punctuated the passage, but has weakened its force. The fact that
Irenæus was here able to cite the "antiquus ecclesiæ status in universo
mundo et character corporis Christi secundum successiones episcoporum,"
etc., as a second and independent item alongside of the apostolic
doctrine is, however, a proof that the transition from the idea of the
Church, as a community united by a common faith, to that of a
hierarchical institution was already revealing itself in his writings.]
[Footnote 154: The Church as a communion of the same faith, that is of
the same doctrine, is spoken of in de præscr. 20; de virg. vol. 2. On
the other hand we find the ideal spiritual conception in de bapt. 6:
"ubi tres, id est pater et filius et spiritus sanctus, ibi ecclesia, quæ
trium corpus est;" 8: "columba s. spiritus advolat, pacem dei adferens,
emissa de coelis, ubi ecclesia est arca figurata;" 15: "unus deus et
unum baptismum et una ecclesia in coelis;" de pænit. 10: "in uno et
altero ecclesia est, ecclesia vero Christus;" de orat. 28: "nos sumus
veri adoratores et veri sacerdotes, qui spiritu orantes spiritu
sacrificamus;" Apolog. 39; de exhort. 7: "differentiam inter ordinem et
plebem constituit ecclesiæ auctoritas et honor per ordinis consessum
sanctificatus. Adeo ubi ecclesiastici ordinis non est consessus, et
offers et tinguis et sacerdos es tibi solus. Sed ubi tres, ecclesia est,
licet laici" (the same idea, only not so definitely expressed, is
already found in de bapt. 17); de monog. 7: "nos autem Iesus summus
sacerdos sacerdotes deo patri suo fecit ... vivit unicus pater noster
deus et mater ecclesia, ... certe sacerdotes sumus a Christo vocati;"
12; de pudic. 21: "nam et ipsa ecclesia proprie et principaliter ipse
est spiritus, in quo est trinitas unius divinitatis, pater et filius et
spiritus sanctus. Illam ecclesiam congregat quam dominus in tribus
posuit. Atque ita exinde etiam numerus omnis qui in hanc fidem
conspiraverint ecclesia ab auctore et consecratore censetur. Et ideo
ecclesia quidem delicta donabit, sed ecclesia spiritus per spiritalem
hominem, non ecclesia numerus episcoporum;" de anima 11, 21.
Contradictions in detail need not surprise us in Tertullian, since his
whole position as a Catholic and as a Montanist is contradictory.]
[Footnote 155: The notion that the true Gnostic can attain the same
position as the Apostles also preserved Clement from thrusting the ideal
conception of the Church into the background.]
[Footnote 156: Some very significant remarks are found in Clement about
the Church which is the object of faith. See Pæd. I. 5. 18, 21; 6. 27:
[Greek: hôs gar thelêma tou Theou ergon esti kai touto kosmos
onomazetai, houtô kai to boulêma autou anthrôpôn esti sôtêria, kai touto
ekklêsia keklêtai]--here an idea which Hermas had in his mind (see Vol.
I., p. 180. note 4) is pregnantly and excellently expressed. Strom. II.
12. 55; IV. 8. 66: [Greek: eikôn tês ouraniou ekklêsias hê epigeios,
dioper euchometha kai epi gês genesthai to thelêma tou Theou hôs en
ouranô]; IV. 26. 172: [Greek: hê ekklêsia hupo logou apoliorkêtos
aturannêtos polis epi gês, thelêma theion epi gês, hôs en ouranô]; VI.
13. 106, 107; VI. 14. 108: [Greek: hê anôtatô ekklêsia, kath' hên hoi
philosophoi sunagontai tou Theou]; VII. 5. 29: [Greek: pôs ou kurios tên
eis timên tou Theou kat' epignôsin hagian genomenên ekklêsian hieron an
eipoimen Theou to pollou axion ... ou gar nun ton topon, alla to
athroisma tôn eklektôn ekklêsian kalô]; VII. 6. 32; VII. 11. 68: [Greek:
hê pneumatikê ekklêsia]. The empirical conception of the Church is most
clearly formulated in VII. 17. 107; we may draw special attention to the
following sentences: [Greek: phaneron oimai gegenêsthai mian einai tên
alêthê ekklêsian tên tôi onti archaian, eis hên hoi kata prothesin
dikaioi egkatalegontai, henos gar ontos tou Theou kai henos tou kuriou
... tê goun tou henos phusei sunklêrountai ekklêsia hê mia, hên eis
pollas katatemnein biazontai haireseis].]
[Footnote 157: It may, however, be noted that the old eschatological aim
has fallen into the background in Clement's conception of the Church.]
[Footnote 158: A significance of this kind is suggested by the notion
that the orders in the earthly Church correspond to those in the
heavenly one; but this idea, which afterwards became so important in the
East, was turned to no further account by Clement. In his view the
"Gnostics" are the highest stage in the Church. See Bigg, l.c., p. 100.]
[Footnote 159: De princip. IV. 2, 2: [Greek: hê ouranios ekklêsia]; Hom.
IX. in Exod. c. 3: "ecclesia credentium plebs;" Hom. XI. in Lev. c. 5;
Hom. VI. in Lev. c. 5; ibid. Hom. IX.: "omni ecclesiæ dei et credentium
populo sacerdotium datum.": T. XIV. in Mt. c. 17: c. Cels. VI. 48: VI.
79; Hom. VII. in Lk.; and de orat. 31 a twofold Church is distinguished
([Greek: hôste einai epi tôn hagiôn sunathroizomenôn diplên ekklêsian
tên men anthrôpôn, tên de angelôn]). Nevertheless Origen does not assume
two Churches, but, like Clement, holds that there is only one, part of
which is already in a state of perfection and part still on earth. But
it is worthy of note that the ideas of the heavenly hierarchy are
already more developed in Origen (de princip. I. 7). He adopted the old
speculation about the origin of the Church (see Papias, fragm. 6; 2
Clem. XIV.). Socrates (H. E. III. 7) reports that Origen, in the 9th
vol. of his commentary on Genesis, compared Christ with Adam and Eve
with the Church, and remarks that Pamphilus' apology for Origen stated
that this allegory was not new: [Greek: ou prôton Ôrigenên epi tautên
tên pragmateian elthein phasin, alla tên tês ekklêsias mustikên
hermêneusai paradosin]. A great many more of these speculations are to
be found in the 3rd century. See, e.g., _the Acts of Peter and Paul_
29.]
[Footnote 160: De princip. IV. 2. 2; Hom. III. in Jesu N. 5: "nemo tibi
persuadeat, nemo semetipsum decipiat: extra ecclesiam nemo salvatur."
The reference is to the Catholic Church which Origen also calls [Greek:
to holon sôma tôn sunagôgôn tês ekklêsias.]]
[Footnote 161: Hermas (Sim. I.) has spoken of the "city of God" (see
also pseudo-Cyprian's tractate "de pascha computus"); but for him it
lies in Heaven and is the complete contrast of the world. The idea of
Plato here referred to is to be found in his _Republic_.]
[Footnote 162: See c. Cels. VIII. 68-75.]
[Footnote 163: Comment. in Joh. VI. 38.]
[Footnote 164: Accordingly he often speaks in a depreciatory way of the
[Greek: ochlos tês ekklêsias] (the ignorant) without accusing them of
being unchristian (this is very frequent in the books c. Cels., but is
also found elsewhere).]
[Footnote 165: Origen, who is Augustine's equal in other respects also,
and who anticipated many of the problems considered by the latter,
anticipated prophetically this Father's view of the City of God--of
course as a hope (c. Cels. viii. 68 f). The Church is also viewed as
[Greek: to kata Theon politeuma] in Euseb., H. E. V. Præf. § 4, and at
an earlier period in Clement.]
[Footnote 166: This was not done even by Origen, for in his great work
"de principiis" we find no section devoted to the Church.]
[Footnote 167: It is frequently represented in Protestant writers that
the mistake consisted in this identification, whereas, if we once admit
this criticism, the defect is rather to be found in the development
itself which took place in the Church, that is, in its secularisation.
No one thought of the desperate idea of an invisible Church; this notion
would probably have brought about a lapse from pure Christianity far
more rapidly than the idea of the Holy Catholic Church.]
[Footnote 168: Both repeatedly and very decidedly declared that the
unity of faith (the rule of faith) is sufficient for the unity of the
Church, and that in other things there must be freedom (see above all
Tertull., de orat., de bapt., and the Montanist writings). It is all the
more worthy of note that, in the case of a question in which indeed the
customs of the different countries were exceedingly productive of
confusion, but which was certainly not a matter of faith, it was again a
bishop of Rome, and that as far back as the 2nd century, who first made
the observance of the Roman practice a condition of the unity of the
Church and treated nonconformists as heterodox (Victor; see Euseb., H.
E. V. 24). On the other hand Irenæus says: [Greek: hê diaphônia tês
nêsteias tên homonoian tês pisteôs sunistêsi].]
[Footnote 169: On Calixtus see Hippolyt., Philos. IX. I2; and Tertull.,
de pudic.]
[Footnote 170: See on the other hand Tertull., de monog., but also
Hippol., l.c.]
[Footnote 171: Cyprian's idea of the Church, an imitation of the
conception of a political empire, viz., one great aristocratically
governed state with an ideal head, is the result of the conflicts
through which he passed. It is therefore first found in a complete form
in the treatise "de unitate ecclesiæ" and, above all, in his later
epistles (Epp. 43 sq. ed. Hartel). The passages in which Cyprian defines
the Church as "constituta in episcopo et in clero et in omnibus
credentibus" date from an earlier period, when he himself essentially
retained the old idea of the subject. Moreover, he never regarded those
elements as similar and of equal value. The limitation of the Church to
the community ruled by bishops was the result of the Novatian crisis.
The unavoidable necessity of excluding orthodox Christians from the
ecclesiastical communion, or, in other words, the fact that such
orthodox Christians had separated themselves from the majority guided by
the bishops, led to the setting up of a new theory of the Church, which
therefore resulted from stress of circumstances just as much as the
antignostic conception of the matter held by Irenæus. Cyprian's notion
of the relation between the whole body of the Church and the episcopate
may, however, be also understood as a generalisation of the old theory
about the connection between the individual community and the bishop.
This already contained an oecumenical element, for, in fact, every
separate community was regarded as a copy of the one Church, and its
bishop therefore as the representative of God (Christ).]
[Footnote 172: We need only quote one passage here--but see also epp.
69. 3, 7 sq.: 70. 2: 73. 8--ep. 55. 24: "Quod vero ad Novatiani personam
pertinet, scias nos primo in loco nec curiosos esse debere quid ille
doceat, cum foris doceat; quisquis ille est et qualiscunque est,
christianus non est, qui in Christi ecclesia non est." In the famous
sentence (ep. 74. 7; de unit. 6): "habere non potest deum patrem qui
ecclesiam non habet matrem," we must understand the Church held together
by the _sacramentum unitatis_, i.e., by her constitution. Cyprian is
fond of referring to Korah's faction, who nevertheless held the same
faith as Moses.]
[Footnote 173: Epp. 4. 4: 33. 1: "ecclesia super episcopos constituta;"
43. 5: 45. 3: "unitatem a domino et per apostolos nobis successoribus
traditam;" 46. 1: 66. 8: "scire debes episcopum in ecclesia esse et
ecclesiam in episcopo et si qui cum episcopo non sit in ecclesia non
esse;" de unit. 4.]
[Footnote 174: According to Cyprian the bishops are the _sacerdotes_
[Greek: kat' eksochên] and the _iudices vice Christi_. See epp. 59. 5:
66. 3 as well as c. 4: "Christus dicit ad apostolos ac per hoc ad omnes
præpositos, qui apostolis vicaria ordinatione succedunt: qui audit vos
me audit." Ep. 3. 3: "dominus apostolos, i.e., episcopos elegit"; ep.
75. 16.]
[Footnote 175: That is a fundamental idea and in fact the outstanding
feature of the treatise "de unitate." The heretics and schismatics lack
love, whereas the unity of the Church is the product of love, this being
the main Christian virtue. That is the _ideal_ thought on which Cyprian
builds his theory (see also epp. 45. 1: 55. 24: 69. 1 and elsewhere),
and not quite wrongly, in so far as his purpose was to gather and
preserve, and not scatter. The reader may also recall the early
Christian notion that Christendom should be a band of brethren ruled by
love. But this love ceases to have any application to the case of those
who are disobedient to the authority of the bishop and to Christians of
the sterner sort. The appeal which Catholicism makes to love, even at
the present day, in order to justify its secularised and tyrannical
Church, turns in the mouth of hierarchical politicians into hypocrisy,
of which one would like to acquit a man of Cyprian's stamp.]
[Footnote 176: Ep. 43. 5: 55. 24: "episcopatus unus episcoporum multorum
concordi numerositate diffusus;" de unit. 5: "episcopatus unus est,
cuius a singulis in solidum pars tenetur." Strictly speaking Cyprian did
not set up a theory that the bishops were directed by the Holy Spirit,
but in identifying Apostles and bishops and asserting the divine
appointment of the latter he took for granted their special endowment
with the Holy Spirit. Moreover, he himself frequently appealed to
special communications he had received from the Spirit as aids in
discharging his official duties.]
[Footnote 177: Cyprian did not yet regard uniformity of Church practice
as a matter of moment--or rather he knew that diversities must be
tolerated. In so far as the _concordia episcoporum_ was consistent with
this diversity, he did not interfere with the differences, provided the
_regula fidei_ was adhered to. Every bishop who adheres to the
confederation has the greatest freedom even in questions of Church
discipline and practice (as for instance in the baptismal ceremonial);
see ep. 59. 14: "Singulis pastoribus portio gregis est adscripta, quam
regit unusquisque et gubernat rationem sui actus domino redditurus;" 55.
21: "Et quidem apud antecessores nostros quidam de episcopis istic in
provincia nostra dandam pacis moechis non putaverunt et in totum
pænitentiæ locum contra adulteria cluserunt, non tamen a co-episcoporum
suorum collegio recesserunt aut catholicæ ecclesiæ unitatem ruperunt, ut
quia apud alios adulteris pax dabatur, qui non dabat de ecclesia
separaretur." According to ep. 57. 5 Catholic bishops, who insist on the
strict practice of penance, but do not separate themselves from the
unity of the Church, are left to the judgment of God. It is different in
the case referred to in ep. 68, for Marcion had formally joined
Novatian. Even in the disputed question of heretical baptism (ep. 72. 3)
Cyprian declares to Stephen (See 69. 17: 73. 26; _Sententiæ episc._,
præfat.): "qua in re nec nos vim cuiquam facimus aut legem damus, quando
habeat in ecclesiæ administratione voluntatis suæ arbitrium liberum
unusquisque præpositus, rationem actus sui domino redditurus." It is
therefore plain wherein the unity of the episcopate and the Church
actually consists; we may say that it is found in the _regula_, in the
fixed purpose not to give up the unity in spite of all differences, and
in the principle of regulating all the affairs of the Church "ad
originem dominicam et ad evangelicam adque apostolicam traditionem" (ep.
74. 10). This refers to the New Testament, which Cyprian emphatically
insisted on making the standard for the Church. It must be taken as the
guide, "si in aliquo in ecclesia nutaverit et vacillaverit veritas;" by
it, moreover, all false customs are to be corrected. In the controversy
about heretical baptism, the alteration of Church practice in Carthage
and Africa, which was the point in question--for whilst in Asia
heretical baptism had for a very long time been declared invalid (see
ep. 75. 19) this had only been the case in Carthage for a few years--was
justified by Cyprian through an appeal to _veritas_ in contrast to
_consuetudo sine veritate_. See epp. 71. 2, 3: 73. 13, 23: 74. 2 sq.: 9
(the formula originates with Tertullian; see de virg. vel. 1-3). The
_veritas_, however, is to be learned from the Gospel and words of the
Apostles: "Lex evangelii," "præcepta dominica," and synonymous
expressions are very frequent in Cyprian, more frequent than reference
to the _regula_ or to the symbol. In fact there was still no Church
dogmatic, there being only principles of Christian faith and life,
which, however, were taken from the Holy Scriptures and the _regula_.]
[Footnote 178: Cyprian no longer makes any distinction between Churches
founded by Apostles, and those which arose later (that is, between their
bishops).]
[Footnote 179: The statement that the Church is "super Petrum fundata"
is very frequently made by Cyprian (we find it already in Tertullian, de
monog.); see de habitu virg. 10; Epp. 59. 7: 66. 8: 71. 3: 74. 11: 73.
7. But on the strength of Matth. XVI. he went still farther; see ep. 43.
5: "deus unus est et Christus unus et una ecclesia et cathedra una super
Petrum domini voce fundata;" ep. 48. 3 (ad Cornel.): "communicatio tua,
id est catholicæ ecclesiæ unitas pariter et caritas;" de unit. 4:
"superunum ædificat ecclesiam, et quamvis apostolis omnibus post
resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuat, tamen ut unitatem
manifestaret, unitatis eiusdem originem ab uno incipientem sua
auctoritate disposuit;" ep. 70. 3: "una ecclesia a Christo domino nostro
super Petrum origine unitatis et ratione fundata" ("with regard to the
origin and constitution of the unity" is the translation of this last
passage in the "Stimmen aus Maria Laach," 1877, part 8, p. 355; but
"ratio" cannot mean that); ep. 73. 7; "Petro primum dominus, super quem
ædificavit ecclesiam et unde unitatis originem instituit et ostendit,
potestatem istam dedit." The most emphatic passages are ep. 48. 3, where
the Roman Church is called "matrix et radix ecclesiæ catholicæ" (the
expression "radix et mater" in ep. 45. I no doubt also refers to her),
and ep. 59. 14: "navigare audent et ad Petri cathedram atque ad
ecclesiam principalem, unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est, ab
schismaticis et profanis litteras ferre nec cogitare eos esse Romanes,
quorum fides apostolo prædicante laudata est (see epp. 30. 2, 3: 60. 2),
ad quos perfidia habere non possit accessum." We can see most clearly
from epp. 67. 5 and 68 what rights were in point of fact exercised by
the bishop of Rome. But the same Cyprian says quite naively, even at the
time when he exalted the Roman cathedra so highly (ep. 52. 2), "quoniam
_pro magnitudine sua_ debeat Carthaginem Roma præcedere." In the
controversy about heretical baptism Stephen like Calixtus (Tertull., de
pudic. 1) designated himself, on the ground of the _successio Petri_ and
by reference to Matth. XVI., in such a way that one might suppose he
wished to be regarded as "episcopus episcoporum" (Sentent. episc. in
Hartel I., p. 436). He expressly claimed a primacy and demanded
obedience from the "ecclesiæ novellæ et posteræ" (ep. 71. 3). Like
Victor he endeavoured to enforce the Roman practice "tyrannico terrore"
and insisted that the _unitas ecclesiæ_ required the observance of this
Church's practice in all communities. But Cyprian opposed him in the
most decided fashion, and maintained the principle that every bishop, as
a member of the episcopal confederation based on the _regula_ and the
Holy Scriptures, is responsible for his practice to God alone. This he
did in a way which left no room for any special and actual authority of
the Roman see alongside of the others. Besides, he expressly rejected
the conclusions drawn by Stephen from the admittedly historical position
of the Roman see (ep. 71. 3): "Petrus non sibi vindicavit aliquid
insolenter aut adroganter adsumpsit, ut diceret se principatum tenere et
obtemperari a novellis et posteris sibi potius oportere." Firmilian, ep.
75, went much farther still, for he indirectly declares the _successio
Petri_ claimed by Stephen to be of no importance (c. 17), and flatly
denies that the Roman Church has preserved the apostolic tradition in a
specially faithful way. See Otto Ritschl, l.c., pp. 92 ff., 110-141. In
his conflict with Stephen Cyprian unmistakably took up a position
inconsistent with his former views as to the significance of the Roman
see for the Church, though no doubt these were ideas he had expressed at
a critical time when he stood shoulder to shoulder with the Roman bishop
Cornelius.]
[Footnote 180: See specially epp. 65, 67, 68.]
[Footnote 181: Hatch l.c., p. 189 f.]
[Footnote 182: The gradual union of the provincial communities into one
Church may be studied in a very interesting way in the ecclesiastical
Fasti (records, martyrologies, calendars, etc.), though these studies
are as yet only in an incipient stage. See De Rossi, Roma Sotter, the
Bollandists in the 12th vol. for October; Stevenson, Studi in Italia
(1879), pp. 439, 458; the works of Nilles; Egli, Altchristl. Studien
1887 (Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1887, no. 13): Duchesne, Les sources du Martyrol.
Hieron. Rome 1885, but above all the latter's study: Mémoire sur
l'origine des diocèses épiscopaux dans l'ancienne Gaule, 1890. The
history of the unification of liturgies from the 4th century should also
be studied.]
[Footnote 183: There were communities in the latter half of the 3rd
century, which can be proved to have been outside the confederation,
although in perfect harmony with it in point of belief (see the
interesting case in Euseb., H. E. VII. 24. 6). Conversely, there were
Churches in the confederation whose faith did not in all respects
correspond with the Catholic _regula_ as already expounded. But the fact
that it was not the dogmatic system, but the practical constitution and
principles of the Church, as based on a still elastic creed, which
formed the ultimate determining factor, was undoubtedly a great gain;
for a system of dogmatics developed beyond the limits of the Christian
_kerygma_ can only separate. Here, however, all differences of faith had
of couise to be glossed over, for the demand of Apelles: [Greek: mê dein
holôs exetazein ton logon, all' ekaston. hôs pepisteuke, diamenein
sôthêsesthai gar tous epi ton hestaurômenon êlpikotas, k.t.l.], was
naturally regarded as inadmissible.]
[Footnote 184: Hence we need not be surprised to find that the notion of
heresy which arose in the Church was immediately coupled with an
estimate of it, which for injustice and harshness could not possibly be
surpassed in succeeding times. The best definition is in Tertull., de
præscr. 6: "Nobis nihil ex nostro arbitrio indulgere licet, sed nec
eligere quod aliquis de arbitrio suo induxerit. Apostolos domini habemus
auctores, qui nec ipsi quicquam ex suo arbitrio quod inducerent
elegerunt, sed acceptam a Christo disciplinam fideliter nationibus
assignaverunt."]
[Footnote 185: See Vol. I., p. 224, note 1.]
[Footnote 186: We already find this idea in Tertullian; see de bapt. 15:
"Hæretici nullum habent consortium nostra discipline, quos extraneos
utique testatur ipsa ademptio communicationis. Non debeo in illis
cognoscere, quod mihi est præceptum, quia non idem deus est nobis et
illis, nec unus Christus, id est idem, ideoque nec baptismus unus, quia
non idem; quem cum rite non habeant, sine dubio non habent, nec capit
numerari, quod non habetur; ita nec possunt accipere quia non habent."
Cyprian passed the same judgment on all schismatics, even on the
Novatians, and like Tertullian maintained the invalidity of heretical
baptism. This question agitated the Church as early as the end of the
2nd century, when Tertullian already wrote against it in Greek.]
[Footnote 187: As far as possible the Christian virtues of the heretics
were described as hypocrisy and love of ostentation (see e.g., Rhodon in
Euseb., H. E. V. 13. 2 and others in the second century). If this view
was untenable, then all morality and heroism among heretics were simply
declared to be of no value. See the anonymous writer in Eusebius, H. E.
V. 16. 21, 22; Clem, Strom. VII. 16. 95; Orig., Comm. ad Rom. I. X., c.
5; Cypr., de unit. 14, 15; cp. 73. 21 etc.]
[Footnote 188: Tertull., de præscr. 3-6.]
[Footnote 189: Irenæus definitely distinguishes between heretics and
schismatics (III. 11. 9: IV. 26. 2; 33. 7), but also blames the latter
very severely, "qui gloriosum corpus Christi, quantum in ipsis est,
interficiunt, non habentes dei dilectionem suamque utilitatem potius
considerantes quam unitatem ecclesiæ." Note the parallel with Cyprian.
Yet he does not class them with those "qui sunt extra veritatem," i.e.,
"extra ecclesiam," although he declares the severest penalties await
them. Tertullian was completely preserved by his Montanism from
identifying heretics and schismatics, though in the last years of his
life he also appears to have denied the Christianity of the Catholics
(?).]
[Footnote 190: Read, on the one hand, the Antimontanists in Eusebius and
the later opponents of Montanism; and on the other, Tertull., adv.
Prax.; Hippol., c. Noët; Novatian, de trinitate. Even in the case of the
Novatians heresies were sought and found (see Dionys. Alex., in Euseb.,
H. E. VII. 8, where we find distortions and wicked misinterpretations of
Novatian doctrines, and many later opponents). Nay, even Cyprian himself
did not disdain to join in this proceeding (see epp. 69. 7: 70. 2). The
Montanists at Rome were placed by Hippolylus in the catalogue of
heretics (see the Syntagma and Philosoph.). Origen was uncertain whether
to reckon them among schismatics or heretics (see in Tit. Opp. IV., p.
696).]
[Footnote 191: Cyprian plainly asserts (ep. 3. 3): "hæc sunt initia
hæreticorum et ortus adque conatus schismaticorum, ut præpositum superbo
tumore contemnant" (as to the early history of this conception, which
undoubtedly has a basis of truth, see Clem., ep. ad Cor. 1. 44; Ignat.;
Hegesippus in Euseb., H. E. IV. 22. 5; Tertull., adv. Valent. 4; de
bapt. 17; Anonymus in Euseb; H. E. V. 16. 7; Hippolyt. ad. Epiphan. H.
42. 1; Anonymus in Eusebius, H. E. V. 28. 12; according to Cyprian it is
quite the common one); see further ep. 59. 3: "neque enim aliunde
hæreses obortæ sunt aut nata sunt schismata, quam quando sacerdoti dei
non obtemperatur;" epp. 66. 5: 69. 1: "item b. apostolus Johannes nec
ipse ullam hæresin aut schisma discrevit aut aliquos speciatim separes
posuit"; 52. 1: 73. 2: 74. 11. Schism and heresy are always identical.]
[Footnote 192: Neither Optatus nor Augustine take Cyprian's theory as
the starting-point of their disquisitions, but they adhere in principle
to the distinction between heretic and schismatic. Cyprian was compelled
by his special circumstances to identify them, but he united this
identification with the greatest liberality of view as to the conditions
of ecclesiastical unity (as regards individual bishops). Cyprian did not
make a single new article an "articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiæ."
In fact he ultimately declared--and this may have cost him struggle
enough--that even the question of the validity of heretical baptism was
not a question of faith.]
CHAPTER III.
CONTINUATION. THE OLD CHRISTIANITY AND THE NEW CHURCH.
1. The legal and political forms by which the Church secured herself
against the secular power and heresy, and still more the lower moral
standard exacted from her members in consequence of the naturalisation
of Christianity in the world, called forth a reaction soon after the
middle of the second century. This movement, which first began in Asia
Minor and then spread into other regions of Christendom, aimed at
preserving or restoring the old feelings and conditions, and preventing
Christendom from being secularised. This crisis (the so called Montanist
struggle) and the kindred one which succeeded produced the following
results: The Church merely regarded herself all the more strictly as a
legal community basing the truth of its title on its historic and
objective foundations, and gave a correspondingly new interpretation to
the attribute of holiness she claimed. She expressly recognised two
distinct classes in her midst, a spiritual and a secular, as well as a
double standard of morality. Moreover, she renounced her character as
the communion of those who were sure of salvation, and substituted the
claim to be an educational institution and a necessary condition of
redemption. After a keen struggle, in which the New Testament did
excellent service to the bishops, the Church expelled the Cataphrygian
fanatics and the adherents of the new prophecy (between 180 and 220);
and in the same way, during the course of the third century, she caused
the secession of all those Christians who made the truth of the Church
depend on a stricter administration of moral discipline. Hence, apart
from the heretic and Montanist sects, there existed in the Empire, after
the middle of the second century, two great but numerically unequal
Church confederations, both based on the same rule of faith and claiming
the title "ecclesia catholica," viz., the confederation which
Constantine afterwards chose for his support, and the Novatian Catharist
one. In Rome, however, the beginning of the great disruption goes back
to the time of Hippolytus and Calixtus; yet the schism of Novatian must
not be considered as an immediate continuation of that of Hippolytus.
2. The so-called Montanist reaction[193] was itself subjected to a
similar change, in accordance with the advancing ecclesiastical
development of Christendom. It was originally the violent undertaking of
a Christian prophet, Montanus, who, supported by prophetesses, felt
called upon to realise the promises held forth in the Fourth Gospel. He
explained these by the Apocalypse, and declared that he himself was the
Paraclete whom Christ had promised--that Paraclete in whom Jesus Christ
himself, nay, even God the Father Almighty, comes to his own to guide
them to all truth, to gather those that are dispersed, and to bring them
into one flock. His main effort therefore was to make Christians give up
the local and civil relations in which they lived, to collect them, and
create a new undivided Christian commonwealth, which, separated from the
world, should prepare itself for the descent of the Jerusalem from
above.[194]
The natural resistance offered to the new prophets with this extravagant
message--especially by the leaders of communities, and the persecutions
to which the Church was soon after subjected under Marcus Aurelius, led
to an intensifying of the eschatological expectations that beyond doubt
had been specially keen in Montanist circles from the beginning. For the
New Jerusalem was soon to come down from heaven in visible form, and
establish itself in the spot which, by direction of the Spirit, had been
chosen for Christendom in Phrygia.[195] Whatever amount of peculiarity
the movement lost, in so far as the ideal of an assembly of all
Christians proved incapable of being realised or at least only possible
within narrow limits, was abundantly restored in the last decades of the
second century by the strength and courage that the news of its spread
in Christendom gave to the earnest minded to unite and offer resistance
to the ever increasing tendency of the Church to assume a secular and
political character. Many entire communities in Phrygia and Asia
recognised the divine mission of the prophets. In the Churches of other
provinces religious societies were formed in which the predictions of
these prophets were circulated and viewed as a Gospel, though at the
same time they lost their effect by being so treated. The confessors at
Lyons openly expressed their full sympathy with the movement in Asia.
The bishop of Rome was on the verge of acknowledging the Montanists to
be in full communion with the Church. But among themselves there was no
longer, as at the beginning, any question of a new organisation in the
strict sense of the word, and of a radical remodelling of Christian
society.[196] Whenever Montanism comes before us in the clear light of
history it rather appears as a religious movement already deadened,
though still very powerful. Montanus and his prophetesses had set no
limits to their enthusiasm; nor were there as yet any fixed barriers in
Christendom that could have restrained them.[197] The Spirit, the Son,
nay, the Father himself had appeared in them and spoke through
them.[198] Imagination pictured Christ bodily in female form to the eyes
of Prisca.[199] The most extravagant promises were given.[200] These
prophets spoke in a loftier tone than any Apostle ever did, and they
were even bold enough to overturn apostolic regulations.[201] They set
up new commandments for the Christian life, regardless of any
tradition,[202] and they inveighed against the main body of
Christendom.[203] They not only proclaimed themselves as prophets, but
as the last prophets, as notable prophets in whom was first fulfilled
the promise of the sending of the Paraclete.[204] These Christians as
yet knew nothing of the "absoluteness of a historically complete
revelation of Christ as the fundamental condition of Christian
consciousness;" they only felt a Spirit to which they yielded
unconditionally and without reserve. But, after they had quitted the
scene, their followers sought and found a kind of compromise. The
Montanist congregations that sought for recognition in Rome, whose part
was taken by the Gallic confessors, and whose principles gained a
footing in North Africa, may have stood in the same relation to the
original adherents of the new prophets and to these prophets themselves,
as the Mennonite communities did to the primitive Anabaptists and their
empire in Münster. The "Montanists" outside of Asia Minor acknowledged
to the fullest extent the legal position of the great Church. They
declared their adherence to the apostolic "regula" and the New Testament
canon.[205] The organisation of the Churches, and, above all, the
position of the bishops as successors of the Apostles and guardians of
doctrine were no longer disputed. The distinction between them and the
main body of Christendom, from which they were unwilling to secede, was
their belief in the new prophecy of Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla,
which was contained, in its final form, in written records and in this
shape may have produced the same impression as is excited by the
fragments of an exploded bomb.[206]
In this new prophecy they recognised a _subsequent revelation_ of God,
which for that very reason assumed the existence of a previous one. This
after-revelation professed to decide the practical questions which, at
the end of the second century, were burning topics throughout all
Christendom, and for which no direct divine law could hitherto be
adduced, in the form of a strict injunction. Herein lay the importance
of the new prophecy for its adherents in the Empire, and for this reason
they believed in it.[207] The belief in the efficacy of the Paraclete,
who, in order to establish a relatively stricter standard of conduct in
Christendom during the latter days, had, a few decades before, for
several years given his revelations in a remote corner of the Empire,
was the dregs of the original enthusiasm, the real aspect of which had
been known only to the fewest. But the diluted form in which this force
remained was still a mighty power, because it was just in the generation
between 190 and 220 that the secularising of the Church had made the
greatest strides. Though the followers of the new prophecy merely
insisted on abstinence from second marriage, on stricter regulations
with regard to fasts, on a stronger manifestation of the Christian
spirit in daily life, in morals and customs, and finally on the full
resolve not to avoid suffering and martyrdom for Christ's name's sake,
but to bear them willingly and joyfully,[208] yet, under the given
circumstances, these requirements, in spite of the express repudiation
of everything "Encratite,"[209] implied a demand that directly
endangered the conquests already made by the Church and impeded the
progress of the new propaganda.[210] The people who put forth these
demands, expressly based them on the injunctions of the Paraclete, and
really lived in accordance with them, were not permanently capable of
maintaining their position in the Church. In fact, the endeavour to
found these demands on the legislation of the Paraclete was an
undertaking quite as strange, in form and content, as the possible
attempt to represent the wild utterances of determined anarchists as the
programme of a constitutional government. It was of no avail that they
appealed to the confirmation of the rule of faith by the Paraclete; that
they demonstrated the harmlessness of the new prophecy, thereby
involving themselves in contradictions;[211] that they showed all honour
to the New Testament; and that they did not insist on the oracles of the
Paraclete being inserted in it.[212] As soon as they proved the
earnestness of their temperate but far-reaching demands, a deep gulf
that neither side could ignore opened up between them and their
opponents. Though here and there an earnest effort was made to avoid a
schism, yet in a short time this became unavoidable; for variations in
rules of conduct make fellowship impossible. The lax Christians, who, on
the strength of their objective possession, viz., the apostolic doctrine
and writings, sought to live comfortably by conforming to the ways of
the world, necessarily sought to rid themselves of inconvenient
societies and inconvenient monitors;[213] and they could only do so by
reproaching the latter with heresy and unchristian assumptions.
Moreover, the followers of the new prophets could not permanently
recognise the Churches of the "Psychical,"[214] which rejected the
"Spirit" and extended their toleration so far as to retain even
whoremongers and adulterers within their pale.
In the East, that is, in Asia Minor, the breach between the Montanists
and the Church had in all probability broken out before the question of
Church discipline and the right of the bishops had yet been clearly
raised. In Rome and Carthage this question completed the rupture that
had already taken place between the conventicles and the Church (de
pudic. 1. 21). Here, by a peremptory edict, the bishop of Rome claimed
the right of forgiving sins as successor of the Apostles; and declared
that he would henceforth exercise this right in favour of repentant
adulterers. Among the Montanists this claim was violently contested both
in an abstract sense and in this application of it. The Spirit the
Apostles had received, they said, could not be transmitted; the Spirit
is given to the Church; he works in the prophets, but lastly and in the
highest measure in the new prophets. The latter, however, expressly
refused to readmit gross sinners, though recommending them to the grace
of God (see the saying of the Paraclete, de pud. 21; "potest ecclesia
donare delictum, sed non faciam"). Thus agreement was no longer
possible. The bishops were determined to assert the existing claims of
the Church, even at the cost of her Christian character, or to represent
the constitution of the Catholic Church as the guarantee of that
character. At the risk of their own claim to be Catholic, the Montanist
sects resisted in order to preserve the minimum legal requirements for a
Christian life. Thus the opposition culminated in an attack on the new
powers claimed by the bishops, and in consequence awakened old memories
as to the original state of things, when the clergy had possessed no
importance.[215] But the ultimate motive was the effort to stop the
continuous secularising of the Christian life and to preserve the
virginity of the Church as a holy community.[216] In his latest writings
Tertullian vigorously defended a position already lost, and carried with
him to the grave the old strictness of conduct insisted on by the
Church.
Had victory remained with the stricter party, which, though not
invariably, appealed to the injunctions of the Paraclete,[217] the
Church would have been rent asunder and decimated. The great opportunist
party, however, was in a very difficult position, since their opponents
merely seemed to be acting up to a conception that, in many respects,
could not be theoretically disputed. The problem was how to carry on
with caution the work of naturalising Christianity in the world, and at
the same time avoid all appearance of innovation which, as such, was
opposed to the principle of Catholicism. The bishops therefore assailed
the form of the new prophecy on the ground of innovation;[218] they
sought to throw suspicion on its content; in some cases even Chiliasm,
as represented by the Montanists, was declared to have a Jewish and
fleshly character.[219] They tried to show that the moral demands of
their opponents were extravagant, that they savoured of the ceremonial
law (of the Jews), were opposed to Scripture, and were derived from the
worship of Apis, Isis, and the mother of the Gods.[220] To the claim of
furnishing the Church with authentic oracles of God, set up by their
antagonists, the bishops opposed the newly formed canon; and declared
that everything binding on Christians was contained in the utterances of
the Old Testament prophets and the Apostles. Finally, they began to
distinguish between the standard of morality incumbent on the clergy and
a different one applying to the laity,[221] as, for instance, in the
question of a single marriage; and they dwelt with increased emphasis on
the glory of the heroic Christians, _belonging to the great Church_, who
had distinguished themselves by asceticism and joyful submission to
martyrdom. By these methods they brought into disrepute that which had
once been dear to the whole Church, but was now of no further service.
In repudiating supposed abuses they more and more weakened the regard
felt for the thing itself, as, for example, in the case of the so-called
Chiliasm,[222] congregational prophecy and the spiritual independence of
the laity. But none of these things could be absolutely rejected; hence,
for example, Chiliasm remained virtually unweakened (though subject to
limitations[223]) in the West and certain districts of the East; whereas
prophecy lost its force so much that it appeared harmless and therefore
died away.[224] However, the most effective means of legitimising the
present state of things in the Church was a circumstance closely
connected with the formation of a canon of early Christian writings,
viz., the distinction of an _epoch of revelation_, along with a
corresponding classical period of Christianity unattainable by later
generations. This period was connected with the present by means of the
New Testament and the apostolic office of the bishops. This later time
was to regard the older period as an ideal, but might not dream of
really attaining the same perfection, except at least through the medium
of the Holy Scriptures and the apostolic office, that is, the Church.
The place of the holy Christendom that had the Spirit in its midst was
taken by the ecclesiastic institution possessing the "instrument of
divine literature" ("instrumentum divinæ litteraturæ") and the spiritual
office. Finally, we must mention another factor that hastened the
various changes; this was the theology of the Christian philosophers,
which attained importance in the Church as soon as she based her claim
on and satisfied her conscience with an objective possession.
3. But there was one rule which specially impeded the naturalisation of
the Church in the world and the transformation of a communion of the
saved into an institution for obtaining salvation, viz., the regulation
that excluded gross sinners from Christian membership. Down to the
beginning of the third century, in so far as the backslider did not
atone for his guilt[225] by public confession before the authorities
(see Ep. Lugd. in Euseb., H. E. V. 1 ff.), final exclusion from the
Church was still the penalty of relapse into idolatry, adultery,
whoredom, and murder; though at the same time the forgiveness of God in
the next world was reserved for the fallen provided they remained
penitent to the end. In _theory_ indeed this rule was not very old. For
the oldest period possessed no theories; and in those days Christians
frequently broke through what might have been counted as one by
appealing to the Spirit, who, by special announcements--particularly by
the mouth of martyrs and prophets--commanded or sanctioned the
readmission of lapsed members of the community (see Hermas).[226] Still,
the rule corresponded to the ancient notions that Christendom is a
communion of saints, that there is no ceremony _invariably_ capable of
replacing baptism, that is, possessing the same value, and that God
alone can forgive sins. The practice must on the whole have agreed with
this rule; but in the course of the latter half of the second century it
became an established custom, in the case of a first relapse, to allow
atonement to be made once for most sins and perhaps indeed for all, on
condition of public confession.[227] For this, appeal was probably made
to Hermas, who very likely owed his prestige to the service he here
unwittingly rendered. We say "unwittingly," for he could scarcely have
intended such an application of his precepts, though at bottom it was
not directly opposed to his attitude. In point of fact, however, this
practice introduced something closely approximating to a second baptism.
Tertullian indeed (de pænit. 12) speaks unhesitatingly of _two_ planks
of salvation.[228] Moreover, if we consider that in any particular case
the decision as to the deadly nature of the sin in question was
frequently attended with great difficulty, and certainly, as a rule, was
not arrived at with rigorous exactness, we cannot fail to see that, in
conceding a second expiation, the Church was beginning to abandon the
old idea that Christendom was a community of saints. Nevertheless the
fixed practice of refusing whoremongers, adulterers, murderers, and
idolaters readmission to the Church, in ordinary cases, prevented men
from forgetting that there was a boundary line dividing her from the
world.
This state of matters continued till about 220.[229] In reality the rule
was first infringed by the peremptory edict of bishop Calixtus, who, in
order to avoid breaking up his community, granted readmission to those
who had fallen into sins of the flesh. Moreover, he claimed this power
of readmission as a right appertaining to the bishops as successors of
the Apostles, that is, as possessors of the Spirit and the power of the
keys.[230] At Rome this rescript led to the secession headed by
Hippolytus. But, between 220 and 250, the milder practice with regard to
the sins of the flesh became prevalent, though it was not yet
universally accepted. This, however, resulted in no further schism
(Cyp., ep. 55. 21). But up to the year 250 no concessions were allowed
in the case of relapse into idolatry.[231] These were first occasioned
by the Decian persecution, since in many towns those who had abjured
Christianity were more numerous than those who adhered to it.[232] The
majority of the bishops, part of them with hesitation, agreed on new
principles.[233] To begin with, permission was given to absolve
repentant apostates on their deathbed. Next, a distinction was made
between _sacrificati_ and _libellatici_, the latter being more mildly
treated. Finally, the possibility of readmission was conceded under
certain severe conditions to all the lapsed, a casuistic proceeding was
adopted in regard to the laity, and strict measures--though this was not
the universal rule--were only adopted towards the clergy. In consequence
of this innovation, which logically resulted in the gradual cessation of
the belief that there can be only one repentance after baptism--an
assumption that was untenable in principle--Novatian's schism took place
and speedily rent the Church in twain. But, even in cases where unity
was maintained, many communities observed the stricter practice down to
the fifth century.[234] What made it difficult to introduce this change
by regular legislation was the authority to forgive sins in God's stead,
ascribed in primitive times to the inspired, and at a later period to
the confessors in virtue of their special relation to Christ or the
Spirit (see Ep. Lugd. in Euseb., H. E. V. 1 ff.; Cypr. epp.; Tertull. de
pudic. 22). The confusion occasioned by the confessors after the Decian
persecution led to the non-recognition of any rights of "spiritual"
persons other than the bishops. These confessors had frequently abetted
laxity of conduct, whereas, if we consider the measure of secularisation
found among the great mass of Christians, the penitential discipline
insisted on by the bishops is remarkable for its comparative severity.
The complete adoption of the episcopal constitution coincided with the
introduction of the unlimited right to forgive sins.[235]
4. The original conception of the relation of the Church to salvation or
eternal bliss was altered by this development. According to the older
notion the Church was the sure communion of salvation and of saints,
which rested on the forgiveness of sins mediated by baptism, and
excluded everything unholy. It is not the Church, but God alone, that
forgives sins, and, as a rule, indeed, this is only done through
baptism, though, in virtue of his unfathomable grace, also now and then
by special proclamations, the pardon coming into effect for repentant
sinners, after death, in heaven. If Christendom readmitted gross
sinners, it would anticipate the judgment of God, as it would thereby
assure them of salvation. Hence it can only take back those who have
been excluded in cases where their offences have not been committed
against God himself, but have consisted in transgressing the
commandments of the Church, that is, in venial sins.[236] But in course
of time it was just in lay circles that faith in God's grace became
weaker and trust in the Church stronger. He whom the Church abandoned
was lost to the world; therefore she must not abandon him. This state of
things was expressed in the new interpretation of the proposition, "no
salvation outside the Church" ("extra ecclesiam nulla salus"), viz.,
_the Church alone saves from damnation which is otherwise certain_. In
this conception the nature of the Church is depotentiated, but her
powers are extended. If she is the institution which, according to
Cyprian, is the indispensable preliminary condition of salvation, she
can no longer be a sure communion of the saved; in other words, she
becomes an institution from which proceeds the communion of saints; she
includes both saved and unsaved. Thus her religious character consists
in her being the indispensable medium, in so far as she alone guarantees
to the individual the _possibility_ of redemption. From this, however,
it immediately follows that the Church would anticipate the judgment of
God if she finally excluded anyone from her membership who did not give
her up of his own accord; whereas she could never prejudge the ultimate
destiny of a man by readmission.[237] But it also follows that the
Church must possess a means of repairing any injury upon earth, a means
of equal value with baptism, namely, a sacrament of the forgiveness of
sins. With this she acts in God's name and stead, but--and herein lies
the inconsistency--she cannot by this means establish any final
condition of salvation. In bestowing forgiveness on the sinner she in
reality only reconciles him with herself, and thereby, in fact, merely
removes the certainty of damnation. In accordance with this theory the
holiness of the Church can merely consist in her possession of the means
of salvation: _the Church is a holy institution in virtue of the gifts
with which she is endowed_. She is the moral seminary that trains for
salvation and the institution that exercises divine powers in Christ's
room. Both of these conceptions presuppose political forms; both
necessarily require priests and more especially an episcopate. (In de
pudic. 21 Tertullian already defines the position of his adversary by
the saying, "ecclesia est numerus episcoporum.") This episcopate by its
unity guarantees the unity of the Church and has received the power to
forgive sins (Cyp., ep. 69. 11).
The new conception of the Church, which was a necessary outcome of
existing circumstances and which, we may remark, was not formulated in
contradictory terms by Cyprian, but by Roman bishops,[238] was the first
thing that gave a fundamental _religious_ significance to the separation
of clergy and laity. The powers exercised by bishops and priests were
thereby fixed and hallowed. No doubt the old order of things, which gave
laymen a share in the administration of moral discipline, still
continued in the third century, but it became more and more a mere form.
The bishop became the practical vicegerent of Christ; he disposed of the
power to bind and to loose. But the recollection of the older form of
Christianity continued to exert an influence on the Catholic Church of
the third century. It is true that, if we can trust Hippolytus' account,
Calixtus had by this time firmly set his face against the older idea,
inasmuch as he not only defined the Church as _essentially a mixed body_
(_corpus permixtum_), but also asserted the unlawfulness of deposing the
bishop even in case of mortal sin.[239] But we do not find that
definition in Cyprian, and, what is of more importance, he still
required a definite degree of active Christianity as a _sine quâ non_ in
the case of bishops; and assumed it as a self-evident necessity. He who
does not give evidence of this forfeits his episcopal office _ipso
facto_.[240] Now if we consider that Cyprian makes the Church, as the
body of believers (_plebs credentium_), so dependent on the bishops,
that the latter are the only Christians not under tutelage, the demand
in question denotes a great deal. It carries out the old idea of the
Church in a certain fashion, as far as the bishops are concerned. But
for this very reason it endangers the new conception in a point of
capital importance; for the spiritual acts of a sinful bishop are
invalid;[241] and if the latter, as a notorious sinner, is no longer
bishop, the whole certainty of the ecclesiastical system ceases.
Moreover, an appeal to the certainty of God's installing the bishops and
always appointing the right ones[242] is of no avail, if false ones
manifestly find their way in. Hence Cyprian's idea of the Church--and
this is no dishonour to him--still involved an inconsistency which, in
the fourth century, was destined to produce a very serious crisis in the
Donatist struggle.[243] The view, however--which Cyprian never openly
expressed, and which was merely the natural inference from his
theory--that the Catholic Church, though the "one dove" ("una columba"),
is in truth not coincident with the number of the elect, was clearly
recognised and frankly expressed by Origen before him. Origen plainly
distinguished between spiritual and fleshly members of the Church; and
spoke of such as only belong to her outwardly, but are not Christians.
As these are finally overpowered by the gates of hell, Origen does not
hesitate to class them as merely seeming members of the Church.
Conversely, he contemplates the possibility of a person being expelled
from her fellowship and yet remaining a member in the eyes of God.[244]
Nevertheless he by no means attained to clearness on the point, in which
case, moreover, he would have been the first to do so; nor did he give
an impulse to further reflection on the problem. Besides, speculations
were of no use here. The Church with her priests, her holy books, and
gifts of grace, that is, the moderate secularisation of Christendom
corrected by the means of grace, was absolutely needed in order to
prevent a complete lapse into immorality.[245]
But a minority struggled against this Church, not with speculations, but
by demanding adherence to the old practice with regard to lapsed
members. Under the leadership of the Roman presbyter, Novatian, this
section formed a coalition in the Empire that opposed the Catholic
confederation.[246] Their adherence to the old system of Church
discipline involved a reaction against the secularising process, which
did not seem to be tempered by the spiritual powers of the bishops.
Novatian's conception of the Church, of ecclesiastical absolution and
the rights of the priests, and in short, his notion of the power of the
keys is different from that of his opponents. This is clear from a
variety of considerations. For he (with his followers) assigned to the
Church the right and duty of expelling gross sinners once for all;[247]
he denied her the authority to absolve idolaters, but left these to the
forgiveness of God who alone has the power of pardoning sins committed
against himself; and he asserted: "non est pax illi ab episcopo
necessaria habituro gloriæ suæ (scil. martyrii) pacem et accepturo
maiorem de domini dignatione mercedem,"--"the absolution of the bishop
is not needed by him who will receive the peace of his glory (i.e.,
martyrdom) and will obtain a greater reward from the approbation of the
Lord" (Cypr. ep. 57. 4), and on the other hand taught: "peccato alterius
inquinari alterum et idololatriam delinquentis ad non delinquentem
transire,"--"the one is defiled by the sin of the other and the idolatry
of the transgressor passes over to him who does not transgress." His
proposition that none but God can forgive sins does not depotentiate the
idea of the Church; but secures both her proper religious significance
and the full sense of her dispensations of grace: it limits her powers
and _extent_ in favour of her _content_. Refusal of her forgiveness
under certain circumstances--though this does not exclude the confident
hope of God's mercy--can only mean that in Novatian's view this
forgiveness is the foundation of salvation and does not merely avert the
certainty of perdition. To the Novatians, then, membership of the Church
is not the _sine quâ non_ of salvation, but it really secures it in some
measure. In certain cases nevertheless the Church may not anticipate the
judgment of God. Now it is never by exclusion, but by readmission, that
she does so. As the assembly of the baptised, who have received God's
forgiveness, the Church must be a real communion of salvation and of
saints; hence she cannot endure unholy persons in her midst without
losing her essence. Each gross sinner that is tolerated within her calls
her legitimacy in question. But, from this point of view, the
constitution of the Church, i.e., the distinction of lay and spiritual
and the authority of the bishops, likewise retained nothing but the
secondary importance it had in earlier times. For, according to those
principles, the primary question as regards Church membership is not
connection with the clergy (the bishop). It is rather connection with
the community, fellowship with which secures the salvation that may
indeed be found outside its pale, but not with certainty. But other
causes contributed to lessen the importance of the bishops: the art of
casuistry, so far-reaching in its results, was unable to find a fruitful
soil here, and the laity were treated in exactly the same way as the
clergy. The ultimate difference between Novatian and Cyprian as to the
idea of the Church and the power to bind and loose did not become clear
to the latter himself. This was because, in regard to the idea of the
Church, he partly overlooked the inferences from his own view and to
some extent even directly repudiated them. An attempt to lay down a
principle for judging the case is found in ep. 69. 7: "We and the
schismatics have neither the same law of the creed nor the same
interrogation, for when they say: 'you believe in the remission of sins
and eternal life through the holy Church,' they speak falsely" ("non est
una nobis et schismaticis symboli lex neque eadem interrogatio; nam cum
dicunt, credis in remissionem peccatorum et vitam æternam per sanctam
ecclesiam, mentiuntur"). Nor did Dionysius of Alexandria, who
endeavoured to accumulate reproaches against Novatian, succeed in
forming any effective accusation (Euseb., H. E. VII. 8). Pseudo-Cyprian
had just as little success (ad Novatianum).
It was not till the subsequent period, when the Catholic Church had
resolutely pursued the path she had entered, that the difference in
principle manifested itself with unmistakable plainness. The historical
estimate of the contrast must vary in proportion as one contemplates the
demands of primitive Christianity or the requirements of the time. The
Novatian confederation undoubtedly preserved a valuable remnant of the
old tradition. The idea that the Church, as a fellowship of salvation,
must also be the fellowship of saints ([Greek: Katharoi]) corresponds to
the ideas of the earliest period. The followers of Novatian did not
entirely identify the political and religious attributes of the Church;
they neither transformed the gifts of salvation into means of education,
nor confused the reality with the possibility of redemption; and they
did not completely lower the requirements for a holy life. But on the
other hand, in view of the minimum insisted upon, the claim _that they
were the really evangelical party and that they fulfilled the law of
Christ_[248] was a presumption. The one step taken to avert the
secularising of the Church, exclusion of the lapsed, was certainly,
considering the actual circumstances immediately following a great
apostasy, a measure of radical importance; but, estimated by the Gospel
and in fact simply by the demands of the Montanists fifty years before,
it was remarkably insignificant. These Catharists did indeed go the
length of expelling _all_ so-called mortal sinners, because it was too
crying an injustice to treat _libellatici_ more severely than unabashed
transgressors;[249] but, even then, it was still a gross self-deception
to style themselves the "pure ones," since the Novatian Churches
speedily ceased to be any stricter than the Catholic in their
renunciation of the world. At least we do not hear that asceticism and
devotion to religious faith were very much more prominent in the
Catharist Church than in the Catholic. On the contrary, judging from the
sources that have come down to us, we may confidently say that the
picture presented by the two Churches in the subsequent period was
practically identical.[250] As Novatian's adherents did not differ from
the opposite party in doctrine and constitution, their discipline of
penance appears an archaic fragment which it was a doubtful advantage to
preserve; and their rejection of the Catholic dispensations of grace
(practice of rebaptism) a revolutionary measure, because it had
insufficient justification. But the distinction between venial and
mortal sins, a theory they held in common with the Catholic Church,
could not but prove especially fatal to them; whereas their opponents,
through their new regulations as to penance, softened this distinction,
and that not to the detriment of morality. For an entirely different
treatment of so-called gross and venial transgressions must in every
case deaden the conscience towards the latter.
5. If we glance at the Catholic Church and leave the melancholy
recriminations out of account, we cannot fail to see the wisdom,
foresight, and comparative strictness[251] with which the bishops
carried out the great revolution that so depotentiated the Church as to
make her capable of becoming a prop of civic society and of the state,
without forcing any great changes upon them.[252] In learning to look
upon the Church as a training school for salvation, provided with
penalties and gifts of grace, and in giving up its religious
independence in deference to her authority, Christendom as it existed in
the latter half of the third century,[253] submitted to an arrangement
that was really best adapted to its own interests. In the great Church
every distinction between her political and religious conditions
necessarily led to fatal disintegrations, to laxities, such as arose in
Carthage owing to the enthusiastic behaviour of the confessors; or to
the breaking up of communities. The last was a danger incurred in all
cases where the attempt was made to exercise unsparing severity. A
casuistic proceeding was necessary as well as a firm union of the
bishops as pillars of the Church. Not the least important result of the
crises produced by the great persecutions was the fact that the bishops
in West and East were thereby forced into closer connection and at the
same time acquired full jurisdiction ("per episcopos solos peccata posse
dimitti"). If we consider that the archiepiscopal constitution had not
only been simultaneously adopted, but had also attained the chief
significance in the ecclesiastical organisation,[254] we may say that
the Empire Church was completed the moment that Diocletian undertook the
great reorganisation of his dominions.[255] No doubt the old
Christianity had found its place in the new Church, but it was covered
over and concealed. In spite of all that, little alteration had been
made in the expression of faith, in religious language; people spoke of
the universal holy Church, just as they did a hundred years before. Here
the development in the history of dogma was in a very special sense a
development in the history of the Church. Catholicism was now complete;
the Church had suppressed all utterances of individual piety, in the
sense of their being binding on Christians, and freed herself from every
feature of exclusiveness. In order to be a Christian a man no longer
required in any sense to be a saint. "What made the Christian a
Christian was no longer the possession of charisms, but obedience to
ecclesiastical authority," share in the gifts of the Church, and the
performance of penance and good works. The Church by her edicts
legitimised average morality, after average morality had created the
authority of the Church. ("La médiocrité fonda l'autorité".) The
dispensations of grace, that is, absolution and the Lord's Supper,
abolished the charismatic gifts. The Holy Scriptures, the apostolic
episcopate, the priests, the sacraments, average morality in accordance
with which the whole world could live, were mutually conditioned. The
consoling words: "Jesus receives sinners," were subjected to an
interpretation that threatened to make them detrimental to
morality.[256] And with all that the self-righteousness of proud
ascetics was not excluded--quite the contrary. Alongside of a code of
morals, to which any one in case of need could adapt himself, the Church
began to legitimise a morality of self-chosen, refined sanctity, which
really required no Redeemer. It was as in possession of this
constitution that the great statesman found and admired her, and
recognised in her the strongest support of the Empire.[257]
A comparison of the aims of primitive Christendom with those of
ecclesiastical society at the end of the third century--a comparison of
the actual state of things at the different periods is hardly
possible--will always lead to a disheartening result; but the parallel
is in itself unjust. The truth rather is that the correct standpoint
from which to judge the matter was already indicated by Origen in the
comparison he drew (c. Cels. III. 29. 30) between the Christian society
of the third century and the non-Christian, between the Church and the
Empire, the clergy and the magistrates.[258] Amidst the general
disorganisation of all relationships, and from amongst the ruins of a
shattered fabric, a new structure, founded on the belief in one God, in
a sure revelation, and in eternal life, was being laboriously raised. It
gathered within it more and more all the elements still capable of
continued existence; it readmitted the old world, cleansed of its
grossest impurities, and raised holy barriers to secure its conquests
against all attacks. Within this edifice justice and civic virtue shone
with no greater brightness than they did upon the earth generally, but
within it burned two mighty flames--the assurance of eternal life,
guaranteed by Christ, and the practice of mercy. He who knows history is
aware that the influence of epoch-making personages is not to be sought
in its direct consequences alone, as these speedily disappear: that
structure which prolonged the life of a dying world, and brought
strength from the Holy One to another struggling into existence, was
also partly founded on the Gospel, and but for this would neither have
arisen nor attained solidity. Moreover, a Church had been created within
which the pious layman could find a holy place of peace and edification.
With priestly strife he had nothing to do, nor had he any concern in the
profound and subtle dogmatic system whose foundation was now being laid.
We may say that the religion of the laity attained freedom in proportion
as it became impossible for them to take part in the establishment and
guardianship of the official Church system. It is the professional
guardians of this ecclesiastical edifice who are the real martyrs of
religion, and it is they who have to bear the consequences of the
worldliness and lack of genuineness pertaining to the system. But to the
layman who seeks from the Church nothing more than aid in raising
himself to God, this worldliness and unveracity do not exist. During the
Greek period, however, laymen were only able to recognise this advantage
to a limited extent. The Church dogmatic and the ecclesiastical system
were still too closely connected with their own interests. It was in the
Middle Ages, that the Church first became a Holy Mother and her house a
house of prayer--for the Germanic peoples; for these races were really
the children of the Church, and they themselves had not helped to rear
the house in which they worshipped.
ADDENDA.
I. THE PRIESTHOOD. The completion of the old Catholic conception of the
Church, as this idea was developed in the latter half of the third
century, is perhaps most clearly shown in the attribute of priesthood,
with which the clergy were invested and which conferred on them the
greatest importance.[259] The development of this conception, whose
adoption is a proof that the Church had assumed a heathen complexion,
cannot be more particularly treated of here.[260] What meaning it has is
shown by its application in Cyprian and the original of the first six
books of the Apostolic Constitutions (see Book II.). The bishops (and
also the presbyters) are priests, in so far as they alone are empowered
to present the sacrifice as representatives of the congregation before
God[261] and in so far as they dispense or refuse the divine grace as
representatives of God in relation to the congregation. In this sense
they are also judges in God's stead.[262] The position here conceded to
the higher clergy corresponds to that of the mystagogue in heathen
religions, and is acknowledged to be borrowed from the latter.[263]
Divine grace already appears as a sacramental consecration of an
objective nature, the bestowal of which is confined to spiritual
personages chosen by God. This fact is no way affected by the perception
that an ever increasing reference is made to the Old Testament priests
as well as to the whole Jewish ceremonial and ecclesiastical
regulations.[264] It is true that there is no other respect in which Old
Testament commandments were incorporated with Christianity to such an
extent as they were in this.[265] But it can be proved that this formal
adoption everywhere took place at a subsequent date, that is, it had
practically no influence on the development itself, which was not
legitimised by the commandments till a later period, and that often in a
somewhat lame fashion. We may perhaps say that the development which
made the bishops and elders priests altered the inward form of the
Church in a more radical fashion than any other. "Gnosticism," which the
Church had repudiated in the second century, became part of her own
system in the third. As her integrity had been made dependent on
inalienable objective standards, the adoption even of this greatest
innovation, which indeed was in complete harmony with the secular
element within her, was an elementary necessity. In regard to every
sphere of Church life, and hence also in respect to the development of
dogma[266] and the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, the priesthood
proved of the highest significance. The clerical exposition of the
sacred books, with its frightful ideas, found its earliest advocate in
Cyprian and had thus a most skilful champion at the very first.[267]
II. SACRIFICE. In Book I., chap. III., § 7, we have already shown what a
wide field the idea of sacrifice occupied in primitive Christendom, and
how it was specially connected with the celebration of the Lord's
Supper. The latter was regarded as the pure (i.e., to be presented with
a pure heart), bloodless thank offering of which Malachi had prophesied
in I. 11. Priesthood and sacrifice, however, are mutually conditioned.
The alteration of the concept "priest" necessarily led to a simultaneous
and corresponding change in the idea of sacrifice, just as, conversely,
the latter reacted on the former.[268] In Irenæus and Tertullian the old
conception of sacrifice, viz., that prayers are the Christian sacrifice
and that the disposition of the believer hallows his whole life even as
it does his offering, and forms a well-pleasing sacrifice to God,
remains essentially unchanged. In particular, there is no evidence of
any alteration in the notion of sacrifice connected with the Lord's
Supper.[269] But nevertheless we can already trace a certain degree of
modification in Tertullian. Not only does he give fasting, voluntary
celibacy, martyrdom, etc., special prominence among the sacrificial acts
of a Christian life, and extol their religious value--as had already
been done before; but he also attributes a God-propitiating significance
to these performances, and plainly designates them as "merita"
("promereri deum"). To the best of my belief Tertullian was the first
who definitely regarded ascetic performances as propitiatory offerings
and ascribed to them the "potestas reconciliandi iratum deum."[270] But
he himself was far from using this fatal theory, so often found in his
works, to support a lax Church practice that made Christianity consist
in outward forms. This result did not come about till the eventful
decades, prolific in new developments, that elapsed between the
persecutions of Septimius and Decius; and in the West it is again
Cyprian who is our earliest witness as to the new view and
practice.[271] In the first place, Cyprian was quite familiar with the
idea of ascetic propitiations and utilised it in the interest of the
Catholicity of the Church; secondly, he propounded a new theory of the
offering in the cultus. As far as the first point is concerned,
Cyprian's injunctions with regard to it are everywhere based on the
understanding that even after baptism no one can be without sin (de op.
et cleemos. 3); and also on the firm conviction that this sacrament can
only have a retrospective virtue. Hence he concludes that we must
appease God, whose wrath has been aroused by sin, through performances
of our own, that is, through offerings that bear the character of
"satisfactions." In other words we must blot out transgressions by
specially meritorious deeds in order thus to escape eternal punishment.
These deeds Cyprian terms "merita," which either possess the character
of atonements, or, in case there are no sins to be expiated, entitle the
Christian to a special reward (merces).[272] But, along with
_lamentationes_ and acts of penance, it is principally alms-giving that
forms such means of atonement (see de lapsis, 35, 36). In Cyprian's eyes
this is already the proper satisfaction; mere prayer, that is,
devotional exercises unaccompanied by fasting and alms, being regarded
as "bare and unfruitful." In the work "de opere et eleemosynis" which,
after a fashion highly characteristic of Cyprian, is made dependent on
Sirach and Tobias, he has set forth a detailed theory of what we may
call alms-giving as a _means of grace_ in its relation to baptism and
salvation.[273] However, this practice can only be viewed as a means of
grace in Cyprian's sense in so far as God has accepted it, that is,
pointed it out. In itself it is a free human act. After the Decian
persecution and the rearrangement of ecclesiastical affairs necessitated
by it, works and alms (opera et eleemosynæ) made their way into the
absolution system of the Church, and were assigned a permanent place in
it. Even the Christian who has forfeited his Church membership by
abjuration may ultimately recover it by deeds of sacrifice, of course
under the guidance and intercessory coöperation of the Church. The
dogmatic dilemma we find here cannot be more clearly characterised than
by simply placing the two doctrines professed by Cyprian side by side.
These are:--(1) that the sinfulness common to each individual can only
be once extirpated by the power of baptism derived from the work of
Christ, and (2) that transgressions committed after baptism, inclusive
of mortal sins, can and must be expiated solely by spontaneous acts of
sacrifice under the guidance of kind mother Church.[274] A Church
capable of being permanently satisfied with such doctrines would very
soon have lost the last remains of her Christian character. What was
wanted was a means of grace, similar to baptism and granted by God
through Christ, to which the _opera et eleemosynæ_ are merely to bear
the relation of _accompanying_ acts. But Cyprian was no dogmatist and
was not able to form a doctrine of the means of grace. He never got
beyond his "propitiate God the judge by sacrifices after baptism"
("promereri deum judicem post baptismum sacrificiis"), and merely
hinted, in an obscure way, that the absolution of him who has committed
a deadly sin after baptism emanates from the same readiness of God to
forgive as is expressed in that rite, and that membership in the Church
is a condition of absolution. His whole theory as to the legal nature of
man's (the Christian's) relationship to God, and the practice,
inaugurated by Tertullian, of designating this connection by terms
derived from Roman law continued to prevail in the West down to
Augustine's time.[275] But, during this whole interval, no book was
written by a Western Churchman which made the salvation of the sinful
Christian dependent on ascetic offerings of atonement, with so little
regard to Christ's grace and the divine factor in the case, as Cyprian's
work _de opere et eleemosynis_.
No less significant is Cyprian's advance as regards the idea of the
sacrifice in public worship, and that in three respects. To begin with,
Cyprian was the first to associate the specific offering, i.e., the
Lord's Supper[276] with the specific priesthood. Secondly, he was the
first to designate the _passio dominis_, nay, the _sanguis Christi_ and
the _dominica hostia_ as the object of the eucharistic offering.[277]
Thirdly, he expressly represented the celebration of the Lord's Supper
as an incorporation of the congregation and its individual members with
Christ, and was the first to bear clear testimony as to the special
importance attributed to commemoration of the celebrators ("vivi et
defuncti"), though no other can be ascertained than a specially strong
intercession.[278] But this is really the essential effect of the
sacrifice of the supper as regards the celebrators; for however much the
conceptions about this ceremony might be heightened, and whatever
additions might be made to its ritual, forgiveness of sins in the strict
sense could not be associated with it. Cyprian's statement that every
celebration of the Lord's Supper is a repetition or imitation of
Christ's sacrifice of himself, and that the ceremony has therefore an
expiatory value remains a mere assertion, though the Romish Church still
continues to repeat this doctrine to the present day. For the idea that
partaking of the Lord's Supper cleansed from sin like the mysteries of
the Great Mother (magna mater) and Mithras, though naturally suggested
by the ceremonial practice, was counteracted by the Church principles of
penance and by the doctrine of baptism. As a sacrificial rite the Supper
never became a ceremony equivalent in effect to baptism. But no doubt,
as far as the popular conception was concerned, the solemn ritual copied
from the ancient mysteries could not but attain an indescribably
important significance. It is not possible, within the framework of the
history of dogma, to describe the development of religious ceremonial in
the third century, and to show what a radical alteration took place in
men's conceptions with regard to it (cf. for example, Justin with
Cyprian). But, in dealing with the history of dogma within this period,
we must clearly keep in view the development of the cultus, the new
conceptions of the value of ritual, and the reference of ceremonial
usages to apostolic tradition; for there was plainly a remodelling of
the ritual in imitation of the ancient mysteries and of the heathen
sacrificial system, and this fact is admitted by Protestant scholars of
all parties. Ceremonial and doctrine may indeed be at variance, for the
latter may lag behind the former and vice versa, but they are never
subject to entirely different conditions.
III. MEANS OF GRACE, BAPTISM, and EUCHARIST. That which the Western
Church of post-Augustinian times calls sacrament in the specific sense
of the word (means of grace) was only possessed by the Church of the
third century in the form of baptism.[279] In strict theory she still
held that the grace once bestowed in this rite could be conferred by no
holy ceremony of equal virtue, that is, by no fresh sacrament. The
baptised Christian has no means of grace, conferred by Christ, at his
disposal, but has his law to fulfil (see, e.g., Iren. IV. 27. 2). But,
as soon as the Church began to absolve mortal sinners, she practically
possessed in absolution a real means of grace that was equally effective
with baptism from the moment that this remission became unlimited in its
application.[280] The notions as to this means of grace, however,
continued quite uncertain in so far as the thought of God's absolving
the sinner through the priest was qualified by the other theory (see
above) which asserted that forgiveness was obtained through the
penitential acts of transgressors (especially baptism with blood, and
next in importance _lamentationes, ieiunia, eleemosynæ_). In the third
century there were manifold holy dispensations of grace by the hands of
priests; but there was still no theory which traced the means of grace
to the historical work of Christ in the same way that the grace bestowed
in baptism was derived from it. From Cyprian's epistles and the
anti-Novatian sections in the first six books of the Apostolic
Constitutions we indeed see that appeal was not unfrequently made to the
power of forgiving sins bestowed on the Apostles and to Christ's
declaration that he received sinners; but, as the Church had not made up
her mind to repeat baptism, so also she had yet no theory that expressly
and clearly supplemented this rite by a _sacramentum absolutionis_. In
this respect, as well as in regard to the _sacramentum ordinis_, first
instituted by Augustine, theory remained far behind practice. This was
by no means an advantage, for, as a matter of fact, the whole religious
ceremonial was already regarded as a system of means of grace. The
consciousness of a personal, living connection of the individual with
God through Christ had already disappeared, and the hesitation in
setting up new means of grace had only the doubtful result of increasing
the significance of human acts, such as offerings and satisfactions, to
a dangerous extent.
Since the middle of the second century the notions of baptism[281] in
the Church have not essentially altered (see Vol. I. p. 206 ff.). The
result of baptism was universally considered to be forgiveness of sins,
and this pardon was supposed to effect an actual sinlessness which now
required to be maintained.[282] We frequently find "deliverance from
death," "regeneration of man," "restoration to the image of God," and
"obtaining of the Holy Spirit." ("Absolutio mortes," "regeneratio
hominis," "restitutio ad similitudinem dei" and "consecutio spiritus
sancti") named along with the "remission of sins" and "obtaining of
eternal life" ("remissio delictorum" and "consecutio æternitatis").
Examples are to be found in Tertullian[283] adv. Marc. I. 28 and
elsewhere; and Cyprian speaks of the "bath of regeneration and
sanctification" ("lavacrum regenerationis et sanctificationis").
Moreover, we pretty frequently find rhetorical passages where, on the
strength of New Testament texts, all possible blessings are associated
with baptism.[284] The constant additions to the baptismal ritual, a
process which had begun at a very early period, are partly due to the
intention of symbolising these supposedly manifold virtues of
baptism,[285] and partly owe their origin to the endeavour to provide
the great mystery with fit accompaniments.[286] As yet the separate acts
can hardly be proved to have an independent signification.[287] The
water was regarded both as the symbol of the purification of the soul
and as an efficacious, holy medium of the Spirit (in accordance with
Gen. I. 2; water and Spirit are associated with each other, especially
in Cyprian's epistles on baptism). He who asserted the latter did not
thereby repudiate the former (see Orig. in Joann. Tom. VI. 17, Opp. IV.
p. 133).[288] Complete obscurity prevails as to the Church's adoption of
the practice of child baptism, which, though it owes its origin to the
idea of this ceremony being indispensable to salvation, is nevertheless
a proof that the superstitious view of baptism had increased.[289] In
the time of Irenæus (II. 22. 4) and Tertullian (de bapt. 18) child
baptism had already become very general and was founded on Matt. XIX.
14. We have no testimony regarding it from earlier times; Clement of
Alexandria does not yet assume it. Tertullian argued against it not only
because he regarded conscious faith as a needful preliminary condition,
but also because he thought it advisable to delay baptism (cunctatio
baptismi) on account of the responsibility involved in it (pondus
baptismi). He says: "It is more advantageous to delay baptism,
especially in the case of little children. For why is it necessary for
the sponsors" (this is the first mention of "godparents") "also to be
thrust into danger?... let the little ones therefore come when they are
growing up; let them come when they are learning, when they are taught
where they are coming to; let them become Christians when they are able
to know Christ. Why does an age of innocence hasten to the remission of
sins? People will act more cautiously in worldly affairs, so that one
who is not trusted with earthly things is trusted with divine. Whoever
understands the responsibility of baptism will fear its attainment more
than its delay."[290] To all appearance the practice of immediately
baptising the children of Christian families was universally adopted in
the Church in the course of the third century. (Origen, Comment, in ep.
ad Rom. V. 9, Opp. IV. p. 565, declared child baptism to be a custom
handed down by the Apostles.) Grown up people, on the other hand,
frequently postponed baptism, but this habit was disapproved.[291]
The Lord's Supper was not only regarded as a sacrifice, but also as a
divine gift.[292] The effects of this gift were not theoretically fixed,
because these were excluded by the strict scheme[293] of baptismal grace
and baptismal obligation. But in practice Christians more and more
assumed a real bestowal of heavenly gifts in the holy food, and gave
themselves over to superstitious theories. This bestowal was sometimes
regarded as a spiritual and sometimes as a bodily self-communication of
Christ, that is, as a miraculous implanting of divine life. Here ethical
and physical, and again ethical and theoretical features were intermixed
with each other. The utterances of the Fathers to which we have access
do not allow us to classify these elements here; for to all appearance
not a single one clearly distinguished between spiritual and bodily, or
ethical and intellectual effects unless he was in principle a
spiritualist. But even a writer of this kind had quite as superstitious
an idea of the holy elements as the rest. Thus the holy meal was
extolled as the communication of incorruption, as a pledge of
resurrection, as a medium of the union of the flesh with the Holy
Spirit; and again as food of the soul, as the bearer of the Spirit of
Christ (the Logos), as the means of strengthening faith and knowledge,
as a sanctifying of the whole personality. The thought of the
forgiveness of sins fell quite into the background. This ever changing
conception, as it seems to us, of the effects of partaking of the Lord's
Supper had also a parallel in the notions as to the relation between the
visible elements and the body of Christ. So far as we are able to judge
no one felt that there was a _problem_ here, no one enquired whether
this relation was realistic or symbolical. The symbol is the mystery and
the mystery was not conceivable without a symbol. What we now-a-days
understand by "symbol" is a thing which is not that which it represents;
at that time "symbol" denoted a thing which, in some kind of way, really
is what it signifies; but, on the other hand, according to the ideas of
that period, the really heavenly element lay either in or behind the
visible form without being identical with it. Accordingly the
distinction of a symbolic and realistic conception of the Supper is
altogether to be rejected; we could more rightly distinguish between
materialistic, dyophysite, and docetic conceptions which, however, are
not to be regarded as severally exclusive in the strict sense. In the
popular idea the consecrated elements were heavenly fragments of magical
virtue (see Cypr., de laps. 25; Euseb., H. E. VI. 44). With these the
rank and file of third-century Christians already connected many
superstitious notions which the priests tolerated or shared.[294] The
antignostic Fathers acknowledged that the consecrated food consisted of
two things, an earthly (the elements) and a heavenly (the real body of
Christ). They thus saw in the sacrament a guarantee of the union between
spirit and flesh, which the Gnostics denied; and a pledge of the
resurrection of the flesh nourished by the blood of the Lord (Justin;
Iren. IV. 18. 4, 5; V. 2. 2, 3; likewise Tertullian who is erroneously
credited with a "symbolical" doctrine[295]). Clement and Origen
"spiritualise," because, like Ignatius, they assign a spiritual
significance to the flesh and blood of Christ himself (summary of
wisdom). To judge from the exceedingly confused passage in Pæd. II. 2,
Clement distinguishes a spiritual and a material blood of Christ.
Finally, however, he sees in the Eucharist the union of the divine Logos
with the human spirit, recognises, like Cyprian at a later period, that
the mixture of wine with water in the symbol represents the spiritual
process, and lastly does not fail to attribute to the holy food a
relationship to the body.[296] It is true that Origen, the great
mysteriosophist and theologian of sacrifice, expressed himself in
plainly "spiritualistic" fashion; but in his eyes religious mysteries
and the whole person of Christ lay in the province of the spirit, and
therefore his theory of the Supper is not "symbolical," but conformable
to his doctrine of Christ. Besides, Origen was only able to recognise
spiritual aids in the sphere of the intellect and the disposition, and
in the assistance given to these by man's own free and spontaneous
efforts. Eating and drinking and, in general, participation in a
ceremonial are from Origen's standpoint completely indifferent matters.
The intelligent Christian feeds at all times on the body of Christ, that
is, on the Word of God, and thus celebrates a never ending Supper (c.
Cels. VIII. 22). Origen, however, was not blind to the fact that his
doctrine of the Lord's Supper was just as far removed from the faith of
the simple Christian as his doctrinal system generally. Here also,
therefore, he accommodated himself to that faith in points where it
seemed necessary. This, however, he did not find difficult; for, though
with him everything is at bottom "spiritual," he was unwilling to
dispense with symbols and mysteries, because he knew that one must be
_initiated_ into the spiritual, since one cannot learn it as one learns
the lower sciences.[297] But, whether we consider simple believers, the
antignostic Fathers or Origen, and, moreover, whether we view the Supper
as offering or sacrament, we everywhere observe that the holy ordinance
had been entirely diverted from its original purpose and pressed into
the service of the spirit of antiquity. In no other point perhaps is the
hellenisation of the Gospel so evident as in this. To mention only one
other example, this is also shown in the practice of child communion,
which, though we first hear of it in Cyprian (Testim. III. 25; de laps.
25), can hardly be of later origin than child baptism. Partaking of the
Supper seemed quite as indispensable as baptism, and the child had no
less claim than the adult to a magical food from heaven.[298]
* * * * *
In the course of the third century a crass superstition became developed
in respect to the conceptions of the Church and the mysteries connected
with her. According to this notion we must subject ourselves to the
Church and must have ourselves filled with holy consecrations as we are
filled with food. But the following chapters will show that this
superstition and mystery magic were counterbalanced by a most lively
conception of the freedom and responsibility of the individual. Fettered
by the bonds of authority and superstition in the sphere of religion,
free and self-dependent in the province of morality, this Christianity
is characterised by passive submission in the first respect and by
complete activity in the second. It may be that exegetical theology can
never advance beyond an alternation between these two aspects of the
case, and a recognition of their equal claim to consideration; for the
religious phenomenon in which they are combined defies any explanation.
But religion is in danger of being destroyed when the insufficiency of
the understanding is elevated into a convenient principle of theory and
life, and when the real mystery of the faith, viz., how one becomes a
new man, must accordingly give place to the injunction that we must
obediently accept the religious as a consecration, and add to this the
zealous endeavour after ascetic virtue. Such, however, has been the
character of Catholicism since the third century, and even after
Augustine's time it has still remained the same in its practice.
_EXCURSUS TO CHAPTERS II. AND III._
CATHOLIC AND ROMAN.[299]
In investigating the development of Christianity up till about the year
270 the following facts must be specially kept in mind: In the regions
subject to Rome, apart from the Judæo-Christian districts and passing
disturbances, Christianity had yet an undivided history in vital
questions;[300] the independence of individual congregations and of the
provincial groups of Churches was very great; and every advance in the
development of the communities at the same time denoted a forward step
in their adaptation to the existing conditions of the Empire. The first
two facts we have mentioned have their limitations. The further apart
the different Churches lay, the more various were the conditions under
which they arose and flourished; the looser the relations between the
towns in which they had their home the looser also was the connection
between them. Still, it is evident that towards the end of the third
century the development in the Church had well-nigh attained the same
point everywhere--except in outlying communities. Catholicism,
essentially as we conceive it now, was what most of the Churches had
arrived at. Now it is an _a priori_ probability that this transformation
of Christianity, which was simply the adaptation of the Gospel to the
then existing Empire, came about under the guidance of the metropolitan
Church,[301] the Church of Rome; and that "Roman" and "Catholic" had
therefore a special relation from the beginning. It might _a limine_ be
objected to this proposition that there is no direct testimony in
support of it, and that, apart from this consideration, it is also
improbable, in so far as, in view of the then existing condition of
society, Catholicism appears as the _natural and only possible_ form in
which Christianity could be adapted to the world. But this is not the
case; for in the first place very strong proofs can be adduced, and
besides, as is shown by the development in the second century, very
different kinds of secularisation were possible. In fact, if all
appearances are not deceptive, the Alexandrian Church, for example, was
up to the time of Septimius Severus pursuing a path of development
which, left to itself, would _not_ have led to Catholicism, but, in the
most favourable circumstances, to a parallel form.[302]
It can, however, be proved that it was in the Roman Church, which up to
about the year 190 was closely connected with that of Asia Minor, that
all the elements on which Catholicism is based first assumed a definite
form.[303] (1) We know that the Roman Church possessed a precisely
formulated baptismal confession, and that as early as the year 180 she
declared this to be the apostolic rule by which everything is to be
measured. It is only in her case that we are really certain of this, for
we can merely guess at it as regards the Church of Smyrna, that is, of
Asia Minor. It was accordingly admitted that the Roman Church was able
to distinguish true from false with special exactness;[304] and Irenæus
and Tertullian appealed to her to decide the practice in Gaul and
Africa. This practice, in its precisely developed form, cannot be shown
to have existed in Alexandria till a later period; but Origen, who
testifies to it, also bears witness to the special reverence for and
connection with the Roman Church. (2) The New Testament canon, with its
claim to be accounted catholic and apostolic and to possess exclusive
authority is first traceable in her; in the other communities it can
only be proved to exist at a later period. In the great Antiochian
diocese there was, for instance, a Church some of whose members wished
the Gospel of Peter read; in the Pentapolis group of congregations the
Gospel of the Egyptians was still used in the 3rd century; Syrian
Churches of the same epoch used Tatian's Diatessaron; and the original
of the first six books of the Apostolic Constitutions still makes no
mention of a New Testament canon. Though Clement of Alexandria no doubt
testifies that, in consequence of the common history of Christianity,
the group of Scriptures read in the Roman congregations was also the
same as that employed in public worship at Alexandria, he had as yet no
New Testament canon before him in the sense of Irenæus and Tertullian.
It was not till Origen's time that Alexandria reached the stage already
attained in Rome about forty years earlier. It must, however, be pointed
out that a series of New Testament books, in the form now found in the
canon and universally recognised, show marks of revision that can be
traced back to the Roman Church.[305] Finally, the later investigations,
which show that after the third century the Western readings, that is,
the Roman text, of the New Testament were adopted in the Oriental MSS.
of the Bible,[306] are of the utmost value here; for the most natural
explanation of these facts is that the Eastern Churches then received
their New Testament from Rome and used it to correct their copies of
books read in public worship.[307] (3) Rome is the first place which we
can prove to have constructed a list of bishops reaching back to the
Apostles (see Irenæus).[308] We know that in the time of Heliogabalus
such lists also existed in other communities; but it cannot be proved
that these had already been drawn up by the time of Marcus Aurelius or
Commodus, as was certainly the case at Rome. (4) The notion of the
apostolic succession of the episcopate[309] was first turned to account
by the Roman bishops, and they were the first who definitely formulated
the political idea of the Church in connection with this. The utterances
and corresponding practical measures of Victor,[310] Calixtus
(Hippolytus), and Stephen are the earliest of their kind; whilst the
precision and assurance with which they substituted the political and
clerical for the ideal conception of the Church, or amalgamated the two
notions, as well as the decided way in which they proclaimed the
sovereignty of the bishops, were not surpassed in the third century by
Cyprian himself. (5) Rome was the first place, and that at a very early
period, to date occurrences according to her bishops; and, even outside
that city, churches reckoned, not according to their own, but according
to the Roman episcopate.[311] (6) The Oriental Churches say that two
bishops of Rome compiled the chief apostolic regulations for the
organisation of the Church; and this is only partially wrong.[312] (7)
The three great theologians of the age, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and
Origen, opposed the pretensions of the Roman bishop Calixtus; and this
very attitude of theirs testified that the advance in the political
organisation of the Church, denoted by the measures of Calixtus, was
still an unheard-of novelty, but immediately exercised a very important
influence on the attitude of other Churches. We know that the other
communities imitated this advance in the succeeding decades. (8) The
institution of lower orders of clergy with the corresponding distinction
of _clerici maiores_ and _minores_ first took place in Rome; but we know
that this momentous arrangement gradually spread from that city to the
rest of Christendom.[313] (9) The different Churches communicated with
one another through the medium of Rome.[314]
From these considerations we can scarcely doubt that the fundamental
apostolic institutions and laws of Catholicism were framed in the same
city that in other respects imposed its authority on the whole earth;
and that it was the centre from which they spread, because the world had
become accustomed to receive law and justice from Rome.[315] But it may
be objected that the parallel development in other provinces and towns
was spontaneous, though it everywhere came about at a somewhat later
date. Nor do we intend to contest the assumption in this general sense;
but, as I think, it can be proved that the Roman community had a direct
and important share in the process and that, even in the second century,
she was reckoned the first and most influential Church.[316] We shall
give a bird's-eye view of the most important facts bearing on the
question, in order to prove this.
No other community made a more brilliant entrance into Church history
than did that of Rome by the so called First Epistle of Clement--Paul
having already testified (Rom. I. 8) that the faith of this Church was
spoken of throughout the whole world. That letter to the Corinthians
proves that, by the end of the first century, the Roman Church had
already drawn up fixed rules for her own guidance, that she watched with
motherly care over outlying communities, and that she then knew how to
use language that was at once an expression of duty, love, and
authority.[317] As yet she pretends to no legal title of any kind, but
she knows the "commandments and ordinances" ([Greek: prostagmata] and
[Greek: dokaiômata]) of God, whereas the conduct of the sister Church
evinces her uncertainty on the matter; she is in an orderly condition,
whereas the sister community is threatened with dissolution; she adheres
to the [Greek: kanôn tês paradoseôs], whilst the other body stands in
need of exhortation;[318] and in these facts her claim to authority
consists. The Shepherd of Hermas also proves that even in the circles of
the laity the Roman Church is impressed with the consciousness that she
must care for the whole of Christendom. The first testimony of an
outsider as to this community is afforded us by Ignatius. Soften as we
may all the extravagant expressions in his Epistle to the Romans, it is
at least clear that Ignatius conceded to them a precedence in the circle
of sister Churches; and that he was well acquainted with the energy and
activity displayed by them in aiding and instructing other
communities.[319] Dionysius of Corinth, in his letter to bishop Soter,
affords us a glimpse of the vast activity manifested by the Christian
Church of the world's metropolis on behalf of all Christendom and of all
brethren far and near; and reveals to us the feelings of filial
affection and veneration with which she was regarded in all Greece as
well as in Antioch. This author has specially emphasised the fact that
the Roman Christians are _Romans_, that is, are conscious of the
particular duties incumbent on them as members of the metropolitan
Church.[320] After this evidence we cannot wonder that Irenæus expressly
assigned to the Church of Rome the highest rank among those founded by
the Apostles.[321] His famous testimony has been quite as often under as
over-estimated. Doubtless his reference to the Roman Church is
introduced in such a way that she is merely mentioned by way of example,
just as he also adds the allusion to Smyrna and Ephesus; but there is
quite as little doubt that this example was no arbitrary selection. The
truth rather is that the Roman community _must_ have been named, because
its decision was already the most authoritative and impressive in
Christendom.[322] Whilst giving a formal scheme of proof that assigned
the same theoretical value to each Church founded by the Apostles,
Irenæus added a reference to particular circumstance, viz., that in his
time many communities turned to Rome in order to testify their
orthodoxy.[323] As soon as we cease to obscure our vision with theories
and keep in view the actual circumstances, we have no cause for
astonishment. Considering the active intercourse between the various
Churches and the metropolis, it was of the utmost importance to all,
especially so long as they required financial aid, to be in connection
with that of Rome, to receive support from her, to know she would
entertain travelling brethren, and to have the power of recommending
prisoners and those pining in the mines to her influential intervention.
The evidence of Ignatius and Dionysius as well as the Marcia-Victor
episode place this beyond doubt (see above). The efforts of Marcion and
Valentinus in Rome have also a bearing on this question, and the
venerable bishop, Polycarp, did not shrink from the toil of a long
journey to secure the valuable fellowship of the Roman Church;[324] it
was not Anicetus who came to Polycarp, but Polycarp to Anicetus. At the
time when the controversy with Gnosticism ensued, the Roman Church
showed all the rest an example of resolution; it was naturally to be
expected that, as a necessary condition of mutual fellowship, she should
require other communities to recognise the law by which she had
regulated her own circumstances. No community in the Empire could regard
with indifference its relationship to the great Roman Church; almost
everyone had connections with her; she contained believers from all the
rest. As early as 180 this Church could point to a series of bishops
reaching in uninterrupted succession from the glorious apostles Paul and
Peter[325] down to the present time; and she alone maintained a brief
but definitely formulated _lex_, which she entitled the summary of
apostolic tradition, and by reference to which she decided all questions
of faith with admirable certainty. Theories were incapable of overcoming
the elementary differences that could not but appear as soon as
Christianity became naturalised in the various provinces and towns of
the Empire. Nor was it theories that created the empiric unity of the
Churches, but the unity which the Empire possessed in Rome; the extent
and composition of the Græco-Latin community there; the security--and
this was not the least powerful element--that accompanied the
development of this great society, well provided as it was with wealth
and possessed of an influence in high quarters already dating from the
first century;[326] as well as the care which it displayed on behalf of
all Christendom. _All these causes combined to convert the Christian
communities into a real confederation under the primacy of the Roman
Church (and subsequently under the leadership of her bishops)._ This
primacy cannot of course be further defined, for it was merely a _de
facto_ one. But, from the nature of the case, it was immediately shaken,
when it was claimed as a _legal_ right associated with the person of the
Roman bishop.
That this theory is more than a hypothesis is shown by several facts
which prove the unique authority as well as the interference of the
Roman Church (that is, of her bishop). First, in the Montanist
controversy--and that too at the stage when it was still almost
exclusively confined to Asia Minor--the already sobered adherents of the
new prophecy petitioned Rome (bishop Eleutherus) to recognise their
Church, and it was at Rome that the Gallic confessors cautiously
interfered in their behalf; after which a native of Asia Minor induced
the Roman bishop to withdraw the letters of toleration already
issued.[327] In view of the facts that it was not Roman Montanists who
were concerned, that Rome was the place where the Asiatic members of
this sect sought for recognition, and that it was in Rome that the Gauls
interfered in their behalf, the significance of this proceeding cannot
be readily minimised. We cannot of course dogmatise on the matter; but
the fact can be proved that the decision of the Roman Church must have
settled the position of that sect of enthusiasts in Christendom.
Secondly, what is reported to us of Victor, the successor of Eleutherus,
is still plainer testimony. He ventured to issue an edict, which we may
already style a peremptory one, proclaiming the Roman practice with
regard to the regulation of ecclesiastical festivals to be the universal
rule in the Church, and declaring that every congregation, that failed
to adopt the Roman arrangement,[328] was excluded from the union of the
one Church on the ground of heresy. How would Victor have ventured on
such an edict--though indeed he had not the power of enforcing it in
every case--unless the special prerogative of Rome to determine the
conditions of the "common unity" ([Greek: koinê henôsis]) in the vital
questions of the faith had been an acknowledged and well-established
fact? How could Victor have addressed such a demand to the independent
Churches, if he had not been recognised, in his capacity of bishop of
Rome, as the special guardian of the [Greek: koinê henôsis]?[329]
Thirdly, it was Victor who formally excluded Theodotus from Church
fellowship. This is the first really well-attested case of a Christian
_taking his stand on the rule of faith_ being excommunicated because a
definite interpretation of it was already insisted on. In this instance
the expression [Greek: huios monogenês] (only begotten Son) was required
to be understood in the sense of [Greek: Phusei Theos] (God by nature).
It was in Rome that this first took place. Fourthly, under Zephyrinus,
Victor's successor, the Roman ecclesiastics interfered in the
Carthaginian veil dispute, making common cause with the local clergy
against Tertullian; and both appealed to the authority of predecessors,
that is, above all, of the Roman bishops.[330] Tertullian, Hippolytus,
Origen, and Cyprian were obliged to resist the pretensions of these
ecclesiastics to authority outside their own Church, the first having to
contend with Calixtus, and the three others with Stephen.[331]
It was the Roman _Church_ that first displayed this activity and care;
the Roman bishop sprang from the community in exactly the same way as
the corresponding official did in other places.[332] In Irenæus' proof
from prescription, however, it is already the Roman _bishops_ that are
specially mentioned.[333] Praxeas reminded the bishop of Rome of the
authority of his predecessors ("auctoritates præcessorum eius") and it
was in the character of _bishop_ that Victor acted. The assumption that
Paul and Peter laboured in Rome, that is, founded the Church of that
city (Dionysius, Irenæus, Tertullian, Caius), must have conferred a high
degree of prestige on her bishops, as soon as the latter officials were
elevated to the position of more or less sovereign lords of the
communities and were regarded as successors of the Apostles. The first
who acted up to this idea was Calixtus. The sarcastic titles of
"pontifex maximus," "episcopus episcoporum," "benedictus papa" and
"apostolicus," applied to him by Tertullian in "de pudicitia" I. 13, are
so many references to the fact that Calixtus already claimed for himself
a position of primacy, in other words, that he associated with his own
personal position as bishop the primacy possessed by the Roman Church,
which pre-eminence, however, must have been gradually vanishing in
proportion to the progress of the Catholic form of organisation among
the other communities. Moreover, that is evident from the form of the
edict he issued (Tert. I. c., I: "I hear that an edict has been issued
and that a decisive one," "audio edictum esse præpositum et quidem
peremptorium"), from the grounds it assigned and from the opposition to
it on the part of Tertullian. From the form, in so far as Calixtus acted
here quite independently and, without previous consultation, issued a
_peremptory_ edict, that is, one settling the matter and immediately
taking effect; from the grounds it assigned, in so far as he appealed in
justification of his action to Matt. XVI. 18 ff.[334]--the first
instance of the kind recorded in history; from Tertullian's opposition
to it, because the latter treats it not as local, Roman, but as pregnant
in consequences for all Christendom. But, as soon as the question took
the form of enquiring whether the Roman _bishop_ was elevated above the
rest, a totally new situation arose. Even in the third century, as
already shown, the Roman community, led by its bishops, still showed the
rest an example in the process of giving a political constitution to the
Church. It can also be proved that even far distant congregations were
still being bound to the Roman Church through financial support,[335]
and that she was appealed to in questions of faith, just as the law of
the city of Rome was invoked as the standard in civil questions.[336] It
is further manifest from Cyprian's epistles that the Roman Church was
regarded as the _ecclesia principalis_, as the guardian _par excellence_
of the _unity_ of the Church. We may explain from Cyprian's own
particular situation all else that he said in praise of the Roman Church
(see above p. 88, note 2) and specially of the _cathedra Petri_; but the
general view that she is the "matrix et radix ecclesiæ catholicæ" is not
peculiar to him, and the statement that the "unitas sacerdotalis"
originated in Rome is merely the modified expression, necessitated by
the altered circumstances of the Church, for the acknowledged fact that
the Roman community was the most distinguished among the sister groups,
and as such had had and still possessed the right and duty of watching
over the unity of the whole. Cyprian himself no doubt took a further
step at the time of his correspondence with Cornelius, and proclaimed
the special reference of Matt. XVI. to the _cathedra Petri_; but he
confined his theory to the abstractions "ecclesia," "cathedra." In him
the importance of this _cathedra_ oscillates between the significance of
a once existent fact that continues to live on as a symbol, and that of
a real and permanent court of appeal. Moreover, he did not go the length
of declaring that any special authority within the collective Church
attached to the temporary occupant of the _cathedra Petri_. If we remove
from Cyprian's abstractions everything to which he himself thinks there
is nothing concrete corresponding, then we must above all eliminate
every prerogative of the Roman bishop for the time being. What remains
behind is the special position of the Roman Church, which indeed is
represented by her bishop. Cyprian can say quite frankly: "owing to her
magnitude Rome ought to have precedence over Carthage" ("pro magnitudine
sua debet Carthaginem Roma præcedere") and his theory: "the episcopate
is one, and a part of it is held by each bishop for the whole"
("episcopatus unus est, cuius a singulis in solidum pars tenetur"),
virtually excludes any special prerogative belonging to a particular
bishop (see also "de unit." 4). Here we have reached the point that has
already been briefly referred to above, viz., that the consolidation of
the Churches in the Empire after the Roman pattern could not but
endanger the prestige and peculiar position of Rome, and did in fact do
so. If we consider that each bishop was the acknowledged sovereign of
his own diocese--now Catholic, that all bishops, as such, were
recognised to be successors of the Apostles, that, moreover, the
attribute of priesthood occupied a prominent position in the conception
of the episcopal office, and that, the metropolitan unions with their
presidents and synods had become completely naturalised--in short, that
the rigid episcopal and provincial constitution of the Church had become
an accomplished fact, so that, ultimately, it was no longer communities,
but merely bishops that had dealings with each other, then we shall see
that a new situation was thereby created for Rome, that is, for her
bishop. In the West it was perhaps chiefly through the coöperation of
Cyprian that Rome found herself face to face with a completely organised
Church system. His behaviour in the controversy about heretical baptism
proves that in cases of dispute he was resolved to elevate his theory of
the sovereign authority of each bishop above his theory of the necessary
connection with the _cathedra Petri_. But, when that levelling of the
episcopate came about, Rome had already acquired rights that could no
longer be cancelled.[337] Besides, there was one thing that could not be
taken from the Roman Church, nor therefore from her bishop, even if she
were denied the special right to Matt. XVI., viz., the possession of
Rome. The site of the world's metropolis might be shifted, but Rome
could not be removed. In the long run, however, the shifting of the
capital proved advantageous to ecclesiastical Rome. At the beginning of
the great epoch when the alienation of East from West became pronounced
and permanent, an emperor, from political grounds, decided in favour of
that party in Antioch "with whom the bishops in Italy and the city of
the Romans held intercourse" ([Greek: hois an hoi kata tên Italian kai
tên Rhômaiôn polin episkopoi tou dogmatos epistelloien][338]). In this
instance the interest of the Roman Church and the interest of the
emperor coincided. But the Churches in the various provinces, being now
completely organised and therefore seldom in need of any more help from
outside, were henceforth in a position to pursue their own interest. So
the bishop of Rome had step by step to fight for the new authority,
which, being now based on a purely dogmatic theory and being forced to
repudiate any empirical foundation, was inconsistent with the Church
system that the Roman community more than any other had helped to build
up. The proposition "the Roman Church always had the primacy" ("ecclesia
Romana semper habuit primatum") and the statement that "Catholic"
virtually means "Roman Catholic" are gross fictions, when devised in
honour of the temporary occupant of the Roman see and detached from the
significance of the Eternal City in profane history; but, applied to the
_Church_ of the imperial capital, they contain a truth the denial of
which is equivalent to renouncing the attempt to explain the process by
which the Church was unified and catholicised.[339]
Footnotes:
[Footnote 193: See Ritschl, l.c.; Schwegler. Der Montanismus, 1841;
Gottwald, De Montanismo Tertulliani, 1862; Réville, Tertull. et le
Montanisme, in the Revue des Deux Mondes of 1st Novr. 1864; Stroehlin,
Essai sur le Montanisme, 1870; De Soyres, Montanism and the Primitive
Church, 1878; Cunningham, The Churches of Asia, 1880; Renan, Les Crises
du Catholicisme Naissant in the Revue des Deux Mondes of 15th Febr.
1881; Renan, Marc Aurèle, 1882, p. 208 ff.; Bonwetsch, Geschichte des
Montanismus, 1881; Harnack, Das Monchthum, seine Ideale und seine
Geschichte, 3rd. ed., 1886; Belck, Geschichte des Montanismus, 1883;
Voigt, Eine verschollene Urkunde des antimontanistischen Kampfes, 1891.
Further the articles on Montanism by Moller (Herzog's
Real-Encyklopädie), Salmon (Dictionary of Christian Biography), and
Harnack (Encyclopedia Britannica). Weizsäcker in the Theologische
Litteraturzeitung, 1882, no. 4; Bonwetsch, Die Prophetie im
apostolischen und nachapostolischen Zeitalter in the Zeitschrift fur
kirchliche Wissenschaft und kirchliches Leben, 1884, Parts 8, 9; M. von
Engelhardt, Die ersten Versuche zur Aufrichtung des wahren Christenthums
in einer Gemeinde von Heiligen, Riga, 1881.]