Be this as it may, if we understand by the New Testament a fixed collection, equally authoritative throughout, of all the writings that were regarded as genuinely apostolic, that is, those of the original Apostles and Paul, then the Alexandrian Church at the time of Clement did not yet possess such a book; but the process which led to it had begun. She had come much nearer this goal by the time of Origen. At that period the writings included in the New Testament of the West were all regarded in Alexandria as equally authoritative, and also stood in every respect on a level with the Old Testament. The principle of apostolicity was more strictly conceived and more surely applied. Accordingly the extent of "Holy Scripture" was already limited in the days of Origen.

Yet we have to thank the Alexandrian Church for giving us the seven Catholic Epistles. But, measured by the canon of the Western Church, which must have had a share in the matter, this sifting process was by no means complete. The inventive minds of scholars designated a group of writings in the Alexandrian canon as "Antilegomena." The historian of dogma can take no great interest in the succeeding development, which first led to the canon being everywhere finally fixed, so far as we can say that this was ever the case. For the still unsettled dispute as to the extent of the canon did not essentially affect its use and authority, and in the following period the continuous efforts to establish a harmonious and strictly fixed canon were solely determined by a regard to tradition. The results are no doubt of great importance to Church history, because they show us the varying influence exerted on Christendom at different periods by the great Churches of the East and West and by their learned men.

_Addendum._--The results arising from the formation of a part of early Christian writings into a canon, which was a great and meritorious act of the Church[120], notwithstanding the fact that it was forced on her by a combination of circ.u.mstances, may be summed up in a series of ant.i.theses. (1) The New Testament, or group of "apostolic" writings formed by selection, preserved from destruction one part, and undoubtedly the most valuable one, of primitive Church literature; but it caused all the rest of these writings, as being intrusive, or spurious, or superfluous, to be more and more neglected, so that they ultimately perished.[121] (2) The New Testament, though not all at once, put an end to the composition of works which claimed an authority binding on Christendom (inspiration); but it first made possible the production of secular Church literature and neutralised the extreme dangers attendant on writings of this kind. By making room for all kinds of writings that did not oppose it, it enabled the Church to utilise all the elements of Greek culture. At the same time, however, it required an ecclesiastical stamp to be placed on all the new Christian productions due to this cause.[122] (3) The New Testament obscured the historical meaning and the historical origin of the writing contained in it, especially the Pauline Epistles, though at the same time it created the conditions for a thorough study of all those doc.u.ments. Although primarily the new science of theological exegesis in the Church did more than anything else to neutralise the historical value of the New Testament writings, yet, on the other hand, it immediately commenced a critical restoration of their original sense. But, even apart from theological science, the New Testament enabled original Christianity to exercise here and there a quiet and gradual effect on the doctrinal development of the Church, without indeed being able to exert a dominant influence on the natural development of the traditional system. As the standard of interpretation for the Holy Scriptures was the apostolic _regula fidei_, always more and more precisely explained, and as that _regula_, in its Antignostic and philosophico-theological interpretation, was regarded as apostolic, the New Testament was explained in accordance with the conception of Christianity that had become prevalent in the Church. At first therefore the spirit of the New Testament could only a.s.sert itself in certain undercurrents and in the recognition of particular truths. But the book did not in the least ward off the danger of a total secularising of Christianity. (4) The New Testament opposed a barrier to the enthusiastic manufacture of "facts."

But at the same time its claim to be a collection of _inspired_ writings[123] naturally resulted in principles of interpretation (such as the principle of unanimity, of unlimited combination, of absolute clearness and sufficiency, and of allegorism) which were necessarily followed by the manufacture of new facts on the part of theological experts. (5) The New Testament fixed a time within which divine revelation ceased, and prevented any Christian from putting himself into comparison with the disciples of Jesus. By doing so it directly promoted the lowering of Christian ideals and requirements, and in a certain fashion legitimised this weakening of religious power. At the same time, however, it maintained the knowledge of these ideals and requirements, became a spur to the conscience of believers, and averted the danger of Christianity being corrupted by the excesses of enthusiasm. (6) The fact of the New Testament being placed on a level with the Old proved the most effective means of preserving to the latter its canonical authority, which had been so often a.s.sailed in the second century. But at the same time it brought about an examination of the relation between the Old and New Testaments, which, however, also involved an enquiry into the connection between Christianity and pre-christian revelation.

The immediate result of this investigation was not only a theological exposition of the Old Testament, but also a theory which ceased to view the two Testaments as of equal authority and _subordinated_ the Old to the New. This result, which can be plainly seen in Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen, led to exceedingly important consequences.[124] It gave some degree of insight into statements, hitherto completely unintelligible, in certain New Testament writings, and it caused the Church to reflect upon a question that had as yet been raised only by heretics, viz., what are the marks which distinguish Christianity from the Old Testament religion? An historical examination imperceptibly arose; but the old notion of the inspiration of the Old Testament confined it to the narrowest limits, and in fact always continued to forbid it; for, as before, appeal was constantly made to the Old Testament as a Christian book which contained all the truths of religion in a perfect form.

Nevertheless the conception of the Old Testament was here and there full of contradictions.[125] (7) The fatal identification of words of the Lord and words of the Apostles (apostolical tradition) had existed before the creation of the New Testament, though this proceeding gave it a new range and content and a new significance. But, with the Epistles of Paul included, the New Testament elevated the highest expression of the consciousness of redemption into a guiding principle, and by admitting Paulinism into the canon it introduced a wholesome ferment into the history of the Church. (8) By creating the New Testament and claiming exclusive possession of it the Church deprived the non-Catholic communions of every apostolic foundation, just as she had divested Judaism of every legal t.i.tle by taking possession of the Old Testament; but, by raising the New Testament to standard authority, she created the armoury which supplied the succeeding period with the keenest weapons against herself.[126] The place of the Gospel was taken by a book with exceedingly varied contents, which theoretically acquired the same authority as the Gospel. Still, the Catholic Church never became a religion "of the book," because every inconvenient text could be explained away by the allegoric method, and because the book was not made use of as the immediate authority for the guidance of Christians, this latter function being directly discharged by the rule of faith.[127] In practice it continued to be the rule for the New Testament to take a secondary place in apologetic writings and disputes with heretics.[128] On the other hand it was regarded (1) as the directly authoritative doc.u.ment for the direction of the Christian life,[129] and (2) as the final court of appeal in all the conflicts that arose within the sphere of the rule of faith. It was freely applied in the second stage of the Montanist struggle, but still more in the controversies about Christology, that is, in the conflict with the Monarchians. The apostolic writings belong solely to the Church, because she alone has preserved the apostolic doctrine (regula). This was declared to the heretics and therewith all controversy about Scripture, or the sense of Scripture pa.s.sages, was in principle declined. But within the Church herself the Holy Scripture was regarded as the supreme and completely independent tribunal against which not even an old tradition could be appealed to; and the rule [Greek: politeuesthai kata to euangelion] ("live according to the Gospel") held good in every respect. Moreover, this formula, which is rarely replaced by the other one, viz., [Greek: kata ten kainen diatheken] ("according to the New Testament"), shows that the words of the Lord, as in the earlier period, continued to be the chief standard of _life and conduct_.

C. _The transformation of the episcopal office in the Church into an apostolic office. The history of the remodelling of the conception of the Church._[130]

1. It was not sufficient to prove that the rule of faith was of apostolic origin, i.e., that the Apostles had set up a rule of faith. It had further to be shown that, up to the present, the Church had always maintained it unchanged. This demonstration was all the more necessary because the heretics also claimed an apostolic origin for their _regulae_, and in different ways tried to adduce proof that they alone possessed a guarantee of inheriting the Apostles' doctrine in all its purity.[131] An historical demonstration was first attempted by the earliest of the old Catholic Fathers. They pointed to communities of whose apostolic origin there could be no doubt, and thought it could not reasonably be denied that those Churches must have preserved apostolic Christianity in a pure and incorrupt form. The proof that the Church had always held fast by apostolic Christianity depended on the agreement in doctrine between the other communities and these.[132] But Irenaeus as well as Tertullian felt that a special demonstration was needed to show that the Churches founded by the Apostles had really at all times faithfully preserved their genuine teaching. General considerations, as, for instance, the notion that Christianity would otherwise have temporarily perished, or "that one event among many is as good as none; but when one and the same feature is found among many, it is not an aberration but a tradition" ("Nullus inter multos eventus unus est ...

quod apud multos unum invenitur, non est erratum sed traditum") and similar ones which Tertullian does not fail to mention, were not sufficient. But the dogmatic conception that the _ecclesiae_ (or _ecclesia_) are the abode of the Holy Spirit,[133] was incapable of making any impression on the heretics, as the correct application of this theory was the very point in question. To make their proof more precise Tertullian and Irenaeus therefore a.s.serted that the Churches guaranteed the incorruptness of the apostolic inheritance, inasmuch as they could point to a chain of "elders," or, in other words, an "ordo episcoporum per successionem ab initio decurrens," which was a pledge that nothing false had been mixed up with it.[134] This thesis has quite as many aspects as the conception of the "Elders," e.g., disciples of the Apostles, disciples of the disciples of the Apostles, bishops. It partly preserves a historic and partly a.s.sumes a dogmatic character. The former aspect appears in the appeal made to the foundation of Churches by Apostles, and in the argument that each series of successors were faithful disciples of those before them and therefore ultimately of the Apostles themselves. But no historical consideration, no appeal to the "Elders" was capable of affording the a.s.surance sought for. Hence even in Irenaeus the historical view of the case had clearly changed into a dogmatic one. This, however, by no means resulted merely from the controversy with the heretics, but was quite as much produced by the altered const.i.tution of the Church and the authoritative position that the bishops had actually attained. The idea was that the Elders, i.e., the bishops, had received "c.u.m episcopatus successione certum veritatis charisma," that is, their office conferred on them the apostolic heritage of truth, which was therefore objectively attached to this dignity as a _charism_. This notion of the transmissibility of the charism of truth became a.s.sociated with the episcopal office after it had become a monarchical one, exercising authority over the Church in all its relations;[135] and after the bishops had proved themselves the strongest supports of the communities against the attacks of the secular power and of heresy.[136] In Irenaeus and Tertullian, however, we only find the first traces of this new theory. The old notion, which regarded the _Churches_ as possessing the heritage of the Apostles in so far as they possess the Holy Spirit, continued to exercise a powerful influence on these writers, who still united the new dogmatic view with a historical one, at least in controversies with the heretics. Neither Irenaeus, nor Tertullian in his earlier writings,[137] a.s.serted that the transmission of the _charisma veritatis_ to the bishops had really invested them with the apostolic office in its full sense. They had indeed, according to Irenaeus, received the "loc.u.m magisterii apostolorum" ("place of government of the Apostles"), but nothing more.

It is only the later writings of Tertullian, dating from the reigns of Caracalla and Heliogabalus, which show that the bishop of Rome, who must have had imitators in this respect, claimed for his office the full authority of the apostolic office. Both Calixtus and his rival Hippolytus described themselves as successors of the Apostles in the full sense of the word, and claimed for themselves in that capacity much more than a mere guaranteeing of the purity of Christianity. Even Tertullian did not question this last mentioned attribute of the bishops.[138] Cyprian found the theory already in existence, but was the first to develop it definitely and to eradicate every remnant of the historical argument in its favour. The conception of the Church was thereby subjected to a further transformation.

2. The transformation of the idea of the Church by Cyprian completed the radical changes that had been gradually taking place from the last half of the second century.[139] In order to understand them it is necessary to go back. It was only with slowness and hesitation that the theories of the Church followed the actual changes in her history. It may be said that the idea of the Church always remained a stage behind the condition reached in practice. That may be seen in the whole course of the history of dogma up to the present day.

The essential character of Christendom in its first period was a new holy life and a sure hope, both based on repentance towards G.o.d and faith in Jesus Christ and brought about by the Holy Spirit. Christ and the Church, that is, the Holy Spirit and the holy Church, were inseparably connected. The Church, or, in other words, the community of all believers, attains her unity through the Holy Spirit. This unity manifested itself in brotherly love and in the common relation to a common ideal and a common hope.[140] The a.s.sembly of all Christians is realised in the Kingdom of G.o.d, viz., in heaven; on earth Christians and the Church are dispersed and in a foreign land. Hence, properly speaking, the Church herself is a heavenly community inseparable from the heavenly Christ. Christians believe that they belong to a real super-terrestrial commonwealth, which, from its very nature, cannot be realised on earth. The heavenly goal is not yet separated from the idea of the Church; there is a holy Church on earth in so far as heaven is her destination.[141] Every individual congregation is to be an image of the heavenly Church.[142] Reflections were no doubt made on the contrast between the empirical community and the heavenly Church whose earthly likeness it was to be (Hermas); but these did not affect the theory of the subject. Only the saints of G.o.d, whose salvation is certain, belong to her, for the essential thing is not to be called, but to be, a Christian. There was as yet no empirical universal Church possessing an outward legal t.i.tle that could, so to speak, be detached from the personal Christianity of the individual Christian.[143] All the lofty designations which Paul, the so-called Apostolic Fathers, and Justin gathered from the Old Testament and applied to the Church, relate to the holy community which originates in heaven and returns thither.[144]

But, in consequence of the naturalising of Christianity in the world and the repelling of heresy, a formulated creed was made the basis of the Church. This confession was also recognised as a foundation of her unity and guarantee of her truth, and in certain respects as the main one.

Christendom protected itself by this conception, though no doubt at a heavy price. To Irenaeus and Tertullian the Church rests entirely on the apostolic, traditional faith which legitimises her.[145] But this faith itself appeared as a _law_ and aggregate of doctrines, all of which are of equally fundamental importance, so that their practical aim became uncertain and threatened to vanish ("fides in regula posita est, habet legem et salutem de observatione legis").

The Church herself, however, became a union based on the true doctrine and visible in it; and this confederation was at the same time enabled to realise an actual outward unity by means of the apostolic inheritance, the doctrinal confession, and the apostolic writings. The narrower and more external character a.s.sumed by the idea of the Church was concealed by the fact that, since the latter half of the second century, Christians in all parts of the world had really united in opposition to the state and "heresy," and had found compensation for the incipient decline of the original lofty thoughts and practical obligations in the consciousness of forming an ec.u.menical and international alliance. The designation "Catholic Church" gave expression to the claim of this world-wide union of the same faith to represent the true Church.[146] This expression corresponds to the powerful position which the "great Church" (Celsus), or the "old" Church (Clemens Alex.) had attained by the end of the second century, as compared with the Marcionite Church, the school sects, the Christian a.s.sociations of all kinds, and the independent Christians. This Church, however, was declared to be apostolic, i.e., founded in its present form by Christ through the Apostles. Through this idea, which was supported by the old enthusiastic notion that the Apostles had already proclaimed the Gospel to all the world, it came to be completely forgotten how Christ and his Apostles had exercised their ministry, and an empirical conception of the Church was created in which the idea of a holy life in the Spirit could no longer be the ruling one. It was taught that Christ received from G.o.d a law of faith, which, as a new lawgiver, he imparted to the Apostles, and that they, by transmitting the truth of which they were the depositaries, founded the one Catholic Church (Iren. III. 4.

I). The latter, being guardian of the apostolic heritage, has the a.s.surance of possessing the Spirit; whereas all communities other than herself, inasmuch as they have not received that deposit, necessarily lack the Spirit and are therefore separated from Christ and salvation.[147] Hence one must be a member of this Church in order to be a partaker of salvation, because in her alone one can find the creed which must be recognised as the condition of redemption.[148]

Consequently, in proportion as the faith became a doctrine of faith, the Catholic Church interposed herself as an empiric power between the individual and salvation. She became a condition of salvation; but the result was that she ceased to be a sure communion of the saved and of saints (see on this point the following chapter). It was quite a logical proceeding when about the year 220 Calixtus, a Roman bishop, started the theory that there _must_ be wheat and tares in the Catholic Church and that the Ark of Noah with its clean and unclean beasts was her type.[149] The departure from the old idea of the Church appears completed in this statement. But the following facts must not be overlooked:--First, the new conception of the Church was not yet a hierarchical one. Secondly, the idea of the union and unity of all believers found here magnificent expression. Thirdly, the development of the communities into one solid Church also represents the creative power of the Christian spirit. Fourthly, through the consolidation effected in the Church by the rule of faith the Christian religion was in some measure preserved from enthusiastic extravagancies and arbitrary misinterpretation. Fifthly, in consequence of the regard for a Church founded on the doctrine of faith the specific significance of redemption by Christ, as distinguished from natural religion and that of the Old Testament, could no longer be lost to believers. Sixthly, the independence of each individual community had a wide scope not only at the end of the second but also in the third century.[150] Consequently, though the revolution which led to the Catholic Church was a result of the situation of the communities in the world in general and of the struggle with the Gnostics and Marcion in particular, and though it was a fatal error to identify the Catholic and apostolic Churches, this change did not take place without an exalting of the Christian spirit and an awakening of its self-consciousness.

But there was never a time in history when the conception of the Church, as nothing else than the visible communion of those holding the correct apostolic doctrine, was clearly grasped or exclusively emphasised. In Irenaeus and Tertullian we rather find, on the one hand, that the old theory of the Church was still to a great extent preserved and, on the other, that the hierarchical notion was already making its appearance.

As to the first point, Irenaeus frequently a.s.serts that the Spirit and the Church, that is, the Christian people, are inseparable; that the Spirit in divers ways continually effects whatever she needs; that she is the totality of all true believers, that all the faithful have the rank of priests; that outside the holy Church there is no salvation, etc.; in fact these doctrines form the very essence of his teaching.

But, since she was also regarded as the visible inst.i.tution for objectively preserving and communicating the truth, and since the idea of the Church in contradistinction to heresy was necessarily exhausted in this as far as Irenaeus was concerned, the old theories of the matter could not operate correctively, but in the end only served to glorify the earthly Catholic Church.[151] The proposition that truth is only to be found in the Church and that she and the Holy Spirit are inseparable must be understood in Irenaeus as already referring to the Catholic Church in contradistinction to every other calling itself Christian.[152] As to the second point, it cannot be denied that, though Irenaeus desires to maintain that the only essential part of the idea of the Church is the fact of her being the depository of the truth, he was no longer able to confine himself to this (see above). The episcopal succession and the transmission to the bishops of the _magisterium_ of the Apostles were not indeed of any direct importance to his idea of the Church, but they were of consequence for the preservation of truth and therefore indirectly for the idea of the Church also. To Irenaeus, however, that theory was still nothing more than an artificial line; but artificial lines are really supports and must therefore soon attain the value of foundations.[153] Tertullian's conception of the Church was essentially the same as that of Irenaeus; but with the former the idea that she is the outward manifestation of the Spirit, and therefore a communion of those who are spiritual, at all times continued to operate more powerfully than with the latter. In the last period of his life Tertullian emphasised this theory so vigorously that the Antignostic idea of the Church being based on the "traditio unius sacramenti" fell into the background. Consequently we find nothing more than traces of the hierarchical conception of the Church in Tertullian. But towards the end of his life he found himself face to face with a _fully developed_ theory of this kind. This he most decidedly rejected, and, in doing so, advanced to such a conception of ecclesiastical orders, and therefore also of the episcopate, as clearly involved him in a contradiction of the other theory--which he also never gave up--viz., that the bishops, as the cla.s.s which transmits the rule of faith, are an apostolic inst.i.tution and therefore necessary to the Church[154].

From the disquisitions of Clement of Alexandria we see how vigorous the old conception of the Church, as the heavenly communion of the elect and believing, still continued to be about the year 200. This will not appear strange after what we have already said as to Clement's views about the rule of faith, the New Testament, and the episcopate. It is evident that his philosophy of religion led him to give a new interpretation to the original ideas. Yet the old form of these notions can be more easily made out from his works than from those of Irenaeus.[155] Up to the 15th Chapter of the 7th Book of his great work, the Stromateis, and in the Paedagogus, Clement simply speaks of the Church in the sense of the Epistle to the Ephesians and the Shepherd of Hermas. She is a heavenly formation, continued in that which appears on earth as her image. Instead of distinguishing two Churches Clement sees one, the product of G.o.d's will aiming at the salvation of man--a Church which is to be on earth as it is in heaven, and of which faith forms the subjective and the Logos the objective bond of union. But, beginning with Strom. VII. 15 (see especially 17), where he is influenced by opposition to the heretics, he suddenly identifies this Church with the single old Catholic one, that is, with the visible "Church" in opposition to the heretic sects. Thus the empirical interpretation of the Church, which makes her the inst.i.tution in possession of the true doctrine, was also completely adopted by Clement; but as yet he employed it simply in polemics and not in positive teachings. He neither reconciled nor seemingly felt the contradiction in the statement that the Church is to be at one and the same time the a.s.sembly of the elect and the empiric universal Church. At any rate he made as yet no unconditional acknowledgment of the Catholic Church, because he was still able to attribute independent value to Gnosis, that is, to independent piety as he understood it.[156] Consequently, as regards the conception of the Church, the mystic Gnosis exercised the same effect as the old religious enthusiasm from which in other respects it differs so much.[157] The hierarchy has still no significance as far as Clement's idea of the Church is concerned.[158] At first Origen entirely agrees with Clement in regard to this conception. He also starts with the theory that the Church is essentially a heavenly communion and a holy communion of believers, and keeps this idea constantly before him.[159]

When opposing heretics, he also, like Clement, cannot help identifying her with the Catholic Church, because the latter contains the true doctrine, though he likewise refrains from acknowledging any hierarchy.[160] But Origen is influenced by two further considerations, which are scarcely hinted at in Clement, but which were called forth by the actual course of events and signified a further development in the idea of the Church. For, in the first place, Origen saw himself already compelled to examine closely the distinction between the essence and the outward appearance of the Church, and, in this process, reached results which again called in question the identification of the Holy Church with the empiric Catholic one (see on this point the following chapter).

Secondly, in consequence of the extraordinary extension and powerful position attained by the Catholic Church by the time of Philip the Arabian, Origen, giving a new interpretation to a very old Christian notion and making use of a Platonic conception,[161] arrived at the idea that she was the earthly Kingdom of G.o.d, destined to enter the world, to absorb the Roman Empire and indeed all mankind, and to unite and take the place of the various secular states.[162] This magnificent idea, which regards the Church as [Greek: kosmos tou kosmou][163], denoted indeed a complete departure from the original theory of the subject, determined by eschatological considerations; though we must not forget that Origen still demanded a really holy Church and a new polity. Hence, as he also distinguishes the various degrees of connection with the Church,[164] we already find in his theory a combination of all the features that became essential parts of the conception of the Church in subsequent times, with the exception of the clerical element.[165]

3. The contradictory notions of the Church, for so they appear to us, in Irenaeus and Clement and still more in Tertullian and Origen, need not astonish any one who bears in mind that none of these Fathers made the Church the subject of a theological theory.[166] Hence no one as yet thought of questioning the old article: "I believe in a holy Church."

But, at the same time, actual circ.u.mstances, though they did not at first succeed in altering the Church's belief, forced her to _realise_ her changed position, for she had in point of fact become an a.s.sociation which was founded on a definite law of doctrine and rejected everything that did not conform to it. The identifying of this a.s.sociation with the ideal Church was a matter of course,[167] but it was quite as natural to take no immediate _theoretical_ notice of the identification except in cases where it was absolutely necessary, that is, in polemics. In the latter case the unity of faith and hope became the unity of the doctrine of faith, and the Church was, in this instance, legitimised by the possession of the apostolic tradition instead of by the realising of that tradition in heart and life. From the principle that had been set up it necessarily followed that the apostolic inheritance on which the truth and legitimacy of the Church was based, could not but remain an imperfect court of appeal until _living_ authorities could be pointed to in this court, and until _every_ possible cause of strife and separation was settled by reference to it. An empirical community cannot be ruled by a traditional written word, but only by persons; for the written law will always separate and split. If it has such persons, however, it can tolerate within it a great amount of individual differences, provided that the leaders subordinate the interests of the whole to their own ambition. We have seen how Irenaeus and Tertullian, though they in all earnestness represented the _fides catholica_ and _ecclesia catholica_ as inseparably connected,[168] were already compelled to have recourse to bishops in order to ensure the apostolic doctrine. The conflicts within the sphere of the rule of faith, the struggles with the so-called Montanism, but finally and above all, the existing situation of the Church in the third century with regard to the world within her pale, made the question of organisation the vital one for her. Tertullian and Origen already found themselves face to face with episcopal claims of which they highly disapproved and which, in their own way, they endeavoured to oppose. It was again the Roman bishop[169] who first converted the proposition that the bishops are direct successors of the Apostles and have the same "locus magisterii" ("place of government") into a theory which declares that _all_ apostolic powers have devolved on the bishops and that these have therefore peculiar rights and duties in virtue of their office.[170] Cyprian added to this the corresponding theory of the Church. In one decisive point, however, he did not a.s.sist the secularising process which had been completed by the Roman bishop, in the interest of Catholicity as well as in that of the Church's existence (see the following chapter). In the second half of the third century there were no longer any Churches, except remote communities, where the only requirement was to preserve the Catholic faith; the bishops had to be obeyed. The idea of the one episcopally organised Church became the main one and overshadowed the significance of the doctrine of faith as a bond of unity. _The Church based on the bishops, the successors of the Apostles, the vicegerents of G.o.d, is herself the legacy of the Apostles in virtue of this her foundation._ This idea was never converted into a rigid theory in the East, though the reality to which it corresponded was not the less certain on that account. The fancy that the earthly hierarchy was the image of the heavenly was the only part that began to be taken in real earnest. In the West, on the other hand, circ.u.mstances compelled the Carthaginian bishop to set up a finished theory.[171] According to Cyprian, the Catholic Church, to which all the lofty predictions and predicates in the Bible apply (see Hartel's index under "ecclesia"), is the one inst.i.tution of salvation outside of which there is no redemption (ep. 73. 21). She is this, moreover, not only as the community possessing the true apostolic faith, for this definition does not exhaust her conception, but as a harmoniously organised federation.[172] This Church therefore rests entirely on the episcopate, which sustains her,[173] because it is the continuance of the apostolic office and is equipped with all the power of the Apostles.[174] Accordingly, the union of individuals with the Church, and therefore with Christ, is effected only by obedient dependence on the bishop, i.e., such a connection alone makes one a member of the Church. But the unity of the Church, which is an attribute of equal importance with her truth, because this union is only brought about by love,[175] primarily appears in the unity of the episcopate.

For, according to Cyprian, the episcopate has been from its beginning undivided and has continued to be so in the Church, in so far as the bishops are appointed and guided by G.o.d, are on terms of brotherly intercourse and exchange, and each bishop represents the whole significance of the episcopate.[176] Hence the individual bishops are no longer to be considered primarily as leaders of their special communities, but as the foundation of the one Church. Each of these prelates, however, provided he keeps within the a.s.sociation of the bishops, preserves the independent right of regulating the circ.u.mstances of his own diocese.[177] But it also follows that the bishops of those communities founded by the Apostles themselves can raise no claim to any special dignity, since the unity of the episcopate as a continuation of the apostolic office involves the equality of all bishops.[178] However, a special importance attaches to the Roman see, because it is the seat of the Apostle to whom Christ first granted apostolic authority in order to show with unmistakable plainness the unity of these powers and the corresponding unity of the Church that rests on them; and further because, from her historical origin, the Church of this see had become the mother and root of the Catholic Church spread over the earth. In a severe crisis which Cyprian had to pa.s.s through in his own diocese he appealed to the Roman Church (the Roman bishop) in a manner which made it appear as if communion with that Church was in itself the guarantee of truth. But in the controversy about heretical baptism with the Roman bishop Stephen, he emphatically denied the latter's pretensions to exercise special rights over the Church in consequence of the Petrine succession.[179] Finally, although Cyprian exalted the unity of the organisation of the Church above the unity of the doctrine of faith, he preserved the Christian element so far as to a.s.sume in all his statements that the bishops display a moral and Christian conduct in keeping with their office, and that otherwise they have _ipso facto_ forfeited it.[180] Thus, according to Cyprian, the episcopal office does not confer any indelible character, though Calixtus and other bishops of Rome after him presupposed this attribute. (For more details on this point, as well as with regard to the contradictions that remain unreconciled in Cyprian's conception of the Church, see the following chapter, in which will be shown the ultimate interests that lie at the basis of the new idea of the Church).

_Addendum I._--The great confederation of Churches which Cyprian presupposes and which he terms _the_ Church was in truth not complete, for it cannot be proved that it extended to any regions beyond the confines of the Roman Empire or that it even embraced all orthodox and episcopally organised communities within those bounds.[181] But, further, the conditions of the confederation, which only began to be realised in the full sense in the days of Constantine, were never definitely formulated--before the fourth century at least.[182]

Accordingly, the idea of the one exclusive Church, embracing all Christians and founded on the bishops, was always a mere theory. But, in so far as it is not the idea, but its realisation to which Cyprian here attaches sole importance, his dogmatic conception appears to be refuted by actual circ.u.mstances.[183]

_Addendum II._--The idea of heresy is always decided by the idea of the Church. The designation [Greek: hairesis] implies an adherence to something self-chosen in opposition to the acknowledgment of something objectively handed down, and a.s.sumes that this is the particular thing in which the apostasy consists. Hence all those who call themselves Christians and yet do not adhere to the traditional apostolic creed, but give themselves up to vain and empty doctrines, are regarded as heretics by Hegesippus, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement, and Origen. These doctrines are as a rule traced to the devil, that is, to the non-Christian religions and speculations, or to wilful wickedness. Any other interpretation of their origin would at once have been an acknowledgment that the opponents of the Church had a right to their opinions,[184] and such an explanation is not quite foreign to Origen in one of his lines of argument.[185] Hence the orthodox party were perfectly consistent in attaching no value to any sacrament[186] or acts esteemed in their own communion, when these were performed by heretics;[187] and this was a practical application of the saying that the devil could transform himself into an angel of light.[188]

But the Fathers we have named did not yet completely identify the Church with a harmoniously organised inst.i.tution. For that very reason they do not absolutely deny the Christianity of such as take their stand on the rule of faith, even when these for various reasons occupy a position peculiar to themselves. Though we are by no means ent.i.tled to say that they acknowledged orthodox schismatics, they did not yet venture to reckon them simply as heretics.[189] If it was desired to get rid of these, an effort was made to impute to them some deviation from the rule of faith; and under this pretext the Church freed herself from the Montanists and the Monarchians.[190] Cyprian was the first to proclaim the ident.i.ty of heretics and schismatics, by making a man's Christianity depend on his belonging to the great episcopal Church confederation.[191] But, both in East and West, this theory of his became established only by very imperceptible degrees, and indeed, strictly speaking, the process was never completed at all. The distinction between heretics and schismatics was preserved, because it prevented a public denial of the old principles, because it was advisable on political grounds to treat certain schismatic communities with indulgence, and because it was always possible in case of need to prove heresy against the schismatics.[192]

_Addendum III._--As soon as the empiric Church ruled by the bishops was proclaimed to be the foundation of the Christian religion, we have the fundamental premises for the conception that everything progressively adopted by the Church, all her functions, inst.i.tutions, and liturgy, in short, all her continuously changing arrangements were holy and apostolic. But the courage to draw all the conclusions here was restrained by the fact that certain portions of tradition, such as the New Testament canon of Scripture and the apostolic doctrine, had been once for all exalted to an unapproachable height. Hence it was only with slowness and hesitation that Christians accepted the inferences from the idea of the Church in the remaining directions, and these conclusions always continued to be hampered with some degree of uncertainty. The idea of the [Greek: paradosis agraphos]; (unwritten tradition); i.e., that every custom, however recent, within the sphere of outward regulations, of public worship, discipline, etc., is as holy and apostolic as the Bible and the "faith", never succeeded in gaining complete acceptance. In this case, complicated, uncertain, and indistinct a.s.sumptions were the result.

Footnotes:

[Footnote 20: In itself the predicate "Catholic" contains no element that signifies a secularising of the Church. "Catholic" originally means Christianity in its totality as contrasted with single congregations.

Hence the concepts "all communities" and the "universal Church" are identical. But from the beginning there was a dogmatic element in the concept of the universal Church, in so far as the latter was conceived to have been spread over the whole earth by the Apostles; an idea which involved the conviction that only that could be true which was found _everywhere_ in Christendom. Consequently, "entire or universal Christendom," "the Church spread over the whole earth," and "the true Church" were regarded as identical conceptions. In this way the concept "Catholic" became a pregnant one, and finally received a dogmatic and political content. As this result actually took place, it is not inappropriate to speak of pre-Catholic and Catholic Christianity.]

[Footnote 21: _Translator's note._ The following is Tertullian's Latin as given by Professor Harnack: Cap. 21: "Constat omnem doctrinam quae c.u.m ecclesiis apostolicis matricibus et originalibus fidei conspiret veritati deputandam, id sine dubio tenentem quod ecclesiae ab apostolis, apostoli a Christo, Christus a deo accepit." Cap. 36: "Videamus quid (ecclesia Romanensis) didicerit, quid docuerit, c.u.m Africanis quoque ecclesiis contesserarit. Unum deum dominum novit, creatorem universitatis, et Christum Iesum ex virgine Maria filium dei creatoris, et carnis resurrectionem; legem et prophetas c.u.m evangelicis et apostolicis litteris miscet; inde potat fidem, eam aqua signat, sancto spiritu vest.i.t, eucharistia pascit, martyrium exhortatur, et ita adversus hanc inst.i.tutionem neminem recipit." Chap. 32: "Evolvant ordinem episcoporum suorum, ita per successionem ab initio decurrentem, ut primus ille episcopus aliquem ex apostolis vel apostolicis viris, qui tamen c.u.m apostolis perseveravit, habuerit auctorem et antecessorem."]

[Footnote 22: None of the three standards, for instance, were in the original of the first six books of the Apostolic Const.i.tutions, which belong to the third century and are of Syrian origin; but instead of them the Old Testament and Gospel on the one hand, and the bishop, as the G.o.d of the community, on the other, are taken as authorities.]

[Footnote 23: See Zahn, Glaubensregel und Taufbekenntniss in der alten Kirche in the Zeitschrift f. Kirchl. Wissensch. u. Kirchl. Leben, 1881, Part 6, p. 302 ff., especially p. 314 ff. In the Epistle of Jude, v. 3, mention is made of the [Greek: hapax paradotheisa tois hagiois pistis], and in v. 20 of "building yourselves up in your most holy faith." See Polycarp, ep. III. 2 (also VII. 2; II. 1). In either case the expressions [Greek: kanon tes pisteos, kanon tes aletheias], or the like, might stand for [Greek: pistis], for the faith itself is primarily the canon; but it is the canon only in so far as it is comprehensible and plainly defined. Here lies the transition to a new interpretation of the conception of a standard in its relation to the faith. Voigt has published an excellent investigation of the concept [Greek: ho kanon tes aletheias] c.u.m synonymis (Eine verschollene Urkunde des antimont.

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

[Footnote 24: In Hermas, Mand. I., we find a still shorter formula which only contains the Confession of the monarchy of G.o.d, who created the world, that is the formula [Greek: pisteou eis hena theon pantakratora], which did not originate with the baptismal ceremony. But though at first the monarchy may have been the only dogma in the strict sense, the mission of Jesus Christ beyond doubt occupied a place alongside of it from the beginning; and the new religion was inconceivable without this.]

[Footnote 25: See on this point Justin, index to Otto's edition. It is not surprising that formulae similar to those used at baptism were employed in the exorcism of demons. However, we cannot immediately infer from the latter what was the wording of the baptismal confession.

Though, for example, it is an established fact that in Justin's time demons were exorcised with the words: "In the name of Jesus Christ who was crucified under Pontius Pilate," it does not necessarily follow from this that these words were also found in the baptismal confession. The sign of the cross was made over those possessed by demons; hence nothing was more natural than that these words should be spoken. Hence they are not necessarily borrowed from a baptismal confession.]

[Footnote 26: These facts were known to every Christian. They are probably also alluded to in Luke I. 4.]

[Footnote 27: The most important result of Caspari's extensive and exact studies is the establishment of this fact and the fixing of the wording of the Romish Confession. (Ungedruckte, unbeachtete und wenig beachtete Quellen z. Gesch. des Taufsymbols u d. Glaubensregels. 3 Vols.

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

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

Glaubensregeln der alten Kirche. 2 Aufl. 1877; see also my article "Apostol. Symbol" in Herzog's R.E.. 2nd. ed., as well as Book I. of the present work, Chap. III. -- 2.]

[Footnote 28: This supposition is based on observation of the fact that particular statements of the Roman Symbol, in exactly the same form or nearly so, are found in many early Christian writings. See Patr. App.

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

[Footnote 29: The investigations which lead to this result are of a very complicated nature and cannot therefore be given here. We must content ourselves with remarking that all Western baptismal formulae (creeds) may be traced back to the Roman, and that there was no universal Eastern creed on parallel lines with the latter. There is no mistaking the importance which, in these circ.u.mstances, is to be attributed to the Roman symbol and Church as regards the development of Catholicism.]

[Footnote 30: This caused the p.r.o.nounced tendency of the Church to the formation of dogma, a movement for which Paul had already paved the way.

The development of Christianity, as attested, for example, by the [Greek: Didache], received an additional factor in the dogmatic tradition, which soon gained the upper hand. The great reaction is then found in monasticism. Here again the rules of morality become the prevailing feature, and therefore the old Christian gnomic literature attains in this movement a second period of vigour. In it again dogmatics only form the background for the strict regulation of life. In the instruction given as a preparation for baptism the Christian moral commandments were of course always inculcated, and the obligation to observe these was expressed in the renunciation of Satan and all his works. In consequence of this, there were also fixed formulae in these cases.]

[Footnote 31: See the Pastoral Epistles, those of John and of Ignatius; also the epistle of Jude, 1 Clem. VII., Polycarp, ad Philipp. VII., II.

1, VI. 3, Justin.]

[Footnote 32: In the apologetic writings of Justin the courts of appeal invariably continue to be the Old Testament, the words of the Lord, and the communications of prophets; hence he has hardly insisted on any other in his anti-heretical work. On the other hand we cannot appeal to the observed fact that Tertullian also, in his apologetic writings, did not reveal his standpoint as a churchman and opponent of heresy; for, with one exception, he did not discuss heretics in these tractates at all. On the contrary Justin discussed their position even in his apologetic writings; but nowhere, for instance, wrote anything similar to Theophilus' remarks in "ad Autol.," II. 14. Justin was acquainted with and frequently alluded to fixed formulae and perhaps a baptismal symbol related to the Roman, if not essentially identical with it. (See Bornemann. Das Taufsymbol Justins in the Ztschr. f. K. G. Vol. III. p. 1 ff.), but we cannot prove that he utilised these formulae in the sense of Irenaeus and Tertullian. We find him using the expression [Greek: orthognomones] in Dial. 80. The resurrection of the flesh and the thousand years' kingdom (at Jerusalem) are there reckoned among the beliefs held by the [Greek: orthognomones kata panta Christianoi]. But it is very characteristic of the standpoint taken up by Justin that he places between the heretics inspired by demons and the orthodox a cla.s.s of Christians to whom he gives the general testimony that they are [Greek: tes katharas kai eusebous gnomes], though they are not fully orthodox in so far as they reject one important doctrine. Such an estimate would have been impossible to Irenaeus and Tertullian. They have advanced to the principle that he who violates the law of faith in one point is guilty of breaking it all.]

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

[Footnote 34: We can only conjecture that some teachers in Asia Minor contemporary with Irenaeus, or even of older date, and especially Melito, proceeded in like manner, adhering to Polycarp's exclusive att.i.tude.

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

[Footnote 35: Irenaeus set forth his theory in a great work, adv. haeres., especially in the third book. Unfortunately his treatise, "[Greek: logos eis epideixin tou apostolikou kerygmatos]", probably the oldest treatise on the rule of faith, has not been preserved (Euseb., H. E. V. 26.)]

[Footnote 36: Irenaeus indeed a.s.serts in several pa.s.sages that all Churches--those in Germany, Iberia, among the Celts, in the East, in Egypt, in Lybia and Italy; see I. 10. 2; III. 3. 1; III. 4. 1 sq.--possess the same apostolic _kerygma_; but "qui nimis probat nihil probat." The extravagance of the expressions shows that a dogmatic theory is here at work. Nevertheless this is based on the correct view that the Gnostic speculations are foreign to Christianity and of later date.]

[Footnote 37: We must further point out here that Irenaeus not only knew the tradition of the Churches of Asia Minor and Rome, but that he had sat at the feet of Polycarp and a.s.sociated in his youth with many of the "elders" in Asia. Of these he knew for certain that they in part did not approve of the Gnostic doctrines and in part would not have done so. The confidence with which he represented his antignostic interpretation of the creed as that of the Church of the Apostles was no doubt owing to this sure historical recollection. See his epistle to Florinus in Euseb., H. E. V. 20 and his numerous references to the "elders" in his great work. (A collection of these may be found in Patr. App. Opp. I. 3, p. 105 sq.)]

[Footnote 38: Caspari's investigations leave no room for doubt as to the relation of the rule of faith to the baptismal confession. The baptismal confession was not a deposit resulting from fluctuating anti-heretical rules of faith; but the latter were the explanations of the baptismal confession. The full authority of the confession itself was transferred to every elucidation that appeared necessary, in so far as the needful explanation was regarded as given with authority. Each momentary formula employed to defend the Church against heresy has therefore the full value of the creed. This explains the fact that, beginning with Irenaeus'

time, we meet with differently formulated rules of faith, partly in the same writer, and yet each is declared to be _the_ rule of faith. Zahn is virtually right when he says, in his essay quoted above, that the rule of faith is the baptismal confession. But, so far as I can judge, he has not discerned the dilemma in which the Old Catholic Fathers were placed, and which they were not able to conceal. This dilemma arose from the fact that the Church needed an apostolic creed, expressed in fixed formulae and at the same time definitely interpreted in an anti-heretical sense; whereas she only possessed, and this not in all churches, a baptismal confession, contained in fixed formulae but not interpreted, along with an ecclesiastical tradition which was not formulated, although it no doubt excluded the most offensive Gnostic doctrines. It was not yet possible for the Old Catholic Fathers to frame and formulate that doctrinal confession, and they did not attempt it. The only course therefore was to a.s.sert that an elastic collection of doctrines which were ever being formulated anew, was a fixed standard in so far as it was based on a fixed creed. But this dilemma--we do not know how it was viewed by opponents--proved an advantage in the end, for it enabled churchmen to make continual additions to the rule of faith, whilst at the same time continuing to a.s.sert its ident.i.ty with the baptismal confession. We must make the reservation, however, that not only the baptismal confession, but other fixed propositions as well, formed the basis on which particular rules of faith were formulated.]

[Footnote 39: Besides Irenaeus I. 10. 1, 2, cf. 9. 1-5; 22. 1; II. 1. 1; 9. 1; 28. 1; 32. 3, 4; III. 1-4; 11. 1; 12. 9; 15. 1; 16. 5 sq.; 18. 3; 24. 1; IV. 1. 2; 9. 2; 20. 6; 33. 7 sq.; V. Praef. 12. 5; 20. 1.]