[Footnote 215: A contrast to the bishops and the regular congregational offices existed in primitive Montanism. This was transmitted in a weakened form to the later adherents of the new prophecy (cf. the Gallic confessors' strange letter of recommendation on behalf of Irenaeus in Euseb., H. E. V. 4), and finally broke forth with renewed vigour in opposition to the measures of the lax bishops (de pudic. 21; de exhort.

7; Hippolytus against Calixtus). The _ecclesia_, represented as _numerus episcoporum_, no longer preserved its prestige in the eyes of Tertullian.]

[Footnote 216: See here particularly, de pudicitia 1, where Tertullian sees the virginity of the Church not in pure doctrine, but in strict precepts for a holy life. As will have been seen in this account, the oft debated question as to whether Montanism was an innovation or merely a reaction does not admit of a simple answer. In its original shape it was undoubtedly an innovation; but it existed at the end of a period when one cannot very well speak of innovations, because no bounds had yet been set to subjective religiosity. Monta.n.u.s decidedly went further than any Christian prophets known to us; Hermas, too, no doubt gave injunctions, as a prophet, which gave rise to innovations in Christendom; but these fell short of Monta.n.u.s' proceedings. In its later shape, however, Montanism was to all intents and purposes a reaction, which aimed at maintaining or reviving an older state of things. So far, however, as this was to be done by legislation, by a _novissima lex_, we have an evident innovation a.n.a.logous to the Catholic development.

Whereas in former times exalted enthusiasm had of itself, as it were, given rise to strict principles of conduct among its other results, these principles, formulated with exactness and detail, were now meant to preserve or produce that original mode of life. Moreover, as soon as the New Testament was recognised, the conception of a subsequent revelation through the Paraclete was a highly questionable and strange innovation. But for those who acknowledged the new prophecy all this was ultimately nothing but a means. Its practical tendency, based as it was on the conviction that the Church abandons her character if she does not resist gross secularisation at least, was no innovation, but a defence of the most elementary requirements of primitive Christianity in opposition to a Church that was always more and more becoming a new thing.]

[Footnote 217: There were of course a great many intermediate stages between the extremes of laxity and rigour, and the new prophecy was by no means recognised by all those who had strict views as to the principles of Christian polity; see the letters of Dionysius of Corinth in Euseb., H. E. IV. 23. Melito, the prophet, eunuch, and bishop, must also be reckoned as one of the stricter party, but not as a Montanist.

We must judge similarly of Irenaeus.]

[Footnote 218: Euseb., H. E. V. 16. 17. The life of the prophets themselves was subsequently subjected to sharp criticism.]

[Footnote 219: This was first done by the so-called Alogi who, however, had to be repudiated.]

[Footnote 220: De ieiun. 12, 16.]

[Footnote 221: Tertullian protested against this in the most energetic manner.]

[Footnote 222: It is well known that in the 3rd century the Revelation of John itself was viewed with suspicion and removed from the canon in wide circles in the East.]

[Footnote 223: In the West the Chiliastic hopes were little or not at all affected by the Montanist struggle. Chiliasm prevailed there in unimpaired strength as late as the 4th century. In the East, on the contrary, the apocalyptic expectations were immediately weakened by the Montanist crisis. But it was philosophical theology that first proved their mortal enemy. In the rural Churches of Egypt Chiliasm was still widely prevalent after the middle of the 3rd century; see the instructive 24th chapter of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, Book VII.

"Some of their teachers," says Dionysius, "look on the Law and the Prophets as nothing, neglect to obey the Gospel, esteem the Epistles of the Apostles as little worth, but, on the contrary, declare the doctrine contained in the Revelation of John to be a great and a hidden mystery."

There were even temporary disruptions in the Egyptian Church on account of Chiliasm (see Chap. 24. 6).]

[Footnote 224: "Lex et prophetae usque ad Johannem" now became the motto.

Churchmen spoke of a "completus numerus prophetarum" (Muratorian Fragment), and formulated the proposition that the prophets corresponded to the pre-Christian stage of revelation, but the Apostles to the Christian; and that in addition to this the apostolic age was also particularly distinguished by gifts of the Spirit. "Prophets and Apostles" now replaced "Apostles, prophets, and teachers," as the court of appeal. Under such circ.u.mstances prophecy might still indeed exist; but it could no longer be of a kind capable of ranking, in the remotest degree, with the authority of the Apostles in point of importance. Hence it was driven into a corner, became extinct, or at most served only to support the measures of the bishops. In order to estimate the great revolution in the spirit of the times let us compare the utterances of Irenaeus and Origen about gifts of the Spirit and prophecy. Irenaeus still expressed himself exactly like Justin (Dial. 39, 81, 82, 88); he says (II. 32. 4: V. 6. 1): [Greek: kathos kai pollon akouomen adelphon hen te ekklesia prophetika charismata echonton k.t.l.] Origen on the contrary (see numerous pa.s.sages, especially in the treatise c. Cels.), looks back to a period after which the Spirit's gifts in the Church ceased. It is also a very characteristic circ.u.mstance that along with the naturalisation of Christianity in the world, the disappearance of charisms, and the struggle against Gnosticism, a strictly ascetic mode of life came to be viewed with suspicion. Euseb., H. E. V. 3 is especially instructive on this point. Here it is revealed to the confessor Attalus that the confessor Alcibiades, who even in captivity continued his ascetic practice of living on nothing but bread and water, was wrong in refraining from that which G.o.d had created and thus become a "[Greek: typos skandalou]" to others. Alcibiades changed his mode of life. In Africa, however, (see above, p. 103) dreams and visions still retained their authority in the Church as important means of solving perplexities.]

[Footnote 225: Tertullian, adv. Marc. IV. 9, enumerates "septem maculas capitalium delictorum," namely, "idololatria," "blasphemia,"

"homicidium," "adulterium," "stuprum," "falsum testimonium," "fraus."

The stricter treatment probably applied to all these seven offences. So far as I know, the lapse into heresy was not placed in the same category in the first centuries; see Iren. III. 4. 2: Tertull., de praescr. 30 and, above all, de pudic. 19 init.; the anonymous writer in Euseb., H.

E. V. 28. 12, from which pa.s.sages it is evident that repentant heretics were readmitted.]

[Footnote 226: Hermas based the admissibility of a second atonement on a definite divine revelation to this effect, and did not expressly discuss the admission of gross sinners into the Church generally, but treated of their reception into that of the last days, which he believed had already arrived. See particulars on this point in my article "Lapsi," in Herzog's Real-Encyklopadie, 2 ed. Cf. Preuschen, Tertullian's Schriften de paenit. et de pudic. mit Rucksicht auf die Bussdisciplin, 1890; Rolffs, Indulgenz-Edict des Kallistus, 1893.]

[Footnote 227: In the work de paenit. (7 ff.) Tertullian treats this as a fixed Church regulation. K. Muller, Kirchengeschichte I. 1892, p. 114, rightly remarks: "He who desired this expiation continued in the wider circle of the Church, in her 'antechamber' indeed, but as her member in the wider sense. This, however, did not exclude the possibility of his being received again, even in this world, into the ranks of those possessing full Christian privileges,--after the performance of penance or _exh.o.m.ologesis_. But there was no kind of certainty as to that taking place. Meanwhile this _exh.o.m.ologesis_ itself underwent a transformation which in Tertullian includes a whole series of basal religious ideas. It is no longer a mere expression of inward feeling, confession to G.o.d and the brethren, but is essentially performance. It is the actual attestation of heartfelt sorrow, the undertaking to satisfy G.o.d by works of self-humiliation and abnegation, which he can accept as a voluntarily endured punishment and therefore as a subst.i.tute for the penalty that naturally awaits the sinner. It is thus the means of pacifying G.o.d, appeasing his anger, and gaining his favour again--with the consequent possibility of readmission into the Church. I say the _possibility_, for readmission does not always follow. Partic.i.p.ation in the future kingdom may be hoped for even by him who in this world is shut out from full citizenship and merely remains in the ranks of the penitent. In all probability then it still continued the rule for a person to remain till death in a state of penance or _exh.o.m.ologesis_. For readmission continued to involve the a.s.sumption that the Church had in some way or other become _certain_ that G.o.d had forgiven the sinner, or in other words that she had power to grant this forgiveness in virtue of the Spirit dwelling in her, and that this readmission therefore involved no violation of her holiness." In such instances it is first prophets and then martyrs that appear as organs of the Spirit, till at last it is no longer the inspired Christian, but the professional medium of the Spirit, viz., the priest, who decides everything.]

[Footnote 228: In the 2nd century even endeavours at a formal repet.i.tion of baptism were not wholly lacking. In Marcionite congregations repet.i.tion of baptism is said to have taken place (on the Elkesaites see Vol. I. p. 308). One can only wonder that there is not more frequent mention of such attempts. The a.s.sertion of Hippolytus (Philos. IX. 12 fin.) is enigmatical: [Greek: Epi Kallistou proto tetolmetai deuteron autois baptisma].]

[Footnote 229: See Tertull., de pudic. 12: "hinc est quod neque idololatriae neque sanguini pax ab ecclesiis redditur." Orig., de orat.

28 fin; c. Cels. III. 50.]

[Footnote 230: It is only of wh.o.r.emongers and idolaters that Tertullian expressly speaks in de pudic. c. I. We must interpret in accordance with this the following statement by Hippolytus in Philos. IX. 12: [Greek: Kallistos protos ta pros tas hedonas tois anthropois synch.o.r.ein epenoese, legon pasin hup' autou aphiesthai hamartias]. The aim of this measure is still clear from the account of it given by Hippolytus, though this indeed is written in a hostile spirit. Roman Christians were then split into at least five different sects, and Calixtus left nothing undone to break up the unfriendly parties and enlarge his own. In all probability, too, the energetic bishop met with a certain measure of success. From Euseb., H. E. IV. 23. 6, one might be inclined to conclude that, even in Marcus Aurelius' time, Dionysius of Corinth had issued lax injunctions similar to those of Calixtus. But it must not be forgotten that we have nothing but Eusebius' report; and it is just in questions of this kind that his accounts are not reliable.]

[Footnote 231: No doubt persecutions were practically unknown in the period between 220 and 260.]

[Footnote 232: See Cypr., de lapsis.]

[Footnote 233: What scruples were caused by this innovation is shown by the first 40 letters in Cyprian's collection. He himself had to struggle with painful doubts.]

[Footnote 234: Apart from some epistles of Cyprian, Socrates, H. E. V.

22, is our chief source of information on this point. See also Conc.

Illib. can. 1, 2, 6-8, 12, 17, 18-47, 70-73, 75.]

[Footnote 235: See my article "Novatian" in Herzog's Real-Encyklopadie, 2nd ed. One might be tempted to a.s.sume that the introduction of the practice of unlimited forgiveness of sins was an "evangelical reaction"

against the merciless legalism which, in the case of the Gentile Church indeed, had established itself from the beginning. As a matter of fact the bishops and the laxer party appealed to the New Testament in justification of their practice. This had already been done by the followers of Calixtus and by himself. See Philos. IX. 12: [Greek: phaskontes Christon aphienai tois eudokousi]; Rom. XIV. 4 and Matt.

XIII. 29 were also quoted. Before this Tertullian's opponents who favoured laxity had appealed exactly in the same way to numerous Bible texts, e.g., Matt. X. 23: XI. 19 etc., see de monog, de pudic., de ieiun. Cyprian is also able to quote many pa.s.sages from the Gospels.

However, as the bishops and their party did not modify their conception of baptism, but rather maintained in principle, as before, that baptism imposes only obligations for the future, the "evangelical reaction" must not be estimated very highly; (see below, p. 117, and my essay in the Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche, Vol. I., "Die ehre von der Seligkeit allein durch den Glauben in der alten Kirche.")]

[Footnote 236: The distinction of sins committed against G.o.d himself, as we find it in Tertullian, Cyprian, and other Fathers, remains involved in an obscurity that I cannot clear up.]

[Footnote 237: Cyprian never expelled any one from the Church, unless he had attacked the authority of the bishops, and thus in the opinion of this Father placed himself outside her pale by his own act.]

[Footnote 238: Hippol., Philos. IX. 12: [Greek: Kai parabolen ton zizanion pros touto ephe ho Kallistos legesthai. Aphete ta zizania sunauxein to sito, toutestin en te ekklesia tous hamartanontas. Alla kai ten kiboton tou Noe eis h.o.m.oioma ekklesias ephe gegonenai, en he kai kunes kai lykoi kai korakes kai panta ta kathara kai akatharta; houto phaskon dein einai en ekklesia h.o.m.oios, kai hosa pros touto dynatos en synagein houtos hermeneusen.] From Tertull., de idolol. 24, one cannot help a.s.suming that even before the year 200 the laxer sort in Carthage had already appealed to the Ark. ("Viderimus si secundum arcae typum et corvus et milvus et lupus et canis et serpens in ecclesia erit. Certe idololatres in arcae typo non habetur. Quod in arca non fuit, in ecclesia non sit"). But we do not know what form this took and what inferences they drew. Moreover, we have here a very instructive example of the mult.i.tudinous difficulties in which the Fathers were involved by typology: the Ark is the Church, hence the dogs and snakes are men. To solve these problems it required an abnormal degree of acuteness and wit, especially as each solution always started fresh questions. Orig.

(Hom. II. in Genes. III.) also viewed the Ark as the type of the Church (the working out of the image in Hom. I. in Ezech., Lomm. XIV. p. 24 sq., is instructive); but apparently in the wild animals he rather sees the simple Christians who are not yet sufficiently trained--at any rate he does not refer to the wh.o.r.emongers and adulterers who must be tolerated in the Church. The Roman bishop Stephen again, positively insisted on Calixtus' conception of the Church, whereas Cornelius followed Cyprian (see Euseb., H. E. VI. 43. 10), who never declared sinners to be a necessary part of the Church in the same fashion as Calixtus did. (See the following note and Cyp., epp. 67. 6; 68. 5).]

[Footnote 239: Philos., l.c.: [Greek: Kallistos edogmatisen hopos ei episkopos hamartoi ti, ei kai pros thanaton, me dein katat.i.thesthai].

That Hippolytus is not exaggerating here is evident from Cyp., epp. 67, 68; for these pa.s.sages make it very probable that Stephen also a.s.sumed the irremovability of a bishop on account of gross sins or other failings.]

[Footnote 240: See Cypr., epp. 65, 66, 68; also 55. 11.]

[Footnote 241: This is a.s.serted by Cyprian in epp. 65. 4 and 67. 3; but he even goes on to declare that everyone is polluted that has fellowship with an impure priest, and takes part in the offering celebrated by him.]

[Footnote 242: On this point the greatest uncertainty prevails in Cyprian. Sometimes he says that G.o.d himself installs the bishops, and it is therefore a deadly sin against G.o.d to criticise them (e.g., in ep.

66. 1); on other occasions he remembers that the bishops have been ordained by bishops; and again, as in ep. 67. 3, 4, he appears to acknowledge the community's right to choose and control them. Cf. the sections referring to Cyprian in Reuter's "Augustinische Studien"

(Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte, Vol. VII., p. 199 ff.).]

[Footnote 243: The Donatists were quite justified in appealing to Cyprian, that is, in one of his two aspects.]

[Footnote 244: Origen not only distinguishes between different groups within the Church as judged by their spiritual understanding and moral development (Comm. in Matt. Tom. XI. at Chap. XV. 29; Hom. II. in Genes.

Chap. 3; Hom. in Cantic. Tom. I. at Chap. I. 4: "ecclesia una quidem est, c.u.m perfecta est; multae vero sunt adolescentulae, c.u.m adhuc instruuntur et proficiunt"; Hom. III. in Levit. Chap. iii.), but also between spiritual and carnal members (Hom. XXVI. in Num. Chap. vii.) i.e., between true Christians and those who only bear that name without heartfelt faith--who outwardly take part in everything, but bring forth fruits neither in belief nor conduct. Such Christians he as little views as belonging to the Church as does Clement of Alexandria (see Strom.

VII. 14. 87, 88). To him they are like the Jebusites who were left in Jerusalem: they have no part in the promises of Christ, but are lost (Comm. in Matt. T. XII. c. xii.). It is the Church's task to remove such members, whence we see that Origen was far from sharing Calixtus' view of the Church as a _corpus permixtum_; but to carry out this process so perfectly that only the holy and the saved remain is a work beyond the powers of human sagacity. One must therefore content oneself with expelling notorious sinners; see Hom. XXI. in Jos., c. i.: "sunt qui ign.o.bilem et degenerem vitam duc.u.n.t, qui et fide et actibus et omni conversatione sua perversi sunt. Neque enim possibile est, ad liquidum purgari ecclesiam, dum in terris est, ita ut neque impius in ea quisquam, neque peccator residere videatur, sed sint in ea omnes sancti et beati, et in quibus nulla prorsus peccati macula deprehendatur. Sed sicut dicitur de zizaniis: Ne forte eradicantes zizania simul eradicetis et tritic.u.m, ita etiam super iis dici potest, in quibus vel dubia vel occulta peccata sunt.... Eos saltem eiiciamus quos possumus, quorum peccata manifesta sunt. Ubi enim peccatum non est evidens, eiicere de ecclesia neminem possumus." In this way indeed very many wicked people remain in the Church (Comm. in Matt. T. X. at c. xiii. 47 f.: [Greek: me xenizometha, ean horomen hemon ta athroismata pepleromena kai poneron]); _but in his work against Celsus Origen already propounded that empiric and relative theory of the Christian Churches which views them as simply "better" than the societies and civic communities existing alongside of them_. The 29th and 30th chapters of the 3rd book against Celsus, in which he compares the Christians with the other population of Athens, Corinth, and Alexandria, and the heads of congregations with the councillors and mayors of these cities, are exceedingly instructive and attest the revolution of the times. In conclusion, however, we must point out that Origen expressly a.s.serts that a person unjustly excommunicated remains a member of the Church in G.o.d's eyes; see Hom.

XIV. in Levit. c. iii.: "ita fit, ut interdum ille qui foras mitt.i.tur intussit, et ille foris, qui intus videtur retineri." Dollinger (Hippolytus and Calixtus, page 254 ff.) has correctly concluded that Origen followed the disputes between Hippolytus and Calixtus in Rome, and took the side of the former. Origen's trenchant remarks about the pride and arrogance of the bishops of large towns (in Matth. XI. 9. 15; XII. 9-14; XVI. 8. 22 and elsewhere, e.g., de orat. 28, Hom. VI. in Isai c. i., in Joh. X. 16), and his denunciation of such of them as, in order to glorify G.o.d, a.s.sume a mere distinction of names between Father and Son, are also correctly regarded by Langen as specially referring to the Roman ecclesiastics (Geschichte der romischen Kirche I. p. 242). Thus Calixtus was opposed by the three greatest theologians of the age--Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Origen.]

[Footnote 245: If, in a.s.suming the irremovability of a bishop even in case of mortal sin, the Roman bishops went beyond Cyprian, Cyprian drew from his conception of the Church a conclusion which the former rejected, viz., the invalidity of baptism administered by non-Catholics.

Here, in all likelihood, the Roman bishops were only determined by their interest in smoothing the way to a return or admission to the Church in the case of non-Catholics. In this instance they were again induced to adhere to their old practice from a consideration of the catholicity of the Church. It redounds to Cyprian's credit that he drew and firmly maintained the undeniable inferences from his own theory in spite of tradition. The matter never led to a great _dogmatic_ controversy.]

[Footnote 246: As to the events during the vacancy in the Roman see immediately before Novatian's schism, and the part then played by the latter, who was still a member of the Church, see my essay: "Die Briefe des romischen Klerus aus der Zeit. der Sedisvacanz im Jahre 250"

(Abhandl. f. Weizsacker, 1892).]

[Footnote 247: So far as we are able to judge, Novatian himself did not extend the severer treatment to all gross sinners (see ep. 55. 26, 27); but only decreed it in the case of the lapsed. It is, however, very probable that in the later Novatian Churches no mortal sinner was absolved (see, e.g., Socrates, H. E. I. 10). The statement of Ambrosius (de paenit. III. 3) that Novatian made no difference between gross and lesser sins and equally refused forgiveness to transgressors of every kind distorts the truth as much as did the old reproach laid to his charge, viz., that he as "a Stoic" made no distinction between sins.

Moreover, in excluding gross sinners, Novatian's followers did not mean to abandon them, but to leave them under the discipline and intercession of the Church.]

[Footnote 248: The t.i.tle of the evangelical life (evangelical perfection, imitation of Christ) in contrast to that of ordinary Catholic Christians, a designation which we first find among the Encrat.i.tes (see Vol. I. p. 237, note 3) and Marcionites (see Tertull., adv. Marc. IV. 14: "Venio nunc ad ordinarias sententias Marcionis, per quas proprietatem doctrinae suae inducit ad edictum, ut ita dixerim, Christi, Beati mendici etc."), and then in Tertullian (in his pre-Montanist period, see ad mart., de patient., de paenit., de idolol.; in his later career, see de coron. 8, 9, 13, 14; de fuga 8, 13; de ieiun. 6, 8, 15; de monog. 3, 5, 11; see Aube, Les Chretiens dans l'empire Romain de la fin des Antonins, 1881, p. 237 ff.: "Chretiens intransigeants et Chretiens opportunistes") was expressly claimed by Novatian (Cypr., ep. 44. 3: "si Novatiani se adsertores evangelii et Christi esse confitentur"; 46. 2: "nec putetis, sic vos evangelium Christi adserere"). Cornelius in Eusebius, H. E. VI. 43. II calls Novatian: [Greek: ho ekdiketes tou euangeliou]. This is exceedingly instructive, and all the more so when we note that, even as far back as the end of the second century, it was not the "evangelical," but the lax, who declared the claims of the Gospel to be satisfied if they kept G.o.d in their hearts, but otherwise lived in entire conformity with the world. See Tertullian, de spec. 1; de paenit. 5: "Sed aiunt quidam, satis deum habere, si corde et animo suspiciatur, licet actu minus fiat; itaque se salvo metu et fide peccare, hoc est salva cast.i.tate matrimonia violare etc.": de ieiun. 2: "Et scimus, quales sint carnalium commodorum suasoriae, quam facile dicatur: Opus est de totis praecordiis credam, diligam deum et proximum tanquam me. In his enim duobus praeceptis tota lex pendet et prophetae, non in pulmonum et intestinorum meorum inanitate." The Valentinian Heracleon was similarly understood, see above Vol. I. p. 262.]

[Footnote 249: Tertullian (de pud. 22) had already protested vigorously against such injustice.]

[Footnote 250: From Socrates' Ecclesiastical History we can form a good idea of the state of the Novatian communities in Constantinople and Asia Minor. On the later history of the Catharist Church see my article "Novatian," l.c., 667 ff. The most remarkable feature of this history is the amalgamation of Novatian's adherents in Asia Minor with the Montanists and the absence of distinction between their manner of life and that of the Catholics. In the 4th century of course the Novatians were nevertheless very bitterly attacked.]

[Footnote 251: This indeed was disputed by Hippolytus and Origen.]

[Footnote 252: This last conclusion was come to after painful scruples, particularly in the East--as we may learn from the 6th and 7th books of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History. For a time the majority of the Oriental bishops adopted an att.i.tude favourable to Novatian and unfavourable to Cornelius and Cyprian. Then they espoused the cause of the latter, though without adopting the milder discipline in all cases (see the canons of Ancyra and Neocaesarea IV. saec. init.). Throughout the East the whole question became involved in confusion, and was not decided in accordance with clear principles. In giving up the last remnant of her exclusiveness (the canons of Elvira are still very strict while those of Arles are lax), the Church became "Catholic" in quite a special sense, in other words, she became a community where everyone could find his place, provided he submitted to certain regulations and rules. Then, and not till then, was the Church's pre-eminent importance for society and the state a.s.sured. It was no longer variance, and no longer the sword (Matt. X. 34, 35), but peace and safety that she brought; she was now capable of becoming an educative or, since there was little more to educate in the older society, a conservative power.