptismal confession similar to that of Rome,[57] nor
understood by "regula fidei" and synonymous expressions a collection of
beliefs fixed in some fashion and derived from the apostles.[58] Clement
of Alexandria in his Stromateis appeals to the holy (divine) Scriptures,
to the teaching of the Lord,[59] and to the standard tradition which he
designates by a great variety of names, though he never gives its
content, because he regards the whole of Christianity in its present
condition as needing to be reconstructed by gnosis, and therefore as
coming under the head of tradition.[60] In one respect therefore, as
compared with Irenæus and Tertullian, he to some extent represents an
earlier standpoint; he stands midway between them and Justin. From this
author he is chiefly distinguished by the fact that he employs sacred
Christian writings as well as the Old Testament, makes the true Gnostic
quite as dependent on the former as on the latter and has lost that
naive view of tradition, that is, the complete content of Christianity,
which Irenæus and Tertullian still had. As is to be expected, Clement
too assigns the ultimate authorship of the tradition to the Apostles;
but it is characteristic that he neither does this of such set purpose
as Irenæus and Tertullian, nor thinks it necessary to prove that the
Church had presented the apostolic tradition intact. But as he did not
extract from the tradition a fixed complex of fundamental propositions,
so also he failed to recognise the importance of its publicity and
catholicity, and rather placed an esoteric alongside of an exoteric
tradition. Although, like Irenæus and Tertullian, his attitude is
throughout determined by opposition to the Gnostics and Marcion, he
supposes it possible to refute them by giving to the Holy Scriptures a
scientific exposition which must not oppose the [Greek: kanôn tês
ekklêsias], that is, the Christian common sense, but receives from it
only certain guiding rules. But this attitude of Clement would be simply
inconceivable if the Alexandrian Church of his time had already employed
the fixed standard applied in those of Rome, Carthage and Lyons.[61]
Such a standard did not exist; but Clement made no distinction in the
yet unsystematised tradition, even between faith and discipline, because
as a theologian he was not able to identify himself with any single
article of it without hesitation, and because he ascribed to the true
Gnostic the ability to fix and guarantee the truth of Christian
doctrine.
Origen, although he also attempted to refute the heretics chiefly by a
scientific exegesis of the Holy Scriptures, exhibits an attitude which
is already more akin to that of Irenæus and Tertullian than to that of
Clement. In the preface to his great work, "De principiis," he prefixed
the Church doctrine as a detailed apostolic rule of faith, and in other
instances also he appealed to the apostolic teaching.[62] It may be
assumed that in the time of Caracalla and Heliogabalus the Alexandrian
Christians had also begun to adopt the principles acted upon in Rome and
other communities.[63] The Syrian Churches, or at least a part of them,
followed still later.[64] There can be no doubt that, from the last
decades of the third century onward, one and the same confession,
identical not in its wording, but in its main features, prevailed in the
great confederation of Churches extending from Spain to the Euphrates
and from Egypt to beyond the Alps.[65] It was the basis of the
confederation, and therefore also a passport, mark of recognition, etc.,
for the orthodox Christians. The interpretation of this confession was
fixed in certain ground features, that is, in an Antignostic sense. But
a definite theological interpretation was also more and more enforced.
By the end of the third century there can no longer have been any
considerable number of outlying communities where the doctrines of the
pre-existence of Christ and the identity of this pre-existent One with
the divine Logos were not recognised as the orthodox belief.[66] They
may have first become an "apostolic confession of faith" through the
Nicene Creed. But even this creed was not adopted all at once.
B. _The designation of selected writings read in the churches as New
Testament Scriptures or, in other words, as a collection of apostolic
writings_.[67]
Every word and every writing which testified of the [Greek: kurios]
(Lord) was originally regarded as emanating from him, that is, from his
spirit: [Greek: Hothen hê kuriotês laleitai ekei Kurios estin]. (Didache
IV. 1; see also 1 Cor. XII. 3). Hence the contents were holy.[68] In
this sense the New Testament is a "residuary product," just as the idea
of its inspiration is a remnant of a much broader view. But on the other
hand, the New Testament is a new creation of the Church,[69] inasmuch as
it takes its place alongside of the Old--which through it has become a
complicated book for Christendom,--as a Catholic and apostolic
collection of Scriptures containing and attesting the truth.
Marcion had founded his conception of Christianity on a new canon of
Scripture,[70] which seems to have enjoyed the same authority among his
followers as was ascribed to the Old Testament in orthodox Christendom.
In the Gnostic schools, which likewise rejected the Old Testament
altogether or in part, Evangelic and Pauline writings were, by the
middle of the second century, treated as sacred texts and made use of to
confirm their theological speculations.[71] On the other hand, about the
year 150 the main body of Christendom had still no collection of Gospels
and Epistles possessing equal authority with the Old Testament, and,
apart from Apocalypses, no new writings at all, which as such, that is,
as sacred texts, were regarded as inspired and authoritative.[72] Here
we leave out of consideration that their content is a testimony of the
Spirit. From the works of Justin it is to be inferred that the ultimate
authorities were the Old Testament, the words of the Lord, and the
communications of Christian prophets.[73] The memoirs of the Apostles
([Greek: apomnêmoneumata ton apostolôn] = [Greek: ta euangelia]) owed
their significance solely to the fact that they recorded the words and
history of the Lord and bore witness to the fulfilment of Old Testament
predictions. There is no mention whatever of apostolic epistles as holy
writings of standard authority.[74] But we learn further from Justin
that the Gospels as well as the Old Testament were read in public
worship (Apol. I. 67) and that our first three Gospels were already in
use. We can, moreover, gather from other sources that other Christian
writings, early and late, were more or less regularly read in Christian
meetings.[75] Such writings naturally possessed a high degree of
authority. As the Holy Spirit and the Church are inseparable, everything
that edifies the Church originates with the Holy Spirit,[76] which in
this, as well as every other respect, is inexhaustibly rich. Here,
however, two interests were predominant from the beginning, that of
immediate spiritual edification and that of attesting and certifying the
Christian _Kerygma_ ([Greek: hê asphaleia tôn logôn]). _The
ecclesiastical canon was the result of the latter interest_, not indeed
in consequence of a process of collection, for individual communities
had already made a far larger compilation,[77] but, in the first
instance, through selection, and afterwards, but not till then, through
addition.
We must not think that the four Gospels now found in the canon had
attained full canonical authority by the middle of the second century,
for the fact--easily demonstrable--that the texts were still very freely
dealt with about this period is in itself a proof of this.[78] Our first
three Gospels contain passages and corrections that could hardly have
been fixed before about the year 150. Moreover, Tatian's attempt to
create a new Gospel from the four shews that the text of these was not
yet fixed.[79] We may remark that he was the first in whom we find the
Gospel of John[80] alongside of the Synoptists, and these four the only
ones recognised. From the assault of the "Alogi" on the Johannine Gospel
we learn that about 160 the whole of our four Gospels had not been
definitely recognised even in Asia Minor. Finally, we must refer to the
Gospel of the Egyptians, the use of which was not confined to circles
outside the Church.[81]
From the middle of the second century the Encratites stood midway
between the larger Christendom and the Marcionite Church as well as the
Gnostic schools. We hear of some of these using the Gospels as canonical
writings side by side with the Old Testament, though they would have
nothing to do with the Epistles of Paul and the Acts of the
Apostles.[82] But Tatian, the prominent Apologist, who joined them, gave
this sect a more complete canon, an important fact about which was its
inclusion of Epistles of Paul. Even this period, however, still supplies
us with no testimony as to the existence of a New Testament canon in
orthodox Christendom, in fact the rise of the so-called "Montanism" and
its extreme antithesis, the "Alogi," in Asia Minor soon after the middle
of the second century proves that there was still no New Testament canon
there; for, if such an authoritative compilation had existed, these
movements could not have arisen. If we gather together all the
indications and evidence bearing on the subject, we shall indeed be
ready to expect the speedy appearance in the Church of a kind of Gospel
canon comprising the four Gospels;[83] but we are prepared neither for
this being formally placed on an equality with the Old Testament, nor
for its containing apostolic writings, which as yet are only found in
Marcion and the Gnostics. The canon emerges quite suddenly in an
allusion of Melito of Sardis preserved by Eusebius,[84] the meaning of
which is, however, still dubious; in the works of Irenæus and
Tertullian; and in the so-called Muratorian Fragment. There is no direct
account of its origin and scarcely any indirect; yet it already appears
as something to all intents and purposes finished and complete.[85]
Moreover, it emerges in the same ecclesiastical district where we were
first able to show the existence of the apostolic _regula fidei_. We
hear nothing of any authority belonging to the compilers, because we
learn nothing at all of such persons.[86] And yet the collection is
regarded by Irenæus and Tertullian as completed. A refusal on the part
of the heretics to recognise this or that book is already made a severe
reproach against them. Their Bibles are tested by the Church compilation
as the older one, and the latter itself is already used exactly like the
Old Testament. The assumption of the inspiration of the books; the
harmonistic interpretation of them; the idea of their absolute
sufficiency with regard to every question which can arise and every
event which they record; the right of unlimited combination of passages;
the assumption that nothing in the Scriptures is without importance;
and, finally, the allegorical interpretation: are the immediately
observable result of the creation of the canon.[87]
The probable conditions which brought about the formation of the New
Testament canon in the Church, for in this case we are only dealing with
probabilities, and the interests which led to and remained associated
with it can only be briefly indicated here.[88]
The compilation and formation of a canon of Christian writings by a
process of selection[89] was, so to speak, a kind of involuntary
undertaking of the Church in her conflict with Marcion and the Gnostics,
as is most plainly proved by the warnings of the Fathers not to dispute
with the heretics about the Holy Scriptures,[90] although the New
Testament was already in existence. That conflict necessitated the
formation of a new Bible. The exclusion of particular persons on the
strength of some apostolic standards, and by reference to the Old
Testament, could not be justified by the Church in her own eyes and
those of her opponents, so long as she herself recognised that there
were apostolic writings, and so long as these heretics appealed to such.
She was compelled to claim exclusive possession of _everything_ that had
a right to the name "apostolic," to deny it to the heretics, and to shew
that she held it in the highest honour. Hitherto she had "contented"
herself with proving her legal title from the Old Testament, and,
passing over her actual origin, had dated herself back to the beginning
of all things. Marcion and the Gnostics were the first who energetically
pointed out that Christianity began with Christ, and that all
Christianity was really to be _tested_ by the apostolic preaching, that
the assumed identity of Christian common sense with apostolic
Christianity did not exist, and (so Marcion said) that the Apostles
contradicted themselves. This opposition made it necessary to enter into
the questions raised by their opponents. But, in point of content, the
problem of proving the contested identity was simply insoluble, because
it was endless and subject to question on every particular point. The
"unconscious logic," that is the logic of self-preservation, could only
prescribe an expedient. The Church had to collect everything apostolic
and declare herself to be its only legal possessor. She was obliged,
moreover, to amalgamate the apostolic with the canon of the Old
Testament in such a way as to fix the exposition from the very first.
But what writings were apostolic? From the middle of the second century
great numbers of writings named after the Apostles had already been in
circulation, and there were often different recensions of one and the
same writing.[91] Versions which contained docetic elements and
exhortations to the most pronounced asceticism had even made their way
into the public worship of the Church. Above all, therefore, it was
necessary to determine (1) what writings were really apostolic, (2) what
form or recension should be regarded as apostolic. The selection was
made by the Church, that is, primarily, by the churches of Rome and Asia
Minor, which had still an unbroken history up to the days of Marcus
Aurelius and Commodus. In making this choice, the Church limited herself
to the writings that were used in public worship, and only admitted what
the tradition of the elders justified her in regarding as genuinely
apostolic. The principle on which she proceeded was to reject as
spurious all writings, bearing the names of Apostles, that contained
anything contradictory to Christian common sense, that is, to the rule
of faith--hence admission was refused to all books in which the God of
the Old Testament, his creation, etc., appeared to be depreciated,--and
to exclude all recensions of apostolic writings that seemed to endanger
the Old Testament and the monarchy of God. She retained, therefore, only
those writings which bore the names of Apostles, or anonymous writings
to which she considered herself justified in attaching such names,[92]
and whose contents were not at variance with the orthodox creed or
attested it. This selection resulted in the awkward fact that besides
the four Gospels there was almost nothing but Pauline epistles to
dispose of, and therefore no writings or almost none which, as emanating
from the twelve Apostles, could immediately confirm the truth of the
ecclesiastical _Kerygma_. _This perplexity was removed by the
introduction of the Acts of the Apostles_[93] _and in some cases also
the Epistles of Peter and John_, though that of Peter was not recognised
at Rome at first. As a collection this group is the most interesting in
the new compilation. It gives it the stamp of Catholicity, unites the
Gospels with the Apostle (Paul), and, by subordinating his Epistles to
the "Acta omnium apostolorum," makes them witnesses to the particular
tradition that was required and divests them of every thing suspicious
and insufficient.[94] The Church, however, found the selection
facilitated by the fact that the content of the early Christian writings
was for the most part unintelligible to the Christendom of the time,
whereas the late and spurious additions were betrayed not only by
heretical theologoumena, but also and above all by their profane
lucidity. Thus arose a collection of apostolic writings, which in extent
may not have been strikingly distinguished from the list of writings
that for more than a generation had formed the chief and favourite
reading in the communities.[95] The new collection was already exalted
to a high place by the use of other writings being prohibited either for
purposes of general edification or for theological ends.[96] But the
causes and motives which led to its being formed into a canon, that is,
being placed on a footing of complete equality with the Old Testament,
may be gathered partly from the earlier history, partly from the mode of
using the new Bible and partly from the results attending its
compilation. First, Words of the Lord and prophetic utterances,
including the written records of these, had always possessed standard
authority in the Church; there were therefore parts of the collection
the absolute authority of which was undoubted from the first.[97]
Secondly, what was called "Preaching of the Apostles," "Teaching of the
Apostles," etc., was likewise regarded from the earliest times as
completely harmonious as well as authoritative. There had, however, been
absolutely no motive for fixing this in documents, because Christians
supposed they possessed it in a state of purity and reproduced it
freely. The moment the Church was called upon to fix this teaching
authentically, and this denotes a decisive revolution, she was forced to
have recourse to _writings_, whether she would or not. The attributes
formerly applied to the testimony of the Apostles, so long as it was not
collected and committed to writing, had now to be transferred to the
written records they had left. Thirdly, Marcion had already taken the
lead in forming Christian writings into a canon in the strict sense of
the word. Fourthly, the interpretation was at once fixed by forming the
apostolic writings into a canon, and placing them on an equality with
the Old Testament, as well as by subordinating troublesome writings to
the Acts of the Apostles. Considered by themselves these writings,
especially the Pauline Epistles, presented the greatest difficulties. We
can see even yet from Irenæus and Tertullian that the duty of
accommodating herself to these Epistles was _forced_ upon the Church by
Marcion and the heretics, and that, but for this constraint, her method
of satisfying herself as to her relationship to them would hardly have
taken the shape of incorporating them with the canon.[98] This shows
most clearly that the collection of writings must not be traced to the
Church's effort to create for herself a powerful controversial weapon.
But the difficulties which the compilation presented so long as it was a
mere collection vanished as soon as it was viewed as a _sacred_
collection. For now the principle: "as the teaching of the Apostles was
one, so also is the tradition" ([Greek: mia hê pantôn gegone tôn
apostolôn hôsper didaskalia houtôs de kai hê paradosis]) was to be
applied to all contradictory and objectionable details.[99] It was now
imperative to explain one writing by another; the Pauline Epistles, for
example, were to be interpreted by the Pastoral Epistles and the Acts of
the Apostles.[100] Now was required what Tertullian calls the "mixture"
of the Old and New Testaments,[101] in consequence of which the full
recognition of the knowledge got from the old Bible was regarded as the
first law for the interpretation of the new. The formation of the new
collection into a canon was therefore an immediate and unavoidable
necessity if doubts of all kinds were to be averted. These were
abundantly excited by the exegesis of the heretics; they were got rid of
by making the writings into a canon. Fifthly, the early Christian
enthusiasm more and more decreased in the course of the second century;
not only did Apostles, prophets, and teachers die out, but the religious
mood of the majority of Christians was changed. A reflective piety took
the place of the instinctive religious enthusiasm which made those who
felt it believe that they themselves possessed the Spirit.[102] Such a
piety requires rules; at the same time, however, it is characterised by
the perception that it has not the active and spontaneous character
which it ought to have, but has to prove its legitimacy in an indirect
and "objective" way. The breach with tradition, the deviation from the
original state of things is felt and recognised. Men, however, conceal
from themselves their own defects, by placing the representatives of the
past on an unattainable height, and forming such an estimate of their
qualities as makes it unlawful and impossible for those of the present
generation, in the interests of their own comfort, to compare themselves
with them. When matters reach this point, great suspicion attaches to
those who hold fast their religious independence and wish to apply the
old standards. Not only do they seem arrogant and proud, but they also
appear disturbers of the necessary new arrangement which has its
justification in the fact of its being unavoidable. This development of
the matter was, moreover, of the greatest significance for the history
of the canon. Its creation very speedily resulted in the opinion that
the time of divine revelation had gone past and was exhausted in the
Apostles, that is, in the records left by them. We cannot prove with
certainty that the canon was formed to confirm this opinion, but we can
show that it was very soon used to oppose those Christians who professed
to be prophets or appealed to the continuance of prophecy. The influence
which the canon exercised in this respect is the most decisive and
important. That which Tertullian, as a Montanist, asserts of one of his
opponents: "Prophetiam expulit, paracletum fugavit" ("he expelled
prophecy, he drove away the Paraclete"), can be far more truly said of
the New Testament which the same Tertullian as a Catholic recognised.
The New Testament, though not all at once, put an end to a situation
where it was possible for any Christian under the inspiration of the
Spirit to give authoritative disclosures and instructions. It likewise
prevented belief in the fanciful creations with which such men enriched
the history of the past, and destroyed their pretensions to read the
future. As the creation of the canon, though not in a hard and fast way,
fixed the period of the production of sacred facts, so it put down all
claims of Christian prophecy to public credence. Through the canon it
came to be acknowledged that all post-apostolic Christianity is only of
a mediate and particular kind, and can therefore never be itself a
standard. The Apostles alone possessed the Spirit of God completely and
without measure. They only, therefore, are the media of revelation, and
by their word alone, which, as emanating from the Spirit, is of equal
authority with the word of Christ, all that is Christian must be
tested.[103]
The Holy Spirit and the Apostles became correlative conceptions
(Tertull., de pudic. 21). The Apostles, however, were more and more
overshadowed by the New Testament Scriptures; and this was in fact an
advance beyond the earlier state of things, for what was known of the
Apostles? Accordingly, _as authors of these writings_, they and the Holy
Spirit became correlative conceptions. This led to the assumption that
the apostolic writings were inspired, that is, in the full and only
intelligible sense attached to the word by the ancients.[104] By this
assumption the Apostles, viewed as _prophets_, received a significance
quite equal to that of Old Testament writers.[105] But, though Irenæus
and Tertullian placed both parties on a level, they preserved a
distinction between them by basing the whole authority of the New
Testament on its apostolic origin, the concept "apostolic" being much
more comprehensive than that of "prophet." These men, being Apostles,
that is men chosen by Christ himself and entrusted with the proclamation
of the Gospel, have for that reason received the Spirit, and their
writings are filled with the Spirit. To the minds of Western Christians
the primary feature in the collection is its apostolic authorship.[106]
This implies inspiration also, because the Apostles cannot be inferior
to the writers of the Old Testament. For that very reason they could, in
a much more radical way, rid the new collection of everything that was
not apostolic. They even rejected writings which, in their form, plainly
claimed the character of inspiration; and this was evidently done
because they did not attribute to them the degree of authority which, in
their view, only belonged to that which was apostolic.[107] The new
canon of Scripture set up by Irenæus and Tertullian primarily professes
to be nothing else than a collection of _apostolic_ writings, which, as
such, claim absolute authority.[108] It takes its place beside the
apostolic rule of faith; and by this faithfully preserved possession,
the Church scattered over the world proves herself to be that of the
Apostles.
But we are very far from being able to show that such a rigidly fixed
collection of apostolic writings existed everywhere in the Church about
the year 200. It is indeed continually asserted that the Antiochian and
Alexandrian Churches had at that date a New Testament which, in extent
and authority, essentially coincided with that of the Roman Church; but
this opinion is not well founded. As far as the Church of Antioch is
immediately concerned, the letter of Bishop Serapion (whose episcopate
lasted from about 190 to about 209), given in Eusebius (VI. 12), clearly
shows that Cilicia and probably also Antioch itself as yet possessed no
such thing as a completed New Testament. It is evident that Serapion
already holds the Catholic principle that all words of Apostles possess
the same value to the Church as words of the Lord; but a completed
collection of apostolic writings was not yet at his disposal.[109] Hence
it is very improbable that Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, who died as
early as the reign of Commodus, presupposed such a collection. Nor, in
point of fact, do the statements in the treatise "ad Autolycum" point to
a completed New Testament.[110] Theophilus makes diligent use of the
Epistles of Paul and mentions the evangelist John (C. I. 1.) as one of
the bearers of the Spirit. But with him the one canonical court of
appeal is the Scriptures of the Old Testament, that is, the writings of
the Prophets (bearers of the Spirit). These Old Testament Prophets,
however, are continued in a further group of "bearers of the Spirit,"
which we cannot definitely determine, but which at any rate included the
authors of the four Gospels and the writer of the Apocalypse. It is
remarkable that Theophilus has never mentioned the Apostles. Though he
perhaps regards them all, including Paul, as "bearers of the Spirit,"
yet we have no indication that he looked on their _Epistles_ as
canonical. The different way he uses the Old Testament and the Gospels
on the one hand and the Pauline Epistles on the other is rather evidence
of the contrary. Theophilus was acquainted with the four Gospels (but we
have no reference to Mark), the thirteen Epistles of Paul (though he
does not mention Thessalonians), most probably also with the Epistle to
the Hebrews, as well as 1st Peter and the Revelation of John. It is
significant that no single passage of his betrays an acquaintance with
the Acts of the Apostles.[111]
It might certainly seem venturesome, on the basis of the material found
in Theophilus and the original document of the first six books of the
Apostolic Constitutions, to conclude that the formation of a New
Testament canon was not everywhere determined by the same interest and
therefore did not everywhere take a similar course. It might seem
hazardous to assume that the Churches of Asia Minor and Rome began by
creating a fixed canon of _apostolic_ writings, which was thus
necessarily declared to be inspired, whereas other communities applied
or did not deny the notion of inspiration to a great number of venerable
and ancient writings not rigidly defined, and did not make a selection
from a stricter historical point of view, till a later date. But the
latter development not only corresponds to the indication found in
Justin, but in my opinion may be verified from the copious accounts of
Clement of Alexandria.[112] In the entire literature of Greeks and
barbarians Clement distinguishes between profane and sacred, i.e.,
inspired writings. As he is conscious that all knowledge of truth is
based on inspiration, so all writings, that is all parts, paragraphs, or
sentences of writings which contain moral and religious truth are in his
view inspired.[113] This opinion, however, does not exclude a
distinction between these writings, but rather requires it. (2) The Old
Testament, a fixed collection of books, is regarded by Clement, as a
whole and in all its parts, as the divine, that is, inspired book _par
excellence_. (3) As Clement in theory distinguishes a new covenant from
the old, so also he distinguishes the books of the new covenant from
those of the old. (4) These books to which he applies the formula
"Gospel" ([Greek: to euangelion]) and "Apostles" ([Greek: hoi
apostoloi]) are likewise viewed by him as inspired, but he does not
consider them as forming a fixed collection. (5) Unless all appearances
are deceptive, it was, strictly speaking, only the four Gospels that he
considered and treated as completely on a level with the Old Testament.
The formula: [Greek: ho nomos kai hoi prophêtai kai to euangelion] ("the
Law and the Prophets and the Gospel") is frequently found, and
everything else, even the apostolic writings, is judged by this
group.[114] He does not consider even the Pauline Epistles to be a court
of appeal of equal value with the Gospels, though he occasionally
describes them as [Greek: graphai].[115] A further class of writings
stands a stage lower than the Pauline Epistles, viz., the Epistles of
Clement and Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, etc. It would be wrong to
say that Clement views this group as an appendix to the New Testament,
or as in any sense Antilegomena. This would imply that he assumed the
existence of a fixed collection whose parts he considered of equal
value, an assumption which cannot be proved.[116] (6) As to certain
books, such as the "Teaching of the Apostles," the "Kerygma of Peter,"
etc., it remains quite doubtful what authority Clement attributed to
them.[117] He quotes the [Greek: Didachê] as [Greek: graphê]. (7) In
determining and estimating the sacred books of the New Testament Clement
is manifestly influenced by an ecclesiastical tradition, for he
recognises four Gospels and no more because that was the exact number
handed down. This tradition had already applied the name "apostolic" to
most Christian writings which were to be considered as [Greek: graphai],
but it had given the concept "apostolic" a far wider content than
Irenæus and Tertullian,[118] although it had not been able to include
all the new writings which were regarded as sacred under this idea.
(Hermas). At the time Clement wrote, the Alexandrian _Church_ can
neither have held the principle that all writings of the Apostles must
be read in the Church and form a decisive court of appeal like the Old
Testament, nor have believed that nothing but the Apostolic--using this
word also in its wider sense--has any claim to authority among
Christians. We willingly admit the great degree of freedom and
peculiarity characteristic of Clement, and freely acknowledge the
serious difficulties inseparable from the attempt to ascertain from his
writings what was regarded as possessing standard authority in the
_Church_. Nevertheless it may be assumed with certainty that, at the
time this author wrote, the content of the New Testament canon, or, to
speak more correctly, its reception in the Church and exact attributes
had not yet been finally settled in Alexandria.
The condition of the Alexandrian Church of the time may perhaps be
described as follows: Ecclesiastical custom had attributed an authority
to a great number of early Christian writings without strictly defining
the nature of this authority or making it equal to that of the Old
Testament. Whatever professed to be inspired, or apostolic, or ancient,
or edifying was regarded as the work of the Spirit and therefore as the
Word of God. The prestige of these writings increased in proportion as
Christians became more incapable of producing the like themselves. Not
long before Clement wrote, however, a systematic arrangement of writings
embodying the early Christian tradition had been made in Alexandria
also. But, while in the regions represented by Irenæus and Tertullian
the canon must have arisen and been adopted all at once, so to speak, it
was a slow process that led to this result in Alexandria. Here also the
principle of apostolicity seems to have been of great importance for the
collectors and editors, but it was otherwise applied than at Rome. A
conservative proceeding was adopted, as they wished to insure as far as
possible the permanence of ancient Christian writings regarded as
inspired. In other words, they sought, wherever practicable, to proclaim
all these writings to be apostolic by giving a wider meaning to the
designation and ascribing an imaginary apostolic origin to many of them.
This explains their judgment as to the Epistle to the Hebrews, and how
Barnabas and Clement were described by them as Apostles.[119] Had this
undertaking succeeded in the Church, a much more extensive canon would
have resulted than in the West. But it is more than questionable whether
it was really the intention of those first Alexandrian collectors to
place the great compilation thus produced, as a New Testament, side by
side with the Old, or, whether their undertaking was immediately
approved in this sense by the Church. In view of the difference of
Clement's attitude to the various groups within this collection of
[Greek: graphai], we may assert that in the Alexandrian _Church_ of that
time Gospels and Apostles were indeed ranked with the Law and the
Prophets, but that this position of equality with the Old Testament was
not assigned to all the writings that were prized either on the score of
inspiration or of apostolic authority. The reason of this was that the
great collection of early Christian literature that was inspired and
declared to be apostolic could hardly have been used so much in public
worship as the Old Testament and the Gospels.
Be this as it may, if we understand by the New Testament a fixed
collection, equally authoritative throughout, of all the writings that
were regarded as genuinely apostolic, that is, those of the original
Apostles and Paul, then the Alexandrian Church at the time of Clement
did not yet possess such a book; but the process which led to it had
begun. She had come much nearer this goal by the time of Origen. At that
period the writings included in the New Testament of the West were all
regarded in Alexandria as equally authoritative, and also stood in every
respect on a level with the Old Testament. The principle of apostolicity
was more strictly conceived and more surely applied. Accordingly the
extent of "Holy Scripture" was already limited in the days of Origen.
Yet we have to thank the Alexandrian Church for giving us the seven
Catholic Epistles. But, measured by the canon of the Western Church,
which must have had a share in the matter, this sifting process was by
no means complete. The inventive minds of scholars designated a group of
writings in the Alexandrian canon as "Antilegomena." The historian of
dogma can take no great interest in the succeeding development, which
first led to the canon being everywhere finally fixed, so far as we can
say that this was ever the case. For the still unsettled dispute as to
the extent of the canon did not essentially affect its use and
authority, and in the following period the continuous efforts to
establish a harmonious and strictly fixed canon were solely determined
by a regard to tradition. The results are no doubt of great importance
to Church history, because they show us the varying influence exerted on
Christendom at different periods by the great Churches of the East and
West and by their learned men.
_Addendum._--The results arising from the formation of a part of early
Christian writings into a canon, which was a great and meritorious act
of the Church[120], notwithstanding the fact that it was forced on her
by a combination of circumstances, may be summed up in a series of
antitheses. (1) The New Testament, or group of "apostolic" writings
formed by selection, preserved from destruction one part, and
undoubtedly the most valuable one, of primitive Church literature; but
it caused all the rest of these writings, as being intrusive, or
spurious, or superfluous, to be more and more neglected, so that they
ultimately perished.[121] (2) The New Testament, though not all at once,
put an end to the composition of works which claimed an authority
binding on Christendom (inspiration); but it first made possible the
production of secular Church literature and neutralised the extreme
dangers attendant on writings of this kind. By making room for all kinds
of writings that did not oppose it, it enabled the Church to utilise all
the elements of Greek culture. At the same time, however, it required an
ecclesiastical stamp to be placed on all the new Christian productions
due to this cause.[122] (3) The New Testament obscured the historical
meaning and the historical origin of the writing contained in it,
especially the Pauline Epistles, though at the same time it created the
conditions for a thorough study of all those documents. Although
primarily the new science of theological exegesis in the Church did more
than anything else to neutralise the historical value of the New
Testament writings, yet, on the other hand, it immediately commenced a
critical restoration of their original sense. But, even apart from
theological science, the New Testament enabled original Christianity to
exercise here and there a quiet and gradual effect on the doctrinal
development of the Church, without indeed being able to exert a dominant
influence on the natural development of the traditional system. As the
standard of interpretation for the Holy Scriptures was the apostolic
_regula fidei_, always more and more precisely explained, and as that
_regula_, in its Antignostic and philosophico-theological
interpretation, was regarded as apostolic, the New Testament was
explained in accordance with the conception of Christianity that had
become prevalent in the Church. At first therefore the spirit of the New
Testament could only assert itself in certain undercurrents and in the
recognition of particular truths. But the book did not in the least ward
off the danger of a total secularising of Christianity. (4) The New
Testament opposed a barrier to the enthusiastic manufacture of "facts."
But at the same time its claim to be a collection of _inspired_
writings[123] naturally resulted in principles of interpretation (such
as the principle of unanimity, of unlimited combination, of absolute
clearness and sufficiency, and of allegorism) which were necessarily
followed by the manufacture of new facts on the part of theological
experts. (5) The New Testament fixed a time within which divine
revelation ceased, and prevented any Christian from putting himself into
comparison with the disciples of Jesus. By doing so it directly promoted
the lowering of Christian ideals and requirements, and in a certain
fashion legitimised this weakening of religious power. At the same time,
however, it maintained the knowledge of these ideals and requirements,
became a spur to the conscience of believers, and averted the danger of
Christianity being corrupted by the excesses of enthusiasm. (6) The fact
of the New Testament being placed on a level with the Old proved the
most effective means of preserving to the latter its canonical
authority, which had been so often assailed in the second century. But
at the same time it brought about an examination of the relation between
the Old and New Testaments, which, however, also involved an enquiry
into the connection between Christianity and pre-christian revelation.
The immediate result of this investigation was not only a theological
exposition of the Old Testament, but also a theory which ceased to view
the two Testaments as of equal authority and _subordinated_ the Old to
the New. This result, which can be plainly seen in Irenæus, Tertullian,
and Origen, led to exceedingly important consequences.[124] It gave some
degree of insight into statements, hitherto completely unintelligible,
in certain New Testament writings, and it caused the Church to reflect
upon a question that had as yet been raised only by heretics, viz., what
are the marks which distinguish Christianity from the Old Testament
religion? An historical examination imperceptibly arose; but the old
notion of the inspiration of the Old Testament confined it to the
narrowest limits, and in fact always continued to forbid it; for, as
before, appeal was constantly made to the Old Testament as a Christian
book which contained all the truths of religion in a perfect form.
Nevertheless the conception of the Old Testament was here and there full
of contradictions.[125] (7) The fatal identification of words of the
Lord and words of the Apostles (apostolical tradition) had existed
before the creation of the New Testament, though this proceeding gave it
a new range and content and a new significance. But, with the Epistles
of Paul included, the New Testament elevated the highest expression of
the consciousness of redemption into a guiding principle, and by
admitting Paulinism into the canon it introduced a wholesome ferment
into the history of the Church. (8) By creating the New Testament and
claiming exclusive possession of it the Church deprived the non-Catholic
communions of every apostolic foundation, just as she had divested
Judaism of every legal title by taking possession of the Old Testament;
but, by raising the New Testament to standard authority, she created the
armoury which supplied the succeeding period with the keenest weapons
against herself.[126] The place of the Gospel was taken by a book with
exceedingly varied contents, which theoretically acquired the same
authority as the Gospel. Still, the Catholic Church never became a
religion "of the book," because every inconvenient text could be
explained away by the allegoric method, and because the book was not
made use of as the immediate authority for the guidance of Christians,
this latter function being directly discharged by the rule of
faith.[127] In practice it continued to be the rule for the New
Testament to take a secondary place in apologetic writings and disputes
with heretics.[128] On the other hand it was regarded (1) as the
directly authoritative document for the direction of the Christian
life,[129] and (2) as the final court of appeal in all the conflicts
that arose within the sphere of the rule of faith. It was freely applied
in the second stage of the Montanist struggle, but still more in the
controversies about Christology, that is, in the conflict with the
Monarchians. The apostolic writings belong solely to the Church, because
she alone has preserved the apostolic doctrine (regula). This was
declared to the heretics and therewith all controversy about Scripture,
or the sense of Scripture passages, was in principle declined. But
within the Church herself the Holy Scripture was regarded as the supreme
and completely independent tribunal against which not even an old
tradition could be appealed to; and the rule [Greek: politeuesthai kata
to euangelion] ("live according to the Gospel") held good in every
respect. Moreover, this formula, which is rarely replaced by the other
one, viz., [Greek: kata tên kainên diathêkên] ("according to the New
Testament"), shows that the words of the Lord, as in the earlier period,
continued to be the chief standard of _life and conduct_.
C. _The transformation of the episcopal office in the Church into an
apostolic office. The history of the remodelling of the conception of
the Church._[130]
1. It was not sufficient to prove that the rule of faith was of
apostolic origin, i.e., that the Apostles had set up a rule of faith. It
had further to be shown that, up to the present, the Church had always
maintained it unchanged. This demonstration was all the more necessary
because the heretics also claimed an apostolic origin for their
_regulæ_, and in different ways tried to adduce proof that they alone
possessed a guarantee of inheriting the Apostles' doctrine in all its
purity.[131] An historical demonstration was first attempted by the
earliest of the old Catholic Fathers. They pointed to communities of
whose apostolic origin there could be no doubt, and thought it could not
reasonably be denied that those Churches must have preserved apostolic
Christianity in a pure and incorrupt form. The proof that the Church had
always held fast by apostolic Christianity depended on the agreement in
doctrine between the other communities and these.[132] But Irenæus as
well as Tertullian felt that a special demonstration was needed to show
that the Churches founded by the Apostles had really at all times
faithfully preserved their genuine teaching. General considerations, as,
for instance, the notion that Christianity would otherwise have
temporarily perished, or "that one event among many is as good as none;
but when one and the same feature is found among many, it is not an
aberration but a tradition" ("Nullus inter multos eventus unus est ...
quod apud multos unum invenitur, non est erratum sed traditum") and
similar ones which Tertullian does not fail to mention, were not
sufficient. But the dogmatic conception that the _ecclesiæ_ (or
_ecclesia_) are the abode of the Holy Spirit,[133] was incapable of
making any impression on the heretics, as the correct application of
this theory was the very point in question. To make their proof more
precise Tertullian and Irenæus therefore asserted that the Churches
guaranteed the incorruptness of the apostolic inheritance, inasmuch as
they could point to a chain of "elders," or, in other words, an "ordo
episcoporum per successionem ab initio decurrens," which was a pledge
that nothing false had been mixed up with it.[134] This thesis has quite
as many aspects as the conception of the "Elders," e.g., disciples of
the Apostles, disciples of the disciples of the Apostles, bishops. It
partly preserves a historic and partly assumes a dogmatic character. The
former aspect appears in the appeal made to the foundation of Churches
by Apostles, and in the argument that each series of successors were
faithful disciples of those before them and therefore ultimately of the
Apostles themselves. But no historical consideration, no appeal to the
"Elders" was capable of affording the assurance sought for. Hence even
in Irenæus the historical view of the case had clearly changed into a
dogmatic one. This, however, by no means resulted merely from the
controversy with the heretics, but was quite as much produced by the
altered constitution of the Church and the authoritative position that
the bishops had actually attained. The idea was that the Elders, i.e.,
the bishops, had received "cum episcopatus successione certum veritatis
charisma," that is, their office conferred on them the apostolic
heritage of truth, which was therefore objectively attached to this
dignity as a _charism_. This notion of the transmissibility of the
charism of truth became associated with the episcopal office after it
had become a monarchical one, exercising authority over the Church in
all its relations;[135] and after the bishops had proved themselves the
strongest supports of the communities against the attacks of the secular
power and of heresy.[136] In Irenæus and Tertullian, however, we only
find the first traces of this new theory. The old notion, which regarded
the _Churches_ as possessing the heritage of the Apostles in so far as
they possess the Holy Spirit, continued to exercise a powerful influence
on these writers, who still united the new dogmatic view with a
historical one, at least in controversies with the heretics. Neither
Irenæus, nor Tertullian in his earlier writings,[137] asserted that the
transmission of the _charisma veritatis_ to the bishops had really
invested them with the apostolic office in its full sense. They had
indeed, according to Irenæus, received the "locum magisterii
apostolorum" ("place of government of the Apostles"), but nothing more.
It is only the later writings of Tertullian, dating from the reigns of
Caracalla and Heliogabalus, which show that the bishop of Rome, who must
have had imitators in this respect, claimed for his office the full
authority of the apostolic office. Both Calixtus and his rival
Hippolytus described themselves as successors of the Apostles in the
full sense of the word, and claimed for themselves in that capacity much
more than a mere guaranteeing of the purity of Christianity. Even
Tertullian did not question this last mentioned attribute of the
bishops.[138] Cyprian found the theory already in existence, but was the
first to develop it definitely and to eradicate every remnant of the
historical argument in its favour. The conception of the Church was
thereby subjected to a further transformation.
2. The transformation of the idea of the Church by Cyprian completed the
radical changes that had been gradually taking place from the last half
of the second century.[139] In order to understand them it is necessary
to go back. It was only with slowness and hesitation that the theories
of the Church followed the actual changes in her history. It may be said
that the idea of the Church always remained a stage behind the condition
reached in practice. That may be seen in the whole course of the history
of dogma up to the present day.
The essential character of Christendom in its first period was a new
holy life and a sure hope, both based on repentance towards God and
faith in Jesus Christ and brought about by the Holy Spirit. Christ and
the Church, that is, the Holy Spirit and the holy Church, were
inseparably connected. The Church, or, in other words, the community of
all believers, attains her unity through the Holy Spirit. This unity
manifested itself in brotherly love and in the common relation to a
common ideal and a common hope.[140] The assembly of all Christians is
realised in the Kingdom of God, viz., in heaven; on earth Christians and
the Church are dispersed and in a foreign land. Hence, properly
speaking, the Church herself is a heavenly community inseparable from
the heavenly Christ. Christians believe that they belong to a real
super-terrestrial commonwealth, which, from its very nature, cannot be
realised on earth. The heavenly goal is not yet separated from the idea
of the Church; there is a holy Church on earth in so far as heaven is
her destination.[141] Every individual congregation is to be an image of
the heavenly Church.[142] Reflections were no doubt made on the contrast
between the empirical community and the heavenly Church whose earthly
likeness it was to be (Hermas); but these did not affect the theory of
the subject. Only the saints of God, whose salvation is certain, belong
to her, for the essential thing is not to be called, but to be, a
Christian. There was as yet no empirical universal Church possessing an
outward legal title that could, so to speak, be detached from the
personal Christianity of the individual Christian.[143] All the lofty
designations which Paul, the so-called Apostolic Fathers, and Justin
gathered from the Old Testament and applied to the Church, relate to the
holy community which originates in heaven and returns thither.[144]
But, in consequence of the naturalising of Christianity in the world and
the repelling of heresy, a formulated creed was made the basis of the
Church. This confession was also recognised as a foundation of her unity
and guarantee of her truth, and in certain respects as the main one.
Christendom protected itself by this conception, though no doubt at a
heavy price. To Irenæus and Tertullian the Church rests entirely on the
apostolic, traditional faith which legitimises her.[145] But this faith
itself appeared as a _law_ and aggregate of doctrines, all of which are
of equally fundamental importance, so that their practical aim became
uncertain and threatened to vanish ("fides in regula posita est, habet
legem et salutem de observatione legis").