History of Dogma Volume II Part 6

7).]

[Footnote 153: On IV. 33. 7 see Seeberg, l.c., p. 20, who has correctly punctuated the pa.s.sage, but has weakened its force. The fact that Irenaeus was here able to cite the "antiquus ecclesiae status in universo mundo et character corporis Christi secundum successiones episcoporum,"

etc., as a second and independent item alongside of the apostolic doctrine is, however, a proof that the transition from the idea of the Church, as a community united by a common faith, to that of a hierarchical inst.i.tution was already revealing itself in his writings.]

[Footnote 154: The Church as a communion of the same faith, that is of the same doctrine, is spoken of in de praescr. 20; de virg. vol. 2. On the other hand we find the ideal spiritual conception in de bapt. 6: "ubi tres, id est pater et filius et spiritus sanctus, ibi ecclesia, quae trium corpus est;" 8: "columba s. spiritus advolat, pacem dei adferens, emissa de coelis, ubi ecclesia est arca figurata;" 15: "unus deus et unum baptismum et una ecclesia in coelis;" de paenit. 10: "in uno et altero ecclesia est, ecclesia vero Christus;" de orat. 28: "nos sumus veri adoratores et veri sacerdotes, qui spiritu orantes spiritu sacrificamus;" Apolog. 39; de exhort. 7: "differentiam inter ordinem et plebem const.i.tuit ecclesiae auctoritas et honor per ordinis consessum sanctificatus. Adeo ubi ecclesiastici ordinis non est consessus, et offers et tinguis et sacerdos es tibi solus. Sed ubi tres, ecclesia est, licet laici" (the same idea, only not so definitely expressed, is already found in de bapt. 17); de monog. 7: "nos autem Iesus summus sacerdos sacerdotes deo patri suo fecit ... vivit unicus pater noster deus et mater ecclesia, ... certe sacerdotes sumus a Christo vocati;"

12; de pudic. 21: "nam et ipsa ecclesia proprie et princ.i.p.aliter ipse est spiritus, in quo est trinitas unius divinitatis, pater et filius et spiritus sanctus. Illam ecclesiam congregat quam dominus in tribus posuit. Atque ita exinde etiam numerus omnis qui in hanc fidem conspiraverint ecclesia ab auctore et consecratore censetur. Et ideo ecclesia quidem delicta donabit, sed ecclesia spiritus per spiritalem hominem, non ecclesia numerus episcoporum;" de anima 11, 21.

Contradictions in detail need not surprise us in Tertullian, since his whole position as a Catholic and as a Montanist is contradictory.]

[Footnote 155: The notion that the true Gnostic can attain the same position as the Apostles also preserved Clement from thrusting the ideal conception of the Church into the background.]

[Footnote 156: Some very significant remarks are found in Clement about the Church which is the object of faith. See Paed. I. 5. 18, 21; 6. 27: [Greek: hos gar thelema tou Theou ergon esti kai touto kosmos onomazetai, houto kai to boulema autou anthropon esti soteria, kai touto ekklesia kekletai]--here an idea which Hermas had in his mind (see Vol.

I., p. 180. note 4) is pregnantly and excellently expressed. Strom. II.

12. 55; IV. 8. 66: [Greek: eikon tes ouraniou ekklesias he epigeios, dioper euchometha kai epi ges genesthai to thelema tou Theou hos en ourano]; IV. 26. 172: [Greek: he ekklesia hupo logou apoliorketos aturannetos polis epi ges, thelema theion epi ges, hos en ourano]; VI.

13. 106, 107; VI. 14. 108: [Greek: he anotato ekklesia, kath' hen hoi philosophoi sunagontai tou Theou]; VII. 5. 29: [Greek: pos ou kurios ten eis timen tou Theou kat' epignosin hagian genomenen ekklesian hieron an eipoimen Theou to pollou axion ... ou gar nun ton topon, alla to athroisma ton eklekton ekklesian kalo]; VII. 6. 32; VII. 11. 68: [Greek: he pneumatike ekklesia]. The empirical conception of the Church is most clearly formulated in VII. 17. 107; we may draw special attention to the following sentences: [Greek: phaneron oimai gegenesthai mian einai ten alethe ekklesian ten toi onti archaian, eis hen hoi kata prothesin dikaioi egkatalegontai, henos gar ontos tou Theou kai henos tou kuriou ... te goun tou henos phusei sunklerountai ekklesia he mia, hen eis pollas katatemnein biazontai haireseis].]

[Footnote 157: It may, however, be noted that the old eschatological aim has fallen into the background in Clement's conception of the Church.]

[Footnote 158: A significance of this kind is suggested by the notion that the orders in the earthly Church correspond to those in the heavenly one; but this idea, which afterwards became so important in the East, was turned to no further account by Clement. In his view the "Gnostics" are the highest stage in the Church. See Bigg, l.c., p. 100.]

[Footnote 159: De princip. IV. 2, 2: [Greek: he ouranios ekklesia]; Hom.

IX. in Exod. c. 3: "ecclesia credentium plebs;" Hom. XI. in Lev. c. 5; Hom. VI. in Lev. c. 5; ibid. Hom. IX.: "omni ecclesiae dei et credentium populo sacerdotium datum.": T. XIV. in Mt. c. 17: c. Cels. VI. 48: VI.

79; Hom. VII. in Lk.; and de orat. 31 a twofold Church is distinguished ([Greek: hoste einai epi ton hagion sunathroizomenon diplen ekklesian ten men anthropon, ten de angelon]). Nevertheless Origen does not a.s.sume two Churches, but, like Clement, holds that there is only one, part of which is already in a state of perfection and part still on earth. But it is worthy of note that the ideas of the heavenly hierarchy are already more developed in Origen (de princip. I. 7). He adopted the old speculation about the origin of the Church (see Papias, fragm. 6; 2 Clem. XIV.). Socrates (H. E. III. 7) reports that Origen, in the 9th vol. of his commentary on Genesis, compared Christ with Adam and Eve with the Church, and remarks that Pamphilus' apology for Origen stated that this allegory was not new: [Greek: ou proton origenen epi tauten ten pragmateian elthein phasin, alla ten tes ekklesias mustiken hermeneusai paradosin]. A great many more of these speculations are to be found in the 3rd century. See, e.g., _the Acts of Peter and Paul_ 29.]

[Footnote 160: De princip. IV. 2. 2; Hom. III. in Jesu N. 5: "nemo tibi persuadeat, nemo semetipsum decipiat: extra ecclesiam nemo salvatur."

The reference is to the Catholic Church which Origen also calls [Greek: to holon soma ton sunagogon tes ekklesias.]]

[Footnote 161: Hermas (Sim. I.) has spoken of the "city of G.o.d" (see also pseudo-Cyprian's tractate "de pascha computus"); but for him it lies in Heaven and is the complete contrast of the world. The idea of Plato here referred to is to be found in his _Republic_.]

[Footnote 162: See c. Cels. VIII. 68-75.]

[Footnote 163: Comment. in Joh. VI. 38.]

[Footnote 164: Accordingly he often speaks in a depreciatory way of the [Greek: ochlos tes ekklesias] (the ignorant) without accusing them of being unchristian (this is very frequent in the books c. Cels., but is also found elsewhere).]

[Footnote 165: Origen, who is Augustine's equal in other respects also, and who antic.i.p.ated many of the problems considered by the latter, antic.i.p.ated prophetically this Father's view of the City of G.o.d--of course as a hope (c. Cels. viii. 68 f). The Church is also viewed as [Greek: to kata Theon politeuma] in Euseb., H. E. V. Praef. -- 4, and at an earlier period in Clement.]

[Footnote 166: This was not done even by Origen, for in his great work "de principiis" we find no section devoted to the Church.]

[Footnote 167: It is frequently represented in Protestant writers that the mistake consisted in this identification, whereas, if we once admit this criticism, the defect is rather to be found in the development itself which took place in the Church, that is, in its secularisation.

No one thought of the desperate idea of an invisible Church; this notion would probably have brought about a lapse from pure Christianity far more rapidly than the idea of the Holy Catholic Church.]

[Footnote 168: Both repeatedly and very decidedly declared that the unity of faith (the rule of faith) is sufficient for the unity of the Church, and that in other things there must be freedom (see above all Tertull., de orat., de bapt., and the Montanist writings). It is all the more worthy of note that, in the case of a question in which indeed the customs of the different countries were exceedingly productive of confusion, but which was certainly not a matter of faith, it was again a bishop of Rome, and that as far back as the 2nd century, who first made the observance of the Roman practice a condition of the unity of the Church and treated nonconformists as heterodox (Victor; see Euseb., H.

E. V. 24). On the other hand Irenaeus says: [Greek: he diaphonia tes nesteias ten h.o.m.onoian tes pisteos sunistesi].]

[Footnote 169: On Calixtus see Hippolyt., Philos. IX. I2; and Tertull., de pudic.]

[Footnote 170: See on the other hand Tertull., de monog., but also Hippol., l.c.]

[Footnote 171: Cyprian's idea of the Church, an imitation of the conception of a political empire, viz., one great aristocratically governed state with an ideal head, is the result of the conflicts through which he pa.s.sed. It is therefore first found in a complete form in the treatise "de unitate ecclesiae" and, above all, in his later epistles (Epp. 43 sq. ed. Hartel). The pa.s.sages in which Cyprian defines the Church as "const.i.tuta in episcopo et in clero et in omnibus credentibus" date from an earlier period, when he himself essentially retained the old idea of the subject. Moreover, he never regarded those elements as similar and of equal value. The limitation of the Church to the community ruled by bishops was the result of the Novatian crisis.

The unavoidable necessity of excluding orthodox Christians from the ecclesiastical communion, or, in other words, the fact that such orthodox Christians had separated themselves from the majority guided by the bishops, led to the setting up of a new theory of the Church, which therefore resulted from stress of circ.u.mstances just as much as the antignostic conception of the matter held by Irenaeus. Cyprian's notion of the relation between the whole body of the Church and the episcopate may, however, be also understood as a generalisation of the old theory about the connection between the individual community and the bishop.

This already contained an oec.u.menical element, for, in fact, every separate community was regarded as a copy of the one Church, and its bishop therefore as the representative of G.o.d (Christ).]

[Footnote 172: We need only quote one pa.s.sage here--but see also epp.

69. 3, 7 sq.: 70. 2: 73. 8--ep. 55. 24: "Quod vero ad Novatiani personam pertinet, scias nos primo in loco nec curiosos esse debere quid ille doceat, c.u.m foris doceat; quisquis ille est et qualiscunque est, christia.n.u.s non est, qui in Christi ecclesia non est." In the famous sentence (ep. 74. 7; de unit. 6): "habere non potest deum patrem qui ecclesiam non habet matrem," we must understand the Church held together by the _sacramentum unitatis_, i.e., by her const.i.tution. Cyprian is fond of referring to Korah's faction, who nevertheless held the same faith as Moses.]

[Footnote 173: Epp. 4. 4: 33. 1: "ecclesia super episcopos const.i.tuta;"

43. 5: 45. 3: "unitatem a domino et per apostolos n.o.bis successoribus traditam;" 46. 1: 66. 8: "scire debes episcopum in ecclesia esse et ecclesiam in episcopo et si qui c.u.m episcopo non sit in ecclesia non esse;" de unit. 4.]

[Footnote 174: According to Cyprian the bishops are the _sacerdotes_ [Greek: kat' eksochen] and the _iudices vice Christi_. See epp. 59. 5: 66. 3 as well as c. 4: "Christus dicit ad apostolos ac per hoc ad omnes praepositos, qui apostolis vicaria ordinatione succedunt: qui audit vos me audit." Ep. 3. 3: "dominus apostolos, i.e., episcopos elegit"; ep.

75. 16.]

[Footnote 175: That is a fundamental idea and in fact the outstanding feature of the treatise "de unitate." The heretics and schismatics lack love, whereas the unity of the Church is the product of love, this being the main Christian virtue. That is the _ideal_ thought on which Cyprian builds his theory (see also epp. 45. 1: 55. 24: 69. 1 and elsewhere), and not quite wrongly, in so far as his purpose was to gather and preserve, and not scatter. The reader may also recall the early Christian notion that Christendom should be a band of brethren ruled by love. But this love ceases to have any application to the case of those who are disobedient to the authority of the bishop and to Christians of the sterner sort. The appeal which Catholicism makes to love, even at the present day, in order to justify its secularised and tyrannical Church, turns in the mouth of hierarchical politicians into hypocrisy, of which one would like to acquit a man of Cyprian's stamp.]

[Footnote 176: Ep. 43. 5: 55. 24: "episcopatus unus episcoporum multorum concordi numerositate diffusus;" de unit. 5: "episcopatus unus est, cuius a singulis in solidum pars tenetur." Strictly speaking Cyprian did not set up a theory that the bishops were directed by the Holy Spirit, but in identifying Apostles and bishops and a.s.serting the divine appointment of the latter he took for granted their special endowment with the Holy Spirit. Moreover, he himself frequently appealed to special communications he had received from the Spirit as aids in discharging his official duties.]

[Footnote 177: Cyprian did not yet regard uniformity of Church practice as a matter of moment--or rather he knew that diversities must be tolerated. In so far as the _concordia episcoporum_ was consistent with this diversity, he did not interfere with the differences, provided the _regula fidei_ was adhered to. Every bishop who adheres to the confederation has the greatest freedom even in questions of Church discipline and practice (as for instance in the baptismal ceremonial); see ep. 59. 14: "Singulis pastoribus portio gregis est adscripta, quam regit unusquisque et gubernat rationem sui actus domino redditurus;" 55.

21: "Et quidem apud antecessores nostros quidam de episcopis istic in provincia nostra dandam pacis moechis non putaverunt et in totum paenitentiae loc.u.m contra adulteria cluserunt, non tamen a co-episcoporum suorum collegio recesserunt aut catholicae ecclesiae unitatem ruperunt, ut quia apud alios adulteris pax dabatur, qui non dabat de ecclesia separaretur." According to ep. 57. 5 Catholic bishops, who insist on the strict practice of penance, but do not separate themselves from the unity of the Church, are left to the judgment of G.o.d. It is different in the case referred to in ep. 68, for Marcion had formally joined Novatian. Even in the disputed question of heretical baptism (ep. 72. 3) Cyprian declares to Stephen (See 69. 17: 73. 26; _Sententiae episc._, praefat.): "qua in re nec nos vim cuiquam facimus aut legem damus, quando habeat in ecclesiae administratione voluntatis suae arbitrium liberum unusquisque praepositus, rationem actus sui domino redditurus." It is therefore plain wherein the unity of the episcopate and the Church actually consists; we may say that it is found in the _regula_, in the fixed purpose not to give up the unity in spite of all differences, and in the principle of regulating all the affairs of the Church "ad originem dominicam et ad evangelicam adque apostolicam traditionem" (ep.

74. 10). This refers to the New Testament, which Cyprian emphatically insisted on making the standard for the Church. It must be taken as the guide, "si in aliquo in ecclesia nutaverit et vacillaverit veritas;" by it, moreover, all false customs are to be corrected. In the controversy about heretical baptism, the alteration of Church practice in Carthage and Africa, which was the point in question--for whilst in Asia heretical baptism had for a very long time been declared invalid (see ep. 75. 19) this had only been the case in Carthage for a few years--was justified by Cyprian through an appeal to _veritas_ in contrast to _consuetudo sine veritate_. See epp. 71. 2, 3: 73. 13, 23: 74. 2 sq.: 9 (the formula originates with Tertullian; see de virg. vel. 1-3). The _veritas_, however, is to be learned from the Gospel and words of the Apostles: "Lex evangelii," "praecepta dominica," and synonymous expressions are very frequent in Cyprian, more frequent than reference to the _regula_ or to the symbol. In fact there was still no Church dogmatic, there being only principles of Christian faith and life, which, however, were taken from the Holy Scriptures and the _regula_.]

[Footnote 178: Cyprian no longer makes any distinction between Churches founded by Apostles, and those which arose later (that is, between their bishops).]

[Footnote 179: The statement that the Church is "super Petrum fundata"

is very frequently made by Cyprian (we find it already in Tertullian, de monog.); see de habitu virg. 10; Epp. 59. 7: 66. 8: 71. 3: 74. 11: 73.

7. But on the strength of Matth. XVI. he went still farther; see ep. 43.

5: "deus unus est et Christus unus et una ecclesia et cathedra una super Petrum domini voce fundata;" ep. 48. 3 (ad Cornel.): "communicatio tua, id est catholicae ecclesiae unitas pariter et caritas;" de unit. 4: "superunum aedificat ecclesiam, et quamvis apostolis omnibus post resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuat, tamen ut unitatem manifestaret, unitatis eiusdem originem ab uno incipientem sua auctoritate disposuit;" ep. 70. 3: "una ecclesia a Christo domino nostro super Petrum origine unitatis et ratione fundata" ("with regard to the origin and const.i.tution of the unity" is the translation of this last pa.s.sage in the "Stimmen aus Maria Laach," 1877, part 8, p. 355; but "ratio" cannot mean that); ep. 73. 7; "Petro primum dominus, super quem aedificavit ecclesiam et unde unitatis originem inst.i.tuit et ostendit, potestatem istam dedit." The most emphatic pa.s.sages are ep. 48. 3, where the Roman Church is called "matrix et radix ecclesiae catholicae" (the expression "radix et mater" in ep. 45. I no doubt also refers to her), and ep. 59. 14: "navigare audent et ad Petri cathedram atque ad ecclesiam princ.i.p.alem, unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est, ab schismaticis et profanis litteras ferre nec cogitare eos esse Romanes, quorum fides apostolo praedicante laudata est (see epp. 30. 2, 3: 60. 2), ad quos perfidia habere non possit accessum." We can see most clearly from epp. 67. 5 and 68 what rights were in point of fact exercised by the bishop of Rome. But the same Cyprian says quite naively, even at the time when he exalted the Roman cathedra so highly (ep. 52. 2), "quoniam _pro magnitudine sua_ debeat Carthaginem Roma praecedere." In the controversy about heretical baptism Stephen like Calixtus (Tertull., de pudic. 1) designated himself, on the ground of the _successio Petri_ and by reference to Matth. XVI., in such a way that one might suppose he wished to be regarded as "episcopus episcoporum" (Sentent. episc. in Hartel I., p. 436). He expressly claimed a primacy and demanded obedience from the "ecclesiae novellae et posterae" (ep. 71. 3). Like Victor he endeavoured to enforce the Roman practice "tyrannico terrore"

and insisted that the _unitas ecclesiae_ required the observance of this Church's practice in all communities. But Cyprian opposed him in the most decided fas.h.i.+on, and maintained the principle that every bishop, as a member of the episcopal confederation based on the _regula_ and the Holy Scriptures, is responsible for his practice to G.o.d alone. This he did in a way which left no room for any special and actual authority of the Roman see alongside of the others. Besides, he expressly rejected the conclusions drawn by Stephen from the admittedly historical position of the Roman see (ep. 71. 3): "Petrus non sibi vindicavit aliquid insolenter aut adroganter adsumpsit, ut diceret se princ.i.p.atum tenere et obtemperari a novellis et posteris sibi potius oportere." Firmilian, ep.

75, went much farther still, for he indirectly declares the _successio Petri_ claimed by Stephen to be of no importance (c. 17), and flatly denies that the Roman Church has preserved the apostolic tradition in a specially faithful way. See Otto Ritschl, l.c., pp. 92 ff., 110-141. In his conflict with Stephen Cyprian unmistakably took up a position inconsistent with his former views as to the significance of the Roman see for the Church, though no doubt these were ideas he had expressed at a critical time when he stood shoulder to shoulder with the Roman bishop Cornelius.]

[Footnote 180: See specially epp. 65, 67, 68.]

[Footnote 181: Hatch l.c., p. 189 f.]

[Footnote 182: The gradual union of the provincial communities into one Church may be studied in a very interesting way in the ecclesiastical Fasti (records, martyrologies, calendars, etc.), though these studies are as yet only in an incipient stage. See De Rossi, Roma Sotter, the Bollandists in the 12th vol. for October; Stevenson, Studi in Italia (1879), pp. 439, 458; the works of Nilles; Egli, Altchristl. Studien 1887 (Theol. Lit. Ztg. 1887, no. 13): d.u.c.h.esne, Les sources du Martyrol.

Hieron. Rome 1885, but above all the latter's study: Memoire sur l'origine des dioceses episcopaux dans l'ancienne Gaule, 1890. The history of the unification of liturgies from the 4th century should also be studied.]

[Footnote 183: There were communities in the latter half of the 3rd century, which can be proved to have been outside the confederation, although in perfect harmony with it in point of belief (see the interesting case in Euseb., H. E. VII. 24. 6). Conversely, there were Churches in the confederation whose faith did not in all respects correspond with the Catholic _regula_ as already expounded. But the fact that it was not the dogmatic system, but the practical const.i.tution and principles of the Church, as based on a still elastic creed, which formed the ultimate determining factor, was undoubtedly a great gain; for a system of dogmatics developed beyond the limits of the Christian _kerygma_ can only separate. Here, however, all differences of faith had of couise to be glossed over, for the demand of Apelles: [Greek: me dein holos exetazein ton logon, all' ekaston. hos pepisteuke, diamenein sothesesthai gar tous epi ton hestauromenon elpikotas, k.t.l.], was naturally regarded as inadmissible.]

[Footnote 184: Hence we need not be surprised to find that the notion of heresy which arose in the Church was immediately coupled with an estimate of it, which for injustice and harshness could not possibly be surpa.s.sed in succeeding times. The best definition is in Tertull., de praescr. 6: "n.o.bis nihil ex nostro arbitrio indulgere licet, sed nec eligere quod aliquis de arbitrio suo induxerit. Apostolos domini habemus auctores, qui nec ipsi quicquam ex suo arbitrio quod inducerent elegerunt, sed acceptam a Christo disciplinam fideliter nationibus a.s.signaverunt."]

[Footnote 185: See Vol. I., p. 224, note 1.]

[Footnote 186: We already find this idea in Tertullian; see de bapt. 15: "Haeretici nullum habent consortium nostra discipline, quos extraneos utique testatur ipsa ademptio communicationis. Non debeo in illis cognoscere, quod mihi est praeceptum, quia non idem deus est n.o.bis et illis, nec unus Christus, id est idem, ideoque nec baptismus unus, quia non idem; quem c.u.m rite non habeant, sine dubio non habent, nec capit numerari, quod non habetur; ita nec possunt accipere quia non habent."

Cyprian pa.s.sed the same judgment on all schismatics, even on the Novatians, and like Tertullian maintained the invalidity of heretical baptism. This question agitated the Church as early as the end of the 2nd century, when Tertullian already wrote against it in Greek.]

[Footnote 187: As far as possible the Christian virtues of the heretics were described as hypocrisy and love of ostentation (see e.g., Rhodon in Euseb., H. E. V. 13. 2 and others in the second century). If this view was untenable, then all morality and heroism among heretics were simply declared to be of no value. See the anonymous writer in Eusebius, H. E.

V. 16. 21, 22; Clem, Strom. VII. 16. 95; Orig., Comm. ad Rom. I. X., c.

5; Cypr., de unit. 14, 15; cp. 73. 21 etc.]

[Footnote 188: Tertull., de praescr. 3-6.]