'-.'.' / ./6 , /7 ^ ti^t S^^nlngtfft/ PRINCETON, N. J. ^ BV 598 .M34 Maguire, Edward Xo schism la'wful? IS SCHISM LAWFUL? A STUDY IN PRIMITIVE ECCLESIOLOGY WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE QUESTION OF SCHISM pail mmt: JOANNES WATERS, Censor Theol. Deput. fmpvimi ^ateist: ►I* GULIELMUS, Archiep. Dublinen., HiBERNI/E PrIMAS. DuBLlNl, die 2:f° Maiif 1915. IS SCHISM LAWFUL? A STUDY IN PRIMITIVE ECCLESIOLOGY WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE QUESTION OF SCHISM Presented to the Theological Faculty of St. Patrick's ^--^ College, Maynooth, as a Thesis for ^-f-'i^^ the Degree of Doctor REV. EDWARD MAGUIRE Dunbo3me Establishment, Maynooth College DUBLIN M. H. GILL AND SON, Limited AND WATERFORD I9I5 Printed and Bound IN Ireland M. H. GILL & SON, Ltd., Dublin and Waterford. PREFACE In compiling this work I have derived much assistance from the French historians: Batiffol, Duchesne, and Tixeront. My indebtedness to other authors and publications will be found acknowledged in the notes. I must cordially thank Dr. Cleary for his kind- ness in reading the entire work for the press. E. M. DuNBOYNE Establishment, Maynooth College, April, 1915. CORRIGENDA Page 95 (n.) for Kplvetv read Kpareiv, „ 287 s(/g. „ Tanquery read Tanquerey. CONTENTS PAGE PREFACE V INTRODUCTION Societies — Principle of social unity — Subjects — For- feiture of rights — Symbols of authority — What divides a society ? — Secession sometimes lawful — Field of inquiry xi-xx CHAPTER I The New Dispersion Christianity social — ^The local community an external society — The Church and the Synagogue — The Church Universal^ — ^The two Dispersions — The New Dispersion an organic unit — Parties in the Apostolic Church ..... 1-36 CHAPTER II ECCLESIOLOGY OF St. PaUL Epistle to the Ephesians — Other Pauline letters — Protestantism — Unity of the Spirit — Schism 37-64 Excursus : Ecclesiology of St. Peter . . 65-66 viii CONTENTS CHAPTER III The Personal Teaching of Jesus PAGE The Christ in prophecy — ^The kingdom in prophecy — Realization of the Messianic prophecies in Jesus — The kingdom in the gospels — The kingdom spiritual — The kingdom catholic — In- visible unity of the kingdom — The kingdom a visible society — Government of the kingdom — The Primacy — St. Matthew's gospel "ecclesias- tical " — Hierarchy enduring — Schism never lawful 67-114 Excursus : Christianity and Paulinism . . 115-118 CHAPTER IV The Apostolic Fathers The Didache — The Epistle of Clement — Ecclesiology — Ignatian Epistles — The local church — The Church Universal — Schism — The Roman primacy — Polycarp — Other early writers . 119-153 CHAPTER V Justin Martyr Truth — Clu'istianity cosmopolitan and catholic — Christianity individualistic — Christianity a unit — The Way of Salvation — Reason and authority — Heresy and schism . . 154-165 Excursus : Celsus and Origen . . . 166-170 CONTENTS ix CHAPTER VI The Adversus Haereses PAGE History — Doctrine — Rule of faith — Literpretation of iii. 2 — Greneral argument of passage — Dr. Words- worth — Christianity a deposit — The Church the body of Christ — Indwelhng of the Spirit — Church membership — Heresy and schism — Summary — Testimony of Hegesippus — The Easter Controversy .... 171-203 CHAPTER VII St. Cyprian, Bishop and Martyr. Life — Ecclesiology — The local church — ^The Church Universal — De Unitate — ^The Baptismal Con- troversy — The Roman primacy . . 204-241 CHAPTER VIII Section A. — The Donatist Schism History — ^The Circumcellions — Doctrinal position — Ecclesiology 242-257 Section B. — Theology of St. Augustine. Rule of faith — Ecclesiology — Theology of the sacra- ments 258-265 * * * General Summary 266-273 X CONTENTS CHAPTER IX. Theological. PAGE Schism — Great Western Schism — Dr. Gore on schism — Excommunication — Dogmas — Heresy — Anglican principles of Church unity — Church membership — ^The Vine — ^The " soul " of the Church — The social body — Congress of Velehrad —Criticism 274-307 Appendix A — Independent and democratic theories of Church polity 308-316 Appendix B. — Protestantism and visible unity 317-318 Index 319-323 INTRODUCTION A WAR-CIRCULAR recently issued by His Majesty's Grovemment to the oversea dominions lays stress on " the fundamental unity of the Empire amidst all its diversity of situation and circumstajices." It is an acknowledged fact ; our scattered pos- sessions cohere in some way. British citizens the world over constitute a rounded whole. They are members of a single association which is quite distinct and separate from corresponding associa- tions of aliens. The Empire is a social unit. Analysing the concept of a society, we find that it contains three elements. To begin with, there is the aggregate of individuals incorporated by visible initiation. Recruits become soldiers by going through certain external formalities ; aliens become British citizens by a certificate of naturali- zation. A member of a society ceases to be such only when the act of initiation by which he was incorporated is nullified. Every society has its proper end or purpose. Men form associations to attain by joint-action some object which is difficult or impossible of attainment by solitary effort. The State has for its end the promotion of the common good ; and, in these times of stress, the reader does not require to be told of the purpose and utility of armies. Principle of Social Unity.— The third and most xii • INTRODUCTION important element in a society is authority. Herein we discover the primary principle of social unity, A multitude is one because the individual units which make it up are juxtaposed in space ; a school of thought is one because its members stand by common principles. But, in a society, the cohesive element is something more effective and enduring. Here members hold together through the medium of external rule, which directs and controls their activity in view of the common end. No society can exist as such without a ruling authority. This is true of even an anarchist club. British journalists now speak of Alsace and Lorraine as provinces which were " torn from the bleeding side of France." The imagery is singularly appropriate ; a State bears a close analogy to the living body. A lion unwarily treading the jungle finds himself suddenly in the hunter's net. Instantly the teeth are bared, the eyes flash fire, and every nerve and sinew is strained. The whole animal is roused and his members unite in a joint-struggle for liberty. The net has to contend not with a group of members acting separately, but with an organization. Injury to any one is the concern of all. A Umb succeeds in extricating itself, and im- mediately sets to work to release its fellows. Be it noted, however, that its intervention is not quite disinterested. It rescues others simply because it stands to lose by injury to them. In rNTRODUCTION xiii any organism the well-being of each member, as such, is conditioned by the well-being of its fellow-members and of the whole. The joint-action here is perfectly ordered ; control is by the vital principle. When the body is attacked or menaced afferent nerves flash the intelligence to head-quarters. The brain at once grapples with the situation, so to speak, and by means of efferent nerves communicates with all the members, calling upon each to do its part towards safeguarding the whole. If the organism is healthy, the response to the call is immediate and general. So in the State. A short time ago the German ambassador at London was handed his passports. The British Empire felt menaced, and the Head called upon the members to do their duty. The response was general. Roused to action by the re- cognition of a common danger, the colonies flocked to the Imperial colours ; and Canadians, Austra- lians, Indians, and Africanders made their way to the battlefields of Europe, where they now fight shoulder to shoulder with their fellow-subjects from these islands. Each member feels that to defend the whole is to defend himself. Hence such terms as " body," " corporate whole," *' organization," " organic unit," &c., applied to a society, are as appropriate as they are suggestive. For, as the living body is an organiza- tion energized by a vital principle which secures the well-being of the whole by ordering the activity xiv INTRODUCTION of the members, so a society is an association of human beings controlled by an external authority in view of a common end. Government is to a society what the vital principle is to the body ; it is the primary bond of organic solidarity. The Empire is one, because it has a single central authority to which British citizens everywhere are subject. Subjects. — Membership in the State, as in any society, since citizens are bound to promote the common good, imposes certain obligations. These obligations they fulfil by obeying the Head. But who, it will be asked, are bound to obey the Head — to observe, say, the laws of the British Empire ? The question looks simple, and many will be inclined to answer at once that British subjects without exception, and these only, are so bound. But let us reflect a little : what of the Belgian refugees ? As we understand the virtue of obedience, it is capable of being exercised only by members towards their Head ; it is only subjects who obey. Resident aliens do not, and cannot, owe obedience to the British Sovereign as such. We note that it is only on naturalization an alien is required to take the oath of allegiance. True, the Belgian refugees, while resident amongst us, observe the laws of the Realm apparently after the manner of subjects, and are bound to do so. But the obhgation in their case is not one of obedience properly so-called ; it arises altogether out of an implied contract. On admission to the INTRODUCTION xv country, they tacitly undertake to observe certain regulations in return for the protection they are about to receive ; and hence, though guilty of breach of contract and liable to the usual penalties if they fail to observe the laws which the central authority has laid down for their guidance, they are not guilty of disobedience. In character their offence is analogous to that of a railway-passenger who smokes in a non-smoking compartment. It is only members, then, who are, or can be, bound to obey the Head ; and, conversely, a ruler can exact obedience only from his subjects. Any one who is bound to obey the Head is thereby shown to be a member. Actual subjection to the ruling authority in any society is a formal test of membership in the same. Forfeiture of Eights. — A British subject, while retaining his membership in the State, may forfeit his rights as a citizen partially and even totally. Generally speaking the forfeiture is only partial ; as happens, for instance, in the case of imprison- ment, which restricts an offender's personal liberty. Where the forfeiture is total, the punishment is known as outlawry. It is important to note that even outlaws are members of the State. They have no rights ; and yet remain bound in obedience towards the Head. Symbols of Authority.— The flag is a recognized symbol of sovereign authority. Every mdependent State has its distinctive banner ; and hence when a province or colony effectively secedes, it sets up \ xvi INTRODUCTION at once a new flag. Change of flag symbolizes change of sovereignty. When a victorious general makes his formal entry into a conquered city, one of his first acts is to replace the standard of the vanquished Power. Christian De Wet on a recent occasion announced that he would pull down the Union Jack at Pretoria and proclaim an inde- pendent South African Republic. The keys also were in olden times a recognized symbol of government. When a free city fell to a besieging force, the keys of the gates were formally delivered to the conqueror, who was thus symboli- cally invested with supreme jurisdiction over the persons and property of the vanquished. The key as a symbol of control is still recognized at law. A tenant or purchaser, for example, is held to obtain control of a house or premises at and through delivery of the key. What divides a Society ? — If the primary principle of unity in every society is the supreme social authority, it follows that a radical division can take place only by repudiation of the flag. When a portion of any kingdom makes good a secession, then and only then is the social unity essentially disrupted. Let me illustrate this important principle by a few concrete examples. A number of British subjects, let us suppose, not only disobey a certain law, but form a league and pledge themselves to resist by force of arms. The Ulster Unionists at one time announced their intention of adopting INTRODUCTION xvii some such course in the event of the Home Rule Bill becoming law. Here there is question of armed resistance to recognized authority. It is not proposed to divide the Empire by setting up a new flag — nee nominetur ; the recalcitrants acknowledge the Head and merely repudiate its mandate. Even civil war leaves the social unity essentially intact. By civil war I mean war between two or more portions of a State, each contending for mastery of the whole and each claiming the flag. The bloody and protracted struggle between the Houses of York and Lancaster during the Wars of the Roses was a struggle for the same crown. Neither party contemplated a disruption of the kingdom ; they recognized a common flag and merely disputed as to who should hold it. Not so the American "War of Independence. Here it was a clear case of a radical breach. The Representatives of the seceders in Congress assembled proclaimed that " the United Colonies are of right and ought to be Free and Independent States." Hence with the Peace of 1782, by which Britain acknowledged without reserve the indepen- dence of the separated colonies, a new Power was recognized, and a new sovereignty was symbolized by a new flag. The Boer movement, which is just now engaging the attention of the British Government in South Africa, is similar in character. A society, then, is radically divided only when a section of its members repudiate the flag. In the State, armed resistance to the Head disturbs but xvui INTRODUCTION does not quite disrupt. The same is true of revolution and of civil war, if these be understood as armed movements which have for their ultimate object a mere change in the form or personnel of the existing government. No movement which stops short of secession is radically separative. One flag one society ; and there will be as many societies as there are flags. Secession Sometimes Lawful. — It is recognized that, in certain circumstances, secession may be legitimate. In this respect, we fancy, the State bears some analogy to the household. The latter, too, is a society controlled by the domestic Head. During the period of adolescence, children remain members and are bound to obey the parental authority. But when a child has grown to man's estate, we know that he is at liberty to " leave father and mother," and to found an independent home. His parents may withhold their sanction ; they may even use force to restrain him. It matters not ; he acts within his strict rights, and hence is free to override their opposition. If necessary, he may even meet force with force. The breach effected, he ceases to owe them obedience ; by setting up a new authority he has validly and lawfully repudiated the old. So it is in the State. Colonies have their period of infancy and adolescence ; they have, or they ought to have their period of manhood as well. When they become capable of independent self- control — sufficiently strong to engage in the INTRODUCTION xix struggle for existence, and to grapple single- handed with rivals and opponents — the law of nature gives them, in certain circumstances, a right to " leave father and mother " and to set up a new flag. When secession is legitimate it should be effected peaceably. In our own time Norway cut itself adrift from Sweden without striking a blow. Generally, however, a breach, even when perfectly legitimate, entails a conflict with the repudiated authority. In such cases it is lawful for the seceders to organize themselves in military fashion and make good their cause by force of arms. Field of Inquiry. — The reader is now in a position to understand in a general way the scope of a work which professes to be a study in primitive ecclesiology, with special reference to the question of schism. We shall begin with an examination of historical Christianity. We shall ask ourselves if the glad-tiding which was announced for the first time in Palestine, some two thousand years ago, was only a tiding. Did those who received the new message, in the first instance, constitute a mere school, or did they form societies ; and if they formed societies did these take shape as isolated and autonomous units or was there an aJl-round federation, a society of all societies, a church of aU the churches ? Having satisfied ourselves as to the character of the new ' tendency,' as it actually realized itself in the world, we shall proceed in the second place to XX INTRODUCTION inquire into its antecedents. Many modem critics who grant that historical Christianity was social, deny that it was such de iure. Ecclesiasticism, they tell us, finds no place in the personal teaching of Jesus. We shall see if this novel contention can be sustained. The ecclesiology of the Ante-nicene period will engage our attention in the succeediag chapters. Taking as our sources of information the extant literature of the first three centuries, we shall try to determine the views of the early Christian writers on the nature and constitution of the Church. Should we find that the Christianity of the New Testament and the Fathers is a single external society, we shall devote a concluding chapter to the development of an analogy between the Church of Christ and the British Empire. Membership in the State is acquired by birth as well as by naturaliza- tion ; and is relinquished not only by death, but by expatriation and by successful rebellion. Is the same true — mutatis mutandis — of membership in the Church ? In fine, secession from the civil society is sometimes legitimate. Is the same true of the ecclesiastical society ? — is schism lawful ? Far schism is simply secession from the Church, CHAPTER I THE NEW DISPERSION Jerusalem was the birth-place of the Christian Church. It was the morning of Pentecost 29 A.D. A group of Galilean fishermen, led by one Simon Peter, suddenly began to proclaim in the city that in Jesus of Nazareth, crucified and risen, they had found the Messias.^ In Him alone was salvation. To be saved one should do penance, accept certain truths proposed by the new preachers, and submit to a peculiar form of washing known as " baptism.^ ^ Following a sermon to this effect delivered by Simon, a digest of which has come down to us,^ some three thousand souls " believed." ^ The Local Church Christianity Social. — The new religion was con- gregational from the first ; the earliest converts held together. To a man they rallied to Simon Peter and his companions and formed a community.* New converts were admitted to membership as they were made. ''All that believed were together , ^ Ac. ii. 14 sqq. ^ ib. v. 41. 2 ib. ^ Koiv(Dvia, ib. V. 42. 1 A 2 THE NEW DISPERSION and had all things common . . . and the Lord added to them daily those that were being saved." ^ For a time all went well. Despite bitter opposition from priests, Sadducees and others, the community of the fishermen grew apace. The Lord increased them^ . . . and men magnified them.^ But their hour was to come. A violent persecu- tion, originating in the trial and martyrdom of St. Stephen, forced the entire community to fly the mother-city, the apostles alone remaining.* With indomitable fortitude the fugitives made their way through the districts of Judea and Samaria, preaching the " gospel "^ as they went and con- verting many.^ Organized to extinguish it utterly, the persecution was, in effect, a means of spreading the New Light. From the very outset external fellowship char- acterized the followers of Jesus, wherever or by whomsoever converted. This is history. Christian communities came into being wherever the gospel was preached. A community established at Antioch by the fugitives from Jerusalem we find figuring conspicuously in the early stages of the Christian development. Paul, an emissary of the 1 Ac. V. 47 (R. v.). ^ Ac. v. 13. ^ ih. ii. 47. * ib. viii. 1. 5 A. Sax. Godspell — God (good) and spell (tidings) ; Gr. (vayyeXiov, the name given to the doctrinal basis of the new reUgion. • Ac. viii. 4. THE NEW DISPERSION 3 community at Antioch set up local associations wherever he preached. These he named " churches^ The establishment of one " church " for the residents of each city or district ^ he regarded as the sole purpose of his mission to them. This end attained, he commended his new converts to the Lord and at once betook himself to fresh fields.'^ Into the existing local church all those subsequently converted in the district were incorporated as a matter of course. " Unattached " brethren were unheard of.^ The local community an external society. — The local community was an organic unit. It was a church.* The brethren in each district formed a well-defined and exclusive association to which * No city or district however large had more than one church. In this Christianity contrasted with Judaism which admitted several distinct synagogues in a large city or area. By "churches" and "synagogues" the reader will under- stand here not buildings, or places of meeting, but Christian and Jewish associations respectively. 2 Ac. xiv. 23. ' Harnack emphasizes this historical fact. {What is Christianity? pp. 102-3, 155 sqq.) * The English word " church " primarily signifies a sacred building [Gr. rh KvpiaKov — " the Lord's house," Sc. kirk, O.E. chirche, A. Sax. circe (c's hard), Dan. kirke, G. Kirche.]. In a secondary or transferred sense it represents the cKKkija-la of the New Testament. To a Greek the eKK\ija-ia was " an assembly of the citizens summoned by crier, the legislative assembly " (Lidd. and S.), ruled by elected office-bearers. To a Jew it had been the community of the elect (Hebr. qahal) — the chosen 4 THE NEW DISPERSION only 'the saved '^ "were added." ^ "All who believed were together ; . . . but of the rest no man durst join himself unto them."^ Non- members were " outsiders " — ol efw, the brethren being referred to as o/eo-w— "the initiated."* The penitent Saul returning from Damascus to Jerusalem experienced some difficulty in having himself " joined to the disciples.''^ The new fellow- ship was a visible society. Members were capable of effective cooperation. We find them combining, at one time to have doctrinal differences authoritatively adjusted,* at another to relieve the indigent,' again to establish and maintain by subscriptions a permanent local fund.^ The community as such despatched and received letters and emissaries. It was capable of people. To Greeks and Jews alike the word connoted visible organic unity. In the New Testament (KKXtja-La (singular) has a variety of applications. It denotes : (a) The local church (Ac. xi. 22, 26 ; xii. 1-5 ; xiii. 1 ; xiv. 27 ; XV. 4 ; XX. 7 : 1 Thess. i. 1 ; 2 Thess. i. 1 ; 1 Cor. i. 2 ; \i. 4 ; 2 Cor. i. 1 ; Rom. xvi. 1, 23, etc.). (6) The actual assemblage of the local church (Ac. xv. 22 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 4, 19, 34-5 ; xi. 18 ; 3 John v. 6). (c) The " house " — church : (1 Cor. xvi. 19 ; Rom. xvi. 5). {d) The sum-total of the churches of several districts (Ac. ix. 31) (e) The Church Universal (Col. i. 18-24 ; Eph. i. 22 ; iii. 10, 21 ; v. 23-5 sqq. Gal. i. 13 ; 1 Cor. xv. 19). 1 Ac. ii. 47. * cfr. 1 Cor. v. 12 ; 1 Tim. iii. 7. - ih. vv. 41-44. ^ Ac. ix. 26. ^ ib. V. 44, V. 13. ^ ib. xv. 7 ib. xi. 29, 30. s Philipp. iv. 15, 16 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 1, 2. THE NEW DISPERSION 6 rigorously boycotting the pagan law-courts.^ Its members came together at an appointed time and place to " break bread." ^ In all this we discover effective cooperation and joint-action of a kind which is possible only on the basis of external organization. We already know the marks of a society.^ The local church had a visible rite of initiation. The procedure of Philip in converting the eunuch may be taken as typical. The eunuch seated in his chariot, was reading a passage from Isaias when Philip came up : Whereupon " Philip, opening his mouth and beginning at this Scripture, preached unto him Jesus." The eunuch, becoming con- vinced, expressed a desire for baptism. " And Philip said : ' If thou believest with all thy heart, thou may est.' And he answering said : ' I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.' Then they went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him."'» Acceptance of certain doctrines is demanded as a condition for baptism. Philip said : " // thou believest thou may est,'' Nothing could be clearer. Baptism makes the Christian. Faith is a condition for baptism. Men " repent and believe the gospel " for a ^ 1 Cor. vi. 1 sqq. 2 One fixed day each week. 1 Cor. xvi. 2, cfr. ib. x. 16 ; xi. 18-20, Ac. ii. 7. ^ V. supra, Introd. * Ac. viii. 35-38. 6 THE NEW DISPERSION common purpose. They become Christians to save themselves. Peter's first sermon in the streets of Jerusalem made this clear : " Repent and be baptized " he said, " every one of you. . . . Save yourselves from this perverse generation." ^ ' Salvation through Jesus ' was the watchword of the early Christian missionary. " Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ " said Paul to the jailor at Philippi " and thou shalt be saved." ^ To reject ' the word ' was to perish. When Silas and Timothy arrived at Corinth from Macedonia they found Paul " earnest in preaching, testifying to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ. But, they gain- saying and blaspheming, he shook his garments and said to them : Your blood be upon your own heads : I am clean." ^ Lastly, in each local community there was a ruling authority. Let us just glance at the evidence. To begin with, we note the fact that unworthy aspirants were denied admission to the Christian fellowship,* while disgraceful or refractory members were excommunicated.^ Herein we recognize an exercise of that authority which vests in every social unit however rudimentary its organization, whereby it can determine effectively who are, and who are not, to be accounted its members. In every church there existed from the beginning a select body who taught with authority and ruled the entire community. The mother-church at 1 Ac. ii. 38-40. 2 ib. xvi. 31. ^ n, xviii. 5, 6. * ib. viii. 37 ; ix. 26. ^ i Coj. y 5 THE NEW DISPERSION 7 Jerusalem was at first shepherded by the apostles. By them aspirants to membership were admitted or excluded.^ They took charge of, and adminis- tered the common purse ; "^ and when the Greeks complained that their widows were being treated unfairly in the daily ministration, the apostles had seven deacons elected whom they appointed " to serve the tables." ^ In the mother-church at a somewhat later period,* and in every Christian community outside Jerusalem from the first, there existed a body of ecclesiastical superiors who were known as " elders " or " overseers." ^ These were appointed 1 cfr. Ac. ix. 27. 2 ^-^^ j^ 37 ^ And yet we find the ablest Protestant apologists contend- ing that the mother-church at Jerusalem had a democratic form of government, and acted on the conviction that the authority bestowed by Christ on His Church belonged to the whole congregation and not to an apostolic hierarchy. " The Apostles," we are told, " might suggest, but the congregation ruled." (Lindsay, The Church and the Ministry in the Early Centuries, p. 32.) One is positively at a loss to understand how any intelligent student of the Acts can defend this position " with perfect honesty of heart and of head " {cfr. Ac. vi. 1-6). * ib. XV. 4. ^ The titles Trpeo-^urtpos and iirla- koto's are apparently synonymous in the New Testament {cjr. Ac. xx. 17-28). The further question as to whether all superiors so named were of equal standing does not concern us. Ecclesiastical superiors have other titles. The encyclical " to the Ephesians " speaks of " Trot/xevcs koi StSoo-KaAot," while in the epistles to the Hebrews and to the Romans superiors are entitled ol -qyovfifvoi and ol Trpolb-Ta/xevot re- spectively. (Eph. iv. 11; Hebr. xiii 7, 17; Rom. viii. 8; cfr. 1 Thess. v. 12.) 8 THE NEW DISPERSION in each church by the apostles themselves or by their delegates or successors.^ When Paul and Barnabas had preached ' the word ' at Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe, and had made many converts, " they appointed^ to them elders in every church." ^ Titus is instructed to set up* elders in every church in Crete ; ^ and Timothy receives a like commission for Ephesus.® ^ Ecclesiastical superiors were not appointed by the faithful. Scriptural passages which have been cited to prove that they were, merely show that the local elders were sometimes elected by the faithful ; and this is not denied. The same passages make it perfectlj'' clear that the elders even when elected by the faithful were invariably ordained by the apostles or by their delegates or successors. ^ Gr, xf'/'OTovTjo-avxe?. Advocates of the " popular " theory, including one of the most scholarly of living exegetical critics — Edward Meyer — , contend that the use of the word by St. Luke shows that the elders in question received their appointment by popular election. " Paul and Barnabas had them elected to office." The best Greek authorities are agreed, however, that, while its primary meaning was undoubtedly " to elect," the word x^'^o'^oveiv came afterwards to mean simply " to appoint." This is its ordinary meaning in Hellen- istic Greek. Josephus e.g. uses it of David's elevation to the kingship by God {cfr. Dale, Manual of Congregational Prin- ciples, p. 68). Hence BatiflFol is scarcely accurate when he states, in con- nection with the ecclesiology of St. Ignatius, that the verb X^ipoToveiv always signifies to elect. (" Le verbe x^*/'<"'°''"*' signifie toujours elire " — Primitive Catholicism, Fr. ed., p. 157 n.) * Ac. xiv. 23. * Gr. Karacrrijcrjji. * Tit. i. 5. ® cfr. 1 Tim. iii. 1 sqq., v. 22. THE NEW DISPERSION 9 The extant letters of the other apostles imply that "presbyters" were to be found in every church to which they wrote. Peter addressing " the strangers dispersed throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia has a special word to say to ' the elders ' " ;i while the Catholic epistle of James instructs " the infirm '' to have themselves anointed by " the elders of the Church." 2 It is not difficult to satisfy oneself as to the general nature of the early presbyteral or episcopal office. The elders or overseers were authoritative teachers and rulers. They were pastors of the local community. The elders of the church at Ephesus are admonished by Paul to " take heed unto them- selves and to all the flock wherein the Holy Ghost had placed them overseers to shepherd {-rroiiJ.aiveiv) the church of God." ^ Peter, similarly, in a passage to which we have already referred, exhorts the elders to shepherd {iroifidvare) the Christian flock ; * while the author of the epistle to the Hebrews insists upon obedience and subjection to ecclesiastical superiors.^ The elders at Jerusalem we shall find legislating for the entire church in what is usually described as the first general council.® Professor Sohm's theory of church origins is unscriptural. For him the church is essentially an 1 1 Pet. V. 1, 2. 4 1 Pet. loc. cit. 2 James v. 14. ^ Hebr. xiii. 17. 3 Ac. XX. 28. 6 Ac. XV. 23. 10 THE NEW DISPERSION invisible society. The earliest Christian com- munities, he tells us, were not organized. " Law and the world of spiritual things are diametrically opposed." When the brethren came together " for the word " or " to break bread," the assembly was " ruled " by outpourings of the Spirit, — ^those charismata which figure so prominently in the history of primitive Christianity. From this pneu- matic or charismatic anarchy — describe it how you will — was gradually evolved a stable hierarchy.^ The theory cannot stand ; it fails to take account of the facts. Harnack examines it closely, but only to set it aside as being utterly unhistorical. There existed in each church, from the very outset, a stable hierarchy which authoritatively taught and ruled the community. This hierarchy con- trolled even the exercise of charisms.^ Harnack, it is worthy of note, lays stress on the fact that the historical church was bom organic,^ though he contends that such was the case only de facto and not de iure. Christ, he says, never intended that His followers should constitute a society. This theory will come up for examination in its proper place.* Here we merely note how significant it is that a critic of Harnack' s undoubted * cfr. Hamack : What is Christianity? p. 110. Bat. op. cit., pp. xvi— xviii, 130, 143 sqq. 2 cfr. 1 Cor. xiv. 6-36. * cfr. What is Christianity? p. 155. * ch. iii. THE NEW DISPERSION II acumen should concede that the mfant church took shape from the firsf^ as a community of Christ's immediate disciples, ^ even though he refuses to admit that it did so as the result of a mandate emanating from the Master. The Church and the Synagogue In Christianity Judaism finds its fulfilment, its realization. Jesus of Nazareth, crucified and risen is " the expected of nations " ; His Church is the messianic kingdom. Such was the form in which " the glad-tiding " was announced by the new preachers to the seed of Abraham. Historically the Church of Christ was born of the synagogue. The broad facts are well known. Setting out to evangelize the world the early missionaries found themselves confronted with a vast empire which had been planted with syna- gogues.^ They would plant it with Christian churches. The mode of procedure was uniform and intel- ligible. The children would first be filled, the dogs subsequently.* The Jews, Hellenistic no less than ^ " The disciples at once formed themselves into a com- munity " {What is Christianity? ib.). 2 " The band of pupils, . . . men in whose ears every word of their master's was still ringing " {ib., pp. 155, 182). ^ Jewish colonies were to be found in every city of the Hellenic world at the dawn of Christianity {cfr. Bat. op. cit., pp. 1-16 ; Duchesne : Christian Worship, pp. 1-6. Harnack : Mission and Expansion of Christianity, vol. i, Dn. 1-23). * Mk. vii. 27. 12 THE NEW DISPERSION Palestinian, were a privileged race. They were God's own people, and as such were entitled to preferential treatment. We are, therefore, pre- pared to find that the apostles, arriving in a district or city, invariably began their missionary work by evangelizing the Jewish colony. Every- where throughout the Empire Christianity made its first appearance in the synagogues, and the earliest converts at each centre were without exception " of the circumcision." ^ It was only when the local synagogue had been, with whatever success, evangelized, that the Christian missionary considered himself at liberty to address the un- circumcised. At Pisidian Antioch, for example, Paul began with the Jews. " And when they, filled with envy, contradicted his teaching, then he said boldly : to you it behoved us first to speak the word of God ; but because you reject it . . . behold we turn to the Gentiles." ^ At Corinth, too, he began by testifying to the Jews ; but, they gainsaying, he said to them : Your blood be upon your own heads : I am clean ; from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles. ^ The local church had its beginnings in a Jewish schism. — Intimate as was the original connection in each district between the Christian community and the synagogue, they formed, from the first, distinct and independent organizations. This is ^ cjr. Ac. xiii. 5. 2 n, yy 45^ 46, ^ ib. xviii. 6. THE NEW DISPERSION 13 certain. The apostles, we have seen, inaugurated their mission at each centre by preaching in the synagogue. In this way a number of the Jews, as a rule, received ' the word,' and for some little time a casual onlooker would have seen in Christianity nothing more serious than a sect within the synagogue. The Church and the Synagogue independent organizations. — It was, however, something much more serious as the rulers of the synagogue were quick to realize. The new preachers proclaimed the passing of the old dispensation and were treated accordingly. Having taken shape and grown somewhat within the bosom of the synagogue the Christian community were expelled and were thereafter recognized by all as a new and distinct organization. So it happened to the apostles and their disciples at Jerusalem : there was a radical division — a schism — in the Jewish society, a section of its members abandoning the old flag for a new. The synagogue looked upon Christians as schismatics. At no time were the Christian and the Jewish societies one. The local church, it is true, remained and developed, for a little, within the bosom of the synagogue. But from the first moment of its existence it constituted an organism distinct from and independent of its parent. Towards the rulers of the synagogue the Christian authorities assumed from the outset a thoroughly independent attitude. The organizations were professedly antagonistic. 14 THE NEW DISPERSION When the rulers of the synagogue at Jerusalem summoned Peter and John and " charged them not to speak nor teach in the name of Jesus," * the apostles ignored the charge. Apprehended subsequently for disobeying orders, they were scourged and again charged " to speak no more in the name of Jesus." ..." And the apostles," we read, " went from the presence of the council rejoicing, . . . and every day they ceased not, in the temple and from house to house, to teach and to preach Christ Jesus." ^ They alone, or those appointed by them, controlled the new organization. We have said that the Church and the synagogue were antagonistic from the first. It could scarcely have been otherwise. The apostles and their emissaries proclaimed a new covenant and the passing of the old. They preached an unexpected fulfilment of messianic prophecy which involved an extinction of Jewish prerogatives. This hard fact was implied in their earliest teaching, however they might try to avoid hurting Jewish sensi- bilities. His enemies accused St. Stephen of blasphemy against Moses. The charge was, of course, false in substance ; but from the incident we may infer that the outspoken deacon had been at little pains to gloss over the fact that the Jewish covenant was dead or at least moribund. The terms of the charge are noteworthy : " This man," I Ac. iv. 18. 2 j^_ ^_ 40-42. THE NEW DISPERSION 15 they alleged, " ceaseth not to speak words against the Holy Place and the Law ; for we have heard him say that Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place and shall change the traditions which Moses delivered unto us." ^ It is clear that the earliest Christian preachers proclaimed that the Jewish temple with all it stood for had been, by divine arrangement of course, supplanted by the Church of Christ. The distinctive character of the new society is further apparent from its doctrines and its rites. It had a distinctive doctrinal basis. " The word " was a new revelation, a treasury of divine truth entrusted by Christ to His apostles.^ The new association had also distinctive rites — the baptismal rite of initiation and the " break- ing of bread." Both were new and peculiar to Christians. ' That the Church and the synagogue were in- dependent organizations was generally recognized. In the matter of privileges, for example, a sharp distinction was drawn by the civil authority 1 Ac. vi. 13, 14. 2 1 Tim. vi. 20. ^ It is of no consequence that the Jews of the dispersion had been baptizing their proselytes. The Jewish baptism was not the Christian. Baptism administered in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost owed its origin to Jesus and was peculiar to the new organization {cfr. Bat, op. cit., p. 12 ; Harnack : Mission and Expansion of Christianity, vol. i, p. 12). 16 THE NEW DISPERSION between Christian and Jew. The synagogue was officially recognized as a lawful association ; and its members were not only immune from persecu- tion but enjoyed many important privileges. The Church on the other hand was for centuries denied state recognition. She was regarded as a pernicious organization, which was somehow subversive of the established order and a menace to the constitution. Unlike members of the synagogue. Christians lived in a state of utter insecurity as to life and property ; and when storm after storm burst upon them during the early centuries, the Jews, as such, were never involved. In the beginning, however, Christianity and Judaism were undoubtedly confounded. This was to be expected. The divisions caused in the synagogues by the introduction of the new element, were naturally regarded by pagan onlookers as the outcome of doctrinal controversy among Jews themselves. " The Galileans " were thought to be a refractory sect within the synagoguel — ^nothing more. Thus, when the Jews at Corinth arraigned St. Paul before the civil tribunal on a charge of apostasy, the proconsul summarily dismissed the case : " Questions about the Law," he said, " Jews must decide for themselves." He would not act as judge in such matters.^ We can account similarly for the interesting fact that disturbances which arose in the Roman sjrnagogues in conse- 1 Ac. xviii. 12-17. THE NEW DISPERSION 17 quence of the infiltration of the new teaching resulted in the expulsion of all Jews from the city.^ This was about the year 51. On the other hand, some thirteen years later, on the occasion of the burning of Rome, we find a clear-cut distinction drawn by the civil authorities between Jews and Christians. Thenceforward the distinction was always officially recognized and acted upon.^ Let us now hear the critics who affirm that the Christian Church in its early infancy was neither de iure nor de facto a society, still less a society distinct from and independent of the synagogue. They call attention to the fact that Gentiles were admitted to the " fellowship of the apostles " only when the Christian development had already reached an advanced stage. ^ Until then, Jews alone were deemed eligible for " initiation," and to become " brethren " members of the synagogue had only to do penance and accept the gospel. " Repent and believe " was the simple dictum of the early Christian missionary. It had also been the dictum of Jesus and of the Precursor. In it we find no suggestion of a new organization. Jesus came merely to reform the synagogue. The establish- ment of the Church was the result of an after- thought on the part of the apostles, when the Jews as a body had rejected the gospel and when it was 1 Ac. xviii. 2. cjr. Sueton: Vita Claud. 25. 2 cJr. Bat. op. cit., pp. 17 sqq. ^ Ac.. 5fii, B 18 THE NEW DISPERSION felt that, after all, Jesus had been deceived as to the proximity of the apocalyptic kingdom. Such is the theory. This view, it will be observed, deals not alone with the historical church but also with Christianity de iure. We examine it here under the former aspect only, reserving the ecclesiology of Jesus for a subsequent chapter.^ The infant Church, it is alleged, was a mere reform-school within the synagogue. A Jew to become " a brother " had only to mend his ways and accept the new teaching. ^ Every student of Sacred Scripture knows how utterly inadequate and misleading is this statement of the facts. Repentance and faith were demanded, indeed, but demanded merely as conditions for baptism. The external rite of initiation alone, it was, which made the Christian, as is plain from the story of Philip and the eunuch. That Christianity was ecclesiastical in its begin- nings is historically certain. It is also certain, whatever the critics may say, that the Church was from its earliest infancy an organization quite distinct from and independent of the synagogue. The earliest Christians it is true were without exception " of the circumcision," and many, if not all, practised the religion of their fathers for some time after their conversion. Their leaders did so. In addition it would appear that antecedently to ^ ch. iii. 2 " Everyone who acknowledged Jesus as the Lord belonged to the community " (Harnack : What is Christianity'^ p. 167). THE NEW DISPERSION 15 the baptism of Cornelius circumcision was deemed an absolute condition for admission to the Christian fellowship. 1 All this may be history, but it is no less history that the apostolic Church was bom independent of the synagogue. The sources re- present Christians as having acknowledged a new flag from the very outset. The Church had also, as we have seen, distinctive rites and a distinctive doctrinal basis. The Church Universal The two Dispersions. — Our findings up to the present may be summarized by saying that history represents the Church as having appeared in the ^ But now arises a difficulty. How, it will be asked, could the apostles have regarded circumcision as a necessary con- dition for baptism if they understood that the new religion was for all men ? This objection must be faced square l3^ It is perfectly certain that the immediate disciples had been taught to regard the Church as a world-church. Jesus, as we shall see, proclaimed Himself Saviour, not of a nation, but of the individual, and therefore of all individuals. On the other hand, it seems equally certain that, until Peter was divinely enlightened to the contrary, the entire primitive church, in- cluding the apostles, understood that only the circumcised could be initiated. How is the antinomy to be solved? Either, we take it, the apostles considered themselves bound in virtue of their commission to abstain Jor some time from evangelizing the uncircumcised, or, they miderstood that all men were constrained to enter the Church by way of the synagogue, — that to approach Christ a Gentile should begin by approaching Moses. 20 THE NEW DISPERSION Roman Empire in the form of a dispersion'^ of external societies, distinct from each other, and severally distinct from and independent of the local Jewish communities. The apostles found themselves face to face with a dispersion of synagogues. Alongside and over against each ^ they set up a rival organization ; so that, with the spread of the movement, every city became the birth-place of a new religious society. Historically, then, primitive Christianity resembled contemporary Judaism in being realized in a dis- persion of visible associations. With the spread of Christianity the Empire became the home of two antagonistic Diasporas. The Jewish Dispersion lacked organic unity. — Jews of the Dispersion were bound together by many ties. They formed one nation, one brother- hood. They had community of aspirations, political and religious. All looked forward with eagerness to the coming of a great Messias who would universalize Yahvism and make the poor despised Israelite lord of the earth. The Jews ^ cjr. 1 Pet. i. 1. XIcTpos . . . €k\€ktois 7ra/D€7rtS^/iots Stao-TTopas HovTov, TaXarias. . . . 2 The reader must not infer, however, that every individual S3magogue gave birth to a distinct church. In a large city where there existed a number of sjTiagogues the Jews who " fell away " and embraced Christianity were drafted together into one and the same church. There was one church {eKKXrja-ia), and only one, in each city however large. In this important respect the organization of primitive Christianity contrasted with that found in the sjTiagogue and in the pagan collegia. THE NEW DISPERSION 21 were adopted children of the same Father, God's own people, an elect race. They revered the same great mediator and lawgiver, Moses, and observed the same ethical and ceremonial codes. The Holy City with its sanctuary was a further bond of union. Sion was the centre of Yahvism. There stood the only sanctuary on earth wherein sacrifice might be offered to the God of Israel. Jews the world over had thus a common stake in the mother-city. They contributed generously towards the up-keep of her temple ^ and gloried in its splendour, and every Jew however remote his domicile was expected to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, at least once in his life-time. But the bond of external authority was lacking. This is noteworthy. For Jews of the Dispersion Jerusalem was a Mecca not a Rome. They formed a number of discrete associations which were each self-contained and perfectly autonomous. They were subject to no central government.^ They were a racial not an organic unit : a nation without a flag. The New Dispersion an Organic Unit. — -In the earliest stage of the Christian development the brethren were bound together by the tie of a common nationality. Only Jews were admitted to fellowship. With the conversion of Cornelius ^ cjr. Duchesne : Christian Worship, p. 5. Harnack : Mission and Expansion of Christianity, pp. 14, 15. ^ cJr. Duchesne : loc- cit. ; Bat. op. cit., pp. 4, 5. 22 THE NEW DISPERSION however circumcision ceased to be a condition for baptism. Thenceforward, the doors of the Church were open to all nationalities. Members of the new Dispersion, like those of the old, constituted a visible fraternity, a league of brothers. Followers of Jesus, wherever resident, were aJcA^ot/ They were adopted children of the same Father, disciples of the same Master. They had a common statutory creed, a common ethical code, a common cult. But the new Diaspora, unlike the old, was an organic unit. The same missionaries, who set up local churches wherever they preached, subjected the entire Christian Dispersion to a central external authority. Their extant letters speak of a Church of churches into which all Christians are baptized " whether Jew or gentile whether bond or free." ^ The Acts tell us that, when Stephen was martyred, there arose a great persecution against the Church (eVt rrjv iKKXija-lav) which was in Jerusalem.^ We have already remarked on the important consequences of that outburst. Christian societies, founded by fugitives from the mother-church, came into being, everjrwhere ^ " Catholicism " is therefore not exclusively Pauline as modern critics tell us, ^ The oneness of Christian baptism suggests but scarcely establishes the organic unity of the Church. The Jewish Dispersion was not a social unit and yet its members had a common form of initiation — circumcision. ^ Ac. viii. 1. THE NEW DISPERSION 23 throughout the surrounding districts.^ These societies were not isolated units. They cohered in some way. St. Luke refers to them in globo as " the Church {v eKKXrja-ia) throughout ail Judea and Galilee and Samaria." - The apostles, who remamed in Jerusalem, ^ exercised jurisdiction over the dispersed com- munities. This is now conceded by the ablest critics.* The apostles sent Peter and John to confirm the brethren in Samaria ; ^ and when Greeks received the word at Antioch the mother- church " sent Barnabas to them." ^ She approved of their evangelization but implied that the new community was subject to her. Finally Peter visited all the churches in an official capacity, as ^ Ac. vv. 4 sqq. 2 ib. ix. 31. ^ ib. viii. 1. * cfr. Weizsacker, p. 585 ; Bat. op. cit., p. 51. 5 Ac. viii. 14. 6 ib. xi. 22 There is reason to believe that those " Greeks " at Antioch were the first absolute heathens to be admitted to the Church . The eunuch baptized by Philip was at least a proselyte. Cornehus too may have been a proselyte at least in a wide sense of the term. St. Luke refers to him as having been a «' <^o^ov[i€vos Tov Oeov " (Acts X. 2). Dr. Lindsay states that ' Peter and Jolm were sent to Samara to inquire into the conversions among the Samaritans,' and that ' Barnabas was sent down to Antioch on a similar errand.' {op. cit., p. 24.) This statement of the facts is in- adequate and misleading, as the reader may see for himself by comparing it with St. Luke's narrative which we reproduce. 24 THE NEW DISPERSION St. Chrysostom observes ;^ and as may be inferred from the fact that at Caesarea he authoritatively flung open the doors of the Church to the un- circumcised.- This admission of " Greeks " to the Christian fellowship led to a serious dissension among the faithful. When Paul and Barnabas had returned to Antioch at the close of the first of their missionary journeys: " Some coming down from Judea taught the brethren saying : except you be circumcised after the manner of Moses you cannot be saved." ^ Baptism, they contended, did not suffice for salvation ; the law of circumcision re- mained in force. This teaching, it should be noted, struck at the very foundations of Christianity. If admitted, it would lower the Church of Christ to the level of a Jewish sect.* Realizing this, " Paul and Barnabas had no small contest with them ; " and it would seem as if the faithful took sides, some supporting the apostles, and others declaring for the Judaisers. The question could not be settled at Antioch. The disputants, St Luke proceeds,^ " determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of the 1 Horn. 21 in Acta n. 1, 2. 2 Ac. X. 34, 35. ^ ib. XV. 1 sqq. * Christians would differ from ordinary Jews only in acknow- ledging Jesus to be the Clirist. 5 Harnack, we should note, maintains that what is narrated in Acts XV took place at a somewhat later date. THE NEW DISPERSION 25 other side should go up to the apostles and elders to Jerusalem about this question." The Church at Antioch recognized in the authorities at Jeru- salem a body empowered to pronounce definitively upon the question at issue. They recognized a central authority whose decision would be binding upon the parties. What was the sequel ? How were " Paul and Barnabas and the others " received at Jerusalem ? Did " the apostles and elders " disclaim the stand- ing implicitly attributed them by the disputants ? On the contrary, convening a solemn council they formulated and issued a decree to bind not alone the Christians at Antioch but the faithful generally. This is, of course, denied by Congregationalists. " The appeal of the Church at Antioch," writes Dr. Dale ..." proves nothing against the Independency of apostolic churches. . . . The whole story apart from modern controversies is perfectly simple. . . . The Judaisers appear to have alleged the authority of the Church at Jerusalem for their opinions ; ^ and they were able to maintain with perfect truth that, whatever Paul and Barnabas might teach, the Christians at Jerusalem . . . observed the laws of Moses. . . . If there was real conflict between Paul and Barnabas, on the one side, and the Christians at Jerusalem on the other, it would seem the safer course for the recent converts from heathenism at 1 Ac. XV. 24 25. 26 THE NEW DISPERSION Antioch to adhere to the faith and practice of the older and more powerful church. . . ." " The way in which it was resolved to settle the question," he proceeds, " was simple and obvious. The Judaisers maintained that the apostles and elders at Jerusalem were on their side. A deputation was sent from Antioch to Jerusalem to learn if this was a fact. It was the apostles and elders and the whole church^ at Jerusalem that con- sidered the question and answered it. . . Advan- tage was taken of the discussion to draw up certain articles of peace . . . to state the terms on which Jewish Christians could live peaceably with Christian converts from heathenism . . . James had recom- mended that the Christian gentiles should be asked to abstain from things sacrificed to idols. . . ." ^ Such is " the simple story." We have to inquire how far it squares with St. Luke's narrative and with the text of the decree : To begin with, Dr. Dale is quite mistaken as to the personnel of the " council." The facts are against him. St. Luke relates that the delegates from Antioch ivere re- ceived by the church and by the apostles and elders. Later the apostles and elders assembled to discuss the question at issue. The discussion concluded, the apostles and elders with the whole church selected men to act as bearers of the decree to the church 1 Ac. V. 22. ^ op. cii., pp. 84 sqq. I have tried to give the substance of Dr. Dale's criticism. The italics are my own. THE NEW DISPERSION 27 at Antioch. Finally, the decree was formulated and issued in the name of the apostles and elders.^ St. Luke makes it clear, therefore, that, whereas the church received the strangers and took part in the election of the delegates to Antioch, it was the apostles and elders alone, who formed the council and were responsible for the decree. Dr. Dale speaks of it as a decree emanating *' from the apostles and the elders and the whole church ; " St. Luke, on the other hand, refers to it as " the decrees of the apostles and the elders " ^ simply. The text of the decree is as follows : " The apostles and elders brethren^ to the brethren of the gentiles that are at Antioch and in Syria and Cilicia, greeting. Forasmuch as we have heard that some going out from us have troubled you with words: subverting your souls, to whom we gave no commandment : It hath seemed good to us, being assembled together, to choose out men, and to send them unto you with our well-beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have given their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We ^ There are two readings : one : " The apostles and elders and brethren to the brethren . . ." the other : " The apostles and elders brethren to the brethi-en. ..." The latter is almost certainly the true reading. Dr. Dale admits that " it is supported by high MS. authority " {op. cit., p. 87 n). - Ta Soyixara Ta K€Kpifi€va vtto twv drrocrT. Kai tcov Trpea-j^. Ac. xvi. 4 ; cfr. xv. 41. * V. supra, n. 1. 28 THE NEW DISPERSION have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves also will by word of mouth tell you the same things. For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay no further burden ^ upon you than these necessary things : That you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled and from fornication ; from which things keeping yourselves, you shall do well. Fare ye weU." 2 The tone of the communication is quite authori- tative. The apostles and elders deal with the dissension effectively. They are not satisfied with a mere expression of opinion, nor even with a formal statement of their own personal views upon the question at issue. No; the decree of "the apostles and elders " imposes obligations. " It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay no further burden upon you than . . . that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols. . . ." Dr. Dale speaks of " safer courses,'' of gentile Christians being " asked " to abstain from certain things, of " articles of peace " between Jew and Gentile, of a " statement of the terms " upon which Jew could associate with Gentile. Over against all this language of " Independency " stands the original text of the decree, which speaks of commands, and of an imposition of burdens. The document was formally addressed only to ^ Gr. " fitjSev TrXeov iTriTidecrdai vfiiv ygapo?." 2 Ac. XV. 23-29. THE NEW DISPERSION 29 the gentile Christians at Antioch and to those of Syria and Cilicia. In reality however the decree was intended as a general law, and was everywhere received as such.^ Copies were distributed in all the churches. 2 The apostles acted as authoritative pastors of the entire Church not only collectively but in- dividualty. The Gospel doctrinal and disciplinary is everywhere represented as being a deposit,^ a definite consignment of truth, entrusted to the Twelve to be preserved intact for the enlightenment of men.* Doctrines proposed by the apostles as contained in the deposit must be accepted by all. As rulers, the apostles were individually en- dowed with universal jurisdiction. Each, it is true, had a special care for his own children in Christ, and was unwilling, as a rule, to interfere with churches of another's founding. This general rule, however, admitted of exceptions. Paul con- cerned himself with the Romans, evangelized by Peter, and with the Colossians, evangelized by Epaphras. Peter's first epistle is addressed to " the strangers dispersed through Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia." The tone of the apostolic letters like that of " the decree of the apostles and elders " is unmistakeably authori- tative.^ 1 cfr. Ac. xxi. 25. ^ i xim. vi. 20. 2 ib. xvi. 4. * 2 Tim. ii. 2 ; iii. 15. 5 cjr. 1 Cor. vii. 12 sqq. : iv. 21 ; xi. 12 ; 2 Cor. ii. 9 ; Gal. i. 1, etc. 30 THE NEW DISPERSION The democratic phraseology imported into the Pauline letters by Congregational and Presbyterian apologists is not a little amusing. The apostle must not command. No ; he may " indicate," " suggest," " recommend," " ask," " exhort," — even " urge ; " but launch a flat — never. To secure unity and integrity of faith in the Church during the apostolic age, a central magis- terium was not absolutely necessary. The prophetic ministry was everywhere operative.^ In addition the apostles, as such, were individually infallible. ^ Paul preached to the gentiles for fourteen years before comparing his " Gospel " with that of the other apostles. When at length he " conferred with them " ^ his purpose was not to satisfy himself as to the soundness of his " Gospel," — ^he never doubted it, — but rather to reassure those who, influenced by the Judaisers, ■v^■ere disposed to question the legitimacy of his teaching and the authenticity of his apostolate. Parties in the Apostolic Church The Judaisers. — The earliest converts to Chris- tianity were without exception Jews. It would ^ Prof. Sohm and others contend that the teaching ministry in the early church was exclusively charismatic. This view is quite unhistorical. The apostolic office as such was primarily a teaching office. ^ " Though we or an angel from heaven preach unto you a gospel other than that which we have preached unto you let him be anathema " (Gal. i. 8). 3 lb. ii. 12. THE NEW DISPERSION 31 even seem as if the infant Church understood for some time that her doors were open only to the circumcised. The vision vouchsafed to St. Peter on the occasion of the conversion of Cornelius and the " Gospel " of St. Paul were required to en- lighten men as to the Church's true character and to assure them that the ceremonial law had had its day. Not all Jewish Christians, however, became at once reconciled to fellowship with the uncircum- cised. Many persisted in teaching that the Mosaic law remained in force ; that to be saved through Christ Jesus, it was necessary to be circumcised. These were the Judaisers. They were the earliest Christian heretics. In the beginning they preached the absolute necessity of circumcision, and we already know that a dissension caused by their teaching in the Church at Antioch led to the summoning of the " council " of Jerusalem. While forcing the Judaisers to modify their teaching in regard to gentile converts " the apostles and elders," it should be observed, left them free to develop their doctrines in another direction. Gentile converts, it was decreed, were no longer to be regarded as bound by the law of Moses except in a few minor matters. This could be understood as implying that the law in question remained in full force for " those of the circumcision." The Judaisers were thus ostensibly in a position to argue that the Jewish Christian was nearer to God, was possessed 32 THE NEW DISPERSION of a fuller measure of righteousness, than was his uncircumcised brother. Hence to be fully saved through Christ circumcision was still absolutely essential even for gentiles. Baptism without cir- cumcision was a mere step towards justification. Paul spent himself in combating this teaching. His figure looms large in the history of the primitive Church as the arch-antagonist of the Judaisers. " If you be circumcised " he exclaimed " Christ shall profit you nothing." ^ It is noteworthy that the apostles while agreed as to the soundness of the Pauline " Gospel " ^ appear to have differed widely as to the proper policy to be adopted in dealing with the Judaisers. Paul's own policy was characteristic of the man. It was openly belli- gerent. Exasperated by their teaching and by their conduct ^ — ^they dogged his footsteps wherever he preached — he denounced them as " false brethren " ^ and availed himself of every oppor- tunity to crush them. Between Paul and the Judaisers it was war a Voutrance. Peter, on the contrary, tried to be conciliatory. Regarding those misguided zealots as loyal, if blinded, children of Abraham, he endeavoured to win them to Christ by considerate treatment. If 1 Gal. V. 2. 2 " That Peter ultimately associated himself with Paul's principles we know for certain " (Harnack : What is Christianity? p. 182). ^ cfr. Harnack : Mission, vol. i, p. 48. 4 Gal. ii. 4. THE NEW DISPERSION 33 Paul circumcised Timothy to conciliate unbaptized Jews, if he became t,11 things to all men that he might win all to Christ, Peter would become a Jew to the Judaisers for the same great end. He would try to effect by kindness what Paul had failed to effect by denunciation. Hence we find that at Antioch, " Cephas did eat with the gentiles " until " some came from James," when he withdrew and separated himself fearing to give offence " to those who were of the circumcision." ^ For his action on this occasion he was openly admonished by Paul who realized that, in the circumstances, Peter's withdrawal was calculated to scandalize the uncircumcised. These were liable to infer from the incident that they, too, were bound to conform to the Jewish way of living. Paul, therefore, tells the Galatians that, on that occasion, he " with- stood Cephas to the face." ^ The episode was not forgotten by the Judaisers, who cleverly took advantage of it and of Peter's general policy of conciliation, to proclaim him their leader and champion as against the renegade from Tarsus. They styled themselves Cephasites. They seem to have had their emissaries at work in every Pauline church.^ Openly rejecting the " Gospel " of Paul they set themselves to destroy i Gal. ii. 11-12. 2 ib. V. 11. ^ We have evidence that they were to be found not only in the mother-church but also in Antioch, Corinth, Galatia and Rome. O 34 THE NEW DISPERSION his influence and to undermine his authority with his own " children in Christ." When we re- collect that the nucleus of each church was com- posed of converted Jews and proselytes, it does not surprise us to find that the teaching of the Judaisers found a ready audience everywhere. The Acts and the Pauline letters would lead one to infer that in every church founded by the " Apostle of the Gentiles " a Judaising sect sprang up opposed to his teaching and schismatical in relation to the local organization established by him.^ The Gnostics. — The foundation of Gnosticism is thought by many to have been already laid during the life-time of the apostles. ^ This was to be expected. The educated classes of that age would naturally have been disposed to see in Christianity nothing more than a new system of philosophy — a new " wisdom ; " ^ and many among the Greeks embraced it as such conveniently ignoring its practical or moral precepts.* 1 cjr. Con. and H. op. cit., p. 349. ^ cfr. 1 Cor. iii. 1, which recalls the commonplace Gnostic distinction of x^vxikoC and TrvevfiariKoi ; also viii. 1, where Paul speaks of "a knowledge (yvoJo-ts) that pufFeth up." cfr. ib. i. 22-28 ; ii. 6-7 ; 1 Tim. i. 3-10 ; iv. 2, 3, 7 ; vi. 20, 2 Tim. ii. 18, 16, 23 ; iv. 3, 4 ; Col. ii. 8, 18. 3 a-o4>ia, yi'wo-is. cfr. Con. and H., ch. xiii ; Tixeront : Hist, of Dogmas, vol. i, p. 149. * Origen remarks that " when Christianity was embraced by many among the Greeks who were devoted to Hterary pursuits {(f)iXoX6yo)v) there necessarily originated heresies, not at all however as the result of faction or strife, but through the earnest desire of educated minds to become acquainted with the doctrines of Christianity" {contra Cels. bk. iii. 12). THE NEW DISPERSION 35 In the church at Corinth we find distinct traces of Gnostic tendencies during the life-time of its founder. The Christian system, as unfolded to the natives of that city by Paul himself, was indeed, so simple and so practical as to afford little scope for philosophizing. But Paul was followed by a teacher who presented his doctrines in a different fashion. This was the Alexandrian Jew Apollos. A gifted orator and a philosopher, his learned exposition of the new system contrasted with the unlearned style of his predecessor, and seems to have captivated " the wisdom-seekers." Failing to realize that Christian teachers, whatever their individual merits, are ministers of the same " word," the faithful at Corinth became divided, some holding fast to the simple formulae given them by their founder, others proclaiming themselves followers of Apollos. Among the latter would have been found those free-thinking brethren who embraced Christianity as " a wisdom " and con- sidered themselves at liberty to criticize and explain away some of its fundamental tenets. Thus the resurrection of the dead seems to have been denied,^ while many, enslaved by their passions, were not slow to find in Antinomianism a justifica- tion for vice. Such was their interpretation — or rather perversion — of Paul's central doctrine, that the reign of Law had been supplanted by a reign of Grace. Antinomianism and a denial of the * cjr. I Cor, XV. 12 ; Dale, op. cit., p. 70. 36 THE NEW DISPERSION resurrection were characteristic tenets of the later Gnostics.^ ^ Lutterbeck discovers in the Corinthian party-teaching a strange amalgam. Ostensibly conscientious Jews and up- holders of the doctrines of the original apostles as against Paul, the mischief-makers at Corinth, he holds, were at heart Gnostics who plumed themselves on their Rom. and Col. 52 ECCLESIOLOGY OF ST. PAUL an exercise of external authority, legislated for the entire Church.^ The unity of the Spirit. — Christians are bound together by the unseen bond of grace as well as by the visible bond of authority. This is common- place among Catholic theologians, and yet how frequently Ave find them accused of refusing to con- cede any inward unity to the Spouse of Christ, — of shutting their eyes to the " unity of the Spirit." The accusation is quite unjust. Every Catholic child is taught that the Church is one in being one body animated by one Spirit.'^ Christians con- stitute a unit because energized by the same Spirit and quickened b}^ the same Head, Christ Who is the sole source of that stream of grace by which the inner life of the Church is sustamed and enriched. If this is St. Paul's teaching it is no less the teaching of the Catholic Church. The kingdom is a kingdom of grace, and all grace springs from Christ crucified. ^ cfr. Ac. XV. 41 ; xvi. 4. 2 The official catechism approved by the hierarchy for general use in Ireland treats of church unity in two questipns as follows : " Q. How is the Church one ? A. The Church is one in being one body animated by one spirit, and one fold under one Head and Shepherd Jesus Christ Who is over all the Church. Q. In what else is the Church one ? A. The Church is also one, in all its members believing the same truths, having the same Sacraments and sacrifice, and being under one visible head on earth." (The italics are not mine.)j ECCLESIOLOGY OF ST. PAUL 53 The principle of the Church's invisible unity is, of course, grace, — the Spirit. She is one because her members throb with the same life of grace infused from the same source ; — one, because energized by the same Holy Spirit indwelling in her members. " The unity of the Church," writes Manning, " flows from the unity of its Head, of its life . . . from the unity of the Incarnate Son Who reigns in it and of the Holy Ghost Who organizes it by His inhabitation." ^ In a word, and speaking broadly, the principle of the Church's iQvisible unity is that inward, manifold, complex life of grace derived from the Head and quickening the members. To develop, to enrich this life is to " complete " Christ by building up His body. Are we, then, confronted with an " invisible Church ? " Protestant divines speak so freely of the " invisible Church," that there is danger of overlooking the fact that the very expression as applied to an eternal organization is little short of a contradiction. If a Church, how in- visible ? And if invisible, how a Church ? The Church in the New Testament is an external association. Its primary principle of unity is authority.^ That its members are bound together by an inward bond of grace is not denied. We even speak of the Church as a body energized and 1 Temp. Mission of H. Gh., p. 29. 2 This is strongly denied by Dr. Gore. I reserve my criticism of his position for a subsequent chapter. E 51 ECCLESIOLOGY OF ST. PAUL animated by the Holy Spirit. But is she, therefore, an invisible organic unit? Do soldiers constitute an invisible army because animated by a spirit of patriotism ? Let us not abuse language. The title " invisible Church " is not only unscriptural but contradictory. Christians at baptism received the Holy Spirit.^ Harnack states that "to be the child of God and to be gifted with the Spirit are simply the same as being a disciple of Christ. That a man is not truly a disciple unless he is pervaded by God's Spirit is a point which the Acts of the Apostles fully recog- nize. The pouring out of the Spirit is placed in the forefront of the narrative. The author is conscious that the Christian religion would not be the highest and the ultimate religion unless it brought every individual into an immediate and living connexion with God." ^ We say that w^hile it is true that Christians at baptism are filled with the Holy Spirit, it is no less true that grace and the Spirit are amissible. There have been lapsi in the Church from the first. It is only individual members, however, who forfeit the " inward gift." The Church in her corporate capacity is perma- nently animated by the Spirit of God. In virtue of His abiding presence she is the pillar and the ground of truth. ^ Properly speaking the Holy Ghost was given not by baptism but by the accompanying rite of Confirmation. 2 What is Christianity? p. 168. ECCLESIOLOGY OF ST. PAUL 55 The Church of Christ therefore involves two orders, the external and the internal. St. Paul teaches that of the two the internal is the more important. The visible subserves the invisible ; the outward is for the inward. The sole purpose of an external organization and a visible ministry is to secure unity and integrity of faith in all, and to unite us to Christ and to each other by the real, if mystical, bond of grace. The " life of the Spirit " is at once the Church's animating principle and her raison d'Hre. It will not have escaped the reader that Paul frequently writes as if the body and the " soul " ^ of the Church were coextensive. This is intelligible. If baptism is the door to a visible organization, it is also a laver of regeneration. By baptism we become saints — sancti.^ And yet grace is amissible. Paul was well aware of it. The apostle who ordered the excommunica- tion of the incestuous adulterer and who denounced " the uncleanness and fornication and lascivious- ness " which were found among the Christians at Corinth, did not regard the body and the " soul " of the Church as being, really coextensive. Facts had to be faced, and even at that early date it was notorious that numbers of the " saints " had ^ V. infra, c. ix. 2 cfr, 1 Cor. vi. 11; Gal. iii. 27, and apostolic letters paaaim. 56 ECCLESIOLOGY OF ST. PAUL failed " to walk worthy of their calling." There were lapsi everywhere. Hence, when Paul speaks of Christians as if all were actually in the state of grace, he merely implies that baptism made them saints, that they were expected to persevere, and that, speaking generally, the " saints " were truly such. He spoke in general terms. Schism St. Paul's first ^ epistle to the Corinthians was written during his three-years' residence at Ephesus. Brethren from Achaia had conveyed to him the disastrous intelligence that divisions {(rxi(j-/nara) had arisen in the Church at Corinth. " For it hath been signified unto me," he writes, " ... that there are contentions among you. Now this I say that everyone of you saith : I indeed am of Paul ; and I of Apollo ; and I of Cephas ; and I of Christ." - There were at least three parties.^ The precise character of the arxio-fxara at Corinth is difficult to determine. Proceeding to explain the error of the factionists, Paul lays it do\^Ti as a first 1 i.e. His first extant. We know that at least one earlier letter to the Cor. has perished. 2 1 Cor. i. 10 sqq. ^ The words : " and I of Christ " were probably added by Paul himself not as the watchword of a faction, but as summing up the correct Christian position as against all factionists {cfr. MacR. : op. cit., p. 8). ECCLESIOLOGY OF ST. PAUL 57 principle that when a district is evangelized a Christian edifice is founded. The edifice is the Gospel ; ^ Christ the foundation.^ Succeeding teachers build on the foundation already laid. All are ministers of the same ' word.' To build upon a foundation other than the original is to preach heresy. Paul himsel,f founded the edifice at Corinth. ApoUos following him, built upon the existing foundation. Their " gospels " were identical. The doctrinal differences which gave rise to the factions were of the factionists' own making. The language and argumentation in chapters I.-V. seem to suggest that the divisions in the Church were to some extent the outcome of false teaching. Paul implies, apparently, that the factionists, or some of them, had become tainted with heresy. He proceeds at once to state that if any teacher violate {4>9eipei) the temple of God (by false doctrine ^) " him shall God destroy " {6epel)^ " Let no man deceive himself," he adds pointedly. " If any man among you be wise, let him become a fool that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God." ^ The latter remark seems intended for gnostic ears. 1 cfr. Prat : La Theologie de Saint Paul, vol. i., p. 132. 2 1 Cor. iii. 11. ^ cfr. MacR. op. cit., p. 44 ; Prat. : op. cit., vol. i, p. 133. * 1 Cor. iii. 17. 5 ih. V. 19. 58 ECCLESIOLOGY OF ST. PAUL As to the factions in individuo, the Cephasites were the Judaisers,^ whose avowed purpose, we found, was to pull down the Pauline flag in every church. " Those of Cephas " would thus have re- pudiated the authority of the founder, and con- sequently that of the local organization set up by him. They were schismatical. Of the followers of Apollo s we know practically nothing ; and it may well be that, as a body, they formed a mere coterie within the local church. When, however, we recollect that some members of the faction in question were probably tainted with gnosticism, 2 and that the party, as a whole, set itself up in opposition to those who proclaimed themselves " loyalists " — followers of the founder — "v^ e find it difficult to imagine that all its members continued to acknowledge the Pauline flag. It would not surprise us to learn that not alone the Cephasites, but some of the Apollonites, had lapsed into local schism.^ Our conjecture, we may add, gains support from the fact that Paul's letter of reproof opens with a strong statement of his apostolic authority.^ Volumes have been written upon the Corinthian 1 MacR. p. 9, Con. and H., pp. 349, 378. 2 V. supra., ch. ii. 3 Those " of Paul," although perhaps imbued in a measure with the spirit of party, were, we take it, sound in doctrine and loyal to the established hierarchy. * 1 Cor. i. 1 sqq. ECCLESIOLOGY OF ST. PAUL 59 Mt. xviii. 17. 110 THE PERSONAL TEACHING OF JESUS no doubt, but what is the force of the argument based upon it ? If we are prepared to throw overboard all passages in the gospels which are recorded by one evangelist only, we shall have disposed of a very considerable portion of the synoptic narrative. That the passage is quoted for the first time by Tertullian and by Origen is simply untrue. We find it entire in the Diatessaron,^ while verse 17 is quoted by Justin Martyr ^ and by Irenaeus.* Finally, if the passage in Matthew be interpolated, how do the critics account for the fact that the MSS. have recorded it with such a complete lack of hesitancy ? * The Promise Fulfilled Christ, during His public life, ruled His disciples in person. Those who " believed " became His subjects. They were His little flock ; ^ He was their Shepherd. When about to go to the Father, He arranged that His sheep should not suffer by His departure. He appointed a vicar to take His place as pastor of the entire flock. The vicar was Simon Peter. The appointment took place on the shores of the lake of Galilee. Seven members of the apostolic college had just breakfasted in company with the risen Christ. Of the number was Simon. The 1 Compiled cite. 180. 2 Dial., c. 100. ^ Adv. Haer. xviii. 8. 4. * cjr. Tischendorf : Nov. Test. Gr. vol. i. p. 95. Wright : Syn. of Gosp. in Gr. p. 266. ^ Lk. xii. 32. THE PERSONAL TEACHING OF JESUS 111 meal concluded, a memorable scene was enacted. Pointedly and solemnly singling him out from his six companions, Christ addressed the son of Jona : " Simon, son of Jona," He asked, " lovest thou Me more than these ? " And Simon, his soul tortured by the memory of his recent fall, made answer sorrowfully : *' Yea, Lord, Thou knowest that I love Thee." Jesus said to him : " Feed my lambs." Solemnly the question was repeated : " Simon, son of Jona, lovest thou Me ? " and the same reply : " Yea, Lord, Thou knowest that I love Thee." Christ said to him: " Shepherd my sheep." ^ A third time his Master repeated the self same question, now in an accent of deep tenderness:^ " Simon, son of Jona, lovest thou Me." " Lord," said Simon, " Thou knowest all things ; Thou knowest that I love Thee." Jesus said to him : " Feed my sheep." ^ Comment upon this passage is uncalled for. The meaning is obvious. Christ, having singled out Simon from his fellows, appoints him, as distinct from them. His vicar to shepherd His lambs and His sheep. Other shepherds will, of course, be required to aid in tending the flock. Some of these may even hold their pastoral com- ^ TTOt/xatve TO. irpo^ard fiov (Jo. XXi. 16). 2 Christ in putting the question a third time uses a new word for " lovest." Before it was ayair^s (diligis), now it is a word more expressive of tenderness : (f>tXels (amas). Simon in his repUes uses <})iXw throughout — never dyairw. ^ Jo. xxi. 15 sqq. 112 THE PERSONAL TEACHING OF JESUS missions directly from the Master. But all other shepherds, of whatever rank, must tend their respective flocks in a strictly subordinate capacity ; all being subjected by Christ to the one supreme pastor to whom alone He addressed the words : " Shepherd My sheep." Ecclesiastical Hierarchy Enduring. — ^The pastoral authority conferred on St. Peter and on the other apostles would not lapse at their death ; they would have successors in the ministry. Christ's Church would endure for all time.^ The task allotted the apostles could not be carried out by them personally. They could not preach the Gospel to all nations, nor rule His kingdom to the end. The pastoral authority bestowed upon them was, therefore, to be transmitted by them to a line of successors, who would shepherd the Christian flock to the end of time. Schism Never Lawful.— The teaching of Jesus on the morahty of schism is not far to seek. His Church is essentially an organic unit. His followers constitute one society, one city, ^ one fold,^ one kingdom,^ Division is sinful and disastrous : " Every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate, and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand." ^ Christians have been subjected by Him to a 1 Mt. xxviii. 20. ^ Jo. x. 16 ; xxi. 15 sqq. ^ ib. V. 14. ^ V. supra. 5 Mt. xii. 25 ; cfr. 1 Tim. iii. 15. THE PERSONAL TEACHING OF JESUS 113 single central government. This arrangement was permanent.! " Thou art Peter," He said, " and upon this Rock I will build My Church and the power of death shall not prevail against her." Confirmed by her rock-foundation His Church will endure to the end immune from dissolution. To remain seated on the rock is vital for the Church and for every member of the Church. Schism is suicidal. Christ preached a gospel which is at once doctrinal and disciplinary. This gospel is the same for all, and is authoritative. We have already remarked on the absolute character of His personal teaching. " His word was the power of God." Equally authoritative is the voice of His apostles and of their successors. They teach and rule by right divine. " All power," said Christ, *'is given to Me in heaven and on earth." ^ In virtue of this power. He sent forth the Twelve, " as the Father had sent Him : " ^ " Going, therefore," He said, *' teach ye all nations . . . teaching them to 1 Harnack speaks of " the high privilege of the Christian rehgion to adapt its shape to the course of history " {What is Christianity ? p. 99), and of " the freedom to form church communities and to arrange for pubUc worship and discipHne " {ib., p. 190). Christ's teaching, he holds, concerns itself only with the inner life of the spirit and summarily confronts every man with his God " {What is Christianity ? p. 187). Jesus was careless of all externals {ib., p. 184) ; the development of " forms " is a matter for Christians themselves. ^ Mt. xxviii. 18. 3 Jo. XX. 21. 114 THE PERSONAL TEACHING OF JESUS observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." 1 As pastors of the Church the apostles and their successors will have Christ with them to the end. *' Behold," He said, " I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world." - In executing their great commission, they will be enhghtened and assisted by the Holy Spirit."^ Their pastoral authority will be absolute and enduring. They must be listened to as Christ Himself. To despise them is to despise Him.* 1 Mt. xxviii. 20. 2 ib. 3 Jo. xiv. 16, 17, 26 ; xv. 26 ; xvi. 13, 14. * Lk. X 16 ; Mt. xxviii. 19. EXCURSUS Christianity and Paulinism Many modern critics contend that it was Paul of Tarsus who transformed Christianity into Catholicism. " The inner development," writes Hamack, " which the new tendency virtually comprised, began at once. Paul was not the first to start it. Before and side by side with him there were obscure and nameless Christians in the dispersion, who took up gentiles into the new society. They did away with the particularistic a-nd statutory regulations of the law, by declaring that these were to be understood in a purely spiritual sense and to be interpreted as symbols. . . . But the goal of the movement was not yet reached. So long as the words : ' the former religion is done away with,' remained unspoken there was always a fear that, in the next generation, the old regulations would be brought forward again in their literal meaning. . . . Some one had to stand up and say : ' The old is done away with ' ; he had to brand any further pursuit of it as a sin ; he had to show that all things were become new. The man who did that was the Apostle Paul, and it is in his having done it that his greatness in the history of the world consists. ... It was Paul who delivered the Christian religion from Judaism." As to the attitude of the other apostles, Hamack remarks that " if we praise the man who, without being able to appeal to a single word of his Master's, undertook such a bold venture by the help of the 113 116 CHRISTIANITY AND PAULINISM Spirit and with the letter against him, we must none the less pay the meed of honour to those personal disciples of Jesus who, after a bitter internal struggle, ultimately associated themselves with Paul's principles. . . . History has shown with unmistakable plainness what was kernel and what was husk in the message of Jesus. . . . Husk were the whole of the Jewish limitations ; . . . and in the strength of Christ's spirit the disciples broke through these barriers." ^ All this means that Paul attached to Christ's message a meaning which was not intended by its Author. The gospel was in itself fundamentally catholic ; it was " meant to he transplanted," ^ but Jesus was unconscious of the fact. In univer- salizing Christianity, Paul and the other apostles had the letter against them. The contention cannot be sustained. Now that we have traced the main outHnes of the synoptic ecclesiology, we are in a position to realize how utterly unfounded is the charge of doctrinal illegitimacy — such is really the charge — ^which critics have levelled at the Pauline Gospel. " Paulinism," we have seen, had its beginnings in Christ's personal teaching. It was not Paul of Tarsus, but Jesus of Nazareth, who denationalized the " new tendency." If Paul stood up and pro- claimed that " Christ is the end of the Law," ^ he merely re-echoed an earlier pronouncement by his Master to the effect that the Law and " the prophets 1 op. cit., pp. 178-183. 2 tT,^ p jgl. ^ Rom. X. 4. CHRISTIANITY AND PAULINISM 117 were until John." ^ It was not left to the apostle of the gentiles to realize what was " kernel " and what " husk " in the new message, and to separate what was outward and accidental from what w^as inner and essential. No ; Catholicism was founded, and consciously founded, by the Galilean Prophet. But this is not all. The critics, it should be observed, have given the lie to Paul himself. They contend that in preaching universalism, he had the " letter " against him. Paul himself, on the other hand, disclaims all doctrinal originality, and does so with an insistence that is almost tiring. In matters of faith and of discipKne he simply imparts what he has learned ; and whenever he takes upon himself to issue instructions in his own name, he is careful to distinguish them from " the precepts of the Lord." ^ Again and again he proclaims himself an apostle of Jesus Christ. By direct personal revelation, he has been taught what the other apostles have learned from the lips of Jesus. Their gospels are, therefore, identical, and Paul, to silence his calumniators, takes care to prove it.^ Finally, who can believe that limitations which attached to Christ's message, and which were intended by Him to endure, came to be discarded as husk by the immediate disciples ? Who can believe that men, who knew their Master to have been the Son of God, consciously took a step which was neither foreseen nor intended by Him ? To say that for the gospel's sake they entered on a 1 Lk. xvi. 16. 2 1 Cor. vii. 12-15 ; Gal. i. 11, 12. 3 Qg^i ^ j ^^^ I 118 CHRISTIANITY AND PAULINISM career which the Master, with whom they had eaten and drunk, had never sanctioned ; ^ or to say that they did so " in the strength of His spirit " 2 is, for the critics, to say just nothing at all. Hamack seems to feel the difficulty of his position here. That the personal disciples " broke through the barriers " he refers to as being " the most remarkable fact of the apostolic age.^ " ' Remarkable ' is not strong enough ; incredible is the word. If Paul was pre-eminently the apostle of univer- salism, if Catholicism found a home in his gospel, his fellow-apostles shared his principles.* Peter was a thorough catholic in practice no less than in preaching.^ So were the others. Communities estab- lished by them seem to have been quite as free from " nationalism " as were those founded by St. Paul. Theologians are right ; it was not left to the apostle of the gentiles to inaugurate Catholicism. Christ and the immediate disciples were also for expansion. Paulinism is nothing more than the personal teaching of Jesus analysed and legiti- mately developed.® 1 Harnack : Mission, vol. i, p. 61. ^ v. supra. 3 op. cit., p. 183. * At least subsequently to the conversion of Cornelius. Harnack states that " Paul was not the first missionary to the gentiles ; that he never claims to have been absolutely the pioneer of the Gentile IVIission " {Mission, vol. i, p. 48). 5 cfr. Acts X. 48 ; xi. 4 sqq. ; xv. 7 sqq. ; Gal. ii. 12. * In an able article written for the Revue Benedictine (April, 1912) Dom Chapman shows that St. Paul was perfectly acquainted with the words of promise (Mt. xvi. 17). CHAPTER TV THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS The Didache The Didache (SiSaxv) is a very ancient Christian document. It bears two titles, one: SiSaxv twv S(oSeKa d-rrocTToXm (" The teaching of the twelve apostles ") ; the other, older and probably the original : SiSaxV xvplov 8i^ r6Trig.^ " Those who have assented to our teaching and have been baptized, are conducted to an assembly of the brethren that prayers may be offered for ourselves, for the newly-baptized, and for all others in every place." ^ The new a^eX^oxj/p is a church. In the Dialogue Justin quotes from Psalm xliv. the words : ' Hearken, O Daughter, and behold, and incline thine ear and forget thy people and thy fathers house.' " The word of God," he proceeds, " speaks to those who believe in Him, as being one soul and one synagogue and one church, as to a daughter. It thus addresses the Church, which has sprung from His name and partakes of it (for we are all called Christians)." ' For Justin, accordingly, there is a Church of churches, which is the Bride of Christ. This church he sets over against the Jewish synagogue. ® The Way of Salvation. — The Son of God has saved men by enlightening them." Christ has delivered unto us a certain body of truths and precepts,^" for the conversion and restoration of 1 Ap. i. 45, 50, 57 ; Dial, xxxix. « Ap. i. 65. a Ap. i. 61 ; Dial, xiv, xliv. ' Dial. Ixiii, ex. ' Dial. lix. ^ ih. cxxxiv. * Ap. i. 14, 67. * Dial, xxiv, xxxix. 5 ib. 10 cjr. Ap. i. 27 ; ii. 4. JUSTIN MARTYR 159 the race.i Those who believe — " to whom the gates of light have been opened " — shall be saved. - To avail of the Redemption, we must " admit the light," reform our lives, and be baptized. " Those who are persuaded and believe, and who undertake to live accordingly, repenting of sin committed, are baptized."^ We are saved through " water, faith, and wood." * Reason and Authority. — Christianity is a religion of authority. Justin is quite clear about this. " As Abraham believed the voice of God," he writes, " so we have believed God's voice spoken by the apostles." ^ The new ' light ' has emanated from the Word made flesh ; ^ the Gospel is divine. Justin never tires of opposing it to the doctrines and precepts of men.' To reject Christianity is to despise the word of the Lord.^ The gospel has reached us by tradition : " From Jerusalem there went forth into the world men, twelve in number, and these illiterate . . . but by the power of God they proclaimed to every race of men that they were sent by Christ, to teach to all the word of God " ^ The Twelve have successors in the ministry. They were commissioned to 1 Ap.i. 15, 23. 5 Dial. cxix. 2 Dial. vii. « ib. xxiv., xxxix. ; A'p. i. 13, 21. ^ Ap. i. 61. ' Dial. cxl. * Dial, cxxxviii. « ib. cxx., cxxxiii. ; Ap. i. 14; cjr. ii. 13. » Ap. i. 39. 160 JUSTIN MARTYR preach the gospel to every race and in every land. Their voice would go out to the ends of the earth. ^ The apostles and their successors teach with the authority of the Master ; to hear them is to hear Him. 2 " The doctrines, which we propose to you, are those delivered by Christ to the Twelve.^ . . . For these doctrines we are prepared to die." ^ Christianit}^ is, therefore, a -TrapdSoa-i^ ; we stand by an authoritative tradition. Our knowledge of the divine nature and attributes, for example, is got by tradition.^ Christ is our teacher. What we have received from Him, through the apostles and their successors, we transmit to others who are willing to learn as we have been taught.^ When Justin is asked why Christians do not kill them- selves and pass to God at once, and thus save pagans the trouble of executing them, he replies : ' If we killed ourselves, men would cease to be instructed m the divine doctrines.' Christianity is a definite deposit of divine truths transmitted from generation to generation.' The gospel being the word of God, no one is at liberty to reject it. We know that the Christian teachmg is true, not because it resembles in some respects the teaching of philosophers, but because it has been imparted by a divine Master.^ It must 1 Ap. 40. ^ ib. 10. 2 ib. 53 ; Dial, cxxxvi. e ifj^ q^ 13. 14. 3 Ap. i. 67. 7 ib. ii. 4. 4 ib. 8 8 ^-5. i. 23. JUSTIN MARTYR 161 be accepted and upheld in its entirety. Truths of faith, which transcend reason, must be accepted on the authority of Christ who revealed them.^ The principle holds in any revealed system: "The prophets proposing their inspired doctrines, did not use demonstration in their treatises, because they witnessed to a truth which is above all demonstration." ^ Could the principle of authority be more clearly inculcated ? It is therefore right and rational to accept mysteries of religion : they are portion of the ' mighty word.' The deposit, doctrinal and disciplinary, is, in itself, unpalatable. Many of its truths are mysteries,'^ many of its precepts exact- ing ; * but " Christians who have been made wise by them, confess that the statutes of the Lord are sweeter than honey and the honey-comb ; so that though threatened with death they do not deny Him." ' Christians implicitly profess the same truths, because all embrace the deposit. But absolute unanimity is not to be expected. Difference of opinion in matters of belief is perfectly legitimate, ^ Ap. i. 14. ^ Dial. vii. ^ Ap. i. 19-22 : Justin instances the eternal generation of the Son as an example of a revealed mystery. The immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the dead are revealed truths which are demonstrable. * Dial. X. 5 (f^^ XXX. 162 JUSTIN MARTYR within certain limits. ^ The deposit is immutable ; it can neither grow nor dimiaish. But our know- ledge of its contents may grow ; truths of faith may be " defined.''' It is only the rejection of defined doctrines that constitutes heresy. Those who deny the resur- rection of the dead, for example,- or the eternity of hell 3 are heretical. On the other hand, one may lawfully reject the doctrine of the millennium. Although probably contained in the deposit,* it is not defined. Similarly observance of the Mosaic Law is licit, but optional. Those who hold that its observance is obligatory, profess heresy and incur excommunication.^ And yet reason has its province ; even a religion of authority has a rational basis. If we accept truths on authority, it is because we have con- vinced ourselves that it is rational to do so. Justin's appeal throughout is professedly to reason, and his system is thoroughly self-consistent. Reason bids us accept even the deepest mysteries, when these are revealed by the Son of God. The Christian rule of faith is at once authoritative and rational. Reason is the handmaid of faith ; it establishes the preambles. Reason, influenced by super- natural grace,^ leads us to embrace revelation.' ^ Dial. Ixxx, * Dial. Ixxx. 2 ib. ^ ib. xlvi-vii. 3 Ap. i. 8. 6 ib. vii, cxix. ' ib. cxlii ; Ap. i. 53, 55. JUSTIN MARTYR 163 It was so from the beginning. The divinity of the prophet's mission was established by his miracles ; and Justin, adopting the same principle, under- takes to prove ^ that Jesus is the Messias.^ But reason has to do with more than the mere preambles : it plays an important part in the domain of faith proper. Christian truths, which are pronounced absurd by our adversaries, can be shown to be rational in themselves.-^ On grounds of pure reason and analogy, Justin undertakes to justify our acceptance of some of the deepest mysteries, such as the eternal generation of the Word, His divine Sonship, His virginal birth, and the reality of His suffering.* By reason, too, he demonstrates that human freedom and responsi- bility are not incompatible with the divine pre- science.^ He proves similarly the spirituality of the soul and the possibility of the resurrection.^ Reason is, however, a mere subsidiary criterion of Christian truth. Though we were utterly unable to demonstrate the possibility of the resurrection, we should still be bound to accept it on the authority of Christ, Who has said that " what is impossible with men is possible with God." ' Those who refuse to believe what God has taught us through Christ, will be condemned to heU.^ ^ Dial, cxxxiv, cxxxvii. ^ ib. 43. 2 ib. ix, xi, xxxix sqq. * ib. 18, 19. ^ ib. cxviii sqq. ' ib. * Ap. i. 20, 30, 31 sqq. » ib. 164 JUSTIN MARTYR Heresy and Schism. — Lovers of ' wisdom,' though professing the most diverse and conflicting doctrines, are all named philosophers ; and yet it would be quite unjust to condemn all philosophers as fools, because some are not wise.^ The principle holds equally in religion. Christians as a body, should not be condemned, because some Avho bear the Christian name are known to be unsound in faith or in morals. These men name themselves Christians, but are not really such. They differ from the genuine Christian, as foolish wisdom- seekers differ from the true philosopher. ^ Heresy appeared in the Church at an early date. After the Ascension, some men, prompted by the devil, practised magical art and were declared gods by the people. Such were Simon and Menander. Marcion taught his disciples to believe that the World was created by a being inferior to God.^ The rise of heresies and schisms was pre- dicted by Jesus.* Christians constitute one Church, one fold. Heretics and schismatics form groups or sects apart. ^ They laugh at us.^ They call themselves Christians, but are not really such. We name them after the authors of their respective doctrines : Marcians, Valentinians, Basilidians, Saturnilians, and so forth. Over against all heretical and 1 Ap. i. 4, 7. 4 ib. 82 : Dial. xxxv. 2 ih. 26. ^ Dial, xlvi, xlvii. 8 ib. ^ Ap. i. Ixv. JUSTIN MARTYR 165 schismatical sects stands the one true fold of Christ, comprisuig those only who clmg to the true faith. The fact that some who profess Christianity teach, not the doctrines of Christ but those of the spirits of error, causes us, who are disciples of the true and pure doctrine, to be more faithful and steadfast.^ The Christian faith is one. Christ warned His disciples to beware of heretics : " Many shall come in My name," He said, "clothed outwardly in sheep's garments, but inwardly they are ravenmg wolves." ^ Heresiarchs are sheep become ^volves, who retain the Christian name, the more readily to prey upon the fold from which they have been expelled. Justin contrasts them with the Christian teachers, whose mission and doctrines are from above. Christians, who give ear to heresy, act irrationally and allow themselves to be borne off from the fold as lambs by a wolf.=^ Unlike heretics, all who are really Christians profess the same faith.* This faith has been delivered to us by the Son of God, and is alone true.^ The divine Word is the sole prmciple of truth. Satan is the author of all unsound doctrines and practices. It is he who misleads men and raises up heretics. Those who abandon the true faith become the prey of godless doctrines and of devils.*' Heretics who do not repent are lost.' 1 Dial. XXXV. ^ Ap. i. 58. ^ Ap. ii. 13. " Mt. vii. 15. 4 ib. 26, 58 ; Dial. xxxv. « ^-5. j, 53. ' Dial, xlvii. EXCURSUS Celsus and Origen. — Celsus, a pagan philosopher, published, about 178, a work entitled oXtjOt)^ Xoyo?,^ in which he denounced Christianity as a system of blind faith. Christians, he alleged, refuse to examine their principles He professed to have made a thorough study of Christianity " When I question them," he writes, " I do not seek mforma- tion, for I am conversant with all their opinions." He will discuss the faith ^^'ith them simply to convince them of its absurdity. But to no purpose : " they do not wisli either to give or receive a reason for their tenets, but keep repeating imv i^era^e a\\a irlarevcrov — examine not but believe." - He recommends that, in adopting religious beliefs, we should be guided, not by blind faith, but by reason (Xoyw koX Aoyi/fo5 oj>;yo5). It was not to be expected that an unbeliever would be quite fair in representing the position of his adversaries, and much of what Celsus \\ rites of the deposit and the rule of faith is perfectly untrue. He states, for example, that Christians act irration- ally ; that they extol foolishness, and blindly accept absurd dogmas on the authority of presbyters who are no less ignorant than themselves. But, in 1 Barden. : op. cit., p. 147. 2 Orig. : contra Cela.'i. 9-12. 166 CELSUS 167 the main, his contention is just — ^namely, that Christianity is a deposit, an authoritative tradition transmitted through the presbyters ; and that to reason about the intrinsic credibility or otherwise of truths of faith is contrary to the Christian spirit. In an age when Gnosticism was rife, and when the majority of Christians were unlettered, the motto M e'lerafe aXKa Trlcrreua-ov had much tO recommend it. Justin an Innovator. — As an apologist, therefore, Justin Martyr w as an innovator. His predecessors had been satisfied with an appeal to the evidences of Christianity. They established the divine mission of Christ by arguments based on prophecy and on miracles ; and thus, assisted by grace, led men to the Church. Once a Christian was baptized, reason ceased to play a prominent part in his reHgious life. Doctrines and precepts were ac- cepted by him as coming from Christ through the " presbyters," and doubts as to intrinsic credibility were simply stifled. Justin extended the domain of reason. Not satisfied with establishing the Messiahship of Jesus, and the divinity of Christianity, he under- took to demonstrate many truths of faith, and to establish the intrinsic possibility of others. He met pagan controversialists on their own ground and denied that, as Celsus and others had alleged. Christians would not and could not discuss the reasonableness of their opinions. In all this Justin Martyr was in advance of his time ; his N 168 CELSUS writings mark a distinct development in Christian apologetics Celsus further condemned Christianity, as being an aggregate of conflicting sects. " In the beginning," he writes, " Christians were few in number and held the same beliefs, but when they grew to be a great multitude, they became divided and separated, each wishing to have his own party." ^ " Moreover," he continues, " they utter against each other dreadful blasphemies, saying all manner of things shameful to be spoken ; nor will they yield in the slightest point for the sake of harmony, hating each other with a perfect hatred." ^ Origen replied effectively. The existence of numerous heresies, he argues, furnishes no real basis of accusation against Christianity itself, — why should it ? Is the true science of medicine to be condemned because of the existence of quacks ? ^ Christianity must not be confounded with heresy. Some who bear the Christian name deny that Yahve is the God of the Christians, and some distinguish between the " carnal " and the " spiritual " ; but what does this avail against us who belong to the Church. These monstrous inventions are disapproved by the disciples of Jesus. Celsus himself recognizes that there is a root- 1 Orig. : contra Gels. iii. 9. * ih. v. 63. 3 t6. iii. 12. CELSUS 169 sect which he names the multitude (to TrXijOo^),^ the great church {v tJ-eyaXri iKKXrjo-la),^ and from which all other sects have broken away. He recognizes, too, that, while diversity of belief characterizes the other sects, ^ members of " the great church " have a common faith. ^ But Origen emphasizes the fact that it is only members of the -TrXrjOo? who belong to the Church and are really Christians.^ Hatred and disunion are rampant only among heretics. " We who are followers of the word of Jesus," he writes, " and who have accustomed ourselves to think and speak and act in harmony with His teaching, when reviled bless, when persecuted we suffer patiently, when defamed we entreat. We do not regard with hatred the corrupters of Christianity, nor utter things shame- ful against the heterodox, but rather use every exertion to raise them to a better condition. And if those who hold erroneous opinions refuse to be convinced, we observe the injunction laid down for the treatment of such : * A man who is a heretic after the first and second admonition cast out.' " « Over against all heretical sects and distinct from them stands the assembly of the disciples of Jesus, 17 fxeyaXr} €KK\T](rla. Repudiating " inventions," these hold fast to an authoritative irapdSoa-i^, transmitted to them from Christ through the 1 Orig. : contra Cels. v. 61. * ib. v, 59 sqq. 2 ib. 59. 5 45. V. 61. 3 ib. iii. 10 ; V. 63. « ib. v. 63. 170 CELSUS apostles and the " presbyters." In the eyes of pagans they were an unreasoning ttXvOo?. Heretics ^ and schismatics are condemned of them- selves ; they are outside the Church.^ They are Christians only in name. ^ Origen makes it clear that a heretic until " cast out " remains within the Church (v. 63). 2 In each church those only were admitted to the Eucharistic meal who, having received baptism, subjected themselves to the hierarchy in matters of faith and of discipline (i. 66). CHAPTER VI THE ADVERSUS HAERESES St. Irenaeus was an Asiatic and a disciple of St. Polycarp. The date of his birth is uncertain ; but we know that, having spent his early years at Smyrna, in the society of his master and other " presbyters," ^ he made his way to Rome about the middle of the second century. Afterwards, when a priest of the Church of Lyons, he was sent to Pope Eleutherus bearing a letter from the clergy of that city and of Vienne. The document, which dealt with the Montanist doctrines, referred to Irenaeus as having been " zealous for the testa- ment of Christ." ^ On his return from Rome, he succeeded Aurelius as bishop of Lyons (177-178). Irenaeus was the author of many works of a controversial character. Of these the only one which has come down to us complete is his Adversus Haereses ^ an extensive tract in five 1 i.e., immediate disciples of the apostles. 2 Eus. H. E. V. 4. 2. ^ Its proper title is : "EAey^o? 'WT€T5ei kv iraarLV 6 Oios. * cfr. Migne in loc. ^ Hist, of Dogm., loc. cit. e cfr. 1 Tim. ii. 12 ; Tert. Adv. Valent. iv. 178 THE ADVERSUS HAERESES Necesse est. — Of itself the phrase may imply any one of three distinct kinds of necessity : (a) moral (. . every church is bound to " con- vene " to Rome) ; (6) logical {. . because of . . . it follows that every church " convenes " . .) ; (c) " ipso facto " (. . every church which is orthodox by that very fact'' convenes ". .). Convenire ad. — Here, too, we discover three possible interpretations : (a) " come to " (. . every church must come to that of Rome) ; (6) " agree with " (. . every church must agree with that of Rome) ; (c) " have recourse to " (. . every church must have recourse to Rome [with a view to conformity with her]). Omnem ecclesiam = unamquamque eccl. = every church.* * Let us now consider the passage as a whole, which Protestants generally interpret thus : The Church of Rome was the central church of Christen- dom. Rome was the heart of the Empire, the world's metropolis. All roads led thither. The Roman Church held as regards doctrine a position of vantage. Meeting and conversing with brethren 1 c^r. iii. 3, 1. THE ADVERSUS HAERESES 179 from the ends of the earth her members and hierarchy were able to compare their teaching and practice with those of all the other churches, and to adopt what was best and purest in the general tradition. Hence, as a doctrinal norm, the Roman teaching soon came to be regarded, rightly, as the most reliable in Christendom. In this view the passage would be paraphrased : For to this (Roman) Church, because of her more powerful principality (being the Church of the world's metropolis) every church — that is, the faithful from every quarter — ^necessarily (on business, &c.) ' convenes ' ; — ^to this Roman Church, namely, in which the apostolic tradition has always been preserved by those who come to her from every quarter (. . . in qua . . ah his qui sunt undique).^ But the interpretation is quite at variance with the context and the argument. For Irenaeus every apostolic church is in possession of the true tradition because its teaching has descended to it from one apostolic founder through an unbroken line of bishops. " Orthodoxy through episcopal succes- sion " is his cardinal principle. Is it likely, then, that the passage under consideration should be ^ This is practically the interpretation adopted by Langen and by Funk {cfr. Revue B^nldict., Oct., 1908) : The brethren from all parts coming to Rome on business, while sojourning in the capital, compared their doctrines and practices with those of the Roman Church, and thus conserved in her the Cathohc doctrine transmitted by the apostles to the churches everywhere. Harnack sets the interpretation aside as unlikely. 180 THE ADVERSUS HAERESES interpreted as implying that the reliability of the Roman teaching is to be ascribed to the influence of the faithful from every quarter ? Has Irenaeus thrown his principles overboard ? No ; having established historically the continuity of the Roman bishops, he infers therefrom the soundness of the Roman teaching : " In this order/' he writes, " and by this succession the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles and the preaching of the word have come down to us " ; and at once he goes on to cite other apostolic churches ^ whose doctrines are sound and for a similar reason. " Ad banc . . . ecclesiam . . . necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam (hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles) in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique conservata est ea quae est ab apostolis traditio." On this Hamack remarks: "In common with most scholars I used to think that the ' in quxi ' refers to ' Roman Church * {hanc ecclesiam) ; but I have now convinced myseK that it relates to * omnem ecclesiam,'' and that the clause introduced by ' in qua ' merely asserts that every church in so far as she is faithful — i.e., orthodox, must as a matter of course agree with Rome. . . . The * must ' (necesse est) is not meant as an imperative, but = avdyKri = ' it can- not be otherwise.' " ^ He renders : The other churches [i.e., the faithful everywhere) will neces- 1 Those of Smyrna and Ephesus (iii. 3, 4). 2 Hist, of Dogm., vol. i, p. 231. THE AD VERSUS HAERESES 181 sarily find themselves in agreement with the Roman Church by the very fact that, in them, the faithful everywhere have preserved the true apostolic tradition. Hamack's view is rejected by Funk as involving an " impossible tautology"; Friedrich and others call it " absurd." Its very awkwardness condemns it ; and it fails to explain why the alleged ipso facto agreement is attributed to a potior principalitas in an apostolic church. A more generally received interpretation con- nects " in qua " with " hanc (Romanam) ecde- siam " .• " Every church must agree with this (Roman) Church in which the apostolic tradition has always been preserved." But the old diffi- culty recurs ; it is contrary to the principles of Irenaeus to state that the apostolic tradition has been conserved in the Roman Church hy outsiders, Bardenhewer translates " in qua " by "in communion with which; "^ and Tixeront suggests : "in and through which," ^ but neither rendering is acceptable. They seem to obviate a serious difficulty by doing violence to the text. Others retain the "in" and explain as follows: The other churches {i.e., the faithful everywhere) by the fact that they have remained in communion with her, have always preserved in the Roman Church the apostolic tradition.^ The solution is ^ op. cit., p. 121. 2 u^gi qJ Dogm., vol. i, p. 231. 2 cfr. Revue Bened., xxv., pp. 515 sqq. 182 THE ADVERSUS HAERESES ingenious, but scarcely satisfactory ; it leaves us the ' impossible tautology ' involved in the second " qui sunt undique,'' and in addition fails to take account of the general argumentation. Dom Morin suggests an emendation of the clause beginning : " m qua . . ." As it stands the whole reads : "ad hanc ecclesiam . . . necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper, ab his qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quae est ab apostolis traditio." The second " sunt undique,^' he conjectures, slipped into the MS. through an error of the copyist, who, having just transcribed the words " sunt undique " after the first " qui,'' inadvertently repeated them after the second " qui " instead of some such words as " ibi praefu- erunt."" As reconstructed, the passage reads : " Every church must agree with the Roman Church ... in which the apostolic tradition has always been preserved by her rulers." Dom Morin' s suggestion obviates the great difficulty which must be faced by anyone who connects " in qua " with " hanc ecclesiam.'" Reconstruction in this case is not a deus ex inachina ; the passage really demands it. All suggested explanations of the words as they stand have proved unsatisfactory. Not one of them has succeeded in harmonizing with the general argu- mentation. Further, in any view which retains the original text, the repetition of the words " sunt undique " is tautological and purposeless. We THE ADVERSUS HAERESES 183 note, finally, that ' slips ' are rather numerous in the " Adversus haereses.''' Dom Morin instances several texts in which words have been erroneously transcribed or repeated.^ Hence on purely critical grounds we seem to be justified in erasing the second ' sunt undique ' as intrusive. This done, our task of interpreting the whole becomes comparatively easy. The intrusive clause may be a substitution or a pure addition.^ If the latter, it seems best to take ' ab his ' as synonymous with " deinde " ( = from the time of the apostles) : " The tradition handed down by the apostles has always from their time been conserved in the Church of Rome." On the whole, however, it appears more likely that the clause is a substitution. An examination of the author's usual practice in discussing the apostolic tradition'^ and a consideration of his general principles would lead one to expect, ante- cedently, that the Roman bishops should have been referred to as guardians of the traditio. In fine, the accidental substitution of the intrusive words for some such words as " ibi praefuerunt " can be readily understood if we suppose that, in 1 cfr. i. 14. 1 {esse) ; ii. 31. 3 {conversationem) ; iii. 19. 3 (ewm.) ; iv. 21. 1 {'propter repromissionem Dei). 2 In which case it was probably a deliberate insertion to explain the obscure " ab his." 3 cfr. i. 10. 2 ; iii. 2. 2 ; i6. 3. 1, 3 ; iv. 26. 2-5 ; ib. 33. 8 ; V. 20. 1. Q 184 THE ADVERSUS HAERESES the original MS. both clauses occupied correspond- ing positions in consecutive lines, thus : Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles in qua semper ab his qui ****** conservata est. . . .^ There remains the " potentior principalitas : " We have already decided that Irenaeus selects the Church of Rome as a type of apostolic church. Typical she is, but more than typical. All apostolic churches — for Irenaeus, I mean — ^have a doctrinal principalitas, in virtue of which their decisions are more authoritative than those of other churches.^ The Church of Rome, being apostolic, has, there- fore, a principalitas ; hut hers is a principalitas which is potentior ; she is possessed of pre-eminent authority by reason of which every church must conform to her teaching. Irenaeus had thus a special reason for examining the episcopal succession of the Roman rather than that of any other apostolic church. " Doubtless," writes Harnack, " his reference to the Roman Church is introduced in such a way that she is merely mentioned by way of example ; just as he ^ cfr. Revue Benedict, loc. cit. 2 " Hence if there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us we should have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held intercourse {in quibus apostoli conversati sunt), and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the question at issue. Would not this have been our sole method of adjusting doctrinal differences had the apostles written nothing ? " (iii. 4. 1). THE ADVERSUS HAERESES 185 also adds the allusion to Smyrna and Ephesus ; but there is quite as little doubt tliat 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." ^ 1 The word " already " is important. Harnack assigns an eminently " natural " basis for the de facto primacy which he here admits. The Church of the world's metropolis, he informs us, was at this time wealthy and influential. It was of the utmost importance to all communities, especially so long as they required financial aid, to be in connexion with that of Rome, to receive support from her, and to have the power of recommending prisoners and those who pined in the mines to her influential intervention. Fellowship with the Roman Church was " valuable." It was to be expected, however, that, as a necessary condition of mutual fellowship, she would require other communities to recognize the law (doctrinal and disciplinary, we presume) by which she regulated her own " circumstances " ; and so we find that during the second and third centuries many individuals and communities turned to Rome in order to testify their " orthodoxy." This and other causes (enumerated Hist, of Dogm., vol. i, p. 159) combined to convert the Christian communities into a real confederation under the primacy of the Roman Church. Such, in substance, is Harnack's theory. As we have already I hope, satisfied ourselves that the " See of Peter " was from the beginning not only de facto, but de iure primatial, we do not feel called upon to examine at any length this fanciful explanation of a primacy which, as Harnack himself concedes, was " already " acknowledged by Christendom in the time of Irenaeus. The language of the passage under discussion, as well as the entire context and argumentation, imply that all churches conformed to the Roman, not because her fellow- ship was " valuable" in the sense explained, but because her teaching was more reliable and authoritative than that of any other church. 186 THE ADVERSUS HAERESES What, then, is the argument of the passage " ad hanc enim ecclesiam. . ." ? It is a question more readily put than answered ; but there are two interpretations which seem to be, let us say, less unsatisfactory than others that have been sug- gested. One connects "in qua" with "hanc ecclesiam," the other with " omnem ecclesiam." ^ Accepting Dom Morin's emendation we connect " in qua " with " hanc ecclesiam " and render the passage : " For every church {i.e., the faithful from every quarter) must ^ conform to ^ the Roman Church because of her pre-eminent authority ( — the Roman Church) in which the apostolic tradition has always been preserved by her rulers." But if the reconstruction be ruled out of court, we are, I fancy, forced * to connect ' in qua ' with 1 Duchesne, Funk, and Harnack (latterly) connect in qua with omnem ecclesiam. 2 We have already sho%vn that there is not question of mere ipso facto necessity. If " necesse est " represents an original f)c7 there is question of moral necessity (every church is bound to conform to Rome) ; if the original was avajKr] the necessity is merely logical {it follows that every church conforms to Rome). The use of " necesse est " in v. 30. 1, where the original was ei's avryv kji7rea-e.iv dvdyKr] rov toiovtov leads us to think that here, too, the original was probably dvdyKTj rather than Set. •^ This seems to be the meaning of " convenire.'' Irenaeus in the next chapter uses " recurrere " as signif3ang " to conform to." ■* To avoid the inconvenience of implying that orthodoxy is maintained in the Roman Church {in qua) by outsiders {ab his qui sunt undique). We have already criticised the ren- derings suggested by Bardenhewer, Tixeront and others. THE ADVERSUS HAERESES 187 ' omnem ecclesiam ' and interpret : For with this church, because of her pre-eminent authority, every church {i.e., the faithful from every quarter) in which the apostolic tradition has always been preserved (by the faithful from every quarter) must agree." ^ General Argument of the Passage. — To heresy Irenaeus opposes the catholic tradition. This, he asserts, is found m the apostolic churches. As a type of apostolic church he selects the Roman, and establishes historically the continuity of her episcopal succession. But he selects her not merely as a type. Like all apostolic churches, the Ecclesia Romana has a principalitas ; but as distinct from them she has a potentior principalitas by reason of which every church must conform to her. Heretics are, therefore, confounded by the Roman teaching, first because it is the true tradition {proof: the line of Roman bishops is unbroken) ; and secondly because it is the catholic teaching {proof : all the churches must agree with her). Irenaeus selects an apostolic church because apostolicity is a guarantee of orthodoxy ; he selects the Roman rather than any other apostolic church because her teaching is catholic. In practice the church of the metropolis was regarded by all Christians as constituting a * Those who hold for this interpretation have to explain why the expression " qui sunt undique " is so awkwardly repeated, and also why " undique " is not " uhique." 1S8 THE ADVERSUS HAERESES primatial see. Even Harnack concedes that her decision was " already " regarded as the most authoritative in Christendom. ^ Her primacy was acknowledged not alone by the faithful from every quarter, but even by heretics.- Irenaeus himself acknowledged it.^ It is only when he sets himself to theorize about criteria of orthodoxy, that he becomes obscure. His primordial principle seems to be that apostoli- city in aiiy individual church guarantees the teaching in that church. Theoretically, this principle may imply a denial of a doctrinal primacy to any see ; but, if this be so, Irenaeus appears not to have adverted to the fact until, in pursuance of his principle, he came to examine a type of apostolic church. Then the figure of the Roman Church loomed large before him. She had a doctrinal primacy. Irenaeus liimseK acknow- ledged it in practice ; Christendom acknowledged it. The principle of the Roman primacy had, therefore, to be upheld hy him side by side with his theory of " apostolicity a guarantee of orthodoxy " ; and so, while, consistently with his primordial principle, he attributes the orthodox}^ of the teachiQg found m the Roman Church to her 1 V. supra. 2 cjr. Batiffol : op. clt., p. 208 ; Harnack : Hist, of Dogm. : vol. cit., pp. 159, 159 ; Mission, vol. i, pp. 370 sqq. ^ cjr. his journey to Rome as representative of the clergy of Lyons and of Vienne {swpra), and his letter to Pope Victor regarding the Paschal controversy (infra). THE ADVERSUS HAERESES 189 apostolic foundation plus the continuity of her episcopal succession ; inconsistently, it may be,^ with the same principle, he ascribes to her teaching a higher degree of reliability than attached to that of other apostolic churches ; and argues that, in consequence of her potentior principalitas, the teaching of all the churches must square with hers. The reasoning perhaps is defective ; its coherency may be questioned ; but consistently or incon- sistently, he proclaims the Roman primacy.^ In his interesting work on St. Hippolytus, Bishop Wordsworth has something to say to the " Romish " interpretation of this celebrated passage. Let us briefly review his criticism. " The inference (that all men are bound to submit to the Church of Rome) is," he writes, " at variance with the drift of the argument. St. Irenaeus is refuting heretics by an appeal to the 1 Irenaeus lays it down that every unbroken line of bishops reaching back to the apostles is a channel of the true tradition ; but it does not follow that every individual channel conveys the stream in full measure and with perfect purity, although at first sight this might seem to be implied by passages like iii. 3. 1, 2, 4 ; iii. 4 ; iv. 26. 2 ; ib. 5. 2 Duchesne sums up the import of the entire passage as follows : "II est difficile de trouver une expression plus nette : (a) De I'unite doctrinale dans I'Eglise universelle ; (6) De I'importance souveraine, unique, del' figlise romaine comme temoin gardienne et organe de la tradition apostolique, (c) De sa preeminence superieure dans I'ensemble des chretientes (Eqlises S^parles, pp. 118, 119). 190 THE ADVERSUS HAERESES witness of the Church Universal. He has selected one church as an exponent of that testimony. The church so selected is the Church of Rome. He argues that in appealing to the Church of Rome he has virtually collected the witness of all. . . ." True ; but how does Irenaeus show that the teach- mg of the Roman Church represents that of all the churches ? " By reminding them," Dr. Wordsworth replies, " that the succession of Roman bishops from Peter and Paul to his time was unbroken." We have made it clear, we hope, that the saint's immediate purpose in establishing the con- tinuity of the episcopal succession in the Roman Church, was to infer therefrom not the catholicity but rather the orthodoxy of her teachmg. The orthodox faith w^as, of course, catholic as well ; but then its catholicity followed, not from the con- tinuity of the Roman succession, but rather from the oneness of the apostolic tradition, and from the fact that all the churches must conform to Rome. Hence, having traced the unbroken line of bishops from Linus to Eleutherus, he proceeds at once to infer, not the identity of catholic with Roman doctrine, but simply the truth of the latter. " In this order," he writes, " and by this succession the apostolic tradition which is in the Church and the true preaching have come down to us." ^ The " Church " is either the ^ Gr. ry avTrj rd^et /cat ry oLvrrj ^laho^ rJT€ dTrb twv aTrocTToAajv ev TTj e K *( Albert ^t irapaSocrts /cat to ttjs aX')]0€ias K-qpvyjxa Kan^vTrjKev ek ^[ids {cfr. Hegesippug infra). THE ABVERSUS HAERESES 191 Roman Church, of which he has just been speaking, or the Church Universal. *' What does he say," Dr. Wordsworth proceeds to inquire, " in the words : ' ad hanc ecclesiani propter potentioreni prmcipaUtatem necesse est oninem convenire ecclesiani hoc est omnes (sic) qui sunt undique fideles ? '" . . . " It is not stated," he replies, " that every one, then and for ever after must submit to the Church of Rome. No. If that had been true, then, he would not have said tliat * because it would be tedious to appeal to all churches ' he would, therefore, appeal to one church — the Church of Rome. Such a statement would have been absurd if Rome had been supreme over all churches and if all churches were bound to conform to her. . . ." To which we reply that the statem.ent in question becomes perfectly intelligible the moment we admit that Irenaeus selected the Church of Rome as a type of apostolic church. " . . . It is possible, and almost certain," he continues, " that where we now read in the Latin ' necesse est,' St. Irenaeus wrote avdyKri,'" Granted. " The Greek word avdyKri, it is well known, often implies a reasonable inference (' it follows that . . . '), not a moral obligation." Also granted. "... Hence Irenaeus did not affirm any moral obligation constraining all men to submit to the Church of Rome. . . ." But, we ask, what did he afifirm ? On Dr. Wordsworth's own showing he declared that all 192 THE ADVERSUS HAERESES churches conform to Rome, and that this general conformity is a necessary consequence of her potentior principaHtas. That the expression " necesse est " does not, of itself, necessarily imply moral obUgation Ave admit. " . . . Romish divines," he adds, " base their doctrine of the primacy upon the alleged foundation of the Roman Church by St. Peter. ^ Irenaeus on the other hand attributes her potentior principaHtas to her foundation by SS. Peter and Paul." This portion of the learned prelate's criticism is quite irrelevant. The passage under discussion proclaims the doctrinal primacy of the Roman Church. This we undertake to show, and nothing further. That she owes that primacy exclusively to St. Peter is neither affirmed nor denied by Irenaeus.- It is \Aorthy of note, however, that, in a later chapter, the saint assigns as the reason of the doctrinal disunion among heretics and schis- 1 The statement is inaccurate. ' Romish ' divines do not base the doctrme of the primacy upon the foundation of the Roman Church by St. Peter, but rather upon his episcopacy in that Church. With all the early fathers, including Irenaeus himself, we hold that, whereas the Roman Church was founded by SS. Peter and Paul, Peter alone was the first Roman bishop {cfr. supra, ch. v, p. 1) 2 " . . . The special importance which Irenaeus claims for the Roman Church ... is not merely based by him on her assumed foundation bj^ Peter and Paul, but on a combination of the four attributes ' maxima,'' ' antiquissima,' " etc. (Harnack : Hist, of Dogm., vol. i, p. 157 n). THE ADVERSUS HAERESES ' 193 matics the fact that " they have not been founded on the one rock.'''' How strangely like an echo of Matthew xvi. Irenaeus, we should add, was a close student of the first Gospel. ^ Christianity a Deposit, — ^The Church is the sole reliable repository of the apostolic tradition. In her is found the true creed or symbol {Kufcop rrj^ dXtjOela^).^ The Kavcou is unchangeable (a/cAtj/?/?).^ She holds not only the symbol or summary of defined teaching but the entire deposit : " Like a rich man depositing his money in a bank, the apostles lodged in her hands . . . all things pertaining to the truth.''' * They also constituted her the sole authoritative exponent of the deposit in succession to themselves ; " so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life." ^ The deposit is conserved, transmitted, and authoritatively interpreted, by the Catholic bishops. It is not susceptible of change.® The Church the Body of Christ. — The Church is a visible organic unit controlled by the episcopacy. " True knowledge' is [derived from] the teaching of the apostles, and the ancient constitution {a-varTtifjici^) of the Churcli in the whole world, and 1 cfr. iii. i. 1 ; ib. 9, 1-3. 2 I. 9. 4. Irenaeus enumerates the articles of the Kavwv {ib. 10. 1). 3 ib. 5 ib. * iii. 4. 1. « i. 10. '' Gr. yv&arLi aXrjO'qs. 194 THE ADVERSUS HAERESES the character of the body of Christ accordmg to the successions of the bishops into whose hands the apostles have dehvered the Church which exists in every place." ^ The Church Universal is a single association ruled by the bishops collectively. As such it is the Body of Christ. The Indwelling of the Spirit. — The Holy Spirit abides in the Church. In her capacity of guardian and exponent of the deposit she is assisted and renewed by Him. Sustained by His abiding presence she endures indefectible.^ It is only the body of Christ that is animated by the Holy Spirit ; to share in the Spirit we must be members of the body. " For in the Church God hath set apostles, prophets, teachers, and all the other means through which the Spirit works ; of Which those are not partakers who do not belong to the Church. . . . For where the Church is there is the Spirit of God ; and where the Spirit of God is there is the Church." -^ All who belong to the Church, and those only, partake of the Spirit. Church Membership. — But who, in concrete, are they who partake of the Spirit ? Who are members of Christ's body ? . . . " The Spirit, Irenaeus replies, " is the living water which the Lord grants 1 iv. 33. 8. A difficult sentence. I have rendered it literally as far as possible. 2 iv. 31. 3. 3 iii. 24. 1. THE ADVERSUS HAERESES 195 to those who rightly believe in Him and love Himy ^ By ' love ' he means love as manifested in social unity. 2 Heresy and Schism. — We are saved through the truth. But the truth has come down to us through the episcopal succession [SiaSoxn), and is found only in the Church. She alone possesses the true tradition, the saving ' wisdom ' of God which she preaches everywhere.^ Hence, to be saved, we must remain within the Church in subjection to the episcopacy: " Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church ; those who, as I have shown, possess the succession of the apostles ; those who together with the succession of the episcopate have received the certain gift of truth, {charisma certumveritatis).'^ . . . Where the gifts of the Lord have been placed, there it is incumbent to learn the truth — namely, from those who possess that succession of the Church which is from the apostles." ^ Heretics and schismatics have fallen from the truth. The former " bring strange fire to the altar of God— namely, strange doctrine. They shall be burned up by fire from heaven as were Nadab and Abiud. And such as rise up in opposition to the 1 V. 18. 2. 2 iv. 33. 7, 8. cfr. Migne in loc. We shall find SS. Cyprian and Augustine adopting a similar mode of speech {cfr. Cypr. De unit. eccl. xiv ; Aug. De bapt. hi. 16, 21). 3 V. 20. 1. 4 iv. 26. 2. 5 ii,^ 5^ 196 THE ADVERSUS HAERESES truth, and exhort others against the Church of God, shall be damned (remanent apud inferos). . . . Those who cleave asunder and disrupt the unity of the Church shall be punished by God as was Jeroboam." ^ Schism is absolutely inexcusable : " He shall judge those who give rise to schisms, wiio are destitute of the love of God, and who look to their own advantage rather than to the unity of the Church, and who . . . cut in pieces and divide the great and glorious body of Christ. . . . The mischief (i8Xa/3>;— pernicies) of their schism," he adds, " more than counterbalances any reformation (KaTopOioa-i^) which Can be brought about by them." - Irenaeus was not a " reformer." Heretics and schismatics are outside the Church : " He shall also judge all those who are beyond the pale of the truth, that is, who are outside the Church." ^ The saint contrasts heretics with those who belong to the Church — i.e., who are subject to the episcopacy. " Polycarp coming to Rome," he relates, " caused many to turn away from heresy to the Church of God." ^ " Now all those heretics," he argues in another place,^ " are of much later date than the bishops to whom the apostles committed the churches. ... It follows, then, 1 iv. 26. 2. 2 " Nulla ah eis tanta potest fieri correctio quanta est schis- matis pernicies " (iv. 33. 7). 3 ib. 4 iii. 3. 4. ^ V. 20. 1. THE ADVERSUS HAERESES 197 as a matter of course, that these heretics, since they are blind to the truth and deviate from the right way, walk in various roads, and, therefore, in the domain of doctrine their footsteps are scattered here and there without agreement or connexion. But the path of those who belong to the Church circumscribes the whole world, as possessing the sure tradition from the apostles and gives unto us to see that the faith of all is one and the same." ^ Heretics themselves not only admit their separation from the Church, but boast of it. They refer to " those of the Church " as being " psychics," " animal "-men who have not attained to the perfect " gnosis." ^ They profess to have arrived, by their reasoning powers and erudition, at a grasp of Christian truth, which the " psychic " who accepts the faith solely on authority knows not of. And yet, precisely because they refuse to accept the Christian teaching on authority, precisely because they refuse to regard it in the light of an authoritative tradition, the gnostics " know much," but blaspheme God. The gospel is a SiSaxy'] and not a " wisdom." ^ Summary. — Christianity is a Kavdiv, a -TrapdSoa-t? It is an authoritative tradition which we receive 1 V. 20. 1. The early Christian writers never tire of con- trasting the doctrinal disunion existing among heretics with the unity wliich obtains within the Church. 2 ot xl/V\(^iKol . . . firj TTji' TcActai' yvujcrii' e^orre? . . . eti'at 8e TOVTOvi OLTTO Tfjs 'E/c/cAi^o-t'f'S rjfJLos X.€yov(riv, 3 ii. 26. 1. 198 THE ADVERSUS HAERESES from Christ through the apostles and their succes- sors. The dispersed churches constitute one Church controlled by the Catholic episcopacy and with Rome as rallying-centre. The Church Universal is the body of Christ ; we are its members. The Holy Spirit animates the entire Church and only the Church ; to share in the Spirit we must be members of the Body. Schism is indefensible. Heresy, too, is sinful and separative ; heretics are outside the Church : " Wherefore it is incumbent to hold in suspicion those who depart from the primitive succession and assemble in any place as heretics or schis- matics." ^ We must guard ourselves lest we suffer injury from such. When they assail us the Church is our sole safeguard. " Let us fly to her and be brought up in her bosom." ^ Testimony of Hegesippus. — Hegesippus, an oriental who lived during the latter half of the second century, compiled an historico-polemical work in five books entitled : Trevre viro/JivrifxaTa. His purpose was to set forth in extenso the orthodox teaching (o opdog Xoyo?). The work has perished, with the exception of some passages which have survived in Eusebius.^ For Hegesippus, as for his predecessors, the 1 iv. 26. 2. 2 " . . . confugere autem ad ecclesiam et in eiua sinu educari " (v. 20. 2). 3 H. E. iv. THE ADVERSUS HAERESES 199 TrapdSoa-i? is the norm of truth. He puts forward " the true tradition of the apostolic doctrine " (17 aTrXavrj TrapdSocri? tov aTrocTToXiKov Ktjpvyjuarog) as being the op66^ Xoyo?/ Hence he visited many churches and examined their doctrines ; having first satisfied himself as to the continuity of the episcopal succession in each. In all apostolic churches he found one and the same teaching. ^ It is clear, therefore, that Hegesippus regarded apostolic tradition as the sole norm of orthodoxy, the purity of the tradition being conditioned by the continuity of the succession of bishops in the churches. Since the tradition is one, it follows that aU apostolic churches wherein the episcopal lines {al SiaSoxal) have remained unbroken, have a common teaching. Christianity is one and apostolic. To constitute a sect in an apostolic church (as had been done in the Church at Jerusalem) is to divide the unity of the Church, by corrupt doctrines against God and against His Christ.^ Schism is never lawful ; to break with the SiaSox^] is to break with the 6p6og Xoyo?. The Easter Controversy * The primitive church was divided as to the time at which the festival of Easter should be celebrated. We have already seen how Polycarp and Pope 1 H. E. iv. 8. 2. 3 ib. 22. 5, 6. 2 ih. 21. 1. 4 circ. 191 A.D. P 200 THE ADVERSUS HAERESES Anicetus tried in vain to come to an understanding on the question.^ " The churches of Asia," writes Eusebius, " guided by a remoter tradition, supposed that they ought to keep the fourteenth day of the moon ; 2 . . . and it was incumbent on them to make an end of the fast on this day on whatever day of the week it should happen to fall. The churches throughout the rest of the world, on the other hand, did not terminate the fast on any other day but the day of the resurrection of our Saviour."^ ApostoUc sanction was claimed for each custom, the Easterns appealing to the practice of SS. John and Philip, the others to that of SS. Peter and Paul. The disagreement was felt to be intolerable. Western Christians sometimes found themselves in sack-cloth and ashes at a time when their brethren in the East were feasting. " Hence there were synods and episcopal convocations on the question ; and all unanimously decreed . . . that the mystery of our Lord's Resurrection should be celebrated on no other day than Sunday." ^ " The Asiatic bishops, however, continued to observe the custom handed down to them from their fathers." ^ In this they were led by Poly- crates, the venerable bishop of Ephesus. A conflict with Rome followed. 1 V. supra. 3 EU8. H. E. V. 23. 2 i.e '., 14th Nisan. 5 ib. 4 ib. THE ADVERSUS HAERESES 201 Pope Victor called on Polycrates to assemble the bishops of Asia, with a view to having the Western custom adopted throughout the entire province. Polycrates did so,i and subsequently forwarded to the Pope the decision of the assembly in a letter in which he set forth " the tradition derived down to his own times." ^ " We observe the genuine day," he wrote, " neither adding to nor taking from (the tradition). For in Asia great lights have fallen asleep : Philip, one of the Twelve, . . . John, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, . . . Polycarp, bishop and martyr, . . . Thraseas of Eumenia; — all these observed the feast on the fourteenth day, introducing no innovations, but exactly following the rule of faith." ^ For Poly- crates, therefore, it was a clear case of Victor versus the KavQ)v ; and to " conform " was to disobey God. " I, therefore, . . . am not at all alarmed at those things w^hich are threatened * in order to intimidate me.^ For they who are greater than I have said : ' We ought to obey God rather than men.' ... I could also mention the bishops that were present, whom you asked me to summon and whom I did summon." * It was a flat refusal. 1 In itself a noteworthy fact. 2 Ti)v €ts axnhv kX6ovcra.v TrapaSoa-iv. ^ jxrjSkv 7rapeKJ3oitvovTe'5, dAAa Kara tov Kavova ttJs Trt'crTews OLKoXovOovvTes. * ov TTTvpofxai Itti Tots KaTaTrX'qcriTOfji.evois. 6 Implying, as we shall see, that Victor had threatened ''non-conformists " with excommunication. 6 ib. 202 THE ADVERSUS HAERESES Punishment followed. " Upon this Victor endeavoured to cut off as heterodox from the common society ^ — and not merely from the Roman communion — ^the churches of all Asia, together with the neighbouring churches ; and he sent letters abroad proclaiming that all the brethren there were excommunicated {aKoivwvnTovq). Some of the bishops, however, who did not approve of 2 this step, immediately exhorted him to contem- plate that course which was calculated to promote peace, unity, and fraternal charity." ^ The bishop of Rome claimed the power to cut off churches from the catholic communion. The claim was suffered to pass unchallenged, although the principle involved was patent. Several of the bishops did not like his action ; many expostu- lated ; * some rebuked him sharply ; ^ in their judgment he should have acted more forbearingly. But his power to excommunicate the churches no 1 aTrorkfivi.LV ws o.v Ire/aoSo^oiVas t^s Koti'/)s Ivwo-fcos. 2 aAA'ou iraari ye Tois €7rtcrK07rots ravr^ 'rjpecrKeTO : (Lat. " Sed hoc non omnibus placebat episcopis "). The current Protestant translation : " But this was not the opinion of all the bishops " is unfair. The word apka-K^iv (c. dat. pers.) means " to please " simply [cfr. Lidd. and Sc). 3 H. E. ib. 4 dvTLTrapaKeXevovrat, which Dr. Schwartz, unfairly I think, renders " iubebant " {Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte: Eus. b.ii,t. 1, pp. 494, 495). I would suggest " hortabantur." avmrapaKeXema-dai means " to exhort to the contrary " {cfr. Lidd. and Sc). ^ TrXrjKTiKiorepov KadaTrTopAvtav . THE ADVERSUS HAERESES 203 one questioned. How are we to account for this if Victor was not the recognized primate of Christendom. If the Roman Pontiff was known to have acted ultra vires on that occasion, was there, in all Christendom, no member of the epis- copacy to stand up and tell him so ? Further, some of the letters of protest which reached him implicitly acknowledge his claim in the matter. Irenaeus, for example, writing in the name of his suffragan bishops, declared for the Roman custom, but advised^ the Pope not to cut off entire churches whose sole offence was their fidelity to the Kavdtv. ^ If Irenaeus believed that Victor was powerless to excommunicate the churches, the advice tendered by him was not only meaningless, but ridiculous. No wonder Renan remarked that the papacy was already " born and well born." ^ 1 irapciivd. ^ lb. ^ Bat. : op. cit., p. 225. CHAPTER VII ST. CYPRIAN, BISHOP AND MARTYR Thascius Caecilius Cyprianus was born in proconsular Africa of wealthy heathen parents at the dawn of the third century. ^ A rhetorician by profession, he remained a pagan until his forty- sixth year. He then embraced Christianity, became a cleric, and, two years subsequently, was elected to fill the important metropolitan see of Carthage. He suffered martyrdom during the Valerian persecution, September 14, 258. Cyprian's episcopal career was a stormy one. To begin with, his election was contested ; and his opponents appear to have maintained an attitude of avowed hostility towards him even after his consecration. Occasions of vilification were not wanting from the first. During the Decian perse- cution (249-251) the saintly bishop abandoned his church, and remained in concealment, that his flock might not be left shepherdless in its hour of stress and trial. From his place of refuge he was able to control diocesan affairs by means of letters. His enemies, however, not unnaturally, availed themselves of the incident to level against him a 1 circ. 200-210. 204 ST. CYPRIAN, BISHOP AND MARTYR 205 charge of cowardice ; ^ and a letter has come down to us written by the Roman clergy to the Church of Carthage, m which they undertake to justify the " flight " of " the blessed pope Cyprian." ^ During the persecution numbers of the Christians denied the faith. Some offered sacrifice or burned incense to the pagan idols, and were known as sacrificati or thurificati. Others refused to sacrifice, but purchased libelli attesting that they had done so. These were named lihellatici. While the storm was still raging, Cyprian was called upon to lay down the law which should regulate the treatment of such weaklings. In domg so he mtroduced an important change into the existing ecclesiastical discipline. The early Church was unwillmg, as a rule, to reconcile the U'psed. That a " saint " could sin gravely, despite his regeneration, was in the beginning considered almost unthinkable, and when such cases arose, — as, from the first, they did arise, — ^the clergy, at least in some parts of the Church, exhorted the sinner to do penance, but left his reconciUation in the hands of the Creator. The penance proclaimed by Hermas was a mere transient concession, an exceptional privilege granted only to his contemporaries and to be availed of but once. It was a kind of jubilee.^ 1 Ep. XX. 2 ih. viii. 1. 3 c/r. O'Donnell : Penance in the Early Church, p. 5 ; Tixeront : Hist, of Dogm., vol. i, p. 112. 206 ST. CYPRIAN, BISHOP AND MARTYR As time went on, the discipline became relaxed and ordinary sinners were freely admitted to the Sacrament of Penance. Right through the first two centuries, however, the Church consistently refused to deal with what were known as the " peccata ad mortem " — apostasy, fornication and murder. These crimes remained " irremissible." In maintaining this rigorous attitude, the ecclesiastical authorities, we hold, were actuated solely by motives of discipline, and not by any conviction that the Church's power of binding and loosing did not extend to delicta graviora. This is clearly proved by the action of Pope Callixtus, who, in the beginning of the thii'd century (217-222) enacted that fornicators who had performed a specified penance were to be reconciled and admitted to communion after the manner of ordinary sinners.^ We note, in passing, the fact that on this occasion the Roman Pontifif took upon himself to legislate for the entire Church. Furthermore, we find that in order to establish the authoritative character of his enactment he alleged the power of the keys transmitted by the prince of the apostles to his successors the Roman bishops.^ The measure, it is true, was at first badly received in certain rigorist quarters — ^notably in Africa;^ but the 1 Tert. : De Pud. i. 2 ib. 21. cjr. Tix., vol. cit.i