'-.'.'
/ ./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 <ro(/)ia or yi'wcri?,
while introducing into their system an element of the ' un-
canny.' Their teaching was a strange admixture of magical
doctrines with Alexandrian religion-philosophy. For them
Christ was an seon. They taught that any one who has once
acquired the true yvokris can sin no more. Fornication^
prostitution, the eating of sacrificial meats, — even participation
in heathen sacrifices, were in themselves indifferent. On the
other hand they taught that " the flesh " was essentially evil.
Hence they condemned marriage and denied the resurrection of
the dead : {cfr. Neufestamentliche Lehrbegriffe, ii. 45. ff.).
Lutterbeck 's curious theory is shown by Rohr to be both in-
coherent and unhistorical (Rohr : " Paulus und die Gemeinde
von Korinth auf Grund der beiden Korintherbriefe " : Biblische
Studien, Bd. iv, h. 4, s. 134). {cfr. Harnack : Mission, vol. i,
c. 3).
CHAPTER II
ECCLESIOLOGY OF ST. PAUL
Let us now open the Pauline letters. Their author
is, with one exception, the greatest personality in
the history of the primitive Church. By birth a
Jew, by education a Pharisee, he was the first and
greatest of Christian theologians. Paul of Tarsus,
was the founder of theological science. A clear
virile thinker, highly educated, and deeply religious,
his intellect acted as a powerful medium through
which the teaching of Jesus passed while the
Church was still m its mfancy. Doctrinal develop-
ment proper had its beginnings in his preaching.
Many truths proposed in embryonic form or merely
suggested by his Master, were explained, developed,
and illustrated by him. Indeed so powerfully was
later Christian thought influenced by his teaching
that some critics accuse him of having corrupted
Christianity, while others extol him as its real
founder. In Paul's gospel, we are told, there is
much of Paul and little of Jesus.
At present we are concerned only with the great
apostle's ecclesiology. The soundness or legitimacy
of his ' Gospel ' will come up for discussion at the
close of our next chapter when we shall have
examined the personal teaching of his Master.
37 D
38 ECCLESIOLOGY OF ST. PAUL
The Epistle " to the Ephesians "
We begin with the so-called Epistle to the
Ephesians. The title of the letter is somewhat
misleading. Evidence of the weightiest character,
internal and external, goes to show that the epistle
was not originally addressed to the Church at
Ephesus. It was probably an encyclical or
" circular " intended not for any particular com-
munity, but for the gentile churches of Asia, or
perhaps for gentile churches generally. The
present title was inserted by a later hand. The
date of composition is 61 A.D.^
The argument of the letter may be summed up
in a few words : To Paul, and to the other apostles
and prophets, God has been pleased to reveal, for the
first time in history, the true character of the Church
of Christ. This revelation the inspired writer sets
forth ex professo.^ Having done so he employs it
as an argumentative basis for a few general
exhortations.^
It will be seen at once that the encyclical is, for
us, of prime importance. It is a formal exposition
of the matter in hand by a divinely enlightened
teacher. It is important, too, by reason of its
undoubted influence on many later documents, in-
1 Approximately. Paul was then a prisoner at Rome. The
encyclical was dictated to a scribe by its intrepid author while
chained to a Roman soldier.
- cc. i-iii. ^ cc. iv-vi.
ECCLESIOLOGY OF ST. PAUL 39
eluding probably the letters of St. Peter and the
fourth gospel.
The opening chapter represents Christ as having
been constituted by the Father, Lord of Creation
and Head of the Universal Church : " He hath
subjected all things under His feet, and hath made
Him head over all the Church which is His
body and the fulness of Him Who is filled all in
all." ^ The Greek here translates : "He put
all things in subjection under His feet, and gave
Him as supreme head {KecfiaXv^ v-n-ep iravra) to the
Church which is His body, the fulness (to irXripwf/.a)
of Him Who is being completely - filled in all
ways." ^ The word TrX-npcofia seems to mean, that
which fills something, either totally or partially by
way of complement. A carriage with ten seats is
filled by ten passengers or, when nine have been
already seated, by one. Its irX^pwiua, — what fills
it — is the tenth passenger, or all ten.
In Christ are found the divine nature and
attributes, — the TrXripK/na of the Godhead,* and yet
He is not thereby filled in all respects {to, iravTa).
His own proper irXrjpwij.a — what completely fills
Him — is the Church, His hody.^ Without the
1 Eph. i. 22, 23.
^ Gr. Ta TravTtt (" as to all things ") ace. of respect.
^ Gr. TOV TO. TTCtVTa CV TTaCTLV TrXrjpOVfXiVOV.
4 Col. i. 19 ; ii. 9.
^ As God Christ was of course entitatively full from the
beginning : His increase with the growth of His Mystical body
is a mere increase as to term.
40 ECCLESIOLOGY OF ST. PAUL
Church, He would be, so to speak, a head without its
proper body. The Church completes Christ. It is
the body of which He is the head. He grows,
advances towards completion, as the Church His
body increases in grace and membership. Note
the present participle — rov TrX-npovjuivov — ^" who is
being filled.'' Christ will have completed His
development, will have received His TrX'^pw/na^ only
when the Church, His body, has grown to fulness.
True, the ideal Church will never be fully realized,
nevertheless, it is only its complete realization
which can secure to Christ His full -rrXrjpwfxa. The
nature of the Church and the manner of its realiza-
tion have yet to be explained.*
Christians antecedently to their call to the faith
were dead through sin. Finding us in this state
God in His mercy infused life into us, by making
us severally living members of Christ : " And when
you were dead in your offences and sins, wherein
in time past you walked according to the prince of
the power of this air, of the spirit that now worketh
in the children of unbelief, amongst whom we also
all conversed m time past in the desires of our
flesh . - . God . . . for His exceeding charity,
. . . even when we were dead in sin, hath quickened
us together in Christ''' - Christianity makes us
living members of Christ's living body.
The new religion embraces all men. The Mall
1 cfr. Hitchcock : Epk, pp. 127 sqq
2 Eph. ii. 1-5.
ECCLESIOLOGY OF ST. PAUL 41
dividing Israel from the nations has been razed.
Jew and gentile become one new ^ man in union
with Christ Who has reconciled both to God in one
hody.^ " Those of the uncirciimcision " are re-
minded, that formerly they were excluded from
the commonwealth of Israel.^ In Christ all men,
irrespective of nationality, become citizens of one
and the same commonwealth (fru/xTroAtVai).* Full
of his subject, the imaginative Paul here employs
a new metaphor. Already he has spoken of
Christians as being members of one body. Now
they are citizens of the same iroXiTeia. In the
concluding verses of the chapter he compares them
to members of one household,^ and to stones built
together into one edifice.*^
The same train of thought runs through the
succeeding chapter. To Paul a mystery has been
unfolded.'' The gentiles are to share in the New
Dispensation. The divine purpose in their regard
was not made clear to the sons of men in other
generations ; but now, all has become manifest.
To the Apostle of the gentiles it has been divinely
revealed that the uncircumcised are to be admitted
to citizenship in the new commonwealth. In Christ
Jesus, they will share the promise. They will fully
participate in the new Dispensation. " By revela-
1 KaLvos avdpioTTo? (iv. 24), cfr. Col. iii. 10 sqq.; 2 Cor. v. 17
(Kttivr) KTtcrts).
2 Eph. ii. 15, 16.
^ dTr7}XXoTpLU)[XivoL ttJs TToXiTela^ Tov'la-pa-qX (Eph. ii. 12).
* ib. V. 19. 5 ib. 6 ib. v. 20. ' lb. iii. 3 sqq.
42 ECCLESIOLOGY OF ST. PAUL
tion the mystery has been made known to me
. . . which in other generations was not known
to the sons of men . . . that the gentiles should
be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and copart-
ners of His promise in Christ Jesus." ^ The new
TToXiTeia will embrace, not Jews alone, nor gentiles
alone, but all men. Together they will constitute
one edifice, one household of God, one body. The
Church is one and catholic.
If Christians are members of the body of Christ,
they should live in a manner befitting their
dignity. They should walk " worthy of their
calling." 2 The faithful should be humble, mild,
patient, bearing M ith one another in love ; " careful
to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of
peace." ^
The unity of the Church is sevenfold. Christians
form together one body, quickened by one and the
same Holy Spirit. They have a common hope,
salvation through Christ Jesus, their common Lord
and Master. They believe the same truths and
have the same rite of initiation. Finalty, all
worship the same God : " One body and one
spirit : as you are called in one hope of your
calling ; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one
God and Father of all, over all, through all, in
aU." '
The unity of the Church, though manifold, is a
1 Eph. iii. 3-6. ^ ^f, yy 2, 3.
^ ib. iv. 1. ^ ib. iv. 4-6.
ECCLESIOLOGY OF ST. PAUL 43
unity amid diversity. The living body is informed
by a vital principle, in virtue of which its members,
however varying as to endowments and capabilities,
cooperate in harmony for the good of the whole.
So with the Church. She too is an organism — a
living body of which every Christian is a member.
Among members of Christ's mystical body, as of
all bodies, there exists a great diversity of endow-
ments. Not all are apostles, nor all prophets, nor
all evangelists ; as bodily members are not all
hands, nor all feet, nor all eyes. Each has its
proper function, assigned it for one purpose only,
the development and well-being of its fellow-
members and of the whole. To recur to a metaphor
employed in a preceding chapter, the individual
Christian, whatever his office or standing in the
Church, should act so as to perfect his fellow-
Christians and thus complete Christ by developing
and perfecting His body : " And He gave some
to be apostles and some prophets, and other some
evangelists, and other some pastors and teachers ^
for the perfecting of the saints . . . unto the
building of the body of Christ . . . unto the
(full) measure of the stature of the fulness
{'7r\t]p(oiuLaTog) of Christ." ^ The Church Universal
is a visible organic unit. The ministry in question
is external.
To become Christians — ^to be saved — ^we must
^ Gr. . . Tovs Se TTOifikvas kol StSaa-KaXo^rs — one class.
2 Eph. iv. 11-13.
44 ECCLESIOLOGY OF ST. PAUL
accept certain truths revealed by Jesus. The
Church is a kingdom of truth. The faithful should,
therefore, aim at perfecting each other primarily
in respect to faith. They should labour to safeguard
the purity and integritj^ of the Christian deposit,
and thus secure stability and uniformity of belief
in the Church Catholic. Members, each in his
proper capacity, should cooperate to secure this
great end : ' ' until ^ve all attain unto the unity of
the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of
God . . . that 'we may be no longer children
tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind
of doctrine." ^ A general well-ordered cooperation
of this kind, founded in charity, will result in a
grand all-round development of the one living
body of which all are members ; " that, doing the
truth, in charity \Ye may in all things grow up in
Him Who is the Head, Christ ; from Whom the
whole body bemg compacted and fitly joined
together by what every joint supplieth according
to the operation in the measure of every part
maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of
itself in charity." -
We are here reminded, incidentally, that the
Church can grow only in proportion as Christ's
own life permeates her in richer, fuller measure.
Members of His body derive from Him alone the
life of grace, by which they groA\' in perfection unto
Him. If member perfects member, it is only by
1 Eph. 13, 14. 2 i^ 15^ 16
ECCLESIOLOGY OF ST. PAUL 45
enabling it to drink more deeply of the fountain-
head of all grace and perfection — our crucified
Redeemer.^
The Other Pauline Letters
The doctrine just summarized is fundamental in
the theology of St. Paul. His letters are full of it.
In his first (extant) epistle to the Corinthians, dis-
cussing the various " gifts " and ecclesiastical
offices, he explams that, despite diversity of
character and effect, all x^P^^f^^"^^ proceed from
the same Holy Spirit and are bestowed for one and
the same general purpose, to promote the well-
being of the Church. Christians, whatever their
antecedents, whatever their nationality or social
standing, become by baptism severally members of
one and the same body of Christ : "Ye are together
the body of Christ and each of you a separate
1 Herein is found the key to our whole Sacramental system.
The Christian Sacraments are so many channels down which
streams of vivifying grace flow from the Head into the
members. To enable the faithful to avail of these channels,
to quicken dead members, to unite living members more
intimately with the Head ; — in a word to renew and enrich in
the souls of all the inward life of grace, " that they may be
filled with the fruit of justice through Jesus Christ " (Philipp.
i. 11), such is the province of the ecclesiastical ministry. St.
Paul elsewhere likens the minister to a husbandman who tends
a vineyard. He labours much to increase the vineshoots and
to enrich their inner life. All increase, however, comes from
God alone through Christ {cfr. 1 Cor. ix. 7 ; iii. 5-7).
46 ECCLESIOLOGY OF ST. PAUL
member. 1 . . . For in one Spirit were we all
baptized into one body whether Jew or gentile
whether bond or free." ^
Members are endowed with a variety of gifts.
Some are apostles, and some prophets, and some
evangelists, etc., but, as members of one body, each
is expected to discharge his proper function, to
promote the well-being of his fellow-members and
of the whole. ^ Hence, x«P'''^At«'^« whose exercise
edifies the Church, are to be preferred to
those which primarily benefit their possessors.^
Christians should be ' zealous ' for the former ;
and those who are endowed with them should
strive so to exercise them as "to build up the
Church." ^ Paul himself sets an example. In his
* Gr. v/ieis 8e ecTTt crw/xa Xpianov . . . The translation .
" Ye are the body of Christ " seems at tirst sight to be scarcely
accurate seeing that the original is o-w/xa XpLo-rov not to <rw/xa Xp.
Most exegetical critics, however, are agreed that it is not
possible to arrive at the exact meaning (a or the) by a mere
grammatical examination of the passage. It is best, perhaps,
to read : ' Ye are Christ's body," leaving the precise thought
(as in the original) more or less indeterminate {cfr. iii. 16 ;
vao'S 6€0v).
Kai fieXy ck jxeXovs : Such is the reading in our text ; " but
the evidence is decisively in favour of Kai fxeXyj Ik ixepo-ixs =
' et membra ex parte.' This means either that they were
members each in his assigned part ; or, more probably that,
taken severally, individually (e/c fiepovs) they were members "
(MacRory : Comyn. in Cor. p. 192 ; cfr., Lindsay, op. cit.,
p. 14).
^ ib. V. 13. 4 if) xiv. 2 sqq.
^ ib. vv. 21 sqg 5 1 Cor. xiv. 26.
ECCLESIOLOGY OF ST. PAUL 47
ministry he seeks not his own good, but the good
of all.i
Writing to the Romans his doctrine is similar.
God has mercifully poured out the riches of His
glory upon .Christians, calling them, not from the
Jews only, but from the gentiles as well.^ Under
the new dispensation there is no distinction of race.
All are equally God's people — sons of the living
God.^ At baptism we die to sin, emerging from the
waters of regeneration into a new life of grace in
Christ Jesus.* The Church is an organic unit.
Christians are severally members of Christ's body,
each having his proper endowment or function :
" For as in one body we have many members, but
all have not the same office, so we, being many are
one body in Christ and fellow-members of one
another." ^ Christians should, therefore, edify
each other. ^
And to the Colossians : A great mystery, long-
hidden, has been revealed.' Gentiles are co-heirs
of the inheritance of the saints. They have been
translated by the Father into the kingdom of His
Divine Son, through Whose death sinners have
been saved. ^ By baptism, those dead in sin have
been " quickened together with Christ." ® The
1 Cor. X. 33. ^ ib. xii. 4-6.
2 Rom. ix. 23, 24. « ib. xv. 12.
3 ib. 25, 26. 7 Col. i. 26.
4 ib. vi. 2-5. 8 ib. v. 12.
^ ib. ii. 12 sqq.
48 ECCLESIOLOGY OF ST. PAUL
Church is His mystical body of which all are
members.^ Christ is the Head. In Him dwells,
bodily, the fulness of the God-head, and in Him we
are made fulL^ Christians should, therefore, hold
fast to the Head : " from Which the whole body
by joints and bands being supplied with nourish-
ment and compacted, increaseth with ^ the increase
of God." 4
To sum up : The Church is cosmopolitan. Her
doors are open to all men. " In Christ Jesus
neither circumcision availeth anything nor un-
circumcision but faith that worketh by charity." ^
In the new Dispensation : " there is neither gentile
nor Jew, circumcision or unch^cumcision, Barbarian
nor Scythian, bond nor free ; but Christ is aU and
in all." «
The Church is also one. Christians, diversity of
situation notwithstanding, are members of one
body.' They form together a rounded whole, a
unit. The unity of the Church is organic and
visible. It is the unity of an external association.
1 Col. i. 24.
2 ib. ii. 9-10.
R. V. The Greek is av^n ttjv av^rjartv tov Otov :
Vulg. : crescit (" groweth unto ").
" ih. ii. 19.
5 Gal. V. 6.
« Col. ill. 11.
' Corpus — the technical legal term to designate an
association {cfr. Bat. (yp. cit., p. 125).
ECCLESIOLOGY OF ST. PAUL 49
Protestantism
The " invisible Church " theory is not Pauline.
The body of which the great apostle speaks so
much is an external society. We become members
by submitting to an external rite of initiation :
"For, in one Spirit were we all baptized into one
body whether Jews or gentiles whether bond or
free." ^ Hence the body can be divided by
schism. 2
Christianity is a dispersion of societies ; but, for
St. Paul, there is also a society of societies.^ The
Church Universal has a visible foundation. It is
" built upon the foundation of the apostles and
prophets " * — not on the foundation laid by these,
but rather on the foundation consisting of them.^
The apostles together form the foundation of an
edifice into which are built all the followers of
Jesus. Christians, then, constitute a visible, con-
solidated unit. An edifice having a visible founda-
tion is itself visible as such.
Then, there is the visible ministry. Christ con-
stituted some members of His body " apostles, and
some evangelists, and other some pastors and
1 1 Cor. xii. 13.
2 ib. V. 25.
3 cfr. 1 Tim. iii. 15 ; 1 Cor. xi. 16 ; xii. 28 ; Eph. v. 23, 24.
* Eph. ii. 19 sqq.
5 cfr. Hitchcock, op. cif., p. 207.
60 ECCLESIOLOGY OF ST. PAUL
teachers," to minister visibly in His Church. ^ This
ministry is doctrinal and authoritative. Its exer-
cise will result in unity and integrity of belief
among the faithful : " Until we all attain unto the
unity of the faith and the full knowledge of the
Son of God." ^ We may add that the " pastors
and teachers " here referred to are the elders, — the
Shepherds of Christ's fiock,^ some of whom we
have found legislating for the entire Church in the
" Council " of Jerusalem.
The apostles shepherd the faithful.'* They are
the authoritative " custodians of the mysteries of
God." ^ Their ministry has been assigned them
by God Himself. They are His ambassadors.
" He hath given to us the ministry of reconcilia-
tion ; for God indeed was in Christ reconciling the
world to Himself, not imputing to them their sins,
and He hath placed in us the word of reconciliation.
For Christ, therefore, we are ambassadors, God as
it were exhorting by us." ^ The apostles are
liusbandmen. They tend the soil divinely entrusted
to them.' The faithful are God's tilled land
[yedipyLov)} They are His house, the apostles
being the architects.^
1 Eph. iv. 11 sqq. * j Cor.ix.7. c/r. Rom. xii. 7,8.
- ih. * ib. iv. 1.
^ 1 Pet. V. 2 ; Ac. xx. 28. ^ 2 Cor. v. 18 sqq.
' 1 Cor. iii. 5, 6.
^ ih. V. 9. cfr. MacR. : Comm. in Cor., p. 37.
9 Gal. vi. 16.
ECCLESIOLOGY OF ST. PAUL 51
Christians, in fine, constitute a new race (yeVo?),
a new chosen people, a new Israel of God.^ The
new Israel is an external association, a visible unit.
Paul is ever mmdful of the time when he persecuted
the Church of Godr
The ecclesiology of St. Paul should be studied in
the light of his own life. He was himself professedly
an apostle, a sharer in the ministry."^ His mode of
procedure should therefore square with his teaching.
Are they found to correspond ? Is there anything
more certain than that Paul consistently acted, as
if he regarded the Church as being an organic
unit ? Wherever he preached he established local
associations, which were visible societies or nothing.
They despatched and received emissaries, letters
and donations, held meetings, expelled objection-
able members, and were ruled by a visible local
hierarchy. Paul also recognised a Church of
churches,* a unit of units. While unwilling, as a
rule, to interfere with churches of another's
founding, he makes it clear that he regarded
himself as an authoritative pastor of Christian
communities, wherever situated, or by whomsoever
established. Of his extant letters two are ad-
dressed to non-Pauline foundations.^ Lastly, it
was Paul who distributed in all the churches copies
of the decree of the Council of Jerusalem which, by
1 1 Cor. XV. 9 ; Gal. i. 13. ^ Eph. i. 1 ; iii. 7.
2 cp. Ac. viii. 3; xxii. 4. ^1 Cor. xi. 16 ; 1 Tim. iii. 15.
'•> 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 "
{<i>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
<Txi(rfiaTa. Prat considers that they were not
schisms properly speaking, nor even sects. All
professed the same faith, frequented the same
assemblies and broke the same bread. They
formed parties, he thinks, somewhat as coteries
spring up to-day around orators or lecturers of note.
He admits, however, that the divisions at Corinth
were schismatical in tendency ( . . . des coteries
se formaient qui menagaient de degenerer en
schismes) ; and that some of the factionists were
inclined to censure Paul's acts, and to emancipate
themselves from his rule ( . . . enclins a censurer
ses actes et a s'emanciper de sa regie). ^
Conybeare and Howson, on the other hand, con-
tend that some of the divisions were of a much
more serious character. The Cephasites, they hold,
were the Judaisers who were openly antagonistic
to the person and to the doctrines of St. Paul,
" whose apostleship they denied, whose motives
they calumniated, and whose authority they per-
suaded the Corinthians to repudiate. ... In every
church established by St. Paul these constituted
a schismatic party opposed to his teachiug and
hostile to his person. . . . The " Christines "
were extreme Judaisers." -
Dr. MacRory argues strongly for three parties
only, but favours the view that the Cephasites
were schismatical. " Some of the Corinthians,"
1 op. cit., vol. i. p. 125.
2 Con. and H., pp. 378, 349, 350.
60 ECCLESIOLOGY OF ST. PAUL
he writes, " gloried foolishly in Paul as their
leader ; others despising, perhaps, Paul's preaching,
admired the eloquence of ApoUos, while others,
again, preferred Peter to both and refused to recog-
nise Paul's authority. These were probably
Judaisers. . . ." ^
Rohr holds for four parties. The Apollonites*
he thinks, were a mere coterie who admired ApoUos
as against Paul ; without, however, rejecting the
authority of the latter. The Cephasites were
Judaisers who represented Paul as a pseudo-
apostle, many of whose doctrines were directly
opposed to those of the original apostles. " Those
of Paul " constituted a loyalist anti-Judaistic
party, whose watchword would have been :
" Emancipation from the Law." Finally, the
" Christines " were an anti-party section who
themselves eventually degenerated into a party.
The divisions, he thinks, were not strictly schis-
matical. Separate services were not held, and the
community, as a whole, still acknowledged the
authority of the founder. ^
Hamack upholds the strictly schismatical
character of the Cephasites. He conjectures that
originally there were Jewish Christian communities
in the Diaspora (not simply a Jewish set inside
Gentile Christian communities), and that they were
^ Comm. in Cor., p. 9.
2 Rohr : " Paulus und die Gemeinde von Korinth " : —
Bihlische Studien. Bd. iv, h. 4, s. 149 ff.
ECCLESIOLOGY OF ST. PAUL 61
not confined to the provinces bordering on
Palestine. He also holds that one Jewish Christian
party persisted in fighting the Gentile Church as a
false church.^
But the precise nature of the a-xio-fiara at
Corinth is for us a secondary consideration. We
are primarily concerned only with Paul's letter of
reproof. In it the apostle discusses the morality
of schism. Before examining the document it may
be well to call attention to the author's general
teaching on the character of the ecclesiastical
magisterium.
For St. Paul the Church is primarily a kingdom
of truth. We are saved by accepting certain
doctrines revealed by Christ and entrusted to the
custody of the apostles.^ The " word " is therefore
a " deposit,^^ ^ and alone constitutes the sound
teaching,* the doctrine of God our Saviour.^ This
teaching is the same for all : the Gospel is one.
The principle of authority is everywhere upheld
in the Pauline letters. To argue to the reasonable-
ness or otherwise of doctrines proposed by the
apostles is contrary to the spirit of Christianity.
" If any man ... be contentious," he writes,
*' we have no such custom, nor the Church of God." ^
The truths of the new religion are accepted on
authority. The deposit is effectively guarded, not
1 Mission, vol. i, pp. 61-63. * ib. iv. 3.
2 1 Cor. XV. 5 Tit. ii. 10.
3 1 Tim. vi. 20. e i Qor. xi. 16.
62 ECCLE8I0L0GY OF ST. PAUL
by argument or reasoning, but by the exercise of
an external magisterium. The faith is statu-
tory. Prophecy itself is genuine only when it
conforms to the received teaching.^
The magisterium will not lapse -w ith the death
of the apostles. The deposit will be entrusi:ed by
them to the custody of a line of successors who
alone will constitute its authoritative guardians
and exponents. 2 Subjection to ecclesiastical
authority is the Christian's sole safeguard in matters
of faith and of discipline. Schism is ruinous. To
break with the Church is to break with the " pillar
and the ground of truth." ^
The Church speaks with an authoritativeness
that is absolute. From her teaching there is no
appeal. " Though we or an angel from heaven
preach unto you any other gospel than that
which we have preached unto you let him be
anathema." * Definitive teaching is absolutely
irreformable.
The act by which we accept an article of faith
is therefore an act of obedience.^ The Christian
who lapses into heresy is disobedient.^ The Church
is instructed to deal with heretics in accordance
1 Cor. xiv. 37.
2 cfr. 2 Tim. ii. 2 ; iii. 14 ; Tit. iii. 9-11.
3 1 Tim. iii. 15.
4 Gal. i. 8.
5 Rom. vi. 17 ; 2 Cor. x. 6, 7.
« cfr. Tit. i. 10.
ECCLESIOLOGY OF ST. PAUL 63
with the principle of authority already explained.
She is not to reason with them. They have dis-
obeyed her. If they refuse to submit after two
warnings they are to be excommunicated.^
But Paul's teaching on the morality of schism is
best summed up in the indignant question which
he hurls at the Corinthian factionists : "Is Christ
divided " ? ^ For him divisions among the faithful
are absolutely sinful. The Church, local and
universal, is an external society. It is an organic
unit. As such it is the body of Christ. To divide
the Church is to divide Christ.
Paul takes pains to make the evil-doers feel the
force of the argument. He begins by stating that
Christians " have been baptized into one body,
whether Jews or gentiles, whether bond or free." ^
He then proceeds to discuss the living body and the
meaning of its organic unity. " The body," he
argues, " is not one member but many. . . . God
hath set the members in the body . . . many
members indeed, yet one body. And the eye
cannot say to the hand : I need not thy help ;
nor again, the head to the feet : I have no need of
you. But God hath tempered the body together
. . . that there might be no schism in the body,
but that members should be mutually careful for
one another." * " Now," he adds, " you are the
1 Tit. iii. 10. 3 ib. xii. 13.
2 1 Cor. i. 13. * 1 Cot. xii. 14-26.
64 ECCLESIOLOGY OF ST. PAUL
body of Christ and severally members thereof." ^
Paul could not have expressed himself in clearer
terms. His argument leaves schismatics no loop-
hole of escape. They are never excused. In
dividing the Church they divide the body of
Christ. 2
1 Cor. xii. 27 (R. V.).
2 cjr. Gal. V. 20, 21 ; where Paul la.ys it down that those
who cause dissensions and sects {Sixoa-Taa-cai, alpea-eis) shall
not obtain the kingdom of God.
EXCURSUS
Ecclesiology of St. Peter.- — Two encyclical letters
of St. Peter have come down to us. Both were
probably written from Rome; one about 64 A.D.,^
the other a short time before his martyrdom.
The ecclesiology of these epistles is quite Pauline,
in expression no less than in thought. Christianity
is a visible unit, a confraternity. ^ The faithful are
co-heirs to the same inheritance,^ regenerated, born
into a new life in Christ,* Who is the sole source of
Sanctification for all.^ They are living stones built
together into the same edifice, Christ being the
corner-stone.^ They form together a single flock,
shepherded by Him.' They are an elect race
(ye^o?), a kingly priesthood, a holy nation (eOvo^),
a purchased people (Aao?).^ They constitute the
new Israel (Xao? Oeov).
In the Church we find a variety of charisms.
Each member is expected to exercise his proper
" gift " for the edification and spiritual advance-
ment of the brethren : "As every man hath
received grace, ministering the same to one
another as good stewards of the manifold grace of
^ cfr. Bat., op. cit., p. 111. ^ ib. ii. 24.
2 1 Pet. i. 22. « ib. vv. 3-J
3 ib. V. 4 ; iii. 22. ' ib. v. 25.
* ib. ii. 2. 8 i6. V. 9.
66
66 ECCLESIOLOGY OF ST. PETER
God." ^ Christians are expected " to grow in
grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ." -
We are saved through faith. ^ The Gospel is one
and unchanging.* Even prophetic or charis-
matical utterances must conform to the received
teaching : "If any man speak let him speak the
words of God" {Xoyia Oeov).^ Unity and purity
of doctrine are secured through subjection to
authority.^
Schism and heresy go hand in hand, and are
utterly reprehensible. Christians are warned to
guard their faith against " lying teachers who bring
in sects of perdition {alpea-ei? aTrwXeia?) and deny the
Lord Who bought them." '^ A dreadful retribution
awaits such evil-doers : " The Lord knoweth how . . .
to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment, to
be tormented ; and especially them who walk after
the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise
government. Audacious and self-willed they fear
not to bring in sects blaspheming." ^
1 1 Pet. iv. 10. * 1 Pet. i. 25.
2 2 Pet. iii. 18. ^ ^^ jy n
3 ib. i. 3. ^ ih. v.
' 2 Pet. ii. 1. St. Peter seems to have here in mind those
primitive perverters of the New Message who, proclaiming that
the Law no longer existed for the Christian, found in Anti-
nomianism a doctrinal justification of loose living. They were
men " who lived riotously, through whom the way of truth
was evil spoken of " {ib. v. 2).
8 ib. V. 10.
CHAPTER III
THE PERSONAL TEACHING OF JESUS
The Christ in Prophecy
A DISCUSSION of the character and the oflSce of
the Messias foretold by the Holy Spirit forms the
best introduction to the ecclesiology of Jesus.
The Galilean Prophet proclaimed Himself the
Christ or nothing. ^ When the Samaritan woman
1 Every name which our Lord applies to Himself or accepts
has attached to it a Messianic significance :
(a) Jesus (Gr. 'It/o-oGs, Hebr. yJlty*; : ' Yahve is salvation ').
This was a common male name among the Jews, but
was divinely bestowed upon the Son of Mary because
He was to " save His people from their sins "
(Mt. i. 21).
(6) Christ (Gr. xP'^-to's : ' anointed '). — This name is an
exact rendering of the Hebrew rT'S^JD Messiah.
~ • T
Jesus accepted the title 6 x/''o"'"os on at least two
occasions (Mt. xvi. 16, 17 ; Mk. xiv. 61, 62).
(c) Son of Man. — This is our Lord's favourite title. The
expression was originally nothing more than a char-
acteristic Hebraism for ' man ' (c/r. Job xxv. 6).
" But the use to which David put it in designating
one seated at the right hand of the Most High
(Ps. Ixxix. 16-18), and the meaning which Daniel
gave it as denoting Him to whom the Empire of the
world had been promised for ever (Dan. vii. 13-17,
10-16), shaped the expression into a more definite
67
68 THE PERSONAL TEACHING OF JESUS
observed that the Messias, at His coming, would
teach them all things, Jesus said to her: " I am
He who am speaking with thee." ^ He was then on
His way from Judea to Galilee at the begianing of
His public life: "And when He was come to
Nazareth . . . He entered the synagogue on the
Sabbath day " and publicly proclaimed Himself the
Christ foretold by Isaias. ^ The claim was made by
Him again and again during the whole course of
His public ministry : "I ought to mention," writes
Harnack, " that some scholars of note — and among
them Wellhausen — ^have expressed a doubt whether
signification until it became a proper name and
resolved itself into a characteristic title of the
Messias " (Brassac : The Gospels, ii. 3. 3 ; cjr. Just. M.
Dial. c). The Synoptists represent our Lord as
applying the title to Himself seventy-nine times.
{d) Son of God. — This title to which Jesus lays claim so
frequently, especially in the fourth gospel, was recog-
nized by the Jews in the time of our Lord as strictly
Messianic. For Harnack the name " Son of God "
implies nothing more than a special knowledge of
God as the Father. The expression " Son of Man,"
on the other hand, seems to him intelligible only in
a Messianic sense {cfr. What is Christianity ? pp.
127 sqg.).
(e) King of the Jews, King of Israel, Son of David. — The
use of these titles was systematically avoided by
Jesus Himself, Who saw that they were hable to be
misunderstood by the carnal-minded Jews. When
others bestowed them upon Him, however. He
acquiesced {cfr. Mt. xxi. 9 ; Mk. xi. 10 ; xv. 2 ;
Lk. xix. 38 ; xxiii. 3 ; Jo. i. 49 ; xii. 13).
1 Jo. iv. 25, 26. 2 Lk. iv. 16-24.
THE PERSONAL TEACHING OF JESUS 69
Jesus described Himself as the Messias. In that
doubt I cannot concur ; nay, I think that it is only
by wrenching what the evangelists tell us oflE its
hinges that the opinion can be maintained." ^
Three- fold Office of the Christ, — The Messias of the
Old Testament is prophet, priest, and Jcing, As
prophet the Spirit of the Lord is upon him,^ the
Spirit of wisdom, of knowledge, and of godliness.^
Anointed of God, He is sent to preach to the meek,
to heal the contrite of heart, to announce a release
of captives and deliverance to them that are in
prison, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord
and the day of vengeance of our God : to comfort all
that mourn.* A Jewish prophet,^ He will be a light
to the gentiles.® He will be a leader and a master to
them.' Woe to those who will not hear Him and
follow His instructions. In His mouth are God's
own words.*
As priest, the Messias is an intermediary, a go-
between. Greater than Moses, He is the mediator
of a new and everlasting covenant.^ The Messias
will reconcile fallen humanity with the Creator.
He will be a Saviour, not of the Jews alone, but of
1 What is Christianity ? p. 133.
2 Is. xli. 1 ; xlii. 1.
3 ib. xi. 2.
* ib. Ixi. 1, 2. cfr. Lk. iv. 18, 19.
* Deut. xviii. 18.
* Is. xlii. 6 ; xlix. 6 ; cfr. Lk. i. 79 ; ii. 32.
' Deut. xviii. 19 ; cfr. Ac. iii. 22, 23 ; vii. 37 ; Mk. xvi. 16.
* ib. Iv. 4.
* Is. xlii. 6 ; Iv. 3 ; Ixi. 8.
P
70 THE PERSONAL TEACHING OF JESUS
all men : " And the Lord said : ' it is a small thing
that Thou shouldst be My servant, to raise up the
tribes of Jacob, and to convert the dregs of Israel.
Behold I have given Thee to be the light of the
gentiles that Thou mayest be m;y salvation even to
the farthest part of the earth.' " ^
The Messias will save the world by spending
Himself for it.^ He will even be immolated, to
atone for sin.^ The numerous sacrifices and sin-
offerings of the Old Law are no longer acceptable
to the Lord. He demands a nobler victim.
" Then, said I, behold I come." * The offering
is spontaneous and is accepted. Man's guilt is thus
vicariously atoned for. " He was wounded for our
iniquities ; He was bruised for our sins. The
chastisement of our peace was upon Him and by
His bruises we are healed. Like sheep we had
gone astray, but the Lord hath laid on Him the
iniquities of all." He was offered because it was
His own will.^ The manner of His death is cruel ^
and shameful,' but by it we have been reconciled
to God. To profit by the redemption, however, it
is necessary to do penance.®
The Christ offers Himself in sacrifice. He is at
once priest and victim. His priesthood is ever-
lasting.* We are, therefore, prepared to find
1 Is. xlix. 6. 5 Is. liii. 4 sqq.
2 ih. V. 4. « Ps. xxi. 14-17.
^ ih. liv. 4 sqq. ' Wis. ii. 10.
< Ps. xxxix. 7. 8 Is. lix. 20.
9 Ps. civ. 4.
THE PERSONAL TEACHING OF JESUS 71
reference made to a perpetual sacrifice, — to a clean
oblation which will be ojBfered in every land and for
all time.^
The Messias is also king. He is Prince of the
new Jerusalem, a mighty conqueror, who goes
forth from Sion and subdues His enemies. ^ The
Lord Himself will strengthen and prosper Him,
giving empire to His king and exalting the horn of
His anointed one.^
The Kingdom in Pwphecy. — The Messianic king-
dom is a restored theocracy. A glorious future
awaits the sons of Israel. Sion is now barren,
despised, destitute ; but the Lord will one day raise
her up and make her the mother of countless
children.*
The new theocracy is catholic ; it is a world-
kingdom. The Saviour of Sion shall rule from sea
to sea.^ " The ends of the earth shall be converted
to the Lord, and the gentiles shall adore in His
sight : For the kingdom is the Lord's, and He shall
have dominion over the nations." ^ The Jews as a
body are excluded from the kingdom because of
their sins : God has divorced the synagogue for her
iniquities and wedded a new theocracy wherein a
gentile element preponderates.'
The Messias will reign in a kingdom of peace and
1 Mai. i. 11. 4 Is. xlix. 14, 21.
2 Ps. cix. 5 Zach. ix. 9, 10.
3 ih. cjr. 1 Kings ii. 10. « Ps. xxi. 28, 29.
' Is. 1. 1 sqq.
72 THE PERSONAL TEACHING OF JESUS
security. 1 The liberator of Sion is pre-eminently a
prince of peace. He is kind and meek. ^ If He does
battle it is in the interests of justice and truth. ^
His kingdom is, therefore, spiritual. It is a kingdom
of godliness.*
Primarilj^, however, it is a kingdom of religious
truth. The new Jerusalem will be a shiaing light
to a world of darkness and infidelity. The
effulgence of her glory will attract all nations to
her.^ The gentiles shall walk in her light, « and the
earth shaU be fiUed with the knowledge of the Lord.**
The citizens of the Messianic kingdom are those,
whether Jew or gentile, who come to the knowledge
of God and who by repentance for sin committed
avail of the redemption.^
The popular concept of the kingdom was of a
much lower order. The Messias of Jewish imagin-
ing was a great prophet-king, another David, who
would restore the fallen fortunes of the house of
Jacob, and make Sion the centre of the earth. In
the new kingdom God's chosen people would eat
the riches of the gentiles® and be glutted with the
homage of the nations.^® The restored theocracy
would be a glorious terrestrial kingdom, the Christ
1 Is. xi. 6 sqq. ^ Is. Ix. 17-18.
2 ih. xlii. 1-3, 14. 5 46. ix. 1 sqq.
3 Ps. xliv. 5. 6 t6, V, 3,
7 ih. xi. 9.
8 Is. lix. 20 ; xi. 9 ; Ps. xxi. 28, 29 ; Deut. xviii. 19.
9 ib. Ixi. 6. 10 ib. xlix. 22 ; Ixi. 6.
THE PERSONAL TEACHING OF JESUS 73
being an earthly prince or judge, nothing more.
Such is the character of the Messianic hope which
finds expression in the apocalyptic and Rabbinical
literature of the period which immediately preceded
the birth of Jesus. ^
Realization of the Messianic Prophecies in
Jesus
Jesus a Prophet. — In Jesus and in His Church we
come upon a marvellous fulfilment of Messianic
prophecy. Jesus is primarily a prophet. His is a
preaching mission. ^ He was sent by the Father to
seek out the lost sheep, ^ to call sinners to repent-
ance,* to save the souls of men.^
Jesus a Priest. — He is also a priest — a priest,
moreover. Who gives His fife for our redemption :
" The Son of Man is come not to be ministered
unto but to minister and to give His life a redemp-
tion for many." « He is the good shepherd who
sacrifices Himself for His sheep.' He gives His
flesh for the life of the world.^ He has a baptism
wherewith He is to be baptized and longs for its
accomplishment.* It is the baptism of His passion
and death. 1^ In His priestly capacity. He is the
mediator of a new covenant which wiU endure for
1 cfr. Brassac : op. cit. ii. 1. ^ Mt. xviii. 11.
2 Mk. i. 38. * ib. ix. 13 ; Mk. ii. 17.
5 Mt. xviii. 13, 14.
« Xvrpov dvTl Tro\\wv—Mt. XX. 28 ; Mk. x. 45.
' Jo. X. 11, 18. 9 Lk. xii. 50.
8 ib. vi. 57. 10 Mk. X. 34 ; Mt. xx. 18, 19.
U THE PERSONAL TEACHING OF JESUS
ever. This covenant He seals with His own blood,
poured out to atone for sin.^
Jesus a King. — When the elders and the chief
priests arraigned our Lord before Pilate, " they
accused Him, saying : ' We have found this man
perverting our nation . . . and proclaiming that
He is Christ the king.' Then Pilate asked Him,
saying: ' Art Thou the King of the Jew^s ? ' " and
Jesus repUed in the affirmative. ^ On the occasion
of His triumphal entry into Jerusalem, a few days
previously. He had been hailed as " King of
Israel." ^ If, however, we prescind from the
narrative of the last week of His ministry, we find
that there are on record only two instances of His
having been referred to as " King of the Jews "
or " King of Israel." ^ We have already suggested
the explanation of His own consistent reticence as
to His kingship. Had He frankly proclaimed
Him^self their prince, the Jews would have mis-
understood the character of the kingdom, and,
raising the standard of revolt, would have involved
Him with the Roman authorities.
The Kingdom in the Gospels
" And in those days cometh John the Baptist
preaching in the desert of Judea, and saying:
' Do penance for the kingdom of heaven is at hand ' "^
1 Mt. xxvi and Ij. ^ Mt. xxi. and ||.
2 Lk. xxiii. 1-3. * ib. ii. 2. Jo. i. 49.
5 Mt. iii. 1-3.
THE PERSONAL TEACHING OF JESUS 75
All who heard understood ; * the kingdom ' was the
Messianic kingdom. John expressly stated that his
mission was that of precursor to the approaching
Messias.i The reign of the Promised One was
at hand and men were to prepare for it by
repentance.
The announcement took no one by surprise.
The time was accomplished. Daniel's seventy
weeks of years were already filled, and the ad-
vent of the Christ had been eagerly awaited.
In the gospels we find the Messianic kingdom
referred to by various names. It is spoken of as
" the kingdom of heaven," ^ " the kingdom of
God," ^ " the kingdom of Christ," * or, simply,
" the kingdom." ^ Occasionally the name is
synonymous with life eternal,^ and, in one or two
instances, it seems to denote nothing more than
God's invisible sovereignty in the hearts of men.'
These applications of the term are, however,
exceptional. As ordinarily and properly employed.
1 Mt. xi. 10 ; Mk. i. 2 ; Lk. i. 17, 26 ; vii. 27 : Jo. iii. 28.
2 ib. iii. 2 ; iv. 17 ; xi. 11, 12 ; xiii. 11 ; xxiv. 52 ; xvi. 19 ;
xviii. 1 ; 23 ; xx. 1 ; xxii. 2 ; xxiii. 13.
3 ib xxi. 31, 43 ; Mk. i. 14, 15 ; iv. 11, 26, 30 ; viii. 39 ;
X. 14, 15, 23, 24 ; xv. 43.
* ib. xiii. 41 ; xvi. 28 ; xx. 21 ; Lk. xxii. 30 ; Jo.
xviii. 36.
5 ib. iv, 23 ; viii. 12 ; xiii. 38 ; xxiv. 14 ; Lk. xxii. 29 ;
xii. 32.
6 ib. XXV. 34 ; Mk. ix. 46 ; Lk. xxiii. 42, 43.
' ib. V. 10, 33 ; Lk. xi. 2 ; Mk x. 15.
76 THE PERSONAL TEACHING OF JESUS
it denotes the visible assemblage of Christ's
followers on earth. ^
The ecclesiastical signification of the name is set
aside by modern critics. " Jesus," we are told
" announced the advent of an eschatological
kingdom (a purely future event), and preached
besides an inward kingdom (present or making its
entrance at the moment). The latter is the ' inner
coming ' of God in the heart of the individual.
History has shown that in so far as He proclaimed
the former the message of Jesus was husk." ^ In
the following pages we hope to show that ' the
kingdom ' of the synoptists is not alone apocalyptic
and inward, but ecclesiastical as well."
The Kingdom Spiritual.— The Jews had been
expecting an earthly kingdom : Jesus gradually
disillusioned them. " My kingdom," He said, " is
not of this world." ^ It was the antithesis of " the
world." Jesus came as a physician of souls, to
^ There is a notable diversity in terminology between the
fourth gospel and the synoptics. In the former the expression
" the kingdom " occurs only three times (iii. 3, 5 ; xviii. 36).
The church ' militant ' is referred to as a flock (x. 16 ; xxi. 15,
17) ; while the kingdom, in its glorious phase, or as denoting
the invisible reign of God in our souls by grace, is referred to
as " life " or " eternal life," the supernatural life infused into
us on earth and enduring beyond the grave, — life in time and
beyond time {cfr. i. 4 ; iii. 36 ; v. 29 ; vi. 33, 35, 51, 53 ; viii. 12 ;
xi. 25 ; XX. 31).
2 cfr. Harnack : What is Christianity ? pp. 53, 58.
2 Jo. xviii. 36.
THE PERSONAL TEACHING OF JESUS 77
seek and to save.^ His kingdom was therefore
spiritual. He sets it over against the kingdom of
Satan. ^ Beelzebub is His arch-antagonist. He it
is who sifts the ministers of the kingdom as wheat,^
who sows tares in Christ's field,* and takes the
word out of the hearts of men.^ He is the enemy
(o e'x^pof)^.
Men were beset by demons, until Christ came.
He overthrew the forces of darkness. He banished
unclean spirits, casting them out of the possessed,
and invested His disciples with a similar power.'
His casting out of devils. He assigned as proof
that the kingdom of God had come.® To the
question : " Is it lawful to give tribute to
Caesar ? " He replied : " Render to Caesar the
things that are Caesar's: and to God the things
that are God's." ® The two orders must not be
mixed up.
Jesus was the Word made flesh Who dwelt
among us " full of grace and truth.'''' ^° Of His
fulness (-TrXijpcofjLa) we have all received. ^^ The Law
was given by Moses : grace and truth came by
1 Lk. xix. 10 ; V. 31 ; Mk. ii. 17. * Mt. xiii. 39.
2 Mt. xii. 26 ; Lk. xi. 18. ^ Lk. viii. 12.
3 Lk. xxii. 31. « ib. x. 19.
7 Mt. viii. 32 ; X. 8 ; Mk. i. 25.
8 Mt. xii. 28 ; Lk. xi. 20.
9 Mt. xxii. 17, 21 ; cfr. Mk. xii. 13-17 ; Lk. xx. 21, 26.
10 Jo. i. 14 ; Lk. xix. 10.
" ib. V. 16.
78 THE PERSONAL TEACHING OF JESUS
Jesus Christ. 1 In and through Him men have
been enlightened and sanctified.
He is a divine liberator. He is sent not to
condemn but to save^ — ^to redeem a race enslaved
by sin. He frees men by enlightening them. He
is the Life,^ and His mission is to give life to men.*
He is Truth itself come to enlighten the world. ^
Through Him men get to know the truth, and the
truth sets them free.« " This is eternal life that
they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus
Christ whom Thou hast sent." ' We are sanctified
through the truth.^ To enlighten, and, by en-
lightening, to sanctify and save : such was the
mission of the Word made flesh.
Jesus was primarily a teacher. Being divine,
He was authoritative. His doctrines were strange ;
much of His teaching seemed impossible of accept-
ance. It mattered not ; His was the teaching of a
God-man, and as such had to be received by every-
one without questioning or hesitancy. His dis-
course on " the bread of life," for example, so
shocked His disciples that many went back and
walked no more with Him. Then Jesus said to
the Twelve : " Will you also go away ? " and
Simon Peter answered : " Lord to whom shall
we go ? Thou hast the words of eternal life." '
1 Jo. V. 17. 5 jft. iii, 19 . viii 12 ; xii. 46.
2 ih. iii. 15-17. 6 j5. viii. 32.
^ ib. xiv. 6. ' ib. xvii. 3.
4 ib. X. 10. 8 ib. V. 19.
» ib. vi. 67-69.
THE PERSONAL TEACHING OF JESUS 79
Absolute authoritativeness and finality character-
ized the personal teaching of Jesus. At His coming
the thinking world was in a state of utter confusion.
Conflicting systems of philosophy distracted men's
minds, and religions were being multiplied. The
educated classes were divided on the most funda-
mental questions, practical as well as speculative ;
and many had come to think that good and bad,
true and false, were matters of opinion. ^ When
Jesus stood before Pilate and announced that He
was come to give testimony to the truth : " Yes,"
replied the impatient governor, " but what is
truth ? " 2 Scepticism was rampant.
Their leaders divided, the uneducated were
blown about by every wind of doctrine. Incapable
of independent research, they found themselves
adrift on a sea of speculation knowing not what to
hold nor whom to follow.
Then came Jesus. Into a world of thought
chaotic, restless, conflictiag. He introduced an
element of order and stability. Teaching with an
authority which was absolute^ because divine. He
brought satisfaction and rest to the wearied souls
of men : " Come unto me," He said, " all you that
labour and are heavy laden and I will give you
1 cfr. Just. M. Ap. i. 28.
2 Jo. xviii. 37, 38. cfr. MacRory ; Comm. in Jo. p. 313.
^ " In His preaching," writes Harnack, " Jesus strikes the
mightiest notes ; He offers men an inexorable alternative ;
he leaves them no escape " {What is Christianity ? p. 38).
80 THE PERSONAL TEACHING OP JESUS
rest." 1 " I am the Way, the Truth, the Life." =
In the teaching of Jesus there was no stammering.
" Brief and concise utterances fell from Him ; for
He was no mere sophist, but His word was the
power of God." ^ " The common people were in
admiration at His doctrine, for He taught as one
having authority." *
The Kingdom Catholic. — " When the Baptist had
been cast into prison, Jesus came into Galilee
preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God and
saying : " the time is accompUshed and the
kingdom of God is at hand : repent and beUeve the
gospel." ^ " The Gospel " was the name given to
the doctrines proposed by Jesus. Those who
accepted them constituted the kingdom. The
gospel was the word of the kingdom.^
Men are saved by coming to a knowledge of the
truth. The truth must therefore be proposed to
them : the gospel must be preached. In the
beginning Jesus taught personally and unaided.'
Later He was assisted and finally succeeded by a
number of disciples, whom He specially instructed
and sent forth to preach with His own authority.*
1 Mt. xi. 27 (R. v.). 3 Justin M. Ajt. i. 14.
2 Jo. xiv. 6. * Mt. vii. 28, 29.
6 Mk. i. 14.
« Mt. xiii. 21 ; Mk. iv. 16, 18, 20 ; xvi. 20 ; Lk. vi.; viii.
11, 15, 21 ; xi. 28 ; Jo. xii. 44r-8 ; xiv. 24.
' ih. iv. 23 ; ix. 35 ; Mk. i. 14 ; Lk. xx. 1.
8 ih. xxviii. 19 ; Mk. xvi. 15 ; Lk. ix. 1-6.
THE PERSONAL TEACHING OF JESUS 81
During the life-time of Jesus, the Jews alone were
evangelized.^ He arranged, however, that the good
tidings should be subsequently announced to all
men.
This is important. Many modern critics, with
Hamack,^ hold that the call of the gentiles was
neither foreseen nor intended by Jesus. When the
disciples requested Him to deal with the Syro-
Phoenician woman. He refused on the grounds that
He was sent only " to the sheep that were lost of
the house of Israel." ^ In going into the way of the
gentiles, the apostles acted against His express
commands : " Go ye not into the way of the
gentiles," He said, " but go ye rather to the lost
sheep of the house of Israel." * He even
announced, that the apocalyptic era would be
ushered in before they should have completed the
evangelization of the Jews : " Amen I say to you :
you shall not finish all the cities of Israel till the
Son of Man come." ^ The apostles would thus be
judges, not of the race, but only of the twelve
tribes.^ Hence, according to the critics, the really
orthodox party in the primitive church — ^the
Judaisers — disappeared in the struggle for exist-
^ Only on two occasions do we find Jesus concerning Himself
with the uncircumcised — Mt. viii. 6-10 ; xv. 23-28.
* What is Christianity ? pp. 182, 183 ; Mission, vol. i,
pp. 36-43.
3 Mt. XV. 24. ^ ih. X. 23.
* »6. X. 5. • ih. xix. 28.
82 THE PERSONAL TEACHING OF JESUS
ence. " Crushed by the letter of Jesus they died a
lingering death." ^
And yet universalism is deep-down in the
teaching of the Galilean Prophet. ^ This is certain.
Were we even to set aside the narrative of St. John,
the historicity of which is flouted by the critics,
the synoptics alone would put it beyond question
that Jesus intended that His kingdom should be
world-wide.
The Precursor was for expansion. He predicted
the call of the gentiles : " Seeing many of the
Pharisees and Saducees coming to his baptism
he said to them: Ye brood of vipers, who hath
showed you to flee from the wrath to come ?
Bring forth fruit worthy of penance. And think
not to say within yourselves : we have Abraham for
our father ; for I tell you that God is able of these
stones to raise up children to Abraham. For now
the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every
tree, therefore, that doth not yield good fruit shall
be cut down and cast into the fire." ^ No word
here of nationalism.
His Master's horizon is equally boundless. The
sermon on the Mount has to do, not with Jews
only, but with men, and, therefore, with all men.
Jesus comes to cast fire, not upon Palestine, but
^ Harnack : Mission, vol. i, p. 64.
2 Mt. viii. 11, 12 ; xiii. 31-33, 37, 38 ; xxi. 31 ; xxviii. 18 ;
Lk. xiii. 28, 29 ; Mk. xvi. 15, etc.
^ ib. iii. 7-10. The Baptist preached to publicans and to
soldiers (Lk. iii. 12-14).
THE PERSONAL TEACHING OF JESUS 83
upon (he earth. * His disciples are the salt of the earth,
the light of the world. The woman's kindness in
anointing Him at Bethany would be told through-
out the whole world wheresoever the gospel should
be preached. 2
Jesus o'ersteps Judaism. He " calls to everyone
who bears a human face." He finds God's children
everywhere. His personal mission is properly
confined to the lost sheep of the house of Israel ;
and yet He occasionally addresses Himself to out-
siders.^ He proclaims Himself the Christ foretold
by Isaias ; the Christ whose kingdom would be
inundated by gentiles. Hamack himself admits
that Jesus was conscious of being the Messias.*
He admits, too, that the Christ of prophecy was to
be a world-king : "In the two centuries before
Christ," he writes, " the extension of their historical
horizon strengthened the interest of the Jews in
the nations of the world, introduced the notion of
mankind as a whole, and brought it within the
sphere of the unexpected end, including therefore
the operations of the Messias. The day of judg-
ment is regarded as extending to the whole world,
and the Messias not only as judging the world, but
as ruling it as well." ^
Finally, the parables are saturated with
universalism. When the disciples asked Jesus to
1 ib. V. 13, 14. 3 Mt. viii. 5, 13 ; xv. 24, 28.
^ Mk. xiv. 9. * V. supra.
5 What is Christianity ? p. 136.
84 THE PERSONAL TEACHING OF JESUS
explain to them the parable of the cockle, "He made
answer and said to them : ' He that soweth the good
seed is the Son of Man. And the field is the world.'' "^
Equally catholic are the parables of the wicked
husbandmen, the marriage-feast and the mustard-
seed.
I am aware, of course, that modem critics
question the genuineness of those logia of Jesus,
which savour of universalism ; ^ but what is left of
the gospel-fabric when all such passages have been
excised ? If Jesus did not proclaim Himself the
Christ foretold by Isaias, and if the " good-tiding "
was not intended by Him to be a world-message,
we may bum not only the fourth gospel,^ but the
synoptics as well. They are not history.
The texts cited by Hamack to show that Jesus
was not conscious of being a world-saviour create
little real difiiculty. Christ's personal mission was
confined to the Jews. In this sense, it was true to
1 Mt. xiii. 37, 38.
2 Especially Mt. xxviii. 19 ; Mk. xvi. 15 ; xiv. 9. cfr.
Harnack : Mission, vol. i, pp. 36 sqq.
^ That St. John's Gospel is thoroughly Catholic in tone is not
questioned. Harnack admits that " as a whole the fourth
gospel is saturated with statements of a directly universahstic
character " {ih., p. 42). For St. John Jesus is a world-saviour ;
He is the lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world
(i. 29) ; all men irrespective of nationahty are drawn to the
crucified Redeemer (xii. 31); whosoever believeth in Him
(ttSs 6 TTio-Tcvov) hath life everlasting (iii. 14, 15) ; the law
of the central sanctuary will be abrogated ; Christ has other
sheep besides those of the fold of Israel (iv. 21 ; x. 16).
THE PERSONAL TEACHING OF JESUS 85
say that He had been sent only to the lost sheep of
the house of Israel. But He made it clear that, at a
later period, the gentiles, too, would be called to the
faith. " Suffer first (tt^wtoi/) the children to be
filled," He said.^ The dogs would be filled subse-
quently.
When He sent His disciples on what may be
called their apprentice- mission. He forbade them
to go " into the way of the gentiles ; " but during
the risen life He commissioned them to evangelize
the Avhole world. ^ Even before He entered upon
His passion. He told them that His gospel would
be preached in the whole world for a testimony to
all nations, and then would come the final consum-
mation.^ Hence when He announced that they
should not have finished the cities of Israel till the
Son of Man came. He was not speaking of His
coming at the end of the world. The inauguration
of the apocalyptic kingdom was a long way off.
*
Invisible Unity of the Kingdom. - To be saved,
to become a citizen of the kingdom, belief m the
gospel had to be accompanied by repentance.*
Christ, like the Precursor, began His public
ministry by preaching penance. " The time is
* " The irptoTov of Mark vii. 27 is not to be pressed " !
(Harnack : Mission, vol. i, p. 39 n).
2 Mt. xxviii. 19 ; Mk. xvi. 15 ; cfr. ib. xiv. 9.
8 Mt. xxiv. 14.
* (/zeravoia) Mt. iv. 17 ; Mk. i. 15 ; Lk. v. 32.
a
8G THE PERSONAL TEACHING OF JESUS
accomplished," He said " and the kingdom of God
is at hand : repent and believe the gospel." ^ . . .
" Except you do penance you shall all likewise
perish." ^ Christ's mission was to call sinners to
repentance.^ It was also the mission of those
whom He sent.^
All men are invited to enter the kingdom. But
not all accept the invitation. Those who " repent
and believe " are cleansed from sin and sanctified.^
Their sanctity, however, is amissible. Even
citizens of the kingdom may be lost. It is only
those who persevere to the end who shall be saved. *
Despite opposition from many quarters, from
demons, from Scribes and Pharisees, Christ's king-
dom shall increase, its growth and development
being due entirely to the unseen influence of divine
grace.' Christ Himself is the sole source of all
sanctity in His kingdom. The Son of God was
sanctified and sent into the world * that He might
sanctify and save others.
We are saved hy becoming united to Jesus. This
is the root-idea in the soteriology of St. John.
Jesus is the- Word made flesh full of (xXvp*;?) grace
1 Mk. i. 15.
2 Lk. xiii. 3 ; cjr. Mt. xi. 20-22.
3 Mt. ix. 13 ; Mk. ii. 17 ; Lk. v. 32.
4 Mk. vi. 12.
5 Jo. xvii. 17 ; cjr. Acts xx. 32 ; Rom. xv. 16
6 Mt. xxiv. 13 ; Mk. xiii. 13.
' Mk. iv. 26-29.
s Jo. x. 36.
THE PERSONAL TEACHING OF JESUS 87
and truths We are saved by receiving of His
fulness ('7rXj//jw/xa).2 He is a living Vine. We con-
stitute the branches. Those who become united
to Him form with Him a mystic organism. Its
vital principle is the invisible sap which, emanating
from the fulness of the Vine, permeates and
quickens the branches. To become detached from
the Vine-stock is to die ; ^ Christ is our Life.
Christians are thus bound together by many
inward or invisible ties. They have a common
faith. All who " believe " accept the same truths *
on the same divine authority, and do so for a
common end or purpose — eternal salvation. This
end they hope to attain through the same Jesus
Christ Who is the sole source of sanctification and
salvation 'for all. Finally, those of His disciples
1 Jo. i. 14. ^ ib. V. 16.
3 ib. XV. 1-6.
* The central tenets of primitive Christianity seem to have
been :
(a) That Jesus was the Son of God {cfr. Ac. viii. 37).
(6) That He died for our sins,
(c) That He rose again.
The expectation of Christ's speedy return was, we beheve,
general in the primitive church even among the immediate
disciples. Let this not shock us. The Master had spoken
mysteriously of the end of things. Sometimes He seemed to
imply that the final consummation was at hand {cfr. Mt. x. 23
xvi. 27, 28 ; xxiv. 34 ; Mk. viii. 39 ; xiii. 30 ; Lk. ix. 26, 27
xxi. 31), at other times that it was afar off {cfr. Mt. xiii. 31, 32
xxiv. 14, 48-50 ; xxv. 5-14 ; Mk. xiii. 10). In His wisdom He
left the ignorance and doubts of His disciples to be dispelled
by experience and by subsequent revelation.
88 THE PERSONAL TEACHING OF JESUS
who " abide in Him " are, through Him, united to
each other by the invisible bond of grace.
Invisible Unity Visibly Manifest— When about
to enter upon His passion, Jesus prayed for His
apostles that the Father might keep them m His
name, that they might be one. " And not for them
only do I pray," He continued, '' but for them
also who through their w ord shall beheve in Me,
that they all may be one in Us, that the world may
believe that Thou hast sent Me." ^
There is question here of a unity which is at once
visible and invisible. Invisible in itself, it is visible
in some of its effects. Its principle is grace, which
unites us to God and to each other. It is the unity
of the Vine.
This invisible unity has a visible counterpart.
The inward union through grace is outAA^ardly
manifest. If Christians " remamed in Christ" —
if they loved God and one another as they should,
the visible manifestation of their inward union
would, of itself, suffice to convince unbelievers of
the divmity of Christ's mission. In the passage
cited, our Lord prayed that all His followers might
have one mind and one heart, and that this inward
union might find expression in outward peace and
concord. We need scarcely add that sin has robbed
Christ's sublime prayer of its full efficacy. ^
1 Jo. xvii. 20 sqq.
2 Mr. Rhodes' interpretation of the passage is far-fetched.
He argues : Christ prays that all who believe in Him may be
THE PERSONAL TEACHING OF JESUS 89
This outward manifestation of the life of the
spirit is the sole principle of visible unity claimed
by Dr. Lindsay for the church as a whole. ^ And
yet he concedes that Christians form together a
visible unit " which is a society, and which, like
every form of corporate social existence, must be
possessed of powers of oversight and discipline to
be exercised upon its members." ^ Language of
this sort on the lips of one who is avowedly opposed
to external organization as a principle of the
church's visible unity, is, to say the least, somewhat
strange.
The Kingdom a Visible Society. — Followers of
Christ are not to live in religious isolation. The
kingdom is a society. Repentance and faith do not
suffice to save us. All who believe are constrained
to go through an external rite of initiation.
Baptism is the only door by which the new kingdom
visibly as well as invisibly one. But it is inconceivable, it
would be blasphemy to sa}^ that Christ's " strong cry " has
fallen short of its full effect. Hence all who believe in Him
" aright " are to-day visibly one. But the argument is really
weak. The " inconceivable " has, alas ! occurred. Christ's
prayer has, in fact, failed to secure visible unity among all
those who, through the word of the apostles, have believed in
Him. This is not blasphem3^ He prayed similarly for
invisible unity through the habit of charity, and yet all
Christians are not saints. Mr. Rhodes confounds Christianity
de iure with Christianity de facto {cfr. Rhodes : The Visible
Unify of the Church, vol. i, pp. 8-14).
1 cfr. Appendix B. ^ op. cit., pp. 24, 25,
90 THE PERSONAL TEACHING OF JESUS
can be entered. Such was Christ's personal
arrangement. 1 He also instituted the Eucharist. ^
He arranged that His followers should come
together occasionally and " break the bread "
(o apTo^Y in memory of Him ; Eucharistic meet-
ings would be a characteristic of the kingdom.
All this foreshadows organization.^ An exercise of
external authority is required to convene a meeting
effectively and control its proceedings.^
For Christians a special efficacy attaches to
congregational prayer. " If two of you," said
Christ, " shall consent upon earth concerning any-
thing whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to
them by My Father Who is in heaven. For where
two or three are gathered together in My name
there I am in the midst of them." ^ Dr. Dale finds
in these words " the most impressive sanction to
the organization of Christian societies for purposes
of prayer and worship." ' Hamack regards them
as an invitation to Christians to form concrete
1 Jo. iii. 5 ; Mt. xxviii. 19.
- Mt. xxvi. 26 ; Mk. xiv. 22 ; Lk. xxii. 17 ; 1 Cor. xi. 24.
^ cjr. Ac. ii. 42.
'^ From the oneness of baptism and of the Eucharist we
cannot, strictly speaking, argue to the visible unity of the
Church. The Jews of the dispersion had the same rites of
initiation and of cult, and yet did not constitute one external
society.
'" More especially if the Eucharistic service would be held
regularly.
6 Mt. xviii. 19, 20.
' op. erf., p. 12.
THE PERSONAL TEACHING OF JESUS 91
associations. " It follows," he says, " that to
associate is, for those who bear the name of Christ,
not a secondary or unessential feature in the idea
of the Church ; it is a feature essentially involved
in the idea itself which is only realized through
the fact of the faithful thus associating them-
selves." ^
Christ's followers in each district would form a
distinct society. " If thy brother shall offend
against thee," He said, " go and rebuke him
between him and thee alone . . . and if he will
not hear thee take with thee one or two more . . .
and if he will not hear them, tell the Church, and if
he will not hear the Church let him be to thee as
the heathen and the publican." - The Greek word
iKKkrjcrla signifies an assembly and connotes external
organization.^ On the lips of Jesus the term has
its ordinary signification. The iKKKrjcrla referred
to in the passage cited is an approachable body
which authoritatively adjusts differences between its
memhers. It is therefore at once visible and organic.
It is a society.
Christ arranged that the local associations should
form together one organic whole. There would be
a Church of churches.* His followers wherever
1 V. apud Bat. : op. cit., pp. 19, 20. ^ Mt. xviii. 15-17.
^ V. Supra.
* Mt. xvi. 18. Dr. Lindsay {op. cit., p. 16) finds in the word
kKKX-qcrla a suggestion of visible unity, but is it not equally
suggestive of visible organic unity ?
92 THE PERSONAL TEACHING OF JESUS
resident would constitute one fold,^ one society.
As if anticipating the danger of a number of
separate and independent flocks, He expressly
states that for His sheep there will be one flock
and one only.-
GOVERNMENT OF THE KINGDOM
St. Luke relates that, after a whole night spent
in prayer, Jesus at daybreak called unto Him His
disciples, and from them chose twelve whom He
named apostles.^ So important was this incident
in the eyes of the evangelists that all four refer to
it.^ During the remainder of His public life the
Twelve formed around the Master a select and
exclusive circle. They were trained and instructed
by Him with the greatest care. They were
specially enlightened by Him on doctrines
obscurely proposed to the multitudes. They were
His privileged friends. To the last, ^^ ith one excep-
tion, they remained true to Him ; and after the
resurrection the apostolic circle reassembled around
1 Or rather " flock " {TroL/xyrj). " It should be remarked,"
writes Dr. Gore, " that Christ did not, strictly, speak of one
fold, but of one flock. . . . This is worth notice . . . " :
on which we remark that the change in term is scarcely worth
notice from a controversial view-point, seeing that the term
" flock " no less than " fold " connotes external organization
(Jo. X. 16. c/r. MacRory in loc).
2 ib.
3 Lk. vi. 12-13.
4 Mt. x. 1 ; Mk. iii. 13, 14 ; Lk. loc. cit. ; Jo. vi. 71.
THE PERSONAL TEACHING OF JESUS 93
the risen Master. During the forty days, which
intervened between the resurrection and the
ascension, Christ appeared frequently to His
apostles and spoke to them concerning the
kingdom. 1
As to His purpose in selecting and segregating the
Twelve there can be no question. The gospels
make it clear that they were chosen to be preachers
of the word and rulers of the faithful. The apostolic
office was two-fold. From the first moment of
their call Christ gave them to understand that they
were to be official exponents of the gospel. St.
Matthew, having mentioned the call of the apostles
and recorded their names in order, proceeds at
once to relate that : " these twelve Jesus sent
commanding them ... to preach, saying : the
kingdom of heaven is at hand." ^ The risen Christ
was equally explicit. Addressing the apostles
" whom He had chosen " in words already quoted,
He told them that, having received the Holy
Ghost, they would be witnesses unto Him through-
out the world. ^ Finally, the teaching character of
the apostolic office is clearly implied in the terms
of their formal commission. " Going therefore
teach ye all nations ^ ... go ye into the whole
world and preach the gospel to every creature." ^
St. Mark informs us that on one occasion Jesus,
1 Ac. i. 2, 3. 3 Ac. i. 2-8.
2 Mt. X. 1-7. " Mt. xxviii. 19.
5 Mk. xvi. 15.
94 THE PERSONAL TEACHING OF JESUS
sitting down, called unto Him the Twelve. Then,
taking a little child. He set it in their midst, and,
pointing to it as a model of humility, delivered to
His ambitious disciples a salutary lecture. ^ Follow-
ing St. Matthew's summary of Christ's discourse
on this occasion, we find that, having spoken
successively on the subjects of humility, scandal-
giving, fraternal correction, and the obligation of
occasionally invoking ecclesiastical authority to
check a wayward brother. He proceeded, still
addressing the Twelve, ^ to make an important
pronouncement concerning the future standing of
the apostles in His kingdom. " Whatsoever you
shall bind upon earth," He said, " shall be bound
also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on
earth shall be loosed also in heaven." '^ The
metaphor needs no elucidation. The apostles will
be the authoritative rulers of the kingdom. To
bind signifies to impose an obligation,* as to loose
signifies its removal.
The promise was fulfilled by the risen Christ.
On Easter Sunday evening He solemnly conferred
upon them the power to remit and to retain sin by
judicial sentence. " As the Father hath sent Me,"
He said, " I also send you. And when He had said
1 Mk. ix. 33. sqq.
2 Dr. Lindsay admits this as ""probable " {op. cit., p. 229).
^ Mk. xviii. 18. Dr. Lindsay states that the promise here
as in Mt. xvi. 13-19 is strictly conditional {v. infra).
* Lat. Ugare — ' to impose an obligation.'
THE PERSONAL TEACHING OF JESUS 95
this, He breathed on them and said : Receive ye
the Holy Ghost : whose sins you shall forgive they
are forgiven them and whose sins you shall retain
they are retained." ^ Later He invested them with
His own God-given authority to shepherd the entire
church : " All power is given Me," He said, " in
heaven and on earth. Going therefore teach ye all
nations . . . teaching them to observe all
things whatsoever I have commanded you." ^
The Twelve will teach and rule with the autho-
rity of the Master.^
The Primacy
Pursuing our inquiry we find that one member of
the apostolic body was singled out by Christ for
special attention. This was Simon, the leader
(o 7r/o&)T09)4 of the Twelve.
His pre-eminence is now generally admitted. In
the New Testament he throws his fellow-apostles
completely into the shade. He is first everywhere.^
He towers above the other members of the apostolic
college as their acknowledged chief and represen-
^ Gr. KparrJT€, KCKpaTrjvrat. Kpivetv implies a judicial process
{cfr. Lidd. and Sc).
" Mt. xxviii. 19, 20.
3 Lk. X. 16.
4 Mt. X. 2.
5 Mt. xiv. 28 ; xvi. 22 ; xxvi. 58 ; Mk. viii. 32 ; xiv. 29, 54 ;
Lk. V. 8 ; xxii. 34, 54 ; Jo. xiii. 9, 37 ; xviii. 15.
96 THE PERSONAL TEACHING OF JESUS
tative.^ One of the three specially favoured
disciples, he figures as the recognized leader and
spokesman of even this select group. ^ Alone of
the disciples he had his name changed by
Jesus. ^
In the New Testament Simon's name is found
mentioned along with others in about thirty cases.
In every instance, except one, it holds the place of
honour. Paul writing to the Galatians and referring
to the apostles, whom he had seen in Jerusalem,
names them, as I think, in the order in which he
had met them : " James, Cephas, and John." But
so strange did the order of enumeration here appear
to the early fathers, that quite a number,^ quoting
the passage, read it : '* Cephas, James, and John."
This is also the reading found in four of the
Uncial MSS.^
The prominence given to Peter's name by all the
sacred writers is made light of by Protestant
apologists ; some explaining that he was senior
1 Mt. XV. 15 ; xvi. 16 ; xvii. 26 ; xviii. 21 ; xix. 27 ; Mk.
X. 28 ; xi. 21 ; Lk. xii. 41 ; xviii. 28 ; Jo. vi. 69 : xviii. 11.
2 Mt. xvii. 4 ; Mk. xiv. 37.
^ Jo. i. 41 sqq. We are aware, of course, that He called
James and John Boanerges (" sons of thunder ") (Mk. iii. 17)
just as he spoke of Herod as a fox (Lk. xiii. 32) ; but
in those cases there was no question of a formal change of
name,
'• Tren., Tert., Greg, of Nyss., Jerome, Ambrose, Aug.
5 D, E, F, G. {cfr. Chapman : Bishop Oore and Catholic
Claims, pp. 45 sqq.).
THE PERSONAL TEACHING OF JESUS 97
apostle, others that he was recognized to be the
Master's favourite, others again that he was the
first to follow Jesus. All three explanations are
unsatisfactory. There is no evidence to show that
Peter was the senior member of the apostolic
college ; on the contrary, there is reason to believe
that he was junior in years to his brother Andrew. ^
As to the other explanations suggested, the
Master's favourite disciple was not Simon son of
Jona, but John son of Zebedee — " the disciple
whom Jesus loved ; " while His earliest disciple
was not Simon, but either his brother Andrew or
John the Evangelist.
Andrew and John were Christ's first disciples.
They followed Him as a result of the Baptist's
preaching. Andrew then sought out his brother
Simon and, informing him that he had found the
Messias, brought him to Jesus. " And Jesus, look-
ing upon him, said : " Thou art Simon son of
Jona ; thou shalt be called Rock (cephas)." -
The Old Testament represents the father of the
Jews as having had his name divinely changed,
when he was about to be constituted the juridical
head of God's faithful people, the new name
suggesting the dignity to which he was about to
be raised.^ May we suppose that the change in
Simon's name implied that he, too, was to be raised
1 Epiphan. : Uaer. li. 17. ^ Jo. i. 41 sqq.
^ Gen. xvii. 5, 16.
98 THE PERSONAL TEACHING OF JESUS
to some dignity signified by his new name " Rock" ?
We shall see.
In MattheAv xvi it is related that Jesus, having
come into the neighbourhood of Csesarea Philippi/
asked his disciples saying : ' Who do men say that
the Son of Man is ' ?
But they said : ' Some John the Baptist, and
other some Elias and others Jeremias or one of the
prophets.^
Jesus said to them : ' But who do you (plural) say
that I am ' ?
Simon Peter answered and said : ' Thou art
Christ the Son of the living God.'~
And Jesus ansvi ering said to him : ' Blessed art
thou (singular) Simon son of Jona because flesh and
blood hath not revealed it to thee but My Father Who
is in heaven. And I say to thee that thou art Peter
and upon this rock I will build My Church and the
gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will
give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And
whatsoever thou shall bind upon earth, it shall be
bound also in heaven and whatsoever thou shall loose
on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.'' ^
Simon the Rock-foundation. — ^The English trans-
lation of this celebrated passage obscures the
meaning somewhat. In Aramaic (the original) the
same word ' Cephas ' would stand for ' Peter ' and
1 The Galilean ministry was then drawing to a close.
" 2t) €? o Xpwrros o vibs Tov Oeov tov ^wi'Tos.
^ Mt. xvi. 13-19.
THE PERSONAL TEACHING OF JESUS P9
for ' Rock,' so that the passage as spoken by Jesus
would translate : " Thou art Rock and upon this
rock I will build My Churchy" where the apostle
addressed is manifestly the rock-foundation. Other
translations are more faithful to the original than is
our English :
In Latin the passage reads: " Tu es Petrus et
super hanc petram " . . . ,
in Greek : Sv el JltV/oo?? kuI eVt ravrj) Trj
-rrirpa. . . ," (" Thou art Rock and itpo7i this
very rock " . . .),
and in French : " Tu es Pierre et sur cette
pierre " . . . , where, as in the original,
the words for " Peter " and for " rock " are
identical in form. The reader can see at
once that Simon is the rock upon which
Christ promises to build His Church.
For centuries this obvious conclusion was boldly
questioned by Protestant controversialists. The
rock, they contended, was not Peter, but Peter's
faith, or perhaps Christ Himself. We are spared
the trouble of examining this extraordinary position
as it has been, at length, abandoned by its intrepid
defenders: "It is difficult, I think," writes Dr.
Gore, " to feel any doubt that our Lord is here
pronouncing Peter to be the rock." ^
Simon alone the Bock-foundation. — Christ begins
by addressing the Twelve collectively: " Who do
1 op. cit., p. 76.
100 THE PERSONAL TEACHING OF JESUS
you (plural) say that I am " ? Simon, replying for
himself or for all, confesses His divine sonship.
Christ proceeds : " Blessed art ^/^ow Simon . . .
and I say to thee that tliou art Peter . . ." The
change from the plural (you) to the singular (thou,
thee) shows that in the latter part of the quotation
Christ no longer addresses the Twelve but one of
their number.
He implies, moreover, that He addresses him as
distinct from the others, and not merely as their
representative. Simon, we know, frequently acted
and was frequently addressed as representing the
apostolic college. But on the occasion in question
it was not so. " Blessed art thou," said Christ,
" Simon son of Jona . . . and I say to thee that
thou art Rock and upon this very rock ^ I will build
My Church." The addition of the words " son of
Jona " and the form of expression throughout seem
to put it beyond question that Christ is here dealing
with Simon, not as representing the Twelve, but as
distinct from them.
Let us endeavour to construct a parallel passage
and consider its import. An eminent philosopher
decides upon establishing a society to preserve and
propagate his teaching. Taking aside twelve of
his best disciples, he asks them what do men
generally think of him. They reply that public
opinion is somewhat divided as to his character
and worth. Then comes the pointed question :
^ cfr. Gr. supra.
THE PERSONAL TEACHING OF JESUS 101
*' But what do you think of me ? " One of the
group, a man named George, let us say, replies,
speaking of his master in terms of the highest
praise. The master thereupon addresses his
forward disciple: "Blessed art thou," he says,
" George, son of Henry, for thou hast been divinely
enlightened as to my true character ; and I say to
thee that thou art the intellect of my school, and
upon this very intellect I will build my society." In
this imaginary case, can it be doubted that George
is addressed and eulogized as distinct from his
companions F
We find it difiicult to sympathize with Dr. Gore in
his remarks on the words of promise. " St. Peter,"
he writes, " speaks as one of a body of twelve. Is
Christ dealing with him as distinct from the others,
or as their representative ? Is the office to belong
to him only, or in a special sense, or is it to be
given to all who share the apostolic commission ?
. . . We contend that this is just one of those
passages which want interpreting, — one of those
passages about the meaning of which it is not
possible to arrive at any certainty without the aid
of the interpretation ... of Scripture itself or
of the Church." ^ We hope the reader will find it
not only " possible " but easy to interpret the
passage, without external assistance of any kind.
Dr. Lindsay's interpretation is even more un-
1 Roman Catholic Claims, p. 77.
102 THE PERSONAL TEACHING OF JESUS
satisfactory. " Our Lord," he writes, " had asked
a question of all His disciples. Peter, answering
impetuously in their name, made himself their re-
presentative. His answer was an adoring con-
fession . . . which contained, in germ, all the
future confessions of the Church of Christ, and
which made him the spokesman for the mighty
multitude . . . who were to make the same
confession. ... It was to Peter who answered
as representing the Twelve, to Peter, who was the
spokesman for countless thousands of the faithful,
who down through the march of time make the
same glad confession, that the promise was given." ^
Simon is solemnly assured by Christ that he will
be constituted the principle of stability, the rock-
foundation of the entire church. The promise is
made him in his individual capacity. Hence
it does not surprise us to learn that Christ on a
subsequent occasion prayed for Simon that he
might confirm his fellow-apostles y^ and that, later
still. He pointedly singled him out from the others,
when about to fulfil the promise, the text of which
we are now considering.^
Import of the Promise
The Rock-foundation. — Christ promised to make
Simon the rock-foundation of His Church. " Thou
art Rock," He said, " and upon this very rock I
1 op. cit., pp. 25, 26. 2 Lk. xxii. 29-32. ^ jo. xxi. 15 sqq.
THE PERSONAL TEACHING OF JESUS 103
will build My Church ; and the power of death^
shall not prevail against her; " — words which at
once recall the parable of the wise man who built
his house upon a rock : " And the rain fell and the
floods came and the winds blew and beat upon that
house and it fell not, because it was founded on a
rock." ^ Peter will be to the Church what the rock-
foundation was to the house of the wise man.
Through him the Church will be for ever immune
from disruption and dissolution. He will con-
stitute her 'primary principle of unity and sta-
bility.
What does this imply ? Christ, we have seen,
intended that His kingdom should be a society of
societies, a Church of churches. We found, more-
over,^ that the primary principle of unity and
stability in a society is its central authority. It
follows that when Christ promised to make Simon
the rock-foundation of His entire Church — her
principle of unity and stability — He equivalently
promised to invest him with supreme authority to
rule all Christians.
Even his fellow-apostles will be subject to him.
At the last supper, addressing the Twelve col-
lectively, Christ tells them that He disposes or
appoints to them a kingdom. Then, singling out
1 Probably the best rendering of the original 7ri'A.at aSov.
2 Mt. vii. 25. Here as in Mt. xvi. 18, the English ' rock '
represents an original Trkrpa.
5 cjr. ch. i.
104 THE PERSONAL TEACHING OF JESUS
Simon, He proceeds to address him as distinct from
the others. " Simon, Simon," He said, " behold
Satan hath desired to have you (plural) that he
might sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for
thee (singular) that thy faith fail not ; and thou
being once converted, confirm thy brethren.'''' ^
Simon is, therefore, to confirm not alone the
faithful, but his fellow-apostles. He alone is the
rock-foundation of the Church. When others are
named with him as the foundation ,2 we understand
that he and they act as foundation in different
capacities. They are so many foundation-stones
supportiQg the Church, indeed, but themselves in
turn resting upon and " confirmed " by the
bed-rock which underUes and supports the
whole.
The Keys of the Kingdom. . . . — " And I will
give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven."
In our introductory chapter referring to some
recognized symbols of authority, we discussed the
symbolism of the keys. We can, therefore, afford to
be brief here. Christ, having promised to make
Simon the rock-foundation of His Church, goes on
to promise him " the keys of the kingdom." The
kingdom is the Church Universal — a visible society.
The keys of the kingdom symbolize supreme eccle-
siastical authority. Christ, therefore, speaking
1 Lk. xxii. 29-32.
2 cjr. Eph. ii. 20.
THE PERSONAL TEACHING OF JESUS 105
symbolically, promises to constitute Simon Peter
supreme ruler of His Church.^
The Poiver of Binding and Loosing. . . . — "And
whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be
bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt
loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven."
The metaphor of binding and loosing we have
also explained. It signifies external legislative
authority. The universal jurisdiction here
promised to Simon in his individual capacity was,
we have seen, subsequently promised to the
Twelve collectively.'^
* *
St. Matthew^s Gospel, Ecclesiastical. — There is a
growing tendency among the critics to admit that
the Catholic doctrine is contained in Matthew xvi.
It would be a mistake, however — so they tell us —
to infer that Christianity is, therefore, de iure a
church, or at least a permanent church.
These men explain that an impassable chasm
separates the apostles from the Master.^ Jesus
1 Dr. Lindsay, while holding that Peter, and " those whom
he represented " are here promised the power to let in and
keep out from the household of the faithful, argues that the
ratification of the exercise of the power depends on its Christ-
like use. It is only when He shuts out that there is any real
exclusion. When He lets in there can be no exclusion {op. cit.
pp. 26, 27).
2 Mt. xviii. 18.
^ Hamack : in the Theologische Literaturzeitung for 16th
Jan., 1909 ; cfr. What is Christianity ? pp. 181-183.
106 THE PERSONAL TEACHING OF JESUS
was the victim of a tragic illusion. The end of the
world He believed to be imminent.^ A cosmic
catastrophe was at hand which would usher in a
glorious Messianic era. " The kingdom " was
therefore not " of this world," but apocalyptic ;
and the Jews were to prepare for it by repenting
and believing the gospel. Jesus did not establish
a society, nor did He intend that His followers
should do so. The Galilean Prophet had no
ecclesiology.
The birth of the church, we are informed, was
brought about by the force of subsequent events.
After the death of Jesus, the new fraternity took
Bhape " automatically," as a society, in expectation
of the parousia. The disciples began by preaching
the kingdom to the Jews. These for the most part
refused to give ear. As a result the Christian
fellowship became estranged from the synagogue ;
and the new preachers, despairing of success
among the Jews, finally took upon themselves to
" save " the gentiles. The organization which
came into being in this way was the church. It
was conceived to be the kingdom itself, when the
disciples at length realized that their Master had
been mistaken as to the speedy inauguration of the
apocalyptic era.
Such is Hamack's theory. Loisy felt that to
make it square with even the substance of the
^ Mission, vol. i, p. 36 ; What is Christianity ? p. 125.
THE PERSONAL TEACHING OF JESUS 107
synoptic narrative, it required recasting. He
is, therefore, prepared to concede that Christ
founded a society of Jews in preparation for
the eschatological kingdom, which He believed
to be imminent. This society He subjected to the
apostles, setting up Peter as primate. The new
organization He intended to be short-lived. It
would disappear in the approaching debacle, its
members passing over into the apocalyptic king-
dom. This temporary society was conceived as a
permanent church, when the disciples had come to
recognize that the kingdom announced by the
Master had failed to appear. What was established
as a transitory organization became in this way a
fixture.
The passage Matthew xvi. 16-18, the critics
tell us, is condemned as intrusive by all the rules
of historical criticism. ^ It is not of a piece with the
general fabric of the first gospel. In addition, it
is found in Matthew alone of the Evangelists, and
seems to have been completely discredited by the
early fathers. ^ Finally, the word eWXWa, applied
to the kingdom, is Pauline. It is met with 110
times within the New Testament, and of these 86
occur in the epistles of St. Paul and in the Acts of
the Apostles.^
^ Harnack : Entstehung, p. 3.
2 It is commonly alleged that the passage is quoted for the
first time by Tert. {De pud. xxii), and by Origen (Eus. H. E
vi. 25, 8).
3 cjr. Lindsay, : op. cit., p. 5.
108 THE PERSONAL TEACHING OF JESUS
Batiffol has written a whole book^ to show that
the kingdom preached by Jesus is not exclusively
apocalyptic. Partly apocalyptic it was, of course,
and, as such, comprised only the just.^ The
kingdom, however, was realized on earth as well,
and under the latter phase was established, in actu,
during the life-time of Jesus. ^ With Him it had
come {e^Oaa-ev).*
The general fabric of the first gospel is thoroughly
ecclesiastical. The conception and formation of the
kingdom as a visible society, and the selection and
training of the Twelve as its prospective pastors,
form an integral, nay, an essential portion of St.
Matthew's narrative. In the first gospel, too, we find
reference to the institution by Jesus of Baptism and
of the Eucharist, to punishment by excommunica-
tion,^ and to the church as an organization which
is capable of adjudicating between disputants.^
The parables recorded by St. Matthew are
impregnated with ecclesiasticism. Those of the
cockle," of the marriage-feast® and of the ten
virgins are found in his gospel. The kingdom was
a kingdom of justice,^ and yet all its citizens are
not just. The parables cited represent it as being
an earthly assemblage of good men and bad, —
^ Enseignement de Jesus (Bat.).
2 Mt. xiii. 43 ; xxv. 34, 41. » ib.
3 Lk. xvii. 20, 21. 7 j^. xiii.
* Mt. xii. 28. 8 iij^ xxii.
5 ib. xviii. 17. « ib. xxv.
THE PERSONAL TEACHING OF JESUS 109
sinners and saints being suffered to associate
together until the end, when the wicked shall go
into everlasting fire, the just into life eternal. We
should add that the ecclesiastical character of the
first gospel is attested by critics of the standing of
JiiUcher and Wellhausen — to whom Hamack him-
self refers as being " the most important historian
of religion in our day." ^
On the question of genuineness we remark as
follows: — The word €KK\wta was well known to
Christ's contemporaries, Greek as well as Jew.
This we have already shown. ^ Hence the term
would have been quite familiar to Him, even as
man. We note, besides, that the word occurs in
the speech delivered by St. Stephen before the
council,^ and its use in Galatians i. 13, suggests
that, even antecedently to Paul's conversion.
Christians were spoken of as constituting an e/c/cXj/cr/a.
On purely critical grounds, therefore, we are
justified in tracing the term back to Jesus. We
may add that the same Evangelist in another place
represents Him as employing the term to designate
the local community.* Is this logion, too, to be
discarded ?
That the words of promise are recorded by Mat-
thew alone of the evangelists is an interesting fact,
1 cfr. What is Christianity ? p. 180 ; cfr. Bat. : op. cit. introd.,
pp. xii, xiii.
2 V. supra, ch. ii. s ^^ yjj 35
> 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^ r<ou ScoSeKa airoG-ToiXoov rot?
eOvea-Lv. (" The teaching of the Lord [as preached]
to the Gentiles by the twelve apostles." ).i
The author is unknown, but his work professes to
be a summary or compendium of the teaching of
Jesus as it was proposed to the nations by the
Twelve. 2 Although the exact date of its com-
position cannot be determined, critics are agreed as
to its antiquity.^ We may assign it, with a high
1 The Didache was discovered in 1873 by Bryermios,
Patriarch of Nicomedia, in the Constantinopolitan or Hiero-
solymitan MS. [C.].
2 It is worthy of notice that the author regards the Twelve,
and not Paul and Barnabas alone, as the teachers of the Wvt).
Some ancient writers, however, who refer to the document
omit the word SuScK-a in the title.
^ The internal evidence goes to show that first-century
conditions obtained when the Didache was written. Christians
119
K
120 THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
degree of probability to the last decades of the
first century.^ The place of composition was,
most likely, Syria or Palestine. ^
The work consists of two parts. The first ^
embodies an ethical or moral instruction on " The
Two Ways," the way of Life (righteousness),^ and
the way of Death (unrighteousness).^ This in-
struction is intended for catechumens, and is
followed by a discussion of baptism,^ of prayer and
fasting,' and of the Eucharist.^ The second part
treats of community life ; of the standing of the
cLTToaTokoi KoX TTpocjji^Tai, whlle actuig as itinerant
teachers,^ and while permanently resident in the
community ; ^^ of the treatment of travelling
brethren ; ^^ of the Sunday Eucharistic service ; ^^
and, finally, of ecclesiastical superiors.^^ The
still expected the Parousia ; the itinerant aTrdo-roAot K-at
TrpO(j)T]TaL had not yet disappeared ; the Eucharist was still
celebrated after the evening meal ; and the titles Trpttrf^vTf.po's
and cTTto-K-oros were still synonymous {cfr. Lightfoot : Ap. F.,
p. 215 ; Bardenhewer : Pair., p. 20.).
^ cfr. Barden : loc. cit.
^ So great was the authority of the Didache in the primitive
church that many regarded it as Scripture. Clement of Alex.,
for example, quotes it as being inspired {Strom, i. 20, 100),
while Eusebius notes the fact that it had been wrongly in-
cluded by some in the canon {H. E. iii. 25, 4 ; cfr. Lightfoot :
op. cit., p. 216 ; Barden. : op cit., p. 20.).
^ cc. i-x. ® c. vii. ^ c. xi.
* cc, i-iv. ' c. viii. ^^ c. xiii.
^ c, V. ^ cc. ix, X. ^1 c. xii.
12 c. xiv. 1^ c. XV.
THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 121
Didache concludes with a warning : we should be
watchful in view of the imminent irapovcria^
There is in each church a hierarchy of " bishops "
and deacons. These are authoritative teachers. ^
The Christian is exhorted to respect the word
which he has heard. ^ Those who preach the
Gospel are to be esteemed and reverenced as the
Lord Himself. Their voice is the voice of God.*
Christianity is a deposit, a tradition. It is a
treasury of truths and precepts w^hich has come
down to us from Christ through the apostles, and
which we must neither augment nor diminish.
The Church cannot alter the SiSaxv : " All your
deeds do as you find it in the Gospel of our Lord.^
. . . Thou shalt never forsake the command-
ments of the Lord, but shalt keep those things
which thou hast received, neither adding to them
not taking away from them." * Even prophetic
teaching which is found to be at variance with the
received teaching is to be rejected. " Whosoever
shall teach you those things which have been said
before, receive him ; but if he teach a different
doctrine, receive him not." ' Defined teaching
is irreformable.
All who are baptized form together one Church
of God. The Eucharistic prayer preserved in the
1 c. xvi. * e. iv.
2 c. XV. ^ c. iv.
2 c. iii. • c. iv.
' c. xi.
122 THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
Didache contains the following sublime passage :
" As this broken bread was scattered upon the
mountains and being gathered together became
one, so may Thy Church be gathered together from
the ends of the earth into Thy Kingdom. ^ . . .
Remember, Lord, Thy Church, which has been
sanctified, to gather it together from the four
winds into the Kingdom which Thou hast prepared
for it." 2 There is, therefore, the local church,
with its resident hierarchy,^ to which itinerant
preachers are subordinated ; * and there is also the
Church of all churches. Schii:m is expressly re-
probated.^
The Epistle of Clement
St. Clement was Bishop of Rome towards the
close of the first century. Tertullian® and many of
^ Here the author interjects : " But let no one eat or drink
of this Eucharistic thanksgiving save such as have been
baptized."
2 cc. ix, X.
^ c, XV.
^ The contention of many modern critics that the Church
of the Didache was instructed exclusively by itinerant
missionaries cannot be sustained. The tradition received
from Christ through the apostles and their successors was
regarded as alone authoritative. Hence the doctrines of the
itinerant missioner were carefully scrutinized by the Church
and rejected if found to be at variance with " the things which
had been said before " (w. supra).
^ ov TTOL-qa-ets (r\L(T}ia (c. iv).
^ De Praescript. xxxii.
THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 123
the Latin Fathers name him as Peter's immediate
successor.^ Other early authorities, including
Augustine, 2 Optatus,^^ and the Apostolic Constitu-
tions,^ place him after Linus, giving as the order :
' Peter, Linus, Clement.' Others, again, name him
fourth, his immediate predecessor being Anacletus
(or Cletus). The last-mentioned order — ' Peter,
Lhius, Anacletus, Clement ' — is that given by
Irenaeus,^ Eusebius,^ Jerome,^ and Epiphanius,^
and seems to be, on the whole, the most trust-
worthy.^ For our purposes, however, Clement's
exact position in the line of Roman bishops
matters little. We are satisfied to know that he
was a first century bishop of Rome, and this is not
disputed.
The so-called First Epistle of St. Clement to the
Corinthians is probably the only authentic work
of his that has come down to us. Written towards
the close of the reign of Domitian (96-98
1 This opinion is probably based on the so-called " Clement-
tine " literature, and is now regarded as unhistorical by prac-
tically all critics (Bardenhewer : Patrol., pp. 25, 20 ; Lightfoot :
Ajp. F., pt. i. vol. i. p. 66).
^ Ep. liii ad Gen. n. 2.
3 De Schism. Donat. ii. 3.
4 vii. 6.
^ Adv. H. iii. 3, n. 3.
6 H. E. iii. 15, n. 34.
' De vir. xv.
8 Haer. xxvii. 6.
9 cjr. Lightfoot : vol. ciL, pp. 66, 200-345 ; Diet, de Theol
Cath., i. xviii.
124 THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
A.D.)/ its purpose was to admonish the Chris-
tians at Corinth who had revolted against their
clergy.
The letter, it should be noted, professes to be
addressed ' to the Church of God which sojoumeth
at Corinth, by the Church of God which sojourneth
at Rome.' The name of Clement does not appear
in the text. Practically all modern critics, how-
ever,— following the unanimous voice of tradi-
tion^— agree in attributing the document to him.
Substance of the letter. — The Prima Clementis
opens with an apology. " By reason of the sudden
and repeated calamities . . . which are befalling
us," it runs, " we consider that we have been
somewhat slow to pay attention to the matters of
dispute which have arisen among you." ^ The
writer then proceeds to contrast at some length the
present deplorable condition of the Corinthian
Church with her glorious past, Avhen her members
submitted themselves to their rulers {toI<s '^yovfiivoi?)
and when every sedition (arda-i^) and every schism
(crxto-fxa) was abominable to them.*
Clement admonishes the evil-doers,^ and exhorts
them to do penance. " We should be obedient
unto God," he writes, " rather than follow those
1 Heg. apud Eus. : H. E. iii. 16 ; iv. 22 ; Barden. : op. cit.,
p. 27. Lightfoot : vol. cit., p. 342.
2 c/r. Eus. : H. E. iii. 38 ; Jer.: De vir. xv. ; Barden. : op. cit.,
p. 27 ; Lightfoot : vol. cit., pp. 361 sqq.
^ c. i. * cc. ii. sqq. * c. vii.
THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 125
who in arrogance and unruliness have set them-
selves up as leaders in abominable jealousy." ^
Examples of subjection to authority are not far
to seek. The material universe observes the
divine law. The heavens are moved by God's
direction, and obey Him. The sun, the moon, and
the dancing stars move in harmony within the
bounds assigned to them, without any " swerving
aside. " ^ j^ the army each man obeys his superior
officer. " Therein is utility." ^ In the living body
members conspire and unite " in subjection " to
promote the well-being of the whole.* Christians
should take pattern by these, enlisting themselves
with earnestness in God's faultless ordinances ; *
. . . for " while they follow the institutions of the
Master they cannot go wrong." ® They should
reverence their ecclesiastical superiors and be
subject to them.'
The hierarchy is of divine institution. It was
so under the old dispensation. " The offerings and
ministrations God commanded to be performed
with care, and at fixed times and seasons. And
where, and by whom, He would have them per-
formed He Himself determined by His Supreme
will. Unto the high-priest his proper functions
were assigned, and to the priests their proper office
1 c, xiv.
4 ib.
2 C. XX.
5 ib.
^ c. XXX vii.
6 C. Xl.
' c. xxi.
126 THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
was appointed . . . The layman was bound by
the layman's ordinances. No one was at liberty to
act contrary to these ordinances." ^
The principle of apostolic succession is clearly
enunciated by Clement. Bishops rule by right
divine. They are from the apostles : the apostles
are from Christ: Christ is from God. "The
apostles preaching everywhere, in country and
town, appointed their first-fruits ... to be
bishops and deacons unto them that should
believe." ^ Further, they provided a continuance
that if these should fall asleep other approved men
should succeed to their ministration. Bishops hold
office in virtue of appointment coming, not from
the faithful, but from the apostles and through
them from Christ. The bishop's office is for life.^
Christians form together one body of Christ.
Schism is inexcusable : " Wherefore are there
strifes and wraths and factions and divisions and
war among you ? . . . Wherefore do we tear
and rend asunder the members of Christ . . . and
reach such a pitch of folly, as to forget that we are
members one of another." ^ Schism is so great an
evil that individuaJs should be prepared to make
any personal sacrifice, however great, that the
Church may be saved from it, and " that the flock
of Christ may be at peace with its duly appointed
^ c, xl. 3 c. xliv.
^ c. xlii. * c. xlvi.
THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 127
pastors." ^ The revolt against the clergy at
Corinth was gravely smful. All who took part in
it, including " those who laid the foundation of the
dissension," must submit themselves to the deposed
presbyters and obtain forgiveness, " receiving
chastisement unto repentance." ;2 Submission to
the established hierarchy is necessary for salvation.
The letter concludes with an admonition : "If
you receive our counsel," it runs, " you shall have
no occasion of regret. •"* . . . But if certain persons
should be disobedient unto the words spoken by
Christ through us, let them understand that they
will entangle themselves in no slight transgression
and danger ; but we will be guiltless of this sin.*
. . . Therefore it is right for us to submit the
neck, and occupying the place of obedience, to
take the side of them that are the leaders of our
souls, that, ceasing from this foolish dissension,
we may attain unto the goal. For ye will give us
great joy and gladness if ye render obedience unto
the things written by us through the Holy Spirit,
and root out the unrighteous anger of your jealousy
according to the entreaty which we have made for
peace and concord in this letter." ^
Ecclesiology. — The purpose of the Prima
dementis is to condemn anarchy in the Church.
The hierarchy is of divine institution ; ecclesiastical
^ c. liv. ^ c. Iviii.
^ cc. xlviii-lvii. * c. lix.
s c. Ixiii.
128 THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
rulers are appointed to office, not by their flocks,
but by Christ Himself through the apostles and
their successors. The faithful cannot depose
rulers who are true to their trust. They are
obliged to obey them as soldiers obey their officers.
To withhold obedience is to oppose the Master's
own ordmances. The local church is a visible
society.
There is also a Church of churches. Christians
are soldiers of one army, members of one body.^
They have one God and one Christ and one Spirit
of grace and one calling (KXijaig) in Christ.^ One
calling, one church : fxla KXija-ig, /ula eKKXrjcrla.
" The ' Prima dementis,' " writes Batiffol, " is
the epiphany of the Roman primacy." ^ This is
now practically admitted by the critics. "It is
easy to prove," says Hamack, " that even in the
first letter of Clement there is a very big dose of
Roman Catholicism." ^ The circumstances in
which the letter A\'as penned are noteworthy. The
first century had not yet come to a close. St. John
was still alive and bishop of Ephesus. Rome was
separated from Corinth by some six or seven
hundred miles, Ephesus by scarce one-third that
distance. Between Corinth and Ephesus, moreover,
there existed great facilities of communication.
The Prima Clementis is thus a de facto witness to
the Roman primacy. If Rome was the recognized
1 c. xxxvii. ^ op. cit., p. 123.
2 c. xlvi. 4 Tkeol Lit., Jan. 16, 1909.
THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 129
mistress of Christendom ; if Clement was burdened
with the care of all the churches, his action in the
circumstances, and the equally remarkable inaction
of St. John, become perfectly intelligible. In any
other hypothesis the incident involves a mystery.
It has been suggested that the deposed presbyters
had appealed to Clement for redress ; but then,
why should they have appealed to the distant
bishop of Rome, and not rather to the apostle-
bishop of Ephesus, to whom access could have
been had so easily ? We may remark further that
modern exegetes do not favour the view that the
Prima Clementis was written at the instance of
the Corinthian clergy. ^ Clement's intervention in
the case seems to have been quite spontaneous.
Professor Sohm has succeeded in grasping the
ecclesiology of St. Clement, but to little purpose.
The Prima Clementis, he admits, gives expression
to the doctrine of Roman Catholicism ^ ; but the
doctrine was then quite new. The Church from its
inception until the closing years of the first century
was an ' anarchical ' kingdom, governed exclu-
sively by Love and by charismatical manifestations
1 The hypothesis that the Corinthians solicited Clement's
intervention is regarded by Bardenhewer as incompatible with
certain passages in the letter {cfr. op. cit., p. 27).
2 A startling admission by one of the ablest Protestant
controversialists of our time. By the doctrine of Catholicism
he means the doctrine which teaches that the Church of Christ
is, by divine law, a visible society governed by the bishops
and by the pope {cfr. Bat. : op. cit., pp. 130, 131).
130 THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
of the Spirit. It was only when the decline of faith
and of Christian charity made government by
visible authority a practical necessity that Clement
ushered in Roman Catholicism!
Bishop Lightfoot, on the contrary, finds in the
Letter no evidence to support the Roman, still
less the papal claims. Clement's intervention in
the case, he admits, was a step towards papal
domination, but the language of the document is
inconsistent with the possession of papal authority
by the writer. Clement, he asserts, acted merely
as spokesman of the Roman Church. Hence were
we even to admit that the tone of the letter is
authoritative, it would not follow that the implied
authority was vested in the writer, but rather in
the Church for which he spoke. But the language
and tone of the Epistle are not really authoritative.
The Prima dementis is nothing more than " a
dignified remonstrance in which the Romans as a
community deal with the Corinthians on terms of
equality, strong only in the righteousness of their
cause and feeling, as they had a right to feel, that
these counsels of peace were the dictation of the
Holy Spirit." i
As our work is not a formal defence of the
papacy, we do not feel called upon to deal at any
length with the first part of the argument. We
may remark, however, that if the Prima dementis
1 Ap. F., vol cit.y pp. 69 sqq.
THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 131
implies the possession of a certain authority by the
Roman Church, it affords a very fair argument
indeed for the view that the authority in question
was vested in the writer. Clement, as Lightfoot
himself strongly argues, ^ was monarchical bishop
of Rome.
' In the Clementine Epistle,' we are told, ' the
Romans remonstrate with the Corinthians on terms
of equality.' We have failed to discover in the
document itself any grounds for this assertion. The
writer does not merely advise ; he commands. He
holds the place of God. Those who disobey him
disobey Christ, and sin mortally. ^ The evil-doers
are bound to render obedience to the things spoken
by him through the Holy Spirit.^ His intervention
was not a work of supererogation. No ; it was a
duty incumbent upon him. He is careful to account
for his delay in taking action.^ Having fulfilled
his obligations in their regard, his conscience will
be at peace, although his efforts to quell the revolt
may prove ineffectual.^ Is this the language of
equality ? Lightfoot himself seems to be conscious
of the weakness of his position here. The tone of
^ Ap. F., pp. 67 sqq.
2 c. lix.
^ cc. lix, Ixiii.
4
c. 1.
^ c. lix. It is history that his efiforts were not ineffectual,
and that the claim to sovereignty implicitly made by him was
acquiesced in by those against whom it was made.
132 THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
the letter, he admits, is " urgent and almost im-
perious/^^ What is the meaning of this?^
The ' ahnost imperious ' tone he tries to explain
by stating that the Romans, in remonstrating with
the Corinthians, " were strong only in the righteous-
ness of their cause, feeling, as they had a right to
feel, that these counsels of peace were the dictation
of the Holy Spirit." To describe the Roman
instructions as counsels is to speak inaccurately.
There is question, not of counsels, but of strict
precepts. The Prima dementis speaks of obedience
and disobedience. 2 We obey precepts ; counsels
we merely follow.
As to the explanation offered, the Roman Church
was no doubt conscious of the justice of her cause,
conscious, too, that her intervention was divinely
sanctioned. But surely this does not suffice to
explain the authoritative tone of the Prima
dementis. How does Lightfoot's explanation
square with the principles laid down in the Letter
itself ? Clement teaches — and this is his primordial
principle — that Christians owe obedience to eccle-
siastical superiors because these constitute a hierarchy
established by Christ. To resist them is to disobey
the Master. What then are we to infer when we
1 Dr. Lindsay describes the contents of the Prima Clementis
as " calm injunctions issued in measured language " {op. cit.,
p. 193).
^ Gr. iav 8k TLves dTTfi^rycrcoo-tv . . . edv vTr-qKOOi yevoyucvot . .
(cc, lix, Ixiii),
THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 133
find the same letter stating that the mischief-
makers at Corinth are bound under pain of grave
sin to obey the precepts imposed upon them by
the Church of Rome ? Is it not implied that the
precepts in question are imposed by virtue of
authority received from Christ ? Finally, Light-
foot has not explained why the " dignified remon-
strance " came from the distant Church of Rome,
and not rather from the neighbouring Church of
Ephesus, which, he holds, became the head-
quarters of Christendom after the destruction of
Jerusalem, 1 and which was at this time ruled by
the apostle John.
Advocates of democratic theories of church
government labour much to give a ' popular '
interpretation to certain passages of the Prima
dementis. " The one thought running through
all the earlier documents," writes Dr. Lindsay,
" is that the poM er to render special service to the
community . . . depends on the possession of
' gifts ' engrafted by the Spirit on uidividual
character ; and the occasion of these particular
services is their recognition by the community
who appoint the brethren to serve it in ruling it. . .
The function of the missionary or his deputy . . .
was to advise the community iu their selection of
those who were to be over them and to inculcate
such principles of selection as would abide per-
manently in their minds and secure a succession
1 Ap. F., pt. ii, vol. i, p. 438.
134 THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
of worthy office-bearers when the first missionaries
were no longer present to advise ; or to use the
words of St. Clement : ' Our Apostles knew
through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would
be strife over the name (dignity) of the overseer's
office ; for this cause, therefore, . . . they
appointed the aforesaid persons . . . and after-
wards gave a further injunction that if they should
fall asleep other approved men should succeed to
their administration.' ^ ... In the Epistle of St.
Clement we find that the Congregation is the
supreme authority." ^ Dr. Dale writes in the same
strain : " From the Epistle of Clement it is clear,"
he argues, " that in apostolic times the whole
Church not only concurred in the appointment of
its elders but had the power to depose them." ^
It would be difficult to find anything more
diametrically opposed to the principles of St.
Clement than a " popular " theory of church
government. For him the principle of apostolic
succession rules everywhere. " The apostles," he
writes, " received the Gospel for us from the Lord
Jesus Christ ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from
God. So then, Christ is from God, and the apostles
are from Christ. Both, therefore, came of the will
of God in the appointed order. Having thus
received a charge . . . the apostles went forth
bearing the glad tidings. ... So preaching
1 op. ciL, pp. 151, 152. 2 if, ^ p 176 n.
^ ib., p. 55.
THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 135
everywhere in country and town they appointed
their first-fruits . . . to be bishops and deacons
unto them that should believe. ^ . . . Having
appointed the aforesaid persons they afterwards
provided a continuance that if these should fall
asleep other approved men should succeed to their
ministration. Those, therefore, who were ap-
pointed by them, or afterwards by other men of
repute with the consent of the whole Church, and
have ministered blamelessly ... we consider to
be unjustly thrust out from their ministration." ^
Could the principle of apostolic succession be
more clearly inculcated ? Office-bearers are elected
by the people, but appointment comes from Christ
Himself through the apostles or " other men of
repute." Clement seems to imply that those who
do not minister blamelessly may be justly thrust
out ; but by whom ? Manifestly by those who
appointed them. If the commonalty did not
appoint, the commonalty cannot depose. If
" Clement of Rome is a good authority for the fact
that about thirty years after Paul's death the
Church at Corinth claimed and exercised the power
to depose its presbyters," ^ he is an equally good
authority for the fact that the Church in the case
acted ultra vires.
1 c. xlii.
2 c. xliv,
^ Dale : op. cit., p. 40.
136 THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
The Ignatian Epistles
What we know of the personal history of St.
Ignatius may be set down in a few liaes. He was
the second, or, if we include Peter, the third
bishop of Antioch.i During a persecution which
broke out under Trajan,^ he was dragged before
the provincial magistrate and condemned to the
wild beasts. On his way to Rome to have the
sentence executed, the martyr-bishop wrote seven
letters, which have come down to us.^ These con-
tain what we know of his teaching.*
^ Origen : Horn. vi. in Lk. ; Eus. H. E. iii, 22.
2 98-117 A.D.
^ The authenticity of the Seven Letters was long bitterly
contested by Protestant controversiahsts. The whole of the
Ignatian literature they brushed aside as " a mass of falsifi-
cation and fraud." " We assert," writes the author of Essays
on Supernatural Religion, " that none of the Epistles have any
value as evidence for an earlier period than the end of the
second or beginning of the third century, even if they possess
any value at all. . . . The martyr- journey of Ignatius to
Rome is, for cogent reasons, declared to be wholly fabulous,
and the Epistles purporting to be written during that journey
must be held to be spurious " [cfr. Lightfoot : Essays on
Supernatural Religion (pp. 62, 63)]. But the controversy may
now be regarded as closed. Practically all modem scholars,
including Bardenhewer, Zahn, Lightfoot, Hamack and Ritschl,
admit that the letters are genuine. The entire evidence for
their authenticity is set forth in scholarly fashion by Lightfoot
(Ap. F., pt. ii, vol. i, pp. 328-430 ; cfr. Essays on Supernatural
Religion ; Barden. : Patr., pp. 34, 35).
4 cfr. Lightfoot : Ap. F., pt. ii, vol. i, pp. 28-30 ; vol. ii,
pp. 448 sqq. ; Barden. : op. cit., p. 30 ; Schmid-Schobel :
Patr., p. 79. The date usually assigned to the martyrdom of
St. Ignatius is 107 A.D.
THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 137
The Local Church. — For Ignatius Christians of a
district or city form together a single association.
Control is by a resident hierarchy consisting of a
monarchical bishop (supreme), a college of priests
and deacons. Without these three there is no
Church.^ Submission to the bishop is necessary for
salvation. He holds the place of God.^ It is only
those who are with the bishop that are of God and
of Christ Jesus. ^ The unity of the Church is a
unity of flesh (through authority) and of spirit
(through grace).* Members symbolize their union
by " breaking one bread." ^
When Ignatius wrote, the Asiatic churches were
threatened with two forms of heresy. One —
Docetism — denied the reality of the Sacred
Humanity ; the other was Judaism.^ The Saint
admonishes Christians to guard themselves
against irepoSo^la. ' In matters of belief, he
urges, we cannot be too wary. False teachers are
mad dogs that bite by stealth ; their bite is hard
to heal.® The hierarchy is our safeguard. The
bishop is the Christian's tower of strength against
1 Xwpts TOVTUiV kKKXtp^la. ov KoAetTai (Trail, iil.)
2 ib. iv ; Smym. ix.
3 Phil. iii.
* Magn. i, xiii.
5 Phil. iv.
« cfr. Eph. ix, xv ; Magn. x, xi ; cfr. Trail, vi, xi ; Phil, vi ;
Smym. v-vii. Bardenhewer and others think there is question
of one sect only, — Judaising Gnostics.
' Magn. viii. * Eph. vii.
138 THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
heresy. Episcopal sanction is the hall-mark of
orthodoxy. 1
The exercise of the hierarchical magisterium
enables the Church to purge out effectively all
extraneous doctrines. " Heterodox " teachers and
their followers — i.e., for Ignatius all who are not
" with the bishop " — are vitandi. Heresy is some-
thing intrusive ; it is strange fodder {aXXorpia
^oTcivri).^ Those who partake of it become differ-
entiated from those who, remaining united to the
bishop, are nourished only by what is genuine and
Christian.^ Heresy is separative.
Protestant exegetes refuse to recognize in
Ignatius a witness to " episcopacy." "It is
pathetic," writes Dr. Lindsay, " to see the fiery
impassioned words of the martyr used as missiles
by reckless preachers of episcopal supremacy. . . .
His writings are a proof that the threefold ministry
in some form or other did exist, early in the second
century, in some parts of the Church, though not
in others. . . . Further, the bishop is not an
autocrat. . . . He is helpless without his council
of presbyters. ..." *
^ The written word as a rule of faith Ignatius refers to, but
does not discuss. He impUes its insufficiency however
(Phil, viii, cfr. Bat. : op. cit., pp. 136, 137).
2 Trail, vi.
^ ... fiovy Trj ^puTTiavQ Tpoffjrj -^prjcrdi, dXXoTpias 8e
y8oTavr^s (XTrexecrde ^tls eo-rlv atpecns . . . {ib.)
* Lindsay : op. cit., pp. 194 sqq. ; Lightfoot : SS. Ign. and
Polyc. i., p. 382.
THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 139
That Ignatius represents the Church as owing
obedience to a threefold hierarchy is true. All
three orders form a corporate whole to which the
faithful are subject. But it is no less true that
supreme control vests in the bishop. He is a rally-
ing centre for the entire community. He holds
the place of God the Father ; ^ and even the priests
owe him reverence and obedience. Writing to the
Ephesians the saint tells them that their " famous
presbyterium is attached to the bishop as the chords
to the lyre ; " ^ and to the Magnesians : "It does
not become you to use your bishop too familiarly
on account of his youth ; but rather in consideration
of the power of God the Father to pay him all
reverence, as I heard that the holy presbyters do ;
for they do not take advantage of his youth in this
high position ; but being prudent in God they
submit to him. . . ." ^
To say that Ignatius witnesses to the existence
of the threefold ministry in some parts of the
Church though not in others is to misstate his
testimony. We grant that Poly carp's letter to the
Philippians about the same time contains no
reference to a monarchical bishop, and merely
1 Magn. vi ; Trail, iii ; Smyrn. viii.
2 Eph. iv.
^ Magn. iii. cfr. Smyrn. viii, where we read : " Let that
Eucharist be regarded as ^ge^ata which is offered by the bishop
or by him to whom he has given his consent. ... It is not
lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate the
aydTT-q. Whatsoever he approves, that is also pleasing to God."
140 THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
enjoins submission to the presbyters and deacons.
But even though his silence in the case justified us
in inferring that the Philippians were then ruled
by a college of presbyters, it would not follow
that the Ignatian Epistles testify to the existence
of a monarchical episcopate in some parts of the
Church and not in others. No ; Ignatius witnesses
to episcopacy supreme and universal. If there
existed churches with a different polity he was not
aware of it. " Without these three," he says
" (bishop, priests and deacons) there is no
Church."
The Church Universal. — Like Clement of Rome,
Ignatius seems to have drawn his ecclesiology
bodily from the Pauline letters. The Church is
Catholic, 1 and a visible organic unit. All who
embrace Christianity are gathered together unto
God. 2 They are building-stones erected into the
same edifice, ^ soldiers of the same army,* members
of the same body.^ " Christ was truly crucified,"
he writes, " that He might set up a standard unto
all the ages, through the resurrection of His saints
and faithful people, whether among Jews or among
Gentiles, in one body of His Church^ ^
Isolated or solitary communities do not lie
within the horizon of St. Ignatius. For him there
^ The expression i) KadoXtKrj iKKXrja-ia is found for the first
time in the Ignatian Epistles (Smyrn. viii).
2 Magn. X. 4 Polyc. vi. ^ Smyrn. i
^ Eph. ix. 5 Ep]j jy
THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 141
is a community of communities. A spirit of
fraternal charity is everywhere in evidence. Inter-
ecclesiastical communication is general ; churches
exchange greetings ; letters and messengers pass
freely to and fro ; travelling brethren are enter-
tained and escorted from church to church. In
these and a hundred other ways the love of the
brethren was externalized. " Christianity, a league
of brothers," was no mere ideal ; it was an accom-
plished fact in the time of St. Ignatius.
But more than this. The dispersed communities
acknowledged a common flag. Christianity was
an authoritative Kavcov to which the faithful every-
where were expected to conform. They ran
together in harmony with the mind of God ; the
Gospel was the same for all. But how was general
agreement in doctrine and discipline to be secured
and maintained among so many ? Let us hear
Ignatius: "The faithful in each church," he
writes, " should run in harmony with the mind of
the bishop." This, he implies, will secure general
harmony among the faithful everywhere, " because
Jesus Christ is the mind of the Father and the
bishops that are settled in the farthest parts of the
earth are in the mind of Jesus Christ." ^ We need
not elaborate. No one claims that bishops are
individually infallible — still less inspired. There
1 Eph. iii, iv. The doctrinal infallibility of the Church
is clearly implied in this passage. It is elsewhere explicitly
referred to {cfr. ib. XVii. . . . tva ffve?/ rrj iKKXrjo-ia af^dafxrlav).
142 THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
is, therefore, an episcopal body corporate whose
utterances represent the mind of Christ, and to
which individual bishops, and, through them, the
faithful everywhere must keep attuned. The
Church has a central magisterium.
Schism. — St. Ignatius teaches that schism is
absolutely sinful. To divide the Church is to divide
the body of Christ. ^ Heresy and schism go hand
in hand ; they are equally indefensible. " As
children of truth," he writes, " shun division and
wrong doctrines ; where the shepherd is, there
follow ye as sheep." ^ The shepherd is the
monarchical bishop, the authoritative exponent of
the Christian teaching. Against the attacks
of heresy he must stand " firm as an anvil
when it is smitten." ^ The faithful must cleave
to him. " Wheresoever the bishop shall appear
there let the people also be ; as where Jesus Christ
is there is the Catholic Church." *
Heretics and schismatics are excommunicated.^
They are separatists to their own destruction. In
breaking with the established hierarchy they break
with God and with Jesus Christ. To be saved they
must " repent and enter into the unity of the
Church.''^ ^ Extra ecclesiam nulla solus. "^
With heresy and schism there can be no com-
1 Eph. iv. ^ Smyrn. viii.
2 Phil. ii. « ib. iv.
^ Polyc. iii. ^ Phil. iii.
' cfr. Eph. V, xiii, xx ; Magn. vii.
THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 143
promise, they are utterly wrong. " Unity though
the heavens should fall " is the principle on which
Ignatius rmgs the changes. " Be not deceived my
brethren," he writes ; " if any one follow eth one
that maketh a schism he doth not inherit the
Kingdom of God." ^ To the Philadelphians he had
proclaimed with God's own voice that all must
subject themselves to the established hierarchy:
" It was the preaching of the Spirit," he adds
" who spoke thus : ' Cherish union ; avoid schism
. . . where there is division . . . there God
abideth not.' " 2
The Roman Primacy — The letter addressed by
Ignatius to the Church ' which had as her teachers
the Apostles Peter and Paul ' ^ opens with the
following passage : "Ignatius . . . unto her that
hath found mercy in the bountifulness of the
Father Most High and of Jesus Christ His only
Son ; to the Church that is beloved and enlightened
through the will of Him who wiUed all things that
are, by faith and love towards Jesus Christ our
God ; even unto her that hath the presidency in
the place of the region of the Romans, being worthy
of God, worthy of honour, worthy of felicitation,
1 Phil. iii.
- ih. vii, viii.
^ Rom. iv. Although the Roman Church was founded by
SS. Peter and Paul, the latter was never Bishop of Rome.
All the early authorities speak of the Roman bishops as being
successors not of Peter and Paul, but of Peter alone.
144 THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy in
purity, and having the presidency of love, walking
in the law of Jesus Christ . . . which Church
also I salute in His Name." ^
Anyone who compares this magnificent exordium
with the inscriptions of the other Ignatian epistles
will grant without difficulty that the Roman Church
is here pre-eminently honoured. But what is the
precise character of the pre-eminence ? Is it
authoritative or merely honorary ? It is a question
more readily put than answered ; but some of the
ablest exegetes contend that Ignatius here ascribes
to the Roman Church a primacy of jurisdiction.
We shall conclude our discussion of his letters by
briefly examining the grounds for this contention.
The Church of Rome " presides in the place of
the region of the Romans." '^ This peculiarly-
worded statement has been variously explained.
Many Catholic scholars find in it a reference to a
universal presidency, understanding totto? x^p^"^
'Puifiaim of the Roman Empire. This interpreta-
tion, although it has been ably defended, I consider
1 Rom. exonl.
Gr. TrpoKoidrjTai, ev tott^j) yuypiov 'Viofiaiuyv. Tertullian
{De Prcescr. 36) speaks of each apostolic church as presiding
in its own place ( . . . cathedrce apostolorum siiis locis prcesi-
dent). Durell {The Historic Church, p. 39, n. 2), following
Lightfoot, argues that the presidency ascribed by Ignatius to
the Roman Church implies nothing more. The objection is
forcible, but the reader should take care to hear the other side
before rejecting the Cathohc interpretation.
THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 145
far-fetched. A more satisfactory rendering is
suggested by Batiffol. The presidency in question
is, he holds, universal, but the words iv ronrm x(^ptoi
'PoDfiaioDv mean ' at Rome ' simply. The verb
TrpoKaOtjTai he construes absolutely: " The Roman
Church presides, and it presides at Rome." If this
be the true interpretation the words eV tottw x<^p^ou 'P.
localize the presidency, rather than define the
limits over which it extends.
Lightfoot and Protestant commentators gener-
ally understand the words iv to-kw x'P- as indicating
the range of the presidency : The Church of Rome
presides in the country of the Romans, as the
Church of Jerusalem might have been said to
preside in Palestine. She was the principal Church
in the Roman area. Her jurisdiction would have
been somewhat akin to that exercised by a metro-
politan see in our time.
But if this be the Saint's meaning, does it not
seem strange that his letter to the Metropolitan
Church of Ephesus, contains no reference to a
presidency in ' the place of the region of the
Asiatics.' ? Further let us not forget that some ten
to twenty years before this epistle was penned, the
Roman Church de facto " presided " over churches
situated well outside " the region of the Romans."
Ignatius must have known of the " Prima
dementis " ; he knew the past of the Roman
Church : " You have never deceived anyone,"
he writes. " You have taught others." Now if it
146 THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
be true, as Lightfoot himself supposes/ that the
Saint had here in mind the Prima dementis, — ^not
to speak of other similar documents which may
have been extant in his time and have since
perished — is it at all likely that, in addressing and
magnifying the Church of Rome, he should have
limited the range of her presidency to the x^P^<^^
'Pddij.alwv'i We find it difficult to think so.
The presidency of the Roman Church is a
presidency of love.^ " This, then," writes Dr.
Lightfoot, " was the original primacy of Rome —
a primacy not of the bishop but of the whole
Church, a primacy not of official authority, but of
practical goodness." ^ Funk on the other hand
argues, with considerable force, for a more Catholic
interpretation. The expression nrpoKaOrjixivr) rrj^
dyd-TTtjg, he contends, cannot be understood of a
presidency or pre-eminence in practical goodness.
The verb -TrpoKadrjixai is never employed except
in conjunction with the name of a place or of a
collectivity. Hence dydirri here as elsewhere in the
Ignatian letters * denotes not the virtue of charity
1 Ap. F., pt. ii, vol. ii, p. 203.
Gr. TrpoKadijixevrj rrjs dydir'qs.
^ Ap. F., pt. i, vol. i, p. 71.
* cfr. Trail. Xiii : do-yga^erat vfias r) dydwT] "^fivpvaiwv —
" The dydirrj of the Smyrnians salutes you," where dydtrr)
certainly appears to be synonymous with kKKX-qa-la {cfr.
Rom. ix, Phil, xi, Smyrn. xii). Lightfoot translates : " The
love of the Smyrnians salutes you ; " but the form of expression
is strange.
THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 147
but the Church ; and not merely the local church —
it is she who presides over the dydTrtj — but the
Church Universal.
The passage as a whole is obscure ; but one must
not exaggerate. Some points are sufficiently clear.
To begin with it is certain that Ignatius addresses
not the Roman bishop or hierarchy but the
iKK\t](rta. The Roman Church then presides over
at least some churches. She is also their authorita-
tive instructor. 1 Her presidency, whatever be its
range, is, therefore, pastoral and not, as Lightfoot
contends, a mere pre-eminence in practical good-
ness. Further, in view of her authoritative inter-
vention in the affairs of the Church at Corinth, —
an intervention which Ignatius seems to have had
in mind when writing the epistle — we consider it
probable that her presidency is localized rather
than limited by the words iv Toira xo^plov ' Poomaicov.^
St. Polycarp
Polycarp, an immediate disciple of John the
Evangelist, was bishop of Smyrna during the
^ cfr. Rom. iii : aXXovS ISiSa^ere, lyo) 8e ^cAw tva KOLKetva
Qk^aia y a fj.aOrjTfvovTe's evTiWecrdi — " Ye taught others ;
my desire is that those lessons shall hold good which as
teachers ye enjoin."
2 That the saint should have written Iv ron-^ x'^P^^'"
'Pw^atojv for €v '^iofiy is, I confess, strange. Batiffol, however,
regards such " affectation " as characteristic of Ignatius. I
may add that the accuracy of Lightfoot's translation : " in
the country of the region of the R.," is, to say the least, question-
able.
148 THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
earlier half of the second century. He was mar-
tyred in his eighty-sixth year. From an encyclical
written by his bereaved flock and dealing with his
martyrdom, we are able to fix the date of his
death with approximate certainty as February 23,
155 A.D.i Of the numerous letters addressed by
him to individuals and to communities - only one
has reached us. It is addressed to the Philippians,
who had requested him to send them a word of
comfort and exhortation, together with any
epistles of Ignatius which he might have in his
possession.^ The authenticity of the letter is
vouched for by Irenaeus.^
The author commends the kindness and fraternal
charity of the Philippians in welcoming and
escorting Ignatius and the other martyrs on their
way to Rome.^ He cannot pretend to speak with
the authority of their founder, Paul, nevertheless
he will address a word of warning and exhortation
to them.^ He condemns avarice as the root of aU
evil, exhorts wives to be faithful to their husbands,
and to bring up their children in piety. Widows
should be sober-minded ; deacons blameless ;
1 cjr. Barden. : op. cit., p. 36 ; Bat. : op. cit., p. 166.
2 cfr. Eus. H. E. v. 20, 28.
^ How strongly this request of the Phihppians witnesses to
the sohdarity of the new Diaspora !
* Adv. hcBr. iii. 3, 4. Irenaeus describes the letter as
IKaVCOTttTTJ
^ c. i. * c. iii.
THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 149
young people chaste. " No profligate," he writes,
" shall inherit the kingdom." *
Christianity is a deposit, a treasury of divine
truth which has come down to us from the
apostles. 2 The faith is the same for all, and must
be zealously guarded by all. Christians must
beware of false brethren who in hypocrisy bear the
name of the Lord and lead vain men into error. ^
Heresy puts us outside the fold of Christ ; it makes
us children of the Adversary : " Whoso accepts
the teaching of the Docetae is of the devil, and
whoso perverts the \oyia of Jesus to his own
lusts, ^ and says that there is neither resurrection
nor judgment, that man is the first-born of Satan." ^
Tradition is the sole norm of orthodoxy. " Where-
fore let us forsake the vain-doing of the many and
their false teachings and turn unto the word
delivered unto us from the beginning." *
The faith is statutory. Christians abide by the
Lord's precepts and teaching,' and obey the word.®
Obedience to the word is secured through obedience
to the presbyters. To break with the established
hierarchy is to break with God and with Christ.*
Schism is never lawful.
The faithful hold together ; the Church is one.
Christians everywhere conform to the same
c- IV. 5 c. vii.
^ c. vi. 6 ih.
3 ih.
* A thrust at Antinomianism.
9 C. V.
C. 11
c. ix.
150 THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
authoritative standard of belief and of discipline.
They are joined together in the truth, and con-
stitute a single brotherhood. " Stand fast," he
writes, "... being firm in the faith and immove-
able loving the brethren and being kindly affec-
tioned to each other, joined together in the
truth. 1 . . . May the God and Father of our
Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal High-priest
Himself, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, build you
up in truth and purity ; and may He grant you
a lot and portion among His saints and to us
with you and to all that are under heaven who
shall believe in Christ Jesus. Pray for all the
saints." ^
The apostolic tradition, as handed down and
interpreted by "the presbyters," was the samtly
prelate's constant and only rule of faith. After his
death one of his disciples, a Roman presbyter
named Florinus, fell a victim to Gnosticism.
Irenaeus, his fellow-disciple, wrote to rebuke him :
" Florinus," his letter runs, " these opinions the
presbyters, who went before us, and who were the
companions of the apostles, did not deliver to
thee. . . . Our master Polycarp related all that
he had heard from the apostles concerning the
Lord and His teaching, having received them from
eye-witnesses of the Word of Life. And I am able
to bear witness before God that if that blessed and
apostolic presbyter had heard any such doctrines
1 c. X. ^ c. xii.
THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 161
he would have cried out and stopped his ears ;
and, as was his custom, would have ex-
claimed : ' Oh, good God, unto what times
hast Thou kept me, that I should endure these
things.' " 1
Towards the close of 154, or early in 155,
Polycarp made his way to Rome, in the hope of
coming to an understanding with Anicetus as to
the date on which Easter should be celebrated. ^
They failed to agree, but parted friends. At the
conference Polycarp held for the Eastern practice,
on the ground that it had come down from the
apostles. Anicetus, on the other hand, contended
that the Western custom was that followed by his
predecessors the " presbyters " of Rome {rwv -rrpo
avTov TTpea/Surepoov).^ That each adhered to his
own view matters little ; what is important is that
both appealed to the same norm of orthodoxy —
tradition.
Other Early Writers
All the available evidence goes to show that the
principles inculcated by the apostolic fathers were
universally recognized. Papias, a " hearer " of
St. John * and an intimate friend of Polycarp,*
1 Eus. : H. E. V. 20, 4-7. » Eus. : H. E. v. 24, 16.
* V. supra. * cfr. Iren. Adv. hcer. v. 33.
5 ib. iii. 39.
M
152 THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
adopts the ' traditional ' rule of faith in dealing
with Gnosticism. 1 His criterion of orthodoxy is
the authentic teaching or Xoym of Christ, as
received from His disciples and their followers.
Apocryphal Xoym, as well as novel interpretations
of genuine Xoyta, must be set aside. To Gnosticism
he opposes the irapaSoa-i^.
Eusebius has partially rescued from the pit
some encyclical letters, addressed by Dionysius,
bishop of Corinth, to a number of churches,^
during the period 166-175. These letters attest
that general inter-ecclesiastical communication
which we find so much in evidence in the sub-
apostolic age. 3 They also witness to the unity and
inviolability of the authoritative faith. All or
practically all treated of orthodoxy. The letter
to the Lacedaemonians for example was a compen-
dium of the sound teachmg, while that addressed
to the Nicomedians was a defence of the " canon "
of truth against the heresy of Marcion. The letter
to the churches of Crete forbade intercourse with
heretics.^
1 Papias' work was entitled : Xoyiwv K-i-piaK-wv e^ijyqa-eis
(" Expositions of the Sayings of the Lord "). The work has
perished except for a few passages preserved by Eusebius and
Irenaeus. Papias wrote about 130.
2 He addressed letters to the Romans, Lacedaemonians,
Nicomedians, and Cretans.
^ V. supra.
4 cfr. Eus. : H. E. iv. 23, 10-12 ; ii. 25, 8.
THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 153
The author of " The Shepherd of Hernias " ^ is
conscious of the unity of the Christian faith and
of the absolute sinfuhiess of heresy. " Those who
introduce strange doctrines," he writes, " and
subvert the servants of God . . . persuading
them by foolish doctrines ; these may repent. . . .
Many have repented. But all who will not repent
are lost." ^ He suggests, further, that the bishop
of Rome has the care of all the churches : " The
aged woman," he writes, " came and asked me if
I had already given the book to the elders. I said
that I had not given it. ' Thou hast done well,'
she said, . . . ' write two little books and send
one to Clement and one to Grapte. And Clement
shall send his to the foreign cities for this is his
duty (eVeiVft) yap iirireTpa'TrTai).'' " ^
^ The date of composition is uncertain. Origen regarded
the author as the same Hermas who is mentioned by St. Paul
in the Epistle to the Romans (c. xvi). The author of the
Muratorian fragment, on the other hand, asserts that the work
was composed by its author " sedente cathedram urbis Eomae
ecclesiae Pio episcopo fratre eius " {circ. 140-155), and this
view is adopted by most modern critics, and by Bardenhewer,
although it implies that Hermas was guilty of deceit in referrmg
to Clement as a contemporary. A few scholars, with Zahn,
date the work from the closing years of the first century.
Lightfoot is undecided. All things considered, it seems most
satisfactor}'' to place the date of composition about the close
of the first century and allow for a recension during the
period 140-155.
" The shepherd " is quoted as Scripture by Irenaeus (Adv.
hcer. iv. 20,2). Origen, too, gives it as his personal opinion ('m^
puto ') that the work is divinely inspired {Comm. in Rom. x. 31).
^ Sim. viii. c. 6. ^ Vis. ii. 4.
CHAPTER V
JUSTIN MARTYR
Justin Martyr was born of heathen parents at
Nablus (ancient Sichem)i about the dawn of the
second century.- In his early years he devoted
himself to philosophy, and studied successively the
systems of the Stoics, the Peripatetics, the
Pythagoreans and the Platonists.^ Finding all
unsatisfactory he finally embraced Christianity —
" the words of the Saviour" — -which he describes
as the only sound and serviceable philosophy.''
For him the Christian religion is a great ' wisdom '
of God,^ a " divine philosophy," ® more lofty than
all human systems.' Tertullian entitles him
"philosopher and martyr."^ He laid down his
life for his Master at Rome 163-167. '
Justin was the ablest Christian apologist of
the second century. He defended the faith
against pagans, Jews, and heretics. Most of his
writings have unhappily perished, including his
^ A-p. i. 1. ^ ih. xxxviii.
2 cjr- Barden. : op. cit., p. 49. ® Ap. ii. 12.
2 Dial. ii. ' ib. 15.
* ib. viii. ® cfr. Adv. Valent. v.
*cfr. Barden. : loc. cit.
164
JUSTIN MARTYR 155
chief work : Syntagma adversus omnes haereses.
Numerous extant compositions have been ascribed
to him, but of these only three are certainly
genuine ; they are : the two Apologies and the
Dialogue with the Jew Trypho.
Truth. — Justin is above all else a truth-seeker.
He followed the profession of philosopher even
subsequently to his conversion/ and as an apologist
concerned himself exclusively with the true : -
" I have mentioned these things," he writes,
" taking nothing whatever into consideration
except the speaking of the truth." ^ If he urges
men to embrace Christianity, it is because he has
found it to be an embodiment of truth. He
reasons with the Emperor and with Trypho as
with lovers of truth. If Christianity is truth, men
are bound to embrace it ; if it is not truth, let us
have done with it.* Such is his starting-point.
The Logos, the divine Word, is truth and the
sole principle of truth. Christ was the Word made
flesh ; He was Truth itself Incarnate.
But the Word has been operative independently
of the Incarnation. All men are to some extent
partakers of the Word ; and those who, like
Socrates, and Abraham, lived " with reason "
{/nera Xoyov), were Christians, though they lived
1 Eus. H. E. xi. 8. Dial, i, viii.
^ Celsus calls Justin's Apology a " true discourse."
^ Dial. cxx.
* Ap. i. 2, 68 ; ii. 15 ; Dial. cxx.
156 JUSTIN MARTYR
anterior to Christ. ^ The Word is germinally
operative in every human sonl.^ In so far as men,
by the light of reason or by revelation, arrive at
truth, they participate in the Word. The religious
and philosophical systems of Jews, of heretics, and
of heathens owe to the Word the measure of truth
contained in each.^ " Whatever either lawgivers
or philosophers uttered well, they elaborated by
finding and contemplating some part of the Word.
But since they did not know the whole of the Word,
which is Christ, they often contradicted them-
selves. . . ." '*
" . . . But whatever things were rightly said
among all men, are the property of us Christians." ^
All truth is Christian ; and the fulness of truth is
found only in the system established by Truth
Incarnate. The Gospels — the memoirs of the
Apostles {aTTOfxi'tijuovevjULera t&v axocrroXtoi/) — are re-
positories of Christian truth.
Christianity Cosmopolitan and Catholic. — The
Old Law has been abrogated ; * Christ is another
Moses.' He has established a new and everlasting
covenant, to which men are admitted irrespective
of race or nationality. Christians are a people of
God, chosen indiscriminately from the nations.*
They constitute the true Israel, God's own children,
a new and elect race.^
1 Ap. i. 46 ; cfr. Ap. ii. 8. ^ ib. 13, 20.
^ ib. ii. 10, 13. ^ Dial, xi, xviii.
' Dial, xxxix. ' ib.
* Ap. ii. 10. 8 ib. cfr. xxiv.
^ ib. cxxiii., cxxxv-vi.
JUSTIN MARTYR 157
The new ' tendency ' is catholic ; Christians are
to be found in every land. " There is not any
race of men . . . among whom prayers and
eucharists are not celebrated in the name of Jesus." ^
The Gospel is " Christ's mighty word, which His
Apostles, gomg forth from Jerusalem, preached
everywhere ; and although death is decreed against
those who confess the name of Jesus, we everywhere
both embrace and teach it." ^ The same gospel has
been preached in every land by the Apostles and
their successors.^
Christianity Individualistic. — The Christian
system is just. If the individual is rewarded only
for personal righteousness, he is punished only for
personal sin. " Father shall not perish for son,
nor son for father, but each for his own sin, as each
shall be saved for his own righteousness " *
Further, " those who are foreknown to be sinners,
whether men or angels, are not made wicked by
God's fault." ^ The Divine prevision does not
involve determinism.
Christianity a Unit. — The faithful are bound
together by many ties. They constitute one
people ; ^ one visible whole, ' rounded off from
pagans^ and Jews,^ on the one side, and from
heretics on the other.^*^ They have one faith, ^^ one
1 Dial, cxvii. ^ ib. cx-cxix.
2 Ap. i. 45. 7 ^^ i^ 14^ 25
2 ib. 50. 8 ib. 25.
* Dial. cxI. 9 ib. 31, 36 ; Dial, xxxix.
^ ib. cxli. 10 Dial. xxxv.
^1 ib. cx-cxix.
158 JUSTIN MARTYR
regula morumy^ one baptism. ^ In fine, they are
coheirs to the same inheritance.^
Fraternal charity constitutes an additional
bond ^ Christianity is an association of brothers,
an dSe\<i>6Trig.^ " 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? '<ai avarpom) T'^s ^euSwvo/iov
yvoxrews^ " Detection and overthrow of the falsely -named
gnosis."
171
172 THE ADVERSUS HAERESES
books, directed against the Gnostics. It was
compiled during the period 180-1 98. ^
Doctrine. — The Gnostics made a Demiurge the
principle of evil. Irenaeus, on the contrary,
taught that all evil is traceable to man's abuse
of free will, — ^to the faU of Adam. Man is free.^
In Adam, as its juridical head, the race fell, by
disobeying the Creator. A Saviour was necessary.
" Then the Son of God, Who existed from the
beginning — the same Who created all things . . .
became incarnate ; and summing up in Himself
{i.e., standing for) a long line of human beings,
furnished us with salvation, so that what we had
lost in Adam we recovered in Christ Jesus." ^ The
Word incarnate is another Adam, a new repre-
sentative of the race ; and, as by carnal birth we
become children of Adam and, therefore, liable to
death, so by our re-birth through baptism we
become children of Christ and inherit life eternal.*
Men avail of the Redemption by faith. To be
saved through Jesus we must accept the gospel
promulgated by Him.^
1 The work with the exception of a few isolated passages
has not survived in the original Greek, but only in an in-
different, though slavishly Hteral Latin translation, executed
shortly after the pubUcation of the original.
2 iv. 37, 1-3 ; ib. 3, 2 ; ib. 41, 2.
3 iii. 18, 1 ; V. 16, 3.
* V. 1, 3 ; ib. 12, 3 ; ib. 14, 1-3.
5 iv. 6, 5 ; ib. 13, 1.
THE ADVERSUS HAERESES 173
Rule of Faith
Scripture Authoritative hut Insufficient.— The
* word ' has come down to us by tradition, written
and unwritten. The Scriptures, particularly the
four gospels, 1 are reliable, since they record the
teaching of the apostles and have been dictated
by the Word of God and His Spirit. ^
But Scripture, by itself, is insufficient as a rule
of faith. The " dead letter " is powerless to crush
heresy, even in those who admit, to say nothing of
those who deny, the authority of the inspired text.
Those who grant its authority will not allow that
their own position is unscriptural. They are quick
to garble and pervert the written word, to support
their views. ^ Collecting a set of texts from various
parts of Scripture, they give them an unnatural
interpretation, to suit their theories. In this they
remind one of those who bring forward any kind
of hypothesis they fancy, and then proceed to
find support for it in the Homeric ballads ; " so that
the ignorant imagiae that Homer actually com-
posed the verses on the hypothesis in question,
although it has, in fact, been but recently con-
structed." *
Against arguments drawn from Scripture they
1 iii. 1 ; ib. 11, 7. » i jg^ 19
2 ii. 28, 2. * i. 9, 4.
174 THE ADVERSUS HAERESES
raise all manner of difficulties.^ When hard
pressed, they appeal to new and unauthorised
translations of the sacred text.^ They even adduce
a number of apocryphal and spurious writings,
which they themselves have forged, to bewilder
the minds of foolish men and of such as are ignorant
of the Scriptures of truth. ^ Genuine Scripture they
examine, not to extract therefrom the truth, but
rather to find in it some expressions which seem
to favour their views. They are prompted to
study the inspired documents more by love of
their own opinions than by any desire to discover
truth. 4
Others, when confuted from the written word,
profess to be guided, not by Scripture alone, but
by Scripture read in the light of tradition : " When
confuted from the Scriptures they turn round and
accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not
correct or authoritative. The ' letter,' they allege,
is in itself ambiguous ; the truth cannot be ex-
tracted from it by those who are ignorant of
tradition."
On the other hand, when confuted from that
1 ii. 10, 2, 3.
2 iii. 21, 3.
^ i. 20, 1. It is noteworthy that Irenaeus himself denied
the inspired character of the epistle to the Hebrews, though he
quotes from it (ii. 30, 9, cfr. Trseront: Hist, of Dogm., vol. ii,
pp. 229, 230). On the other hand, he regarded The Shepherd
and The Epistle oj Clement as Sacred Scripture.
^ iii. 11, 7.
THE ADVERSUS HAERESES 175
tradition which has come down to us from the
apostles, through the successions of presbyters
in the churches, they claim to be wiser than either
presbyters or apostles. ' The apostles,' they say,
' had not attained to the perfect gnosis.' ^ These
men will follow neither Scripture nor tradition. -
Effective Rule of Faith. — The " letter " is, there-
fore, insufficient as a rule of faith. To deal
effectively with heretics, we must confront them
with the apostolic tradition.^ In interpreting Holy
Writ we must allow ourselves to be guided by the
" presbyters " among whom is the apostolic
doctrine, 4 and " who expound the Scriptures to
us without danger." ^
The " traditio " has come down to us from the
apostles through the successions of bishops. It is,
therefore, to be found in the important churches ;
or, to be accurate, in those churches of apostolic
origin in which the episcopal lines have remained
unbroken.^
1 iii. 12, 7.
2 ib. 1, 2.
^ " Ea quae est ab apostolis traditio " (iii. 3).
4 iv. 32, 1.
^ ib. 26, 5. And yet Irenaeus himself, interpreting the
gospel narrative " in company with the presb3;i:ers " sets down
the duration of Christ's public ministry as from ten to twenty
years. Whom then, he asks, are we to believe ; those who,
ignoring the presbyters, say that Christ died a young man, or
those who, with the presbyters, maintain that He was more
than fifty years old when He suffered ? (iii. 22).
6 iii. 3, 1.
176 THE ADVERStJS HAERESES
We need not, however, examine the Usts in the
case of all the churches. It suffices to establish
the continuity of the succession in the Church of
Rome. Irenaeus explains: "Since it would be
tedious ... to reckon the successions in
all the churches, we confute all those who for any
reason (through self-pleasing, or vainglory, or
through blindness and perverse opinion) assemble
in unauthorized meetings, ^ [we confute all such
men I say] by pointing to the tradition which
the greatest and most ancient and universally
known church, — founded at Rome by the two
most glorious apostles Peter and Paul — ^holds from
the apostles ; and the faith which has been proposed
to men and which has come down to our time
through the episcopal successions." -
The Roman doctrine is, therefore, the catholic
doctrine. He proceeds at once to give the reason :
^^ Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem
(potiorem) principalitatem necesse est omnem con-
venire ecclesiam hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideleSf
in qua semper ah his qui sunt undique conservata
est ea quae est ah apostolis traditio " ^
Let us first remark on some individual words
and expressions in this much-disputed passage :
" Principalitatem.''^ — Many attempts have been
^ " Praeterquam oportet colligunt." — The last word is prob-
ably an awkward rendering of an original Trapaxrvvdyova-tv
{cjr. Migne in loc).
2 iii. 3, 2.
3 iii. 2.
THE ADVERSUS HAERESES 177
made to conjecture the original. Bishop Words-
worth suggests apxaiOTtj^ ; ^ others, with Migne,
TTpun-elov {irpiare'ta.) ; others again, with Harnack,^
avOevTia. The first of these suggestions scarcely
recommends itself. The author's criterion of
orthodoxy is, properly speaking, apostolicity
rather than primitiveness. Besides the Roman
Church was not the most ancient of the apostolic
churches. Bishop Wordsworth appeals to chapter
V, verses 14 and 21 as supporting his conjecture ;
but in both texts the original was probably
riye/uLovia rather than dpxaiorr]?, as appears from
iii. 11, 8, where an original irpSiTov ^wov i^yenoviKov
is rendered : " primum animal principale." As
between the other two — Trpwreiov and avQevrla —
it is more difficult to decide. Irenaeus uses the
former of the Divine principality in iv. 38, 3 ^ ;
while in i. 31, on the other hand, the Latin " a
superiore principalitate " represents an original eV
-7-^9 avwdev avOevTia?.'^ It sccms bcst, therefore,
leaving open the question as to the exact original,
to render " principalitatem " by " power,"
" authority," or, as Hamack suggests,^ " sovereign
authority." ®
1 St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome : p. 285.
2 Hist, of Dogm., vol. ii, p. 157 n. In a paper read before
the Royal Prussian Academy of Science, Nov. 9, 1893, Harnack
argues with much force for an original avdivrla.
^ Gr. : 7r/>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
<V-
343.
3 Cypr. :
: Ep.
Iv. 21.
ST. CYPRIAN, BISHOP AND MARTYR 207
opposition was shortlived. Before the middle of
the century the decree of Callixtus was being acted
upon in practice by the clergy everywhere.
The Decian persecution was the occasion of a
further mitigation of the penitential discipline.
While Cyprian was still a refugee, numbers of those
who had apostatised at Carthage expressed a desire
to be reconciled, and, to facilitate their return to
communion, many obtained from the martyrs or
confessors letters which were known as libelli pads.
Some of these, it would seem, not only recom-
mended the bearer to the indulgence of the clergy,
but actually demanded his unconditional restora-
tion ; not a few^ adding the words: "cum
suis."
Recognizing that they had no authority to move
in a matter of such importance, some of the priests
requested Cyprian to allow them to admit to
communion unconditionally all bearers of libelli
pads. Cyprian refused, declaring that the entire
question should be allowed to stand over " until
the Lord would send them peace," when he would
consider it in conjunction with his clergy and
people. 1
The priests, as a body, upheld the decision.
But some, acting independently and " with con-
tempt of the bishop," '^ admitted bearers of
libelli to communion, without penance of any
1 Ep. xiv. 4. 2 Ep. xvi. 1.
208 ST. CYPRIAN, BISHOP AND MARTYR
kind.i Cyprian once more intervened to reassert
his authority, but also to make an important
concession. While condemning the disobedience of
his priests, and the presumption of the martyrs
and confessors in demanding the unconditional
restoration of the lapsed, he permitted bearers of
libelli who had done penance to be reconciled
when in extremis.^
Cyprian immediately wrote to the Roman
clergy'^ explaining the facts of the case, and re-
questing them to give their formal support to his
decision. The Romans replied by a cautiously-
worded letter,* in which, while associating them-
selves in the main with his principles, they re-
frained from expressly sanctioning the reconciliation
of apostates. The document was composed by
the rigorist Novatian.
At Carthage the decision was badly received by
the majority of those concerned. The malcontents
were led by the deacon Felicissimus and by the
priest Novatus. All efforts to move the saintly
bishop were unavailing ; he would make no further
concessions. The lapsed, he insisted, should await
his return from exile, to have their case examined.
^ " Ante actam poenitentiam ante exomologesim gravissimi
atque extremi delicti factam ante manum ab episcopo et clero
in poenitentiam impositam " (Ep. xv. 1).
2 Ep. XX. 3.
^ The Roman See was at this time vacant. Pope Fabian
had just suffered martyrdom (January 20, 250).
* Ep. XXX.
ST. CYPRIAN, BISHOP AND MARTYR 209
But his enemies in the city had ulterior designs.
Felicissimus had organized his party into a schis-
matical church, and now threatened to cut off from
communion all who submitted to the rigorism of
Cyprian.
The schismatics were, of course, liberal in their
treatment of the lapsi, and admitted them to
communion freely and unconditionally. Cyprian
ridiculed their action : " Men who are themselves
excommunicate and outside the Church," he
writes, " offer communion to others." ^
At this juncture the E/oman See was about to be
filled ; and the party of the lapsed at Carthage
strained every nerve to secure the election of a
pope who should aid them against their lawful
bishop. Novatus was dispatched to Rome to
support the candidature of the presbyter Novatian ;
but the scheme proved abortive, the rival candidate
Cornelius being elected. The discomfited party at
Rome thereupon set up Novatian as anti-pope,
and constituted themselves a schismatical church.^
Cyprian's condemnation of the Novatianists was
unqualified. In his eyes to break with the legiti-
mate pope was to break with the Catholic Church.^
In order to assist the Roman clergy in their struggle
with the schismatics he composed his celebrated
tract : " Z)e Unitate.''
1 Ep. xHii. 5.
^ At first they were merely schismatical. Later they erred
in doctrine by holding the irremissibility of the sin of apostasy.
''^ Epp. xliv. 1 ; xlv. 1, 3.
210 ST. CYPRIAN, BISHOP AND MARTYR
ECCLESIOLOGY
The Church Local. — ^For Cyprian as for his pre-
decessors, the local church is a visible society,
ruled by a three-fold hierarchy composed of a
monarchical bishop, a college of presbyters and
deacons.
The bishop is the rock-foundation of the local
church ; ^ supreme control vests in him. It is he
who excommunicates ^ and restores to com-
munion.^ He acts as supreme judge in all matters
of ecclesiastical discipline. Heretics and schis-
matics— and the same is true of mere lapsi * — ^he
reconciles by a judicial sentence following upon a
judicial investigation.^ The bishop, having been
elected by the clergy and people, is ordained by
other bishops,^ and receives his pastoral authority
" from above," per successionum vices.'' A bishop
who lapses becomes permanently degraded.
In the eyes of Cyprian the plebs constitute a
rather important factor in the government of the
local church. They have the power to elect worthy
bishops and to refuse the ministration of the un-
worthy : Ipsa maxime Imhet potestatem vel eligendi
dignos sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi.^ They have
1 Ep. xxxiii. 1. 5 Ep. xlix. 1-3.
2 ih. xli. 2. 6 i^ iy_ 5,
3 ib. xlix. 2. 7 ift, xxxiii. 1.
* cfr. De lapsis xvi. s J5_ j^vii. 3.
ST. CYPRIAN, BISHOP AND MARTYR 211
a voice in the restoration of lapsi, heretics and
schismatics,^ and they help to decide questions of
discipline which affect the welfare and good name
of the community as a whole. ^
In theory Cyprian seems occasionally to hold for
the independence of the local church. A bishop,
he proclaims, is not amenable to his fellows but to
God.^ His practice, however, was at variance with
this. He recognized the legitimacy and authority
of provincial councils. Twice yearly he himself
presided over the celebrated council of Carthage
which controlled the entire province. Cyprian was
in fact primate of Africa. " As the See of Rome
was the ' See of Peter,' " writes Tixeront, " so also
that of Carthage was in the fourth century the See
of Cyprian."^ Provincial councils were quite
common in his time and earlier.^ The great
churches — Rome, Lyons, Alexandria, Carthage,
Caesarea, Ephesus, etc. — constituted rallying-
centres for the churches of their respective areas.
Individual bishops were bound by the decrees of
provincial councils,^ and could even be deposed
by them.' In practice, too, as we shall see, Cyprian
recognized the Roman primacy of jurisdiction.
• " Cum petitu et conscientia plebis " : Epp. Ixiv. 1 ; xxxiv. 3.
2 Ep. xiv. 4.
^ cfr. Acta. Cone. Carth. (256), sect, i; Epp. xxxiii. 1 ; lix. 1,
14 ; Ixvi. 8 ; Ixxi. 3 ; Ixxii. 3.
4 Vol. cit., p. 356 ; cfr. S. Opt. ii. 10.
5 Epp. lix. 10 ; Ixxiii. 1.
6 ib. i. 1, 2 ; Ixiv. 1, 2. ' Ep. lix. 10.
212 ST. CYPRIAN, BISHOP AND MARTYR
The Church Universal. — The great churches
themselves held together. They had a common
Kavtov, to which bishops everywhere were obliged
to conform. For Cyprian Christianity is a traditio
Dei, which stands over against alienae doctrinae et
magisteria humanae institutionis.^ Disagreement
in matters of faith was reprobated ; and, even in
the domain of discipline, uniformity was felt to
be desirable. Thus, when the Roman clergy wrote
to their Carthaginian colleagues to say that
penitent lapsi might be " assisted " in extremis,
Cyprian replied informing them that he had upheld
their judgment : " I deemed it well," he said, " to
stand by your decision, lest our proceedings, which
ought to be united and to agree in all things, should
in any respect be different." ^ Subsequently, as
we have seen, he was careful to obtain the sanction
of the same presbyters for his method of dealing
with the Carthaginian malcontents. The clergy,
he said, should follow a common plan in ad-
ministering the Church.
About this time he wrote to warn the Romans
against intercourse with a certain Privatus of
Lambesa, a heretic who had been condemned for
many crimes.^ The presbyters replied commending
his vigilance, and assuring him that they had
previously known of the character of Privatus and
had dealt with him accordingly : " You have acted
1 De Unit. xix. ^ gp. xx. ^ ^ \^ jq
ST. CYPRIAN, BISHOP AND MARTYR 213
as you usually do," their letter runs, " in informing
us of the matter as being an object of anxiety.
For it behoves us all to guard (excubare) the body
of the whole Church, whose members are to be
found throughout the various provinces. But the
deceitfulness of that crafty man was not hidden
from us even before we had your letter ; for
previously, when a certain Futurus, a standard-
bearer of Privatus, came and desired to obtain
letters from us, we were neither ignorant who he
was nor did he obtain the letters."^ These were com-
mendatory letters which, when obtained from any
church, secured the bearer admission to fellowship
and communion in any other church. Travellers
who failed to produce " letters " were excluded
from communion ; and, if clerics, were not allowed
to officiate. There was, therefore, a Church of
churches which was a social unit. The Christian
communities constituted a league in opposition to
heresy. The bishops " who guarded the body of
the whole Church " did not guard it solitarily ;
for the withholding of commendatory letters
closed the Church doors against those who were
excommunicated wherever they travelled. There
was thorough and effective organization ; so that
it does not surprise one to find that, when an
important see is filled, the Catholic bishops are
notified that the newly-elected colleague may be
recognised by them.^
1 Ep. xxxvi. 14. 2 cfr. Epp. xlv. 3 ; Iv. 8.
214 ST. CYPRIAN, BISHOP AND MARTYR
The unity of the Church is based on unity of the
episcopate. 1 To disrupt this unity by schism is
never lawful. ^
De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate
The title of this celebrated tract is somewhat
misleading. It has to do primarily, not so much
with Catholic as with local ecclesiastical luiity.
Cyprian composed it, as we have seen, on the
occasion of the Novatian crisis ; his main purpose
being to estabUsh the oneness of the cathedra in
each Church. " Does any one believe," he asks,
" that in one place there can be either many shep-
herds or many flocks." ^
Argument. — Christians should be at once simple
and prudent ; to secure salvation we must beware
of Satan's wiles and keep the commandments of
the Master. Cyprian explains : " The devil,
finding himself unable any longer to fill his fanes
with idol- worshippers, has devised a new fraud,
and under the very title of the Christian name
deceives the incautious. He has invented heresies
and schisms, to subvert the faith, to corrupt the
1 Epp. iv. 24 ; xxxvi. 4 ; Ixiii. 1.
2 Ep. Ix. 1.
2 De Unit. viii. We follow Hartel's critical text. By doing
so, however, we do not intend to pass judgment on the so-
called papal interpolations which are found in the tract " De
Unitate," and which Hartel omits. The spurious character of
the " interpolations " iS; to say the least, doubtful.
ST. CYPRIAN, BISHOP AND MARTYR . 215
truth, and to divide the unity. Those whom he
cannot keep in the darkness of the old way, he
circumvents and deceives by the error of a new
way. He snatches men from the Church itself.'''' ^
The saint proceeds to make good his contention.
Christ, he argues, began by naming one apostle as
the rock-foundation of His Church, and the
shepherd of His flock. Why ? Not, he assures us,
that He intended to invest any one apostle as
such with authority over the others, — He
endowed all with the same power, ^ — but " that
He might show forth unity." In other words Christ
was not satisfied to found the Church on the
apostles collectively. Instead, He founded it on a
single apostle, in the first instance, to inculcate the
principle of local unity in and through subjection
to a single bishop ; and, incidentally, the principle
of catholic unity as " beginning with one." Such
would seem to be the saint's interpretation of
the words of promise (Mt. xvi).-^
1 De Unit., i.-iii.
2 i6. iv. " . . . Apostolis omnibus . . . parem potes-
tatem tribuit. . . . Hoc erant et ceteri apostoli quod fuit
Petrus, pari consortio prsediti et honoris et potestatis."
^ We confess it is difficult to be certain about the exact
meaning here ; the passage is obscure. We have given what,
in view of certain statements in the epistles — especially
xxxiii. 1 ; Ixxiii. 7 ; Ixxvi. 8 — we consider to be the argu-
ment. Batiffol asserts that " in the eyes of Cyprian, Christ's
words to Peter mean only that each church is one since the
first of all the churches, that founded by Christ on Peter, is
one " {pp. cit. p. 358). Tixeront, on the other hand, inter-
Q
216 ST. CYPRIAN, BISHOP AND MARTYR
But there is also a unity of units ; because the
Catholic hierarchy is one and undivided. The
Episcopate is one ; it is held conjointly by the
bishops. 1 From this unity of the Episcopate
springs the unity of the Catholic Church. " The
Church which is Catholic and one is not cut nor
divided, but is connected and bound together by
the cement of the ' presbyters,' who cohere with
one another." If one member of the episcopal
body prove false to his trust, his colleagues take
care to provide for his flock. ^
The Church is one as a tree which has extended
its branches far and wide. A branch lopped off
from the trunk is unable to bud. Christianity has
diffused itself over the whole world. " The Church
is one mother, plentiful in the results of fruitful-
ness : from her womb a\ e are born, by her milk
we are nourished, bj^ her spirit we are animated." ^
She is the bride of Christ ; He has begotten us of
her. She cannot be adulterous. He is her sole
consort, she is His only spouse : " She kno\vs one
home ; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity
of one couch. . . . Those therefore who have
not the Church for their mother, have not God for
prets the passage in De JJnitate as implying that Christ sym-
boUzed the unity of the Church Universal by founding it on
Peter, and bestowing on him alone, in the first instance, the
power He was later on to grant to the others {op. cit. vol. i.,
p. 357).
* " Episcopatus unus est cuius a singuhs in solidum pars
tenetur " {lb. v.).
2 Ep. Ixviii. 3. ^ De Unit., v.
ST. CYPRIAN, BISHOP AND MARTYR 217
their father. They are strangers, they are profane,
they are enemies." *
Cyprian's De Unitate is the last word on
heresy and schism : " He who does not hold the
unity of the Church does not hold God's law, does
not hold the faith of the Father and Son, does not
hold life and salvation." - The Church is an ark
of Noe ; to remain without is to perish.^
The Church is the assembly of those who hold
one and the same faith in subjection to the bishops.
Schismatics separate themselves: "It is not we
who have withdrawn from them, but they from
us." * Heresies are permitted by God as means
of ridding the Church of undesirables. " Let no
one imagine that the really good can depart from
the Church.'^ The wind does not carry away the
wheat ; it is only the light straws that are tossed
about by the tempest ; it is only the feeble trees
that are blown down by the whirlwind. Heresy
approves the faithful and discovers the perfidious.®
The presumption of heresiarchs is diabolical.
Of their own accord and without any divine
arrangement they set themselves up as bishops:
" They assume to themselves the name of bishop,
although no one has conferred on them the epis-
copate." ' A bishop is consecrated by having the
1 De Unit., vi. ' ib.
2 ib. * ib. xii.
5 Nemo existimet bonos de ecclesia posse discedere.
^ ib. ix-x, ^ ib.
218 ST. CYPRIAN, BISHOP AND MARTYR
episcopate communicated to him by men already
possessed of it. Consecration by heretical and
schismatical bishops is absolutely null {fidraia).
There is no episcopate outside the Church.*
Those pseudo-bishops sit on thrones of pestilence.
Artful in corrupting the truth, they vomit forth
death-dealing doctrines. Their speech is a deadly
poison ; it eats like a cancer. -
The Church is the exclusive repository of the
blessings derived to us from Christ. She alone
dispenses His grace. For Cyprian this is a first
principle. Outside the Church there are no sacra-
ments, no salvation. The axiom; " Extra eccle-
siam nulla salus " was formulated by him.^
He has already referred to the invalidity of
heretical baptism. " Heretics and schismatics,"
he says, " claim to baptize, although there can be
no other baptism but one. They forsake the
fountain of life, and yet promise the grace of living
and saving water." But their pretensions are
hollow. " Men are not washed among them, but
rather befouled." *
The principle applies all round. Their Masses,
too, are invalid : " What sacrifices," he asks, " do
those who are opposed to the presbyters think they
celebrate ? Do they deem that they have Christ
with them when they are collected together outside
1 cfr. Eus. H. E. vi, 43. 10. ^ Ep. Ixxiii. 21.
* De Unit. x. * De Unit. xiii.
ST. CYPRIAN, BISHOP AND MARTYR 219
His Church ? " ^ We may add here that Cyprian
is inclined to go even farther, and to make
the vahdity of the sacraments — at least of the
Eucharist — depend on the probity of the minister.^
The sin of schism is inexpiable.^ Even martyr-
dom is powerless to save seceders. Though they
give themselves up to flames and fires ; though
they be thrown to the wild beasts ; it is to no
purpose ; their suffering is not the crown of faith,
but the punishment of perfidy. They may be
slain ; crowned they cannot be.^
Separatists are vitandi : " Whoso separates from
the Church is to be turned away from and avoided.
Such a one is perverted and sins, and is condemned
of his own self. Does he think that he has Christ
who acts in opposition to Christ's presbyters, who
separates himself from the fellowship of His clergy
and people ? He bears arms against the Church ;
he acts in opposition to God's appointment. An
enemy of the altar, a rebel against Christ's sacrifice,
for the faith faithless, for religion profane, a dis-
obedient servant, an impious son, a hostile brother,
despising the bishops and forsaking God's priests,
he dares to set up another altar to profane the
truth of the Lord's offering by false sacrifices, and
1 De Unit. xiii.
2 cjr. Ep. Ixvii. 2, 3.
^ " Inexpiabilis culpa discordiae ; macula ista nee sanguine
abluitur " {ib. xiv).
* ib. xiii.
220 ST. CYPRIAN, BISHOP AND MARTYR
disdains to recognise that he who opposes the
divine appointment is punished for his temerity." ^
The condition of the schismatic is much more
serious than that of the Christian who has merely
lapsed. The latter has sinned but once, and seeks
re-instatement ; the schismatic, on the contrarj^
sins daily, and resists the Church. Martyrdom,
too, may save the lapsed ; it cannot save the
schismatic.^
In fine, Cyprian bases the absolute unlawfulness
of schism on the corporate unity of the Church.
" God is one," he writes, " and Christ is one, and
His Church is one, and the faith is one, and the
people are joined together into a substantial unity
of body by the cement of concord. Unity cannot
be severed ; the body cannot be divided." ^
Summary. — Christ arranged that in each church
there should be but one see. Hfence Christians are
strictly bound to subject themselves to their
legitimate bishop. Every church is a social unit.
Schism is inexcusable.
All the churches form together one Church.
The Catholic bishops are united in opposition to
heresy and schism. The episcopate is one and
undivided. To break with a local church is to
break with the Church Universal.'*
The Church is the sole repository of grace;
' cfr. Ep. xvii. ^ ib. xx. iii,
2 ib. xix. 4 {^ xliii. 7.
ST. CYPRIAN, BISHOP AND MARTYR 221
she alone holds the means of salvation. For
Cyprian the rule, " extra ecclesiam nulla salus "
admits of no exception.^ Schism is thus abso-
lutely sinful, for two reasons : first, because ignoring
Christ's positive arrangements ; secondly, because
suicidal.
The Baptismal Controversy.
Towards the close of his life, Cyprian became
involved in an important controversy concerning
the validity of heretical baptism.
So long as heretics refrained from organising
separate communities the question as to the
validity of their baptism did not arise. They were
baptised by ministers of the true Church, and were
reconciled by a simple imposition of hands mito
penance.^ Baptism was not repeated.
But, with the formation of independent sects,
the mode of procedure to be followed in reconciling
heretics became more difficult to determine. Was
the Church to rebaptize those who came to her
from an heretical sect, and who had been
baptised by an heretical minister ; or was she to
1 cJT. Epp. iv. 4 ; Iv. 24 ; xli. 2.
2 The " impositio manuum," in this case, did not confer the
Holy Ghost. It was only those who had been baptized and
confirmed outside the Church who were reconfirmed on their
return to communion {cjr. Ep. Ixxi. 2). The early Church,
which admitted the validity of baptism administered by
heretics, regarded their confirmation as invalid.
222 ST. CYPRIAN, BISHOP AND MARTYR
admit them to communion by a simple imposition
of hands ? It was a practical problem ; to solve it
was to pronounce on the value of heretical baptism.
The Church was slow in coming to a decision.
So late as the third century we find that Christen-
dom was pretty evenly divided in its adherence to
two conflicting practices. The Churches of Rome,^
Alexandria, 2 and Palestine,^ at that time recon-
ciled by a simple imposition of hands ; while those
of Africa,* Syria, ^ Phrygia,^ Cappadocia, and the
neighbouring provmces,^ declared against the
validity of heretical baptism, and accordingly
used the baptismal rite together with an imposition
of hands in the ceremony of reconciliation.^
For a time, apparently, this serious diversity in
practice was regarded with general indifference.
As in the Easter controversy, individual churches
were left to follow their own custom, catholic
unity remaining intact.
The seeds of disunion were there however. A
1 Philosoph. ix. 12 ; Cypr. Epp. Ixii. 3 ; Ixxiv. 1, etc. ;
Eus. H. E. vii. 3.
2 cfr. Jer. De vir. illustr. Ixix.
3 Eus. vii. 2, 3.
4 Cypr. Epp. Ixx-lxxv.
•'' Ap. Constit. vi. 15.
6 Eus. H. E. vii. 7, 5.
7 Cypr. Ep. Ixxv. 7, 19.
8 The practice of rebaptising heretics would appear to have
arisen as a result of the adoption of the doctrines of Tertullian
in certain quarters, cfr. Tert. : De Bapt. xv ; Diet, de Theol.
Cath., torn, ii., p. 219.
ST. CYPRIAN, BISHOP AND MARTYR 223
council of African bishops, held about the year
200,1 and presided over by Agrippinus, one of
Cyprian's predecessors and a contemporary of
Tertullian, pronounced heretical baptism nuU and
void. 2 Other councils held about the same time
in Asia Minor and Syria, and the Councils of
Iconium and Synnada, held later during the period
222-235,^ gave similar decisions.*
Cyprian brought matters to a head. A layman
named Magnus had consulted him as to " whether
they who come from Novatian ought, after his
profane washing, to be baptised and sanctified in
the Catholic Church." Cyprian, following his
master,^ Tertullian, replied m the affirmative:
" Heretics and schismatics," he declared, " have
no power, no right." ®
The reasons he adduces in this and other letters
to establish the nullity of heretical baptism, are
numerous and weighty : The Church, he argues,
1 Tixeront, following Leclercq, gives 198 (approx.) as the
year {op. cit., vol. ii, p. 368). Batiffol puts it about twenty
years later. Bareille (in Diet, de Theol. Cath.), following the
author of the Philosophoumena, gives 218-222.
2 Ep. Ixxiv.
^ Bat. : op. cit., p. 381.
* Eus. H. E. vii. 7; cjr. Tixeront, vol. cit., p. 368; Diet, de
Theol. Cath., torn, ii, p. 220.
'^ Jerome tells us that so great was Cyprian's respect for the
opinions of Tertullian that he was wont to refer to him as
" the master " {De vir. ill. liii).
« Epp. Ixix ; Ixx. 1 ; Ixxi. 1.
224 ST. CYPRIAN, BISHOP AND MARTYR
is the sole repository of grace and of the means of
grace ; she is an enclosed garden which is not open
to strangers and profane persons. She is a sealed
fountain ; he who is placed without has no access
to the spring ; he cannot drink thence nor be
sealed ; he cannot be quickened and sanctified
from that water of which those only who are
within can make use or drink. The Church alone
has the power of baptising and cleansing. She
alone has the living water." ^
The Lord Himself has instructed us to regard
as pagans and publicans those who will not hear
the Church.^ Hence we cannot allow that heretics
and schismatics validly administer the Christian
sacraments. How can any one cleanse and sanctify
the waters of baptism who is himself unclean and
devoid of sanctity ? Besides, those who receive
baptism are anointed '* that they may have in them
the grace of Christ." Now, the oil of unction, like
the Eucharist, is sanctified on the altar. There
can thus be no baptismal anointing among heretics ;
having no altar they can neither sanctify the oil
nor celebrate the Eucharist. Finally, baptism
administered by heretics is manifestly of no value ;
how can a minister who is himself dead quicken
others ? ^ Heretics are equally incapable of
1 cfr. Epp. Ixix. 2, 3 ; Ixxiii. 1, 10-12 ; Ixxiv. 11 ; Ixxv. 11, 16.
2 Ep. Ixix. 1.
^ cjr. Epp. Ixx. 1, 2 ; Ixix. 8 ; Ixxi. 1. The reader will have
no difficulty in discovering in these epistles the seeds of
Donatism.
ST. CYPRIAN, BISHOP AND MARTYR 225
receiving the sacraments. None receive grace save
such as hold the true faith. ^
Baptism, he argues further, is a regeneration ;
it makes us sons of God. How, then, can heresy,
which is not the spouse of Christ, confer baptism ?
How can it generate sons to God by Christ ? The
Church alone is the Spouse of Christ ; she alone
bears sons to God ; she alone baptizes.'^
But Cyprian bases his strongest argument on
the admission of his opponents, that heretics
cannot give the Holy Ghost. If those who have been
confirmed in heretical sects are reconfirmed on the
occasion of their reconciliation, why inconsistently
withhold rebaptism in their case ? If heretical
confirmation is invalid, as is acknowledged, how
do we contend that heretical baptism is valid ?
If those who are outside the Church can baptise,
they can confer the Holy Ghost ; if they cannot
give the Holy Ghost, they cannot baptize.^
To the objection that the nullity of confirmation
conferred by heretics does not justify us in inferring
the nullity of their baptism, since the invalidity of
their confirmation is due solely to the fact that
they do not possess and hence cannot give the
Holy Ghost, he replies: It is no less true that
those who do not possess the Holy Ghost cannot
remit sin and therefore cannot baptise.* Christ
1 Ep. Ixxiii. 4, 5. ^ gp. Ixxiv. 6.
3 Ep. Ixxiv. 15.
'* For Cyprian a sacrament to be valid must be fruitful.
226 ST. CYPRIAN, BISHOP AND MARTYR
said : " Receive ye the Holy Ghost whose sins you
shall forgive they are forgiven them." But the
Holy Ghost is found only in the Church. Heretics
and schismatics, therefore, are powerless to baptize,
as they are powerless to confirm.^
Finally, Cyprian, like his opponents, appeals to
tradition. The custom of rebaptising heretics, he
affirms, is of long standing in the Church, and was
formally sanctioned by an African Council many
years previously. He is careful to explain the
custom. Those heretics who have been baptized
in the Church are not rebaptised ; in their case the
ceremony of reconciliation consists ia a simple
imposition of hands unto penance. Why ?
" Because," he answers, " they are already sheep."
On the other hand, heretics who have been
baptised and confirmed outside the Church, and
who, on that account, are not really sheep, are
reconciled by baptism and an imposition of hands.
The water which makes sheep is found only in the
Church.2
Cyprian is not perturbed to find that his
opponents appeal to an older custom to prove the
validity of heretical baptism. " It is in vain," he
writes, " that some, in opposing us, appeal to
custom when they find themselves overcome by
reason.^' The custom they adduce is not apos-
1 Ep. Ixix. 10, 11,
2 ib. Ixxi. 2.
ST. CYPRIAN, BISHOP AND MARTYR 227
tolic ; ^ there is not a particle of evidence to show
that the apostles recognized the validity of heretical
baptism. Besides, he adds, customs should never
be followed blindly : non est de consuetudine
praescribendum sed ratione vincendumr " Who
is so foolish," Firmilian asks, " as to prefer custom
to truth ? " =^
All the logic and all the consistency seemed
marshalled on the side of the Primate of Africa ;
and yet it was the cause of his opponents which
triumphed ultimately : the illogical and inconsistent
practice prevailed. Cyprian had the African
custom formally sanctioned by a largely-attended
council held at Carthage in the autumn of 255,
and by another held in the spring of 256, and
forwarded the acts of both to Pope Stephen. His
covering letter was injudicious in form, no less than
in substance. The tone was not only independent
but impertment — if we may say so. " We have
brought these things to your laiowledge, dearest
brother," he wrote, " for the sake of our mutual
honour and sincere affection, believing that,
according to the truth of your religion and faith,
those things which are no less religious than true
1 Note how Cyprian (Ep. Ixxiv. 10) and his supporters
(Ep. Ixxv. 19), like all the Fathers, stood by the principle of
the traditio apostolica as the last word in matters of belief and
of discipHne.
2 Ep. Ixxi. 3.
* Ep. Ixxv. 19. c/r. Bat. : op. cit., pp. 385, 386 ; Diet, de
Thiol. Cath., vol. ii, p. 221.
228 ST. CYPRIAN, BISHOP AND MARTYR
will be approved by you. But we know that some
will not lay aside what they have once imbibed,
and do not easily change their purpose ; but
keeping fast the bond of peace and concord among
their colleagues, retain certain things peculiar to
themselves, which have once been adopted among
them. In which behalf we neither do violence to
nor impose a law upon any one, since each prelate
has in the administration of the Church the
exercise of his free will as he shall give an account
of his conduct to the Lord." ^
Stephen's letter of repty has, unhappily, perished;
but the gist of it msiy be gathered from the follow-
ing extract, quoted by Cyprian in his letter to
Pompey : " Among other things," he wrote,
" Stephen added this saying : ' If any one, there-
fore, come to you from any heresy AA'hatever, let
nothing be innovated which has not been handed
down ; to wit, that hands be imposed on him unto
penance ; ^ since heretics themselves in their own
proper character do not baptize such as come to
1 Ep. Ixxii. 3.
2 What is the significance of the words " in poeniteniiam " ?
Are they a ' slip ' for "m Spiritum Sanctum " ? Probably.
The meaning, we have no doubt, is that those who were baptized
and confirmed in an heretical sect — never those who were
baptized and confirmed in the Church — were reconciled by an
imposition of hands that they might receive the Holy Ghost-
Cyprian and Firmilian base their main argument on Stephen's
admission that heretics who have been confirmed in heresy
should be confirmed anew on admission to the Church.
ST. CYPRIAN, BISHOP AND MARTYR 229
them from one another, but only admit them to
communion.
' " 1
It was a thunderbolt. Cyprian had written to
emphasise the principle of episcopal independence,
Stephen had replied by laying down the law for
Cyprian himself and for his colleagues everywhere.
But more than this. The Pope had struck at the
very roots of Independency ; he had proclaimed
the Roman primacy of jurisdiction. He had put
himself forw^ard as a bishop of bishops in virtue
of Ms position as successor and heir to St. Peter.
It was intolerable: "I am justly indignant,"
writes Firmilian, " that he who so boasts of the
locus of his episcopate, and contends that he is
successor to St. Peter on whom the foundations of
the Church were laid, should acknowledge other
rock-foundations and other churches, through de-
fending by his authority the validity of their
baptism." ^
Cyprian resolved to hold out ; he and his
colleagues would not surrender to arrogance and
despotism. No time was to be lost. The dis-
cussion of the validity of heretical baptism was
formally re-opened at a Council held at Carthage
1 Ep. Ixxiv. 1. The Pope held for the efficacy of the Sacra-
mental rite considered in itself (Ep. Ixxv. 9). He taught that
the efficacy of the rite is due to Christ's presence therein and to
His sanctifying intervention (Ixxv. 12). We shall find this
doctrine analysed and developed by St. Augustine (». infra).
2 Ep. Ixxv. 17.
230 ST. CYPRIAN, BISHOP AND MARTYR
a few months later (September, 256), when the old
principles were defiantly reasserted : " It remains,"
said Cyprian, addressing the assembled prelates,
" that upon this same matter each of us should
bring forward Avhat he thinks, judging no man nor
rejecting any one from the right of communion, if
he should think differently from us. For neither
does any one of us set himseK up as a bishop of
bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel
his colleague to the necessity of obedience ; since
every bishop, according to the allowance of his
liberty and poAA-er, has his own proper right of
judgment and can no more be judged by another
than he himself can judge another." ^
Cyprian recorded his own judgment as follows:
" The letter which was written to our colleague
Jubaianus very fully expresses my opinion that,
according to evangelical and apostolic testimony,
heretics, who are called adversaries of Christ and
Antichrists, when they come to the Church, must
be baptized with the one baptism of the Church,
that they may be made of adversaries, friends, and
of Antichrists, Christians." ^
What followed is important. The Pope, we
know, forwarded his decision to all the bishops;
but did he excommunicate dissenters ? Possibly.
He certainly threatened to do so.^ It is, however,
1 Acta. Cone. Garth. (256), sect. i.
2 ib. fin. 3 cfr. Eus. H. E. vii. 5.
ST. CYPRIAN, BISHOP AND MARTYR 231
doubtful, to say the least, whether he subsequently
gave effect to his threat.
This is a question of fact simply, and should be
investigated dispassionately. It matters little what
the findings may be. Catholic historians appear
to us to attach undue importance to the matter.
They assume that if the Pope in the case excom-
municated Cyprian and the other bishops who
advocated re-baptism, the dissenting churches
became schismatical. This is a mistake. We
hope to show in our concluding chapter that a
church or an individual is not rendered schis-
matical by excommunication.
As to the question of fact it is difficult to make
up one's mind ; but the arguments which have
been adduced to show that the Pope on this
occasion actually excommunicated the dissenters
are on the whole unconvincing, particularly when
it is remembered that they are based almost
exclusively on statements of his opponents.
FirmUian's letter unquestionably creates difficulty.
Batiffol, we notice, cites it as supporting the view
that Stephen's threat remained a threat, but the
document appeals to us as implying rather the
contrary: "Stephen," it runs, "has had the
audacity to break the peace against you." ^ What
are we to understand by a rupture of the peace, if
1 Quod nunc Stephanus ausus est facere rumpens adversus
vos pacem (Ep. Ixxv. 6).
B
232 ST. CYPRIAN, BISHOP AND MARTYR
not excommunication ? In another passage/ he
oharges the Pope with having refused communion
to the delegates of dissenting bishops. However,
everyone understands that statements of this kind
found in a document which from beginning to end
is a bitter invective, should be received with
reserve.
Duchesne seems undecided : " Etienne," he
writes, " avait menace de rompre les rapports de
communion. Donna-t-il suite a sa menace ?
Nous n'en savons rien." - But we are not left
entirely to conjecture. Cyprian himself appears to
suggest that the Pope merely contemplated excom-
munication : " Sacerdotes Dei veritatem Christi et
ecclesiae unitatem tuentes abstinendos putat.'" ^
Augustine states expressly that a breach was
averted : " Vicit pax Christi," he writes, " in
cordibus eorum ut in disceptatione nullum inter
eos malum schismatis oriretur." ^ In this he is
strongly supported by Eusebius,^ as well as by
Eacundus bishop of Hermiane in Africa, who, in
his polemical treatise— " Liber contra Mocianum
Scholasticum," composed about 571 — states that
in the Stephen-Cyprian controversy there was no
anathematizing. ®
1 Ep. Ixxv. 25. 2 ^gi^ Sep., p. 147. ^ Ep. Ixxiv. 8.
* De Bapt. contra Donat. v. 26, 36. cjr. De unico Bapt.
contra PetiL xxiii.
6 H. E. vii. 5.
® Nullius anathematis interpositione (Migne P. L. t. Ixvii).
ST. CYPRIAN, BISHOP AND MARTYR 233
Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia,
declared for the African custom. Supported by
his colleagues from Phrygia, Galatia, Cilicia, and
the neighbouring provinces, he addressed to
Oyprian an epistle ^ in which he set forth at length
his views on the value of heretical baptism. His
arguments are practically those of Cyprian.
Bishops, he contends, have received from Christ
through the apostles the power of conferring the
sacraments. Hence without the hierarchy baptism
cannot be validly administered or received : " All
power and grace are established in the Church
where the elders preside who possess the power of
baptizing, of imposing hands, and of ordaining." ^
Like Cyprian, Firmilian holds for a united
episcopate — united despite certain differences in
matters of discipline. The diversity in practice in
the mode of reconciling heretics he does not deem
sufficiently serious to justify a breach of the
Catholic peace.
With the death of Stephen friendly relations were
gradually re-established between the Holy See and
the dissenting churches. The new Pope, Xystus II,
while adhering to the Roman custom, did not feel
called upon to take strong action against those
who still repudiated heretical baptism. Like his
colleagues, — including Dionysius of Alexandria,
an ardent supporter of St. Stephen ^ — ^he seems to
1 Ep. Ixxv. 2 if,^ c. 7.
3 cfr. Eus. H. E. vii. 2, 5, 7.
234 ST. CYPRIAN, BISHOP AND MARTYR
have regarded the question as of secondary
importance, and so the great controversy was
allowed to drop. Shortly afterwards the Roman
custom came to be adopted by the See of Carthage
and by the entire African Church.^
The Roman Primacy
Cyprian gave more thought to the discipline and
government of the local Church than to the
ultimate principles of Catholicity. He was a man
of action rather than a theologian, and seems never
to have thought out for himself the ultimate prin-
ciples of that episcopal unity of which he speaks so
much.
The Church is one, he holds, because the episco-
pate is one ; but there is no bishop of bishops
as there was no apostle of apostles.^ He knows
that the words of promise Matthew xvi, 17, were
addressed to Peter alone ; but in his letters * as
well as in the tract De Unitate* he explains the
passage as implying, not a primacy of jurisdiction
in Peter and his successors, but simply the oneness
of the Church Catholic and Local. It is a forced
interpretation, but it seems to be the only one put
forward by St. Cyprian. This should be conceded.
^ cfr. Tixeront, vol. cit., pp. 375 sqq.
2 he Unit, iv ; Epp, Ixxi. 3 ; Ixxii. 3 ; Ixiii. 6.
3 cfr. Epp. xxxiii. 1 ; lix. 7, 14 ; Ixvi. 8 ; Ixxi. 3 ; Ixxii. 7.
* cc. iv-vi.
ST. CYPRIAN, BISHOP AND MARTYR 235
And yet he proclaims the primacy. The Roman
See he refers to as " the mother and root of the
Catholic Church " (Ecclesiae Catholicae matrix et
radix) ; ^ to communicate with the lawful Pope is
to hold the unity of the CathoUc Church.^ The
Roman Church is the See of Peter ; she is the
ecclesia principalis unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta
esL^ Rome is the source and centre of Catholic
unity.
This was acknowledged in practice by the saint
himself and by the Church generally. Even
heretics and schismatics accepted '* the Roman
fact." We find, for example, that the party of
the lapsed at Carthage, having set up Fortunatus
as bishop,* and having been condemned by the
African Council, dispatched the renegade deacon
FeHcissimus to Rome, to have the sentence of
condemnation set aside and to make certain
charges against Cyprian. The Pope wrote to the
latter asking him to explain matters.
It is significant that Cyprian in his reply does
not question the legitimacy of the Roman Pontiff's
interference in the case ; but merely expresses
" surprise " ^ that Cornelius should have allowed
himself to be influenced by the calumniators.
*' When a bishop," he writes, " has been appointed
to fill the place of one deceased, when he is chosen
1 Ep. xlvdii. 3. 3 ify^ lix. 14.
2 ib. 4 ib. 11.
236 ST. CYPRIAN, BISHOP AND MARTYR
in time of peace by the suffrage of an entire people ;
... a man who remaias faithfully linked with his
colleagues ; . . . who is proscribed in time of
persecution, and has been again and again
demanded in the circus " for the lions " — ^when
such a one is assailed, dearest brother, it is manifest
who assails him."^
He is aware that, ia ordinary circumstances, a
bishop whose see becomes threatened by schism,
or by other dangers, should at once communicate
with Rome. Hence he feels called upon to excuse
his delay in reporting the affair of Fortunatus.
In his eyes, he explains, it was a mere trifle : " But
that I did not immediately write to you, dearest
brother, about Fortunatus . . . the matter was
not such as ought at once and hastily to be brought
under your notice, as if it were great or to be
feared. I did not think it necessary that aU the
follies of heretics should be at once made known to
you, because it is beneath the dignity of the
Catholic Church to concern itself with every
audacity which heretics and schismatics may
attempt among themselves." - Is this the
language of equal addressing equal ?
Fortunatus and his party had just acknowledged
the Roman primacy. Condemned by an African
Council they had appealed to Cornelius. Cyprian
felt the slight : " These men," he writes, " not
1 Ep. lix. 6. 2 ii^ 9.
ST. CYPRIAN, BISHOP AND MARTYR 237
satisfied with their other crimes, have dared to set
sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane
persons to the throne of Peter and to the chief
Church {ecclesia principalis^ whence priestly unity
flows." 2 What is the meaning of this appeal ?
he asks. The i^frican bishops have decreed that
the case of everyone should be tried where the
crime has been committed ; and each bishop is
amenable to God alone. What then do the
renegades insinuate by appealing to the Pope
when they have been judged and condemned by
an African Council ? Do they consider our
authority insufiicient (minor) ? ^
Cyprian here denies to the schismatics the right
of appeal, and yet his very letter of protest pro-
claims the Roman primacy. The Pope's right of
interference in the affairs of the Church at Carthage
he does not question ; he excuses his delay in
having details of the affair of Fortunatus forwarded
to the cathedra Petri. Finally, the letter reveals
the important fact that the Carthaginian schis-
matics had appealed to the Roman Pontiff from
the decision of an African Council.
But some four years later ^ an incident occurred
which showed still more clearly how, in practice,
Cyprian acknowledged a real primacy in the
Roman Pontiff. Marcian, bishop of Aries, having
1 The reader will at once recall the ''potior principalitas "
of Irenaeus.
2 Ep. lix. 14. 3 ib * circ. 255.
238 ST. CYPRIAN, BISHOP AND MARTYR
opposed the episcopal body on the question of the
reconciliation of the lapsed, Cyprian wrote to
Stephen asking him to have the recalcitrant
prelate deposed and a successor appointed. ^ These
are his words : " Wherefore it behoves you to
write a very copious letter to our fellow-bishops
appointed in Gaul, not to suffer any longer that
Marcian, forward and haughty, and hostile to the
divine mercy and to the salvation of the brother-
hood, should insult our assembly, bcause he does
not yet seem to be excommunicated by us. . . .
Let letters be directed by you to the province and
to the people abiding at Aries, by which Marcian
being excommunicated another may be substituted
in his place." ^ Cyprian normal seems to accept
" the Roman fact " as a matter of course.
In the autumn of 254 he presided at a council
of the African bishops, which might seem at first
sight to have repudiated the primacy of the
Pope : Two Spanish bishops, Basilides and Martialis,
having been deposed for grave crimes, submitted
their case to Rome and obtained from Pope
Stephen a sentence of restoration. The Spanish
Churches concerned, together with the newly
appointed prelates, Sabinus and Felix, thereupon
appealed to the Council of Carthage and had the
Pope's decision reversed.^
1 We should add that the bishops of Gaul had asked the
Roman Pontiff to deal with Marcian.
2 Ep. Ixviii. 2, 3. ^ 254.
ST. CYPRIAN, BISHOP AND MAETYR 239
But it was not really a case of overriding a
decision, in the ordinary sense. Cyprian and his
council simply gave it as their considered judgment
that Basilides and Martialis had been justly
deposed, and declared that Stephen's decision in
the case might be set aside without scruple, on the
grounds that it had been based on insufficient
knowledge of the facts. ^ However, while the
appeal of the deposed bishops to Rome and the
Pope's sentence of restoration show that the
primacy was at that time acknowledged and
claimed, the further fact that the Spanish churches
subsequently appealed to the Council of Carthage
against the Pope's decision shows, we admit, that
in certain quarters the principle of the primacy
was as yet inadequately grasped.
Conclusion. — For Cyprian the Church is a body.
It constitutes a single organization controlled by a
united episcopate : schism is never lawful.
But, while holding strongly for an organized
episcopate, united in opposition to heresy and
schism, he seems never to have fuUy grasped the
true principle of Catholic unity. If individual
bishops are amenable to God alone, how is a league
of all the bishops to be secured and maintained ?
If a member of the episcopal body corporate is
found guilty of grave crimes, or refuses to conform
to the doctrines or discipline of his colleagues, who
is to cut him off ? Here Cyprian is not quite clear.
1 Ep. Ixvii. 5.
240 ST. CYPRIAN, BISHOP AND MARTYR
At one time he seems to think that it is for the
entire local church, including the laity, to deal with
such cases ; ^ at another time it is an episcopal
council ; - again it is the Roman Pontiff.^
Cyprian is certain that the Church is a social
unit ; certain, too, that her principle of unity is
the united episcopate ; but that the episcopal unity
itself demands a principle, he admits in practice,
but not always in theory. It would seem as if he
never quite realized the precarious character of that
episcopal organization to which, at times, he pinned
his faith. His ecclesiology, like his theology of the
sacraments, left much to be desired.
That he acknowledged the Koman primacy in
practice has been shown. The history of the
baptismal controversy creates no special difficulty
in this connexion. Cyprian's stubborn opposition
to the Pope was perfectly compatible with a recog-
nition of the primacy.
To realize this one has only to recall the
facts : Theologians had not yet thought out the
question as to the value of heretical baptism.
Individual bishops had been left quite free to
foUow either practice in reconciling those who came
to them from heretical organizations. Cyprian and
his colleagues regarded the baptismal controversy
as altogether a question of discipline. This is
^ cjr. Ep. Ixvii. 3 {v. supra). ^ cfr. Ep. lix. 10.
3 cfr. Ep. Ixviii. 2, 3.
ST. CYPRIAN, BISHOP AND MARTYR 241
certain. They professed to allow each bishop to
follow the custom which he considered preferable ^ ;
and expressly disclaimed any intention of breaking
the peace against those who adopted the Roman
practice. In Firmilian's eyes, difference of opinion
as to the mode of reconciling heretics, like the
difference in custom regarding the time for cele-
brating Easter, 2 in no way interfered with the bond
of peace. The rule of faith — ^the Kavcov eWXj^o-mo-Tt/co? —
was respected by both parties. That the rebaptists
of the third century failed so signally to grasp the
doctrinal bearing of the controversy, is, of course,
remarkable ; but facts are facts.
If Stephen's measure was merely disciplinary he
could have erred. The rebaptists were convinced
that he had erred. The Koman practice they
considered theologically indefensible. Hence they
believed that by acting upon the papal decree they
would deprive converted heretics of the grace of
regeneration. Such being their frame of mind,
who wiU deny that, subjectively speaking, their
resistance to the decree was not only licit, but
obligatory. They were mistaken, of course ; but
their error was invincible. Noluit Cyprianus
rationes suas, etsi non veras, quod eum latebat, sed
tamen non fictas, veraci quidem sed tamen nondum
assertae consuetudini cedere.^
1 Ep. Ixix. 17 ; Ixxi. 2 ; Ixxii. 3 ; Ixxiii. 26.
2 Ep. Ixxv. 6. 3 Aug. : De Bapt. ii. 18, 13.
CHAPTER VIII
SECTION A.— THE DONATIST SCHISM
History. — The Donatist schism arose as a result
of the persecution under Diocletian (303-305). It
caused a serious breach in the African Church, just
as she emerged from her last great conflict with the
Empire.
Diocletian had spared no paius to exterminate
the Christian name. The faithful had been out-
lawed. Those who fell into the hands of the civil
authorities were ordered, under the gravest
penalties, to offer incense to the idols. Churches
had been destroyed and copies of the Scriptures
seized and consigned to the flames.
The maiQ body of the Christians had stood
firm. Many had even sought the martyr's crown
by voluntarily delivering themselves up. These
were, however, not always actuated by the
loftiest motives. Some were insolvent debtors or
notorious criminals, who saw in martyrdom a
rather respectable means of escape from a host of
creditors or from a life of shame.
Christians, who had delivered up the Sacred
Books or vessels, or who had informed on their
fellow-Christians, were known as traditores. Some
242
THE DONATIST SCHISM 243
however, like Mensurius, bishop of Carthage, and
his deacon, Caecihan, were able to evade the law
by secreting the Scriptures, surrendering in their
stead some heretical or profane compositions.
Others adopted the less prudent, if more heroic,
course of roundly refusing to deliver up. Finally,
there were those who went about boasting that
they had in their possession Sacred Books which
they would not relinquish. While the persecution
was still raging, Mensurius issued a proclamation
forbidding the faithful to honour as martyrs or
confessors those who had voluntarily given them-
selves up, or who had paraded their heroism in
refusing to surrender copies of the Scriptures
which they possessed.
On the death of Mensurius in 311, Caecilian was
elected to succeed, the defeated candidates being
the presbyters Botrus and Coelestius. The new
prelate was duly consecrated by Felix, bishop of
Abtughi ; but the validity of the consecration was
immediately questioned, on the ground that the
consecrating minister was known to have been a
traditor. Botrus and Coelestius, supported by a
rich lady named Lucilla, who had a grudge against
Caecihan, communicated with the African bishops,
and a largely attended council was convened at
Carthage to inquire into the matter.
Secundus, the primate of Numidia, presided.
Caecihan would not appear. The assembled
bishops, thereupon, declared his consecration
244 THE DONATIST SCHISM
invalid, because performed by a traditor ; and a
new bishop was straightway elected and conse-
crated, in the person of Majorinus, a lector of the
Church of Carthage and a creature of the vindictive
Lucilla (312). Three years later (315), Majorinus
died and was succeeded by Donatus the Great, the
schismatical bishop of Carthage, from whom the
new sect took its name.^
The breach rapidly extended to the provinces.
Christians everywhere became divided ; part
declaring for Majorinus or Donatus, and part for
Caecilian. Each section had its own hierarchy and
ministers ; and separate churches were to be found
in almost every district and city. Bishop was set
up against bishop and altar against altar.
At one time it seemed as if the accession of
Constantine (312) would bring the parties together.
In 313 the Donatists petitioned the new Emperor
to have the entire case examined and judged by a
council of bishops from Gaul.- Constantine
refused: the inquiry, he said, must be held at
Rome, the personnel of the council to be deter-
mined by the Pope. At the same time, in order to
reassure the Separatists, he ordered three
prominent Galilean prelates to assist at the
investigation. The bishop of Carthage was cited
1 Some think that the Donatists were called after an earlier
Donatus, bishop of Casa Nigra, who took part in the pseudo-
couneil of 312.
2 St. Optat. : De Schism. Donat. i. 22.
THE DONATIST SCHISM 245
to appear, with ten Donatist bishops and ten of
those who supported CaeciUan.^
The council, which lasted three days, decided
unanimously for CaeciUan ^ and sentence was
pronounced accordingly by Pope Melchiades.
Separatist bishops who returned to communion
were to retain their sees or be provided with others.
The terms of settlement were generous.
The Donatists, however, were resolved to hold
out. A fresh inquiry was demanded ; and Con-
stantino, having regard to their numbers, was
persuaded to yield. He accordingly summoned the
bishops of his entire dominions to assemble at
Aries on the kalends of August 314, to reconsider
the case. About fifty sees, including those of
London, York, and Lincoln,^ were represented at
the council. Pope Sylvester, who had succeeded to
Melchiades, was represented by two priests and
two deacons.
The council condemned the Separatists, upheld
the validity of ordination by a traditor, and
reprobated the practice of rebaptism. To no
purpose, however ; the Donatists, setting aside the
verdict, appealed from the council to Constantine
himself.
The Emperor was puzzled. But, reahzing at
length that any attempt to heal the schism by a
1 Eua. H. E.x. 5; cfr. Gest. Coll. iii. 319.
2 St. Opt. : op. cit. i. 24 ; Gest. Coll. iii. 320-326.
5 cfr. Cath. EncycL, vol. v, p. 124.
246 THE DONATIST SCHISM
conciliar decision was almost certain to prove
abortive, he made up his mind to adjust the entire
dispute in person. Accordingly, he had an official
inquiry held at Carthage in 31 5,^ where it was
proved conclusively that the charge of traditio
which had been made against Felix of Abtughi was
utterly without foundation. For the Donatists
this was, of course, a fatal blow ; it struck at the
very roots of their schism. Durmg the following
year (316) Constantine summoned CaeciHan and
Donatus to appear before him at Milan ; and,
having heard both sides with great care, gave his
decision in favour of Caecilian.^ With a view,
however, to uniting the parties more effectually,
he detained the rival prelates, and dispatched two
Italian bishops, Eunomius and Olympus, to
Carthage, with instructions to have a new bishop
elected whom both sections would be willing to
acknowledge. The Separatists would not agree to
this ; and the delegates were forced to return to
the Emperor leaving matters as they were.
Constantine now resolved to take strong action.
He determined that those who had ignored the
decisions of heaven and earth should yield to force.
All Donatist conventicles were ordered to be
confiscated, and the churches which had been
seized by the Separatists were to be immediately
1 Cath. Encycl, vol. v, p. 124.
2 cfr. Gest. Coll. iii. 456, 460, 494 ; Brev. Coll. iii. 37, 38 ;
Contra Cels. iii. 82.
THE DONATIST SCHISM 247
restored. His instructions were carried out with
the assistance of the military ; and nasty scenes
followed, not unfrequently attended with blood-
shed. The schismatics, of course, took advantage
of the opportunity to proclaim themselves " the
Church of the Martyrs " ; and spoke with holy
indignation of the "Persecution of Caecilian."
Constantino felt that he had blundered.
Finally, in 321, he adopted in despair the policy
of toleration. Both parties, he thought, could,
by exercising a little forbearance, continue to live
in peace side by side. Catholics, accordingly, were,
advised to bear with the Donatists.^ But, once
more, the Emperor's plans were frustrated. The
schismatics refused to tolerate " the church of the
traditors." Deeds of violence were freely resorted
to ; Catholic churches were appropriated ; while
the clergy, in many cases, were seized and sub-
jected to all manner of indignities.
The Circumcellions. — In this connexion reference
should be made to the " Circumcellions," a gang
of nomad desperadoes who strove to promote the
cause of the Separatists by perpetrating unspeak-
able outrages on defenceless Catholics. Armed
with clubs these soi-disant " soldiers of Christ "
were to be met with in almost every district in the
time of St. Augustine. Numbers of Catholics, lay
1 cfr. Qeet. Coll. iii. 549-662 ; Ep. cxii. 9 ; Brev. Coll.
iii. 40-42.
248 THE DONATIST SCHISM
and clerical, were beaten to death and had their
property plundered. The bandits themselves, not
unfrequently, sought the martyr's crown, by com-
mitting suicide, or by having themselves
slaughtered wholesale by the pagans. They were
religious maniacs.
It was only in 347 that peace was temporarily
restored. In that year the Emperor Constans sent
two envoys, Paulus and Macarius, with large sums
of money for distribution among the Africans,
in the hope of inducing the parties to come together.
But the envoys were so badly received by the
schismatics that Macarius was forced to requisition
the assistance of a military escort against attacks
from the Circumcellions. A band of these despera-
does encountered his escort at Bagai in Numidia,
and a melee ensued in which a few soldiers and
a number of the attacking party were killed.
This regrettable incident embittered the Separa-
tists, who believed — though wrongly — that the
Emperor's action had been inspired by the followers
of Caecilian. In derision they styled the Catholics
" Macarians."
A period of " persecution " followed. The
envoys commanded the indomitable " servants of
God," under the gravest penalties, to return to
communion. Many of the Donatist bishops with
their followers immediately fled the country. All
who remained and who refused to join the Catholics
were banished, among them being Donatus himself,
THE DONATIST SCHISM 249
who died in exile about 355. Peace was thus
happily restored.
It was, however, a mere breathing-space. With
the accession of Julian the Apostate in 361 the
struggle was resumed. The exiled Donatists
were reprieved, officially reinstated in their basili-
cas, and granted full liberty of action.^ The
excesses committed by them on their return from
banishment baffle description. ^ Rioting, murder,
rape, wanton destruction of churches and church-
property, desecration of sacred utensils, assaults
on the clergy, — ^these were some of the means which
they employed to avenge themselves upon the
" traditors."
Five years later the tide again turned. The
Donatists, having lent their support to Firmus in
his revolt against Julian, drew upon themselves
the imperial vengeance. Several new edicts were
issued against them and old enactments reinforced.
Julian's successors kept up the pressure. Gratian,
for example, decreed that all Donatist churches
were to be transferred to the Catholics.
The Separatists were by this time gradually
falling into disrepute. The extravagances of
the Circumcellions had brought discredit on
them, and many of their bishops had been con-
victed of serious crimes. Two had been guilty of
1 St. Opt. : De Schism. Don. ii. 16 ; Aug. : Ep. xciii. 12 ;
cv. 9.
2 St. Opt. : op. cit. ii. 17, 18.
260 THE DONATIST SCHISM
open immorality, while a third, Silvanus, was
proved to have been a traditor under Diocletian.
The Separatist prelates who had consecrated
Majorinus Avere also proved to have been traditors.*
Finally, the rise of numerous divisions among the
schismatics themselves heralded the approaching
dissolution of the entire organization.
The most notable of these divisions occurred in
the " mother-church " itself. Maximianus, a
Donatist deacon at Carthage, was excommuni-
cated by his bishop Primianus. The deacon re-
sisted, and had a council of forty-three schis-
matical prelates summoned to examine his case.
Primianus refused to appear, and was deposed by
a second council held at Cebarsussum in 393,
Maximian being appointed in his stead. ^ A schism
ensued. The Carthaginian Donatists, lay and
clerical, became divided, some declaring for the
new bishop, the others rallying to Primianus.
Maximian and his supporters were condemned
by a council of three hundred and ten Separatist
bishops held at Bagai in April of the following
year ; and those who refused to return to " com-
munion " were treated and persecuted as schis-
matics.
Donatism received its death-blow in 411, when
the utter weakness of the system was publicly
^ Aug. : Epp. xliii. 17 ; liii. 4 ; De Unit. Ecd. xlvi ; Contra
Cresc. iii. 32, 84.
2 Contra litt. Petil. i. 24.
THE DONATIST SCHISM 251
exposed. In that year the Emperor Honorius, at
the request of the Catholic bishops, organized a
conference to be held at Carthage under the
presidency of his own legate, Marcellinus. Dona-
tists and Catholics were summoned to attend in
force, and the parties were given every opportunity
for adequate explanation and defence of their
respective positions. On the third day the Donatist
defence broke down hopelessly, and the cognitor
gave his formal verdict in favour of the Catholics.
The Separatists never recovered from this blow.
Their prestige was gone. A remnant continued to
hold out until the Saracen invasion of 637, when
they finally disappeared.
Doctrinal Position. — The Donatists were never
condemned as heretics. They themselves indig-
nantly repudiated the charge of doctrinal
illegitimacy, and frequently protested against the
injustice of enforcing agamst them imperial laws
which had been enacted to suppress heresy. And
yet, as St. Augustine clearly showed, many of their
doctrines clashed with the received faith and with
the teaching of the Church.
Adopting the principles of St. Cyprian, they held
that baptism administered by heretics or schis-
matics is null and void. They even maintained
that the valid administration of any sacrament is
conditioned by the probity of the minister.
Sinners, they held, have no power to baptize,
confirm, ordain, or consecrate. He who is without
262 THE DONATIST SCHISM
grace cannot give grace ; nemo dat quod non
hahet.^
They were at once confronted with a serious
difficulty. If the sacraments can be validly
administered only by those who are themselves in
the state of grace, how can we be satisfied that we
have really received the sacrament ? One cannot
lay bare the conscience of the minister. Incon-
sistently, the Donatists replied that it is only
public or notorious sinners, such as apostates or
traditors, who are incapable of validly adminis-
tering the sacraments : " Quamvis haheat
{minister) conscientiam maculosamy mihi tamen,
qui ah eo haptizor, quia latet et nescio, sufflcit quod
ah eo accipio cuius innocentem quia in ecclesia est
conscientiam puto. Nam ideo conscientiam dantis
attendo, non ut, quod fieri non potest, de latentihus
iudicem, sed ut si quid de illo in puhlica conscientia
est, non ignorem,^^ ^ Those who received baptism,
confirmation, or ordination, at the hands of heretics,
schismatics, or other public sinners, had these
sacraments repeated on their admission to the
Donatist communion ; while the Eucharist conse-
crated by a Catholic priest was regarded by them
as mere bread and thrown to the dogs.
In practice, however, they frequently ignored
i cfr. Opt. : op. cit. v. 6, 7 ; Aug. : Contra litt. Petil. ii. 6 sqq. ;
Contra Ep. Farm. ii. 32.
2 Aug. ; Contra Cresc. ii. 21.
THE DONATIST SCHISM 253
their own principles. When a Maximianist bishop
returned to the communion of the Primianists, for
example, he and his entire flock were admitted to
" fellowship " without rebaptism. Then, a number
of the Donatist bishops were notorious sinners ;
many, as we have seen, were convicted of traditio.
Optatus, bishop of Thamugadi, for many years the
official head of the Donatists, was a public sinner
and a disgrace to the Christian name. Aided and
abetted by Gildo, the Count of Africa, he proved
himself a ruthless tyrant and a slave to almost
every vice.
Ecdesiology. — The Donatists were professedly
puritans. The true Church, they held, is declared
in Sacred Scripture to be essentially immaculate.
She is Christ's holy and spotless bride : " Ostendi-
mils ecclesiam Domini in scripturis divinis
sanctam et immaculatam fore ubique nuntiatam " *
Sinners are outside the Church.
But again the schismatics revealed the weakness
of their position by holding that the Bride of Christ
is defiled, not by secret sin, but only by crimes
which are notorious or manifest. Christians, they
asserted, are unchurched only by such sins as
public immorality, apostasy, heresy, traditio, or
schism. Their inconsistency in communicating
with notorious criminals, like Optatus of Thamu-
gadi, was, of course, manifest.
1 Gest. Coll ill. 258.
264 THE DONATIST SCHISM
All who communicated with traditors, schis-
matics, or other public sinners, were themselves
necessarily excommunicate. The entire Christian
world, with the exception of a portion of Africa,
was, therefore, outside the Church. Practically the
whole of Christendom was in commimion with the
" traditors." Donatism never succeeded in propa-
gating itself. Outside Africa, there was only one
Donatist congregation — at Rome, >Ahere the
Separatists established a succession of anti-popes
beginning with Victor. ^ In Spain they set up a
bishop, but the people refused to follow him.
The Donatists, we must remember, held strongly
that the true Church of Christ is one, holy, catholic,
and apostolical. All these notes, they claimed,
were found in "the Church of the Martyrs" and
in her alone.
To begin with, she \a as one. Donatists consti-
tuted a social unit, a single organization rounded
off and distinct from pagans and schismatics of
every description. Caecilians, Rogatists, Maxi-
mianists, and all who held communion with any of
these were outside the fold.
Their church was holy. The Donatists professed
to be an association of saints. Secret vice, they
maintained, was not incompatible with the stain-
lessness of the Bride of Christ ; and they would not
allow that any member of their communion was
* St, Opt. : op. cit. ii. 4..
THE DONATIST SCHISM 255
guilty of public or notorious sin. The churcli of
the "traditors," being an association of public
sinners and of excommunicates, was defiled, and
hence could not possibly be the true church.
They even claimed Catholicity. This was
startling, in view of the fact that they were pitted
against Christendom. But they explained : The
true Church of Christ, they said, is certainly
Catholic. The word * catholic,' however, should
not be understood of mere territorial universality.
True Catholicity is something higher, and consists
in the full possession of the sacraments, in perfec-
tion and in stainlessness : " Catholicmn nomen
putant ad provincias vel ad gentes referendum,
cum hoc est catholicum nomen quod sacramentis
plenum est, quod perfectum quod immaculatmn
non ad gentes.''' ^
Catholicity, we need scarcely add, was the i-ock
on which Donatism perished. Augustme pointed
to the isolation of the Separatists as proof con-
clusive that they did not constitute the church of
Christ.
Finally, the Donatists claimed apostolicity.
Followers of Christ, they held, were governed from
the beginning by a united episcopate ; and the
continuity of the episcopal succession guaranteed
the endurance of the Church. But the Donatist
bishops alone, they contended, were the legitimate
successors of the apostles ; and hence the organiza-
1 Gest. Coll. iii. 102.
256 THE DONATIST SCHISM
tion controlled by them, and it alone, constituted
the true fold. By the schism of 312 the re-
mainder of Christendom with its hierarchy had
become detached from the legitimate episcopacy,
and consequently from the Church of Christ. St.
Optatus ridiculed this claim to apostolicity. The
Chief See {cathedra principalis), he wrote, is
filled by Damasus, the legitimate successor to St.
Peter. We are in communion with Damasus ;
therefore our Cliurch is apostolic.^
There is a Donatist anti-pope, of course, but
what is his standing ? What of the first anti-pope,
Victor ? Can it be held that he was successor to
the apostles ? No ; " erat filius sine patre, tyro
sine principe, discipulus sine magistro, pastor sine
grege, episcopus sine populo.^^ ^
Conclusion. — For students of primitive Catho-
licity the history of Donatism is eminently in-
structive. Throughout the protracted struggle all
parties were agreed upon this : that the Church
Universal is a social unit and necessarily such ;
she can constitute only a single society. She is one,
holy, catholic and apostolical. For the Donatists
as for Cyprian she is the sole repository of grace
and of the means of grace. Outside the Church
there is no valid administration of sacraments, no
salvation.
Schism was absolutely reprobated by " tradi-
* <yp. cit. ii. 3. ^ ^p, cj^, jj, 4,
THE DONATIST SCHISM 257
tors" and Donatists alike. This is the clearest
thing in the history of the conflict. Parmenius,
like Augustine, equiparates schism and apostasy.
In the eyes of both apologists, to break with the
true Church is to perish.
When the schism occurred at Carthage in 312,
all Christians, includmg Majorinus and his followers,
recognized that one or other of the opposing parties
had put itself outside the pale of salvation. Such,
moreover, was the solidarity of the churches, that
the breach at Carthage extended automatically to
the limits of Christendom ; and instead of one
organization there appeared two. Christians every-
where felt called upon to make a choice. To
communicate with one party was to be excom-
municated by the other and only one of the rival
organizations could be the Bride of Christ.
From the Separatist view-point, of course, prac-
tically the whole of Christendom by communicating
with Caecilian had broken with the true Church.
Hence when the Eastern bishops on the occasion
of the council of Sardica (342), endeavoured to
induce Donatus to come to terms, he simply refused
so much as to deal with them, on the ground that
they had cut themselves off from the Church of
Christ—" the Church of the Martyrs." The visible
organic unity and indivisibility of the Church were
never more clearly or more consistently proclaimed
than by the African Separatists.
SECTION B.— THEOLOGY OF ST. AUGUSTINE
Rule of Faith. — -The principle of the deposit is
upheld by Augustine no less than by his pre-
decessors. For him science is the handmaid of
faith : " We understand that we may believe ^ . .
Ratio antecedit fidem.'^ ^ Reason and philosophy
examine the credentials of revelation,^ and help
us to analyse and establish independently much of
its content.* Having made good the preambles,
however, we receive the Gospel truths, in the first
instance, solely on authority.^ The apostolic
tradition written^ and unv/ritten,' guaranteed, as
it is, and interpreted by the Church ^ is Augustine's
sole rule of faith and of discipline. '' For my part,"
he writes, " I should not believe the Gospel were
I not impelled to do so by the authority of the
Catholic Church." '
Ecdesiology. — The Church is the body of Christ.
" Unus ergo homo Christus caput ei corpus.
1 Serm. xliii. 9.
- Ep. cxx. 3.
^ De ver. rel. 45, 46.
* cjr. Confess, vii. 13, 14 ; contra Acad. iii. 43.
^ Ep. cxlvii. 7.
•^ De Doct. chr. ii. 0 ; De consens. Evany, i. 54 ; iii. 28 sqq. ;
De civit. Dei xi. 3 ; xviii. 43 ; De Gen. ad litt. vii. 42.
' De bapt. v. 31.
^ De Oen. ad litt. lib. imperf. i ; De bapt. ii. 5.
* Contra Ep. fund. vi.
268
THEOLOGY OF ST. AUGUSTINE 239
Qtiod est corpus Eius ? Ecclesia Eius." ^ The
glorified Jesus lives in His Church and works
through her. She is His immaculate Spouse,^ one,
holy, catholic, and apostolical.
Being the body of Christ, the Church is essen-
tially a unit. The faithful form one body, one
association held together by the bonds of charity ^
and of an external hierarchy. Schism is separative.
Mere heresy does not unchurch us ipso facto ; * nor
do Separatists remain within the fold merely by
adhering to the true faith. ^ To break with the
Church is to break with all the means of salvation :
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.^
As a society the Church is in exclusive possession
of the means of sanctification. In this consists her
essential holiness. Hence she remains a spotless
bride, despite the wickedness of her children. The
Church is an assemblage of good men and bad ;
the body of Christ is a corpus permixtum.'^
Finally, the Church is catholic and apostolical.
As has already been shown, Augustine confounded
the Donatists by simply pointing to their isolation.
The Church of the Scriptures, he argued, is catholic ;
^ Enarr. in Ps. cxxvii.
2 ib. Ixxxviii.
^ Contra Cresc. i. 34 ; contra litt. Petil. ii. 172.
* efr. De Civit. Dei. xviii, 51, 1,
5 Contra Cresc. i. 34.
• De bapt. iv. 24,
7 De Doct. Chr. iii. 45.
260 THEOLOGY OF ST. AUGUSTINE
est toto orhe diffusa.^ Like Irenaeus, he established
the apostolicity of the Catholic hierarchy merely by
making good the continuity of the episcopal
succession in the Church of Rome.^ For Augustine
to commune with the See of Peter was to belong
to the true Church.^
Theology of the Sacraments. — Sacramental
theology owes much to the saintly bishop of Hippo.
Before his time, as we have seen, a large section
of Christendom held erroneous views as to the value
of sacraments administered by heretics. For the
rebaptists of the third century sacraments illicitly
administered were null. " Quod (baptisma) nos
nee ratum possumus computare quando hoc apud nos
constat esse illicitum.'" ^ The validity of the
sacraments they held to be conditioned by the
faith of the minister and of the subject ; while their
successors, the Donatists, went further and main-
tained that no sacrament can be validly adminis-
tered by one who is notoriously or publicly
unworthy.
On the other hand, those who, with the Roman
Pontiff, upheld the validity of heretical baptism,
were unable to give a satisfactory reason for the
faith that was in them. Stephen, no doubt, had
emphasized the efficacy of the sacramental rite
itself {ex opere operato) ; but it seemed a mere make-
1 Serm. xlvi. 33. ^ ib. xliii. 7.
2 £fp. lii. 2. * Cypr. : Ep. Ixxiii. 1.
THEOLOGY OF ST. AUGUSTINE 261
shift. How, he was asked, can sin be remitted by
those who have not the Holy Spirit ? And how
can those who are themselves dead quicken others ?
Further, if the Romans regarded the sacramental
rite as efficacious of itself, why did they reconfirm
those who were confirmed in heresy ?
The air was cleared somewhat by St. Augustine.
Tlie fundamental distinction which he drew be-
tween validity and liceity in the administration of
the sacraments, and the corresponding distinction
between their valid and their fruitful reception,
marked a new stage in the development of sacra-
mental theology. 1 This, he explained, was the
great error of the rebaptists, that they failed to
distinguish the sacrament from the sacramental
effect : " Non distinguehatur sacramentum ah effectu
vel usu sacramenti.^^ ^
His own starting-point was the efficacy
of the sacramental rite itself — ex opere operato.^
Baptism, wherever or by whomsoever conferred
or received, he declared to be valid, provided
only it be administered in the name of the
Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.*
^ We gather from certain statements of Pope Stephen and
of St. Optatus that the pre-Augustinian Church was vaguely
conscious of some such distinction.
^ De bapt. vi. 1.
3 ib. i. 12, 19 ; V. 21, 29 ; vi. 2, 4.
4 ib. vi. 25, 47.
262 THEOLOGY OF ST. AUGUSTINE
The sacramental rite considered in itself is a holy
thing, because instituted by God,^ Who is present
in it, 2 and Who has sanctified it^ and rendered it
efficacious of itself." Hence it produces its effect
independently of the faith^ and probity® of either
minister or subject. Baptism is validly adminis-
tered and received by sinners and even by heretics.'
" In ista quaestione non esse cogitandum quis det
sed quid det, aut quis accipiat sed quid (tccijyiat,
aut quis habeat sed quid hdbeaV *
But if the Church be the sole repository of the
means of salvation, how, it was asked, can sacra-
ments be vahdly conferred outside her pale ?
The sacraments, Augustine replied, when validly
administered, imprint on the soul a character or
spiritual seal which cannot be effaced.* Hence
those who are themselves validly baptized or
ordained,^"* retain the sacrament even in schism ;
and, having the spiritual gift, can communicate
1 Dt bapt. iii. 4, 6 ; iv. 12, 18 ; v. 21, 29,
2 lb. vi. 26, 47.
3 ib.
* ib. iv. 10.
^ ib. iii. 14, 19 ; iv. 15, 22.
e ib. iii. 10, 16 ; iv. 21. 28 ; v. 3, 3 ; vi. 1, 2.
7 ib. i. 1.
8 ib. iv. 10.
9 Contra Ep. Farm. ii. 28, 29.
^^ In discussing the validity and the efficacy of the sacra-
ments he concerns himself chiefly with Baptism and Order.
But his principles are of general application.
THEOLOGY OF ST. AUGUSTINE 263
it to others. 1 To show that the doctrine of the
character is traditional, he appeals to the practice
of the universal Church. Those who were once
validly baptized or ordained, he said, and who
subsequently separated themselves, were never
rebaptized or reordained on their return to com-
munion.^
Does a schismatical minister, then, confer the
spiritual gift independently of Christ and of His
Spouse the Church ? No ; the sacraments which he
administers are fundamentally not his, but those
of the Church.^ Besides, in conferring the sacred
gift, he is a mere instrument ; Christ is the principal
agent. He is the real donor, the chief minister.
From the view-point of validity, therefore, the
spiritual condition of the human agent matters not.
It is Christ Himself who baptizes and ordains.*
But not every valid administration is lawful or
fruitful: ^' Dico sacramentum Christi et honos et
malos posse habere, posse dare, posse accipere^ et
honos quidem utiliter et saluhriter ; malos autem
perniciose et poenaliter'' '" If the minister be
a heretic or a sinner, his administration, positis
ponendis, is valid, but unlawful. As to the subject,
if duly disposed, he receives the sacrament validly
1 De bapt. i. 2,
2 ib. i. 2.
3 ib. i. 10, 14 ; 15, 23 ; Oonfra litt. Petil. ii. 69.
* cfr. In Joann. v. 7 ; Ep. Ixxxix. 5.
6 De Bapt. vi. 2, 4.
264 THEOLOGY OF ST. AUGUSTINE
and fruitfully ; though it be conferred by the
greatest sinner.^ On the other hand, if not dis-
posed, he receives the sacrament validly, but
unfruitfuUy. In this case the character remains,
and bears fruit when the obstacle to its action is
removed by penance.
A catechumen may be validly and even fruitfully
baptized by heretics, provided he is careful not to
league himself with them, and provided also he has
sufficient reason for availing himself of the services
of a separatist minister. ^ It would seem that in the
eyes of Augustine membership in an heretical sect
is in all cases an obstacle to the infusion of grace.
A Christian who has been baptized in schism obtains
the ' use ' of his baptism ^ and the remission of his
sins^ only on admission to the Church. Grace and
regeneration are secured through charity ; and
charity is found only in the CathoUc communion.^
For Augustine, as for the majority of his pre-
decessors, the Church is the exclusive repository of
grace and of the means of grace ; in ea sola
haptismus saluhriter habeturJ In schismatical sects
the sacraments can be received validly, but never
fruitfully. Catechumens who, even in good faith,
are baptized in schism receive the character alone ;
1 Contra litt. Petil. i. 3.
- De bapt. vi. 2, 4.
"^ ib. i. 5 ; 8, 11 ; 12, 18 ; 13, 21.
* ih. i. 18 ; iii. 13 ; v. 9 ; vi. 5, 7 ; Contra Ep. Farm. ii. 28.
- De bapt. iii. 16, 21.
^ Contra Cresc. i. 34.
THEOLOGY OF ST. AUGUSTINE 265
they are not regenerated. ^ Such seems to have
been the view of St. Augustme. In his eyes,
grace, the spirit, and remission of sin, could be
had only in the unity of the Church.
The principle of the Sacramental character
applies to Catholics no less than to Separatists.
Members of the true Church who, through lack of
the proper dispositions, receive baptism unworthily,
obtain the fruit of the sacrament only when the
obstacle has been removed ^ : " [Remoto obice]
prodesse incipit quod ante non proderat sed tamen
ineratJ Aliud est non habere^ aliud non utiliter
habere. Qui non habet est baptizandus ut habeat ;
qui autem non utiliter habet, ut utiliter habeat
corrigendus.'^ *
^ cfr. De bapt. i. 6.
2 ib. iii. 3, 4.
3 ib. V. 18, 24.
* ib. iv. 17, 24 ; cfr. Diet, de Thiol Oath., vol. ii, p. 225 ;
Tix. : op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 352 sqq.
GENERAL SUMMARY
Historical Christianity was a religion of authority
because based on a revelation. The gospel was
not a " wisdom," but a SiSaxri. It imposed itself.
It was a preceptive and doctrinal catachesis ; it
prescribed something to do as well as something
to believe. So completely were the early Christians
dominated by the principle of the SiSaxv, that they
were regarded by outsiders as an unreasoning
'7r\r}6os. Everything was accepted on authority ;
philosophizing brethren were suspect.
Christianity was a deposit of divine truths and
precepts entrusted by Christ to His apostles, to
be preserved intact for the enlightenment and
salvation of men. Not all the elements in the
new revelation, however, were equally new. The
deposit continued to grow until the death of the
last apostle, when it ceased to be susceptible of
change.^ Succeeding generations were expected to
guard it jealously against " the persuasive words
of human wisdom " and the " traditions of men,"
neither adding to nor takiag from it.
The gospel is thus a received faith, an inheritance
which has come down to us from Christ, through
the apostles, and their successors. It is a tradi-
1 With the rise of the Montanists the Church became ex-
pKcitly conscious of the term of the New Revelation.
266
GENERAL SUMMARY 267
tional norm, a doctrinal and disciplinary Kavcov.
Clement of Rome exhorted the refractory Corin-
thians to return eVl rov eVKXerj Kol aejxvov r^P
irapaSoa-ecog rjfjiSiv Kavova.^ To be saved, we must
hold fast to the irapaSoa-L^ ; our beliefs and conduct
must be ordered by it. Anything which has not
been handed down is foreign (dWorpiou) and
dangerous. Heresy is inventive, original ; it is a
profane novelty.
Christianity denationalised revelation. The
Gospel was announced not to Jews alone, nor to
Gentiles alone, but to all men. Christ's appeal was
not to a people but to the individual, and therefore
to all individuals. The new religion was cosmo-
politan and catholic.
Men are saved through Christ by becoming
invisibly united to Him. All who believe and are
baptized become members of a mystical body
having Christ as head, and grace — the life of the
Spirit — ^as animating principle. By baptism men,
irrespective of race or social standing, are made to
live with the life of Christ. They become members
of the same Body, branches of the same Vine.
But historical Christianity was something more ;
it was a church. Individualism found no place in
the new movement ; men were called to the faith
singly, but not solitarily. The early missionaries
established societies wherever they preached, —
__— -ijii
1 Prima Clem., c. vii.
268 GENERAL SUMMARY
one in each city or district, — so that with the spread
of the Gospel the Empire became the home of a
new Diaspora. Each church was controlled by a
resident hierarchy, selected, as a rule, by the faith-
ful, but invariably ordained by the apostles or
their successors. Ecclesiastical superiors received
their authority " from above," and held office for
life.
Christianity was not a reformed Judaism ; the
Church was never a Jewish sect. No doubt, it
required a supplementary revelation to induce the
apostles to admit the uncircumcised to baptism
unaccompanied by any observance of the cere-
monial law ; but history shows that, even ante-
cedently to the conversion of Cornelius and his
household, the Church and the synagogue were
distinct and independent organizations. Those
who would have merged the new ' tendency ' in
Judaism separated themselves at an early stage
in the Christian development.
Finally, there existed from the very outset a
community of communities, a Church of all the
churches. The Christian Diaspora was a social unit:
In each church the apostolic tradition, the opOo^
Xoyoff, was secured by the faithful in and through
subjection to the local hierarchy. Those who were
with the bishop were ' of God and Jesus Christ.'
Christians, moreover, by conforming to their
respective bishops, conformed to one another.
The same faith, the same moral code, and the
GENERAL SUMMARY 269
same cult, obtained everywhere. Orthodoxy was
catholic de iure and de facto.
All this implies organization, a league of churches,
a united and, we may add, an infallible episcopate.
If Christianity was not a philosophy, but a divine
SiSaxv, unchanging and statutory ; and if the
bishops, each in his own church, were its sole
reliable exponents ; then to universalize that
SiSaxv, without prejudice to its unity and integrity,
demanded a federation of bishops which was not
only organized, but infallible. Then, as now,
individual members of the episcopate were liable
to err.
It is not suggested that during the early cen-
turies the Catholic bishops were accustomed to
assemble in council, in order to secure an all-
round adherence to the apostolic tradition.
General councils were not yet called for. The
tradition, in its main outlines, was sufficientlj'^
clear and well-known, to enable individual bishops
in ordinary cases to detect and condemn as
erroneous, beliefs and practices which were at
variance with the kqvoov. In addition, the smaller
communities were careful to conform to the central
or apostolic churches and these in turn to Rome.^
1 Harnack lays great stress on those ' inter-eccIesiastical
dispositions,' " which," he says, " secured in important
questions the solidarity of the evolution " {cfr. Mission, vol. i,
pp. 369-380, 445 sqq.). He denies, however, that Christianity
became an organized whole before the opening years of the
third century.
270 GENERAL SUMMARY
It is manifest, however, that even at this stage an
organized episcopate stood in the background ;
and hence, when doubts and difficulties arose
subsequently, on questions of faith or morals, no
new authority was created ; the episcopal body
corporate, hitherto silent, simply raised its voice
and Christendom was called upon to hear the
Church. The rise of heresy was the occasion of new
definitions ; the contents of the deposit were
analysed and legitimately developed and doctrines
once defined became irreformable.
The new Diaspora was thus a federation, and not
a mere mass of discrete units, each existing and
acting independently. Everywhere in the early
literature we find the idea of the Catholic Church,
an organized whole rounded off from and opposed
to non-Christians and to dissenters of every
description.
This visible organization of Catholicity it was
which enabled the Church to rid herself effectively
of everything ' foreign.' No student of primitive
Catholicity can fail to observe how heresy, at its
very rise, found itself automatically thrown off by
the Universal Church. If the novelty was clearly
at variance with a doctrine already defined, it was
at once banned everywhere and its adherents
excommunicated. In other cases its rise was the
occasion of a definition with the same result :
Catholicity was so constructed that everything
strange was forced to differentiate itself. Heretics
were relegated to the position of dissenters, and
GENERAL SUMMARY 271
found the doors of the Church of Christ closed
against them wherever they travelled. All this
witnesses to a federation of churches. Innovators
were pitted against a Catholic organization.
The Roman Church was primatial ; she was the
" principal church " {ecclesia principalis). The
See of Peter was the authoritative centre of
Christendom.
Peter himself, during his lifetime, was
apparently satisfied to act as leader, rather than
as primate of the apostolic college. This was to be
expected. His fellow apostles, though really
subject to him, were individually infallible and
even inspired, and their jurisdiction was universal.
An exercise of the primacy was thus uncalled
for.
But his successors not only claimed a
sovereignty, but exercised it from the first. Their
extant letters, limited though they are in number,
and occasional in character, make it clear that
their writers regarded themselves as burdened
with the care of all the churches. The primacy
was not an usurpation. Innovations were con-
demned by none more insistently than by the
Roman Pontiffs themselves. It is in the text of a
Papal decree we find the words : " nihil innovetur
nisi quod traditum esV
We grant, of course, that the Ante-Nicene
Church did not grasp the principle of the Roman
primacy as adequately as does the Catholic Church
of the twentieth century. The language of the
272 GENERAL SUMMARY
early Popes was not always ' primatial,' and their
authority was occasionally not only resisted, but
openly repudiated. But why should a Protestant
controversialist cry victory when he finds a Poly-
crates or a Cyprian hurling defiance at the Vicar
of Christ, and whole churches appealing from the
cathedra Petri to a provincial council ? If a doctrine
in the course of its development — and is there not
evidence of development everywhere ? — has had to
encounter a certain amount of uncertainty and
even of positive opposition, is it therefore to be
rejected as intrusive ? How many truths of faith
now universally accepted succeeded in making their
way into the Creed unchallenged ? How many
have been held semper, ubique et ah omnibus ?
We have noted, in fine, how historical Chris-
tianity finds its justification in the personal
teaching of Jesus. The apostles in establishing
religious societies wherever they preached, did not
act on their own initiative. The local church lay
within the horizon of the Galilean Prophet. He
also arranged that there should be a Church of
churches, ruled by the apostles, as a coUege, and
by their successors. Acts xv is the best com-
mentary on Matthew xviii, 18. Lastly, the Roman
primacy connects with Jesus through Simon
Peter.
Christianity is thus de facto and de iure a visible
organic unit. As such it is the Body of Christ.
Baptism incorporates us in an Organism which is
at once visible and invisible. As invisible, its
GENERAL SUMMARY 273
animating principle is grace — the life of the Spirit.
As visible, it is an external society having as
unifying principle the central ecclesiastical govern-
ment established by Christ. To divide the Church—
whatever he the form of its government — is to divide
the Body of Christ. Schism is never lawful.
CHAPTER IX
THEOLOGICAL
As this chapter professes to be exclusively theo-
logical, it opens appropriately, if somewhat dryly,
with a definition :
Schism.^ — rAvanzinus, in his work De ConstitU'
tione Apostolicae Sedis, defines schism as rebellion
against the authority of legitimate ecclesiastical
superiors.^ This would seem to be the received
definition. Assuming, as we do here, that the
church is a society ruled by a divinely constituted
hierarchy, in subjection to the Roman Pontiff,
schism is adequately defined as a refusal to acknow-
ledge the authority of the Pope, It is rebellion in
the church.^
The author of the Summa states that the sin
1 Gr. (Tx^o-fjia (fr. (rx^C<^) '■ lit. a fissure or rent (Mt. ix. 16 ;
Mk. ii. 21). In an applied sense it signifies a division or
dissension, more or less serious, in a visible society (Jo. vii. 43 ;
ix. 16 ; X. 1 Cor. i. 10 ; xi. 18 ; xii. 25).
2 Op cit., p. 19.
3 The term ' rebellion ' as we use it is sjmonymous with.
armed secession and connotes repudiation of the flag.
It is unnecessary to discuss local or diocesan schism, which
consists in a refusal to recognize the authority of one's bishop.
Local schism is not at all incompatible with a recognition of
the papal authority {cfr. Murray : op cit., Disp. vi, sect. i. 25).
274
THEOLOGICAL 275
of schism is directly and per se opposed to ecclesias-
tical unity. 1 To understand his meaning we may
recall what has been laid down in our introduc-
tion, to the effect that, properly speaking, an
external society is divided only by rebellion.
Hence he speaks of schism as a refusal to subject
oneself to the Pope.^ Suarez states that the word
schism properly signifies the sin of those who
endeavour to divide the Church. " Members of the
Church can cut themselves off from her, and this is
what we understand by schism." ^ The concept
is traditional. We already know that in the eyes
of the early Fathers the Church of Christ is a social
unit, an organism, which is dismembered by schism.
Schism is, therefore, disobedience and something
more. " Disobedience with rebellion constitutes
schism." * Avanzinus is more explicit : '* Prae-
cipuum criterium ad cognoscendum formale
schisma est videre utrum qui schismatici dicuntur
re et effectu studeant excutere iugum supremi regi-
minis Romani Pontificis. Namque hoc gravissi-
mum crimen facile confundi potest cum simplici
inobedientia quae non est schisma nisi supremum
1 Summa: 2-2, Q. 39. 1.
2 lb. A schismatic is defined by Father Lehmkuhl as
one who refuses to be subject to the Roman Pontiff {op cit.,
vol. i. 380), and by Murray as one who rebels against the
Pope {op cit. Disp. vi. sect. i. 21).
3 Tr. iii, Disp. xii, sect. 1.
* Summa : loc. cit.
276 THEOLOGICAL
gradum obtinuerit quo re et effectu dbscissio, sub-
tractiOy recessio sequatur." * Murray, too, is careful
to emphasize the distinction : "Si aliquis legem
aut praeceptum particulare Pontificis violet, non
ideo schismaticus est. Ita enim agere potest non
ex mente rebelli contra auctoritatem Pontificis.'*'' ^
The Great Western Schism
If schism is rebellion, and if anything less is not
schism at all, the history of the so-called Great
Western Schism may be studied with equanimity
by Catholic apologists. The episode affords no
basis for the Anglican contention that the Roman
Church, by canonizing members of each party to
the dispute, implicitly approved of the " breach-
within-the-Church " theory.
For let us review the facts : — ^On the death of
Gregory IX, the last of the Avignon popes,
Bartholomew Prignano, Archbishop of Bari, was
elected and proclaimed pope, under the title of
Urban VI (April 9, 1378). For four months he was
acknowledged by Christians everywhere. Then
the majority of the Cardinals questioned the
validity of his election, called upon the faithful to
repudiate him, and later elected a new pope, in the
person of Robert of Geneva, who took the name of
^ Op. cit., loc cit.
2 Op. cit., Disp. vi, sect. i. 22 ; cfr. Rhodes : op cit., vol. it
pp. 1-4. ,
THEOLOGICAL 277
Clement VII. The " schism " was now consum-
mated ; the popes excommunicated each other and
Christendom took sides.
Anglican controversialists refer triumphantly to
the period of the anti-popes as proving that, on
our own showing, there can be schism within the
Church. But they misunderstand. If we assume
that one of the rival pontiffs was really Pope —
and we regard Urban's claims as practically
established — then the anti-pope and his following
were really, though in good faith, pitted against
their lawful sovereign. But were they in schism ?
We scarcely think so. Schism is rebellion ; and the
followers of the anti-pope were anything but rebels.
What they refused to acknowledge was not the
papal authority, but rather the claims of a certain
individual to that authority. Hence the term
schism as applied to the dispute in question is
really a misnomer.^ The Great Western Schism
was something like the Wars of the Roses rather
than a War of Independence.
The same must be said if we suppose, with some,
that a doubtful pope is no pope, and that accord-
ingly there was really no pope while the schism
(so-called) endured. On this hypothesis it was
1 The fact that the division has always been termed a schism
does not startle us ; there is little in a name. Each obedience
naturally denounced the other as schismatical — it is the fashion
in such cases — and posterity has retained the opprobrious
epithet.
278 THEOLOGICAL
again, as in the Wars of the Roses, a struggle, not
to set up a new flag, but rather to determine who
had a right to the old.^
Dr. Gore on Schism
Dr. Gore devotes a whole chapter of his work on
" Koman Catholic Claims " to a discussion of the
nature of schism. "It is so fully our duty," he
writes, " to preserve the unity of Love or outward
fellowship, ' the bond of peace,' that wDful schism
would annul all the moral fruits which follow from
being constitutionally within the ecclesiastical
unity. That is to say, schism does not merely
mean breaking away from the episcopal form of
government. The schisms of the early Church
were episcopal in form." ^
What then constitutes the guilt of schism ?
*' Not merely being separated," he replies, " for
the separated party may not be the guilty party,
as, for example, in the case when Diotrephes
* excommunicated ' the brethren who came from
St. John, or Pope Victor the Asiatic Churches, or
Pope Stephen, St. Cyprian and the African
Churches." ^ All this is tantamount to saying that
1 How different the case of the Reformers ! With them it
was no mere question of disputing an individual's claim to the
existing authority ; it was rather a question of repudiating the
authority itself.
2 Op. ciL, p. 125.
3 lb.
THEOLOGICAL 279
schism is not excommunication. For Catholics this
requires no elaboration. Schism is a sin, excom-
munication a punishment. 1
Having explained what does not constitute
schism, Dr. Gore proceeds to set forth what does.
" Schism," he states, ..." means wilful self-
withdrawal from the legitimate succession of the
Catholic Church ; . . . or in a secondary sense
the wilful causing of a breach inside the Church." ^
' Primary ' schism is separative and always sinful ;
' secondary ' schism is not separative and is allow-
able in exceptional circumstances. Hence we
must distinguish between breaches in the Church
which are sometimes lawful and separations from
the Church which are absolutely inexcusable.
The Greek and the Anglican schisms, he goes on
to explain, are justifiable breaches within the
Church. Despite them. Catholicity is visibly one.
The Greek, the Anglican, and the Roman com-
munions, are branches of one and the same tree —
the Church Universal.
Does the history of primitive Christianity afford
any basis for the " breach-within-the-Church "
theory ? Yes, he answers, the Meletian schism at
Antioch in the fourth century was recognized at
the time, even by E-ome, as a breach within the
Church. Two bishops, Miletius and Paulinus,
1 The exact nature of excommunication will be explained
presently.
2 Op. cit., p. 126.
U
280 THEOLOGICAL
ruled the same church ; each excommunicated the
other ; Paulinus was recognized by Rome, Meletius
by Asia and yet East and West remained in full
communion with each other. In Dr. Gore's eyes
we have here a recognized case of a breach within
the Church. The separation of England from
Rome he considers to be similar in character.^
But the analogy breaks down on the essential
'point. Despite the schism at Antioch the Catholic
Church in the fourth century was a visible organic
unit ruled by the Roman Pontiff or, if this be
denied, by a united episcopate. There was one
flag at all events — one visible central authority to
which Christians everywhere subjected themselves.
When the schism occurred at Antioch the parties
though excommunicating each other recognized a
common flag. The Roman and the Anglican
communions on the other hand do not acknowledge
a common flag. Hence they form distinct and
separate organizations. One flag one society ;
n flags n societies and therefore n churches.
Excommunication ^
Father Lehmkuhl defines excommunication as
" exclusion from the benefits of Church member-
ship." ^ It is the severest punishment inflicted by
^ op. cit., p. 129 sqq.
2 Lat. excommunicatio : ex, out of ; communicaiio, com-
munion.
^ op. cit., vol. ii., p. 632.
THEOLOGICAL 281
the Church. By it the Christian, lay or cleric, is
deprived of all his rights and privileges as a
member of the ecclesiastical society. Excom-
munication is outlawry in the Church,.^
Hence schism and excommunication differ toto
coelo. The former is a sinful act or state ; the latter
a punishment of its nature medicinal and salutary.
Not every excommunicate is schismatical ; outlaws
are not necessarily rebels.
Dogmas
The word dogma (Gr. Soy/ma fr. SoKeay) literally
signifies not only an opinion, but a decree (Lat.
sententia, placitum, decretum).- In the New Testa-
ment it is also used (in the plural) of the precepts of
the Mosaic Law ; ^ and St. Ignatius speaks of
* In the early Church, so far as we can gather, there were two
kinds of excommunication, one local the other inter -ecclesiasti-
cal. The former deprived individual Christians, totally or in
part, of the benefits of Church membership, and corresponded
closely with our modern censure. The latter was a breach of
communion between churches implying little more than a
refusal on the part of one bishop to communicate in sacris with
another. In this sense bishops frequently excommunicated
each other in primitive times ; and excommunication was the
regular penalty incurred by a bishop who absented himself
without sufficient reason from a provincial council.
2 Lk. ii. 1 ; Ac. xvi. 4 ; xvii. 7 ; also read (loc. Staray/za) in
Heb. xi. 23 by Lachmann ; cfr. Col. ii. 14, 20 ; Esth. iii. 9 ;
Dan. ii. 13 ; vi. 8.
3 Eph. ii. 15.
282 THEOLOGICAL
TO, Soyixara tov Kvpiou /cat t&v aTrocTToXcov.^ Lastly,
we find the word used by profane authors to denote
a philosopher's tenets,^ acceptance of which is a
condition of membership of his school.^
In Catholic usage a dogma is simply a defined
truth ; a truth, that is, acceptance of which is
required under penalty of excommunication. We
find dogmas in every school and society on the face
of the earth. No one, we presume, is admitted to
membership in the Eighty Club who does not
accept the policy of Free Trade. It is a Liberal
dogma. Protestants who denounce Catholics as
dogmatists make themselves ridiculous. Is there
a Protestant Church in Christendom without its
dogmas ?
Heresy *
Etymologically, the Greek word aipea-ig con-
notes a taking (fr. alpeoo) or choosing (fr. alpeofxai),^
as well as the thing chosen ; and hence an opinion
or view. In the New Testament it has three
distinct uses : It is employed six times in the Acts,
to denote a separatist organization as such,
^ Ep. ad Magn. xiii. 1.
2 Lat. decreta, dogmata.
^ Cic. Acad. iv. 9 ; Just. M. Ap. i. 26 ; cfr. Grimm : op cit.,
p. 106 ; Did de Thiol. Cath. F. xxx., pp. 1574 sqq.
* " Quid ergo faciat haereticum, regulari quadam defini-
tione, comprehendi, sicut ego existimo, aut non potest aut
difficilime potest " (Aug, Praef. ad lib. de haer.).
5 cfr. Lev. xxii. 18 ; 1 Mace. viii. 30 [LXX].
THEOLOGICAL 283
Christian or otherwise.^ St. Paul uses it on two
occasions in reference to dissensions arising out of
diversity of opinion ; ^ and St. Peter employs it
once to designate a doctrine at variance with the
received teaching.^
In theology, heresy is the rejection of a dogma.*
Let us be clear about this. Every society has its
dogmas or definitions. Members who reject one of
these become guilty of heresy of a kind. A member
of the Eighty Club, for example, who abandons
the principles of Free Trade for those of Tariff
Reform, is regarded by his fellow-members as a
heretic in politics. So in the Church ; rejection of
an ecclesiastical dogma, and that alone constitutes
heresy.^
1 Ac. V. 17 ; XV. 5 ; xxiv. 5, 14 ; xxvi. 5 ; xxviii. 22 {cfr.
Joseph, Bel. Jud. ii. 8. 1 ; Just. M., Dial, xviii. 108).
2 Gal. V. 20 ; 1 Cor. xi. 19.
^ 2 Pet. ii. 1 ; cjr. Grimm, lib. cit., p. 11.
* " Haeresis est infidelitatis species pertinens ad eos qui
fidem Christi profitentur sed eius dogmata corrumpunt "
(St. Thos. : Summa 2-2, Q. xi. a. 1).
^ Heresy involves disobedience {cfr. Tit. i. 10 ; Rom. vi. 17 ;
2 Cor. X. 6-7). St. Thomas goes farther and holds that every
heretic is also a schismatic ; {Summ. 2-2, Q. xxxix. a. 1) and
in this he is followed by many modern theologians including
Murray {De EccL, vol. i., p. 377). But we doubt if the doctrine
is quite scientific. It is true of course that heretics, as a rule,
are also schismatics ; also that anyone who perseveres in heresy
is presumed to be in schism ; but we do not think that heresy,
at least in its early stages, is necessarily separative. A
Christian may disobey the Holy See even to the extent of
rejecting a dogma, and yet not set up a new flag.
284 THEOLOGICAL
Infallibility. — Christ, it has been shown, estab-
lished a world-organization. His kingdom is
essentially one and catholic ; and Avill endure as
such to the end. Schism is utterly sinful.
We have noted, too, how the Church, from her
earliest infancy, was conscious of the irreforma-
bility of her own definitive utterances. The
deposit was one and unchanging ; so were all
doctrines proposed absolutely by the Church as
portion of the deposit. Christian dogmas were not
subject to revision.
The supreme ecclesiastical inagisterium was,
therefore, regarded — implicitly at least — as
endowed with the prerogative of infallibility. It
follows at once from the foregoing. For consider
the condition of things which must obtain if the
Church be fallible even in definitive utterances.
A certain dogma of hers, let us suppose, is not only
questionable but actually false ; and, once false,
whatever Modernists may say, it can never become
true. And yet it is irreformable. The Church
must continue to impose it to the crack of doom,
under penalty of excommunication. What course,
then, is open to those Christians who cannot help
regarding it an error ? They cannot conform.
To subscribe to false teaching, by whomsoever
proposed, is intrinsically wrong. Neither can they
set up a new flag. Schism is never lawful. Those
sincere and enlightened Christians, therefore — they
and their successors, — are obliged to live their lives
as outlaws devoid of all hope of restoration. It is the
THEOLOGICAL 285
reductio ad absurdum of the doctrine of fallibility.
Either the Church is infallible in irreformables or
schism is sometimes lawful. There is no via media.
Anglican Principles of Church Unity
" We maintain," writes Dr. Gore, " that
primarily the unity of the Church is a unity of
inward life. "^ The Church Militant and
Triumphant is one, he holds, because the sap of
Christ's life is derived into her from one and the
same source. But there is also an external
ministry, subordinate to and subserving the life of
the Spirit ; a visible apostolic organization through
which alone God has covenanted to give us grace.
" Each local church exists ... to keep the
streams of the water of life flowing. . . . Each
has a necessary connection with all the others in
the witness of truth and in the fellowship of love
. . . but their primary point of union is nothing
lower than Christ." ^
In Dr. Gore's eyes the Church is an external
oiganic unit de iure,^ but not de facto. " Divisions
in the Church," he writes, " prevent her from
bearing the witness she ought to bear to the one
1 op cit., p. 30.
2 ib., pp. 33-34.
3 "It is incumbent on us to avoid schism in the body."
The unity of the Spirit " ought to result in " outward fellow-
ship (p. 28).
286 THEOLOGICAL
life by which she lives ; but," he adds," she no more
ceases to be one by outward divisions than she
ceases to be holy by tolerating {sic) sin." ^ Schisms,
we are told, do not affect the primary unity,
" which consists in the derivation of the life of the
Spirit from Christ down the channels of His
organized society." ^ Dr. Gore charges us with
holding the " thoroughly unscriptural " position
that the unity of the Church is primarily a unity of
visible association.'
But the learned prelate's grasp of Catholic
principles is strangely inadequate. As I understand
our system, we hold for a body of Christ which is a
visible society animated by the Holy Spirit.
Under the latter aspect its organizing principle is
grace — the life of the Spirit — derived from an
unseen Head and quickening the members ; as
visible it is an external society which like all
societies has as its primary unifying principle a
visible government.^
As a society the Church of the New Testament
and of the early Fathers is the body of Christ and
therefore essentially one ; but we are positively at
1 ih., p. 29.
- op. cit.y p. 36.
3 ib., p. 35.
* Dom Chapman, replying to Dr. Gore, denies that Catholic
theologians make hierarchical unity the primary unity.
" Theologians," he writes, demand for the Church a three-fold
visible unity " : the first, -primary and fundamental, unity of
faith (the symbohcal bond), the second unity of intercom-
THEOLOGICAL 287
a loss to understand how Dr. Gore can seriously
hold that a church which separates itself and that
from which it separates can together form a single
society. Can we say that the separated colonies
and the British Empire together form one State ?
Is it not recognized that oneness of flag is essential
to social unity ?
Church Membership
That portion of the treatise " De Ecclesia "
which professes to determine the extension of the
Church, has still to be treated scientifically. The
question as to who are and who are not members
of the body of Christ looks simple ; but one searches
the handbooks in vain for a clear or satisfactory
reply.
Father Tan query, for example, discusses the
entire question of Church membership in the
language of perplexity and indecision. His
attitude throughout is ingeniously non-committal.
The body of the Church he boldly defines as " the
aggregate of those who are externally united into a
munion (the liturgical bond), the third and last unity of
government (the hierarchical bond).
No doubt it works out that way ; but is it not at once
clearer and simpler to hold for one ultimate unifying principle
and one only — that of Government. The other two bonds
appear to owe their efficiency as principles of external unity
entirely to the authority which imposes them. In any visible
society, ecclesiastical or otherwise, there seems to be one
primary principle of unity and only one — the fag.
288 THEOLOGICAL
single Christian association, in subjection to the
bishops and to the Roman Pontiff." ^ This
definition one would think is sufficiently clear to
do away with all obscurity ; and yet in a later
section ^ he tells us that all baptized persons
belong to the body of the Church in some way
(aliquo modo) ; catechumens incipiently (inchoa-
tive) ; adult public heretics and occult and
notorious schismatics imperfectly (imperfeote) ;
tolerated excommunicates truly (vere), and vitandi
not completely (non-complete) ! We find this
difficult to understand.
In the hope of imparting to the reader a few
clear ideas on an admittedly obscure subject we
shall discuss the question under three distinct
headings as follows : —
(a) The Vine {i.e., the mystical body as
energized by grace).
(b) The " soul " of the Church.
(c) The social body {i.e., the mystical body as
an external society ruled by a visible
hierarchy under the Pope).^
1 Corpus est . . . coUectio eorum qui exterius in unam
societatem Christianam coadunantur sub regimine episco-
porum Romanique Pontificis {up. cit., vol. i, p. 533).
2 pp. 583-590.
3 The reader will be careful to note that what we have
named the Vine and the social body respectively are one and
the same thing viewed under different aspects. The basis of
the distinction is found in the Summa, p. iii, q. viii, art. 6
(resp.) .
THEOLOGICAL 289
The Vine
Baptism unites us interiorly to Christ. It is a
laver of regeneration,— ^a new birth by which we
become introduced into the life of the Spirit. It
makes us live with Christ's own life ; it connects
us with Him as with the Fountain of Grace. For
St. Paul baptism incorporates us really if mystically
into the crucified Redeemer. In Him and through
Him as Head we form an organism energized by
His life. This mystical organism is the Vine of
John XV.
Coming to discuss the question as to who are
branches, the case of departed souls creates no
difficulty. It is not disputed that the reprobate are
cut ofi for ever from the Mystical body as it is not
disputed that souls which depart this life in the
state of grace are confirmed in membership. " The
Anglican conception of Church unity," writes Dr.
Gore, " does not confine it to this world but
includes within it the departed who are like us in
Christ." 1 This is the Catholic conception as well
provided there be question of the Vine and not of
the social body.
As regards this life, it is held by many Catholic
theologians and exegetes that membership in the
Vine is forfeited by heresy. This view, though
strongly supported, strikes us as being somewhat
1 op. ciL, p. 32.
290 THEOLOGICAL
extreme. As we understand Catholic principles, a
baptized person ceases to be a branch of the
Vine only by death in mortal sin.
This seems to be implied in our theology of the
sacraments. So long as Ufe lasts any one who is
baptized, even though a formal heretic or in
schism, is habitually capable of receiving at least
some sacraments, not only validly but fruitfully.
This shows, we imagine, that he is not yet quite
separate. If he were, the sacramental ducts which
have been set up by baptism and which connect
his soul with the Fountain of grace, would be
severed, and he would require to be rebaptized to
draw upon the source again, through the sacra-
ments.
We recognize, of course, that heretics and others
who incur excommunication, are placed in a state
of grave spiritual necessity. But the censure does
not lop them off from the Vine-stock. It leaves
the channels of grace intact, and merely holds up
the stream of life. And so excommunicates, by
mere removal of the censure, become at once
capable of receiving the sacraments validly and
fruitfully. A second baptism is not required to
re-establish sacramental connection with the Head.
Baptism has made us branches of the Vine and
branches we remain until death, sins and censures
notwithstanding.
Each branch is quickened to some extent. In
the souls of the just the stream of life is full and
continuous ; in the case of sinners it is weak and
THEOLOGICAL 291
intermittent — more especially if the sinner be a
formal heretic. But so long as soul and body
remain united, every baptized person is animated
to some extent by the life of the Spirit. A Christian
is never quite dead — until he dies.
We have tried in vain to make out Dr. Gore's
views on the question of membership in the Vine.
He quotes Dr. Pusey to the effect that Christians
who reject the faith, the sacraments, or the
apostolic succession of the bishops, " sever them-
selves not only from the body of Christ, but
directly from the Head loosing the band which
binds them unto Him " ^ This is a sweeping
assertion ; but Dr Gore is not quite prepared to
stand by it personally: " Every one," he writes,
" who has a certain inward gift is in the Church
unity ; but none can, I do not say possess but make
good their claim to possess that gift in its fulness ^
save those who dwell within the unity of the
apostolic organization which is the visible Church.
It is only through this visible organization that
God has covenanted to give us the invisible Life " ^
What are we to understand by ' subordinate '
membership in the Church ? And if God has
covenanted to give us invisible Life only through
the apostolic organization, how is Dr Gore in a
position to assure Dissenters that they have got
the inward gift even in small measure ?
1 ojp. cit., p. 31.
^ " All baptized persons," he adds, " are in a subordinate
sense inside the Church," ^ ^-^^
292 THEOLOGICAL
The Soul of the Church^
By the soul of the Church I should like to under-
stand the manifold grace of God which permeates
and quickens the Body of Christ in all its members.
As actually employed by theologians, however, the
expression is simply synonymous with " sancti-
fying " grace. ^
This peculiar distinction between the body and
the soul of the Church is another outcome of
doctrinal development. That portion of our
theology which treats of the economy of grace has
undergone an extraordinary transformation since
the Patristic period. We already know that the
early fathers almost without exception depict the
Church as a sealed fountain {fons signatus), whence
alone men can draw the vivifying waters ; an ark
of Noe outside which no one can be saved. The
axiom extra ecclesiam nulla solus they interpreted
rigorously, looking on non-Christians of every
description, as well as heretics and schismatics, as
spiritually lost.
With the lapse of centuries theologians came to
realize that the traditional view in this matter was
somewhat extreme. They recognized the fact that
1 i.e., with the supernatural habits of which charity is the
culmination and " form." The appropriation of the epithet
" sanctifying " to habitual grace must be puzzling to the
uninitiated. Is not all grace — gratum faciens — sanctifjnng ?
THEOLOGICAL 293
many remained outside the Church in good faith,
and that of these some really lived well according
to their lights. Accordingly the axiom extra
ecclesiam nulla salus came to be so interpreted
as to allow for the possibility of salvation in
certam cases outside the Body.^ The distinction
between the body and the soul of the Church
was found convenient as enabling theologians to
retain a time-honoured axiom while holding more
liberal views on the economy of grace. Heretics
and unbaptized persons who are saved, they held,
are, in a sense, inside the Church, since they belong
to her soul.
It is somewhat confusing. The theology of the
early fathers is intelligible and their terminology
quite suitable. For them Christianity was a body
animated by the life of the spirit as by a soul.
The analogy was perfect. The soul animated the
body in aU its members,^ and only the body.
Modem theologians, on the contrary, speaking of
the Church, set up a relation between body and
soul which is without parallel in our experience
of things. They speak of a soul which informs
some members of the body, but not others ; while —
strangest of all— it energizes "members" which
^ Unbaptized persons who acquire justification belong to
the body, not actually, but only in voto.
^ Even members who had lost the habit of charity were
still animated to some extent by the life of the Spirit {cfr.
Adv. Haer. iii. 24. 1).
294 THEOLOGICAL
do not belong to the body. Be it remembered that
there is no question of doctrine here. Our com-
plaint is entirely about words : that to interpret
the patristic formula : " outside the Church no
salvation " so as to include in " the Church " some
who are not baptized, is to " read into " the axiom
a meaning which it cannot bear. Theologians
occasionally put new wine into old bottles.
As the use of the expression " the soul of the
Church " as a synonym for habitual grace has
become so general, we accept it — ^under protest ;
and merely warn the lay reader to be on his guard
against misunderstanding it. The " Soul of the
Church " of Catholic theology is not any invisible
assemblage of just men unbaptized as well as
baptized. It is simply grace ; and hence it would
be less misleading if we spoke of 'participation
rather than of membership in the soul of the Church.
The Soul of the Church is a thing and not a
collection of persons. ^
The Social Body
Having discussed the Vine, with its mystic
energizing principle, we come to examine something
^ Father Tanquery writes as follows of the distmction
between the body and the soul of the Church : — " The body is
the visible element, the aggregate of those who are externally
united ... in subjection ... to the Roman Pontiff.
The soul, on the other hand, is the invisible element or the
collection of those who are ... in the state of grace."
This language is calculated to mislead.
THEOLOGICAL 295
more tangible — viz., the external society which we
call the Church. Who are its members ? How is
membership forfeited ? Are Christians unchurched
by evil-doing, by excommunication, by heresy, by
schism ? These are straight questions demanding
a straight answer.
Sin. — Mere sin is not separative. This was
recognized from the very outset. Baptized persons,
however wicked, remained within the fold, and
continued to enjoy the fellowship of the " saints."
Cockle and wheat were suffered to grow together
until the harvest. It was only at death that
sinners became unchurched.
Excommunication. — Mere excommunicates are
also within the Church. This, too, was understood
from the beginning. Although the lapsed, and
public sinners generally, were deprived of the
sacraments and of other benefits of Church-
membership, they remained fully subject to the
hierarchy.^ A course of penitential exercises was
^ The excommunicated Corinthian although " deliverered
over to Satan " was understood to remain subject to St. Paul
and to the local hierarchy (cfr. Prat. : op. cit., vol. i. 141-142).
The form of words employed in absolving from excom-
munication is set down in the Roman ritual as follows : —
Auctoritate Apostolica, qua fungor in hac parte, absolvo te a
vinculo excommunicationis quam incurristi, et restituo te sacro-
sanctis ecclesiae Sacramentis, communioni et unitati fidelium.
In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti.
Excommunicates are, therefore, not quite unchurched.
They remain within the pale, but in bonds.
X
296 THEOLOGICAL
prescribed for the outlawed brethren ; and those
who did what was required of them were authori-
tatively restored to communion, if the existing
discipline permitted. Subjection to the established
authority in any society we already know to be a
formal test of membership.
Here again Father Tanquery's position is not
consistent. Christians, he asserts, are not members
of the Church so long as they are excommunicate ;^
and yet a little farther on^ we find it stated that
tolerati are not wholly {non totaliter) unchurched.
He even adopts the common opinion that tolerati
are really members of tlie Church.
Father Wemz defines excommunication as a
censure whereby one is separated from the com-
munion of the faithful.^ This definition is correct ;
but we find in a later section^ a misleading com-
parison between excommunication and schism.
Both, he tells us, are separative, and differ only in
this that one is compulsory, the other voluntary.^
Bargilliat, too, asserts that excommunicates are
lopped off from the Church as decayed members. <*
^ vol. cit., p. 586.
2 ih., p. 589.
^ Jus Decretalium : xvi. 180.
* ib. 354.
5 " Si quis ob grave delictum invitus . . . separatur
erit excommunicatus sed non schismaticus ; is enim sponte
non recedit " {ib.).
^ " Tamquam putridum membrum ab ecclesia abscinditur "
{Tract, xi, c. 3, a. 1).
THEOLOGICAL 297
Suarez is much more satisfactory. Excom-
municates, he writes, are deprived merely of
communion and not of membership ; just as a hand
or foot may be deprived of nourishment and of
' influx ' from the rest of the body, and yet remain
a member.^ This he declares to be the traditional
view: "The Fathers never teach that excom-
municates are outside the Church, but merely cut
off from communion." ^ And he quotes St.
Augustine ^ to the effect that " those who are
punished by degradation or excommunication are
not separated from the people of God." Finally
he implies that excommunication is nothing more
than outlawry within the Church : " Potest autem
fieri ut civis permaneat quispiam alicuius reipub-
licae et tamen arceatur a consortio et familiaritate
concivium." ^
Heresy. — ^As to heretics, we seem placed in a
dilemma: hold what we will, we have tradition
against us. The Fathers can be quoted ad nauseam
in support of the view that heretics are without the
pale. On the other hand tradition has it that all
baptized persons remain bound by the laws of the
Church till death. There is a contradiction here.
If heretics are under the flag, they are within the
pale ; if they are one hair's breadth outside the pale,
^ De Fide : D. ix. sect. 1, n. 14.
2 ib. n. 16.
^ Contra Don, c. xx.
* loc. cit. n 5.
298 THEOLOGICAL
the arm of ecclesiastical authority cannot reach
them.
Of two contradictory traditions we follow what
is the more fundamental ; and in this case it would
seem as if the more liberal tradition must hold the
field. To begin with, we have noted how St. Paul
and the early Fathers recognized that a formal
heretic does not at once forfeit membership in the
Church, nor even the privileges of membership.
Heretics were retained in communion until they
had ignored two warnings. Further, we feel certain
that statements of early writers, ^ to the effect that
heretics are outside the Church, should not and
cannot be interpreted as implying that heresy
really exempts the Christian from obedience to
ecclesiastical authority. Heretics were said to be
unchurched simply because, as excommunicates ^
they were outlawed ; and because, as formal
heretics, they participated in the life of the Spirit
to a less extent than did ordinary excommunicates.
Tradition, it would seem, implicitly recognizes that
heretics remain members of the visible Church so
long as life lasts.
Suarez holds the opposite view ; but his defence
is weak. " All who have the faith," he writes,
" are members of the Church ; all who have not the
faith are outside." - Hence pure schismatics are
1 And the same is true of official pronouncements of the
Church in reference to heretics.
2 Tract, i, D. 1, sect. 1.
THEOLOGICAL 299
members, and so are catechumens. To the
objection that, by regarding the latter as members
of the Church, he implicitly looks upon them as
subject to ecclesiastical jurisdiction, he replies that
" catechumens are not subject to the authority
of the Church, because they have not the baptismal
character. Baptism is the door by which we enter
the visible Church." Here the great theologian, as
it were, unconsciously hits upon the true principle
of Church membership. Baptism alone it is
which incorporates us into the social Body ;^ and
all validly baptized persons are members of the
Church, and therefore subject to ecclesiastical
jurisdiction. 2 Suarez admits that heretics are
subject to ecclesiastical jurisdiction ; but this is
true, he holds, " not because they are members
of the Church, but simply because they have
inflicted an injury upon her " !
Schismatics. — -We come, in fine, to the case of
schismatics ; and ask if even they can be said to
belong to the visible Church. At this stage we are
concerned entirely with schismatics as such. In
so far as these may be also heretics or excom-
municates their standing has been already deter-
mined.
1 No one is born a member of the Church.
^ " Haeretici, schismatic!, denique omnes baptizati per se
legibus ecclesiasticis subjacent " (Lehm., op. cit., vol. i,
p. 140).
300 THEOLOGICAL
The Congress of Velehrad
In July 1907 a large and representative congress
of theologians, secular and regular, was convened
at Velehrad in Moravia with a view to bringing
about a better understanding between East and
West. There were present in all seventy-six
members, including the Prince Archbishop of
Olmiitz, the Vicar Apostolic of Bulgaria, the
Archbishop of Leopolis, and the Bishop of
Kamenetz. Andrew, Archbishop of Galicia, pre-
sided.
The proceedings opened with a paper by Rev.
John Urban of Cracow, entitled : " De eis quae a
theologis Occidentalibus pro Orientalibus effici
possint et debeant." The paper, which was warmly
applauded, has been published in the official Acts
of the Congress.^
M. Urban gives it as his considered judgment
that some modification of current western phrase-
ology in reference to church membership is impera-
tive. Most handbooks of ecclesiology, he says,
refuse to allow that heretics and schismatics belong
to the visible Church. It is recognized, of course,
that separatists who are in good faith and in the
state of grace belong to the soul of the Church ;
^ Acta Primi Conventus Velehradensis. Pragae Bohemorum
1908. Typis Aep. Officinae Typographicae in commissione
Bibliopolae Rohlieek & Sievers. Pragae 190-1.
THEOLOGICAL 301
but then may not the same be said of non-
Christians ? This implicit lowering of schismatics
to the level of the unbaptized heathen, he declares,
is not only harsh, but unwarrantable ; and western
theologians are called upon to draw up a more
conciliatory formula to define the extension of the
Church. A formula of this kind, he holds, is not
only permissible but really demanded by a close
analysis of theological principles.
Theologians of the post-Reformation period, he
proceeds, are not sufficiently careful to distinguish
between the Church as a visible society and the
same as the mystical Body. As to the Church
social, Suarez, he notes, puts forward internal
faith as its ultimate constitutive principle,^ finding
room within her pale for pure schismatics and even
for catechumens ; while Bellarmine and theologians
generally put forward subjection to the Roman
See as the real test of membership, and unchurch,
not alone those who belong to heretical sects, but
even pure schismatics.
Cardinal Franzelin tries to hold a middle course
between the position of Suarez and that of Bellar-
mine. All who are validly baptized, he states, are
incorporated uito the visible body, and forfeit
membership only by a formal mortal sin of heresy
or of schism. Hence public heretics or schismatics.
1 . . . forma qua corpus ecclesiae in suo esse constituitur.
{Acta, p. 22.)
302 THEOLOGICAL
though unchurched in foro externo, continue to be
members of the visible Body in the eyes of God,
so long as their adherence to a separatist organiza-
tion is not subjectively and gravely culpable.
This view the lecturer rejects as implying that a
purely internal sin of heresy is capable of cutting
one off from the visible Body.
Proceeding to set forth his own opinion, M.
Urban, following the Jesuit theologians Lingens and
Piatkiewicz, lays it down that the baptismal
character is the first and fundamental principle in
virtue of which the Church has and retains her
essential constitution. It follows, therefore, — the
character being indelible — that no validly baptized
person can, while life lasts, be placed outside her
pale. Acts and even habits which are contrary
to the virtue of faith or other virtues, paralyse
rather than amputate the members of the mystical
Body.
Besides the primary bond, — the sacramental
character, — there are, he continues, other ties by
whicn the Body of Christ is more completely unified.
Of these the chief is the social bond of juridical
subjection to the hierarchy and to the Roman
Pontiff. It is the clearly expressed wish of Christ
that all who, by baptism, become members of His
mystical Body, should form together a single
external society in subjection to the successor of
St. Peter. The Church, as an undivided society,
should be coextensive with the mystical union of
Christians based upon the sacramental character.
THEOLOGICAL 303
But although it is true that he who refuses to
commune with the centre of visible unity is entirely
outside the Church, regarded as a social unit, he is
yet a member of the mystical Body in virtue of
the original and enduring bond of baptism. Hence
it is untrue to state absolutely that any baptized
person has ceased or can cease, during life, to be a
member of the Church of Christ.
This distinction between the Church as social
Body and the same as mystical Body, he concludes,
enables us to hold that the Orientals, though under
the social aspect separated from us, are nevertheless
incorporated in the mystical Body ; and that under
this aspect they are members of the Church and
our brothers in Christ. Moreover, he adds. Easterns
differ from Protestants in this that in virtue of the
episcopal and sacerdotal character they have
retained their apostolicity and enter into the
mystical Body not as separated cells but as organized
members. When there is question of Orientals,
therefore, we can speak of a union of churches, and
not merely of a restoration of erring individuals.^
1 He quotes the celebrated Russian philosopher, Solov'ev,
" who had a most clear insight into the essence of the Church
of Christ," to the effect that any attempt at union of East and
West will be vain until we recognize the essential, the mystico-
sacramental solidarity of the churches as inseparable parts of
the Body of Christ. Recognizing this, he says, we should
strive to make this essential unity external and visible by a
social union of those great communities which historical
happenings have divided, but which continue to be one in
Christ {Acta, p. 25).
304 THEOLOGICAL
Criticism
Schismatical Churches. — In regarding all baptized
persons as members of the body of Christ M.
Urban simply follows St. Paul: "For in one
Spirit were we all baptized into one body whether
Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free." ^ But
he holds further that the Oriental Church, though
separated, has retained its apostolicity since its
Orders are valid. This cannot be conceded. The
Eastern hierarchy is not apostolic. In breaking
with Rome they have broken with the Twelve, and
the validity of their Orders is no guarantee of the
apostolicity of their organization. M. Urban con-
founds authority (jurisdiction) with the power of
Orders.
His view that the Oriental Church, unlike the
Anglican, has retained its organization and hence
can be restored as a church is interesting.
Personally we do not admit it. We hold, on the
contrary, that any church which becomes schisma-
tical eo ipso becomes really separate as an organiza-
tion and ceases to exist as such, the individuals
composing it remaining (outlawed) members of the
one true Church. But M. Urban's view is not, we
think, quite impossible of acceptance by Catholics.
Antecedently to the schism the Oriental limb of the
mystical Body was endowed with an organization
1 1 Cor. xii. 13.
THEOLOGICAL 305
which enabled it to act in a corporate capacity as a
channel of grace. Now it may be that by schism
the limb in question became, not amputated, but
just paralyzed ; it may be, also, that it has not
become a mere mass of discrete cells, but has
retained its organization, so that it would not
require to be organized anew in the event of
restoration. This, we believe, may be argued ;
but, though we were to grant that the Eastern
Church is to-day really a church, we should not
grant that, as such, it is capable of corporate activity.
If it be a limb of Christ's Body it is a paralyzed
limb.*
Individual Schismatics. — We have yet to inquire
if individual schismatics are outside the Church,
considered merely as an external society ruled by
the Catholic episcopacy in subjection to the Vicar
of Christ. Here M. Urban is quite explicit : "If
the social nature of the Church is alone con-
sidered," he says, " we readily grant that the
opinion of BeUarmine (who unchurches schis-
matics) is absolutely true. . . . He who does
* We have found no sufficient evidence to show that the
Roman Church has ever officially recognized that the Eastern
Church as a church is possessed of any jurisdiction whatever
ordinary or delegated for either forum. Eastern priests, it is
true, validly absolve penitents who are in danger of death and
bless the Holy Oils ; but the jurisdiction necessary in such cases
may be derived by the individual minister immediately from
the Holy See, and not from his own Church — if it be a
church.
306 THEOLOGICAL
not subject himself to the centre of unity may be
said to be entirely outside the Church." ^
But we doubt if the contention can be sustained*
M. Urban himself will admit that schismatics are
bound by the laws of the Church. How then can
it be " absolutely true " that they are quite outside
her pale. No one is bound to obey the voice of
authority save a subject.
Conclusion. — Secession from a temporal kingdom
is sometimes lawful and sometimes successful.
When successful, those who have broken away cease
to be subject to the mother-state ; and this, even
though it should happen that the secession was
originally unjustifiable. A citizen of the United
States owes no allegiance to-day to the King of
England, even though there were no sufficient
reason for the American War of Independence.
Any secession which is made good nullifies the act
of initiation whereby men become citizens and
subjects of a temporal State.
Not so in the spiritual kingdom. Here secession
is never lawful and can never be successful : We
can never make good a break with the Church of
Christ. Schismatics may be convinced that
separation from the Mother-Church is not only
lawful but obligatory : • many of the sixteenth-
century Reformers professed to think so ; that
seceders may set up a new flag, and utterly re-
1 Ada, pp. 22, 24-25.
THEOLOGICAL 307
pudiate the old, so constituting in the eyes of
men generally a new and perfectly autonomous
organization. It matters not ; the old flag still
claims their allegiance. ^ The original act of
initiation whereby they become citizens of the
Kingdom, cannot be nullified. In this respect the
analogy between Church and State breaks down.
Schism is ever abortive, as it is ever inexcusable.
^ " Gum (status acatholicus) est Ohristianus per se loquendo
Ecclesia habet erga eum omnia iura sua ; etenim eius rebellio
eum non liberal a suis oneribus nee minuit Ecclesiae iura "
(Cavagnis : Institutiones luris Publici Ecclesiastici : vol. i,
n. 563).
APPENDIX A
Independent and Democratic Theories of
Church Polity
Congregationalism. — Congregationalists concede
that ecclesiasticism is fundamental in the Gospel,
but refuse to admit that any particular form of
church government is of universal and permanent
obligation. Christ, they hold, did not concern
Himself with external forms. He intended, of
course, that His teaching should realize itself in
a dispersion of churches, but the form of govern-
ment in each He left to be determined entirely
by the local community. Congregationalism holds
strongly for the absolute independence of the local
church and for the elective character of the
ministry.
The text Matt, xviii. 20^ is advanced as the
charter of Independency. ^ " Congregational In-
dependency " writes Dr. Dale " affirms the
enduring truth of the words : ' wherever two or
three are gathered together in My name there am I
1 " Where there are two or three gathered together in My
name there am I in the midst of them."
2 When they first " dissented " Congregationalists were
known as " Independents."
308
APPENDIX A 309
in the midst of them.' ^ . . . These great words
of Christ are the real ground and justification of
the independent form of church polity. They say
that when two or three are gathered together in
His name He is in the assembly ... to invest
its action with His own authority. What they
bind on earth is bound in heaven, what they loose
on earth, is loosed in heaven. . . . From an
assembly in which Christ Himself is present
and whose decisions He confirms there can be
no appeal. . . . His authority cannot be
challenged. . . .
..." The Church " the writer continues " is
the organ of Christ's will ^ in deciding in cases of
doctrine ^ and of discipline, in receiving members,
in electing and deposing its officers, and in regulat-
ing its worship.* When two or three are gathered
together in His name He is one of the company ;
their decisions are His." ^
All this runs so engagingly that it seems almost
unkind to raise difficulties. But we can scarcely
help inquiring if every Christian assembly " con-
stitutes an organ of Christ's will. Dr. Dale's reply
is interesting, but not a little perplexing. " A
church " he explains " speaks and acts with
Christ's authority only in so far as its members are
1
op. cit., p. 76.
2 op. cit., p. 75.
=* ib., p. 30.
4 ib., pp. 74, 75 ; cjr., p. 63.
5 ib.
310 APPENDIX A
gathered together in His name. Those who have
no faith in Him, no love for Him, to whom He is
not the Son of God and the Saviour of the world
are not gathered together in His name. If such
persons are present in the assembly, then to what-
ever extent their judgment and action control the
Church to that same extent . . they divide the
members from Christ and prevent them from being
gathered together in His name. The power and
authority of the Church is thus diminished, and
if such persons are sufficiently numerous to determine
the action of the Church, this power must disappear
altogether.^'' ^ We refrain from comment.
The problem of church polity is readily solved
on Congregational principles: From the Acts of
the apostles and in the apostolic epistles, we are
told, it is possible to discover the general outlines
of the organization of the first churches ; but there
is no precept by which this organization is enforced
on the churches of all countries and of all times.*
Apostolic precedent is not a formal law. " We have
to distinguish between what was essential and what
was accidental, between what was permanent and
what was temporary, both in apostoUc action and
in apostolic precept." ^ Christ is the Supreme
ruler in every church. His will concerning the con-
stitution and administration of the Church is
1 op. cit., pp. 42, 43.
2 op. cit., p. 4.
3 ib., p. 40.
APPENDIX A 311
therefore to be carried out. We learn His will in
these matters by allowing ourselves to be guided
not so much by Sacred Scripture as "by the
characteristic spirit of the Christian revelation." *
The Church of Christ is not under the bondage of
the " letter ; " it has the freedom of the Spirit. ^
Office-bearers in apostolic times, it is contended,
were in all cases elected and deposed by the com-
munity ; and every church was independent of
every other church and governed itself without the
interference of any external ecclesiastical authority.^
" There is not a single case in the New Testament
in which any Christian assembly acknowledges or
is required to acknowledge any ecclesiastical
authority external to itself." ^ The apostolic
churches were free from even apostolic control.
Paul could only tell the Church of Corinth what was
the will of Christ.^ " With a courage, with an
audacity of faith, which, when we look back upon
it, creates astonishment, the apostles trusted every
Christian society which they founded to itself." *
In all this Dr. Dale, guided, of course, by " the
characteristic spirit," finds something that is
essential and permanent in apostolic action. The
modern Church, like every society, must have
regularly appointed officers.' " Christians who
live near each other," he writes, " should worship
1 op. cit., pp. 34 sqq. ^ ib. ^ ib., p. 7.
* op. cit., p. 69. 5 ib., p. 71. « ib., p. 73.
7 ib., p. 51.
312 APPENDIX A
and pray together . . . and should ask some of
their number to teach and to watch over them." ^
Having set up its office-hearers,^ however, the com-
munity remains directly responsible to Christ for the
maintenance of His authority in the Church. " They
must not only elect officers but regulate their own
worship and determine what persons shall be
received into their fellowship and what persons
shall be excluded from it. Hence the Church must
not be too large for all its members to meet regu-
larly to fulfil the trust they have received from
Christ." 3 . . .
Such in its main outlines is the Congregational
polity as set forth by Dr. Dale. The fundamental
principles of Independency were first formulated
in the celebrated " Savoy Declaration " drawn up
in 1658 by " elders and messengers " from the
congregational churches. The Declaration holds
rigidly for absolute independence of the local church.
It states that " in case of difficulties or differences
either in point of doctrine or administration,
wherein either the churches in general are concerned
or any one church . . . it is according to the
mind of Christ that many churches ... do
meet in Synod or Council to consider and give their
1 op . cit. p, 26. The congregational ministry comprises pastors,
teachers, elders, and deacons, " all chosen by the common
suffrage of the church itself (with imposition of hands of the
eldership of that church if there be any before constituted
therein) and solemnly set apart by fasting and prayer "
(Savoy Declaration).
APPENDIX A 313
advice in or about that matter in difference to be
reported to all the churches concerned : Howbeit
these synods so assembled are not entrusted with
any ecclesiastical power properly so-called, or with
any jurisdiction ... to impose their determina-
tion on the churches or officers." Theoretically,
therefore, the Congregational denomination is
essentially inorganic. Each church constitutes a
separate unit, independent and isolated.^
Presbyterian Independency. — Congregationalism
is not the only form of Independency. A com-
munity of Christians may possess an elective
ministry and assert its absolute freedom from
external control,^ and yet be far removed from
Congregationalism. It is of the essence of the
latter polity that the commonalty of the Church
determine finally all questions relating to faith,
external government, worship and administration.
Having elected their ministry the faithful remain
directly responsible to Christ for maintaining His
authority in matters of doctrine and discipline.^
If, however, the community delegates its resjponsi'
bilities to its elected officers reserving to itself no
power to revise their decisions authoritatively it
ceases to be a congregational church. It is directly
1 cfr. Cath. Ency., vol. iv, pp. 239 sqq.
2 Civil no less than ecclesiastical. A congregational com-
munity professes to acknowledge " no head, priest, prophet
or king save Christ."
* Dale : op. cit., p. 62.
314 APPENDIX A
responsible to Christ only for the election of
ministers. Such a polity is described by Dr. Dale
as " Presbyterian Independency." ^
Preshyterianism. — Presbyterianism is a form of
polity which maintains a democratic theory of
church government and yet is properly speaking
neither Congregational nor Independent. Holding
a well defined middle position between Indepen-
dency and " Prelacy," it is avowedly opposed to
both. The denomination is organized ; and all
government is by elective bodies corporate. ^
The local congregation is ruled by the Session,
churches within a limited area by the Presbytery,
those within a more extended area by the Synod.
The General Assembly constitutes a Supreme Court.
The Session consists of a council of ruling elders
presided over by a pastor who is elected by the
commonalty. His election, however, must be
ratified by the Presbytery. The elders are
elected absolutely.^ It is to be noted that Presby-
terians while holding that their system of govern-
ment is truest to Scriptural principles do not
contend that Christians become unchurched by the
adoption of a different polity.^
All ecclesiastical authority has been directly
placed in the hands of the entire membership, and
1 Dale, pp. 76, 77.
2 " Presbyterianism might be more appropriately named
the conciliar system of chmreh government " : Lindsay, op. cit.
p. 198. 3 f.jj. Qath. Ency., vol. xii, pp. 392 sqq.
^ Lindsay : op. cit., introd., p. ix.
APPENDIX A 315
not in the hands of office-bearers.^ This authority
is delegated to a representative ministry by the
faithful. Its source, however, is the presence of
Christ promised and bestowed upon His people and
diffused through the membership of the churches.
The ministerial " character " is therefore conferred
" from above.'" ^ The Church is at once democratic
and theocratic.^
The Church is sacerdotal. Every believer in
the Lord Jesus Christ is a priest. The faithful
may select some from among them to be their
ministers and thus set up a ministering priest-
hood ; but there can be no mediating priesthood
within the Christian society. " There is one
Mediator only, and all, men, women, and children,
have the promise of immediate entrance into the
presence of God and are priests.* . . . The con-
ception of a mutilated sacerdotalism . . . did
1 Lindsay : op. cit., p. 30.
2 The stress laid by Dr. Lindsay on this obvious point is
quite uncalled for {op. cit., pp. 25, 33, introd., p. ix). He tilts
at windmills, arguing as if Presbyterianism and other demo-
cratic forms of polity were condemned by us solely on the
ground that a ministerial character conferred by the member-
ship is, oj necessity, " from below." It is a mistaken idea.
We have no difficulty whatever in conceding that a ministry
delegated by the faithful would be " from above," if such were
Christ's positive arrangement. We contend simply that as a
matter of fact such was not the arrangement. We do not
discuss what is true or false ' of necessity.' The question is
one of fact.
^ op. cit., p. 33.
* Lindsay : op. cit., p. 35.
316 APPENDIX A
not appear until the time of Cyprian and was his
invention. 1 Martyrdom, fasting that we may have
food to give to the hungry, prayers, thanksgivings,
almsgiving, church services, and especially the Holy
Supper, all these are Christian sacrifice— the
sacrifice of self."^
1 Lindsay, p. 37 n. ^ j;^^ p 35
APPENDIX B
Protestantism and Visible Unity. — The external-
ization of the inner life of the Spirit which makes
Christianity a fraternity — an aSeXcf^or^^^ is the
sole principle of visible unity conceded by Dr.
Lindsay to the Church Universal. " Paul," he
writes, " bent his whole energies to break down
the false principle of continuity which placed the
succession in something external, and not in the
possession and transmission from generation to
generation of the gifts of the Spirit. This done,
he used his administrative powers, and they were
those of a statesman, to create channels for the
flow of the manifestation of the visible unity of the
Church of Christ."
" His ruling thought," Dr. Lindsay continues,
"was to provide that all the various Christian
communities should manifest their real brother-
hood in the cultivation of the ' fruits of the Spirit.'
The method of carving out a visibly universal
church by means of regulations affecting organiza-
tion and external form is not without its attrac-
tions, which are irresistible to minds of the lawyer
type and training such as we see afterwards in
Cyprian of Carthage. It seems a short and easy
317
318 APPENDIX B
method of showing that the whole Church is
visibly one. But it was not Paul's method. He
seems to have thought as little about the special
' construction of sheep-folds ' as his Master. He
nowhere prescribed a universal ecclesiastical polity,
still less did he teach that the universahty of the
Christian brotherhood should be made visible in
this way. He regarded all the separate churches
of Christ as independent self-governing societies.
He strove to implant in all of them the priaciple
of brotherly dealing with one another, and he dug
channels in which the streams of the Spirit might
flow in the practical manifestation of Christian
fellowship."^
Dr. Lindsay suggests a few forms of this
"practical manifestation." Christians, wherever
resident, should assist their indigent fellow-
Christians in other parts. They should be hospi-
table towards travelling brethren, maintain a
regular inter-ecclesiastical correspondence, and in
general extemahze the fruits of the Spirit. An
all-round love of one another, and a visible mani-
festation of this love — voilh tout.
1 Lindsay : o-p. cit., pp. 20 sqq.
INDEX
Abiud, 195.
Abraham, 11, 32, 82, 155.
Adam, 172.
Ad versus Haereses, 171 sqq.
Agrippinus, 223.
Alexandria, 211, 222.
Ambrose, 96 (n).
Anacletus (Cletus), 123.
Andrew, 97.
Anicetus, 151, 200.
Antinomianism, 35, 66, 149 (7^).
Antioch. 2, 3, 8, 12, 23 sqq., 27, 33 («),
136.
Apocalyptic (kingdom), 18, 73, 76,
81, 85, 106, 109.
Apollos, 35, 56, 58.
Apostolate, 30 sqq.
Apostolic churches, 175 sqq., 191, 199.
— — Constitutions, 123.
• office, 30 (71), 93.
succession, 126, 135, 159, 255.
• tradition, 175 sqq.
Apostolicity, 255, 303.
Apprentice-mission, 85.
Aries, Council of, 245.
Asia, 9, 29.
Augustine, 96 (»), 123, 229, 232, 258-
265.
Aurelius, 171.
Authority, xi. sqq.
symbols of, xv.-xvi.
li. 250.
Baptism, 1, 5, 18, 24, 31, 42, 47, 89,
89, 90 (n), 108, 120, 158, 170, 172,
221 sqq.
Jewish, 15 {n).
Baptismal Controversy, 221 sqq.
Bardenhewer, 120 (w), 123-124, 129,
137, 148, 153, 154, 166, 181.
Bareille, 223.
Barnabas, 8, 23 sqq., 119.
Basihdes, 238.
Basihdians, 164.
Batiffol, 8 («), 11. 15, 17, 21, 23, 48,
65, 91, 108, 109, 128, 145, 147,
215, 227, 231.
Beelzebub, 77.
Bellarmine, 301, 305.
Bethany, 83.
Binding and loosing, power of, 98, 105.
Bishop, 121, 126, 131, 135, 136, 138,
141, 196, 210.
Bithynia, 9, 29.
Boanerges, 96 (n).
Body, xiii., 39 sqq., 63, 64, 140, 193,
194, 198, 258,259, 267, 272.
Botms, 243.
Brassac, 68 (w), 73 (n).
Bryennios, 119.
Caecilian, 243 sqq.
Caeaarea, 24, 233.
Callixtus, 206, 207.
Cappadocia, 9, 29, 222.
Carthage, 204 sqq.
Catastrophe (cosmic), 106.
Cathohc, 71, 80 sqq., 84, 118, 140,
156, 187, 190, 198, 233, 255, 259,
267, 269.
Catholicism, 22 {n), 115, 117, 118,
128—130
Celsus, 155 (n), 166-168.
Cephas, 33, 56, 58, 96.
Cephasites, 33, 58-60.
Chapman (Dom), 96 (n), 118 (n).
Character (Sacr.), 262-265.
Charismata, 10, 45 sqq., 129.
" Christines," 59-60.
Church, 3, 15, 17, 22 sqq., 39-66, 128.
etymologically, 3 («).
— — invisible. 49.
— — local, 3, 5, 12, 122, 137, 210 211,
268.
membership in, 194, 287 sqq.
nature of, 3 sqq.
Oriental, 305.
Roman, 130, 133, 143, 147,
176 sqq., 187, 189-192.
— — ■ soul of, 292 sqq.
\mitv (invisible) of, 52-56, 85-
89, 137, 194, 267, 273.
unity (visible) of, 21 sqq., 49-
51, 89 sqq., 137, 149, 157, 164,
213, 220, 239, 256, 257, 27.3,
302.
319
320
INDEX
Church Universal, 4 (n), 19, 39, 43,
49, 61, 104, 122, 140-142, 147,
158, 169, 190, 194, 198, 212 sqq.,
235, 255, 258, 268, 270.
Chrysostom, 24.
Cilioia, 27, 233.
CircumcellionB, 247-249.
Clement (Alex.), 120 {n).
Clement (Rom.), 122-135, 140, 153.
" Clementine literature," 123 (w).
Cockle, parable of, 84, 108.
Coelestius, 243.
ColUg>,a, 20 (n).
ColoBsians, 29, 47.
Commendatory (letters), 213.
Confirmation, 54 («).
Congregational, 25, 30, 90, 308.
Congregationalism, 308-313.
Constantine, 244.
Conybeare and Howson, 34 (n), 59.
Corinth, 6, 12, 16, 33 (n), 35, 66 sqq.,
124, 128.
Corinthians, 45, 59, 131.
Corpus, 48 (n).
Crete, 8, 162.
Cyprian, 204-241.
Dale, 8 («), 25 sqq., 35 («), 90, 134,
135 (re), 30&-313.
Damasus, 256.
Daniel, 67 («).
David, 8 (n), 67 (n).
Deacons, 7, 121, 126, 135, 137, 148.
Decian (persecution), 204 sqq.
Decree, 25 sqq.
of apostles and elders, 24 sqq.
Definitive (teaching), 62, 121, 1(52.
270. 284.
Demiurge, 172.
Deposit, 29, 44, 61, 62, 121. 149, 160,
161, 166, 167, 193, 258, 266.
Derbe, 8.
Development (doctrinal), 37, 272.
Diaspora, 20, 60.
Diatessaron, 110.
Didache, 119-122, 266.
Diocletian. 242.
Dion} sins (Alex.), 233.
Dionysius (Cor.), 152.
Dispersion, 20 ^qq.
Dooetism, 137, 149.
Dogma, 27 {n), 166.
meaningof,281, 282.
Domitian, 123.
Donatists, 242-257.
Donatus, 244-248.
Duchesne, 11 (n), 21 {n), 186 (w),
188 in), 232.
Durell, 144 (w).
Easter (Controversy), 151, 188, (n)
199-203.
"Ecclesiastical," 76, 105-110.
"E.KKKriaia, 3 (n).
Elders, 7, 9, 25 sqq., 29.
Eleutherus, 171,190.
Epaphras, 29.
Epiphanias, 97, 123.
Efhesians, 38.
Ephesus, 8, 9, 38, 128, 133, 185, 200.
Eschatological (kingdom), 107.
Eucharist, 90, 108, 120, 170, 219.
224, 252.
Eimomius, 246.
Eusebius, 120 {n), 123. 148 (n), 162,
198, 200, 232.
Evidences ^of Christianity), 167.
Excommunicate, 6, 108, 162, 202,
203, 210, 213. 230, 231, 238, 260.
Excommunication, 280.
efiectof, 280,295-297.
meaning of, 280-281.
Fabian, 208 («).
Facundus, 232.
Faith, 6, 18, 30, 44, 50, 62, 66, 87,
99, 149, 152, 153, 157, 165 sqq.,
172, 266.
rule of, 166-170, 173-176, 258.
" False brethren," 32.
Felicissimus, 208.
Felix, 238.
of Abtughi, 243, 246.
Fiat. 30.
Firmilian, 227, 229, 231, 233.
Firmus, 249.
Flag, as symbol, xv.-xvi.
Florinus, 160.
"Forms," 113 (n.).
Fornication, 28.
Fortimatus, 235.
Franzelin (Card.), 301.
Friedrich, 181.
Funk, 181, 186 (n).
Galatia, 9, 29, 33 (n), 233.
Galilee, 23.
Gildo, 253.
Gnosticism, 34, 58, 150, 152.
Gnostics, 34 sqq., 137 (n), 172,
Godliead, 39.
INDEX
321
Gore (B.). 53 (n), 92 (w), 99, 278-280,
285-287.
Gospel. 2 (n), 17, 19, 30 sqq., 36, 57,
61, 66, 83 sqq. 93, 106, 121, 141,
157, 266.
Grace, 35. 45, 65, 77, 162, 220, 224
252, 256, 265. 267.
Grapte, 153.
Gratian, 249.
Greeks, 7, 23 sgg., 34.
Gregory of Nyssa, 96 (n).
Hamaok, 3 (n), 10, 11 (n), 15, 18 («),
21 (n), 24, 32, 36, 54, 60, 68, 76
(n). 79, 81-85, 90, 105 (n), 106,
107 (w), 109, 113. («), 115, 118,
128, 177, 179-180, 181, 185 f?i),
188, 192 (n), 269.
Hartel, 214 {71).
Hegesippus, 198, 199.
Heil, eternity of. 162.
Heresy, 57, 62, 66, 138, 142, 153, 162,
164, 165, 168, 173, 187, 195, 198.
214, 217-221, 251, 267, 270.
effect of, 297-299.
meaning of, 282-283.
Heretics. 31, 62, 142, 15b, 157, 169,
188, 197, 223-225, 233.
Hermas, 153, 205.
Herod, 96 (n).
Heterodoxy, 137.
Hitchcock, 40 (n), 49 (n).
Holy Ghost, 28, 221 (n), 225, 226
228 (n).
Honorius, 251.
"Husk," 116-118.
Iconium, 8.
I^natian Epistles, 136 sqq.
— — ■ authenticity of, 136 (n).
Ignatius, 136-148.
Hlegitimacj' (doctrinal), 116, 251.
Imposition of hands, 221.
Independency, 26, 28, 229, 308, 312,
313.
Infallibility, 30, 141, 269, 284, 285.
Irenaeus, 96 (n), 110, 123, 148, 153 (n),
171-198, 203, 260.
Isaias, 68-73, 83.
James, 9, 26, 33, 96.
Jerome, 96 (w), 123, 223 (n).
Jerusalem, 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 21 sqq.
John, 14, 23, 82, 84, 86, 96, 128, 133,
147, 151, 200.
Josephus, 8.
Jubianus, 230.
Judaisers, 24 sqq., 30 sqq., 58-60, 81,
137 (n).
Judaism, 11, 16, 20, 137, 268.
Judas, 28.
Judea, 2, 23.
Julian the Apostate, 249.
Jiilicher, 109.
Jurisdiction. 29.
Justification, 32.
Justin M., 79 (n), 80 (n) HO, 154 sqq.
Kaywv, 141, 193, 201, 203, 212, 241,
267, 269.
XftporoyfiffauT ft, 8.
Kingdom, 52, 71, 106 sqq., 122.
— • — government of, 92 sqq.
in SSTioptics, 74-86.
keys of, 98, 104 105.
social character of, 89 sqq.
Koipuvia, 1 (n).
Lacedaemonians, 152.
Lapsi, 66, 205-209.
Libellatici, 205.
Lightfoot, 120 (n), 123, 124, 130-133,
136 (n), 138 (n), 144-147.
Lindsay, 7 (n), 23 {n), 46 (n), 91, 94,
132 (w), 133, 317, 318.
Linus, 123.
Logos, 155.
Loisy, 106.
Lucilla, 243, 244.
Lutterbeck, 36 (n).
Lyons, 171, 211.
Lystra, 8.
Macarius, 248.
Macedonia, 6.
MacRory, 46 (n) 56 (n), 59, 79, 92.
Magisterium, 61, 62, 138, 142.
Magnus, 223.
Majorinus, 224.
Manning, 53.
Marcellinus, 251.
Maician, 237.
Marcion, 152, 164.
Mark, 93.
Martialis, 238.
Mary (B. V.), 67.
Matthew, 94, 107, 193.
Maximianus, 250.
Mecca, 21.
Melchiades, 245.
Meletian (schism), 279.
Memoirs (of ap.), 156.
Menander, 164.
Mensurius, 243,
322
INDEX
Mesias, 1, 20, 67 sqq., 83, 97, 163, 167.
Meyer (Ed.), 8 (n).
Miracles, 163, 167.
Montanists, 171.
Morin (Dom), 182-183, 186.
Moses, 14, 21, 24, 69, 77.
Mount, Sermon on the, 82.
Muratorian (Fr.), 153 (Ji).
Mysteries, 161 sqq.
Nadab, 195.
Nationalism, 82, 118.
Nicomedians, 152.
Novatian, 208, 223.
Novatus, 208.
Olympus, 246.
Optatus (St.), 123, 256.
of Thamugadi, 253.
Origen, 34 (?i), 107 (n), 110, 153 (n),
166-170.
Orthodoxy, 138, 151, 152, 179, 187,
190, 269.
Outlawry, xv.
Overseers, 7, 9.
Papacy, 130.
Papias, 151.
Parmenius, 257-
Parousia, 106, 120 (n), 121.
Paul, 2, 6, 8, 9. 16, 24 sqq., 31, 37-
64, 119, 143, 200.
Pauhuism, Christianity and, 115-
118.
Paulus 248.
Peter, 6, 9, 14, 23. 29, 31 sqq., 39, 60,
65, 96 sqq., HO sqq., 123, 136,
143, 190, 192, 200, 229, 271, 302.
Pharisee, 37, 86
Phihppi, 6,
Philippians, 139, 148.
Pilate, 79.
Plehs, 210.
n\-{ipa>na, 39 sqq., 87.
Polycarp, 1.39, 147-151, 171, 199.
Polycrates, 200-201.
Pompey, 228.
Pontus, 9, 29.
" Popular " (theories), 133 sqq.
Prat, 57 (n), 59.
Precursor 17, 82, 85.
npfv^vrepos, 7 (n), 137 sqq., 150, 151,
167, 171, 175.
Presbyterianism, 30, 314-316.
Presidency, 143.
Prima dementis, 124 sqq., 146.
Primacy, 95 sqq., 128, 143-147, 153,
176 sqq., 1881, 89, 192, 202, 203,
211, 229, 234-239, 271-272.
Primianus, 250.
Privatus, 212.
Prophet, 38, 49, 120.
Proselytes, 34.
Protestant, 96, 99, 136, 138, 145, 178,
202.
Protestantism, 49, 317,318.
Qahal, 3 (n).
Rabbinical, 73.
Reason and authority, 159 sqq., 166,
258.
Reformer, 196.
Renan, 203.
Rock-foundation, 97-104, 113, 193,
229.
Rhodes, 88, 89 («)•
Rohr, 36 {n), 60.
Romans, 29, 47, 144, 145.
Rome, 21, 33 (n), 124. 128, 148, 178,
198, 200, 269.
Sabinus, 238.
Sacramental rite, 260 sqq.
Sacrificati, 205.
Sacrifice, 70-71.
Samaria, 2, 23.
Satan, 77, 149. 165.
Satumihans, 164.
Saul, 4.
Scepticism, 79.
Schism, XX., 13, 49, 56-64, 66, 124,
164, 196, 214, 217 sqq., 245, 262.
Anslican concept of, 278-280.
efficacy of, 306 307.
Great Western, 276-278.
meaning of, xx., 274-276.
morality of, 63, 112. 113, 122,
124. 126. 142, 143, 149, 170, 195-
197, 198, 199, 217-221, 239,
256, 257. 259, 273, 307.
Schismatical, 34, 58, .59, 209 231.
Schismatics, 13, 142, 164, 170. 192,
195, 196, 209 sqq., 223, 235, 299-
307.
Schwartz, 202 («).
Scribes, 86.
Scripture, 101, 120 («), 173, 174.
Seceasion, xvi. sqq. xx.
Secundus, 243.
Shepherd (of H.), 153.
Silas, 6, 28.
Silvanus, 250.
INDEX
323
Sin, remission of, 94.
Sion, 21.
Smyrna, 117, 171, 185.
Social body, 294 sqq.
Society :
division of, xvi. sqq.
— — membership in, xiv. sqq.
— • — notes of, xi. sqq.
Sohm, 9, 30 (n). 129.
Son of God, 67 (n), 87 (n).
Man, 67 (n), 81.
SoterioJogy, 86.
Spirit (Holy), 42, 45 sqq., 66, 69, 127,
130, 132, 143, 194, 198, 267.
unity of the, 52 sqq.
Stephen, 227-233, 238, 261 (h).
Suarez, 275, 297, 301.
Succession (Ep.), 175 sqq., 195, 199.
Suetonias, 17 (n).
Symbol (creed), 193.
Synagogue, 3 (n), 11 6qq., 19 (n), 158.
Syntagma, 155.
Syria, 27, 120, 222.
Syro- Phoenician, 81.
Tertullian, 96 (n), 107 (m), 110, 122,
144 (n), 154, 223.
Theocracy, 71.
Thurificali, 205.
Timothy, 6, 8, 33.
Titus, 8.
Tischendorf, 110 (n).
Tixeront, 34 (71), 174 (n), 181, 186 (w),
205 (n), 211, 216 (n), 223, 234.
Tradition, 121, 160-162, 159, 160,
167, 169, 175 sqq., 181-187, 190,
195, 199, 212, 227 («), 258, 267.
Traditores, 242 sqq.
Trajan, 136.
Truth, 80, 165 sqq., 193, 195.
Unattached (brethren), 3.
Uncial (MSS). 96.
Unity (ecol.), Anglican principles of,
285 «97.
Universalism, 82, 83, 117.
Urban (Rev. J.), 300-307.
Valentinians, 164.
Valerian (persecution), 204.
Velehrad, congress of, 300-307.
Vicar, 110.
Vicarious (atonement), 70.
Victor, 188 (n), 201-203.
Vine, 87, 267, 289.
Vitandi, 138, 219.
Ways (Two), 120.
Weizacker, 23 (n).
Wellhausen, 68, 109.
' Wisdom," 34, 197, 266.
Wisdom-seekers, 35, 164.
Word (Divine), 77, 78, 150, 155.
Wordsworth (B.), 177, 189-193,
Wright, 110 (n).
Xystus, 233.
Yahvism, 20 aqq.
Zahn, 163 (n).
2a
DATE DUE
fJ^^'f^Smm
^
^^„,^p««fl«lWI^
F
GAYLORD
PRIMED IN JS.A
P''"'ceton Theological Seminary-Speer Library
1 1012 01032 7163