The Church herself, however, became a union based on the true doctrine

and visible in it; and this confederation was at the same time enabled

to realise an actual outward unity by means of the apostolic

inheritance, the doctrinal confession, and the apostolic writings. The

narrower and more external character assumed by the idea of the Church

was concealed by the fact that, since the latter half of the second

century, Christians in all parts of the world had really united in

opposition to the state and "heresy," and had found compensation for the

incipient decline of the original lofty thoughts and practical

obligations in the consciousness of forming an ecumenical and

international alliance. The designation "Catholic Church" gave

expression to the claim of this world-wide union of the same faith to

represent the true Church.[146] This expression corresponds to the

powerful position which the "great Church" (Celsus), or the "old" Church

(Clemens Alex.) had attained by the end of the second century, as

compared with the Marcionite Church, the school sects, the Christian

associations of all kinds, and the independent Christians. This Church,

however, was declared to be apostolic, i.e., founded in its present form

by Christ through the Apostles. Through this idea, which was supported

by the old enthusiastic notion that the Apostles had already proclaimed

the Gospel to all the world, it came to be completely forgotten how

Christ and his Apostles had exercised their ministry, and an empirical

conception of the Church was created in which the idea of a holy life in

the Spirit could no longer be the ruling one. It was taught that Christ

received from God a law of faith, which, as a new lawgiver, he imparted

to the Apostles, and that they, by transmitting the truth of which they

were the depositaries, founded the one Catholic Church (Iren. III. 4.

I). The latter, being guardian of the apostolic heritage, has the

assurance of possessing the Spirit; whereas all communities other than

herself, inasmuch as they have not received that deposit, necessarily

lack the Spirit and are therefore separated from Christ and

salvation.[147] Hence one must be a member of this Church in order to be

a partaker of salvation, because in her alone one can find the creed

which must be recognised as the condition of redemption.[148]

Consequently, in proportion as the faith became a doctrine of faith, the

Catholic Church interposed herself as an empiric power between the

individual and salvation. She became a condition of salvation; but the

result was that she ceased to be a sure communion of the saved and of

saints (see on this point the following chapter). It was quite a logical

proceeding when about the year 220 Calixtus, a Roman bishop, started the

theory that there _must_ be wheat and tares in the Catholic Church and

that the Ark of Noah with its clean and unclean beasts was her

type.[149] The departure from the old idea of the Church appears

completed in this statement. But the following facts must not be

overlooked:--First, the new conception of the Church was not yet a

hierarchical one. Secondly, the idea of the union and unity of all

believers found here magnificent expression. Thirdly, the development of

the communities into one solid Church also represents the creative power

of the Christian spirit. Fourthly, through the consolidation effected in

the Church by the rule of faith the Christian religion was in some

measure preserved from enthusiastic extravagancies and arbitrary

misinterpretation. Fifthly, in consequence of the regard for a Church

founded on the doctrine of faith the specific significance of redemption

by Christ, as distinguished from natural religion and that of the Old

Testament, could no longer be lost to believers. Sixthly, the

independence of each individual community had a wide scope not only at

the end of the second but also in the third century.[150] Consequently,

though the revolution which led to the Catholic Church was a result of

the situation of the communities in the world in general and of the

struggle with the Gnostics and Marcion in particular, and though it was

a fatal error to identify the Catholic and apostolic Churches, this

change did not take place without an exalting of the Christian spirit

and an awakening of its self-consciousness.

But there was never a time in history when the conception of the Church,

as nothing else than the visible communion of those holding the correct

apostolic doctrine, was clearly grasped or exclusively emphasised. In

Irenæus and Tertullian we rather find, on the one hand, that the old

theory of the Church was still to a great extent preserved and, on the

other, that the hierarchical notion was already making its appearance.

As to the first point, Irenæus frequently asserts that the Spirit and

the Church, that is, the Christian people, are inseparable; that the

Spirit in divers ways continually effects whatever she needs; that she

is the totality of all true believers, that all the faithful have the

rank of priests; that outside the holy Church there is no salvation,

etc.; in fact these doctrines form the very essence of his teaching.

But, since she was also regarded as the visible institution for

objectively preserving and communicating the truth, and since the idea

of the Church in contradistinction to heresy was necessarily exhausted

in this as far as Irenæus was concerned, the old theories of the matter

could not operate correctively, but in the end only served to glorify

the earthly Catholic Church.[151] The proposition that truth is only to

be found in the Church and that she and the Holy Spirit are inseparable

must be understood in Irenæus as already referring to the Catholic

Church in contradistinction to every other calling itself

Christian.[152] As to the second point, it cannot be denied that, though

Irenæus desires to maintain that the only essential part of the idea of

the Church is the fact of her being the depository of the truth, he was

no longer able to confine himself to this (see above). The episcopal

succession and the transmission to the bishops of the _magisterium_ of

the Apostles were not indeed of any direct importance to his idea of the

Church, but they were of consequence for the preservation of truth and

therefore indirectly for the idea of the Church also. To Irenæus,

however, that theory was still nothing more than an artificial line; but

artificial lines are really supports and must therefore soon attain the

value of foundations.[153] Tertullian's conception of the Church was

essentially the same as that of Irenæus; but with the former the idea

that she is the outward manifestation of the Spirit, and therefore a

communion of those who are spiritual, at all times continued to operate

more powerfully than with the latter. In the last period of his life

Tertullian emphasised this theory so vigorously that the Antignostic

idea of the Church being based on the "traditio unius sacramenti" fell

into the background. Consequently we find nothing more than traces of

the hierarchical conception of the Church in Tertullian. But towards the

end of his life he found himself face to face with a _fully developed_

theory of this kind. This he most decidedly rejected, and, in doing so,

advanced to such a conception of ecclesiastical orders, and therefore

also of the episcopate, as clearly involved him in a contradiction of

the other theory--which he also never gave up--viz., that the bishops,

as the class which transmits the rule of faith, are an apostolic

institution and therefore necessary to the Church[154].

From the disquisitions of Clement of Alexandria we see how vigorous the

old conception of the Church, as the heavenly communion of the elect and

believing, still continued to be about the year 200. This will not

appear strange after what we have already said as to Clement's views

about the rule of faith, the New Testament, and the episcopate. It is

evident that his philosophy of religion led him to give a new

interpretation to the original ideas. Yet the old form of these notions

can be more easily made out from his works than from those of

Irenæus.[155] Up to the 15th Chapter of the 7th Book of his great work,

the Stromateis, and in the Pædagogus, Clement simply speaks of the

Church in the sense of the Epistle to the Ephesians and the Shepherd of

Hermas. She is a heavenly formation, continued in that which appears on

earth as her image. Instead of distinguishing two Churches Clement sees

one, the product of God's will aiming at the salvation of man--a Church

which is to be on earth as it is in heaven, and of which faith forms the

subjective and the Logos the objective bond of union. But, beginning

with Strom. VII. 15 (see especially 17), where he is influenced by

opposition to the heretics, he suddenly identifies this Church with the

single old Catholic one, that is, with the visible "Church" in

opposition to the heretic sects. Thus the empirical interpretation of

the Church, which makes her the institution in possession of the true

doctrine, was also completely adopted by Clement; but as yet he employed

it simply in polemics and not in positive teachings. He neither

reconciled nor seemingly felt the contradiction in the statement that

the Church is to be at one and the same time the assembly of the elect

and the empiric universal Church. At any rate he made as yet no

unconditional acknowledgment of the Catholic Church, because he was

still able to attribute independent value to Gnosis, that is, to

independent piety as he understood it.[156] Consequently, as regards the

conception of the Church, the mystic Gnosis exercised the same effect as

the old religious enthusiasm from which in other respects it differs so

much.[157] The hierarchy has still no significance as far as Clement's

idea of the Church is concerned.[158] At first Origen entirely agrees

with Clement in regard to this conception. He also starts with the

theory that the Church is essentially a heavenly communion and a holy

communion of believers, and keeps this idea constantly before him.[159]

When opposing heretics, he also, like Clement, cannot help identifying

her with the Catholic Church, because the latter contains the true

doctrine, though he likewise refrains from acknowledging any

hierarchy.[160] But Origen is influenced by two further considerations,

which are scarcely hinted at in Clement, but which were called forth by

the actual course of events and signified a further development in the

idea of the Church. For, in the first place, Origen saw himself already

compelled to examine closely the distinction between the essence and the

outward appearance of the Church, and, in this process, reached results

which again called in question the identification of the Holy Church

with the empiric Catholic one (see on this point the following chapter).

Secondly, in consequence of the extraordinary extension and powerful

position attained by the Catholic Church by the time of Philip the

Arabian, Origen, giving a new interpretation to a very old Christian

notion and making use of a Platonic conception,[161] arrived at the idea

that she was the earthly Kingdom of God, destined to enter the world, to

absorb the Roman Empire and indeed all mankind, and to unite and take

the place of the various secular states.[162] This magnificent idea,

which regards the Church as [Greek: kosmos tou kosmou][163], denoted

indeed a complete departure from the original theory of the subject,

determined by eschatological considerations; though we must not forget

that Origen still demanded a really holy Church and a new polity. Hence,

as he also distinguishes the various degrees of connection with the

Church,[164] we already find in his theory a combination of all the

features that became essential parts of the conception of the Church in

subsequent times, with the exception of the clerical element.[165]

3. The contradictory notions of the Church, for so they appear to us, in

Irenæus and Clement and still more in Tertullian and Origen, need not

astonish any one who bears in mind that none of these Fathers made the

Church the subject of a theological theory.[166] Hence no one as yet

thought of questioning the old article: "I believe in a holy Church."

But, at the same time, actual circumstances, though they did not at

first succeed in altering the Church's belief, forced her to _realise_

her changed position, for she had in point of fact become an association

which was founded on a definite law of doctrine and rejected everything

that did not conform to it. The identifying of this association with the

ideal Church was a matter of course,[167] but it was quite as natural to

take no immediate _theoretical_ notice of the identification except in

cases where it was absolutely necessary, that is, in polemics. In the

latter case the unity of faith and hope became the unity of the doctrine

of faith, and the Church was, in this instance, legitimised by the

possession of the apostolic tradition instead of by the realising of

that tradition in heart and life. From the principle that had been set

up it necessarily followed that the apostolic inheritance on which the

truth and legitimacy of the Church was based, could not but remain an

imperfect court of appeal until _living_ authorities could be pointed to

in this court, and until _every_ possible cause of strife and separation

was settled by reference to it. An empirical community cannot be ruled

by a traditional written word, but only by persons; for the written law

will always separate and split. If it has such persons, however, it can

tolerate within it a great amount of individual differences, provided

that the leaders subordinate the interests of the whole to their own

ambition. We have seen how Irenæus and Tertullian, though they in all

earnestness represented the _fides catholica_ and _ecclesia catholica_

as inseparably connected,[168] were already compelled to have recourse

to bishops in order to ensure the apostolic doctrine. The conflicts

within the sphere of the rule of faith, the struggles with the so-called

Montanism, but finally and above all, the existing situation of the

Church in the third century with regard to the world within her pale,

made the question of organisation the vital one for her. Tertullian and

Origen already found themselves face to face with episcopal claims of

which they highly disapproved and which, in their own way, they

endeavoured to oppose. It was again the Roman bishop[169] who first

converted the proposition that the bishops are direct successors of the

Apostles and have the same "locus magisterii" ("place of government")

into a theory which declares that _all_ apostolic powers have devolved

on the bishops and that these have therefore peculiar rights and duties

in virtue of their office.[170] Cyprian added to this the corresponding

theory of the Church. In one decisive point, however, he did not assist

the secularising process which had been completed by the Roman bishop,

in the interest of Catholicity as well as in that of the Church's

existence (see the following chapter). In the second half of the third

century there were no longer any Churches, except remote communities,

where the only requirement was to preserve the Catholic faith; the

bishops had to be obeyed. The idea of the one episcopally organised

Church became the main one and overshadowed the significance of the

doctrine of faith as a bond of unity. _The Church based on the bishops,

the successors of the Apostles, the vicegerents of God, is herself the

legacy of the Apostles in virtue of this her foundation._ This idea was

never converted into a rigid theory in the East, though the reality to

which it corresponded was not the less certain on that account. The

fancy that the earthly hierarchy was the image of the heavenly was the

only part that began to be taken in real earnest. In the West, on the

other hand, circumstances compelled the Carthaginian bishop to set up a

finished theory.[171] According to Cyprian, the Catholic Church, to

which all the lofty predictions and predicates in the Bible apply (see

Hartel's index under "ecclesia"), is the one institution of salvation

outside of which there is no redemption (ep. 73. 21). She is this,

moreover, not only as the community possessing the true apostolic faith,

for this definition does not exhaust her conception, but as a

harmoniously organised federation.[172] This Church therefore rests

entirely on the episcopate, which sustains her,[173] because it is the

continuance of the apostolic office and is equipped with all the power

of the Apostles.[174] Accordingly, the union of individuals with the

Church, and therefore with Christ, is effected only by obedient

dependence on the bishop, i.e., such a connection alone makes one a

member of the Church. But the unity of the Church, which is an attribute

of equal importance with her truth, because this union is only brought

about by love,[175] primarily appears in the unity of the episcopate.

For, according to Cyprian, the episcopate has been from its beginning

undivided and has continued to be so in the Church, in so far as the

bishops are appointed and guided by God, are on terms of brotherly

intercourse and exchange, and each bishop represents the whole

significance of the episcopate.[176] Hence the individual bishops are no

longer to be considered primarily as leaders of their special

communities, but as the foundation of the one Church. Each of these

prelates, however, provided he keeps within the association of the

bishops, preserves the independent right of regulating the circumstances

of his own diocese.[177] But it also follows that the bishops of those

communities founded by the Apostles themselves can raise no claim to any

special dignity, since the unity of the episcopate as a continuation of

the apostolic office involves the equality of all bishops.[178] However,

a special importance attaches to the Roman see, because it is the seat

of the Apostle to whom Christ first granted apostolic authority in order

to show with unmistakable plainness the unity of these powers and the

corresponding unity of the Church that rests on them; and further

because, from her historical origin, the Church of this see had become

the mother and root of the Catholic Church spread over the earth. In a

severe crisis which Cyprian had to pass through in his own diocese he

appealed to the Roman Church (the Roman bishop) in a manner which made

it appear as if communion with that Church was in itself the guarantee

of truth. But in the controversy about heretical baptism with the Roman

bishop Stephen, he emphatically denied the latter's pretensions to

exercise special rights over the Church in consequence of the Petrine

succession.[179] Finally, although Cyprian exalted the unity of the

organisation of the Church above the unity of the doctrine of faith, he

preserved the Christian element so far as to assume in all his

statements that the bishops display a moral and Christian conduct in

keeping with their office, and that otherwise they have _ipso facto_

forfeited it.[180] Thus, according to Cyprian, the episcopal office does

not confer any indelible character, though Calixtus and other bishops of

Rome after him presupposed this attribute. (For more details on this

point, as well as with regard to the contradictions that remain

unreconciled in Cyprian's conception of the Church, see the following

chapter, in which will be shown the ultimate interests that lie at the

basis of the new idea of the Church).

_Addendum I._--The great confederation of Churches which Cyprian

presupposes and which he terms _the_ Church was in truth not complete,

for it cannot be proved that it extended to any regions beyond the

confines of the Roman Empire or that it even embraced all orthodox and

episcopally organised communities within those bounds.[181] But,

further, the conditions of the confederation, which only began to be

realised in the full sense in the days of Constantine, were never

definitely formulated--before the fourth century at least.[182]

Accordingly, the idea of the one exclusive Church, embracing all

Christians and founded on the bishops, was always a mere theory. But, in

so far as it is not the idea, but its realisation to which Cyprian here

attaches sole importance, his dogmatic conception appears to be refuted

by actual circumstances.[183]

_Addendum II._--The idea of heresy is always decided by the idea of the

Church. The designation [Greek: hairesis] implies an adherence to

something self-chosen in opposition to the acknowledgment of something

objectively handed down, and assumes that this is the particular thing

in which the apostasy consists. Hence all those who call themselves

Christians and yet do not adhere to the traditional apostolic creed, but

give themselves up to vain and empty doctrines, are regarded as heretics

by Hegesippus, Irenæus, Tertullian, Clement, and Origen. These doctrines

are as a rule traced to the devil, that is, to the non-Christian

religions and speculations, or to wilful wickedness. Any other

interpretation of their origin would at once have been an acknowledgment

that the opponents of the Church had a right to their opinions,[184] and

such an explanation is not quite foreign to Origen in one of his lines

of argument.[185] Hence the orthodox party were perfectly consistent in

attaching no value to any sacrament[186] or acts esteemed in their own

communion, when these were performed by heretics;[187] and this was a

practical application of the saying that the devil could transform

himself into an angel of light.[188]

But the Fathers we have named did not yet completely identify the Church

with a harmoniously organised institution. For that very reason they do

not absolutely deny the Christianity of such as take their stand on the

rule of faith, even when these for various reasons occupy a position

peculiar to themselves. Though we are by no means entitled to say that

they acknowledged orthodox schismatics, they did not yet venture to

reckon them simply as heretics.[189] If it was desired to get rid of

these, an effort was made to impute to them some deviation from the rule

of faith; and under this pretext the Church freed herself from the

Montanists and the Monarchians.[190] Cyprian was the first to proclaim

the identity of heretics and schismatics, by making a man's Christianity

depend on his belonging to the great episcopal Church

confederation.[191] But, both in East and West, this theory of his

became established only by very imperceptible degrees, and indeed,

strictly speaking, the process was never completed at all. The

distinction between heretics and schismatics was preserved, because it

prevented a public denial of the old principles, because it was

advisable on political grounds to treat certain schismatic communities

with indulgence, and because it was always possible in case of need to

prove heresy against the schismatics.[192]

_Addendum III._--As soon as the empiric Church ruled by the bishops was

proclaimed to be the foundation of the Christian religion, we have the

fundamental premises for the conception that everything progressively

adopted by the Church, all her functions, institutions, and liturgy, in

short, all her continuously changing arrangements were holy and

apostolic. But the courage to draw all the conclusions here was

restrained by the fact that certain portions of tradition, such as the

New Testament canon of Scripture and the apostolic doctrine, had been

once for all exalted to an unapproachable height. Hence it was only with

slowness and hesitation that Christians accepted the inferences from the

idea of the Church in the remaining directions, and these conclusions

always continued to be hampered with some degree of uncertainty. The

idea of the [Greek: paradosis agraphos]; (unwritten tradition); i.e.,

that every custom, however recent, within the sphere of outward

regulations, of public worship, discipline, etc., is as holy and

apostolic as the Bible and the "faith", never succeeded in gaining

complete acceptance. In this case, complicated, uncertain, and

indistinct assumptions were the result.

Footnotes:

[Footnote 20: In itself the predicate "Catholic" contains no element

that signifies a secularising of the Church. "Catholic" originally means

Christianity in its totality as contrasted with single congregations.

Hence the concepts "all communities" and the "universal Church" are

identical. But from the beginning there was a dogmatic element in the

concept of the universal Church, in so far as the latter was conceived

to have been spread over the whole earth by the Apostles; an idea which

involved the conviction that only that could be true which was found

_everywhere_ in Christendom. Consequently, "entire or universal

Christendom," "the Church spread over the whole earth," and "the true

Church" were regarded as identical conceptions. In this way the concept

"Catholic" became a pregnant one, and finally received a dogmatic and

political content. As this result actually took place, it is not

inappropriate to speak of pre-Catholic and Catholic Christianity.]

[Footnote 21: _Translator's note._ The following is Tertullian's Latin

as given by Professor Harnack: Cap. 21: "Constat omnem doctrinam quæ cum

ecclesiis apostolicis matricibus et originalibus fidei conspiret

veritati deputandam, id sine dubio tenentem quod ecclesiæ ab apostolis,

apostoli a Christo, Christus a deo accepit." Cap. 36: "Videamus quid

(ecclesia Romanensis) didicerit, quid docuerit, cum Africanis quoque

ecclesiis contesserarit. Unum deum dominum novit, creatorem

universitatis, et Christum Iesum ex virgine Maria filium dei creatoris,

et carnis resurrectionem; legem et prophetas cum evangelicis et

apostolicis litteris miscet; inde potat fidem, eam aqua signat, sancto

spiritu vestit, eucharistia pascit, martyrium exhortatur, et ita

adversus hanc institutionem neminem recipit." Chap. 32: "Evolvant

ordinem episcoporum suorum, ita per successionem ab initio decurrentem,

ut primus ille episcopus aliquem ex apostolis vel apostolicis viris, qui

tamen cum apostolis perseveravit, habuerit auctorem et antecessorem."]

[Footnote 22: None of the three standards, for instance, were in the

original of the first six books of the Apostolic Constitutions, which

belong to the third century and are of Syrian origin; but instead of

them the Old Testament and Gospel on the one hand, and the bishop, as

the God of the community, on the other, are taken as authorities.]

[Footnote 23: See Zahn, Glaubensregel und Taufbekenntniss in der alten

Kirche in the Zeitschrift f. Kirchl. Wissensch. u. Kirchl. Leben, 1881,

Part 6, p. 302 ff., especially p. 314 ff. In the Epistle of Jude, v. 3,

mention is made of the [Greek: hapax paradotheisa tois hagiois pistis],

and in v. 20 of "building yourselves up in your most holy faith." See

Polycarp, ep. III. 2 (also VII. 2; II. 1). In either case the

expressions [Greek: kanôn tês pisteôs, kanôn tês alêtheias], or the

like, might stand for [Greek: pistis], for the faith itself is primarily

the canon; but it is the canon only in so far as it is comprehensible

and plainly defined. Here lies the transition to a new interpretation of

the conception of a standard in its relation to the faith. Voigt has

published an excellent investigation of the concept [Greek: ho kanôn tês

alêtheias] cum synonymis (Eine verschollene Urkunde des antimont.

Kampfes, 1891, pp. 184-205).]

[Footnote 24: In Hermas, Mand. I., we find a still shorter formula which

only contains the Confession of the monarchy of God, who created the

world, that is the formula [Greek: pisteôu eis hena theon pantakratora],

which did not originate with the baptismal ceremony. But though at first

the monarchy may have been the only dogma in the strict sense, the

mission of Jesus Christ beyond doubt occupied a place alongside of it

from the beginning; and the new religion was inconceivable without

this.]

[Footnote 25: See on this point Justin, index to Otto's edition. It is

not surprising that formulæ similar to those used at baptism were

employed in the exorcism of demons. However, we cannot immediately infer

from the latter what was the wording of the baptismal confession.

Though, for example, it is an established fact that in Justin's time

demons were exorcised with the words: "In the name of Jesus Christ who

was crucified under Pontius Pilate," it does not necessarily follow from

this that these words were also found in the baptismal confession. The

sign of the cross was made over those possessed by demons; hence nothing

was more natural than that these words should be spoken. Hence they are

not necessarily borrowed from a baptismal confession.]

[Footnote 26: These facts were known to every Christian. They are

probably also alluded to in Luke I. 4.]

[Footnote 27: The most important result of Caspari's extensive and exact

studies is the establishment of this fact and the fixing of the wording

of the Romish Confession. (Ungedruckte, unbeachtete und wenig beachtete

Quellen z. Gesch. des Taufsymbols u d. Glaubensregels. 3 Vols.

1866-1875. Alte u. neue Quellen zur Gesch. des Taufsymbols u. d.

Glaubensregel, 1879). After this Hahn, Bibliothek d. Symbole u.

Glaubensregeln der alten Kirche. 2 Aufl. 1877; see also my article

"Apostol. Symbol" in Herzog's R.E.. 2nd. ed., as well as Book I. of the

present work, Chap. III. § 2.]

[Footnote 28: This supposition is based on observation of the fact that

particular statements of the Roman Symbol, in exactly the same form or

nearly so, are found in many early Christian writings. See Patr. App.

Opp. I. 2, ed. 2, pp. 115-42.]

[Footnote 29: The investigations which lead to this result are of a very

complicated nature and cannot therefore be given here. We must content

ourselves with remarking that all Western baptismal formulæ (creeds) may

be traced back to the Roman, and that there was no universal Eastern

creed on parallel lines with the latter. There is no mistaking the

importance which, in these circumstances, is to be attributed to the

Roman symbol and Church as regards the development of Catholicism.]

[Footnote 30: This caused the pronounced tendency of the Church to the

formation of dogma, a movement for which Paul had already paved the way.

The development of Christianity, as attested, for example, by the

[Greek: Didachê], received an additional factor in the dogmatic

tradition, which soon gained the upper hand. The great reaction is then

found in monasticism. Here again the rules of morality become the

prevailing feature, and therefore the old Christian gnomic literature

attains in this movement a second period of vigour. In it again

dogmatics only form the background for the strict regulation of life. In

the instruction given as a preparation for baptism the Christian moral

commandments were of course always inculcated, and the obligation to

observe these was expressed in the renunciation of Satan and all his

works. In consequence of this, there were also fixed formulæ in these

cases.]

[Footnote 31: See the Pastoral Epistles, those of John and of Ignatius;

also the epistle of Jude, 1 Clem. VII., Polycarp, ad Philipp. VII., II.

1, VI. 3, Justin.]

[Footnote 32: In the apologetic writings of Justin the courts of appeal

invariably continue to be the Old Testament, the words of the Lord, and

the communications of prophets; hence he has hardly insisted on any

other in his anti-heretical work. On the other hand we cannot appeal to

the observed fact that Tertullian also, in his apologetic writings, did

not reveal his standpoint as a churchman and opponent of heresy; for,

with one exception, he did not discuss heretics in these tractates at

all. On the contrary Justin discussed their position even in his

apologetic writings; but nowhere, for instance, wrote anything similar

to Theophilus' remarks in "ad Autol.," II. 14. Justin was acquainted

with and frequently alluded to fixed formulæ and perhaps a baptismal

symbol related to the Roman, if not essentially identical with it. (See

Bornemann. Das Taufsymbol Justins in the Ztschr. f. K. G. Vol. III. p. 1

ff.), but we cannot prove that he utilised these formulæ in the sense of

Irenæus and Tertullian. We find him using the expression [Greek:

orthognômones] in Dial. 80. The resurrection of the flesh and the

thousand years' kingdom (at Jerusalem) are there reckoned among the

beliefs held by the [Greek: orthognômones kata panta Christianoi]. But

it is very characteristic of the standpoint taken up by Justin that he

places between the heretics inspired by demons and the orthodox a class

of Christians to whom he gives the general testimony that they are

[Greek: tês katharas kai eusebous gnômês], though they are not fully

orthodox in so far as they reject one important doctrine. Such an

estimate would have been impossible to Irenæus and Tertullian. They have

advanced to the principle that he who violates the law of faith in one

point is guilty of breaking it all.]

[Footnote 33: Hatch, "Organisation of the Church," p. 96.]

[Footnote 34: We can only conjecture that some teachers in Asia Minor

contemporary with Irenæus, or even of older date, and especially Melito,

proceeded in like manner, adhering to Polycarp's exclusive attitude.

Dionysius of Corinth (Eusebius, H. E. IV. 23. 2, 4) may perhaps be also

mentioned.]

[Footnote 35: Irenæus set forth his theory in a great work, adv. hæres.,

especially in the third book. Unfortunately his treatise, "[Greek: logos

eis epideixin tou apostolikou kêrygmatos]", probably the oldest treatise

on the rule of faith, has not been preserved (Euseb., H. E. V. 26.)]

[Footnote 36: Irenæus indeed asserts in several passages that all

Churches--those in Germany, Iberia, among the Celts, in the East, in

Egypt, in Lybia and Italy; see I. 10. 2; III. 3. 1; III. 4. 1

sq.--possess the same apostolic _kerygma_; but "qui nimis probat nihil

probat." The extravagance of the expressions shows that a dogmatic

theory is here at work. Nevertheless this is based on the correct view

that the Gnostic speculations are foreign to Christianity and of later

date.]

[Footnote 37: We must further point out here that Irenæus not only knew

the tradition of the Churches of Asia Minor and Rome, but that he had

sat at the feet of Polycarp and associated in his youth with many of the

"elders" in Asia. Of these he knew for certain that they in part did not

approve of the Gnostic doctrines and in part would not have done so. The

confidence with which he represented his antignostic interpretation of

the creed as that of the Church of the Apostles was no doubt owing to

this sure historical recollection. See his epistle to Florinus in

Euseb., H. E. V. 20 and his numerous references to the "elders" in his

great work. (A collection of these may be found in Patr. App. Opp. I. 3,

p. 105 sq.)]

[Footnote 38: Caspari's investigations leave no room for doubt as to the

relation of the rule of faith to the baptismal confession. The baptismal

confession was not a deposit resulting from fluctuating anti-heretical

rules of faith; but the latter were the explanations of the baptismal

confession. The full authority of the confession itself was transferred

to every elucidation that appeared necessary, in so far as the needful

explanation was regarded as given with authority. Each momentary formula

employed to defend the Church against heresy has therefore the full

value of the creed. This explains the fact that, beginning with Irenæus'

time, we meet with differently formulated rules of faith, partly in the

same writer, and yet each is declared to be _the_ rule of faith. Zahn is

virtually right when he says, in his essay quoted above, that the rule

of faith is the baptismal confession. But, so far as I can judge, he has

not discerned the dilemma in which the Old Catholic Fathers were placed,

and which they were not able to conceal. This dilemma arose from the

fact that the Church needed an apostolic creed, expressed in fixed

formulæ and at the same time definitely interpreted in an anti-heretical

sense; whereas she only possessed, and this not in all churches, a

baptismal confession, contained in fixed formulæ but not interpreted,

along with an ecclesiastical tradition which was not formulated,

although it no doubt excluded the most offensive Gnostic doctrines. It

was not yet possible for the Old Catholic Fathers to frame and formulate

that doctrinal confession, and they did not attempt it. The only course

therefore was to assert that an elastic collection of doctrines which

were ever being formulated anew, was a fixed standard in so far as it

was based on a fixed creed. But this dilemma--we do not know how it was

viewed by opponents--proved an advantage in the end, for it enabled

churchmen to make continual additions to the rule of faith, whilst at

the same time continuing to assert its identity with the baptismal

confession. We must make the reservation, however, that not only the

baptismal confession, but other fixed propositions as well, formed the

basis on which particular rules of faith were formulated.]

[Footnote 39: Besides Irenæus I. 10. 1, 2, cf. 9. 1-5; 22. 1; II. 1. 1;

9. 1; 28. 1; 32. 3, 4; III. 1-4; 11. 1; 12. 9; 15. 1; 16. 5 sq.; 18. 3;

24. 1; IV. 1. 2; 9. 2; 20. 6; 33. 7 sq.; V. Præf. 12. 5; 20. 1.]

[Footnote 40: See Iren. I. 31. 3; II. Præf. 19. 8.]

[Footnote 41: This expression is not found in Irenæus, but is very

common in Tertullian.]

[Footnote 42: See de præscr. 13: "Hæc regula a Christo instituta nullas

habet apud nos quæstiones."]

[Footnote 43: See I. c. 14: "Ceterum manente forma regulæ in suo ordine

quantumlibet quæras et tractes." See de virg. vol. 1.]

[Footnote 44: See 1. c. 14: "Fides in regula posita est, habet legem et

salutem de observatione legis," and de vir. vol. 1.]

[Footnote 45: See de præscr. 21: "Si hæc ita sunt, constat perinde omnem

doctrinam, quæ cum illis ecclesiis apostolicis matricibus et

originalibus fidei conspiret, veritati deputandum ... Superest ergo ut

demonstremus an hæc nostra doctrina, cujus regulam supra edidimus, de

apostolorum traditione censeatur ... Communicamus cum ecclesiis

catholicis, quod nulla doctrina diversa." De præscr. 32: "Ecclesiæ, quæ

licet nullum ex apostolis auctorem suum proferant, ut multo posteriores,

tamen in eadem fide conspirantes non minus apostolicæ deputantur pro

consanguinitate doctrinæ." That Tertullian regards the baptismal

confession as identical with the _regula fidei_, just as Irenæus does,

is shown by the fact that in de spectac. 4 ("Cum aquam ingressi

Christianam fidem in legis suæ verba profitemur, renuntiasse nos diabolo

et pompæ et angelis eius ore nostro contestamur.") the baptismal

confession is the _lex_. He also calls it "sacramentum" (military oath)

in ad mart. 3; de idolol. 6; de corona 11; Scorp. 4. But he likewise

gives the same designation to the interpreted baptismal confession (de

præscr. 20, 32; adv. Marc. IV. 5); for we must regard the passages cited

as referring to this. Adv. Marc. I. 21: "regula sacramenti;" likewise V.

20, a passage specially instructive as to the fact that there can be

only one regula. The baptismal confession itself had a fixed and short

form (see de spectac. 4; de corona, 3: "amplius aliquid respondentes

quam dominus in evangelio determinavit;" de bapt. 2: "homo in aqua

demissus et inter pauca verba tinctus;" de bapt. 6, 11; de orat. 2

etc.). We can still prove that, apart from a subsequent alteration, it

was the Roman confession that was used in Carthage in the days of

Tertullian. In de præscr. 26 Tertullian admits that the Apostles may

have spoken some things "inter domesticos," but declares that they could

not be communications "quæ aliam regulam fidei superducerent."]

[Footnote 46: De præscr. 13; de virg. vol. 1; adv. Prax. 2. The latter

passage is thus worded: "Unicum quidem deum credimus, sub hac tamen

dispensatione quam [Greek: oikonomian] dicimus, ut unici del sit et

filius sermo ipsius, qui ex ipso processerit, per quern omnia facta sunt

et sine quo factum est nihil, hunc missum a patre in virginem et ex ea

natum, hominem et deum, filium hominis et filium dei et cognominatum

Iesum Christum, hunc passum, hunc mortuum et sepultum secundum

scripturas et resuscitatum a patre et in coelo resumptum sedere ad

dextram patris, venturum judicare vivos et mortuos; qui exinde miserit

secundum promissionem suam a patre spiritum s. paracletum

sanctificatorem fidei eorum qui credunt in patrem et filium et spiritum

s. Hanc regulam ab initio evangelii decucurrisse."]

[Footnote 47: De præscr. 13.]

[Footnote 48: L.c.]

[Footnote 49: L.c.]

[Footnote 50: L.c.: "id verbum filium eius appellatum, in nomine dei

varie visum a patriarchis, in prophetis semper auditum, postremo delatum

ex spiritu patris dei et virtute in virginem Mariam, carnem factum,"

etc.]

[Footnote 51: L.c.]

[Footnote 52: Adv. Prax. 2: "Unicum quidem deum credimus, sub hac tamen

dispensatione quam [Greek: oikonomian] dicimus, ut unici dei sit et

filius sermo ipsius," etc.]

[Footnote 53: But Tertullian also knows of a "regula disciplinæ"

(according to the New Testament) on which he puts great value, and

thereby shows that he has by no means forgotten that Christianity is a

matter of conduct. We cannot enter more particularly into this rule

here.]

[Footnote 54: Note here the use of "contesserare" in Tertullian. See de

præscr. 20: "Itaque tot ac tantæ ecclesiæ una est illa ab apostolis

prima, ex qua omnes. Sic omnes prima et omnes apostolicæ, dum una omnes.

Probant unitatem communicatio pacis et appellatio fraternitatis et

_contesseratio_ hospitalitatis, quæ iura non alia ratio regit quam

eiusdem sacramenti una traditio." De præscr. 36: "Videamus, quid

ecclesia Romanensis cum Africanis ecclesiis contesserarit."]

[Footnote 55: We need not here discuss whether and in what way the model

of the philosophic schools was taken as a standard. But we may refer to

the fact that from the middle of the second century the Apologists, that

is the Christian philosophers, had exercised a very great influence on

the Old Catholic Fathers. But we cannot say that 2. John 7-11 and

Didache XI. 1 f. attest the practice to be a very old one. These

passages only show that it had preparatory stages; the main element,

namely, the formulated summary of the faith, is there sought for in

vain.]

[Footnote 56: Herein lay the defect, even if the content of the law of

faith had coincided completely with the earliest tradition. A man like

Tertullian knew how to protect himself in his own way from this defect,

but his attitude is not typical.]

[Footnote 57: Hegesippus, who wrote about the time of Eleutherus, and

was in Rome about the middle of the second century (probably somewhat

earlier than Irenæus), already set up the apostolic rule of faith as a

standard. This is clear from the description of his work in Euseb., H.

E. IV. 8. 2 ([Greek: en pente sungrammasin tên aplanê paradosin tou

apostolikou kêrygmatos hypomnêmatisamenos]) as well as from the

fragments of this work (l.c. IV. 22. 2, 3: [Greek: ho orthos logos] and

§ 5 [Greek: emerisan tên henôsin tês ekklêsias phthorimaiois logois kata

tou theou]; see also § 4). Hegesippus already regarded the unity of the

Church as dependent on the correct doctrine. Polycrates (Euseb., H. E.

V. 24. 6) used the expression [Greek: ho kanôn tês pisteôs] in a very

wide sense. But we may beyond doubt attribute to him the same conception

with regard to the significance of the rule of faith as was held by his

opponent Victor. The Antimontanist (in Euseb. H. E. V. 16. 22.) will

only allow that the martyrs who went to death for the [Greek: kata

alêtheian pistis] were those belonging to the Church. The _regula fidei_

is not here meant, as in this case it was not a subject of dispute. On

the other hand, the anonymous writer in Eusebius, H. E. V. 28. 6, 13

understood by [Greek: to ekklêsiastikon phronêma] or [Greek: ho kanôn

tês archaias pisteôs] the interpreted baptismal confession, just as

Irenæus and Tertullian did. Hippolytus entirely agrees with these (see

Philosoph. Præf., p. 4. v. 50 sq. and X. 32-34). Whether we are to

ascribe the theory of Irenæus to Theophilus is uncertain. His idea of

the Church is that of Irenæus (ad Autol. II. 14): [Greek: dedôken ho

Theos tô kosmô kumainomenô kai cheimazomenô hypo tôn hamartêmatôn tas

synagôgas, legomenas de ekklêsias hagias, en ais kathaper limesin

euormois en nêsois hai didaskaliai tês alêtheias eisin ... Kai hôsper au

nêsoi eisin heterai petrôdeis kai anudroi kai akarpoi kai thêriôdeis kai

aoikêtoi epi blabê tôn pleontôn ... houtôs eisin hai didaskaliai tês

planês, legô de tôn haireseôn, hai exapolluousin tous prosiontas

autais.]]

[Footnote 58: This has been contested by Caspari (Ztschr. f. Kirchl.

Wissensch. 1886, Part. 7, p. 352 ff.: "Did the Alexandrian Church in

Clement's time possess a baptismal confession or not?"); but his

arguments have not convinced me. Caspari correctly shows that in Clement

the expression "ecclesiastical canon" denotes the summary of the

Catholic faith and of the Catholic rule of conduct; but he goes on to

trace the baptismal confession, and that in a fixed form, in the

expression [Greek: hê peri tôn megistôn homologia], Strom. VII. 15. 90

(see remarks on this passage below), and is supported in this view by

Voigt, l.c. p. 196 ff. I also regard this as a baptismal confession; but

it is questionable if it was definitely formulated, and the passage is

not conclusive on the point. But, supposing it to be definitely

formulated, who can prove that it went further than the formula in

Hermas, Mand. I. with the addition of a mere mention of the Son and Holy

Spirit. That a free _kerygma_ of Christ and some other matter were added

to Hermas, Mand. I. may still be proved by a reference to Orig. Comm. in

Joh. XXXII. 9 (see the passage in vol. I. p. 155.).]

[Footnote 59: [Greek: Hê kyriakê didaskalia], e.g., VI. 15. 124; VI. 18.

165; VII. 10. 57; VII. 15. 90; VII. 18. 165, etc.]

[Footnote 60: We do not find in Clement the slightest traces of a

baptismal confession related to the Roman, unless we reckon the [Greek:

Theos pantokratôr] or [Greek: eis Th. p.] as such. But this designation

of God is found everywhere and is not characteristic of the baptismal

confession. In the lost treatise on the Passover Clement expounded the

"[Greek: paradoseis tôn archaiôn presbyterôn]" which had been

transmitted to him.]

[Footnote 61: Considering the importance of the matter it is necessary

to quote as copiously as possible from original sources. In Strom. IV.

15. 98, we find the expression [Greek: ho kanôn teê pisteôs]; but the

context shows that it is used here in a quite general sense. With regard

to the statement of Paul: "whatever you do, do it to the glory of God,"

Clement remarks [Greek: hosa hypo ton kanona tês pisteôs poiein

epitetraptai]. In Strom. I. 19. 96; VI. 15. 125; VI. 18. 165; VII. 7.

41; VII. 15. 90; VII. 16. 105 we find [Greek: ho kanôn tês ekklêsias

(ekklêsiastikos)]. In the first passage that canon is the rule for the

right observance of the Lord's Supper. In the other passages it

describes no doubt the correct doctrine, that is, the rule by which the

orthodox Gnostic has to be guided in contrast with the heretics who are

guided by their own desires (it is therefore parallel to the [Greek:

didaskalia tou kyriou]); but Clement feels absolutely no need to mention

wherein this ecclesiastical canon consists. In Strom IV. 1. 3; VI. 15.

124; VI 15. 131; VII. 16. 94, we find the expression [Greek: ho kanôn

tês alêtheias]. In the first passage it is said: [Greek: hê goun kata

ton tês alêtheias kanona gnôstikês paradoseôs physiologia, mallon de

epopteia, ek tou peri kosmogonias êrtêtai logou, enthende anabainousa

epi to theologikon eidos]. Here no one can understand by the rule of

truth what Tertullian understood by it. Very instructive is the second

passage in which Clement is dealing with the right and wrong exposition

of Scripture. He says first: [Greek: parakatathêke apodidomenê Theô hê

kata tên tou kyriou didaskalian dia tôn apostolôn autou tês theosebous

paradoseôs synesis te kai synaskêsis]; then he demands that the

Scriptures be interpreted [Greek: kata ton tês alêtheias kanona], or

[Greek: t. ekklês. kan.]; and continues (125): [Greek: kanôn de

ekklêsiastikos hê synôdia kai hê symphônia nomou te kai prophêtôn tê

kata tên tou kyriou parousian paradidomenê diathêkê]. Here then the

agreement of the Old Testament with the Testament of Christ is described

as the ecclesiastical canon. Apart from the question as to whether

Clement is here already referring to a New Testament canon of Scripture,

his rule agrees with Tertullian's testimony about the Roman Church:

"legem et prophetas cum evangelicis et apostolicis litteris miscet." But

at any rate the passage shows the broad sense in which Clement used the

term "ecclesiastical canon." The following expressions are also found in

Clement: [Greek: hê alêthes tês makarias didaskalias paradosis] (I. 1.

11), [Greek: hai hagiai paradoseis] (VII. 18. 110), [Greek: hê eukleês

kai semnos tês paradoseôs kanôn] (all gnosis is to be guided by this,

see also [Greek: hê kata tên theian paradosin philosophia], I, 1. 15. I:

11. 52., also the expression [Greek: hê theia paradosis] (VII. 16. 103),

[Greek: hê ekklêsiastike paradosis] (VII. 16. 95), [Greek: hai tou

Christou paradoseis] (VII. 16. 99), [Greek: hê tou kyriou paradosis]

(VII. 17. 106: VII. 16. 104), [Greek: hê theosebês paradosis] (VI. 15.

124)). Its content is not more precisely defined, and, as a rule, nothing

more can be gathered from the context than what Clement once calls

[Greek: to koinon tês pisteôs] (VII. 16. 97). Where Clement wishes to

determine the content more accurately he makes use of supplementary

terms. He speaks, e.g., in III. 10. 66 of the [Greek: kata alêtheian

euangelikos kanôn], and means by that the tradition contained in the

Gospels recognised by the Church in contradistinction to that found in

other gospels (IV. 4. 15: [Greek: kata ton kanona tou euangeliou] =

[Greek: kata t. euang.]). In none of these formulæ is any notice taken

of the Apostles. That Clement (like Justin) traced back the public

tradition to the Apostles is a matter of course and manifest from I. 1.

11, where he gives an account of his early teachers ([Greek: hoi men tên

alêthê tês makarias sôzontes didaskalias paradosin euthus apo Petrou te

kai Iakôbou, Iôannou te kai Paulou tôn hagiôn apostolôn, tais para

patros ekdechomenos hêkon dê syn theô kai eis hêmas ta progonika ekeina

kai apostolika katathêsomenoi spermata]). Clement does not yet appeal to

a hierarchical tradition through the bishops, but adheres to the natural

one through the teachers, though he indeed admits an esoteric tradition

alongside of it. On one occasion he also says that the true Gnostic

keeps the [Greek: apostolikê kai ekklêsiastikê orthotomia tôn dogmatôn]

(VII. 16. 104). He has no doubt that: [Greek: mia hê pantôn gegone tôn

apostolôn hôsper didaskalia houtôs de kai hê paradosis] (VII. 17. 108).

But all that might just as well have been written in the first half of

the second century. On the tracing back of the Gnosis, the esoteric

tradition, to the Apostles see Hypotyp. in Euseb., H. E. II. 1. 4,

Strom. VI. 15. 131: [Greek: autika didaxantos tou sôtêros tous

apostolous hê tês engraphou agraphos êdê kai eis hêmas diadidotai

paradosis]. VI. 7. 61: [Greek: hê gnôsis de autê hê kata diadochas]

(this is the only place where I find this expression) [Greek: eis

oligous ek tôn apostolôn agraphôs paradotheisa katelêluthen], ibid

[Greek: hê gnôstikê paradosis]; VII. 10. 55: [Greek: hê gnôsis ek

paradoseôs diadidomenê tois axious sphas autous tês didaskalias

parechomenois oion parakatathêkê egcheirizetai]. In VII. 17. 106 Clement

has briefly recorded the theories of the Gnostic heretics with regard to

the apostolic origin of their teaching, and expressed his doubts. That

the tradition of the "Old Church," for so Clement designates the

orthodox Church as distinguished from the "human congregation" of the

heretics of his day, is throughout derived from the Apostles, he regards

as so certain and self-evident that, as a rule, he never specially

mentions it, or gives prominence to any particular article as apostolic.

But the conclusion that he had no knowledge of any apostolic or fixed

confession might seem to be disproved by one passage. It is said in

Strom. VII. 15. 90: [Greek: Mê ti oun, ei kai parabaiê tis synthêkas kai

tên homologian parelthoi tên pros hêmas, dia ton pseusamenon tên

homologian aphexometha tês alêtheias kai hêmeis, all' hôs apseudein chrê

ton epieikê kai mêden hôn hupeschêtai akuroun kan alloi tines

parabainôsi synthêkas, outôs kai hêmas kata mêdena tropon ton

ekklêsiastikon parabainein prosekei kanona kai malista tên peri tôn

megistôn homologian hêmeis men phylattomen, oi de parabainousi]. But in

the other passages in Clement where [Greek: homologia] appears it

nowhere signifies a fixed formula of confession, but always the

confession in general which receives its content according to the

situation (see Strom. IV. 4. 15; IV. 9. 71; III. 1. 4: [Greek: egkrateia

sômatos hyperopsia kata tên pros theon homologian]). In the passage

quoted it means the confession of the main points of the true doctrine.

It is possible or probable that Clement was here alluding to a

confession at baptism, but that is also not quite certain. At any rate

this one passage cannot prove that Clement identified the ecclesiastical

canon with a formulated confession similar to or identical with the

Roman, or else such identification must have appeared more frequently in

his works.]

[Footnote 62: De princip. l. I. præf. § 4-10., IV. 2. 2. Yet we must

consider the passage already twice quoted, namely, Com. in John. XXXII.

9, in order to determine the practice of the Alexandrian Church at that

time. Was this baptismal confession not perhaps compiled from Herm.,

Mand. I., and Christological and theological teachings, so that the

later confessions of the East with their dogmatic details are already to

be found here?]

[Footnote 63: That may be also shown with regard to the New Testament

canon. Very important is the declaration of Eusebius (H. E. VI. 14) that

Origen, on his own testimony, paid a brief visit to Rome in the time of

Zephyrinus, "because he wished to become acquainted with the ancient

Church of the Romans." We learn from Jerome (de vir. inl. 61) that

Origen there became acquainted with Hippolytus, who even called

attention to his presence in the church in a sermon. That Origen kept up

a connection with Rome still later and followed the conflicts there with

keen interest may be gathered from his works. (See Döllinger,

"Hippolytus und Calixtus" p. 254 ff.) On the other hand, Clement was

quite unacquainted with that city. Bigg therefore l.c. rightly remarks:

"The West is as unknown to Clement as it was to his favourite Homer."

That there was a formulated [Greek: pistis kai homologia] in Alexandria

about 250 A.D. is shown by the epistle of Dionysius (Euseb., H. E. VII.

8). He says of Novatian, [Greek: anatrepei tên pro loutrou pistin kai

homologian]. Dionysius would hardly have reproduced this Roman reproach

in that way, if the Alexandrian Church had not possessed a similar

[Greek: pistis].]

[Footnote 64: The original of the Apostolic Constitutions has as yet no

knowledge of the Apostolic rule of faith in the Western sense.]

[Footnote 65: The close of the first homily of Aphraates shows how

simple, antique, and original this confession still was in outlying

districts at the beginning of the fourth century. On the other hand,

there were oriental communities where it was already heavily weighted

with theology.]

[Footnote 66: Cf. the epistles of Cyprian, especially ep. 69. 70. When

Cyprian speaks (69. 7) of one and the same law which is held by the

whole Catholic Church, and of one _symbol_ with which she administers

baptism (this is the first time we meet with this expression), his words

mean far more than the assertion of Irenæus that the confession

expounded by him is the guiding rule in all Churches; for in Cyprian's

time the intercourse of most Catholic communities with each other was so

regulated that the state of things in each was to some extent really

known. Cf. also Novatian, "de trinitate seu de regula fidei," as well as

the circular letter of the Synod of Antioch referring to the

Metropolitan Paul (Euseb., H. E. VII. 30. 6 ... [Greek: apostas tou

kanonos epi kibdêla kai notha didagmata metelêluthen]), and the homilies

of Aphraates. The closer examination of the last phase in the

development of the confession of faith during this epoch, when the

apostolic confessions received an interpretation in accordance with the

theology of Origen, will be more conveniently left over till the close

of our description (see chap. 7 fin).]

[Footnote 67: See the histories of the canon by Credner, Reuss,

Westcott, Hilgenfeld, Schmiedel, Holtzmann, and Weiss; the latter two,

which to some extent supplement each other, are specially instructive.

To Weiss belongs the merit of having kept Gospels and Apostles clearly

apart in the preliminary history of the canon (see Th. L. Z. 1886. Nr.

24); Zahn, Gesch. des N. Tlichen Kanons, 2 vols, 1888 ff.; Harnack, Das

Neue Test. um d. J. 200, 1889; Voigt, Eine verschollene Urkunde des

antimontan. Kampfes, 1891, p. 236 ff.; Weizsäcker, Rede bei der akad.

Preisvertheilung, 1892. Nov.; Köppel, Stud. u. Krit. 1891, p. 102 ff;

Barth, Neue Jahrbb. f. deutsche Theologie, 1893, p. 56 ff. The following

account gives only a few aspects of the case, not a history of the

genesis of the canon.]

[Footnote 68: "Holy" is not always equivalent to "possessing absolute

authority." There are also various stages and degrees of "holy."]

[Footnote 69: I beg here to lay down the following principles as to

criticism of the New Testament. (1) It is not individual writings, but

the whole book that has been immediately handed down to us. Hence, in

the case of difficulties arising, we must first of all enquire, not

whether the title and historical setting of a book are genuine or not,

but if they are original, or were only given to the work when it became

a component part of the collection. This also gives us the right to

assume interpolations in the text belonging to the time when it was

included in the canon, though this right must be used with caution. (2)

Baur's "tendency-criticism" has fallen into disrepute; hence we must

also free ourselves from the pedantry and hair-splitting which were its

after effects. In consequence of the (erroneous) assumptions of the

Tübingen school of critics a suspicious examination of the texts was

justifiable and obligatory on their part. (3) Individual difficulties

about the date of a document ought not to have the result of casting

suspicion on it, when other good grounds speak in its favour; for, in

dealing with writings which have no, or almost no accompanying

literature, such difficulties cannot fail to arise. (4) The condition of

the oldest Christianity up to the beginning of the second century did

not favour literary forgeries or interpolations in support of a definite

tendency. (5) We must remember that, from the death of Nero till the

time of Trajan, very little is known of the history of the Church except

the fact that, by the end of this time, Christianity had not only spread

to an astonishing extent, but also had become vigorously consolidated.]

[Footnote 70: The novelty lies first in the idea itself, secondly in the

form in which it was worked out, inasmuch as Marcion would only admit

the authority of one Gospel to the exclusion of all the rest, and added

the Pauline epistles which had originally little to do with the

conception of the apostolic doctrinal tradition of the Church.]

[Footnote 71: It is easy to understand that, wherever there was

criticism of the Old Testament, the Pauline epistles circulating in the

Church would be thrust into the foreground. The same thing was done by

the Manichæans in the Byzantine age.]

[Footnote 72: Four passages may be chiefly appealed to in support of the

opposite view, viz., 2 Peter III. 16; Polycarp ep. 12. 1; Barn. IV. 14;

2 Clem. II. 4. But the first is put out of court, as the second Epistle

of Peter is quite a late writing. The second is only known from an

unreliable Latin translation (see Zahn on the passage: "verba 'his

scripturis' suspecta sunt, cum interpres in c. II. 3 ex suis inseruerit

quod dictum est"), and even if the latter were faithful here, the

quotation from the Psalms prefixed to the quotation from the Epistle to

the Ephesians prevents us from treating the passage as certain evidence.

As to the third passage ([Greek: mêpote, hôs gegraptai, polloi klêtoi,

oligoi de eklektoi heurethômen]), it should be noted that the author of

the Epistle of Barnabas, although he makes abundant use of the evangelic

tradition, has nowhere else described evangelic writings as [Greek:

graphê], and must have drawn from more sources than the canonic Gospels.

Here, therefore, we have an enigma which may be solved in a variety of

ways. It seems worth noting that it is a saying of the Lord which is

here in question. But from the very beginning words of the Lord were

equally reverenced with the Old Testament (see the Pauline Epistles).

This may perhaps explain how the author--like 2 Clem. II. 4: [Greek:

hetera de graphê legei hoti ouk êlthon kalesai dikaious alla

hamartôlous]--has introduced a saying of this kind with the same formula

as was used in introducing Old Testament quotations. Passages, such as

Clem. XIII. 4: [Greek: legei ho theos: ou charis humin ei agapate

k.t.l.] would mark the transition to this mode of expression. The

correctness of this explanation is confirmed by observation of the fact

that the same formula as was employed in the case of the Old Testament

was used in making quotations from early Christian apocalypses, or

utterances of early Christian prophets in the earliest period. Thus we

already read in Ephesians V. 14: [Greek: dio legei: egeire ho katheudôn

kai anasta ek tôn nekrôn kai epiphausei soi ho Christos]. That,

certainly, is a saying of a Christian prophet, and yet it is introduced

with the usual "[Greek: legei]". We also find a saying of a Christian

prophet in Clem. XXIII. (the saying is more complete in 2 Clem. XI.)

introduced with the words: [Greek: hê graphê hautê, hopou legei]. These

examples may be multiplied still further. From all this we may perhaps

assume that the trite formulæ of quotation "[Greek: graphê], [Greek:

gegraptai]," etc., were applied wherever reference was made to sayings

of the Lord and of prophets that were fixed in writings, even when the

documents in question had not yet as a whole obtained canonical

authority. Finally, we must also draw attention to the following:--The

Epistle of Barnabas belongs to Egypt; and there probably, contrary to my

former opinion, we must also look for the author of the second Epistle

of Clement. There is much to favour the view that in Egypt _Christian_

writings were treated as sacred texts, without being united into a

collection of equal rank with the Old Testament. (See below on this

point.)]

[Footnote 73: See on Justin Bousset. Die Evv.-Citate Justins. Gott.,

1891. We may also infer from the expression of Hegesippus (Euseb., H. E.

IV. 22. 3; Stephanus Gobarus in Photius, Bibl. 232. p. 288) that it was

not Christian writings, but the Lord himself, who was placed on an

equality with Law and Prophets. Very instructive is the formula: "Libri

et epistolæ Pauli viri iusti" ([Greek: hai kath' hêmas bibloi kai hai

prosepitoutois epistolai Paulou tou hosiou andros]), which is found in

the Acta Mart. Scillit. anno 180 (ed. Robinson, Texts and Studies, 1891,

I. 2, p. 114 f.), and tempts us to make certain conclusions. In the

later recensions of the Acta the passage, characteristically enough, is

worded: "Libri evangeliorum et epistolæ Pauli viri sanctissimi apostoli"

or "Quattuor evv. dom. nostri J. Chr. et epp. S. Pauli ap. et omnis

divinitus inspirata scriptura."]

[Footnote 74: It is worthy of note that the Gnostics also, though they

quote the words of the Apostles (John and Paul) as authoritative, place

the utterances of the Lord on an unattainable height. See in support of

this the epistle of Ptolemy to Flora.]

[Footnote 75: Rev. I. 3; Herm. Vis. II. 4; Dionys. Cor. in Euseb., IV.

23. 11.]

[Footnote 76: Tertullian, this Christian of the primitive type, still

reveals the old conception of things in one passage where, reversing 2

Tim. III. 16, he says (de cultu fem. I. 3) "Legimus omnem scripturam

ædificationi habilem divinitus inspirari."]

[Footnote 77: The history of the collection of the Pauline Epistles may

be traced back to the first century (1 Clem. XLVII. and like passages).

It follows from the Epistle of Polycarp that this native of Asia Minor

had in his hands all the Pauline Epistles (quotations are made from nine

of the latter; these nine imply the four that are wanting, yet it must

remain an open question whether he did not yet possess the Pastoral

Epistles in their present form), also 1 Peter, 1 John (though he has not

named the authors of these), the first Epistle of Clement and the

Gospels. The extent of the writings read in churches which Polycarp is

thus seen to have had approaches pretty nearly that of the later

recognised canon. Compare, however, the way in which he assumes sayings

from those writings to be well known by introducing them with "[Greek:

eidotes]" (I. 3; IV. 1; V. 1). Ignatius likewise shows himself to be

familiar with the writings which were subsequently united to form the

New Testament. We see from the works of Clement, that, at the end of the

second century, a great mass of Christian writings were collected in

Alexandria and were used and honoured.]

[Footnote 78: It should also be pointed out that Justin most probably

used the Gospel of Peter among the [Greek: apomnêmoneumata]; see Texte

u. Unters. IX. 2.]

[Footnote 79: See my article in the Zeitschr. f. K. Gesch. Vol. IV. p.

471 ff. Zahn (Tatian's Diatessaron, 1881) takes a different view.]

[Footnote 80: Justin also used the Gospel of John, but it is a disputed

matter whether he regarded and used it like the other Gospels.]

[Footnote 81: The Sabellians still used it in the third century, which

is a proof of the great authority possessed by this Gospel in Christian

antiquity. (Epiph., H. 62. 2.)]

[Footnote 82: Euseb. H. E. IV. 29. 5.]

[Footnote 83: In many regions the Gospel canon alone appeared at first,

and in very many others it long occupied a more prominent place than the

other canonical writings. Alexander of Alexandria, for instance, still

calls God the giver of the Law, the Prophets, and the Gospels

(Theodoret, I. 4).]

[Footnote 84: Euseb., H. E. II. 26. 13. As Melito speaks here of the

[Greek: akribeia tôn palaiôn bibliôn], and of [Greek: ta biblia tês

palaias diathêkês], we may assume that he knows [Greek: ta biblia tês

kainês diathêkês].]

[Footnote 85: We may here leave undiscussed the hesitancy with regard to

the admissibility of particular books. That the Pastoral Epistles had a

fixed place in the canon almost from the very first is of itself a proof

that the date of its origin cannot be long before 180. In connection

with this, however, it is an important circumstance that Clement makes

the general statement that the heretics reject the Epistles to Timothy

(Strom. II. 12. 52: [Greek: hoi apo tôn haireseôn tas pros Timotheon

athetousin epistolas]). They did not happen to be at the disposal of the

Church at all till the middle of the second century.]

[Footnote 86: Yet see the passage from Tertullian quoted, p. 15, note 1;

see also the "receptior," de pudic. 20, the cause of the rejection of

Hermas in the Muratorian Fragment and Tertull. de bapt. 17: "Quodsi quæ

Pauli perperam scripta sunt exemplum Theclæ ad licentiam mulierum

docendi tinguendique defendunt, sciant in Asia presbyterum, qui eam

scripturam construxit, quasi titulo Pauli de suo cumulans, convictum

atque confessum id se amore Pauli fecisse, loco decessisse." The

hypothesis that the Apostles themselves (or the apostle John) compiled

the New Testament was definitely set up by no one in antiquity and

therefore need not be discussed. Augustine (c. Faustum XXII. 79) speaks

frankly of "sancti et docti homines" who produced the New Testament. We

can prove by a series of testimonies that the idea of the Church having

compiled the New Testament writings was in no way offensive to the Old

Catholic Fathers. As a rule, indeed, they are silent on the matter.

Irenæus and Tertullian already treat the collection as simply existent.]

[Footnote 87: Numerous examples may be found in proof of all these

points, especially in the writings of Tertullian, though such are

already to be met with in Irenæus also. He is not yet so bold in his

allegorical exposition of the Gospels as Ptolemæus whom he finds fault

with in this respect; but he already gives an exegesis of the books of

the New Testament not essentially different from that of the

Valentinians. One should above all read the treatise of Tertullian "de

idololatria" to perceive how the authority of the New Testament was even

by that time used for solving all questions.]

[Footnote 88: I cannot here enter into the disputed question as to the

position that should be assigned to the Muratorian Fragment in the

history of the formation of the canon, nor into its interpretation, etc.

See my article "Das Muratorische Fragment und die Entstehung einer

Sammlung apostolisch-katholischer Schriften" in the Ztschr. f. K. Gesch.

III. p. 358 ff. See also Overbeck, Zur Geschichte des Kanons, 1880;

Hilgenfeld, in the Zeitschrift f. Wissensch. Theol. 1881, part 2;

Schmiedel, Art. "Kanon" in Ersch. u. Gruber's Encykl., 2 Section, Vol.

XXXII. p. 309 ff.; Zahn, Kanongeschichte, Vol. II. p. 1 ff. I leave the

fragment and the conclusions I have drawn from it almost entirely out of

account here. The following sketch will show that the objections of

Overbeck have not been without influence on me.]

[Footnote 89: The use of the word "canon" as a designation of the

collection is first plainly demonstrable in Athanasius (ep. fest. of the

year 365) and in the 59th canon of the synod of Laodicea. It is doubtful

whether the term was already used by Origen. Besides, the word "canon"

was not applied even to the Old Testament before the fourth century. The

name "New Testament" (books of the New Testament) is first found in

Melito and Tertullian. For other designations of the latter see Ronsch,

Das N. T. Tertullian's p. 47 f. The most common name is "Holy

Scriptures." In accordance with its main components the collection is

designated as [Greek: to euangelion kai ho apostolos] (evangelicæ et

apostolicæ litteræ); see Tertullian, de bapt. 15: "tam ex domini

evangelio quam ex apostoli litteris." The name "writings of the Lord" is

also found very early. It was already used for the Gospels at a time

when there was no such thing as a canon. It was then occasionally

transferred to all writings of the collection. Conversely, the entire

collection was named, after the authors, a collection of apostolic

writings, just as the Old Testament Scriptures were collectively called

the writings of the prophets. Prophets and Apostles (= Old and New

Testament) were now conceived as the media of God's revelation fixed in

writing (see the Muratorian Fragment in its account of Hermas, and the

designation of the Gospels as "Apostolic memoirs" already found in

Justin.) This grouping became exceedingly important. It occasioned new

speculations about the unique dignity of the Apostles and did away with

the old collocation of Apostles and Prophets (that is Christian

prophets). By this alteration we may measure the revolution of the

times. Finally, the new collection was also called "the writings of the

Church" as distinguished from the Old Testament and the writings of the

heretics. This expression and its amplifications shew that it was the

Church which selected these writings.]

[Footnote 90: Here there is a distinction between Irenæus and

Tertullian. The former disputed with heretics about the interpretation

of the Scriptures, the latter, although he has read Irenæus, forbids

such dispute. He cannot therefore have considered Irenæus' efforts as

successful.]

[Footnote 91: The reader should remember the different recensions of the

Gospels and the complaints made by Dionysius of Corinth (in Euseb., H.

E. IV. 23. 12).]

[Footnote 92: That the text of these writings was at the same time

revised is more than probable, especially in view of the beginnings and

endings of many New Testament writings, as well as, in the case of the

Gospels, from a comparison of the canon text with the quotations dating

from the time when there was no canon. But much more important still is

the perception of the fact that, in the course of the second century, a

series of writings which had originally been circulated anonymously or

under the name of an unknown author were ascribed to an Apostle and were

also slightly altered in accordance with this. In what circumstances or

at what time this happened, whether it took place as early as the

beginning of the second century or only immediately before the formation

of the canon, is in almost every individual case involved in obscurity,

but the fact itself, of which unfortunately the Introductions to the New

Testament still know so little, is, in my opinion, incontestable. I

refer the reader to the following examples, without indeed being able to

enter on the proof here (see my edition of the "Teaching of the

Apostles" p. 106 ff). (1) The Gospel of Luke seems not to have been

known to Marcion under this name, and to have been called so only at a

later date. (2) The canonical Gospels of Matthew and Mark do not claim,

through their content, to originate with these men; they were regarded

as apostolic at a later period. (3) The so-called Epistle of Barnabas

was first attributed to the Apostle Barnabas by tradition. (4) The

Apocalypse of Hermas was first connected with an apostolic Hermas by

tradition (Rom. XVI. 14). (5) The same thing took place with regard to

the first Epistle of Clement (Philipp, IV. 3). (6) The Epistle to the

Hebrews, originally the writing of an unknown author or of Barnabas, was

transformed into a writing of the Apostle Paul (Overbeck zur Gesch. des

Kanons, 1880), or given out to be such. (7) The Epistle of James,

originally the communication of an early Christian prophet, or a

collection of ancient holy addresses, first seems to have received the

name of James in tradition. (8) The first Epistle of Peter, which

originally appears to have been written by an unknown follower of Paul,

first received its present name from tradition. The same thing perhaps

holds good of the Epistle of Jude. Tradition was similarly at work, even

at a later period, as may for example be recognised by the

transformation of the epistle "de virginitate" into two writings by

Clement. The critics of early Christian literature have created for

themselves insoluble problems by misunderstanding the work of tradition.

Instead of asking whether the tradition is reliable, they always wrestle

with the dilemma "genuine or spurious", and can prove neither.]

[Footnote 93: As regards its aim and contents, this book is furthest

removed from the claim to be a portion of a collection of Holy

Scriptures. Accordingly, so far as we know, its reception into the canon

has no preliminary history.]

[Footnote 94: People were compelled by internal and external evidence

(recognition of their apostolicity; example of the Gnostics) to accept

the epistles of Paul. But, from the Catholic point of view, a canon

which comprised only the four Gospels and the Pauline Epistles, would

have been at best an edifice of two wings without the central structure,

and therefore incomplete and uninhabitable. The actual novelty was the

bold insertion into its midst of a book, which, if everything is not

deceptive, had formerly been only in private use, namely, the Acts of

the Apostles, which some associated with an Epistle of Peter and an

Epistle of John, others with an Epistle of Jude, two Epistles of John,

and the like. There were now (1) writings of the Lord which were at the

same time regarded as [Greek: apomnêmoneumata] of definite Apostles; (2)

a book which contained the acts and preaching of all the Apostles, which

historically legitimised Paul, and at the same time gave hints for the

explanation of "difficult" passages in his Epistle; (3) the Pauline

Epistles increased by the compilation of the Pastoral ones, documents

which "in ordinatione ecclesiasticæ disciplinæ sanctificatæ erant." The

Acts of the Apostles is thus the key to the understanding of the

Catholic canon and at the same time shows its novelty. In this book the

new collection had its bond of cohesion, its Catholic element (apostolic

tradition), and the guide for its exposition. That the Acts of the

Apostles found its place in the canon _faute de mieux_ is clear from the

extravagant terms, not at all suited to the book, in which its

appearance there is immediately hailed. It is inserted in place of a

book which should have contained the teaching and missionary acts of all

the 12 Apostles; but, as it happened, such a record was not in

existence. The first evidence regarding it is found in the Muratorian

fragment and in Irenæus and Tertullian. There it is called "acta omnium

apostolorum sub uno libro scripta sunt, etc." Irenæus says (III. 14. 1):

"Lucas non solum prosecutor sed et cooperarius fuit _Apostolorum_,

maxime autem Pauli," and makes use of the book to prove the

subordination of Paul to the twelve. In the celebrated passages, de

præscr. 22, 23: adv. Marc. I. 20; IV. 2-5; V. 1-3, Tertullian made a

still more extensive use of the Acts of the Apostles, as the

Antimarcionite book in the canon. One can see here why it was admitted

into that collection and used against Paul as the Apostle of the

heretics. The fundamental thought of Tertullian is that no one who fails

to recognise the Acts of the Apostles has any right to recognise Paul,

and that to elevate him by himself into a position of authority is

unhistorical and absolutely unfounded fanaticism. If the [Greek: didachê

tôn dôdeka apostolôn] was needed as an authority in the earlier time, a

_book_ which contained that authority was required in the later period;

and nothing else could be found than the work of the so-called Luke.

"Qui Acta Apostolorum non recipiunt, nec spiritus sancti esse possunt,

qui necdum spiritum sanctum possunt agnoscere discentibus missum, sed

nec ecclesiam se dicant defendere qui quando et quibus incunabulis

institutum est hoc corpus probare non habent." But the greater part of

the heretics remained obstinate. Neither Marcionites, Severians, nor the

later Manicheans recognised the Acts of the Apostles. To some extent

they replied by setting up other histories of Apostles in opposition to

it, as was done later by a fraction of the Ebionites and even by the

Marcionites. But the Church also was firm. It is perhaps the most

striking phenomenon in the history of the formation of the canon that

this late book, from the very moment of its appearance, asserts its

right to a place in the collection, just as certainly as the four

Gospels, though its position varied. In Clement of Alexandria indeed the

book is still pretty much in the background, perhaps on a level with the

[Greek: kêrugma Petrou], but Clement has no New Testament at all in the

strict sense of the word; see below. But at the very beginning the book

stood where it is to-day, i.e., immediately after the Gospels (see

Muratorian Fragment, Irenæus, etc.). The parallel creation, the group of

Catholic Epistles, acquired a much more dubious position than the Acts

of the Apostles, and its place was never really settled. Its germ is

probably to be found in two Epistles of John (viz., 1st and 3rd) which

acquired dignity along with the Gospel, as well as in the Epistle of

Jude. These may have given the impulse to create a group of narratives

about the twelve Apostles from anonymous writings of old Apostles,

prophets, and teachers. But the Epistle of Peter is still wanting in the

Muratorian Fragment, nor do we yet find the group there associated with

the Acts of the Apostles. The Epistle of Jude, two Epistles of John, the

Wisdom of Solomon, the Apocalypse of John and that of Peter form the

unsymmetrical conclusion of this oldest catalogue of the canon. But, all

the same writings, by Jude, John, and Peter are here found side by side;

thus we have a preparation for the future arrangement made in different

though similar fashion by Irenæus and again altered by Tertullian. The

genuine Pauline Epistles appear enclosed on the one hand by the Acts of

the Apostles and the Catholic Epistles, and on the other by the Pastoral

ones, which in their way are also "Catholic." That is the character of

the "Catholic" New Testament which is confirmed by the earliest use of

it (in Irenæus and Tertullian). In speaking above of the Acts of the

Apostles as a late book, we meant that it was so relatively to the

canon. In itself the book is old and for the most part reliable.]

[Footnote 95: There is no doubt that this was the reason why to all

appearance the innovation was scarcely felt. Similar causes were at work

here as in the case of the apostolic rule of faith. In the one case the

writings that had long been read in the Church formed the basis, in the

other the baptismal confession. But a great distinction is found in the

fact that the baptismal confession, as already settled, afforded an

elastic standard which was treated as a fixed one and was therefore

extremely practical; whilst, conversely, the undefined group of writings

hitherto read in the Church was reduced to a collection which could

neither be increased nor diminished.]

[Footnote 96: At the beginning, that is about 180, it was only in

practice, and not in theory, that the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles

possessed equal authority. Moreover, the name New Testament is not yet

found in Irenæus, nor do we yet find him giving an exact idea of its

content. See Werner in the Text. u. Unters. z. altchristl. Lit. Gesch.

Bd. VI. 2.]

[Footnote 97: See above, p. 40, note 2.]

[Footnote 98: We have ample evidence in the great work of Irenæus as to

the difficulties he found in many passages of the Pauline Epistles,

which as yet were almost solely utilised as sources of doctrine by such

men as Marcion, Tatian, and theologians of the school of Valentinus. The

difficulties of course still continued to be felt in the period which

followed. (See, e.g., Method, Conviv. Orat. III. 1, 2.)]

[Footnote 99: Apollinaris of Hierapolis already regards any

contradiction between the (4) Gospels as impossible. (See Routh, Reliq.

Sacr. I. p. 150.)]

[Footnote 100: See Overbeck, "Ueber die Auffassung des Streites des

Paulus mit Petrus in Antiochien bei den Kirchenvätern," 1877, p. 8.]

[Footnote 101: See also Clement Strom. IV. 21. 124; VI. 15. 125. The

expression is also frequent in Origen, e.g., de princip. præf. 4.]

[Footnote 102: The Roman Church in her letter to that of Corinth

designates her own words as the words of God (1 Clem. LIX. 1) and

therefore requires obedience "[Greek: tois huph' hêmôn gegrammenois dia

tou hagiou pneumatos]" (LXIII. 2).]

[Footnote 103: Tertull. de exhort. 4: "Spiritum quidem dei etiam fideles

habent, sed non omnes fideles apostoli ... Proprie enim apostoli

spiritum sanctum habent, qui plene habent in operibus prophetiæ et

efficacia virtutum documentisque linguarum, non ex parte, quod ceteri."

Clem. Alex. Strom. IV. 21. 135: [Greek: Hekastos idion echei charisma

apo theou, ho men houtôs, ho de houtôs, hoi apostoloi de en pasi

peplêromenoi]; Serapion in Euseb., H. E. VI. 12. 3: [Greek: hêmeis kai

ton Petron kai tous allous apostolous apodechometha hôs Christon]. The

success of the canon here referred to was an undoubted blessing, for, as

the result of enthusiasm, Christianity was menaced with complete

corruption, and things and ideas, no matter how alien to its spirit,

were able to obtain a lodgment under its protection. The removal of this

danger, which was in some measure averted by the canon, was indeed

coupled with great disadvantages, inasmuch as believers were referred in

legal fashion to a new book, and the writings contained in it were at

first completely obscured by the assumption that they were inspired and

by the requirement of an "expositio legitima."]

[Footnote 104: See Tertull., de virg. vol. 4, de resurr. 24, de ieiun.

15, de pudic. 12. Sufficiency is above all included in the concept

"inspiration" (see for ex. Tertull., de monog. 4: "Negat scriptura quod

non notat"), and the same measure of authority belongs to all parts (see

Iren., IV. 28. 3. "Nihil vacuum neque sine signo apud deum").]

[Footnote 105: The direct designation "prophets" was, however, as a

rule, avoided. The conflict with Montanism made it expedient to refrain

from this name; but see Tertullian, adv. Marc. IV. 24: "Tam apostolus

Moyses, quam et apostoli prophetæ."]

[Footnote 106: Compare also what the author of the Muratorian Fragment

says in the passage about the Shepherd of Hermas.]

[Footnote 107: This caused the most decisive breach with tradition, and

the estimate to be formed of the Apocalypses must at first have remained

an open question. Their fate was long undecided in the West; but it was

very soon settled that they could have no claim to public recognition in

the Church, because their authors had not that fulness of the Spirit

which belongs to the Apostles alone.]

[Footnote 108: The disputed question as to whether all the acknowledged

apostolic writings were regarded as canonical must be answered in the

affirmative in reference to Irenæus and Tertullian, who conversely

regarded no book as canonical unless written by the Apostles. On the

other hand, it appears to me that no certain opinion on this point can

be got from the Muratorian Fragment. In the end the Gospel, Acts,

Kerygma, and Apocalypse of Peter as well as the Acts of Paul were

rejected, a proceeding which was at the same time a declaration that

they were spurious. But these three witnesses agree (see also App.

Constit. VI. 16) that the apostolic _regula fidei_ is practically the

final court of appeal, inasmuch as it decides whether a writing is

really apostolic or not, and inasmuch as, according to Tertullian, the

apostolic writings belong to the Church alone, because she alone

possesses the apostolic _regula_ (de præscr. 37 ff.). The _regula_ of

course does not legitimise those writings, but only proves that they are

authentic and do not belong to the heretics. These witnesses also agree

that a Christian writing has no claim to be received into the canon

merely on account of its prophetic form. On looking at the matter more

closely, we see that the view of the early Church, as opposed to

Montanism, led to the paradox that the Apostles were prophets in the

sense of being inspired by the Spirit, but that they were not so in the

strict sense of the word.]

[Footnote 109: The fragment of Serapion's letter given in Eusebius owes

its interest to the fact that it not only shows the progress made at

this time with the formation of the canon at Antioch, but also what

still remained to be done.]

[Footnote 110: See my essay "Theophilus v. Antiochien und das N. T." in

the Ztschr. f. K. Gesch. XI. p. 1 ff.]

[Footnote 111: The most important passages are Autol. II. 9. 22: [Greek:

hothen didaskousin hêmas hai hagiai graphai kai pantes hoi

pneumatophoroi, ex hôn Iôannaes legei k.t.l.] (follows John I. 1) III.

12: [Greek: kai peri dikaiosunês, hês ho nomos eirêken, akoloutha

heurisketai kai ta tôn prophêtôn kai tôn euangeliôn echein, dia to tous

pantas pneumatophorous heni pneumati theou lelalêkenai]; III. 13:

[Greek: ho hagios logos--hê euangelios phônê].; III. 14: [Greek:

Êsaias--to de euangelion--ho theios logos]. The latter formula is not a

quotation of Epistles of Paul viewed as canonical, but of a divine

command found in the Old Testament and given in Pauline form. It is

specially worthy of note that the original of the six books of the

Apostolic Constitutions, written in Syria and belonging to the second

half of the third century, knows yet of no New Testament. In addition to

the Old Testament it has no authority but the "Gospel."]

[Footnote 112: There has as yet been no sufficient investigation of the

New Testament of Clement. The information given by Volkmar in Credner's

Gesch. d. N. Tlichen Kanon, p. 382 ff., is not sufficient. The space at

the disposal of this manual prevents me from establishing the results of

my studies on this point. Let me at least refer to some important

passages which I have collected. Strom. I. §§ 28, 100; II. §§ 22, 28,

29; III.,§§ 11, 66, 70, 71, 76, 93, 108; IV. §§ 2, 91, 97, 105, 130,

133, 134, 138, 159; V. §§ 3, 17, 27, 28, 30, 31, 38, 80, 85, 86; VI. §§

42,44, 54, 59, 61, 66--68, 88, 91, 106, 107, 119, 124, 125, 127, 128,

133, 161, 164; VII. §§ 1, 14, 34, 76, 82, 84, 88, 94, 95, 97, 100, 101,

103, 104, 106, 107. As to the estimate of the Epistles of Barnabas and

Clement of Rome as well as of the Shepherd, in Clement, see the Prolegg.

to my edition of the Opp. Patr. Apost.]

[Footnote 113: According to Strom. V. 14. 138 even the Epicurean

Metrodorus uttered certain words [Greek: entheôs]; but on the other hand

Homer was a prophet against his will. See Pæd. I. 6. 36, also § 51.]

[Footnote 114: In the Pæd. the Gospels are regularly called [Greek: hê

graphê] but this is seldom the case with the Epistles. The word

"Apostle" is used in quoting these.]

[Footnote 115: It is also very interesting to note that Clement almost

nowhere illustrates the parabolic character of the Holy Scriptures by

quoting the Epistles, but in this connection employs the Old Testament

and the Gospels, just as he almost never allegorises passages from other

writings. 1 Cor. III. 2 is once quoted thus in Pæd. I. 6. 49: [Greek: to

en tô apostolô hagion pneuma tê tou kuriou apochrômenon phônê legei]. We

can hardly conclude from Pæd. I. 7. 61 that Clement called Paul a

"prophet."]

[Footnote 116: It is worthy of special note that Clem., Pæd. II. 10.3;

Strom. II. 15. 67 has criticised an interpretation given by the author

of the Epistle of Barnabas, although he calls Barnabas an Apostle.]

[Footnote 117: In this category we may also include the Acts of the

Apostles, which is perhaps used like the [Greek: kêrugma]. It is quoted

in Pæd. II. 16. 56; Strom. I. 50, 89, 91, 92, 153, 154; III. 49; IV. 97;

V. 75, 82; VI. 63, 101, 124, 165.]

[Footnote 118: The "seventy disciples" were also regarded as Apostles,

and the authors of writings the names of which did not otherwise offer a

guarantee of authority were likewise included in this category. That is

to say, writings which were regarded as valuable and which for some

reason or other could not be characterised as apostolic in the narrower

sense were attributed to authors whom there was no reason for denying to

be Apostles in the wider sense. This wider use of the concept

"apostolic" is moreover no innovation. See my edition of the Didache,

pp. 111-118.]

[Footnote 119: The formation of the canon in Alexandria must have had

some connection with the same process in Asia Minor and in Rome. This is

shown not only by each Church recognising four Gospels, but still more

by the admission of thirteen Pauline Epistles. We would see our way more

clearly here, if anything certain could be ascertained from the works of

Clement, including the Hypotyposes, as to the arrangement of the Holy

Scriptures; but the attempt to fix this arrangement is necessarily a

dubious one, because Clement's "canon of the New Testament" was not yet

finally fixed. It may be compared to a half-finished statue whose bust

is already completely chiselled, while the under parts are still

embedded in the stone.]

[Footnote 120: No greater creative act can be mentioned in the whole

history of the Church than the formation of the apostolic collection and

the assigning to it of a position of equal rank with the Old Testament.]

[Footnote 121: The history of early Christian writings in the Church

which were not definitely admitted into the New Testament is instructive

on this point. The fate of some of these may be described as tragical.

Even when they were not branded as downright forgeries, the writings of

the Fathers from the fourth century downwards were far preferred to

them.]

[Footnote 122: See on this point Overbeck "Abhandlung über die Anfange

der patristischen Litteratur," l.c., p. 469. Nevertheless, even after

the creation of the New Testament canon, theological authorship was an

undertaking which was at first regarded as highly dangerous. See the

Antimontanist in Euseb., H. E. V. 16. 3: [Greek: dediôs kai

exeulaboumenos, mê pê doxô prin episungraphein ê epidiatassesthai tô tês

tou euangeliou kainês diathêkês logô]. We find similar remarks in other

old Catholic Fathers (see Clemen. Alex.).]

[Footnote 123: But how diverse were the expositions; compare the

exegesis of Origen and Tertullian, Scorp. II.]

[Footnote 124: On the extent to which the Old Testament had become

subordinated to the New and the Prophets to the Apostles, since the end

of the second century, see the following passage from Novatian, de

trinit. 29: "Unus ergo et idem spiritus qui in prophetis et apostolis,

nisi quoniam ibi ad momentum, hic semper. Ceterum ibi non ut semper in

illis inesset, hic ut in illis semper maneret, et ibi mediocriter

distributus, hic totus effusus, ibi parce datus, hic large commodatus."]

[Footnote 125: That may be shown in all the old Catholic Fathers, but

most plainly perhaps in the theology of Origen. Moreover, the

subordination of the Old Testament revelation to the Christian one is

not simply a result of the creation of the New Testament, but may be

explained by other causes; see chap. 5. If the New Testament had not

been formed, the Church would perhaps have obtained a Christian Old

Testament with numerous interpolations--tendencies in this direction

were not wanting: see vol. I, p. 114 f.--and increased in extent by the

admission of apocalypses. The creation of the New Testament preserved

the purity of the Old, for it removed the need of doing violence to the

latter in the interests of Christianity.]

[Footnote 126: The Catholic Church had from the beginning a very clear

consciousness of the dangerousness of many New Testament writings, in

fact she made a virtue of necessity in so far as she set up a theory to

prove the unavoidableness of this danger. See Tertullian, de præscr.

passim, and de resurr. 63.]

[Footnote 127: To a certain extent the New Testament disturbs and

prevents the tendency to summarise the faith and reduce it to its most

essential content. For it not only puts itself in the place of the unity

of a system, but frequently also in the place of a harmonious and

complete creed. Hence the rule of faith is necessary as a guiding

principle, and even an imperfect one is better than a mere haphazard

reliance upon the Bible.]

[Footnote 128: We must not, however, ascribe that to conscious mistrust,

for Irenæus and Tertullian bear very decided testimony against such an

idea, but to the acknowledgment that it was impossible to make any

effective use of the New Testament Scriptures in arguments with educated

non-Christians and heretics. For these writings could carry no weight

with the former, and the latter either did not recognise them or else

interpreted them by different rules. Even the offer of several of the

Fathers to refute the Marcionites from their own canon must by no means

be attributed to an uncertainty on their part with regard to the

authority of the ecclesiastical canon of Scripture. We need merely add

that the extraordinary difficulty originally felt by Christians in

conceiving the Pauline Epistles, for instance, to be analogous and equal

in value to Genesis or the prophets occasionally appears in the

terminology even in the third century, in so far as the term "divine

writings" continues to be more frequently applied to the Old Testament

than to certain parts of the New.]

[Footnote 129: Tertullian, in de corona 3, makes his Catholic opponent

say: "Etiam in traditionis obtentu exigenda est auctoritas scripta."]

[Footnote 130: Hatch, Organisation of the early Christian Church, 1883.

Harnack, Die Lehre der zwölf Apostel, 1884. Sohm, Kirchenrecht, Vol. I.

1892.]

[Footnote 131: Marcion was the only one who did not claim to prove his

Christianity from traditions inasmuch as he rather put it in opposition

to tradition. This disclaimer of Marcion is in keeping with his

renunciation of apologetic proof, whilst, conversely, in the Church the

apologetic proof, and the proof from tradition adduced against the

heretics, were closely related. In the one case the truth of

Christianity was proved by showing that it is the oldest religion, and

in the other the truth of ecclesiastical Christianity was established

from the thesis that it is the oldest Christianity, viz., that of the

Apostles.]

[Footnote 132: See Tertullian, de præscr. 20, 21, 32.]

[Footnote 133: This theory is maintained by Irenæus and Tertullian, and

is as old as the association of the [Greek: hagia ekklêsia] and the

[Greek: pneuma hagion]. Just for that reason the distinction they make

between Churches founded by the Apostles and those of later origin is of

chief value to themselves in their arguments against heretics. This

distinction, it may be remarked, is clearly expressed in Tertullian

alone. Here, for example, it is of importance that the Church of

Carthage derives its "authority" from that of Rome (de præscr. 36).]

[Footnote 134: Tertull., de præscr. 32 (see p. 19). Iren., III. 2. 2:

"Cum autem ad eam iterum traditionem, quæ est ab apostolis, quæ per

successiones presbyterorum in ecclesiis custoditur, provocamus eos,

etc." III. 3. 1: "Traditionem itaque apostolorum in toto mundo

manifestatam in omni ecclesia adest perspicere omnibus qui vera velint

videre, et habemus annumerare eos, qui ab apostolis instituti sunt

episcopi in ecclesiis et successiones eorum usque ad nos ... valde enim

perfectos in omnibus eos volebant esse, quos et successores

relinquebant, suum ipsorum locum magisterii tradentes ... traditio

Romanæ ecclesiæ, quam habet ab apostolis, et annuntiata hominibus fides

per successiones episcoporum perveniens usque ad nos." III. 3. 4, 4. 1:

"Si de aliqua modica qusestione disceptatio esset, nonne oporteret in

antiquissimas recurrere ecclesias, in quibus apostoli conversati sunt

... quid autem si neque apostoli quidem scripturas reliquissent nobis,

nonne oportebat ordinem sequi traditionis, quam tradiderunt iis, quibus

committebant ecclesias?" IV. 33. 8: "Character corporis Christi secundum

successiones episcoporum, quibus apostoli eam quæ in unoquoque loco est

ecclesiam tradiderunt, quæ pervenit usque ad nos, etc." V. 20.1: "Omnes

enim ii valde posteriores sunt quam episcopi, quibus apostoli

tradiderunt ecclesias." IV. 26. 2: "Quapropter eis, qui in ecclesia

sunt, presbyteris obaudire oportet, his qui successionem habent ab

apostolis; qui cum episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum

secundum placitum patris acceperunt." IV. 26. 5: "Ubi igitur charismata

domini posita sunt, ibi discere oportet veritatem, apud quos est ea quæ

est ab apostolis ecclesiæ successio." The declaration in Luke X. 16 was

already applied by Irenæus (III. præf.) to the successors of the

Apostles.]

[Footnote 135: For details on this point see my edition of the Didache,

Proleg., p. 140. As the _regula fidei_ has its preparatory stages in the

baptismal confession, and the New Testament in the collection of

writings read in the Churches, so the theory that the bishops receive

and guarantee the apostolic heritage of truth has its preparatory stage

in the old idea that God has bestowed on the Church Apostles, prophets,

and teachers, who always communicate his word in its full purity. The

functions of these persons devolved by historical development upon the

bishop; but at the same time it became more and more a settled

conviction that no one in this latter period could be compared with the

Apostles. The only true Christianity, however, was that which was

apostolic and which could prove itself to be so. The natural result of

the problem which thus arose was the theory of an objective transference

of the _charisma veritatis_ from the Apostles to the bishops. This

notion preserved the unique personal importance of the Apostles,

guaranteed the apostolicity, that is, the truth of the Church's faith,

and formed a dogmatic justification for the authority already attained

by the bishops. The old idea that God bestows his Spirit on the Church,

which is therefore the holy Church, was ever more and more transformed

into the new notion that the bishops receive this Spirit, and that it

appears in their official authority. The theory of a succession of

prophets, which can be proved to have existed in Asia Minor, never got

beyond a rudimentary form and speedily disappeared.]

[Footnote 136: This theory must have been current in the Roman Church

before the time when Irenæus wrote; for the list of Roman bishops, which

we find in Irenæus and which he obtained from Rome, must itself be

considered as a result of that dogmatic theory. The first half of the

list must have been concocted, as there were no monarchical bishops in

the strict sense in the first century (see my treatise: "Die ältesten

christlichen Datirungen und die Anfänge einer bischoflichen

Chronographie in Rom." in the report of the proceedings of the Royal

Prussian Academy of Science, 1892, p. 617 ff). We do not know whether

such lists were drawn up so early in the other churches of apostolic

origin (Jerusalem?). Not till the beginning of the 3rd century have we

proofs of that being done, whereas the Roman community, as early as

Soter's time, had a list of bishops giving the duration of each

episcopate. Nor is there any evidence before the 3rd century of an

attempt to invent such a list for Churches possessing no claim to have

been founded by Apostles.]

[Footnote 137: We do not yet find this assertion in Tertullian's

treatise "de præscr."]

[Footnote 138: Special importance attaches to Tertullian's treatise "de

pudicitia," which has not been sufficiently utilised to explain the

development of the episcopate and the pretensions at that time set up by

the Roman bishop. It shows clearly that Calixtus claimed for himself as

bishop the powers and rights of the Apostles in their full extent, and

that Tertullian did not deny that the "doctrina apostolorum" was

inherent in his office, but merely questioned the "potestas

apostolorum." It is very significant that Tertullian (c. 21) sneeringly

addressed him as "apostolice" and reminded him that "ecclesia spiritus,

non ecclesia numerus episcoporum." What rights Calixtus had already

claimed as belonging to the apostolic office may be ascertained from

Hippol. Philos. IX. 11. 12. But the introduction to the Philosophoumena

proves that Hippolytus himself was at one with his opponent in supposing

that the bishops, as successors of the Apostles, had received the

attributes of the latter: [Greek: Tas haireseis heteros ouk elegxei, ê

to en ekklêsia paradothen hagion pneuma, ou tuchontes proteroi hoi

apostoloi metedosan tois orthôs pepisteukosin hôn hêmeis diadochoi

tugchanontes tês te autês charitos metechontes archierateias te kai

didaskalias kai phrouroi tês ekklêsias lelogismenoi ouk ophthalmô

nustazomen, oude logon orthon siôpômen, k.t.l.] In these words we have

an immense advance beyond the conception of Irenæus. This advance, of

course, was first made in practice, and the corresponding theory

followed. How greatly the prestige and power of the bishops had

increased in the first 3rd part of the 3rd century may be seen by

comparing the edict of Maximinus Thrax with the earlier ones (Euseb., H.

E. VI. 28; see also the genuine Martyr. Jacobi, Mariani, etc., in

Numidia c. 10 [Ruinart, Acta mart. p. 272 edit. Ratisb.]): "Nam ita

inter se nostræ religionis gradus artifex sævitia diviserat, ut laicos

clericis separatos tentationibus sæculi et terroribus suis putaret esse

cessuros" (that is, the heathen authorities also knew that the clergy

formed the bond of union in the Churches). But the theory that the

bishops were successors of the Apostles, that is, possessed the

apostolic office, must be considered a Western one which was very slowly

and gradually adopted in the East. Even in the original of the first six

books of the Apostolic Constitutions, composed about the end of the 3rd

century, which represents the bishop as mediator, king, and teacher of

the community, the episcopal office is not yet regarded as the apostolic

one. It is rather presbyters, as in Ignatius, who are classed with the

Apostles. It is very important to note that the whole theory of the

significance of the bishop in determining the truth of ecclesiastical

Christianity is completely unknown to Clement of Alexandria. As we have

not the slightest evidence that his conception of the Church was of a

hierarchical and anti-heretical type, so he very rarely mentions the

ecclesiastical officials in his works and rarest of all the bishops.

These do not at all belong to his conception of the Church, or at least

only in so far as they resemble the English orders (cf. Pæd. III. 12.

97, presbyters, bishops, deacons, widows; Strom. VII. 1. 3; III. 12. 90,

presbyters, deacons, laity; VI. 13. 106, presbyters, deacons: VI. 13.

107, bishops, presbyters, deacons: Quis dives 42, bishops and

presbyters). On the other hand, according to Clement, the true Gnostic

has an office like that of the Apostles. See Strom. VI. 13. 106, 107:

[Greek: exestin oun kai nun tais kyriakais enaskêsantas entolais kata to

euangelion teleiôs biôsantas kai gnôstikôs eis tên eklogên tôn apostolôn

engraphênai houtos presbuteros esti tô onti tês ekklêsias kai diakonos

alêthês tês tou theou boulêseôs]. Here we see plainly that the servants

of the earthly Church, as such, have nothing to do with the true Church

and the heavenly hierarchy. Strom VII. 9, 52 says: the true Gnostic is

the mediator with God. In Strom. VI. 14. 108; VII. 12. 77 we find the

words: [Greek: ho gnôstikos houtos sunelonti eipein tên apostolikên

apousian antanaplêroi, k.t.l.] Clement could not have expressed himself

in this way if the office of bishop had at that time been as much

esteemed in the Alexandrian Church, of which he was a presbyter, as it

was at Rome and in other Churches of the West (see Bigg l.c. 101).

According to Clement the Gnostic as a teacher has the same significance

as is possessed by the bishop in the West; and according to him we may

speak of a natural succession of teachers. Origen in the main still held

the same view as his predecessor. But numerous passages in his works and

above all his own history shew that in his day the episcopate had become

stronger in Alexandria also, and had begun to claim the same attributes

and rights as in the West (see besides de princip. præf. 2: "servetur

ecclesiastica prædicatio per successionis ordinem ab apostolis tradita

et usque ad præsens in ecclesiis permanens: illa sola credenda est

veritas, quæ in nullo ab ecclesiastica et apostolica discordat

traditione"--so in Rufinus, and in IV. 2. 2: [Greek: tou kanonos tês

Iêsou Christou kata diadochên t. apostolôn ouraniou ekklêsias]). The

state of things here is therefore exactly the same as in the case of the

apostolic _regula fidei_ and the apostolic canon of scripture. Clement

still represents an earlier stage, whereas by Origen's time the

revolution has been completed. Wherever this was so, the theory that the

monarchical episcopate was based on apostolic institution was the

natural result. This idea led to the assumption--which, however, was not

an immediate consequence in all cases--that the apostolic office, and

therefore the authority of Jesus Christ himself, was continued in the

episcopate: "Manifesta est sententia Iesu Christi apostolos suos

mittentis et ipsis solis potestatem a patre sibi datam permittentis,

quibus nos successimus eadem potestatex ecclesiam domini gubernantes et

credentium fidem baptizantes" (Hartel, Opp. Cypr. I. 459).]

[Footnote 139: See Rothe, Die Anfänge der christlichen Kirche und ihrer

Verfassung, 1837. Köstlin, Die Katholische Auffassung von der Kirche in

ihrer ersten Ausbildung in the Deutsche Zeitschrift für christliche

Wissenschaft und christliches Leben, 1855. Ritschl, Entstehung der

altkatholischen Kirche, 2nd ed., 1857. Ziegler, Des Irenäus Lehre von

der Autorität der Schrift, der Tradition und der Kirche, 1868.

Hackenschmidt, Die Anfänge des katholischen Kirchenbegriffs, 1874.

Hatch-Harnack, Die Gesellschaftsverfassung der christlichen Kirche im

Alterthum, 1883. Seeberg, Zur Geschichte des Begriffs der Kirche,

Dorpat, 1884. Söder, Der Begriff der Katholicität der Kirche und des

Glaubens, 1881. O. Ritschl, Cyprian von Karthago und die Verfassung der

Kirche, 1885. (This contains the special literature treating of

Cyprian's conception of the Church). Sohm, l.c.]

[Footnote 140: See Hatch, l.c. pp. 191, 253.]

[Footnote 141: See vol. I. p. 150 f. Special note should be given to the

teachings in the Shepherd, in the 2nd Epistle of Clement and in the

[Greek: Didachê].]

[Footnote 142: This notion lies at the basis of the exhortations of

Ignatius. He knows nothing of an empirical union of the different

communities into one Church guaranteed by any law or office. The bishop

is of importance only for the individual community, and has nothing to

do with the essence of the Church; nor does Ignatius view the separate

communities as united in any other way than by faith, charity, and hope.

Christ, the invisible Bishop, and the Church are inseparably connected

(ad Ephes. V. 1; as well as 2nd Clem. XIV.), and that is ultimately the

same idea, as is expressed in the associating of [Greek: pneuma] and

[Greek: ekklêsia]. But every individual community is an image of the

heavenly Church, or at least ought to be.]

[Footnote 143: The expression "Catholic Church" appears first in

Ignatius (ad Smyrn. VIII. 2): [Greek: hopou an phanêi ho episkopos, ekei

to plêthos esto; hôsper hopou an ê Christos Iêsous, ekei hê katholikê

ekklêsia]. But in this passage these words do not yet express a new

conception of the Church, which represents her as an empirical

commonwealth. Only the individual earthly communities exist empirically,

and the universal, i.e., the whole Church, occupies the same position

towards these as the bishops of the individual communities do towards

the Lord. The epithet "[Greek: katholikos]" does not of itself imply any

secularisation of the idea of the Church.]

[Footnote 144: The expression "invisible Church" is liable to be

misunderstood here, because it is apt to impress us as a mere idea,

which is certainly not the meaning attached to it in the earliest

period.]

[Footnote 145: It was thus regarded by Hegesippus in whom the expression

"[Greek: hê henôsis tês ekklêsias]" is first found. In his view the

[Greek: ekklêsia] is founded on the [Greek: orthos logos] transmitted by

the Apostles. The innovation does not consist in the emphasis laid upon

faith, for the unity of faith was always supposed to be guaranteed by

the possession of the one Spirit and the same hope, but in the setting

up of a formulated creed, which resulted in a loosening of the

connection between faith and conduct. The transition to the new

conception of the Church was therefore a gradual one. The way is very

plainly prepared for it in 1 Tim. III. 15: [Greek: oikos theou ekklêsia,

stulos kai hedraiôma tês alêtheias].]

[Footnote 146: The oldest predicate which was given to the Church and

which was always associated with it, was that of _holiness_. See the New

Testament; Barn. XIV. 6; Hermas, Vis. I. 3, 4; I. 6; the Roman symbol;

Dial. 119; Ignat. ad Trail, inscr.; Theophil. ad Autol., II. 14 (here we

have even the plural, "holy churches"); Apollon. in Euseb, H. E. V. 18.

5; Tertull., adv. Marc. IV. 13; V. 4; de pudicit. 1; Mart. Polyc inscr.;

Alexander Hieros. in Euseb., H. E. VI. 11. 5; Clemens Alex.; Cornelius

in Euseb., VI. 43. 6; Cyprian. But the holiness (purity) of the Church

was already referred by Hegesippus (Euseb., H. E. IV. 22. 4) to its pure

doctrine: [Greek: ekaloun tên ekklêsian parthenon; oupô gar ephtharto

akoais mataiais]. The unity of the Church according to Hegesippus is

specially emphasised in the Muratorian Fragment (line 55): see also

Hermas; Justin; Irenæus; Tertullian, de præscr. 20; Clem. Alex., Strom.

VII. 17. 107. Even before Irenæus and Tertullian the _universality_ of

the Church was emphasised for apologetic purposes. In so far as

universality is a proof of truth, "universal" is equivalent to

"orthodox." This signification is specially clear in expressions like:

[Greek: hê en Smurnê katholikê ekklêsia] (Mart. Polyc. XVI. 2). From

Irenæus, III. 15, 2, we must conclude that the Valentinians called their

ecclesiastical opponents "Catholics." The word itself is not yet found

in Irenæus, but the idea is there (see I. 10. 2; II. 9. 1, etc.,

Serapion in Euseb., H.E. V. 19: [Greek: pasa hê en kosmô adelphotês]).

[Greek: Katholikos] is found as a designation of the orthodox, visible

Church in Mart. Polyc. inscr.: [Greek: hai kata panta topon tês hagias

katholikês ekklêsias paroikiai]; 19. 2; 16. 2 (in all these passages,

however, it is probably an interpolation, as I have shown in the

"Expositor" for Dec. 1885, p. 410 f); in the Muratorian Fragment 61, 66,

69; in the anonymous writer in Euseb., H. E. V. 16. 9. in Tertull.

frequently, e.g., de præscr. 26, 30; adv. Marc. III. 22: IV. 4; in Clem.

Alex., Strom. VII. 17. 106, 107; in Hippol. Philos. IX. 12; in Mart.

Pionii 2, 9, 13, 19; in Cornelius in Cypr., epp. 49. 2; and in Cyprian.

The expression "catholica traditio" occurs in Tertull., de monog. 2,

"fides catholica" in Cyprian ep. 25, "[Greek: kanôn katholikos]" in the

Mart. Polyc. rec. Mosq. fin. and Cypr. ep. 70. 1, "catholica fides et

religio" in the Mart. Pionii 18. In the earlier Christian literature the

word [Greek: katholikos] occurs in various connections in the following

passages: in fragments of the Peratae (Philos. V. 16), and in Herakleon,

e.g. in Clement, Strom. IV. 9. 71; in Justin, Dial., 81, 102; Athenag.,

27; Theophil. I. 13; Pseudojustin, de monarch. 1, ([Greek: kathol.

doxa]); Iren., III. 11, 8; Apollon. in Euseb., H. E. IV. 18 5, Tertull.,

de fuga 3; adv. Marc. II. 17; IV. 9; Clement, Strom, IV. 15. 97; VI. 6.

47; 7. 57; 8. 67. The addition "catholicam" found its way into the

symbols of the West only at a comparatively late period. The earlier

expressions for the whole of Christendom are [Greek: pasai hai

ekklêsiai, ekklêsiai kata pasan polin, ekklêsiai en kosmô, hai huph'

ouranou], etc.]

[Footnote 147: Very significant is Tertullian's expression in adv. Val.

4: "Valentinus de ecclesia authenticæ regulæ abrupit," (but probably

this still refers specially to the Roman Church).]

[Footnote 148: Tertullian called the Church _mother_ (in Gal. IV. 26 the

heavenly Jerusalem is called "mother"); see de oral. 2: "ne mater quidem

ecclesia pixeterhur," de monog. 7; adv. Marc. V. 4 (the author of the

letter in Euseb., H. E. V. 2. 7, 1. 45, had already done this before

him). In the African Church the symbol was thus worded soon after

Tertullian's time: "credis in remissionem peccatorum et vitam æsternam

per sanctam ecclesiam" (see Hahn, Bibliothek der Symbole, 2nd ed. p. 29

ff.) On the other hand Clement of Alexandria (Strom. VI. 16. 146)

rejected the designation of the Church, as "mother": [Greek: mêtêr de

ouch, hôs tines ekdedôkasin, hê ekklêsia, all' hê theia gnôsis kai hê

sophia] (there is a different idea in Pæd. I. 5. 21. and 6. 42: [Greek:

mêtêr parthenos; ekklêsian emoi philon autên kalein]). In the Acta

Justini c. 4 the faith is named "mother."]

[Footnote 149: Hippol. Philos. IX. 12 p. 460.]

[Footnote 150: The phraseology of Irenæus is very instructive here. As a

rule he still speaks of Churches (in the plural) when he means the

empirical Church. It is already otherwise with Tertullian, though even

with him the old custom still lingers.]

[Footnote 151: The most important passages bearing on this are II. 31.

3: III. 24. 1 (see the whole section, but especially: "in ecclesia

posuit deus universam operationem spiritus; cuius non sunt participes

omnes qui non concurrunt ad ecclesiam ... ubi enim ecclesia, ibi et

spiritus dei, et ubi spiritus dei, illic ecclesia et omnis gratia");

III.11. 8: [Greek: stulos kai stêrigma ekklêsias to euangelion kai

pneuma zôês]: IV. 8. 1: "semen Abrahæ ecclesia", IV. 8. 3: "omnes iusti

sacerdotalem habent ordinem;" IV. 36. 2: "ubique præclara est ecclesia;

ubique enim sunt qui suscipiunt spiritum;" IV. 33. 7: [Greek: ekklêsia

mega kai endoxon sôma tou Christou]; IV. 26. 1 sq.: V. 20. 1.: V. 32.:

V. 34. 3., "Levitae et sacerdotes sunt discipuli omnes domini."]

[Footnote 152: Hence the repudiation of all those who separate

themselves from the Catholic Church (III. 11. 9; 24. 1: IV. 26. 2; 33.

7).]