History of Dogma

Chapter 31

Prev List Next

[Footnote 189: Irenaeus definitely distinguishes between heretics and schismatics (III. 11. 9: IV. 26. 2; 33. 7), but also blames the latter very severely, "qui gloriosum corpus Christi, quantum in ipsis est, interficiunt, non habentes dei dilectionem suamque utilitatem potius considerantes quam unitatem ecclesiae." Note the parallel with Cyprian.

Yet he does not cla.s.s them with those "qui sunt extra veritatem," i.e., "extra ecclesiam," although he declares the severest penalties await them. Tertullian was completely preserved by his Montanism from identifying heretics and schismatics, though in the last years of his life he also appears to have denied the Christianity of the Catholics (?).]

[Footnote 190: Read, on the one hand, the Antimontanists in Eusebius and the later opponents of Montanism; and on the other, Tertull., adv.

Prax.; Hippol., c. Noet; Novatian, de trinitate. Even in the case of the Novatians heresies were sought and found (see Dionys. Alex., in Euseb., H. E. VII. 8, where we find distortions and wicked misinterpretations of Novatian doctrines, and many later opponents). Nay, even Cyprian himself did not disdain to join in this proceeding (see epp. 69. 7: 70. 2). The Montanists at Rome were placed by Hippolylus in the catalogue of heretics (see the Syntagma and Philosoph.). Origen was uncertain whether to reckon them among schismatics or heretics (see in t.i.t. Opp. IV., p.

696).]

[Footnote 191: Cyprian plainly a.s.serts (ep. 3. 3): "haec sunt initia haereticorum et ortus adque conatus schismaticorum, ut praepositum superbo tumore contemnant" (as to the early history of this conception, which undoubtedly has a basis of truth, see Clem., ep. ad Cor. 1. 44; Ignat.; Hegesippus in Euseb., H. E. IV. 22. 5; Tertull., adv. Valent. 4; de bapt. 17; Anonymus in Euseb; H. E. V. 16. 7; Hippolyt. ad. Epiphan. H.

42. 1; Anonymus in Eusebius, H. E. V. 28. 12; according to Cyprian it is quite the common one); see further ep. 59. 3: "neque enim aliunde haereses obortae sunt aut nata sunt schismata, quam quando sacerdoti dei non obtemperatur;" epp. 66. 5: 69. 1: "item b. apostolus Johannes nec ipse ullam haeresin aut schisma discrevit aut aliquos speciatim separes posuit"; 52. 1: 73. 2: 74. 11. Schism and heresy are always identical.]

[Footnote 192: Neither Optatus nor Augustine take Cyprian"s theory as the starting-point of their disquisitions, but they adhere in principle to the distinction between heretic and schismatic. Cyprian was compelled by his special circ.u.mstances to identify them, but he united this identification with the greatest liberality of view as to the conditions of ecclesiastical unity (as regards individual bishops). Cyprian did not make a single new article an "articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae."

In fact he ultimately declared--and this may have cost him struggle enough--that even the question of the validity of heretical baptism was not a question of faith.]

CHAPTER III.

CONTINUATION. THE OLD CHRISTIANITY AND THE NEW CHURCH.

1. The legal and political forms by which the Church secured herself against the secular power and heresy, and still more the lower moral standard exacted from her members in consequence of the naturalisation of Christianity in the world, called forth a reaction soon after the middle of the second century. This movement, which first began in Asia Minor and then spread into other regions of Christendom, aimed at preserving or restoring the old feelings and conditions, and preventing Christendom from being secularised. This crisis (the so called Montanist struggle) and the kindred one which succeeded produced the following results: The Church merely regarded herself all the more strictly as a legal community basing the truth of its t.i.tle on its historic and objective foundations, and gave a correspondingly new interpretation to the attribute of holiness she claimed. She expressly recognised two distinct cla.s.ses in her midst, a spiritual and a secular, as well as a double standard of morality. Moreover, she renounced her character as the communion of those who were sure of salvation, and subst.i.tuted the claim to be an educational inst.i.tution and a necessary condition of redemption. After a keen struggle, in which the New Testament did excellent service to the bishops, the Church expelled the Cataphrygian fanatics and the adherents of the new prophecy (between 180 and 220); and in the same way, during the course of the third century, she caused the secession of all those Christians who made the truth of the Church depend on a stricter administration of moral discipline. Hence, apart from the heretic and Montanist sects, there existed in the Empire, after the middle of the second century, two great but numerically unequal Church confederations, both based on the same rule of faith and claiming the t.i.tle "ecclesia catholica," viz., the confederation which Constantine afterwards chose for his support, and the Novatian Catharist one. In Rome, however, the beginning of the great disruption goes back to the time of Hippolytus and Calixtus; yet the schism of Novatian must not be considered as an immediate continuation of that of Hippolytus.

2. The so-called Montanist reaction[193] was itself subjected to a similar change, in accordance with the advancing ecclesiastical development of Christendom. It was originally the violent undertaking of a Christian prophet, Monta.n.u.s, who, supported by prophetesses, felt called upon to realise the promises held forth in the Fourth Gospel. He explained these by the Apocalypse, and declared that he himself was the Paraclete whom Christ had promised--that Paraclete in whom Jesus Christ himself, nay, even G.o.d the Father Almighty, comes to his own to guide them to all truth, to gather those that are dispersed, and to bring them into one flock. His main effort therefore was to make Christians give up the local and civil relations in which they lived, to collect them, and create a new undivided Christian commonwealth, which, separated from the world, should prepare itself for the descent of the Jerusalem from above.[194]

The natural resistance offered to the new prophets with this extravagant message--especially by the leaders of communities, and the persecutions to which the Church was soon after subjected under Marcus Aurelius, led to an intensifying of the eschatological expectations that beyond doubt had been specially keen in Montanist circles from the beginning. For the New Jerusalem was soon to come down from heaven in visible form, and establish itself in the spot which, by direction of the Spirit, had been chosen for Christendom in Phrygia.[195] Whatever amount of peculiarity the movement lost, in so far as the ideal of an a.s.sembly of all Christians proved incapable of being realised or at least only possible within narrow limits, was abundantly restored in the last decades of the second century by the strength and courage that the news of its spread in Christendom gave to the earnest minded to unite and offer resistance to the ever increasing tendency of the Church to a.s.sume a secular and political character. Many entire communities in Phrygia and Asia recognised the divine mission of the prophets. In the Churches of other provinces religious societies were formed in which the predictions of these prophets were circulated and viewed as a Gospel, though at the same time they lost their effect by being so treated. The confessors at Lyons openly expressed their full sympathy with the movement in Asia.

The bishop of Rome was on the verge of acknowledging the Montanists to be in full communion with the Church. But among themselves there was no longer, as at the beginning, any question of a new organisation in the strict sense of the word, and of a radical remodelling of Christian society.[196] Whenever Montanism comes before us in the clear light of history it rather appears as a religious movement already deadened, though still very powerful. Monta.n.u.s and his prophetesses had set no limits to their enthusiasm; nor were there as yet any fixed barriers in Christendom that could have restrained them.[197] The Spirit, the Son, nay, the Father himself had appeared in them and spoke through them.[198] Imagination pictured Christ bodily in female form to the eyes of Prisca.[199] The most extravagant promises were given.[200] These prophets spoke in a loftier tone than any Apostle ever did, and they were even bold enough to overturn apostolic regulations.[201] They set up new commandments for the Christian life, regardless of any tradition,[202] and they inveighed against the main body of Christendom.[203] They not only proclaimed themselves as prophets, but as the last prophets, as notable prophets in whom was first fulfilled the promise of the sending of the Paraclete.[204] These Christians as yet knew nothing of the "absoluteness of a historically complete revelation of Christ as the fundamental condition of Christian consciousness;" they only felt a Spirit to which they yielded unconditionally and without reserve. But, after they had quitted the scene, their followers sought and found a kind of compromise. The Montanist congregations that sought for recognition in Rome, whose part was taken by the Gallic confessors, and whose principles gained a footing in North Africa, may have stood in the same relation to the original adherents of the new prophets and to these prophets themselves, as the Mennonite communities did to the primitive Anabaptists and their empire in Munster. The "Montanists" outside of Asia Minor acknowledged to the fullest extent the legal position of the great Church. They declared their adherence to the apostolic "regula" and the New Testament canon.[205] The organisation of the Churches, and, above all, the position of the bishops as successors of the Apostles and guardians of doctrine were no longer disputed. The distinction between them and the main body of Christendom, from which they were unwilling to secede, was their belief in the new prophecy of Monta.n.u.s, Prisca, and Maximilla, which was contained, in its final form, in written records and in this shape may have produced the same impression as is excited by the fragments of an exploded bomb.[206]

In this new prophecy they recognised a _subsequent revelation_ of G.o.d, which for that very reason a.s.sumed the existence of a previous one. This after-revelation professed to decide the practical questions which, at the end of the second century, were burning topics throughout all Christendom, and for which no direct divine law could hitherto be adduced, in the form of a strict injunction. Herein lay the importance of the new prophecy for its adherents in the Empire, and for this reason they believed in it.[207] The belief in the efficacy of the Paraclete, who, in order to establish a relatively stricter standard of conduct in Christendom during the latter days, had, a few decades before, for several years given his revelations in a remote corner of the Empire, was the dregs of the original enthusiasm, the real aspect of which had been known only to the fewest. But the diluted form in which this force remained was still a mighty power, because it was just in the generation between 190 and 220 that the secularising of the Church had made the greatest strides. Though the followers of the new prophecy merely insisted on abstinence from second marriage, on stricter regulations with regard to fasts, on a stronger manifestation of the Christian spirit in daily life, in morals and customs, and finally on the full resolve not to avoid suffering and martyrdom for Christ"s name"s sake, but to bear them willingly and joyfully,[208] yet, under the given circ.u.mstances, these requirements, in spite of the express repudiation of everything "Encrat.i.te,"[209] implied a demand that directly endangered the conquests already made by the Church and impeded the progress of the new propaganda.[210] The people who put forth these demands, expressly based them on the injunctions of the Paraclete, and really lived in accordance with them, were not permanently capable of maintaining their position in the Church. In fact, the endeavour to found these demands on the legislation of the Paraclete was an undertaking quite as strange, in form and content, as the possible attempt to represent the wild utterances of determined anarchists as the programme of a const.i.tutional government. It was of no avail that they appealed to the confirmation of the rule of faith by the Paraclete; that they demonstrated the harmlessness of the new prophecy, thereby involving themselves in contradictions;[211] that they showed all honour to the New Testament; and that they did not insist on the oracles of the Paraclete being inserted in it.[212] As soon as they proved the earnestness of their temperate but far-reaching demands, a deep gulf that neither side could ignore opened up between them and their opponents. Though here and there an earnest effort was made to avoid a schism, yet in a short time this became unavoidable; for variations in rules of conduct make fellowship impossible. The lax Christians, who, on the strength of their objective possession, viz., the apostolic doctrine and writings, sought to live comfortably by conforming to the ways of the world, necessarily sought to rid themselves of inconvenient societies and inconvenient monitors;[213] and they could only do so by reproaching the latter with heresy and unchristian a.s.sumptions.

Moreover, the followers of the new prophets could not permanently recognise the Churches of the "Psychical,"[214] which rejected the "Spirit" and extended their toleration so far as to retain even wh.o.r.emongers and adulterers within their pale.

In the East, that is, in Asia Minor, the breach between the Montanists and the Church had in all probability broken out before the question of Church discipline and the right of the bishops had yet been clearly raised. In Rome and Carthage this question completed the rupture that had already taken place between the conventicles and the Church (de pudic. 1. 21). Here, by a peremptory edict, the bishop of Rome claimed the right of forgiving sins as successor of the Apostles; and declared that he would henceforth exercise this right in favour of repentant adulterers. Among the Montanists this claim was violently contested both in an abstract sense and in this application of it. The Spirit the Apostles had received, they said, could not be transmitted; the Spirit is given to the Church; he works in the prophets, but lastly and in the highest measure in the new prophets. The latter, however, expressly refused to readmit gross sinners, though recommending them to the grace of G.o.d (see the saying of the Paraclete, de pud. 21; "potest ecclesia donare delictum, sed non faciam"). Thus agreement was no longer possible. The bishops were determined to a.s.sert the existing claims of the Church, even at the cost of her Christian character, or to represent the const.i.tution of the Catholic Church as the guarantee of that character. At the risk of their own claim to be Catholic, the Montanist sects resisted in order to preserve the minimum legal requirements for a Christian life. Thus the opposition culminated in an attack on the new powers claimed by the bishops, and in consequence awakened old memories as to the original state of things, when the clergy had possessed no importance.[215] But the ultimate motive was the effort to stop the continuous secularising of the Christian life and to preserve the virginity of the Church as a holy community.[216] In his latest writings Tertullian vigorously defended a position already lost, and carried with him to the grave the old strictness of conduct insisted on by the Church.

Had victory remained with the stricter party, which, though not invariably, appealed to the injunctions of the Paraclete,[217] the Church would have been rent asunder and decimated. The great opportunist party, however, was in a very difficult position, since their opponents merely seemed to be acting up to a conception that, in many respects, could not be theoretically disputed. The problem was how to carry on with caution the work of naturalising Christianity in the world, and at the same time avoid all appearance of innovation which, as such, was opposed to the principle of Catholicism. The bishops therefore a.s.sailed the form of the new prophecy on the ground of innovation;[218] they sought to throw suspicion on its content; in some cases even Chiliasm, as represented by the Montanists, was declared to have a Jewish and fleshly character.[219] They tried to show that the moral demands of their opponents were extravagant, that they savoured of the ceremonial law (of the Jews), were opposed to Scripture, and were derived from the worship of Apis, Isis, and the mother of the G.o.ds.[220] To the claim of furnishing the Church with authentic oracles of G.o.d, set up by their antagonists, the bishops opposed the newly formed canon; and declared that everything binding on Christians was contained in the utterances of the Old Testament prophets and the Apostles. Finally, they began to distinguish between the standard of morality inc.u.mbent on the clergy and a different one applying to the laity,[221] as, for instance, in the question of a single marriage; and they dwelt with increased emphasis on the glory of the heroic Christians, _belonging to the great Church_, who had distinguished themselves by asceticism and joyful submission to martyrdom. By these methods they brought into disrepute that which had once been dear to the whole Church, but was now of no further service.

In repudiating supposed abuses they more and more weakened the regard felt for the thing itself, as, for example, in the case of the so-called Chiliasm,[222] congregational prophecy and the spiritual independence of the laity. But none of these things could be absolutely rejected; hence, for example, Chiliasm remained virtually unweakened (though subject to limitations[223]) in the West and certain districts of the East; whereas prophecy lost its force so much that it appeared harmless and therefore died away.[224] However, the most effective means of legitimising the present state of things in the Church was a circ.u.mstance closely connected with the formation of a canon of early Christian writings, viz., the distinction of an _epoch of revelation_, along with a corresponding cla.s.sical period of Christianity unattainable by later generations. This period was connected with the present by means of the New Testament and the apostolic office of the bishops. This later time was to regard the older period as an ideal, but might not dream of really attaining the same perfection, except at least through the medium of the Holy Scriptures and the apostolic office, that is, the Church.

The place of the holy Christendom that had the Spirit in its midst was taken by the ecclesiastic inst.i.tution possessing the "instrument of divine literature" ("instrumentum divinae litteraturae") and the spiritual office. Finally, we must mention another factor that hastened the various changes; this was the theology of the Christian philosophers, which attained importance in the Church as soon as she based her claim on and satisfied her conscience with an objective possession.

3. But there was one rule which specially impeded the naturalisation of the Church in the world and the transformation of a communion of the saved into an inst.i.tution for obtaining salvation, viz., the regulation that excluded gross sinners from Christian membership. Down to the beginning of the third century, in so far as the backslider did not atone for his guilt[225] by public confession before the authorities (see Ep. Lugd. in Euseb., H. E. V. 1 ff.), final exclusion from the Church was still the penalty of relapse into idolatry, adultery, wh.o.r.edom, and murder; though at the same time the forgiveness of G.o.d in the next world was reserved for the fallen provided they remained penitent to the end. In _theory_ indeed this rule was not very old. For the oldest period possessed no theories; and in those days Christians frequently broke through what might have been counted as one by appealing to the Spirit, who, by special announcements--particularly by the mouth of martyrs and prophets--commanded or sanctioned the readmission of lapsed members of the community (see Hermas).[226] Still, the rule corresponded to the ancient notions that Christendom is a communion of saints, that there is no ceremony _invariably_ capable of replacing baptism, that is, possessing the same value, and that G.o.d alone can forgive sins. The practice must on the whole have agreed with this rule; but in the course of the latter half of the second century it became an established custom, in the case of a first relapse, to allow atonement to be made once for most sins and perhaps indeed for all, on condition of public confession.[227] For this, appeal was probably made to Hermas, who very likely owed his prestige to the service he here unwittingly rendered. We say "unwittingly," for he could scarcely have intended such an application of his precepts, though at bottom it was not directly opposed to his att.i.tude. In point of fact, however, this practice introduced something closely approximating to a second baptism.

Tertullian indeed (de paenit. 12) speaks unhesitatingly of _two_ planks of salvation.[228] Moreover, if we consider that in any particular case the decision as to the deadly nature of the sin in question was frequently attended with great difficulty, and certainly, as a rule, was not arrived at with rigorous exactness, we cannot fail to see that, in conceding a second expiation, the Church was beginning to abandon the old idea that Christendom was a community of saints. Nevertheless the fixed practice of refusing wh.o.r.emongers, adulterers, murderers, and idolaters readmission to the Church, in ordinary cases, prevented men from forgetting that there was a boundary line dividing her from the world.

This state of matters continued till about 220.[229] In reality the rule was first infringed by the peremptory edict of bishop Calixtus, who, in order to avoid breaking up his community, granted readmission to those who had fallen into sins of the flesh. Moreover, he claimed this power of readmission as a right appertaining to the bishops as successors of the Apostles, that is, as possessors of the Spirit and the power of the keys.[230] At Rome this rescript led to the secession headed by Hippolytus. But, between 220 and 250, the milder practice with regard to the sins of the flesh became prevalent, though it was not yet universally accepted. This, however, resulted in no further schism (Cyp., ep. 55. 21). But up to the year 250 no concessions were allowed in the case of relapse into idolatry.[231] These were first occasioned by the Decian persecution, since in many towns those who had abjured Christianity were more numerous than those who adhered to it.[232] The majority of the bishops, part of them with hesitation, agreed on new principles.[233] To begin with, permission was given to absolve repentant apostates on their deathbed. Next, a distinction was made between _sacrificati_ and _libellatici_, the latter being more mildly treated. Finally, the possibility of readmission was conceded under certain severe conditions to all the lapsed, a casuistic proceeding was adopted in regard to the laity, and strict measures--though this was not the universal rule--were only adopted towards the clergy. In consequence of this innovation, which logically resulted in the gradual cessation of the belief that there can be only one repentance after baptism--an a.s.sumption that was untenable in principle--Novatian"s schism took place and speedily rent the Church in twain. But, even in cases where unity was maintained, many communities observed the stricter practice down to the fifth century.[234] What made it difficult to introduce this change by regular legislation was the authority to forgive sins in G.o.d"s stead, ascribed in primitive times to the inspired, and at a later period to the confessors in virtue of their special relation to Christ or the Spirit (see Ep. Lugd. in Euseb., H. E. V. 1 ff.; Cypr. epp.; Tertull. de pudic. 22). The confusion occasioned by the confessors after the Decian persecution led to the non-recognition of any rights of "spiritual"

persons other than the bishops. These confessors had frequently abetted laxity of conduct, whereas, if we consider the measure of secularisation found among the great ma.s.s of Christians, the penitential discipline insisted on by the bishops is remarkable for its comparative severity.

The complete adoption of the episcopal const.i.tution coincided with the introduction of the unlimited right to forgive sins.[235]

4. The original conception of the relation of the Church to salvation or eternal bliss was altered by this development. According to the older notion the Church was the sure communion of salvation and of saints, which rested on the forgiveness of sins mediated by baptism, and excluded everything unholy. It is not the Church, but G.o.d alone, that forgives sins, and, as a rule, indeed, this is only done through baptism, though, in virtue of his unfathomable grace, also now and then by special proclamations, the pardon coming into effect for repentant sinners, after death, in heaven. If Christendom readmitted gross sinners, it would antic.i.p.ate the judgment of G.o.d, as it would thereby a.s.sure them of salvation. Hence it can only take back those who have been excluded in cases where their offences have not been committed against G.o.d himself, but have consisted in transgressing the commandments of the Church, that is, in venial sins.[236] But in course of time it was just in lay circles that faith in G.o.d"s grace became weaker and trust in the Church stronger. He whom the Church abandoned was lost to the world; therefore she must not abandon him. This state of things was expressed in the new interpretation of the proposition, "no salvation outside the Church" ("extra ecclesiam nulla salus"), viz., _the Church alone saves from d.a.m.nation which is otherwise certain_. In this conception the nature of the Church is depotentiated, but her powers are extended. If she is the inst.i.tution which, according to Cyprian, is the indispensable preliminary condition of salvation, she can no longer be a sure communion of the saved; in other words, she becomes an inst.i.tution from which proceeds the communion of saints; she includes both saved and unsaved. Thus her religious character consists in her being the indispensable medium, in so far as she alone guarantees to the individual the _possibility_ of redemption. From this, however, it immediately follows that the Church would antic.i.p.ate the judgment of G.o.d if she finally excluded anyone from her membership who did not give her up of his own accord; whereas she could never prejudge the ultimate destiny of a man by readmission.[237] But it also follows that the Church must possess a means of repairing any injury upon earth, a means of equal value with baptism, namely, a sacrament of the forgiveness of sins. With this she acts in G.o.d"s name and stead, but--and herein lies the inconsistency--she cannot by this means establish any final condition of salvation. In bestowing forgiveness on the sinner she in reality only reconciles him with herself, and thereby, in fact, merely removes the certainty of d.a.m.nation. In accordance with this theory the holiness of the Church can merely consist in her possession of the means of salvation: _the Church is a holy inst.i.tution in virtue of the gifts with which she is endowed_. She is the moral seminary that trains for salvation and the inst.i.tution that exercises divine powers in Christ"s room. Both of these conceptions presuppose political forms; both necessarily require priests and more especially an episcopate. (In de pudic. 21 Tertullian already defines the position of his adversary by the saying, "ecclesia est numerus episcoporum.") This episcopate by its unity guarantees the unity of the Church and has received the power to forgive sins (Cyp., ep. 69. 11).

The new conception of the Church, which was a necessary outcome of existing circ.u.mstances and which, we may remark, was not formulated in contradictory terms by Cyprian, but by Roman bishops,[238] was the first thing that gave a fundamental _religious_ significance to the separation of clergy and laity. The powers exercised by bishops and priests were thereby fixed and hallowed. No doubt the old order of things, which gave laymen a share in the administration of moral discipline, still continued in the third century, but it became more and more a mere form.

The bishop became the practical vicegerent of Christ; he disposed of the power to bind and to loose. But the recollection of the older form of Christianity continued to exert an influence on the Catholic Church of the third century. It is true that, if we can trust Hippolytus" account, Calixtus had by this time firmly set his face against the older idea, inasmuch as he not only defined the Church as _essentially a mixed body_ (_corpus permixtum_), but also a.s.serted the unlawfulness of deposing the bishop even in case of mortal sin.[239] But we do not find that definition in Cyprian, and, what is of more importance, he still required a definite degree of active Christianity as a _sine qua non_ in the case of bishops; and a.s.sumed it as a self-evident necessity. He who does not give evidence of this forfeits his episcopal office _ipso facto_.[240] Now if we consider that Cyprian makes the Church, as the body of believers (_plebs credentium_), so dependent on the bishops, that the latter are the only Christians not under tutelage, the demand in question denotes a great deal. It carries out the old idea of the Church in a certain fashion, as far as the bishops are concerned. But for this very reason it endangers the new conception in a point of capital importance; for the spiritual acts of a sinful bishop are invalid;[241] and if the latter, as a notorious sinner, is no longer bishop, the whole certainty of the ecclesiastical system ceases.

Moreover, an appeal to the certainty of G.o.d"s installing the bishops and always appointing the right ones[242] is of no avail, if false ones manifestly find their way in. Hence Cyprian"s idea of the Church--and this is no dishonour to him--still involved an inconsistency which, in the fourth century, was destined to produce a very serious crisis in the Donatist struggle.[243] The view, however--which Cyprian never openly expressed, and which was merely the natural inference from his theory--that the Catholic Church, though the "one dove" ("una columba"), is in truth not coincident with the number of the elect, was clearly recognised and frankly expressed by Origen before him. Origen plainly distinguished between spiritual and fleshly members of the Church; and spoke of such as only belong to her outwardly, but are not Christians.

As these are finally overpowered by the gates of h.e.l.l, Origen does not hesitate to cla.s.s them as merely seeming members of the Church.

Conversely, he contemplates the possibility of a person being expelled from her fellowship and yet remaining a member in the eyes of G.o.d.[244]

Nevertheless he by no means attained to clearness on the point, in which case, moreover, he would have been the first to do so; nor did he give an impulse to further reflection on the problem. Besides, speculations were of no use here. The Church with her priests, her holy books, and gifts of grace, that is, the moderate secularisation of Christendom corrected by the means of grace, was absolutely needed in order to prevent a complete lapse into immorality.[245]

But a minority struggled against this Church, not with speculations, but by demanding adherence to the old practice with regard to lapsed members. Under the leadership of the Roman presbyter, Novatian, this section formed a coalition in the Empire that opposed the Catholic confederation.[246] Their adherence to the old system of Church discipline involved a reaction against the secularising process, which did not seem to be tempered by the spiritual powers of the bishops.

Novatian"s conception of the Church, of ecclesiastical absolution and the rights of the priests, and in short, his notion of the power of the keys is different from that of his opponents. This is clear from a variety of considerations. For he (with his followers) a.s.signed to the Church the right and duty of expelling gross sinners once for all;[247]

he denied her the authority to absolve idolaters, but left these to the forgiveness of G.o.d who alone has the power of pardoning sins committed against himself; and he a.s.serted: "non est pax illi ab episcopo necessaria habituro gloriae suae (scil. martyrii) pacem et accepturo maiorem de domini dignatione mercedem,"--"the absolution of the bishop is not needed by him who will receive the peace of his glory (i.e., martyrdom) and will obtain a greater reward from the approbation of the Lord" (Cypr. ep. 57. 4), and on the other hand taught: "peccato alterius inquinari alterum et idololatriam delinquentis ad non delinquentem transire,"--"the one is defiled by the sin of the other and the idolatry of the transgressor pa.s.ses over to him who does not transgress." His proposition that none but G.o.d can forgive sins does not depotentiate the idea of the Church; but secures both her proper religious significance and the full sense of her dispensations of grace: it limits her powers and _extent_ in favour of her _content_. Refusal of her forgiveness under certain circ.u.mstances--though this does not exclude the confident hope of G.o.d"s mercy--can only mean that in Novatian"s view this forgiveness is the foundation of salvation and does not merely avert the certainty of perdition. To the Novatians, then, membership of the Church is not the _sine qua non_ of salvation, but it really secures it in some measure. In certain cases nevertheless the Church may not antic.i.p.ate the judgment of G.o.d. Now it is never by exclusion, but by readmission, that she does so. As the a.s.sembly of the baptised, who have received G.o.d"s forgiveness, the Church must be a real communion of salvation and of saints; hence she cannot endure unholy persons in her midst without losing her essence. Each gross sinner that is tolerated within her calls her legitimacy in question. But, from this point of view, the const.i.tution of the Church, i.e., the distinction of lay and spiritual and the authority of the bishops, likewise retained nothing but the secondary importance it had in earlier times. For, according to those principles, the primary question as regards Church membership is not connection with the clergy (the bishop). It is rather connection with the community, fellowship with which secures the salvation that may indeed be found outside its pale, but not with certainty. But other causes contributed to lessen the importance of the bishops: the art of casuistry, so far-reaching in its results, was unable to find a fruitful soil here, and the laity were treated in exactly the same way as the clergy. The ultimate difference between Novatian and Cyprian as to the idea of the Church and the power to bind and loose did not become clear to the latter himself. This was because, in regard to the idea of the Church, he partly overlooked the inferences from his own view and to some extent even directly repudiated them. An attempt to lay down a principle for judging the case is found in ep. 69. 7: "We and the schismatics have neither the same law of the creed nor the same interrogation, for when they say: "you believe in the remission of sins and eternal life through the holy Church," they speak falsely" ("non est una n.o.bis et schismaticis symboli lex neque eadem interrogatio; nam c.u.m dic.u.n.t, credis in remissionem peccatorum et vitam aeternam per sanctam ecclesiam, mentiuntur"). Nor did Dionysius of Alexandria, who endeavoured to acc.u.mulate reproaches against Novatian, succeed in forming any effective accusation (Euseb., H. E. VII. 8). Pseudo-Cyprian had just as little success (ad Novatianum).

It was not till the subsequent period, when the Catholic Church had resolutely pursued the path she had entered, that the difference in principle manifested itself with unmistakable plainness. The historical estimate of the contrast must vary in proportion as one contemplates the demands of primitive Christianity or the requirements of the time. The Novatian confederation undoubtedly preserved a valuable remnant of the old tradition. The idea that the Church, as a fellowship of salvation, must also be the fellowship of saints ([Greek: Katharoi]) corresponds to the ideas of the earliest period. The followers of Novatian did not entirely identify the political and religious attributes of the Church; they neither transformed the gifts of salvation into means of education, nor confused the reality with the possibility of redemption; and they did not completely lower the requirements for a holy life. But on the other hand, in view of the minimum insisted upon, the claim _that they were the really evangelical party and that they fulfilled the law of Christ_[248] was a presumption. The one step taken to avert the secularising of the Church, exclusion of the lapsed, was certainly, considering the actual circ.u.mstances immediately following a great apostasy, a measure of radical importance; but, estimated by the Gospel and in fact simply by the demands of the Montanists fifty years before, it was remarkably insignificant. These Catharists did indeed go the length of expelling _all_ so-called mortal sinners, because it was too crying an injustice to treat _libellatici_ more severely than unabashed transgressors;[249] but, even then, it was still a gross self-deception to style themselves the "pure ones," since the Novatian Churches speedily ceased to be any stricter than the Catholic in their renunciation of the world. At least we do not hear that asceticism and devotion to religious faith were very much more prominent in the Catharist Church than in the Catholic. On the contrary, judging from the sources that have come down to us, we may confidently say that the picture presented by the two Churches in the subsequent period was practically identical.[250] As Novatian"s adherents did not differ from the opposite party in doctrine and const.i.tution, their discipline of penance appears an archaic fragment which it was a doubtful advantage to preserve; and their rejection of the Catholic dispensations of grace (practice of rebaptism) a revolutionary measure, because it had insufficient justification. But the distinction between venial and mortal sins, a theory they held in common with the Catholic Church, could not but prove especially fatal to them; whereas their opponents, through their new regulations as to penance, softened this distinction, and that not to the detriment of morality. For an entirely different treatment of so-called gross and venial transgressions must in every case deaden the conscience towards the latter.

5. If we glance at the Catholic Church and leave the melancholy recriminations out of account, we cannot fail to see the wisdom, foresight, and comparative strictness[251] with which the bishops carried out the great revolution that so depotentiated the Church as to make her capable of becoming a prop of civic society and of the state, without forcing any great changes upon them.[252] In learning to look upon the Church as a training school for salvation, provided with penalties and gifts of grace, and in giving up its religious independence in deference to her authority, Christendom as it existed in the latter half of the third century,[253] submitted to an arrangement that was really best adapted to its own interests. In the great Church every distinction between her political and religious conditions necessarily led to fatal disintegrations, to laxities, such as arose in Carthage owing to the enthusiastic behaviour of the confessors; or to the breaking up of communities. The last was a danger incurred in all cases where the attempt was made to exercise unsparing severity. A casuistic proceeding was necessary as well as a firm union of the bishops as pillars of the Church. Not the least important result of the crises produced by the great persecutions was the fact that the bishops in West and East were thereby forced into closer connection and at the same time acquired full jurisdiction ("per episcopos solos peccata posse dimitti"). If we consider that the archiepiscopal const.i.tution had not only been simultaneously adopted, but had also attained the chief significance in the ecclesiastical organisation,[254] we may say that the Empire Church was completed the moment that Diocletian undertook the great reorganisation of his dominions.[255] No doubt the old Christianity had found its place in the new Church, but it was covered over and concealed. In spite of all that, little alteration had been made in the expression of faith, in religious language; people spoke of the universal holy Church, just as they did a hundred years before. Here the development in the history of dogma was in a very special sense a development in the history of the Church. Catholicism was now complete; the Church had suppressed all utterances of individual piety, in the sense of their being binding on Christians, and freed herself from every feature of exclusiveness. In order to be a Christian a man no longer required in any sense to be a saint. "What made the Christian a Christian was no longer the possession of charisms, but obedience to ecclesiastical authority," share in the gifts of the Church, and the performance of penance and good works. The Church by her edicts legitimised average morality, after average morality had created the authority of the Church. ("La mediocrite fonda l"autorite".) The dispensations of grace, that is, absolution and the Lord"s Supper, abolished the charismatic gifts. The Holy Scriptures, the apostolic episcopate, the priests, the sacraments, average morality in accordance with which the whole world could live, were mutually conditioned. The consoling words: "Jesus receives sinners," were subjected to an interpretation that threatened to make them detrimental to morality.[256] And with all that the self-righteousness of proud ascetics was not excluded--quite the contrary. Alongside of a code of morals, to which any one in case of need could adapt himself, the Church began to legitimise a morality of self-chosen, refined sanct.i.ty, which really required no Redeemer. It was as in possession of this const.i.tution that the great statesman found and admired her, and recognised in her the strongest support of the Empire.[257]

A comparison of the aims of primitive Christendom with those of ecclesiastical society at the end of the third century--a comparison of the actual state of things at the different periods is hardly possible--will always lead to a disheartening result; but the parallel is in itself unjust. The truth rather is that the correct standpoint from which to judge the matter was already indicated by Origen in the comparison he drew (c. Cels. III. 29. 30) between the Christian society of the third century and the non-Christian, between the Church and the Empire, the clergy and the magistrates.[258] Amidst the general disorganisation of all relationships, and from amongst the ruins of a shattered fabric, a new structure, founded on the belief in one G.o.d, in a sure revelation, and in eternal life, was being laboriously raised. It gathered within it more and more all the elements still capable of continued existence; it readmitted the old world, cleansed of its grossest impurities, and raised holy barriers to secure its conquests against all attacks. Within this edifice justice and civic virtue shone with no greater brightness than they did upon the earth generally, but within it burned two mighty flames--the a.s.surance of eternal life, guaranteed by Christ, and the practice of mercy. He who knows history is aware that the influence of epoch-making personages is not to be sought in its direct consequences alone, as these speedily disappear: that structure which prolonged the life of a dying world, and brought strength from the Holy One to another struggling into existence, was also partly founded on the Gospel, and but for this would neither have arisen nor attained solidity. Moreover, a Church had been created within which the pious layman could find a holy place of peace and edification.

With priestly strife he had nothing to do, nor had he any concern in the profound and subtle dogmatic system whose foundation was now being laid.

We may say that the religion of the laity attained freedom in proportion as it became impossible for them to take part in the establishment and guardianship of the official Church system. It is the professional guardians of this ecclesiastical edifice who are the real martyrs of religion, and it is they who have to bear the consequences of the worldliness and lack of genuineness pertaining to the system. But to the layman who seeks from the Church nothing more than aid in raising himself to G.o.d, this worldliness and unveracity do not exist. During the Greek period, however, laymen were only able to recognise this advantage to a limited extent. The Church dogmatic and the ecclesiastical system were still too closely connected with their own interests. It was in the Middle Ages, that the Church first became a Holy Mother and her house a house of prayer--for the Germanic peoples; for these races were really the children of the Church, and they themselves had not helped to rear the house in which they worshipped.

ADDENDA.

I. THE PRIESTHOOD. The completion of the old Catholic conception of the Church, as this idea was developed in the latter half of the third century, is perhaps most clearly shown in the attribute of priesthood, with which the clergy were invested and which conferred on them the greatest importance.[259] The development of this conception, whose adoption is a proof that the Church had a.s.sumed a heathen complexion, cannot be more particularly treated of here.[260] What meaning it has is shown by its application in Cyprian and the original of the first six books of the Apostolic Const.i.tutions (see Book II.). The bishops (and also the presbyters) are priests, in so far as they alone are empowered to present the sacrifice as representatives of the congregation before G.o.d[261] and in so far as they dispense or refuse the divine grace as representatives of G.o.d in relation to the congregation. In this sense they are also judges in G.o.d"s stead.[262] The position here conceded to the higher clergy corresponds to that of the mystagogue in heathen religions, and is acknowledged to be borrowed from the latter.[263]

Divine grace already appears as a sacramental consecration of an objective nature, the bestowal of which is confined to spiritual personages chosen by G.o.d. This fact is no way affected by the perception that an ever increasing reference is made to the Old Testament priests as well as to the whole Jewish ceremonial and ecclesiastical regulations.[264] It is true that there is no other respect in which Old Testament commandments were incorporated with Christianity to such an extent as they were in this.[265] But it can be proved that this formal adoption everywhere took place at a subsequent date, that is, it had practically no influence on the development itself, which was not legitimised by the commandments till a later period, and that often in a somewhat lame fashion. We may perhaps say that the development which made the bishops and elders priests altered the inward form of the Church in a more radical fashion than any other. "Gnosticism," which the Church had repudiated in the second century, became part of her own system in the third. As her integrity had been made dependent on inalienable objective standards, the adoption even of this greatest innovation, which indeed was in complete harmony with the secular element within her, was an elementary necessity. In regard to every sphere of Church life, and hence also in respect to the development of dogma[266] and the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, the priesthood proved of the highest significance. The clerical exposition of the sacred books, with its frightful ideas, found its earliest advocate in Cyprian and had thus a most skilful champion at the very first.[267]

II. SACRIFICE. In Book I., chap. III., -- 7, we have already shown what a wide field the idea of sacrifice occupied in primitive Christendom, and how it was specially connected with the celebration of the Lord"s Supper. The latter was regarded as the pure (i.e., to be presented with a pure heart), bloodless thank offering of which Malachi had prophesied in I. 11. Priesthood and sacrifice, however, are mutually conditioned.

The alteration of the concept "priest" necessarily led to a simultaneous and corresponding change in the idea of sacrifice, just as, conversely, the latter reacted on the former.[268] In Irenaeus and Tertullian the old conception of sacrifice, viz., that prayers are the Christian sacrifice and that the disposition of the believer hallows his whole life even as it does his offering, and forms a well-pleasing sacrifice to G.o.d, remains essentially unchanged. In particular, there is no evidence of any alteration in the notion of sacrifice connected with the Lord"s Supper.[269] But nevertheless we can already trace a certain degree of modification in Tertullian. Not only does he give fasting, voluntary celibacy, martyrdom, etc., special prominence among the sacrificial acts of a Christian life, and extol their religious value--as had already been done before; but he also attributes a G.o.d-propitiating significance to these performances, and plainly designates them as "merita"

("promereri deum"). To the best of my belief Tertullian was the first who definitely regarded ascetic performances as propitiatory offerings and ascribed to them the "potestas reconciliandi iratum deum."[270] But he himself was far from using this fatal theory, so often found in his works, to support a lax Church practice that made Christianity consist in outward forms. This result did not come about till the eventful decades, prolific in new developments, that elapsed between the persecutions of Septimius and Decius; and in the West it is again Cyprian who is our earliest witness as to the new view and practice.[271] In the first place, Cyprian was quite familiar with the idea of ascetic propitiations and utilised it in the interest of the Catholicity of the Church; secondly, he propounded a new theory of the offering in the cultus. As far as the first point is concerned, Cyprian"s injunctions with regard to it are everywhere based on the understanding that even after baptism no one can be without sin (de op.

et cleemos. 3); and also on the firm conviction that this sacrament can only have a retrospective virtue. Hence he concludes that we must appease G.o.d, whose wrath has been aroused by sin, through performances of our own, that is, through offerings that bear the character of "satisfactions." In other words we must blot out transgressions by specially meritorious deeds in order thus to escape eternal punishment.

These deeds Cyprian terms "merita," which either possess the character of atonements, or, in case there are no sins to be expiated, ent.i.tle the Christian to a special reward (merces).[272] But, along with _lamentationes_ and acts of penance, it is princ.i.p.ally alms-giving that forms such means of atonement (see de lapsis, 35, 36). In Cyprian"s eyes this is already the proper satisfaction; mere prayer, that is, devotional exercises unaccompanied by fasting and alms, being regarded as "bare and unfruitful." In the work "de opere et eleemosynis" which, after a fashion highly characteristic of Cyprian, is made dependent on Sirach and Tobias, he has set forth a detailed theory of what we may call alms-giving as a _means of grace_ in its relation to baptism and salvation.[273] However, this practice can only be viewed as a means of grace in Cyprian"s sense in so far as G.o.d has accepted it, that is, pointed it out. In itself it is a free human act. After the Decian persecution and the rearrangement of ecclesiastical affairs necessitated by it, works and alms (opera et eleemosynae) made their way into the absolution system of the Church, and were a.s.signed a permanent place in it. Even the Christian who has forfeited his Church membership by abjuration may ultimately recover it by deeds of sacrifice, of course under the guidance and intercessory cooperation of the Church. The dogmatic dilemma we find here cannot be more clearly characterised than by simply placing the two doctrines professed by Cyprian side by side.

These are:--(1) that the sinfulness common to each individual can only be once extirpated by the power of baptism derived from the work of Christ, and (2) that transgressions committed after baptism, inclusive of mortal sins, can and must be expiated solely by spontaneous acts of sacrifice under the guidance of kind mother Church.[274] A Church capable of being permanently satisfied with such doctrines would very soon have lost the last remains of her Christian character. What was wanted was a means of grace, similar to baptism and granted by G.o.d through Christ, to which the _opera et eleemosynae_ are merely to bear the relation of _accompanying_ acts. But Cyprian was no dogmatist and was not able to form a doctrine of the means of grace. He never got beyond his "propitiate G.o.d the judge by sacrifices after baptism"

("promereri deum judicem post baptismum sacrificiis"), and merely hinted, in an obscure way, that the absolution of him who has committed a deadly sin after baptism emanates from the same readiness of G.o.d to forgive as is expressed in that rite, and that membership in the Church is a condition of absolution. His whole theory as to the legal nature of man"s (the Christian"s) relationship to G.o.d, and the practice, inaugurated by Tertullian, of designating this connection by terms derived from Roman law continued to prevail in the West down to Augustine"s time.[275] But, during this whole interval, no book was written by a Western Churchman which made the salvation of the sinful Christian dependent on ascetic offerings of atonement, with so little regard to Christ"s grace and the divine factor in the case, as Cyprian"s work _de opere et eleemosynis_.

No less significant is Cyprian"s advance as regards the idea of the sacrifice in public worship, and that in three respects. To begin with, Cyprian was the first to a.s.sociate the specific offering, i.e., the Lord"s Supper[276] with the specific priesthood. Secondly, he was the first to designate the _pa.s.sio dominis_, nay, the _sanguis Christi_ and the _dominica hostia_ as the object of the eucharistic offering.[277]

Thirdly, he expressly represented the celebration of the Lord"s Supper as an incorporation of the congregation and its individual members with Christ, and was the first to bear clear testimony as to the special importance attributed to commemoration of the celebrators ("vivi et defuncti"), though no other can be ascertained than a specially strong intercession.[278] But this is really the essential effect of the sacrifice of the supper as regards the celebrators; for however much the conceptions about this ceremony might be heightened, and whatever additions might be made to its ritual, forgiveness of sins in the strict sense could not be a.s.sociated with it. Cyprian"s statement that every celebration of the Lord"s Supper is a repet.i.tion or imitation of Christ"s sacrifice of himself, and that the ceremony has therefore an expiatory value remains a mere a.s.sertion, though the Romish Church still continues to repeat this doctrine to the present day. For the idea that partaking of the Lord"s Supper cleansed from sin like the mysteries of the Great Mother (magna mater) and Mithras, though naturally suggested by the ceremonial practice, was counteracted by the Church principles of penance and by the doctrine of baptism. As a sacrificial rite the Supper never became a ceremony equivalent in effect to baptism. But no doubt, as far as the popular conception was concerned, the solemn ritual copied from the ancient mysteries could not but attain an indescribably important significance. It is not possible, within the framework of the history of dogma, to describe the development of religious ceremonial in the third century, and to show what a radical alteration took place in men"s conceptions with regard to it (cf. for example, Justin with Cyprian). But, in dealing with the history of dogma within this period, we must clearly keep in view the development of the cultus, the new conceptions of the value of ritual, and the reference of ceremonial usages to apostolic tradition; for there was plainly a remodelling of the ritual in imitation of the ancient mysteries and of the heathen sacrificial system, and this fact is admitted by Protestant scholars of all parties. Ceremonial and doctrine may indeed be at variance, for the latter may lag behind the former and vice versa, but they are never subject to entirely different conditions.

III. MEANS OF GRACE, BAPTISM, and EUCHARIST. That which the Western Church of post-Augustinian times calls sacrament in the specific sense of the word (means of grace) was only possessed by the Church of the third century in the form of baptism.[279] In strict theory she still held that the grace once bestowed in this rite could be conferred by no holy ceremony of equal virtue, that is, by no fresh sacrament. The baptised Christian has no means of grace, conferred by Christ, at his disposal, but has his law to fulfil (see, e.g., Iren. IV. 27. 2). But, as soon as the Church began to absolve mortal sinners, she practically possessed in absolution a real means of grace that was equally effective with baptism from the moment that this remission became unlimited in its application.[280] The notions as to this means of grace, however, continued quite uncertain in so far as the thought of G.o.d"s absolving the sinner through the priest was qualified by the other theory (see above) which a.s.serted that forgiveness was obtained through the penitential acts of transgressors (especially baptism with blood, and next in importance _lamentationes, ieiunia, eleemosynae_). In the third century there were manifold holy dispensations of grace by the hands of priests; but there was still no theory which traced the means of grace to the historical work of Christ in the same way that the grace bestowed in baptism was derived from it. From Cyprian"s epistles and the anti-Novatian sections in the first six books of the Apostolic Const.i.tutions we indeed see that appeal was not unfrequently made to the power of forgiving sins bestowed on the Apostles and to Christ"s declaration that he received sinners; but, as the Church had not made up her mind to repeat baptism, so also she had yet no theory that expressly and clearly supplemented this rite by a _sacramentum absolutionis_. In this respect, as well as in regard to the _sacramentum ordinis_, first inst.i.tuted by Augustine, theory remained far behind practice. This was by no means an advantage, for, as a matter of fact, the whole religious ceremonial was already regarded as a system of means of grace. The consciousness of a personal, living connection of the individual with G.o.d through Christ had already disappeared, and the hesitation in setting up new means of grace had only the doubtful result of increasing the significance of human acts, such as offerings and satisfactions, to a dangerous extent.

Since the middle of the second century the notions of baptism[281] in the Church have not essentially altered (see Vol. I. p. 206 ff.). The result of baptism was universally considered to be forgiveness of sins, and this pardon was supposed to effect an actual sinlessness which now required to be maintained.[282] We frequently find "deliverance from death," "regeneration of man," "restoration to the image of G.o.d," and "obtaining of the Holy Spirit." ("Absolutio mortes," "regeneratio hominis," "rest.i.tutio ad similitudinem dei" and "consecutio spiritus sancti") named along with the "remission of sins" and "obtaining of eternal life" ("remissio delictorum" and "consecutio aeternitatis").

Examples are to be found in Tertullian[283] adv. Marc. I. 28 and elsewhere; and Cyprian speaks of the "bath of regeneration and sanctification" ("lavacrum regenerationis et sanctificationis").

Moreover, we pretty frequently find rhetorical pa.s.sages where, on the strength of New Testament texts, all possible blessings are a.s.sociated with baptism.[284] The constant additions to the baptismal ritual, a process which had begun at a very early period, are partly due to the intention of symbolising these supposedly manifold virtues of baptism,[285] and partly owe their origin to the endeavour to provide the great mystery with fit accompaniments.[286] As yet the separate acts can hardly be proved to have an independent signification.[287] The water was regarded both as the symbol of the purification of the soul and as an efficacious, holy medium of the Spirit (in accordance with Gen. I. 2; water and Spirit are a.s.sociated with each other, especially in Cyprian"s epistles on baptism). He who a.s.serted the latter did not thereby repudiate the former (see Orig. in Joann. Tom. VI. 17, Opp. IV.

p. 133).[288] Complete obscurity prevails as to the Church"s adoption of the practice of child baptism, which, though it owes its origin to the idea of this ceremony being indispensable to salvation, is nevertheless a proof that the superst.i.tious view of baptism had increased.[289] In the time of Irenaeus (II. 22. 4) and Tertullian (de bapt. 18) child baptism had already become very general and was founded on Matt. XIX.

14. We have no testimony regarding it from earlier times; Clement of Alexandria does not yet a.s.sume it. Tertullian argued against it not only because he regarded conscious faith as a needful preliminary condition, but also because he thought it advisable to delay baptism (cunctatio baptismi) on account of the responsibility involved in it (pondus baptismi). He says: "It is more advantageous to delay baptism, especially in the case of little children. For why is it necessary for the sponsors" (this is the first mention of "G.o.dparents") "also to be thrust into danger?... let the little ones therefore come when they are growing up; let them come when they are learning, when they are taught where they are coming to; let them become Christians when they are able to know Christ. Why does an age of innocence hasten to the remission of sins? People will act more cautiously in worldly affairs, so that one who is not trusted with earthly things is trusted with divine. Whoever understands the responsibility of baptism will fear its attainment more than its delay."[290] To all appearance the practice of immediately baptising the children of Christian families was universally adopted in the Church in the course of the third century. (Origen, Comment, in ep.

ad Rom. V. 9, Opp. IV. p. 565, declared child baptism to be a custom handed down by the Apostles.) Grown up people, on the other hand, frequently postponed baptism, but this habit was disapproved.[291]

The Lord"s Supper was not only regarded as a sacrifice, but also as a divine gift.[292] The effects of this gift were not theoretically fixed, because these were excluded by the strict scheme[293] of baptismal grace and baptismal obligation. But in practice Christians more and more a.s.sumed a real bestowal of heavenly gifts in the holy food, and gave themselves over to superst.i.tious theories. This bestowal was sometimes regarded as a spiritual and sometimes as a bodily self-communication of Christ, that is, as a miraculous implanting of divine life. Here ethical and physical, and again ethical and theoretical features were intermixed with each other. The utterances of the Fathers to which we have access do not allow us to cla.s.sify these elements here; for to all appearance not a single one clearly distinguished between spiritual and bodily, or ethical and intellectual effects unless he was in principle a spiritualist. But even a writer of this kind had quite as superst.i.tious an idea of the holy elements as the rest. Thus the holy meal was extolled as the communication of incorruption, as a pledge of resurrection, as a medium of the union of the flesh with the Holy Spirit; and again as food of the soul, a

Prev List Next