History of Dogma Volume II Part 5

[Footnote 115: It is also very interesting to note that Clement almost nowhere ill.u.s.trates the parabolic character of the Holy Scriptures by quoting the Epistles, but in this connection employs the Old Testament and the Gospels, just as he almost never allegorises pa.s.sages from other writings. 1 Cor. III. 2 is once quoted thus in Paed. I. 6. 49: [Greek: to en to apostolo hagion pneuma te tou kuriou apochromenon phone legei]. We can hardly conclude from Paed. I. 7. 61 that Clement called Paul a "prophet."]

[Footnote 116: It is worthy of special note that Clem., Paed. II. 10.3; Strom. II. 15. 67 has criticised an interpretation given by the author of the Epistle of Barnabas, although he calls Barnabas an Apostle.]

[Footnote 117: In this category we may also include the Acts of the Apostles, which is perhaps used like the [Greek: kerugma]. It is quoted in Paed. II. 16. 56; Strom. I. 50, 89, 91, 92, 153, 154; III. 49; IV. 97; V. 75, 82; VI. 63, 101, 124, 165.]

[Footnote 118: The "seventy disciples" were also regarded as Apostles, and the authors of writings the names of which did not otherwise offer a guarantee of authority were likewise included in this category. That is to say, writings which were regarded as valuable and which for some reason or other could not be characterised as apostolic in the narrower sense were attributed to authors whom there was no reason for denying to be Apostles in the wider sense. This wider use of the concept "apostolic" is moreover no innovation. See my edition of the Didache, pp. 111-118.]

[Footnote 119: The formation of the canon in Alexandria must have had some connection with the same process in Asia Minor and in Rome. This is shown not only by each Church recognising four Gospels, but still more by the admission of thirteen Pauline Epistles. We would see our way more clearly here, if anything certain could be ascertained from the works of Clement, including the Hypotyposes, as to the arrangement of the Holy Scriptures; but the attempt to fix this arrangement is necessarily a dubious one, because Clement's "canon of the New Testament" was not yet finally fixed. It may be compared to a half-finished statue whose bust is already completely chiselled, while the under parts are still embedded in the stone.]

[Footnote 120: No greater creative act can be mentioned in the whole history of the Church than the formation of the apostolic collection and the a.s.signing to it of a position of equal rank with the Old Testament.]

[Footnote 121: The history of early Christian writings in the Church which were not definitely admitted into the New Testament is instructive on this point. The fate of some of these may be described as tragical.

Even when they were not branded as downright forgeries, the writings of the Fathers from the fourth century downwards were far preferred to them.]

[Footnote 122: See on this point Overbeck "Abhandlung uber die Anfange der patristischen Litteratur," l.c., p. 469. Nevertheless, even after the creation of the New Testament canon, theological authors.h.i.+p was an undertaking which was at first regarded as highly dangerous. See the Antimontanist in Euseb., H. E. V. 16. 3: [Greek: dedios kai exeulaboumenos, me pe doxo prin episungraphein e epidiata.s.sesthai to tes tou euangeliou kaines diathekes logo]. We find similar remarks in other old Catholic Fathers (see Clemen. Alex.).]

[Footnote 123: But how diverse were the expositions; compare the exegesis of Origen and Tertullian, Scorp. II.]

[Footnote 124: On the extent to which the Old Testament had become subordinated to the New and the Prophets to the Apostles, since the end of the second century, see the following pa.s.sage from Novatian, de trinit. 29: "Unus ergo et idem spiritus qui in prophetis et apostolis, nisi quoniam ibi ad momentum, hic semper. Ceterum ibi non ut semper in illis inesset, hic ut in illis semper maneret, et ibi mediocriter distributus, hic totus effusus, ibi parce datus, hic large commodatus."]

[Footnote 125: That may be shown in all the old Catholic Fathers, but most plainly perhaps in the theology of Origen. Moreover, the subordination of the Old Testament revelation to the Christian one is not simply a result of the creation of the New Testament, but may be explained by other causes; see chap. 5. If the New Testament had not been formed, the Church would perhaps have obtained a Christian Old Testament with numerous interpolations--tendencies in this direction were not wanting: see vol. I, p. 114 f.--and increased in extent by the admission of apocalypses. The creation of the New Testament preserved the purity of the Old, for it removed the need of doing violence to the latter in the interests of Christianity.]

[Footnote 126: The Catholic Church had from the beginning a very clear consciousness of the dangerousness of many New Testament writings, in fact she made a virtue of necessity in so far as she set up a theory to prove the unavoidableness of this danger. See Tertullian, de praescr.

pa.s.sim, and de resurr. 63.]

[Footnote 127: To a certain extent the New Testament disturbs and prevents the tendency to summarise the faith and reduce it to its most essential content. For it not only puts itself in the place of the unity of a system, but frequently also in the place of a harmonious and complete creed. Hence the rule of faith is necessary as a guiding principle, and even an imperfect one is better than a mere haphazard reliance upon the Bible.]

[Footnote 128: We must not, however, ascribe that to conscious mistrust, for Irenaeus and Tertullian bear very decided testimony against such an idea, but to the acknowledgment that it was impossible to make any effective use of the New Testament Scriptures in arguments with educated non-Christians and heretics. For these writings could carry no weight with the former, and the latter either did not recognise them or else interpreted them by different rules. Even the offer of several of the Fathers to refute the Marcionites from their own canon must by no means be attributed to an uncertainty on their part with regard to the authority of the ecclesiastical canon of Scripture. We need merely add that the extraordinary difficulty originally felt by Christians in conceiving the Pauline Epistles, for instance, to be a.n.a.logous and equal in value to Genesis or the prophets occasionally appears in the terminology even in the third century, in so far as the term "divine writings" continues to be more frequently applied to the Old Testament than to certain parts of the New.]

[Footnote 129: Tertullian, in de corona 3, makes his Catholic opponent say: "Etiam in traditionis obtentu exigenda est auctoritas scripta."]

[Footnote 130: Hatch, Organisation of the early Christian Church, 1883.

Harnack, Die Lehre der zwolf Apostel, 1884. Sohm, Kirchenrecht, Vol. I.

1892.]

[Footnote 131: Marcion was the only one who did not claim to prove his Christianity from traditions inasmuch as he rather put it in opposition to tradition. This disclaimer of Marcion is in keeping with his renunciation of apologetic proof, whilst, conversely, in the Church the apologetic proof, and the proof from tradition adduced against the heretics, were closely related. In the one case the truth of Christianity was proved by showing that it is the oldest religion, and in the other the truth of ecclesiastical Christianity was established from the thesis that it is the oldest Christianity, viz., that of the Apostles.]

[Footnote 132: See Tertullian, de praescr. 20, 21, 32.]

[Footnote 133: This theory is maintained by Irenaeus and Tertullian, and is as old as the a.s.sociation of the [Greek: hagia ekklesia] and the [Greek: pneuma hagion]. Just for that reason the distinction they make between Churches founded by the Apostles and those of later origin is of chief value to themselves in their arguments against heretics. This distinction, it may be remarked, is clearly expressed in Tertullian alone. Here, for example, it is of importance that the Church of Carthage derives its "authority" from that of Rome (de praescr. 36).]

[Footnote 134: Tertull., de praescr. 32 (see p. 19). Iren., III. 2. 2: "c.u.m autem ad eam iterum traditionem, quae est ab apostolis, quae per successiones presbyterorum in ecclesiis custoditur, provocamus eos, etc." III. 3. 1: "Traditionem itaque apostolorum in toto mundo manifestatam in omni ecclesia adest perspicere omnibus qui vera velint videre, et habemus annumerare eos, qui ab apostolis inst.i.tuti sunt episcopi in ecclesiis et successiones eorum usque ad nos ... valde enim perfectos in omnibus eos volebant esse, quos et successores relinquebant, suum ipsorum loc.u.m magisterii tradentes ... traditio Romanae ecclesiae, quam habet ab apostolis, et annuntiata hominibus fides per successiones episcoporum perveniens usque ad nos." III. 3. 4, 4. 1: "Si de aliqua modica qusestione disceptatio esset, nonne oporteret in antiquissimas recurrere ecclesias, in quibus apostoli conversati sunt ... quid autem si neque apostoli quidem scripturas reliquissent n.o.bis, nonne oportebat ordinem sequi traditionis, quam tradiderunt iis, quibus committebant ecclesias?" IV. 33. 8: "Character corporis Christi secundum successiones episcoporum, quibus apostoli eam quae in unoquoque loco est ecclesiam tradiderunt, quae pervenit usque ad nos, etc." V. 20.1: "Omnes enim ii valde posteriores sunt quam episcopi, quibus apostoli tradiderunt ecclesias." IV. 26. 2: "Quapropter eis, qui in ecclesia sunt, presbyteris obaudire oportet, his qui successionem habent ab apostolis; qui c.u.m episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum patris acceperunt." IV. 26. 5: "Ubi igitur charismata domini posita sunt, ibi discere oportet veritatem, apud quos est ea quae est ab apostolis ecclesiae successio." The declaration in Luke X. 16 was already applied by Irenaeus (III. praef.) to the successors of the Apostles.]

[Footnote 135: For details on this point see my edition of the Didache, Proleg., p. 140. As the _regula fidei_ has its preparatory stages in the baptismal confession, and the New Testament in the collection of writings read in the Churches, so the theory that the bishops receive and guarantee the apostolic heritage of truth has its preparatory stage in the old idea that G.o.d has bestowed on the Church Apostles, prophets, and teachers, who always communicate his word in its full purity. The functions of these persons devolved by historical development upon the bishop; but at the same time it became more and more a settled conviction that no one in this latter period could be compared with the Apostles. The only true Christianity, however, was that which was apostolic and which could prove itself to be so. The natural result of the problem which thus arose was the theory of an objective transference of the _charisma veritatis_ from the Apostles to the bishops. This notion preserved the unique personal importance of the Apostles, guaranteed the apostolicity, that is, the truth of the Church's faith, and formed a dogmatic justification for the authority already attained by the bishops. The old idea that G.o.d bestows his Spirit on the Church, which is therefore the holy Church, was ever more and more transformed into the new notion that the bishops receive this Spirit, and that it appears in their official authority. The theory of a succession of prophets, which can be proved to have existed in Asia Minor, never got beyond a rudimentary form and speedily disappeared.]

[Footnote 136: This theory must have been current in the Roman Church before the time when Irenaeus wrote; for the list of Roman bishops, which we find in Irenaeus and which he obtained from Rome, must itself be considered as a result of that dogmatic theory. The first half of the list must have been concocted, as there were no monarchical bishops in the strict sense in the first century (see my treatise: "Die altesten christlichen Datirungen und die Anfange einer bischoflichen Chronographie in Rom." in the report of the proceedings of the Royal Prussian Academy of Science, 1892, p. 617 ff). We do not know whether such lists were drawn up so early in the other churches of apostolic origin (Jerusalem?). Not till the beginning of the 3rd century have we proofs of that being done, whereas the Roman community, as early as Soter's time, had a list of bishops giving the duration of each episcopate. Nor is there any evidence before the 3rd century of an attempt to invent such a list for Churches possessing no claim to have been founded by Apostles.]

[Footnote 137: We do not yet find this a.s.sertion in Tertullian's treatise "de praescr."]

[Footnote 138: Special importance attaches to Tertullian's treatise "de pudicitia," which has not been sufficiently utilised to explain the development of the episcopate and the pretensions at that time set up by the Roman bishop. It shows clearly that Calixtus claimed for himself as bishop the powers and rights of the Apostles in their full extent, and that Tertullian did not deny that the "doctrina apostolorum" was inherent in his office, but merely questioned the "potestas apostolorum." It is very significant that Tertullian (c. 21) sneeringly addressed him as "apostolice" and reminded him that "ecclesia spiritus, non ecclesia numerus episcoporum." What rights Calixtus had already claimed as belonging to the apostolic office may be ascertained from Hippol. Philos. IX. 11. 12. But the introduction to the Philosophoumena proves that Hippolytus himself was at one with his opponent in supposing that the bishops, as successors of the Apostles, had received the attributes of the latter: [Greek: Tas haireseis heteros ouk elegxei, e to en ekklesia paradothen hagion pneuma, ou tuchontes proteroi hoi apostoloi metedosan tois orthos pepisteukosin hon hemeis diadochoi tugchanontes tes te autes charitos metechontes archierateias te kai didaskalias kai phrouroi tes ekklesias lelogismenoi ouk ophthalmo nustazomen, oude logon orthon siopomen, k.t.l.] In these words we have an immense advance beyond the conception of Irenaeus. This advance, of course, was first made in practice, and the corresponding theory followed. How greatly the prestige and power of the bishops had increased in the first 3rd part of the 3rd century may be seen by comparing the edict of Maximinus Thrax with the earlier ones (Euseb., H.

E. VI. 28; see also the genuine Martyr. Jacobi, Mariani, etc., in Numidia c. 10 [Ruinart, Acta mart. p. 272 edit. Ratisb.]): "Nam ita inter se nostrae religionis gradus artifex saevitia diviserat, ut laicos clericis separatos tentationibus saeculi et terroribus suis putaret esse cessuros" (that is, the heathen authorities also knew that the clergy formed the bond of union in the Churches). But the theory that the bishops were successors of the Apostles, that is, possessed the apostolic office, must be considered a Western one which was very slowly and gradually adopted in the East. Even in the original of the first six books of the Apostolic Const.i.tutions, composed about the end of the 3rd century, which represents the bishop as mediator, king, and teacher of the community, the episcopal office is not yet regarded as the apostolic one. It is rather presbyters, as in Ignatius, who are cla.s.sed with the Apostles. It is very important to note that the whole theory of the significance of the bishop in determining the truth of ecclesiastical Christianity is completely unknown to Clement of Alexandria. As we have not the slightest evidence that his conception of the Church was of a hierarchical and anti-heretical type, so he very rarely mentions the ecclesiastical officials in his works and rarest of all the bishops.

These do not at all belong to his conception of the Church, or at least only in so far as they resemble the English orders (cf. Paed. III. 12.

97, presbyters, bishops, deacons, widows; Strom. VII. 1. 3; III. 12. 90, presbyters, deacons, laity; VI. 13. 106, presbyters, deacons: VI. 13.

107, bishops, presbyters, deacons: Quis dives 42, bishops and presbyters). On the other hand, according to Clement, the true Gnostic has an office like that of the Apostles. See Strom. VI. 13. 106, 107: [Greek: exestin oun kai nun tais kyriakais enaskesantas entolais kata to euangelion teleios biosantas kai gnostikos eis ten eklogen ton apostolon engraphenai houtos presbuteros esti to onti tes ekklesias kai diakonos alethes tes tou theou bouleseos]. Here we see plainly that the servants of the earthly Church, as such, have nothing to do with the true Church and the heavenly hierarchy. Strom VII. 9, 52 says: the true Gnostic is the mediator with G.o.d. In Strom. VI. 14. 108; VII. 12. 77 we find the words: [Greek: ho gnostikos houtos sunelonti eipein ten apostoliken apousian antanapleroi, k.t.l.] Clement could not have expressed himself in this way if the office of bishop had at that time been as much esteemed in the Alexandrian Church, of which he was a presbyter, as it was at Rome and in other Churches of the West (see Bigg l.c. 101).

According to Clement the Gnostic as a teacher has the same significance as is possessed by the bishop in the West; and according to him we may speak of a natural succession of teachers. Origen in the main still held the same view as his predecessor. But numerous pa.s.sages in his works and above all his own history shew that in his day the episcopate had become stronger in Alexandria also, and had begun to claim the same attributes and rights as in the West (see besides de princip. praef. 2: "servetur ecclesiastica praedicatio per successionis ordinem ab apostolis tradita et usque ad praesens in ecclesiis permanens: illa sola credenda est veritas, quae in nullo ab ecclesiastica et apostolica discordat traditione"--so in Rufinus, and in IV. 2. 2: [Greek: tou kanonos tes Iesou Christou kata diadochen t. apostolon ouraniou ekklesias]). The state of things here is therefore exactly the same as in the case of the apostolic _regula fidei_ and the apostolic canon of scripture. Clement still represents an earlier stage, whereas by Origen's time the revolution has been completed. Wherever this was so, the theory that the monarchical episcopate was based on apostolic inst.i.tution was the natural result. This idea led to the a.s.sumption--which, however, was not an immediate consequence in all cases--that the apostolic office, and therefore the authority of Jesus Christ himself, was continued in the episcopate: "Manifesta est sententia Iesu Christi apostolos suos mittentis et ipsis solis potestatem a patre sibi datam permittentis, quibus nos successimus eadem potestatex ecclesiam domini gubernantes et credentium fidem baptizantes" (Hartel, Opp. Cypr. I. 459).]

[Footnote 139: See Rothe, Die Anfange der christlichen Kirche und ihrer Verfa.s.sung, 1837. Kostlin, Die Katholische Auffa.s.sung von der Kirche in ihrer ersten Ausbildung in the Deutsche Zeitschrift fur christliche Wissenschaft und christliches Leben, 1855. Ritschl, Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche, 2nd ed., 1857. Ziegler, Des Irenaus Lehre von der Autoritat der Schrift, der Tradition und der Kirche, 1868.

Hackenschmidt, Die Anfange des katholischen Kirchenbegriffs, 1874.

Hatch-Harnack, Die Gesellschaftsverfa.s.sung der christlichen Kirche im Alterthum, 1883. Seeberg, Zur Geschichte des Begriffs der Kirche, Dorpat, 1884. Soder, Der Begriff der Katholicitat der Kirche und des Glaubens, 1881. O. Ritschl, Cyprian von Karthago und die Verfa.s.sung der Kirche, 1885. (This contains the special literature treating of Cyprian's conception of the Church). Sohm, l.c.]

[Footnote 140: See Hatch, l.c. pp. 191, 253.]

[Footnote 141: See vol. I. p. 150 f. Special note should be given to the teachings in the Shepherd, in the 2nd Epistle of Clement and in the [Greek: Didache].]

[Footnote 142: This notion lies at the basis of the exhortations of Ignatius. He knows nothing of an empirical union of the different communities into one Church guaranteed by any law or office. The bishop is of importance only for the individual community, and has nothing to do with the essence of the Church; nor does Ignatius view the separate communities as united in any other way than by faith, charity, and hope.

Christ, the invisible Bishop, and the Church are inseparably connected (ad Ephes. V. 1; as well as 2nd Clem. XIV.), and that is ultimately the same idea, as is expressed in the a.s.sociating of [Greek: pneuma] and [Greek: ekklesia]. But every individual community is an image of the heavenly Church, or at least ought to be.]

[Footnote 143: The expression "Catholic Church" appears first in Ignatius (ad Smyrn. VIII. 2): [Greek: hopou an phanei ho episkopos, ekei to plethos esto; hosper hopou an e Christos Iesous, ekei he katholike ekklesia]. But in this pa.s.sage these words do not yet express a new conception of the Church, which represents her as an empirical commonwealth. Only the individual earthly communities exist empirically, and the universal, i.e., the whole Church, occupies the same position towards these as the bishops of the individual communities do towards the Lord. The epithet "[Greek: katholikos]" does not of itself imply any secularisation of the idea of the Church.]

[Footnote 144: The expression "invisible Church" is liable to be misunderstood here, because it is apt to impress us as a mere idea, which is certainly not the meaning attached to it in the earliest period.]

[Footnote 145: It was thus regarded by Hegesippus in whom the expression "[Greek: he henosis tes ekklesias]" is first found. In his view the [Greek: ekklesia] is founded on the [Greek: orthos logos] transmitted by the Apostles. The innovation does not consist in the emphasis laid upon faith, for the unity of faith was always supposed to be guaranteed by the possession of the one Spirit and the same hope, but in the setting up of a formulated creed, which resulted in a loosening of the connection between faith and conduct. The transition to the new conception of the Church was therefore a gradual one. The way is very plainly prepared for it in 1 Tim. III. 15: [Greek: oikos theou ekklesia, stulos kai hedraioma tes aletheias].]

[Footnote 146: The oldest predicate which was given to the Church and which was always a.s.sociated with it, was that of _holiness_. See the New Testament; Barn. XIV. 6; Hermas, Vis. I. 3, 4; I. 6; the Roman symbol; Dial. 119; Ignat. ad Trail, inscr.; Theophil. ad Autol., II. 14 (here we have even the plural, "holy churches"); Apollon. in Euseb, H. E. V. 18.

5; Tertull., adv. Marc. IV. 13; V. 4; de pudicit. 1; Mart. Polyc inscr.; Alexander Hieros. in Euseb., H. E. VI. 11. 5; Clemens Alex.; Cornelius in Euseb., VI. 43. 6; Cyprian. But the holiness (purity) of the Church was already referred by Hegesippus (Euseb., H. E. IV. 22. 4) to its pure doctrine: [Greek: ekaloun ten ekklesian parthenon; oupo gar ephtharto akoais mataiais]. The unity of the Church according to Hegesippus is specially emphasised in the Muratorian Fragment (line 55): see also Hermas; Justin; Irenaeus; Tertullian, de praescr. 20; Clem. Alex., Strom.

VII. 17. 107. Even before Irenaeus and Tertullian the _universality_ of the Church was emphasised for apologetic purposes. In so far as universality is a proof of truth, "universal" is equivalent to "orthodox." This signification is specially clear in expressions like: [Greek: he en Smurne katholike ekklesia] (Mart. Polyc. XVI. 2). From Irenaeus, III. 15, 2, we must conclude that the Valentinians called their ecclesiastical opponents "Catholics." The word itself is not yet found in Irenaeus, but the idea is there (see I. 10. 2; II. 9. 1, etc., Serapion in Euseb., H.E. V. 19: [Greek: pasa he en kosmo adelphotes]).

[Greek: Katholikos] is found as a designation of the orthodox, visible Church in Mart. Polyc. inscr.: [Greek: hai kata panta topon tes hagias katholikes ekklesias paroikiai]; 19. 2; 16. 2 (in all these pa.s.sages, however, it is probably an interpolation, as I have shown in the "Expositor" for Dec. 1885, p. 410 f); in the Muratorian Fragment 61, 66, 69; in the anonymous writer in Euseb., H. E. V. 16. 9. in Tertull.

frequently, e.g., de praescr. 26, 30; adv. Marc. III. 22: IV. 4; in Clem.

Alex., Strom. VII. 17. 106, 107; in Hippol. Philos. IX. 12; in Mart.

Pionii 2, 9, 13, 19; in Cornelius in Cypr., epp. 49. 2; and in Cyprian.

The expression "catholica traditio" occurs in Tertull., de monog. 2, "fides catholica" in Cyprian ep. 25, "[Greek: kanon katholikos]" in the Mart. Polyc. rec. Mosq. fin. and Cypr. ep. 70. 1, "catholica fides et religio" in the Mart. Pionii 18. In the earlier Christian literature the word [Greek: katholikos] occurs in various connections in the following pa.s.sages: in fragments of the Peratae (Philos. V. 16), and in Herakleon, e.g. in Clement, Strom. IV. 9. 71; in Justin, Dial., 81, 102; Athenag., 27; Theophil. I. 13; Pseudojustin, de monarch. 1, ([Greek: kathol.

doxa]); Iren., III. 11, 8; Apollon. in Euseb., H. E. IV. 18 5, Tertull., de fuga 3; adv. Marc. II. 17; IV. 9; Clement, Strom, IV. 15. 97; VI. 6.

47; 7. 57; 8. 67. The addition "catholicam" found its way into the symbols of the West only at a comparatively late period. The earlier expressions for the whole of Christendom are [Greek: pasai hai ekklesiai, ekklesiai kata pasan polin, ekklesiai en kosmo, hai huph'

ouranou], etc.]

[Footnote 147: Very significant is Tertullian's expression in adv. Val.

4: "Valentinus de ecclesia authenticae regulae abrupit," (but probably this still refers specially to the Roman Church).]

[Footnote 148: Tertullian called the Church _mother_ (in Gal. IV. 26 the heavenly Jerusalem is called "mother"); see de oral. 2: "ne mater quidem ecclesia pixeterhur," de monog. 7; adv. Marc. V. 4 (the author of the letter in Euseb., H. E. V. 2. 7, 1. 45, had already done this before him). In the African Church the symbol was thus worded soon after Tertullian's time: "credis in remissionem peccatorum et vitam aesternam per sanctam ecclesiam" (see Hahn, Bibliothek der Symbole, 2nd ed. p. 29 ff.) On the other hand Clement of Alexandria (Strom. VI. 16. 146) rejected the designation of the Church, as "mother": [Greek: meter de ouch, hos tines ekdedokasin, he ekklesia, all' he theia gnosis kai he sophia] (there is a different idea in Paed. I. 5. 21. and 6. 42: [Greek: meter parthenos; ekklesian emoi philon auten kalein]). In the Acta Justini c. 4 the faith is named "mother."]

[Footnote 149: Hippol. Philos. IX. 12 p. 460.]

[Footnote 150: The phraseology of Irenaeus is very instructive here. As a rule he still speaks of Churches (in the plural) when he means the empirical Church. It is already otherwise with Tertullian, though even with him the old custom still lingers.]

[Footnote 151: The most important pa.s.sages bearing on this are II. 31.

3: III. 24. 1 (see the whole section, but especially: "in ecclesia posuit deus universam operationem spiritus; cuius non sunt participes omnes qui non concurrunt ad ecclesiam ... ubi enim ecclesia, ibi et spiritus dei, et ubi spiritus dei, illic ecclesia et omnis gratia"); III.11. 8: [Greek: stulos kai sterigma ekklesias to euangelion kai pneuma zoes]: IV. 8. 1: "s.e.m.e.n Abrahae ecclesia", IV. 8. 3: "omnes iusti sacerdotalem habent ordinem;" IV. 36. 2: "ubique praeclara est ecclesia; ubique enim sunt qui suscipiunt spiritum;" IV. 33. 7: [Greek: ekklesia mega kai endoxon soma tou Christou]; IV. 26. 1 sq.: V. 20. 1.: V. 32.: V. 34. 3., "Levitae et sacerdotes sunt discipuli omnes domini."]

[Footnote 152: Hence the repudiation of all those who separate themselves from the Catholic Church (III. 11. 9; 24. 1: IV. 26. 2; 33.