by Adolph (von)
Harnack
translated and edited by James Moffatt
Second, enlarged and revised English edition;
Theological
Translation Library, volumes 19-20
From
the German, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den
ersten drei
Jahrhunderten (1902, revised 1906, 1915, and finally 1924)
Book 3 (scanned by Moises
Bassand and
Amna Khwar; part edited by Liz Rosado; further editing by
Amna
Khwar, October 2004, and Chris Segal, Spring 2006)
BOOK
3
THE
MISSIONARIES: THE METHODS OF THE
COUNTER-MOVEMENTS
CHAPTER I
THE CHRISTIAN MISSIONARIES
(APOSTLES,
EVANGELISTS,
AND PROPHETS OR TEACHERS: THE INFORMAL MISSIONARIES)
I
BEFORE entering upon
the subject
proper, let us briefly survey the usage of the term “apostle,” in its
wider and
narrower senses, throughout the primitive Christian writings.\1/
\1/
Though it is only apostles of Christ who are to be considered, it may
be
observed that Paul spoke (2 Cor. 8.23) of ἀπόστολοι ἐκκλησιῶν,
and applied the title “apostle of the
Philippians” to Epaphroditus, who had conveyed to him a donation from
that
church (Philip. 2.25). In Heb. 3.1 Jesus is called “the apostle and
high-priest
of our confession.” But in John 13.16 “apostle” is merely used as an
illustration: οὐκ ἔστι δοῦλος μείζων τοῦ κυρίου αὐτοῦ,
οὐδὲ ἀρόστολος μείζων τοῦ πέμψαντος αὐτόν.
For the literature on this subject,
see my edition of the Didachê (Texte u.
Untersuchungen, vol. 2, 1884) and my Dogmengeschichte
I.3 (1894), pp. 153 f. [
1. In Matthew,
Mark, and John, “apostle” is not a special and distinctive name for the
inner
circle of the disciples of Jesus. These are almost invariably described
as “the
twelve,”\2/ or the [[320]]
twelve
disciples.\3/ As may be inferred from Matt. 19.28, the choice of this
number
probably referred to the twelve tribes of Israel.\4/ In my opinion the
fact of
their selection is historical, as is also the tradition that even
during his
lifetime Jesus once dispatched them to preach the gospel, and selected
them
with that end in view. At the same time, the primitive church honored
them
pre-eminently not as apostles but as the twelve disciples (chosen by
Jesus). In
John they are never called the apostles;\5/ in Matthew they are
apparently
called “the twelve apostles” (10.2) once,\6/ but this reading is a
correction,
Syr. Sin. giving “disciples.” At one place Mark writes “the apostles”
(6.30),
but this refers to their temporary missionary labors during the life of
Jesus.
All three evangelists are thus ignorant of “apostle” as a designation
of the
twelve: there is but one instance
where the term is applied to them ad hoc.\7/
\2/
Matt. 10.5, 20.17, 26.14, 47; Mark (3.14), 4.10,
6.7, 9.35, 10.32, 11.11, 14.10, 17, 20, 43; John 6.67, 70, 71, 20.24.
\3/ Matt. 10.1, 11.1, 26.20. -- Add further the instances in which they
are
called “the eleven” (Mark 16.14) or “the eleven disciples” (Matt.
28.16).
\4/
This is explicitly stated in Barn. 8: oὖσιν δεκαδύο εἰς μαρτύριον τῶν φυλῶν ὕτι ιβ’
αἱ φυλαὶ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ
(“They are twelve for a testimony to the tribes, for
there are twelve tribes in
\5/
This is a remarkable fact. In the Johannine epistles “apostle”
never occurs at all. Yet these letters were composed by a man who,
whatever he
may have been, claimed and exercised apostolic authority over a large
number of
the churches, as is plain from the third epistle (see my study of it in
the
fifteenth volume of the Texte and
Unlersuchungen, part 3). More on this point afterwards.
\6/ Not “the twelve” pure and simple. Elsewhere the term, “the twelve
apostles,”
occurs only in Apoc. 21.14, and there the “twelve” is not superfluous,
as the
Apocalypse uses “apostle” in a more general sense (see below).
\7/ The phrasing of Mark 3.14 (ἐποίησεν
δώδεκα, ἵνα
ὦσιν μετ’ αὐτοῦ
καὶ ἵνα ἀποστέλλῃ
αὐτοὺς
κηρύσσειν καὶ
ἔχειν ἐξουσίαν ἐκβάλλειν
τὰ δαιμόνια)
corresponds to
the original facts of the case. The mission (within
2. With Paul it is
quite otherwise. He never employs
the term “the twelve” (for in 1 Cor. 15.5 he is repeating a formula of
the
primitive church),\8/ but confines himself to the idea of “apostles.”
His
terminology, however, is not unambiguous on this point. [[321]]
\8/
From the absence of the term “twelve” in Paul, one might infer (despite
the
gospels) that it did not arise till later; 1 Cor. 15.5, however, proves
the
reverse.
(a) He calls
himself an apostle of Jesus Christ, and lays the greatest stress upon
this
fact.\9/ He became an apostle, as alone one could, through God (or
Christ); God
called him and gave him his apostleship,\10/ and his apostleship was
proved by
the work he did and by the way in which he did it.\11/
\9/
See the opening of all the Pauline epistles, except 1 and 2 Thess.,
Philippians
and Philemon; also Rom. 1.5, 11.13, 1 Cor. 4.9, 9.1 f., 15.9 f., 2 Cor.
12.12,
Gal. 1.17 (2.8). It may be doubted whether, in 1 Cor. 4.9 (δοκῶ, ὁ θεὸς ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀποστόλους ἐσχάτους ἀπέδειξεν ὡς ἐπιθανατίους), ἐσχάτους is to be taken as an
attribute of ἀποστόλους or as a predicative. I
prefer the
former construction (see 1 Cor. 15.8 f.), and it seems to me
therefore
probable that the first person plural here is an epistolary plural.
\10/ Gal. 1.1 f., Rom. 1.5 (ἐλάβομεν
χάριν καὶ ἀποστολήν). It is hard to say whether
ἐλάβομεν is a real plural, and, if
so, what
apostles are here associated with Paul.
\11/ 1 Cor. 9.1, 2, 15.9 f., 2 Cor. 12.12, Gal. 1.2.
(b) His fellow-missionaries -- e.g., Barnabas
and Silvanus -- are also apostles; not so, however, his assistants and
pupils,
such as Timothy and Sosthenes.\12/
\12/ 1 Cor. 9.4 f. and Gal. 2.9 prove that Barnabas was an apostle,
whilst 1
Thess. 2.7 makes it very probable that Silvanus was one also. In the
greetings
of the Thessalonian and Philippian epistles Paul does not call himself
an
apostle, since he is associating himself with Timothy, who is never
given this
title (1 Thess. 2.7 need not be taken as referring to him). It is
therefore
quite correct to ascribe to him (as in 2 Tim. 4.5) the work of an
evangelist.
Apollos, too [see p. 79], is never called an apostle. As for εὐαγγελιστής, it is to be noted that,
apart from 2
Timothy, it occurs twice in the New Testament; namely, in the
We-journal in
Acts (21.8, as a title of Philip, one of the seven), and in Ephes.
4.11, where
the reason for evangelists being mentioned side by side with apostles
is that
the epistle is addressed to churches which had been founded by
nonapostolic
missionaries, and not by Paul himself -- just as the term οἱ ἀκούσαντες (sc. τὸν κύριον) is substituted for
“apostles” in Heb.
2.3, because the readers for whom the epistle was originally designed
had not
received their Christianity from apostles.
(c) Others also -- probably, e.g.,
Andronicus and Junias\13/ -- are apostles. In fact, the term
cannot be sharply
restricted at all; for as God appoints prophets and teachers “in the
church,”
so also does he appoint apostles to be the front rank [[322]]
therein,\14/ and since such charismatic callings depend upon the
church's
needs, which are known to God alone, their numbers are not fixed. To
the
apostleship belong (in addition to the above mentioned call of God
or Christ)
the wonderful deeds which accredit it (2 Cor. 12.12) and a work of its
own (1
Cor. 9.1-2), in addition to special rights.\15/ He who can point to
such is an
apostle. The very polemic against false apostles (2 Cor. 11.13) and
“super-apostles”
(2 Cor. 11.5, 12.11) proves that Paul did not regard the conception of
“apostle”
as implying any fixed number of persons, otherwise the polemic would
have been
differently put. Finally, a comparison of 1 Cor. 15.7 with verse 5 of
the same
chapter shows, with the utmost clearness, that Paul distinguished a
circle of
apostles which was wider than the twelve -- a distinction, moreover,
which
prevailed during the earliest period of the church and within
Palestine.\16/
\13/ Rom. 16.7 (ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις, οἳ καὶ πρὸ ἐμοῦ γέγοναν ἐν Χριστῷ); ἐν is probably (with Lightfoot,
as against Zahn) to be
translated “among” rather than “by,” since the latter would render the
additional phrase rather superfluous and leave the precise scope of ἀπόστολοι unintelligible. If ἐν means “by,” this passage is
to be correlated
with those which use οἱ
ἀπόστολοι for the
original apostles, since in the present case this gives the simplest
meaning
to the words. At any rate, the οἳ
refers to Andronicus and Junias, not to ἀποστόλοις. [Add
note on
Junias/Julia.]
\14/
1 Cor. 12.28 f; Eph. 4.11. Even Eph. 2.20 and 3.5 could not be
understood to
refer exclusively to the so-called “original apostles,” otherwise Paul
would
simply be disavowing his own position.
\15/
It cannot be proved -- at least not with any great degree of
probability --
from 1 Cor. 9.1 that one must have
seen the Lord in order to be able to come forward as an apostle. The
four
statements are an ascending series (οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐλεύθερος; οὐκ εἰμὶ ἀπόστολος; οὐχὶ Ἰησοῦν τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν ἑόρακα; οὐ τὸ ἔργον μου ὑμεῖς ἐστε ἐν κυρίῳ), as is proved by the
relation of the
second to the first. It is clear that the third and fourth statements
are meant
to attest the second, but it is doubtful if they contain an attestation
which
is absolutely necessary.
\16/ Cp. Origen,
Hom. in
Num., 27.11 (vol. 10 p. 353, ed. Lommatzsch):
“In quo apostolus ostendit [sc. 1 Cor. 15.7) esse et alios apostolos
exceptis
illis duodecim.”
(d)
But in a further, strict, sense of the
term, “apostle” is reserved for those with whom he himself works,\17/
and here
some significance attaches to the very chronological succession of
those who
were called to the apostleship (Rom. 16.7). The twelve who were called
during
the lifetime of Jesus fall to be considered as the oldest apostles;\18/
with their qualities and functions they [[323]] form the pattern and
standard for all
subsequent apostles. Thus the twelve, and
(what is more) the twelve as apostles, come to the front. As
apostles Paul
put them in front; in order to set the dignity of his own office in its
true
light, he embraced the twelve under the category of the original
apostolate (thereby allowing their personal discipleship
to fall into the background, in his terminology), and thus raised them
above
all other apostles, although not higher than the level which he claimed
to
occupy himself. That the twelve henceforth rank in history as the
twelve
apostles, and in fact as the
apostles, was a result brought about by Paul; and, paradoxically
enough, this
was brought about by him in his very effort to fix the value of his own
apostleship. He certainly did not work out this conception, for he
neither
could nor would give up the more general conception of the apostleship.
Thus
the term “apostle” is confined to the twelve only twice in Paul,\19/
and even
in these passages the reference is not absolutely certain. They occur
in the
first chapter of Galatians and in 1 Cor. 9.5. Gal. 1.17 speaks of oἱ πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἀπόστολοι (“those who were apostles
before me”), where in all likelihood
the twelve are alone to be understood. Yet the subsequent remark in
verse 19 (ἕτερον τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου) shows that it was of no
moment to
Paul to restrict the conception rigidly. In 1 Cor 9.5 we read, μὴ οὐκ ἔχομεν ἐξουσίαν ἀδελφὴν γυναῖκα περιάγειν, ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ τοῦ κυρίου καὶ Κηφᾶς; the collocation of λοιπῶν ἀποστολῶν with the Lord's brothers
renders it
very probable that Paul here is thinking of the twelve exclusively, and
not of
all the existing apostles, when he mentions “the apostles.” To sum up
our
results: Paul holds fast to the wider conception of the apostolate, but
the
twelve disciples form in his view its original nucleus.
\17/
1 Cor. 9.2 and Gal. 9 (a Jewish and a Gentile apostolate); cp. also
Rom. 11.13,
ἐθνῶν ἀπόστολος. Peter (Gal. 2.8) has the ἀποστολὴ τ. περιτομῆς. Viewed ideally, there is
only one apostolate, since there is only one
church; but the concrete duties of
the apostles vary.
\18/
The apostolate is the highest rank (1 Cor. 12.28); it follows that the
main
thing even about the twelve is the fact of their being apostles.
\19/
Apart from 1 Cor. 15.7 (cp. verse 5), where the twelve appear as the
original
nucleus of the apostles; probably also apart from Rom. 16.7 (cp. p.
321, note)
and 1.5.
3. The
terminology of Luke is determined as much by that of the primitive age
(the
Synoptic tradition) as by the post-Pauline. Following the former,
he calls the
chosen disciples of [[324]]
Jesus “the
twelve,”\20/ or “the eleven;”\21/ but he reproduces the latter in
describing
these disciples almost invariably throughout Acts as simply “ the
apostles” --
just as though there were no other\22/ apostles at all -- and in
relating, in
his gospel, how Jesus himself called them apostles (6.13). Accordingly,
even in
the gospel he occasionally calls them “the apostles.”\23/ This would
incline
one to assert that Luke either knew, or wished to know, of no apostles
save the
twelve; but the verdict would be precipitate, for in Acts 14.4, 14, he
describes not merely Paul but also Barnabas as an apostle.\24/
Obviously, the
terminology was not yet fixed by any means. Nevertheless it is
surprising that
Paul is only described as an “apostle” upon one occasion in the whole
course of
the book. He does not come\25/ under the description of the qualities
requisite
for the apostleship which Luke has in view in Acts 1.21 f., a
description which
became more and more normative for the next age. Consequently he cannot
have
been an apostle for Luke, except in the wider sense of the term.
\20/
Luke 8.1, 9.1, 12, 18.31, 22.3, 47; Acts 6.2. Only once, then, are they
called
by this title in Acts, and that in a place where Luke seems to me to be
following a special source.
\21/
Luke 24.9, 33 (cp. Acts 2.14, Πέτρος
σὺν τοῖς ἕνδεκα).
\22/
Acts 1.2, 2.37, 42-43, 4.33, 35, 36, 37, 5.2, 12, 18, 29, 40, 6.6, 8.1,
14.18,
9.27, 11.1, 15.2, 4, 6, 22, 23, 16.4. In the later chapters “apostle”
no longer
occurs at all. Once we find the expression of οἱ ἕνδεκα ὰπόστολοι (Acts 1.26).
\23/
Luke 9.10, 17.5, 22.14, 24.10. The gospel of Peter is more cautious; it
speaks
of μαθηταί (30), or of οἱ δώδεκα μαθηταί (59), but never of ἀπόστολοι. Similarly, the apocalypse
of Peter
(5) writes, ἡμεῖς
οἱ δώδεκα μαθηταί.
\24/
With both Paul (see above) and Luke, then, the apostolic dignity of
Barnabas is
well established. -- In regard to the Seventy disciples Luke does speak
of an ἀποστέλλειν and calls them “seventy
other”
apostles, in allusion to the twelve. Yet he does not call them
explicitly
apostles. Irenaeus (2.21.1), Tertullian (adv.
Marc. 4.24), Origen (on Rom. 16.7), and other writers, however,
describe
them as apostles, and people who were conjectured to have belonged to
the
Seventy were also named apostles by a later age.
\25/
The apostle to be elected must have companied with Jesus from the date
of
John's baptism until the ascension; he must also have been a witness of
the
resurrection (cp. also Luke 14.48, Acts 1.8). (Paul simply requires an
apostle
to have “seen” the Lord.) This conception of the apostolate gradually
displaced
the original conception entirely, although Paul still retained his
apostolic
dignity as an exception to the rule.
4. The
apocalypse of John mentions those who call themselves [[325]]
apostles and are not (2.2),\26/ which implies that they might be
apostles.
Obviously the writer is following the wider and original conception of
the
apostolate, The reference in 18.20 does not at least contradict
this,\27/ any
more than 21.14 (see above), although only the twelve are named here
“apostles,”
while the statement with its symbolic character has certainly
contributed
largely to win the victory for the narrower sense of the term.
\26/
Cp. (above) Paul's judgment on the false apostles.
\27/
Εὺφραίνου οὐρανὲ καὶ οἱ ἀποστόλοι καὶ οἱ προφῆται. For the collocation of the
Old
Testament prophets, cp. also Luke 11.49, 2 Pet. 3.2. But in our
passage, as in
Eph. 3.20, 3.5, 4.11, the writer very possibly means Christian prophets.
5. In First
Peter and Second Peter (1.1), Peter is called an apostle of Jesus
Christ. As
for Jud. 17 and 2 Peter 3.2 (τὰ
ῥήματα τὰ προειρημένα ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰηστοῦ Χριστοῦ, τὰ προειρημένα ῥήματα ὑπὸ τῶν ἁγίων προφητῶν καὶ ἡ τῶν ἀποστόλων ὑμῶν ἐντολὴ τοῦ κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος), in the first passage it
is certain,
and in the second very likely, that only the twelve disciples are to be
understood.
6. That the
epistle of Clement uses “apostles” merely to denote the original
apostles and
Paul, is perfectly clear from 42.1 f. (the apostles chosen previous to
the
resurrection) and 47.4 (where Apollos, as ἀνὴρ δεδοκιμάσμενος παρ’ ἀποστόλοις, a man approved by the
apostles, is
definitely distinguished from the apostles); cp. also 5.3 and 44.1. For
Clement's conception of the apostolate, see below. The epistle of
Barnabas
(5.9) speaks of the Lord's choice of his own apostles (ἴδιοι ἀπόστολοι), and therefore seems to
know of some
other apostles; in 8.3 the author only mentions the twelve “who
preached to us
the gospel of the forgiveness of sins\28/ and were empowered to preach
the
gospel,” without calling them expressly” apostles.”\29/ As the
Preaching of
Peter professes to be an actual composition of [[326]]
Peter, it is self-evident that whenever it speaks of apostles, the
twelve are
alone in view.\30/
\28/
Of οἱ ῥαντίζοντες παῖδες οἱ εὐαγγελισάμενοι ἡμῖν τὴν ἄφεσιν ᾀμαρτιῶν καὶ τὸν ἁγνισμὸν τῆς καρδίας, οἷς ἔδωκεν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τὴν ἐξουσίαν – οὖσιν
δεκαδύο εἰς μαρτύριον τῶν φυλῶν, ὅτι δεκαδύο φυλαὶ τοῦ Ἰσραή’—εἰς τὸ κηρύδσσειν (“The children who sprinkle
are those
who preached to us the gospel of the forgiveness of sins and
purification of
heart; those whom he empowered to preach the gospel, being twelve in
number for
a testimony to the tribes -- since there are twelve tribes in Israel”).
\29/
As 5.9 shows, this is merely accidental.
\30/ See von
Dobschütz
in Texte u. Unters. 9.1. Jesus says in this Preaching:
Ἐξελεξάμην ὑμᾶς δώδεκα μαθητὰς κρίνας ἀξίους ἔμοῦ καὶ ἀποστόλους πιστοὺς ἡγησάμενος εἶναι, πέμπων ἐπὶ τὸν κόσμον εὐαγγελίσασθαι τοὺς κατὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην ἀνθρώπους, κ.τ.λ. (“I have
chosen you twelve disciples, judging
you to be worthy of me and esteeming you to be faithful apostles,
sending you out into the world to preach the gospel to
all its inhabitants,” etc.).
7. The passage
in Sim. 9.17.1 leaves it ambiguous
whether Hermas meant by “apostles” the twelve or some wider circle. But
the
other four passages in which the apostles emerge (Vis.
3.5.1; Sim. 9.15.4,
16.5, 25.2) make it perfectly clear that the author had in view a
wider,
although apparently a definite, circle of persons, and that he
consequently
paid no special attention to the twelve (see below, Sect. 3, for a
discussion
upon this point and upon the collocation of apostles, bishops, and
teachers, or
of apostles and teachers). Similarly, the Didachê contemplates
nothing but a
wider circle of apostles. It certainly avows itself to be, as the title
suggests, a διδαχὴ
κυρίου διὰ τῶν ιβ’ ἀποστόλων (an instruction of the Lord
given
through the twelve apostles), but the very addition of the number in
this title
is enough to show that the book knew of other apostles as well, and
11.3-6
takes apostles exclusively in the wider sense of the term (details of
this in a
later section).
8. In the dozen
or so passages where the word “apostle” occurs in Ignatius, there is
not a
single one which renders it probable that the word is used in its wider
sense.
On the contrary, there are several in which the only possible
allusion is to
the primitive apostles. We must therefore conclude that by “apostle”
Ignatius
simply and solely understood\31/ the twelve and Paul (Rom.
4.3). Any decision in the case of Polycarp (Ep. 6.3,
8.1) is uncertain, but he would
hardly have occupied a different position from that of Ignatius. His
church
added to his name the title of an “apostolic
and prophetic teacher” (Ep. Smyrn.
16.2).
\31/
Ignatius disclaims apostolic dignity for himself, in several passages
of his
epistles; which nevertheless is a proof that there was a possibility of
one who
had not been an original apostle being none the less an apostle.
This
survey of the primitive usage of the word “apostle” [[327]]
shows that while two conceptions existed side by side, the narrower was
successful in making headway against its rival.\32/
\32/
During the course of the second century it became more rare than ever
to confer
the title of “apostles” on any except the biblical apostles or persons
mentioned
as apostles in the Bible. But Clement of Rome is called an apostle by
Clement
of Alexandria (Strom. 4.17. 105), and
Quadratus is once called by this name.
ΙΙ
One other
preliminary inquiry is necessary before we can proceed to the subject
of this
chapter. We are to discuss apostles, prophets, and teachers as the
missionaries
or preachers of Christianity; the question is, whether this threefold
group can
be explained from Judaism.
Such a
derivation is in any case limited by the fact that these classes did
not form
any triple group in Judaism, their close association being a
characteristic of
primitive Christianity. With regard to each group, the following
details are to
be noted: --
1. Apostles.\33/
-- Jewish officials bearing this title are unknown to us until
the
destruction of the temple and the organization of the Palestinian
patriarchate;
but it is extremely unlikely that no “apostles” previously existed,
since the
Jews would hardly have created an official class of “apostles” after
the
appearance of the Christian apostles. At any rate, the fact was there,
as also,
beyond question, was the name\34/ -- i.e., of authoritative
officials who
collected contributions from the Diaspora for the temple and kept the
churches
in touch with
\33/
The very restricted use of the word in classical (Attic) Greek is well
known
(Herod. 1.21.5.38; Hesychius: ἀπόστολος
· στρατηγὸς κατὰ πλοῦν πεμπόμενος). In the LXX.
the word occurs only in 1 Kings 14.6 (describing the prophet Abijah:
Hebrew <h> שלוה </h>).
Justin has to fall back on ἀποστέλλειν
in order to prove (Dial. 75) that the
prophets in the Old Testament were called άπόστολοι. Josephus calls Varus, the
head of a
Jewish deputation to
\34/
If Judaism had never known apostles, would Paul have spoken of
“apostles” in 2
Cor. 8.23 and Phil. 2.25?
\35/
The passages have been printed above, on pp. 57 f.; χειροτονήσαντες denotes the apostolate (cp.
Acts
13.3).
\36/
For this intercommunication see, e.g., Acts, 28.21: οὔτε γράμματα περὶ σοπῦ ἐδέξαμεθα ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰουδαίας (say the Roman Jews, with
regard to
Paul) οὔτε παραγενόμενος τις τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἀπήγγειλεν. A cognate reference is
that of 2 Cor.
3.1, to ἐπιστολαὶ συστατικαί.
Eusebius
(in Isa. 18.1 f.) proves that the chosen persons whom Justin thus
characterizes
are to be identified with the “apostles” of Judaism. The passage has
been
already printed (cp. p. 59), but in view of its importance it may once
more be
quoted: εὕρομεν ἐν τοῖς τῶν παλαιῶν συγγράμμασιν, ὡς
οἱ τὴν Ἱερουσαλὴμ
οἰκοῦντες τοῦ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἔθνους ἱερεῖς καὶ πρεσβύτεροι
γράμματα
διαχαράξαντες
εἰς
πάντα
διεπέμψαντο
τὰ
ἔθνη
τοῖς
ἁπανταχοῦ
Ἰουδαίοις
διαβάλλοντες
τὴν
Χριστοῦ
διδασκαλίαν
ὡς
αἵρεσιν
καινὴν
καὶ
ἀλλοτρίαν
θεοῦ, παρήγγελλόν
τε
δι’
ἐπιστολῶν
μὴ
παραδέξασθαι
αὐτήν . . . .
οἵ τε
ἀπόστολοι αὐτῶν ἐπιστολὰς βιβλίνας
κομιζόμενοι\37/ ἁπανταχοῦ
γῆς
διέτρεχον,
τὸν
περὶ τοῦ
σωτῆρος ἡμῶν
ἐνδιαβάλλοντες λόγον. ἀποστόλους δὲ εἰσέτι καὶ
νῦν (so that the institution was
no
novelty) ἔθος ἐστὶν Ἰουδαίοις
ὀνομάζειν
τοὺς
ἐγκύκλια
γράμματα
παρὰ
τῶν
ἀρχόντων
αὐτῶν
ἐπικομιζομένους.
The
primary function, therefore, which
Eusebius emphasized in the Jewish “ apostles “ of his own day, was
their duty of
conveying encyclical epistles issued by the central authority for
the
instruction and direction of the Diaspora. In the law-book (Theodosianus
Codex, 16.8.14), as is only natural, another side is presented: “Superstitionis indignae
est, ut
archisynagogi sive presbyteri Judaeorum vel quos ipsi apostolos
vocant,
qui ad exigendum aurum atque argentum a patriarcha certo tempore
diriguntur,” [[329]] etc.
(“It is part of this worthless
superstition that the Jews have chiefs of their synagogues, or elders,
or persons
whom they call apostles, who are appointed by the patriarch at
a certain
season to collect gold and silver”). The same aspect is adduced, as the
context
indicates, by Julian (Epist. 25; Hertlein, p. 513), when he
speaks of “the
apostleship you talk about” (λεγομένη
παρ’ ὑμῖν ἀποστολή). Jerome (ad Gal.
1.1) merely
remarks: “Usque hodie a patriarchis Judaeorum apostolos mitti” (“To
this day
apostles are despatched by the Jewish patriarchs”). But we gain much
more
information from Epiphanius, who, in speaking of a certain Joseph (adv.
Har.
30.4), writes: οὗτος τῶν
παρ’ αὐτοῖς ἀξιωματικῶν
ἀνδρῶν ἐναρίθμιος
ἦν ·
εἶσὶ
δὲ οὗτοι μετὰ
τὸν
πατριάρχην ἀπόστολοι
καλούμενοι, προσεδρεύουσι
δὲ
τῷ
πατριάρχῃ
καὶ
σὺν
αὐτῷ
πολλάκις
καὶ
ἐν
νυκτὶ
καὶ
ἐν
ἡμέρᾳ
συνεχῶς
διάγουσι,
διὰ
τὸ
συμβουλεύειν
καὶ
ἀναφέρειν
αὐτῷ
τὰ
κατὰ
τὸν
νόμον.\38/
He tells (chap. 11) when this Joseph became an apostle (or, got the εὐκαρπία τῆς ἀποστολῆς), and then proceeds: καὶ μετ’
ἐπιστολῶν οὗτος
ἀποστέλλεται
εἰς
τὴν Κιλίκων γῆν
· ὅς ἀνελθὼν
ἐκεῖσε ἀπὸ
ἑκάστης
πόλεως τῆς
Κιλικίας τὰ ἐπιδέκατα καὶ
τὰς ἀπαρχὰς
παρὰ τῶν ἐν
τῇ ἐπαρχίᾳ
Ἰουδαίων εἰσέπραττεν
. . . . ἐπεὶ
οὖν, οἷα
ἀπόστολος
(οὕτως
γὰρ
παρ’ αὐτοῖς, ὡς
ἔφην, τὸ
ἀξίωμα
καλεῖται),
ἐμβριθέστατος
καὶ
καθαρεύων
δῆθεν
τὰ
εἰς
κατάστασιν
εὐνομίας,
οὕτως
ἐπιτελεῖν
προβαλλόμενος,
πολλοὺς
τῶν
κακῶν
κατασταθέντων
ἀρχισυναγώγων
καὶ
ἱερέων
καὶ
πρεσβυτέρων
καὶ
ἀζανιτῶν . . . . καθαιρῶν
τε
καὶ
μετακινῶν
τοῦ ἀξιώματος
ὑπὸ πολλῶν
ἐνεκοτεῖτο, κ.τ.λ. (“He
was despatched with epistles to
\37/
The allusion is to Isa. 18.1-2, where the LXX.
reads
: οὐαὶ . . . . ὁ ἀποστέλλων ἐν θαλάσςῃ ὅμηρα καὶ ἐπιστολὰς βιβλίνας ἐπάνω τοῦ ὕδατος, while Symmachus has not ὅμηρα but ἀποστόλους.
Eusebius therefore refers this passage to the false “apostles” of
Judaism, and
the words πορεύσονται
γὰρ ἄγγελοι κοῦφοι, κ.τ.λ.,
to the true apostles.
\38/ ”He
belonged to the order of their distinguished men. These consist of men
called “apostles’;
they rank next to the patriarch, with whom they are associated and with
whom
they often spend whole nights and days taking counsel together and
consulting
him on matters concerning the law.”
Putting
together these functions of the “apostles,”\39/ we get the following
result.
(1) They were consecrated persons of a very high rank; (2) they were
sent out
into the Diaspora to collect tribute for headquarters; (3) they brought
encyclical letters with them, kept the Diaspora in touch with the
center and
informed of the intentions of the latter (or of the patriarch),
received orders
about any dangerous movement, and had to organize resistance to it; (4)
they
exercised certain powers of surveillance and discipline in the Diaspora
; and
(5) on returning to their own country they formed a sort of council
which aided
the patriarch in supervising the interests of the law.
\39/
Up till now only one inscription has been discovered which mentions
these
apostles, viz., the epitaph of a girl of fourteen at Venosa: “ Quei
dixerunt
trenus duo apostuli et duo rebbites” (Hirschfeld, Bullett. dell Instit. di corrisp.
archaeol.
1867, p. 152).
In view of all
this one can hardly deny a certain connection between these Jewish
apostles and
the Christian. It was not simply that Paul\40/ and others had hostile
relations
with them their very organization afforded a sort of type for the
Christian
apostleship, great as were the differences between the two. But, one
may ask,
were not these differences too great? Were not the Jewish apostles just
financial officials? Well, at the very moment when the primitive
apostles
recognized Paul as an apostle, they set him also a financial task (Gal.
2.10);
he was to collect money throughout the Diaspora for the church at
\40/
Was not Paul himself, in his pre-Christian days [cp. p. 59], a Jewish
“apostle”?
He bore letters which were directed against Christians in the
Diaspora,
and had assigned to him by the highpriests and Sanhedrin certain
disciplinary
powers (see Acts 8.2, 22.4 f., 26.10 f., statements which deserve
careful
attention).
\41/
We do not know whether there were also “apostles” among the disciples
of John
-- that narrow circle of the Baptist which, as the gospels narrate, was
held
together by means of fasting and special prayers; we merely know that
adherents
of this circle existed in the Diaspora (at Alexandria: Acts 18.24 f.,
and
Ephesus: Acts 19.1 f.). Apollos (see above, p. 79) would appear to have
been
originally a regular missionary of John the Baptist's movement; but the
whole
narrative of Acts at this point is singularly colored and obscure.
These
statements about the Jewish apostles have been contested by
Monnier (op.
cit. pp. 16 f.): “To prop up his theory, Harnack takes a text of
Justin and
fortifies it with another from Eusebius. That is, he proves the
existence of an
institution in the first century by means of a second-century text, and
interprets the latter by means of a fourth-century writer. This is too
easy.”
But it is still more easy to let such confusing abstractions blind us
to the
reasons which in the present instance not only allow us but even make
it
obvious to explain the testimony of Justin by that of Eusebius, and
again to
connect it with what we know of the antichristian mission set on foot
by the
Jerusalemites, and of the false apostles in the time of Paul. I have
not
ignored the fact that we possess no direct evidence for the assertion
that
Jewish emissaries like Saul in the first century bore the name of
“apostles.”
(2) Prophets.
-- The common idea is that prophets had died out in Judaism long before
the age
of Jesus and the apostles, but the New Testament itself protests
against this
erroneous idea. Reference may be made especially to John the Baptist,
who
certainly was a prophet and was called a prophet; also to the
prophetess Hanna
(Luke 2.36), to Barjesus the Jewish prophet [[332]]
in the retinue of the pro-consul at Cyprus (Acts 13.7), and to the
warnings
against false prophets (Matt. 7.15, 24.11, 25, Mark 13.22, 1 John 4.1,
2 Pet.
2.1).
Besides, we are
told that the Essenes possessed the gift of prophecy;\42/ of Theudas,
as of the
Egyptian,\43/ it is said, προφήτης
ἔλεγεν εἶναι (“ he alleged himself to be
a
prophet,” Joseph. Antiq. 20.5.1); Josephus the historian played
the
prophet openly and successfully before Vespasian;\44/ Philo called
himself a
prophet, and in the Diaspora we hear of Jewish interpreters of dreams,
and of
prophetic magicians.\45/ What is still more significant, the wealth of
contemporary Jewish apocalypses, oracular utterances, and so forth
shows that,
so far from being extinct, prophecy was in luxuriant bloom, and also
that
prophets were numerous, and secured both adherents and readers. There
were very
wide circles of Judaism who cannot have felt any surprise when a
prophet
appeared: John the Baptist and Jesus were hailed without further ado as
prophets, and the imminent return of ancient prophets was an article of
faith.\46/ From its earliest awakening, then, Christian prophecy was no
novelty, when formally considered, but a phenomenon which readily
coordinated
itself with similar contemporary phenomena in Judaism. In both cases,
too, the
high value attached to the prophets follows as a matter of course,
since they
are the voice of God; recognized as genuine prophets, they possess an
absolute
authority in their preaching and counsels. They were not [[333]] merely deemed capable
of miracles, but
even expected to perform them. It even seemed credible that a
prophet could
rise from the dead by the power of God; Herod and a section of the
people were
quite of opinion that Jesus was John the Baptist redivivus (see
also
Rev. 11.11).\47/
\42/
Cp. Josephus' Wars, 1.3.5, 2.7.3, 8.12; Antiq. 13.11.2,
15.10.5,
17.3.3.
\43/
Acts 21.38; Joseph. Antiq. 20.8.6; Wars, 2.13.5
\44/
Wars, 3.8.9; cp. Suet. Vespas. 5, and Dio Cass.
66.1.
\45/
Cp. Hadrian, Ep. ad Servian. (Vopisc. Saturn. 8.) --
One cannot,
of course, cite the gospel of pseudo-Matthew, ch. 13 (“et prophetae qui
fuerant
in
\46/
Only it is quite true that the Sadducees would have nothing to do with
prophets, and that a section of the strict upholders of the law would
no longer
hear of anything ranking beside the law. It stands to reason also that
the
priests and their party did not approve of prophets. After the
completion of
the canon there must have been a semi-official doctrine to the effect
that the
prophets were complete (cp. Ps. 74.9: τὰ σημεῖα ἡμῶν οὐκ εἴδομεν, οὐκ
ἔστιν ἔτι προφήτης, καὶ ἡμᾶς οὐ γνώσεται ἔτι, also 1 Macc. 4.46, 9.27,
14.41), and
this conviction passed over into the church (cp. Murator. Fragm.,
“completo
numero”); the [[333b]]
book of Daniel was no
longer placed among the prophets, and the later apocalypses were no
longer
admitted at all into the canon. Josephus is undoubtedly echoing a
widely spread
opinion when he maintains that the “succession of the prophets” is at
an end (Apion.
1.8; cp. also Euseb. H.E. 3.10.4: “From the time of Artaxerxes
to our
own day all the events have been recorded, but they do not merit the
same
confidence as we repose in the events that preceded them, since there
has not
been during this time an exact succession of prophets” -- ἀπὸ δὲ Ἀραταξέρξου μέχρι τοῦ καθ’ ἡμᾶς χρόνου γέγραπται μὲν ἕκαστα, πίστεως δ’ οὐχ ὁμοίας ἠξίωται τοῖς πρὸ αὐτῶν, διὰ τὸ μὴ γενέσθαι τὴν τῶν προφητῶν ἀκριβῆ διαδοχήν). Julian, c. Christ.
198 C: τὸ παρ’ Ἑβραίοις [προφητικὸν πνεῦμα] ἐπέλιπεν (“ the prophetic spirit
failed among
the Hebrews “). But although the line of the “canonical” prophets had
been
broken off before the appearance of Jesus, prophecy need not therefore
have
been extinguished.
\47/
The saying of Jesus, that all the prophets and the law prophesied until
John
(Matt. 11.13), is very remarkable (see below); he appears to have been
thinking of the cessation of
prophecy,
probably owing to the nearness of the end. But the word also admits of
an
interpretation which does not contemplate the cessation of prophecy.
(3)
Teachers. -- No words need be
wasted on the importance of the scribes and teachers in Judaism,
particularly
in
\48/
Schürer, Gesch. d. jud. Volkes, 2.(3) pp. 317
f. (Eng. trans. 2.1.317).
Thus the three
members of the Christian group -- apostles, prophets, teachers --
were
already to be met with in contemporary Judaism, where they were
individually
held in very high esteem. Still, they were not grouped together;
otherwise the
prophets would have been placed in a more prominent position. The
grouping of
these three classes, and the special development of the
apostleship, were the
special work of the Christian church. It was a work which had most
vital
consequences.
III
As we are essaying a study
of the
missionaries and teachers, let us take the Didachê into
consideration.\49/
\49/
In what follows I have drawn upon the section in my larger edition of
the
Didachê (1884), which occupies pp. 93 f.
In the fourth
chapter, where the author gathers up the special duties of Christians
as
members of the church, this counsel is put forward as the first
commandment: τέκνον μοῦ, τοῦ λαλοῦντός σοι τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ μνησθήσῃ νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας, τιμήσεις δὲ αὐτὸν ὡς κύριον ὅθεν γὰρ ἡ κυριότης λαλεῖται, ἐκεῖ κύριός ἐστιν (“My son, thou shalt
remember him that
speaketh to thee the word of God by night and day; thou shalt honor him
as the
Lord. For whencesoever the lordship is lauded, there is the Lord present”).\50/ As is plain from the
whole book
(particularly from what is said in chap. 15 on the bishops and
deacons), the
writer knew only one class of people who were to be honored in
the
church, viz., those alone who preached the word of God in their
capacity of ministri
evangelii.\51/ [[335]]
\50/
Compare the esteem above mentioned in which the Jews held their
teachers.
Barnabas (19.9-10), in a passage parallel to that of the Didachê,
writes: ἀγαπήσεις ὡς κόρην τοῦ ὀφθαλμοῦ σου πάντα τὸν λαλοῦντά σοι τὸν λόν λόγον κυρίου, μνησθήςῃ ἡμέραν κρίσεως νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας:
(“Thou shalt love as the apple of thine eye everyone who speaks to thee
the
word of the Lord; night and day shalt thou remember the day of
judgment”).
\51/
The author of Hebrews also depicts the ἡγούμενοι more closely, thus: οἵτινες ἐλάλησαν ὑμῖν τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ (13.7). The expression ἡγούμενοι or προηγούμενοι (see also
Heb. 13.17), which had a special vogue in the Roman church, [[335b]] although it is not
unexampled
elsewhere, did not become a technical expression in the primitive age;
consequently it is often impossible to ascertain in any given case who
are
meant by it, whether bishops or teachers.
But who are
these λαλοῦντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ in the Didachê? Not
permanent, elected
officials of an individual church, but primarily independent teachers
who
ascribed their calling to a divine command or charism. Among them we
distinguish (1) apostles, (2) prophets, and (3) teachers. These
preachers, at
the time when the author wrote, and for the circle of churches with
which he
was familiar, were in the first place the regular missionaries of the
gospel (apostles),
in the second place the men who ministered to edification, and
consequently sustained
the spiritual life of the churches (prophets and teachers).\52/
\52/
According to chap. 15, bishops and deacons belong to the second class,
in so
far as they take the place of prophets and teachers in the work of
edifying the
church by means of oral instruction.
(1) They
were not elected by the churches, as were bishops and deacons alone
(15.1, χειροτονήσατε ἑαυτοῖς ἐπισκόπους καὶ διακόους). In 1 Cor. 12.28 we read: καὶ οὓς μὲν ἔθετο ὁ θεὸς ἐν τῆ ἐκκλησίᾳ πρῶτον ἀποστόλους, δεύτερον προφήτας, τρίτον διδασκάλους (cp. Ephes. 4.11: καὶ αὐτὸς ἔδωκεν τοὺς μὲν ἀποστόλους, τοὺς δὲ προφήτας, τοὺς δὲ εὐαγγελιστάς, τοὺς δὲ ποιμένας καὶ διδασκάλους). The early source
incorporated in
Acts 13 gives a capital idea of the way in which this divine
appointment is to
be understood in the case of the apostles. In that passage we are told
how
after prayer and fasting five prophets and teachers resident in the
church at
Antioch (Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius, Manaen, and Saul) received
instructions
from the holy Spirit to despatch Barnabas and Saul as missionaries or
apostles.\53/ We may assume that in other cases also the apostles could
fall
back on such an exceptional commission.\54/ [[336]]
The prophets were authenticated by what they delivered in the form of
messages
from the Holy Spirit, in so far as these addresses proved spiritually
effective. But it is impossible to determine exactly how people were
recognized
as teachers. One clue seems visible, however, in Jas. 3.1, where we
read: μὴ πολλοὶ διδάσκαλοι γίνεσθε, εἰδότες ὅτι μεῖζον κρίμα λημψόμεθα. From this it follows that
to become a
teacher was a matter of personal choice -- based, of course, upon the
individual's consciousness of possessing a charisma. The teacher
also ranked
as one who had received the holy Spirit\55/ for his calling; whether he
was a
genuine teacher (Did. 13.2) or not, was a matter which, like the
genuineness of the prophets (Did. 11.11, 13.1), had to be
decided by the
churches. Yet they merely verified the existence of a divine
commission; they
did not in the slightest degree confer any office by their action. As a
rule,
the special and onerous duties which apostles and prophets had to
discharge
(see below) formed a natural barrier against the intrusion of a crowd
of
interlopers into the office of the preacher or the missionary.
\53/
The dispatch of these two
men appears to be entirely the work of the holy Spirit. Ἀφορίσατε δὴ μοι τὸν Βαρνάβαν καὶ Σαῦλον εἰς τὸ ἔργον ὃ προσκέκλημαι αὐτούς, says the Spirit. The
envoys thus act
simply as executive organs of the Spirit.
\54/
In the epistles to Timothy, Timothy is represented as an “evangelist,”
i.e., as
an apostle of the second class, but he is also the holder of a
charismatic
office. Consequently, just as in Acts 13, we find in 1.1.18 these
words: ταύτην τὴν παραγγελίαν παρατίθεμαί σοι, τέκνον Τιμόθεε, κατὰ τὰς προαγούσας ἐπὶ σὲ προφητείας; and in 4.14, the
following: μὴ ἀμέλει τοῦ ἐν σοὶ χαρίσματος, ὓ ἐδόθη σοι διὰ προφητείας [μετὰ ἐπιθέσεως τῶν τοῦ πρεσβυτερίου].
\55/
This may probably be inferred even from 1 Cor. 14.26, where διδαχή follows ἀποκάλυψις, and it is made perfectly
clear by
Hermas who not only is in the habit of grouping ἀπόστολοι and διδάσκαλοι, but also (Sim.
9.25.2) writes
thus of the apostles and teachers: “They taught the word of God soberly
and
purely . . . . even as also they had received the holy Spirit” (διδάξαντες σεμνῶ καὶ ἁγνῶς τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ . . . . καθῶς καὶ παρέλαβον τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον).
(2) The
distinction of “apostles, prophets, and teachers” is very old, and was
common
in the earliest period of the church. The author of the
Didachê presupposes
that apostles, prophets, and teachers were known to all the churches.
In 11.7
he specially mentions prophets; in 12.3 f. he names apostles and
prophets,
conjoining in 13.1-2 and 16.1-2 prophets and teachers (never apostles
and
teachers: unlike Hermas). The inference is that although this order
-- “apostles,
prophets, and teachers” -- was before his mind, the prophets and
apostles
formed in certain aspects a category by themselves, while in other
aspects the
prophets had to be ranked with the teachers (see below). This order is
identical with that of Paul (1 Cor. 12.28), so that its origin is to be
pushed
back to the sixth decade of the first century; in fact, it goes back to
a still
earlier [[337]] period,
for in saying οὓς μὲν ἔθετο ὁ θεὸς ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ πρῶτον ἀποστόλους, κ.τ.λ.,
Paul is thinking without doubt of some arrangement in the church which
held
good among Jewish Christian communities founded apart from his
co-operation, no
less than among the communities of Greece and Asia Minor.
This assumption
is confirmed by Acts 11.27, 15.22, 32, and 13.1. f. In the first of
these
passages we hear of prophets who had migrated from the
Jerusalem-church
to the Antiochene;\56/ the third passage implies that five men, who are
described as prophets
and teachers,
occupied a special position in the church at Antioch, and that two of
their
number were elected by them as apostles at the injunction of the Spirit
(see
above).\57/ Thus the apostolic vocation was not necessarily involved in
the
calling to be a prophet or teacher; it required for itself a further
special
injunction of the Spirit. From Acts 13.1 f. the order -- “apostles,
prophets,
teachers” -- follows indirectly but quite obviously; we have therefore
evidence
for it (as the notice may be considered historically reliable) in the
earliest
Gentile church and at a time which was probably not even one decade
distant
from the year of Paul's conversion.
\56/
On a temporary visit. One of them, Agabus, was permanently resident in
Judaea
about fifteen years later, but journeyed to meet Paul at Caesarea in
order to
bring him a piece of prophetic information (Acts 21.10
f.).
\57/
From the particles employed in the passage, it is probable that
Barnabas,
Simeon, and Lucius were the prophets, while Manäen and Saul were
the teachers.
One prophet and one teacher were thus dispatched as apostles. As the
older man,
Barnabas at first took the lead (his prophetic gift may be gathered
from the
name assigned to him, “Barnabas” = υἱὸς παρακλήσεως [Acts
4.36]; for in 1 Cor. 14.3 we read, ὁ προφητεύων ἀνθρώποις λαλεῖ παράκλησιν).
A century may
have elapsed between the event recorded in Acts 13.1 f. and the final
editing
of the Didachê. But intermediate stages are not lacking.
First, we have the
evidence of 1 Cor. (12.28),\58/ with two witnesses besides in Ephesians
(whose [[338]] evidence
is all the more weighty if the
epistle is not genuine) and Hermas. Yet neither of these witnesses is
of
supreme importance, inasmuch as both fail to present in its
pristine purity the
old class of the regular λαλοῦντες
τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ as apostles, prophets, and
teachers;
both point to a slight modification of this class, owing to the
organization
of individual churches, complete within themselves, which had grown up
on other
bases.
\58/
Observe that after enumerating apostles, prophets, and teachers, Paul
does not
proceed to give any further category of persons with charismatic gifts,
but
merely adds charismatic gifts themselves; note further that he gives no
classification of these gifts, but simply arranges them in one series
with a
double ἔπειτα, whereas the
apostles, prophets, and teachers are enumerated in order with πρῶτον, δεύτερον, and τρίτον. The conclusion is that the
apostolate, the prophetic office (not, speaking with tongues), and
teaching
were the only offices which made their occupants persons of rank in the
church,
whilst the δυνάμεις,
ἰάματα, ἀντιλήμψεις, κ.τ.λ.
conferred no special standing on those who were gifted with such
charismata. [[338b]] Hence
with Paul, too, it is the preaching of God's word which constitutes a
position
in the ἐκκλησία of God. This
agrees exactly with the view of the author of the Didachê.
Like Did. 11.3,
Eph. 2.20 and 3.5 associate apostles and prophets, and assign them an
extremely
high position. All believers, we are told, are built up on the
foundation of
the apostles and prophets, to whom, in the first instance, is revealed
the
secret that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs of the promise of Christ.
That
prophets of the gospel, and not of the Old Testament, are intended
here is
shown both by the context and by the previous mention of apostles. Now
in the
list at 4.11 the order “apostles,
prophets, and teachers” is indeed preserved, but in such a way that
“evangelists”
are inserted after “prophets,” and “pastors” added to “teachers”
(preceding
them, in fact, but constituting with them a single group or class).\59/
From these intercalated words it follows (1) that the author (or
Paul)
knew missionaries who did not possess the dignity of apostles,\60/ but
that he
did not place them immediately after the apostles, inasmuch as the
collocation
of “apostles and prophets” was a sort of noli me tangere (not
so the
collocation of “prophets and teachers”); (2) that he reckoned the
leaders of an
individual church (ποιμένες)
among the preachers bestowed upon the church as a whole (the
individual
church in this way made its influence felt); (3) that he looks upon the
teachers as persons belonging to a definite church, as is
evident from
the close connection of teachers with ποιμένες and the subsequent mention
(though in [[339]]
collocation) of the former. [[Note to editor
– new paragraph here?]] The
difference between the author of Ephesians and the author of the
Didachê on
these points, however, ceases to have any significance when one
observes two
things : (a) first, that even the latter places the ποιμένες (ἐπίσκοποι) of the individual church
side by side
with the teachers, and seeks to have like honor paid to them (15.1-2);
and
secondly (b), that he makes the permanent domicile of teachers in an
individual
church (13.9) the rule, as opposed to any special appointment (whereas,
with
regard to prophets, domicile would appear, from 13.1, to have been the
exception). It is certainly obvious that the Didachê's arrangement
approaches more nearly
than that of Ephesians to the arrangement given by Paul in Corinthians,
but it
would be more than hasty to conclude that the Didachê must
therefore be older
than the former epistle. We have already seen that the juxtaposition of
the
narrower conception of the apostolate with the broader is very early,
and that
the latter, instead of being simply dropped, kept pace for a time with
the
former. Furthermore, it must be borne in mind that passages like Acts
13.1,
11.27, 21.10, etc., prove that although the prophets, and especially
the
teachers, had to serve the whole church with their gifts, they could
possess,
even in the earliest age, a permanent residence and also membership of
a
definite community, either permanently or for a considerable
length of time.
Hence at an early period they could be viewed in this particular light,
without
prejudice to their function as teachers who were assigned to the church
in
general.
\59/
It does not follow that the “teachers” are to be considered identical
with the “pastors,”
because τοὺς δὲ does
not immediately precede
διδάσκαλους. The inference is
merely that
Paul or the author took both as comprising a single group.
\60/
I have already tried (p. 321) to explain exactly why evangelists are
mentioned
in Ephesians.
As for Hermas,
the most surprising observation suggested by the book is that the
prophets are
never mentioned, for all its enumeration of classes of preachers and
superintendents in Christendom.\61/ In consequence of this, apostles
and
teachers (ἀπόστολοι
and διδάσκαλοι) are
usually conjoined.\62/ Now as [[340]]
Hermas
comes forward in the rôle
of prophet, as his book contains one large section (Mand.
11) dealing
expressly with false and genuine prophets, and finally as the vocation
of the
genuine prophet is more forcibly emphasized in Hermas than in any other
early
Christian writing and presupposed to be universal, the absence of any
mention
of the prophet in the “hierarchy”
of Hermas must be held to have been deliberate.
\61/
In Sim. 9.15.4a Old Testament prophets are meant.
\62/
Cp. Sin,., 9.15, 4b: οἱ
δὲ μ’ ἀπόστολοι καὶ διδάσκαλοι τοῦ κηρύγματος τοῦ ὑιοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ (“the forty are apostles
and teachers
of the preaching of the Son of God”); 16.5: οἱ ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ διδάσκαλοι οἱ κηρύξαντες τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ (“the apostles and teachers
who
preached the name of the Son of God”); 25.2: ἀπόστολοι καὶ διδάσκαλοι οἱ κηρύξαντες εἰς ὅλον τὸν κόσμον καὶ οἱ διδάξαντες σεμνῶς καὶ ἁγνῶς τὸν λόγον τοῦ κυρίου (“apostles and teachers who
preached to [[340b]]
all the world, and taught soberly and
purely the word of the Lord”). Vis. 3.5.1 (see below) is also
relevant
in this connection. Elsewhere the collocation of “ἀπόστολοι, διδάσκαλος” occurs only in the
Pastoral epistles
(1 Tim. 2.7, 2 Tim. 1.11); but these passages prove nothing, as Paul
either is
or is meant to be the speaker.
In short, Hermas
passed over the prophets because he reckoned himself one of them.
If this
inference be true\63/ we are justified in supplying “prophets” wherever
Hermas
names “apostles and teachers,” so that he too becomes an indirect
witness to
the threefold group of “apostles, prophets, teachers.”\64/ In that case
the
conception expounded in the ninth similitude of the “Shepherd” is
exactly
parallel to that of the man who wrote the Didachê. Apostles
(prophets) and
teachers are the preachers appointed by God to establish the spiritual
life of
the churches; next to them come (chapters 25-27) the bishops and
deacons.\65/
On the other hand, the author alters this order in Vis., 3.5.1,
where he
writes:\66/ οἱ
μὲν οὖν λίθοι οἱ τετράγωνοι καὶ λευκοὶ καὶ συμφωνοῦντες ταῖς ἁρμογαῖς αὐτῶν, οὗτοι εἰσιν οἱ ἀπόστολοι [[341]]
(add καὶ προφῆται) καὶ ἐπίσκοποι καὶ διδάσκαλοι καὶ διάκονοι οἱ πορευθέντες κατὰ τὴν σεμνότητα τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἐπισκοπήσαντες καὶ διδύξαντες καὶ διακονήσαντες ἁγνῶς καὶ σεμνῶς τοῖς ἐκλεκτοῖς τοῦ θεοῦ, οἱ μὲν κεκοιμημένοι, οἱ δὲ ἔτι ὄντες. [[Note
to
editor – new paragraph here?]] According to the author of the
Didachê
also, the ἐπίσκοποι
and διάκονοι are to be added to the ἀπόσολοι, προφῆται, and διδάσκαλοι, but the difference between
the two
writers is that Hernias has put the bishops, just as the author of
Ephesians
has put the ποιμένες,
before the teachers. The reasons for this are unknown to us; all we can
make
out is that at this point also the actual organization of the
individual
communities had already modified the conception of the organization of
the
collective church which Hermas shared with the author of the
Didachê.\67/
\63/
Lietzmann (Götting. Gelehrte Anz. 1905, 6. p. 486) proposes
another
explanation: “Apostles and teachers belong to the past generation
for Hermas;
he recognizes a prophetic office also, but only in the Old Testament (Sim.
9.15.4). He does occupy himself largely with the activities of the true
prophet, and feels he is one himself; but he conceives this προφητεύειν as a private activity which
God's
equipment renders possible, but which lacks any official character. So
with his
censor in the Muratorian Fragment.”
Perhaps this is the right explanation of the difficulty. But can Hermas
have
really estimated the prophets like the Muratorian Fragmentist?
\64/ Hermas,
like the author of the Didachê, knows nothing about “evangelists”
as
distinguished from “apostles”; he, too, uses the term “apostle” in its
wider
sense (see above, p. 326).
\65/
In conformity with the standpoint implied in the parable, the order is
reversed
in chapters 26-27; for the proper order, see Vis. 3.5.1.
\66/
“The squared white stones that fit together in their joints, are the
apostles
and bishops and teachers and deacons who walked after the holiness of
God and
acted as bishops, teachers, and deacons, purely and soberly for the
elect of
God. Some have already fallen asleep, and others are still living.”
\67/
It is to be observed, moreover, that Sim. 9 speaks of apostles
and
teachers as of a bygone generation, whilst Vis. 3 declares that
one
section of the whole group have already fallen asleep, while the rest
are still
alive. We cannot, however, go into any further detail upon the
important
conceptions of Hermas.
Well then; one
early source of Acts, Paul, Hermas, and the author of the Didachê
all attest
the fact that in the earliest Christian churches “those who spoke the
word of
God” (the λαλοῦντες
τὸν λὀγον τοῦ θεοῦ occupied the highest
position,\68/ and that they were
subdivided into apostles, prophets, and teachers. They also bear
evidence to
the fact that these apostles, prophets, and teachers were not esteemed
as
officials of an individual community, but were honored as
preachers who had
been appointed by God and assigned to the church as a whole. The notion
that
the regular preachers in the church were elected by the different
churches is
as erroneous as the other idea that they had their “office” transmitted
to them
through a human channel of some kind or other. So far as men worked
together
here, it was in the discharge of a direct command from the Spirit.
\68/
So, too, the author of Hebrews. Compare also 1 Pet. 4.11: εἴ τις λαλεῖ, ὡς λόγια θεοῦ · εἴ
τις διακονεῖ, ὡς ἐξ ἰσχύος ἧς χορηγεῖ ὁ θεὀς [a passage which
illustrates the
narrative in Acts 6].
Finally, we
have to consider more precisely the bearings of this conclusion, viz.,
that, to
judge from the consistent testimony of the earliest records, the
apostles,
prophets, and teachers were allotted and belonged, not to any
individual
community, but to the church as a whole. By means of this feature
Christendom [[342]]
possessed, amid all its scattered
fragments, a certain cohesion and a bond of unity which has often been
underestimated. [[Note to editor –
new
paragraph here?]]
These
apostles and prophets, wandering from place to place, and received by
every
community with the utmost respect, serve to explain how the development
of the
church in different provinces and under very different conditions could
preserve, as it did, such a degree of homogeneity. Nor have they left
their
traces merely in the scanty records, where little but their names are
mentioned,
and where witness is born to the respect in which they were held. In a
far
higher degree their self-expression appears throughout a whole genre of
early
Christian literature, namely, the so-called catholic epistles and
writings.
It is impossible to understand the origin, spread, and vogue of a
literary genre
so peculiar and in many respects so enigmatic, unless one correlates it
with
what is known of the early Christian “apostles, prophets, and
teachers.” When
one considers that these men were set by God within the church
-- i.e.,
in Christendom as a whole, and not in any individual community,
their calling
being meant for the church collective -- it becomes obvious
that the
so-called catholic epistles and writings, addressed to the whole of
Christendom, form a genre in literature which corresponds to
these
officials, and which must have arisen at a comparatively early period.
An
epistle like that of James, addressed “to the twelve tribes of the
dispersion,”
with its prophetic passages (4.-5), its injunctions uttered even to
presbyters
(5.14), and its emphatic assertions (5.15 f), this epistle, which
cannot have
come from the apostle James himself, becomes intelligible so soon as we
think
of the wandering prophets who, conscious of a divine calling which led
them to
all Christendom, felt themselves bound to serve the church as a whole.
We can
well understand how catholic epistles must have won great prestige,
even
although they were not originally distinguished by the name of any
of the
twelve apostles.\69/ [[Note to editor – new
paragraph
here?]] [[343]]
Behind these epistles
stood the teachers called by God, who were to be reverenced like the
Lord
himself. It would lead us too afar afield to follow up this view, but
one may
refer to the circulation and importance of certain “catholic” epistles
throughout the churches, and to the fact that they determined the
development
of Christianity in the primitive period hardly less than the Pauline
epistles.
During the closing decades of the first century, and at the opening of
the
second, the extraordinary activity of these apostles, prophets, or
teachers
left a lasting memorial of itself in the “catholic” writings; to which
we must add
other productions like the “Shepherd” of Hermas, composed by an author
of whom
we know nothing except the fact that his revelations were to be
communicated to
all the churches. He is really not a Roman prophet;
being a
prophet, he is a teacher for Christendom as a whole.
\69/
This period, of course, was past and gone, when one of the charges
levelled at
the Montanist Themison was that he had written a catholic epistle and
thus
invaded the prerogative of the original apostles: see Apollonius (in
Euseb. H.E.
5.18.5) – Θεμίσων
ἐτόλμησε, μιμούμενος τὸν ἀπόστολον, καθολικήν τινα συνταξάμενος ἐπιστολὴν κατηχεῖν τοὺς ἄμεινον αὐτοῦ πεπιστευκότας (“Themison ventured, in
imitation of the apostles, to
compose a catholic epistle for the instruction of people whose faith
was better
than his own”).
It has been remarked, not
untruly, that
Christendom came to have church officials -- as distinct from
local
officials of the communities -- only after the episcopate had been
explained
as an organization intended to perpetuate the apostolate in such a way
that
every bishop was held, not simply to occupy an office in the particular
community, but to rank as a bishop of the catholic church (and, in this
sense,
to be a follower of the apostles). This observation is correct. But it
has to be
supplemented by the following consideration that in the earliest
age special
forms of organization did arise which in one aspect afford an analogy
to
ecclesiastical office in later catholicism. For “those who spake the
word of
God” (the λαλοῦντες
τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ) were catholic teachers (διδάσκαλοι καθολικοί).\70/ Yet [[344]]
even when these primitive teachers were slowly disappearing, a
development
commenced which ended in the triumph of the monarchical episcopate,
i.e., in
the recognition of the apostolic and catholic significance attaching to
the
episcopate. [[Note to editor –
new
paragraph here?]]
The
preliminary stages in this development may be distinguished
wherever in
Ephesians, Hernias, and the Didachê the permanent [[345]]
officials of the individual community are promoted to the class of
“apostles,
prophets, and teachers,” or already inserted among them. When this
happened,
the fundamental condition was provided which enabled the bishops at
last to
secure the prestige of “apostles, prophets, and teachers.” If one looks
at 1
Cor. 12.28 [[346]] or
Did. 13 (“the prophets
are your high-priests”), and then at the passages in Cyprian and the
literature
of the following period, where the bishops are extolled as the
apostles,
prophets, teachers, and high-priests of the church, one has
before one's
eyes the start and the goal of one of the most important developments
in early
Christianity. In the case of prominent bishops like Polycarp of Smyrna,
the end
had long ago been anticipated; for Polycarp was honored by his church
and
throughout
\70/
I shall at this point put together the sources which prove the
threefold group.
(1)
The λαλοῦντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ (and they alone at first,
it would appear; i.e.,
apostles, prophets, and teachers) are the ἡγούμενοι or τετιμήμενοι
in the churches; this follows from (a) Did. 4.1, 11.3 f., 13, 15.1-2,
when
taken together; also (b) from Heb. 13.7, 17, 24, where the ἡγούμενοι are expressly described as λαλοῦντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ; probably (c) from Clem.
(2)
Apostles, prophets, and teachers: cp. Paul (1 Cor. 12.28 f., where he
tacks on δυνάμεις, χαρίσματα ἰαμάτων, ἀντιλήψεις, κυβερνήσεις, γένη γλωσσῶν). When the fathers allude
to this
passage during later centuries, they do so as if the threefold
group still
held its own, oblivious often of the presence of the hierarchy.
Novatian, after
speaking of the apostles who had been comforted by the Paraclete, [[344b]] proceeds (de
Trinit. 29): “Hic est
qui prophetas in ecclesia constituit, magistro. erudite” (“This is he
who
places prophets in the church and instructs teachers “). Cyril of
Jerusalem (Catech.
18.27) will recognize no officials as essential to the church, not even
bishops, except the persons mentioned in the above passage. Ambrose (Hexaëm,
3.12, 50) writes: “God has girt the vine as it were with a trench of
heavenly
precepts and the custody of angels; . . . . he has set in the church as
it were
a tower of apostles, prophets, and teachers, who are wont to safeguard
the
peace of the church” (“Circumdedit enim vineam velut vallo quodam
caelestium
praeceptorum et angelorum custodia . . . . posuit in ecclesia velut
turrim
apostolorum et prophetarum atque doctorum, qui solent pro ecclesiae
pace
praetendere”; see in Ps. 118, Sermo 22, ch. 15).
Vincent of Lerin
(Commonit. 37, 38) speaks of false apostles, false prophets,
false teachers;
in ch. 40, where one expects to hear of bishops, only apostles and
prophets and
teachers are mentioned. Paulinus of Nola (Opera, ed. Hartel, 1
p. 411
f.) addressed an inquiry to Augustine upon apostles, prophets and
teachers,
evangelists and pastors. He remarks very significantly: “In omnibus his
diversis nominibus simile et prope unum doctrinae officium video
fruisse
tractatum” (“Under all these different names I see that a like and
almost
identical order of doctrine has been preserved”), and rightly assumes
that the
prophets cannot be those of the Old Testament, but must be Christian
prophets.
(3)
Prophets and teachers, who select apostles from their number (Acts
13.1).
(4)
Apostles, prophets, and teachers: the Didachê (adding bishops and
deacons).
(5)
Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers: Ephes. 4.11.
(6)
Apostles and teachers (prophets being purposely omitted), with bishops
and
deacons in addition: Hermas, Sim. 9.
(7)
Apostles (prophets), bishops, teachers, deacons: Hermas, Vis. 3.
(8)
Apostles, teachers, prophets: Clem. Hom. 11.35, μέμνησθε ἀπόστολον ἢ διδάσκαλον ἢ προφήτην.
(9)
Apostles and prophets (the close connection of the two follows at an
early
period from Matt. 10.41): Rev. 18.20 (2.2, 20), Ephes. 2.20, 3.5, Did.
11.3.
(According to Irenaeus,
3.2.4, John the Baptist was at once a prophet and an apostle: “et
prophetae et
apostoli locum habuit”; according to Hippolytus, de Antichr.
50, John
the disciple was at once an apostle and prophet.) So the opponent of
the Alogi,
in Epiph. Haer. 51.35, etc.; cp. Didasc., de Charism.
[Lagarde, Reliq.
pp. 4,19 f.]: οἱ
προφῆταιἐφ’ ἡμῶν προφητεύσαντες οὐ παρεξέτειναν ἑαυτοὺς τοῖς ἀποστόλοις (“our prophets did not
measure themselves with the
apostles”).
(10)
Prophets and teachers: Acts 13.1 (2 Pet. 2.1), Did. 13.1-2, 14.1-2,
Pseudo-Clem. de Virg. 1.11: “Ne
multi inter vos sint doctores neque omnes sitis prophetae” (loc. cit.
λόγος διδαχῆς ἢ προφητείας ἢ διακονίας). In the later literature,
the
combination (false prophets and false teachers) still occurs
frequently; [[345b]] see,
e.g., Orig., Hom. 2 in
Ezek.
(Lommatzsch, 14. pp. 33, 37), and Vincent of Lerin. loc. cit.
15.23. In
the pseudo-Clementine Homilies Jesus himself is called “our teacher and
prophet.”
(11)
Apostles and teachers (Hermas): 1 Tim. 2.7, 2 Tim. 1.11, Clem. Strom.
7.16.103:
οἱ μακάριοι ἀπόστολοί τε καὶ διδάσκαλοι, Eclog. 23.
(12)
Polycarp is described in the epistle of his church (16.2) as ἐν τοῖς καθ’ ἡμᾶς χρὸνοις διδάσκαλος ἀποστολικὸς καὶ προφητικός, γενόμενος ἐπίσκοπος τῆς ἐν Σμὐρνῃ καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας (cp. Acta Pion. 1: ἀποστολικὸς ἀνὴρ τῶν καθ’ ἡμᾶς γενόμενος.) Here the ancient and
honorable
predicates are conjoined and applied to a “bishop.” But it is plain
that there
was something wholly exceptional in an apostolic and prophetic teacher
surviving “in our time.” The way in which Eusebius speaks is very
noticeable (Mart.
Pal. 11.1): of one group of twelve martyrs he says, they partook of
προφητικοῦ τινος ἢ καὶ ἀποστολικοῦ χαρίσματος καὶ ἀριθμοῦ (a prophetic or apostolic
grace and
number).
(13)
Alexander the Phrygian is thus described in the epistle from Lyons
(Eus. H.E.
5.1.49): γνωστὸς σχεδὸν πᾶσι διὰ τὴν πρὸς θεὸν ἀγάπην καὶ παρρησίαν τοῦ λόγου · ἦν γὰρ καὶ οὐκ ἄμοιρος ἀποστολικοῦ χαρίσματος (“Well
known to all on account of his love to God and boldness of speech --
for he was
not without a share of apostolic grace”).
An
admirable proof that the prophets were bestowed on the church as a
whole,
instead of on any individual congregation (that it was so with the
apostles,
goes without saying), is furnished by Valentinian circles (Excerpta
ex
Theodot. 24): “The Valentinians declare that the Spirit possessed
by each
individual of the prophets for service is poured out on all members of
the
church ; wherefore the tokens of the Spirit, i.e., healing and
prophecy, are
performed by the church” (λέγουσιν
οἱ Οὐαλεντινιανοὶ ὅτι ὃ κατὰ εἷς τῶν προφητῶν ἔσχεν πνεῦμα ἐξαίρετον εἰς διακονίαν, τοῦτο ἐπὶ πάντας τοὺς τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἐξεχύθη · διὸ
καὶ τὰ σημεῖα τοῦ πνεύματος ἰάσεις καὶ προφητεῖαι διὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἐπιτελοῦνται). Compare the claims of the
Montanist
prophets and the history of the “Shepherd” of Hermas in the church.
The
passage from the Eclogues of Clement, referred to under (11),
reads as
follows: ὥσπερ
διὰ τοῦ σώματος ὁ σωτὴρ ἐλάλει καὶ ἰᾶτο, οὕτως καὶ πρότερον “διὰ τῶν προφητῶν,” νῦν δὲ “διὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ διδασκάλων” . . . . καὶ πάντοτε ἄνθρωπον ὁ φιλάνθρωπος ἐνδύεται θεὸς εἰς τὴν ἀνθρώπων σωτηρίαν, πρότερον μὲν τοὺς προφήτας, νῦν δὲ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν (“Even as the Savior spake
and healed
through his body, so did he formerly by the prophets and so does he now
by the
apostles and teachers. . . . . Everywhere the God who loves men equips
man to
save men, formerly the prophets and now the church”). This passage is
very
instructive; but, as is evident, the old threefold group is already
broken up,
the prophets being merely admitted and recognized as Old Testament
prophets. I
leave it an open question whether the πνευματικοί of Origen (de Orat.
28) are
connected with our group of teachers. The τάξις προφητῶν μαρτύρων τε καὶ ἀποστόλων (Hipp. de Antichr.
59) is
irrelevant in this connection.
As for the origin of the
threefold
group, we have shown that while its component parts existed in Judaism,
their
combination cannot be explained from such a quarter. One might be
inclined to
trace it back to Jesus Christ himself, for he once sent out his
disciples as
missionaries (apostles), and he seems (according to Matt. 10.41) to
have spoken
of itinerant preaching prophets whom he set on foot. But the
historicity of the
latter passage is disputed;\71/ Jesus expressly denied the title
“teacher” to
his disciples (Matt. 23.8); and an injunction such as that implied in
the
creation of this threefold group does not at all tally with the general
preaching of Jesus or with the tenor of his instructions. We must
therefore
assume that the rise of the threefold group and the esteem in which it
was held
by the community at
\71/
I would point, not to the words of Matt. 11.13 (πάντες οἱ προφῆται καὶ ὁ νόμος ἕως Ἰωάννου ἐπροφήτευσαν), since that saying perhaps
(see p.
333) covers a new type of prophets, but certainly to the situation in
which
Matt. 10.40 f. is uttered; the latter seems to presuppose the
commencement and
prosecution of missionary labors.
IV
The Didachê
begins by grouping together apostles and prophets (11.3), and directing
that the
ordinance of the gospel is to hold good as regards both of them;
but in its
later chapters it groups prophets and teachers together and is silent
on the
apostles. From this it follows, as has been already pointed out, that
the
prophets had something in common with apostles on the one hand and with
teachers on the other. The former characteristic may be inferred from
the
expression κατὰ
τὸ δόγμα τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, as well as from the
detailed
injunctions that follow.\72/ The “ordinance of the gospel” can mean
only the
rules which we read in Mark 6 (and parallels),\73/ and this assumption
is
corroborated by the fact that in Matt. 10, which puts together the
instructions
for apostles, itinerant prophets also are mentioned, who are supposed
to be
penniless. To be penniless, therefore, was considered absolutely
essential
for apostles and prophets; this is the view shared by 3 John,
Origen, and Eusebius. John remarks
that the missionaries wandered about and preached, without accepting
anything
from pagans. They must therefore have been instructed to “accept” from
Christians. Origen (contra Cels. 3.9) writes: “Christians do all
in
their power to spread the faith all over the world. Some of them
accordingly
make it the business of their life to wander not only from city to city
but
from township to township and village to village, in order to gain
fresh
converts for the Lord. Nor could [[348]] one
say they do this for the sake of gain, since they often refuse to
accept so
much as the bare necessities of life; even if necessity drives
them sometimes
to accept a gift, they are content with getting their most pressing
needs
satisfied, although many people are ready to give them much more than
that. [[Note
to editor – new paragraph here?]] And
if at the present day, owing to the large number of people who are
converted,
some rich men of good position and delicate high-born women give
hospitality to
the messengers of the faith, will any one venture to assert that some
of the
latter preach the Christian faith merely for the sake of being honored?
In the
early days, when great peril threatened the preachers of the faith
especially,
such a suspicion could not easily have been entertained; and even at
the
present day the discredit with which Christians are assailed by
unbelievers
outweighs any honor that some of their fellow-believers show to them.”
Eusebius
(H.E. 3.37) writes: “Very many of the disciples of that age
(pupils of
the apostles), whose heart had been ravished by the divine Word with a
burning
love for philosophy [i.e., asceticism], had first fulfilled the command
of the
Savior and divided their goods among the needy. Then they set out on
long
journeys, performing the office of evangelists, eagerly
striving to
preach Christ to those who as yet had never heard the word of faith,
and to
deliver to them the holy gospels. In foreign lands they simply laid the
foundations of the faith. That done, they appointed others as
shepherds,
entrusting them with the care of the new growth, while they themselves
proceeded
with the grace and co-operation of God to other countries and to other
peoples.”
See, too, H.E. 5.10.2, where, in connection with the end
of the second
century, we read: “There were even yet many evangelists of the word
eager to
use their divinely inspired zeal, after the example of the apostles, to
increase and build up the divine Word. One of these was Pantaenus” (ἔνθεον ζῆλον ἀποστολικοῦ μιμήματος συνεισφέρειν ἐπ’ αὐξήσει καὶ οἰκοδομῇ τοῦ θείου λόγου προμηθούμενοι, ὧν εἶς γενόμενος καὶ Πανταῖνος).\74/ The second essential
for
apostles, [[349]] laid
down by the Didachê
side by side with poverty, namely, indefatigable missionary activity
(no
settling down), is endorsed by Origen and Eusebius also.\75/
\72/
“Let every apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord. But he
shall not
remain more than one day, or, if need be, two; if he remains for three
days, he
is a false prophet. And on his departure let the apostle .receive
nothing but
bread, till he finds shelter; if he asks for money, he is a false
prophet” (Πᾶς ὁ ἀπόστολος ἐρχόμενος πρὸς ὑμᾶς δεχθήτω ὡς κύριος · οὐ
μενεῖ δὲ εἰ μὴ ἡμέραν μίαν · ἐὰν
δὲ ᾖ χρεία, καὶ τὴν ἄλλην · τρεῖς
δὲ ἐὰν μείνῃ, ψευδοπροφήτης ἐστίν · ἐξερχόμενος
δὲ ὁ ἀπόστολος μηδὲν λαμβανέτω εἰ μὴ ἄρτον ἕως οὗ αὐλισθῇ · ἐὰν
δὲ ἀργύριον αἰτῇ, ψευδοπροφήτης ἐστίν, 11.4-6).
\73/
Lietzmann (loc. cit. p. 486) objects that the words could not
mean what
apostles and prophets had to do, but simply how the community was to
treat
them. We are to think of passages like Matt. 10.40 f. But this view
seems to me
excluded by what follows (4 f.) in Did. 11. Here there is certainly an
injunction to the community, but the latter is to make the δόγμα the norm for its
treatment of these
officials, the δόγμα
laid down in the gospel; and this is to be found in Mark 6 (and
parallels).
\74/
The word “evangelist” occurs in Ephes. 4.11, Acts 21.8, 2 Tim. 4.5, and
then in
the Apost. Canons (ch. 19). Then it recurs in Tertull. de
Praescr. 4, and de Corona, 9
(Hippol. de Antichr.
56, calls Luke apostle and evangelist). [[349b]]
This proves that any distinction between apostles and evangelists was
rarely
drawn in the early ages of the church; on the contrary, the apostles
themselves
were frequently described as εὐαγγελισάμενοι
(cp. Gal. 1.8, Clem.
\75/
Apostles have merely to preach the word; that is literally their one
occupation.
This conception, which Acts 6.6 already illustrates, lasted as long as
the era
of the actual apostles was remembered. The Abgar-source, transcribed by
Eusebius (H.E. 1.13), also confirms the idea that no apostle was
to
receive any money, and makes one notable addition to the duties of the
apostolate. When Thaddaeus was summoned to preach God's word to a small
group,
he remarked: “I shall say nothing in the meantime, for I am sent to
preach the
word of God (κηρῦξαι)
publicly. But assemble all thy citizens in the morning, and I will
preach to
them.”
The Didachê
informs us that these itinerant missionaries were still called apostles
at the
opening of the second century. Origen and Eusebius assure us that they
existed
during the second century, and Origen indeed knows of such even in his
own day;
but the name of “apostle” was no longer borne,\76/ owing to the
heightened reverence
felt for the original apostles and also owing to the idea which gained
currency
even in the course of the second century, that the original apostles
had
already preached the gospel to the whole world. This idea prevented any
subsequent missionaries from being apostles, since they were no longer
the
first to preach the gospel to the nations.\77/
\76/
It is, of course, merely by way of sarcasm that Cyprian speaks of
Novatian's
apostles (Ep. 40.24).
\77/
Naturally, Eusebius thus comes into conflict with his own conception of
the
situation; compare 2.3, 3.1-4, and 3.37.
We have already
indicated how the extravagant estimate of the primitive apostles
arose.\78/
Their labors were to be looked upon as snaking amends for the fact that
Jesus
Christ did not himself labor as a missionary in every land.
Furthermore, the
belief that the world was near its end produced, by a sort of
inevitable
process, the idea that the gospel had by this time been preached
everywhere;
for the end could not come until [[350]] this
universal proclamation had been accomplished, and the credit of this
wonderful
extension was assigned to the apostles.\79/ [[Note
to
editor – New paragraph here?]] On these grounds the prestige of
the
primitive apostles shot up to so prodigious a height, that their
commission to
the whole world was put right into the creed.\80/ We are no longer in a
position nowadays to determine the degree of truth underlying the
belief in the
apostles' world-wide mission. In any case it must have been extremely
slight,
and any representation of the twelve apostles as a unity organized for
the
purpose of worldwide labors among the Gentile churches is to be
relegated
without hesitation to the province of legend.\81/
\78/
The idea of collective statements made by the apostles occurs as early
as the
Didachê (cp. its title), Jude and 2 Peter, and Justin (Apol.
1.62).
\79/
Cp. Tert. de Carne, 2: “Apostolorum erat tradere.” The idea of
the
apostolic tradition is primitive and not destitute of an historical
germ; it
was first of all in
\80/ Details in my
Lehrbuch
der Dogmengeschichte, 1.(3)
pp. 153-156 [Eng. trans. 1 pp. 160 f.]; I shall
return to the
legends of the mission in Book 4. Chap. 1, but without attempting to
exhaust
the endless materials; all I shall do is to touch upon them. The most
extreme
and eccentric allusion to the importance of the twelve apostles occurs
in the Pistis
Sophia, ch. 7 (Schmidt, p. 7), where Jesus says to the twelve: “Be
glad and
rejoice, for when I set about making the world, I was in command of
twelve
powers from the very first (as I have told you from the beginning),
which I had
taken from the twelve saviors (σωτῆρες)
of the treasure of light according to the commandment of the first
mystery.
These, then, I deposited in the womb of your mother, while I entered
the world
-- these that live now in your bodies. For these powers were given to
you in
the sight of all the world, since ye are to be the deliverers of the
world,
that ye may be able to endure . . . . the threats of the archons of the
world,
and the sufferings of the world, your perils and all your
persecutions.”
Compare ch. 8 (p. 9): “Be glad then and rejoice, for ye are blessed
above all
men on earth, since it is ye who are to be the deliverers of the
world.” In
Clement's Eclogues (c. 16) also the apostles are usually called
σωτῆρες τῶν ἀνθρώπων (“saviors
of men”). Origen calls them “kings” (Hom. 12.2, in Num. vol.
10. pp. 132
f.), and he does not reject the interpretation (de Princ. 2.8.5)
of the
saying “My soul is sorrowful even unto death” which made Jesus think of
the
apostles as his soul. The “multitudo credentium” are the body of
Christ, the
apostles are his soul!
\81/
It is worth noting that, according to the early Christian idea, the
Mosaic law
also had spread over the whole world. In their world-wide preaching,
the apostles
therefore came upon the results produced by that law (see, for example,
the
statements of Eusebius in the first book of his church-history).
Unfortunately,
we know next to nothing of any details concerning [[351]] the
missionaries (apostles) and their labors during the second century;
their very
names are lost, with the exception of Pantaenus, the Alexandrian
teacher, and
his mission to “
\82/
Cp. Hom. 11.4, in Num. vol. 10. p. 113: “Sicut in aliqua, verbi
gratia, civitate, ubi nondum
Christiani nati sunt, si accedat aliquis et docere incipiat, laboret,
instruat,
adducat ad fidem, et ipse postmodum its quos docuit princeps et
episcopus fiat.”
Yet even though
we cannot describe the labors of the apostles during the second century
-- and
by the opening of the third century only stragglers from this class
were still
to be met with -- the creation and the career of this heroic order form
of
themselves a topic of supreme interest. Their influence need not, of
course, be
overestimated. For, in the first place, we find the Didache primarily
concerned
with laying down rules to prevent abuses in the apostolic office; so
that by
the beginning of the second century, as we are not surprised to learn,
it must
have been already found necessary to guard against irregularity. In the
second
place, had apostles continued to play an important part in the second
century,
the stereotyped conception of the primitive apostles, with their
fundamental
and really exhaustive labors in the mission-field, could never have
arisen at
all or become so widely current. Probably, then, it is [[352]]
not too hazardous to affirm that the church really had never more than
two
apostles in the true sense of the term, one great and the other small,
viz.,
Paul and Peter -- unless perhaps we add John of Ephesus. The chief
credit for
the spread of Christianity scarcely belongs to the other regular
apostles,
penniless and itinerant, otherwise we should have heard of them, or at
least
have learnt their names; whereas even Eusebius was as ignorant about
them as we
are to-day. The chief credit for the spread of Christianity is due to
those who
were not regular apostles, and also to the “teachers.”
V
Though the
prophets,\83/ according to the Didachê and other witnesses, had
also to be
penniless like the apostles, they are not to be reckoned among the
regular
missionaries. Still, like the teachers, they were indirectly of
importance to
the mission, as their charismatic office qualified them for preaching
the word
of God, and, indeed, put them in the way of such a task. Their inspired
addresses were listened to by pagans as well as by Christians, and Paul
assumes
(1 Cor. 14.24), not without reason, that the former were especially
impressed
by the prophet's harangue and by his power of searching the hearer's
heart.
Down to the close of the second century the prophets retained their
position in
the church;\84/ but the Montanist movement brought [[353]]
early Christian prophecy at once to a head and to an end. Sporadic
traces of
it are still to be found in later years,\85/ but such prophets no
longer
possessed any significance for the church; in fact, they were quite
summarily
condemned by the clergy as false prophets. [[Note
to
editor – New paragraph here?]] Like the apostles, the prophets
occupied
a delicate and risky position. It was easy for them to degenerate. The
injunctions of the Didachê (ch. 11) indicate the sort of
precautions which
were considered necessary, even in the opening of the second century,
to
protect the churches against fraudulent prophets of the type sketched
by Lucian
in Proteus Peregrinus; and the latter volume agrees with the Didache,
inasmuch
as it describes Peregrinus in his prophetic capacity as now settled in
a
church, now itinerating in company with Christians who paid him special
honor
-- for prophets were not confined to any single church. Nor were even
prophetesses awanting; they were to be met with inside the Catholic
Church as
well as among the gnostics in particular.\86/
\83/
In the Gentile church they were steadily differentiated from the seers
or μάντεις (cp. Hermas, Mand.
11; Iren.
Fragm. 23 [ed.
\84/ Tertullian (de
Praescr. 3) no longer reckons
them as a special class: “Quid ergo, si episcopus, si diaconus, si
vidua, si
virgo, si doctor, si etiam martyr lapsus a regula fuerit?” (“What if a bishop, a
deacon, a widow,
a virgin, a teacher, or even a martyr, have fallen away from the rule
of faith
?”). In a very ancient Christian fragment discovered by Grenfell and
Hunt (The
Oxyrhynchus Papyri, 1, 1898, No. 5, pp. 8 f; ep. Sitzungsber.
der
Preuss. Akad. 1898, pp. 516 f.) these words occur: τὸ προφητικὸν μνεῦμα τὸ σωματεῖόν ἐστιν τῆς προφητικῆς τάξεως, ὃ ἔστιν τὸ σῶμα τῆς σαρκὸς Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τὸ μιγὲν τῇ ἀνθρωπότητι διὰ Μαρίας. The fragment perhaps
belongs to Melito's
last treatise περὶ
προφητείας, but
unfortunately it is so short and abrupt that no certain opinion is
possible.
For the expression ἡ
προφητικὴ τάξις, cp.
Serapion of Antioch's Ep. ad Cericum et Pontium (Eus. H.E.
5.19.2): ἡ
ἐνέργεια τῆς ψευδοῦς ταύτης τάξεως τῆς ἐπιλεγομένης νέας προφητείας. The expression must have
been common
about 200 CE.
\85/
Cp. Firmilian in Cyprian's Epist. 75.10.
\86/
From the Coptic version of the Acta Pauli (Paul's
correspondence with
the Corinthian church) we find that the prophet of the Corinthian
church who is
mentioned there was not a man but a woman (named Theonoe, not Theonas).
Another
prophetess, called Myrte, occurs in these Acts. Origen writes (Hom.
5.2, in
Judic. vol. 11. p. 250): “Though many judges in
The materials
and sources available for a study of the early Christian prophets are
extremely
voluminous, and the whole subject is bound up with a number of
questions which
are still unsettled; for example, the relation of the Christian
prophets to the
numerous categories of the pagan prophets (Egyptian, Syrian, and Greek)
who are
known to us from the literature and inscriptions of the period, is a
subject
which has never yet been investigated.\87/ However, these materials are
of no
use for [[354]] our
immediate purpose, as no
record of the missionary labors of the prophets is extant.
\87/
As impostors mingled here and there with the prophets, no sharp
distinction can
have existed. Celsus (Orig. c. Cels. 7.9.11) gives an extremely
[[354b]] interesting
description of the prophets,
as follows : “There are many who, though they are people of no
vocation,
with the utmost readiness, and on the slightest occasion, both within
and
without the sacred shrines, behave as if they were seized by the
prophetic
ecstasy. Others, roaming like tramps throughout cities and camps,
perform in
the same fashion in order to excite notice. Each is wont to cry, each
is glib
at proclaiming, ‘I am God,’ ‘I am the Son of God’ (παῖς θεοῦ), or ‘I am the Spirit of
God,’ ‘I have
come because the world is on the verge of ruin, and because you, O men,
are
perishing in your iniquities. But I would save you, and ye shall see me
soon
return with heavenly power! Blessed is he who now honors me! All others
I will
commit to everlasting fire, cities and lands and their inhabitants.
Those who
will not now awake to the punishments awaiting them, shall repent
and groan in
vain one day. But those who believe in me, I will preserve eternally. .
. . .’
These mighty threats are further mixed up with weird, half-crazy, and
perfectly
senseless words, in which no rational soul can discover any meaning, so
obscure
and unintelligible they are. Yet the first comer who is an idiot or an
impostor
can interpret them to suit his own fancy! . . . . These so-called
prophets,
whom more than once I have heard with my own ears, confessed their
foibles to
me, after I had exposed them, and acknowledged that they had themselves
invented their incomprehensible jargon.”
VI
The Didachê
mentions teachers twice (13.2, 15.1-2), and, what is more, as a special
class
within the churches. Their ministry was the same as that of the
prophets, a
ministry of the word; consequently they belonged to the “honored”
class, and,
like the prophets, could claim to be supported. On the other hand, they
were
evidently not obliged to be penniless;\88/ nor did they wander about,
but
resided in a particular community.
\88/
When Origen, in the story told by Eusebius (H.E. 6.3), carried
out the
gospel saying, not to have two staves, etc., it was a voluntary resolve
upon
his part. Shortly before that, we are told how he purchased an annuity
by
selling his books, in order to free himself from all care about a
livelihood.
These
statements are corroborated by such passages in our sources (see above,
pp. 336
f.) as group apostles, prophets, and teachers together, and further, by
a
series of separate testimonies which show that to be a teacher was a
vocation
in Christianity, and that the teacher enjoyed great repute not only in
the
second century, but partly also, as we shall see, in later years. First
of all,
the frequency with which we find authors protesting that they are not
writing
in the capacity of teachers (or issuing instructions) proves how
serious was
the veneration paid to a [[355]]
true
teacher, and how he was accorded the right of issuing injunctions
that were
universally valid and authoritative. [[Note
to editor –
New paragraph here?]] Thus Barnabas asserts : ἐγὼ δὲ οὐχ ὡς διδάσκαλος ἀλλ’ ὡς εἷς ὑμῶν ὑποδείξω (1.8, “I am no teacher, but
as one of
yourselves I will demonstrate”); and again, “Fain would I write many
things,
but not as a teacher” (πολλὰ
δὲ θέλων γράφειν οὐχ ὡς διδάσκαλος, 4.9).\89/ Ignatius
explains, οὐ διατάσσομαι ὑμῖν ὡς ὤν τις . . . . (“I do not command
you as if I were somebody . . .
. I address you as my school-fellows,” ad Eph. 3.1);\90/ and
Dionysius
of Alexandria in the third century still writes (Ep. ad Basil.):
ἐγὼ δὲ οὐχ ὡς διδάσκαλος, ἀλλ’ ὡς μετὰ πάσης ἁπλότητος προσῆκον ἡμᾶς ἀλλήλοις διαλέγεσθαι (“I speak not as a teacher,
but with
all the simplicity with which it befits us to address each other”).\91/
The
warning of the epistle of James (3.1): μὴ πολλοὶ διδάσκαλοι γίνεσθε, proves how this vocation
was coveted in the church, a
vocation of which Hermas pointedly remarks (Sim. 9.25.2) that
its
members had received the holy Spirit.\92/ Hermas also refers (Mand.
4.3.1) to a saying which he had heard from certain teachers with regard
to baptism,
and which the angel proceeds deliberately to endorse; this proves that
there
were teachers of high repute at Rome in the days of Hermas. [[Note to editor – New Paragraph here?]] [[added
note from
514: A whole series of teachers is mentioned by Clement of Alexandria,
in a
passage (Strom., 1.11) which also shows how international they were:
“My work
is meant to give a simple outline and sketch of those clear, vital
discourses
and of those blessed and truly notable men whom I have been privileged
to hear.
Of these, one, an Ionian, was in
\89/
On the other hand, in 9.9 he writes: οἶδεν ὁ τὴν ἔμφυτον δωρεὰν τῆς διδαχῆς αὐτοῦ θέμενος ἐν ὑμῖν (“He
knoweth, who hath placed in you the innate gift of his teaching”).
\90/
Note διατάσσομαι in this
passage, the term used by Ignatius of the apostles (Trall, 3.3, Rom.
4.3; cp. Trall. 7.1, τὰ
διατάγματα τῶν ἀποστόλων).
\91/
See further, Commodian, Instruct. 2.22.15: “Non sum ego doctor,
sed lex
docet”; 2.16.1: “Si quidem doctores, dum exspectant munera vestra aut
timent
personas, laxant singula vobis; et ego non doceo.”
\92/
Διδάσκαλοι οἱ διδάξαντες σεμνῶς καὶ ἁγνῶς τὸν λόγον τοῦ κυρίου. . . . . καθὼς καὶ παρέλαβον τὸ μνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον.
\93/
Cp. Did. 11.10: προφήτης,
εἰ ἃ διδάσκει οὐ ποιεῖ, ψευδοπροφήτης ἐστί (“If a prophet does not
practise what
he teaches, he is a false prophet”).
From this
passage it is plain that there were still teachers (and prophets) in
the
churches, that the former ranked below the latter (or had to submit to
a certain
supervision), and that, as we see from the whole chapter, gross abuses
had to
be dealt with in this order of the ministry. As was natural, this order
of
independent teachers who were in the service of the entire church
produced at
an early period prominent individuals who credited themselves with an
exceptionally
profound knowledge of the δικαιώματα
τοῦ θεοῦ (ordinances of God), and
consequently
addressed themselves, not to all and sundry, but to the advanced or
educated,
i.e., to any select body within Christendom. Insensibly, the
charismatic
teaching also passed over into the profane, and this marked the
point at
which Christian teachers as an institution had to undergo, and did
undergo, a [[357]]
change. It was inevitable that within
Christianity schools should be founded similar to the numerous
contemporary
schools which had been established by Greek and Roman philosophers.
They might
remain embedded, as it were, in Christianity; but they might also
develop very
readily in a sectarian direction, since this divisive tendency beset
any school
whatsoever. Hence the efforts of itinerant Christian apologists who,
like
Justin\94/ and Tatian,\95/ set up schools in the larger towns; hence
scholastic
establishments such as those of Rhodon and the two Theodoti at
Rome;\96/ hence
the enterprise of many so-called “gnostics”;
hence, above all, the Alexandrian catechetical school (with its
offshoots in
Caesarea Palest.), whose origin, of course, lies buried in
obscurity,\97/ and
the school of Lucian at Antioch (where we hear of Συλλουκιανισταί, i.e., a union similar
to those
of the philosophic schools). But as a direct counterpoise to the danger
of
having the church split up into schools, and the gospel handed over to
the
secular culture, the acumen, and the [[358]] ambition
of individual teachers,\98/ the consciousness of the church
finally asserted
its powers, and the word “school” became almost a term of reproach for
a
separatist ecclesiastical community.\99/ [[Note
to
editor – New paragraph here?]] Yet the “doctors” (διδάσκαλοι) -- I mean the
charismatic
teachers who were privileged to speak during the service, although they
did not
belong to the clergy -- did not become extinct all at once in the
communities;
indeed, they maintained their position longer than the apostles or the
prophets. From the outset they had been free from the “enthusiastic”
element
which characterized the latter and paved the way for their suppression.
Besides, the distinction of “milk” and “strong meat,” of different
degrees of
Christian σοφία,
σύνεσις, ἐπιστήμη, and γνῶσις, was always
indispensable.\100/ In consequence of this,
the διδάσκαλοι had
naturally to continue in the churches till the bulk of the
administrative
officials or priests came to possess the qualification of teachers, and
until
the bishop (together with the presbyters) assumed the task of educating
and
instructing the church. In several even of the large churches this
did not
take place till pretty late, i.e., till the second half of the third [[359]] century, or the
beginning of the fourth. [[Note to editor –
New paragraph here?]] Up to that
period “teachers” can still be traced here and there.\101/ Beside the
new and
compact organization of the churches (with the bishops, the college of
presbyters, and the deacons) these teachers rose like pillars of some
ruined
edifice which the storm had spared. They did not fit into the new order
of
things, and it is interesting to notice how they are shifted from one
place to
another. Tertullian's older\102/ (de Praescr. 3) is:
“bishop, deacon, widow,
virgin, teacher, martyr”! Instead of putting the teacher among
the
clergy, he thus ranks him among the spiritual heroes, and, what is
more,
assigns him the second place amongst them, next to the martyrs -- for
the order
of the list runs up to a climax. In the Acta Perpetuae et Felic.
as well
as in the Acta Saturnini et Dativi (under Diocletian; cp.
Ruinart's Acta
Martyr. Ratisbon, 1859, p. 418), both of African origin, we come
across the
title “presbyter doctor,” and from Cyprian (Ep. 29) we must also
infer
that in some churches the teachers were ranked in the college of
presbyters,
and entrusted in this capacity with the duty of examining the
readers.\103/ On
the other hand, in the account given by Hippolytus in Epiph. Haer.
42.2
(an account which refers to
\94/
Justin's are best known from the Acta Justini. He stands with
his
scholars before the judge Rusticus, who inquires, “Where do you meet?”
Justin
at first gives an evasive answer; his aim is to avoid any suggestion of
the
misleading idea that the Christians had a sacred spot for worship.
Then, in
reply to the urgent demand, “Where dost thou assemble thy scholars?” he
declares: ἐγὼ
ἐπάνω μένω τινὸς Μαρτίνου τοῦ Τιμωτίνου βαλανείου, καὶ παρὰ πάντα τὸν χρόνον τοῦτον -- ἐπεδήμησα δὲ τῇ Ῥωμαίων πόλει τοῦτο δεύτερον – οὐ
γινώσκω ἄλλην τινὰ συνέλευσιν εἰ μὴ τὴν ἐκείνου (“I stay above a certain
Martinus at
the Timotinian bath, and during all the time -- for this is my second
visit to
Rome -- I know of no other meeting-place but this”). Justin had also a
school
at
\95/
On Tatian's school, which became sectarian, see Iren. 1.28: οἰήματι διδασκάλου ἐπαρθεὶς . . . . ἴδιον χαρακτῆρα διδασκαλείου συνεστήσατο. Tatian came from Justin's
school.
\96/
For Rhodon, see Eus. H.E. 5.13 (he came from Tatian's school);
for the
Theodoti, whose school became sectarian and then attempted to transform
itself
into a church, see Eus. H.E. 5.28. Praxeas, who propagated his
doctrine
in
\97/
Cp. Eus. H.E. 5.10: ἡγεῖτο
ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ τῆς τῶν πιστῶν αὐτόθι διατριβῆς τῶν ἀπὸ παιδείας ἀνὴρ ἐπιδοξότατος, ὄνομα αὐτῷ Πανταῖνος, ἐξ ἀρχαίου ἔθους διδασκαλείου τῶν ἱερῶν λόγων παρ’ αὐτοῖς συνεστῶτος (“The school of the
faithful in
\98/
Hermas boasts that the good teachers (Sim. 9.25.2) “kept nothing at all back for
evil
intent -- G: on such teachers as introduced G (strange doctrines),
however, see
Sim. 9.19.2-3, 8.6.5; Vis. 3.7.1. It is noticeable that
in the
famous despatch of
\99/
The Theodotian church at
\100/
Cp. the Pauline epistles, Hebrews, Barnabas, etc., also Did. 11.2: διδάσκειν εἰς τὸ προσθεῖναι δικαιοσύνην καὶ γνῶσιν κυρίου (“Teach to the increase of
righteousness and the
knowledge of the Lord”).
\101/
Cp. Bonwetsch's remarks on Melito (Festschrift f. Oettingen,
1898, p.
51) “The teachers still occupy a prominent position in the church,
alongside of
the bishop. Together with him, they constitute the fixed order of the
church.
The same monition applies to both, that they nourish themselves on
sacred knowledge
and be heavenly minded. Teachers are also described as experts in
Scripture,
and tenants of the teacher's chair, who are exposed by their position
to the
danger of self-assumption. The bishops also occupy the teacher's chair,
as the
same passages show; but the teachers were able to retain their special
position
alongside of them, perhaps because not all bishops as yet possessed the
teaching gift.”
\102/
In de Praescr. 14, the “doctor” is also mentioned.
\103/
Cyprian (loc. cit.) also speaks of “doctones audientium,” but it
is
impossible to determine the relationship which he implies between these
and the
readers. As catechists, the doctors were now and then ranked among the
clergy,
and, in fact, in the college of presbyters. As against Lagarde, no
comma is to
be placed in Clem. Homil. 3.71 after πρεσβυτέρους: τιμᾶτε πρεσβυτέρους κατηχητάς, διακόνους χρησίμους, χήρας εὖ βεβιωκυίας (cp. above, p. 158).
This item of
information reaches us from
\104/
And in those of Clement. According to Quis Div. Salv. 41, the
Christian
is to choose for himself a teacher who shall watch over him as a
confessor. In Paed.
3.12.97 Clement discusses the difference between a pedagogue and a
teacher,
placing the latter above the former.
\105/
Here “spiritalis” (γνωστικός,
πνευματικός) is in
contrast to the teachers as well as to the priests. According to
Clement of
Alexandria, the “spiritual” person is apostle, prophet, and teacher,
superior
to all earthly dignitaries -- a view which Origen also favors.
\106/
“For even in the church, priests and doctors can beget children, even
as he who
wrote Gal. 4.19, and again in another place 1 Cor. 4.15. Therefore such
doctors
of the church refrain from begetting offspring, when they find an
irresponsive
audience!”
\107/
Eus. H.E. 6.19. Their arguments prove that the right of
“laymen” (for
the teachers were laymen) to speak at services of worship had become
extinct
throughout Egypt, Palestine, and most of the provinces, for the two
bishops
friendly to this proposal had to bring evidence for the practice from a
distance, and from comparatively remote churches. They write thus:
“Wherever
people are to be found who are able to profit the brethren, they are
exhorted
by the holy bishops to give addresses to the congregation; as, for
example,
Euelpis has been invited by Neon in Laranda, Paulinus by Celsus in
Iconium, and
Theodorus by Atticus in Synnada, all of whom are our blessed brethren.
Probably
this has also been done in other places unknown to us.” The three
persons
mentioned in this passage are the last of the “ancient” teachers who
are known
to us.
\108/
In this connection reference may perhaps be made to the important
statement of
Alexander, bishop of
\109/
On this order and office, originally a charismatic one, which under
certain
circumstances embraced the further duty of explaining the Scriptures,
cp. the
evidence I have stated in Texte u. Untersuch. 2.5, pp. 57 f.,
“On the
Origin of the Readership and the other Lower Orders” [Eng. trans. in
Sources of the Apostolic
Canons, by Wheatley and Owen (Messrs A. & C. Black)].
The early teachers
of the church were missionaries as well;\110/ pagans as well as
catechumens
entered their schools and listened to their teaching. We have definite
information upon this point in the case of Justin (see above), but
Tatian also
delivered [[363]] his
“Address” in order to
inform the pagan public that he had become a Christian teacher, and we
have a
similar tradition of the missionary work done by the heads of the
Alexandrian
catechetical school in the way of teaching. [[Note
to
editor – New paragraph here?]] Origen, too, had pagan hearers
whom he
instructed in the elements of Christian doctrine (cp. Eus. H.E.
6.3);
indeed, it is well known that even Julia Mamtea, the queen-mother, had
him
brought to Antioch that she might listen to his lectures (Eus. H.E.
6.21). Hippolytus also wrote her a treatise, of which fragments have
been
preserved in a Syriac version. When one lady of quality in
\110/
Tertullian complains that the heretical teachers, instead of engaging
in
mission work, merely tried to win over catholic Christians; cp. de Praescr. 42: “De verbi
autem administratione quid dicam, cum hoc sit negotium haereticis, non
ethnicos
convertendi, sed nostros evertendi. Ita
fit, ut ruinas facilius operentur stantium aedificiorum quam
exstructionern
iacentium ruinarum” (“But concerning the ministry of the word, what
shall I
say? for heretics make it their business not to convert pagans but to
subvert
our people. . . . . Thus they can effect the ruin of buildings which
are
standing more easily than the erection of ruins that lie low”). See
also adv.
Marc 2.1. I shall return to this complaint later on.
\111/
It was the task of apologists and teachers to exhibit the Christian
faith in
its various stages, and to prove it. Rhodon (Eus. H.E. 5.13)
says of the
gnostic Apelles: διδάσκαλος
εἶναι λέγων οὐκ ἤδει τὸ διδασκόμενον ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ κρατύνειν (“Though calling himself a
teacher, he knew not how to
confirm what he taught’). “Non difficile est doctori,” says Cyprian (Ep.73.3),
“vera et legitima insinuare ei qui haeretica pravitate damnata et
ecclesiastica
veritate comperta ad hoc venit -at discat, ad hoc discit ut vivat” (“It
is not
hard for a teacher to instil what is true and genuine into the mind of
a man
who, having condemned heretical evil and learnt the church's truth,
comes to
learn, and learns [[364b]]
in order that he
may live”). Everyone knows the importance of apologetic to the
propaganda of
Judaism, and Christians entered on a rich inheritance at this and at
other
points, since their teachers were able to take over the principles and
material
of Jewish apologetic. Directly or indirectly, most of the Christian
apologists
probably depended on Philo and the apologetic volumes of selections
made by
Alexandrian Judaism as well as philosophical compendia of criticisms
upon ancient
mythology. As for the dissemination of apologies throughout the church,
Justin's at least was read very soon in very different sections of the
church;
Irenaeus knew it in
The apologists
set themselves a number of tasks, emphasizing and elucidating now one,
now
another aspect of the truth. They criticized the legal procedure of the
state
against Christians; they contradicted the revolting charges, moral and
political, with which they were assailed; they criticized the pagan
mythology
and the state-religion; they defined, in very different ways, their
attitude to
Greek philosophy, and tried [[365]]
partly
to side with it, partly to oppose it;\112/ they undertook an analysis
of
ordinary life, public and private ; they criticized the achievements of
culture
and the sources as well as the consequences of conventional education.
Still
further, they stated the essence of Christianity, its doctrines of God,
providence, virtue, sin, and retribution, as well as the right of their
religion to lay claim to revelation and to uniqueness. They developed
the
Logos-idea in connection with Jesus Christ, whose ethics, preaching,
and
victory over demons they depicted. Finally, they tried to furnish
proofs for
the metaphysical and ethical content of Christianity, to rise from a
mere
opinion to a reasoned conviction, and at the same time -- by means of
the Old
Testament -- to prove that their religion was not a mere novelty but
the
primitive religion of mankind.\113/ The most important of these proofs
included
those drawn from the fulfilment of prophecy, from the moral energy of
the
faith, from its enlightenment of the reason, and from the fact of the
victory
over demons.
\112/
Three different attitudes to Greek philosophy were adopted: it
contained real
elements of truth, due to the working of the Logos; or these were
plagiarized
from the Old Testament; or they were simply demonic replicas of the
truth, as
in the case of pagan mythology.
\113/ Literary
fabrications, which were not uncommon in other departments (cp. the
interpolation in Josephus, etc.), played a rôle of their own
here. But the
forgeries which appeared in the second century seem to me to be for the
most
part of Jewish origin. In the third century things were different.
The
apologists also engaged in public discussions with pagans (Justin, Apol.
2, and the Cynic philosopher Crescens; Minucius Felix and Octavius) and
Jews
(Justin, Dial. with Trypho; Tertull. adv. Jud. 1). In
their
writings some claimed the right of speaking in the name of God and
truth; and
although (strictly speaking) they do not belong to the charismatic
teachers, they
describe themselves as “taught of God.”\114/
\114/ Compare,
e.g., Aristides, Apol. 2: “God himself granted me power to
speak about
him wisely.” Diogn. Ep. 1: τοῦ
θεοῦ τοῦ καὶ τὸ λέγειν καὶ τὸ ἀκούειν ἡμῖν χορηγοῦντος αἰτοῦμαι δοθῆναι ἐμοὶ μὲν εἰπεῖν οὕτως, κ.τ.λ. (“God,
who supplies us both with speech and hearing, I pray to grant me
utterance so
as,” etc.).
The schools
established by these teachers could only be regarded by the public
and the
authorities as philosophic schools; [[366]]
indeed, the apologists avowed themselves to be philosophers\115/ and
their
doctrine a philosophy,\116/ so that they participated here and there in
the
advantages enjoyed by philosophic schools, particularly in the freedom
of
action they possessed. This never can have lasted any time, however.
Ere long
the Government was compelled to note that the preponderating
element in these
schools was not scientific but practical, and that they were the
outcome of the
illegal “religio
Christiana.”\117/
\115/
Some of them even retained the mantle of the philosopher; at an early
period in
the church Justin was described as “philosopher and martyr.”
\116/
Τὶ γαρ, says Justin's (Dial. c.
Tryph.
1) Trypho, a tropos of contemporary philosophy, οὐκ οἱ φιλόσοφοι περὶ θεοῦ τὸν ἅπαντα ποιοῦνται λόγον, καὶ περὶ μοναρχίας αὐτοῖς καὶ προνοίας αἱ ζητήσεις γίγνονται ἑκάστοτε; ἢ οὺ τοῦτο ἔργον ἐστὶ φιλοσοφίας, ἐξετάζειν περὶ τοῦ θειόυ;
(“Why not? do not the philosophers make all their discourses turn upon
the
subject of God, and are they not always engaged in questions about his
sole
rule and providence? Is not this the very business of philosophy, to
inquire
concerning the Godhead?”). Cp. Melito's phrase, ἡ καθ’ ἡμᾶς φιλοσοφία. Similarly others.
\117/
The apologists, on the one hand, complain that pagans treat
Christianity at
best as a human philosophy, and on the other hand claim that, as
such,
Christianity should be conceded the liberty enjoyed by a philosophy.
Tertullian
(Apol. 46. f.) expatiates on this point at great length;
Plainly, the question
was one of practical moment, the aim of Christians being to retain, as
philosophic schools and as philosophers, at least some measure of
freedom, when
a thoroughgoing recognition of their claims could not be insisted upon.
“Who
forces a philosopher to sacrifice or take an oath or exhibit useless
lamps at
VII
“Plures
efficimur quotiens metimur a vobis; semen est sanguis Christianorum . .
. .
illa ipsa obstinatio, quam exprobratis magistra est” – so
Tertullian cries to
the authorities (Apol. 1: “The oftener we are mown down by you,
the
larger grow our numbers. The blood of Christians is a seed…That very
obstinacy
which you reprobate is our instructress”). The most numerous and
successful
missionaries of the Christian religion were not the regular teachers
but
Christians themselves, in virtue of their loyalty and courage. How
little we
hear of the former and their results! How much we hear of the effects [[367]] produced by the
latter! [[Note to editor – New paragraph
here?]] Above all,
every confessor and martyr was a missionary; he not merely confirmed
the faith
of those who were already won, but also enlisted new members by his
testimony
and his death. Over and again this result is noted in the Acts of the
martyrs,
though it would lead us too far afield to recapitulate such tales.
While they
lay in prison, while they stood before the judge, on the road to
execution, and
by means of the exccution itself, they won people for the faith. Ay,
and even
after death. One contemporary document (cp. Euseb. 6.5) describes how
Potamitena, an Alexandrian martyr during the reign of Septimius
Severus,
appeared immediately after dcath even to non-Christians in the city,
and how
they were converted by this vision. This is by no means incredible. The
executions of the martyrs (legally carried out, of course) must have
made an
impression which startled and stirred wide circles of people,
suggesting to
their minds the question: Who is to blame, the condemned person or the
judge?\118/ Looking at the earnestness, the readiness for sacrifice,
and the
steadfastness of these Christians, people found it difficult to think
that they
were to blame. Thus it was by no means an empty phrase, when Tertullian
and
others like him asserted that the blood of Christians was a seed.
\118/
In the ancient epistle of the Smyrniote church on the death of
Polycarp, we
already find Polycarp a subject of general talk among the pagans. In
the Vita
Cypriani (ch. 1), also, there is the following allusion: “Non quo
aliquem
gentilium lateat tanti viri vita” (“Not that the life of so great a man
can be
unknown to any of the heathen”).
Nevertheless,
it was not merely the confessors and martyrs who were missionaries. It
was characteristic
of this religion that everyone who seriously confessed the faith proved
of
service to its propaganda.\119/ Christians are to “let their light
shine, that
pagans may see their good works and glorify the Father in heaven.” If
this
dominated all their life, and if they lived [[368]]
according to the precepts of their religion, they could not be hidden
at all;
by their very mode of living they could not fail to preach their faith
plainly
and audibly.\120/ Then there was the conviction that the day of
judgment was at
hand, and that they were debtors to the heathen. Furthermore, so far
from
narrowing Christianity, the exclusiveness of the gospel was a powerful
aid in
promoting its mission, owing to the sharp dilemma which it involved.
\119/
“Bonum huius sectae usu iam et de commercio innotuit,” says Tertullian (Apol.
46) very distinctly (“The worth of this sect is now well known for its
benefits
as well as from the intercourse of life”); de Pallio, 6:
“Elinguis philo
sophia vita contenta est” (“Life is content with even a tongueless
philosophy”).
What Tertullian makes the pallium say (ch. 5) is true of
Christians (cp.
above, p. 310). Compare also what has been already specified in Book 2,
Chap.
4, and what is stated afterwards in Chap. 4 of this Book.
\120/
In the Didasc. Apost. (cp. Achelis in Texte u. Untersuchungen,
25.2 pp.
276, 80, 76 f.) we find that the church-widows made proselytes.
We cannot
hesitate to believe that the great mission of Christianity was in
reality
accomplished by means of informal missionaries. Justin says so quite
explicitly. What won him over was the impression made by the moral life
which
he found among Christians in general. How this life stood apart from
that of
pagans even in the ordinary round of the day, how it had to be or ought
to be a
constant declaration of the gospel -- all this is vividly
portrayed by
Tertullian in the passage where he adjures his wife not to marry a
pagan
husband after he is dead (ad Uxor. 2.4-6). We may safely assume,
too,
that women did play a leading role in the spread of this religion (see
below,
Book 4, Chap. 2). But it is impossible to see in any one class of
people inside
the church the chief agents of the Christian propaganda. In particular,
we
cannot think of the army in this connection. Even in the army there
were Christians,
no doubt, but it was not easy to combine Christianity and military
service.
Previous to the reign of
\121/
[Harnack bk3 ch1, 369- scanned by Moises
Bassan, March 2004]
[[369]]
EXCURSUS
TRAVELLING:
THE EXCHANGE OF LETTERS AND LITERATURE\122/
\122/
Cp. Zahn's Weltkehr and Kirche während der drei ersten
Jahrhunderte
(1877); Ramsay in Expositor, vol. 8, Dec. 1903, pp. 401 f. (“Travel and
Correspondence among the Early Christians”) [also reproduced in his Letters
to the Seven Churches, 1904, ch. 1], his Church: in the Roman
Entfiire, pp.
364 f., and his article on “Travel” in Hastings' Dictionary of the
Bible.
“It is the simple truth that travelling, whether for business or for
pleasure,
was contemplated and performed under the empire with an indifference,
confidence, and, above all, certainty which were unknown in after
centuries
until the introduction of steamers and the consequent increase in ease
and
sureness of communication.” Compare the direct and indirect evidence of
Philo,
Acts, Pliny, Appian, Plutarch, Epictetus, Aristides, etc. lren. 4.30.3:
“Mundus
pacem habet per Romanos, et nos sine timore in viis ambulamus et
navigamus quocumquc
voluerimus” (“The world enjoys peace, thanks to the Romans, and we can
travel
by road and sea wherever we wish, unafraid”). One merchant boasts, in
an
inscription on a tomb at
THE apostles, as well as
many of the
prophets, travelled unceasingly in the interests of their mission. The
journeys
of Paul from Antioch to Rome, and probably to Spain, lie in the clear
light of
history, but -- to judge from his letters -- his fellow-workers and
companions
were also continually on the [[370]]
move,
partly along with him, and partly on their own account.\123/ One thinks
especially of that missionary couple, Aquila and Priscilla. To study
and state
in detail the journeys of Paul and the rest of these missionaries would
lead us
too far afield, nor would it be relevant to our immediate purpose. Paul
felt
that the Spirit of God drove him on, revealing his route and
destination; but
this did not supersede the exercise of deliberation and reflection in
his own
mind, and evidences of the latter may be found repeatedly throughout
his
travels. Peter also journeyed as a missionary; he too reached
\123/
Read the sixteenth chapter of Romans in particular, and see what a
number of
Paul's acquaintances were in
However,
what interests us at present is not so much the travels of the regular
missionaries as the journeys undertaken by other prominent Christians,
-from
which we may learn the vitality of personal communication and
intercourse
throughout the early centuries. In this connection the Roman church
became
surprisingly prominent. The majority of the Christians with whose
travels we
are acquainted made it their goal.\124/
\124/
See Caspari, Quellen z. Taufsymbol, vol. 3 (1875).
Justin,
Hegesippus, Julius Africanus, and Origen were Christian teachers who
were
specially travelled men, i.e., men who had gone over a large number of
the
churches. Justin, who came from
\125/
Abercius turned up at
The following notable
Christians\126/
journeyed from abroad to
\126/The
apostolic age is left out of account. It is very probable, I think,
that Simon
Magus also really came to
\127/
Euelpistus and Hierax, however, were probably involuntary travellers;
they seem
to have come to
\128/Different
motives prompted a journey to
Shortly
after the middle of the second century, Melito of Sardes journeyed to
As for the exchange of letters,\129/ I
must content myself with noting the salient points. Here, too, the
Roman church
occupies the foreground. We know of the following letters and
despatches issued
from it: --
\129/The
churches also communicated to each other the Eucharist. The earliest
evidence
is that of Irenaeus in the letter to Victor of Rome (Eus. H.E.
5.24.15).
Among the non-Roman letters
are to be
noted: those of Ignatius to the Asiatic churches and to Rome, that
written by
Polycarp of Smyrna to Philippi and other churches in the neighborhood,
the
large collection of those written by Dionysius of Corinth (to Athens,
Lacedaemon,
Nicomedia, Crete, Pontus, Rome), the large collections of Origen's
letters (no
longer extant), of Cyprian's (to the African churches, to Rome, Spain,
Gaul,
Cappadocia), and of Novatian's (to a very large number of churches
throughout
all Christendom: no longer extant), and of those written by Dionysius
of
Alexandria (preserved in fragments).\130/ Letters were sent from
Cappadocia,
Spain, and Gaul to Cyprian (Rome) ; the synod which gathered in Antioch
to deal
with Paul of Samosata, wrote to all the churches of Christendom ; and
Alexander
of Alexandria, as well [[374]]
as Arius,
wrote letters to a large number of churches in the Eastern empire.\131/
\130/
He even wrote to the brethren in
\131/
Evidence for all these letters will be found in my Geschichte der
altchristlichen Litteratur, vol. 1.
The
more important Christian writings also circulated with astonishing
rapidity.\132/ Out of the wealth of material at our disposal, the
following
instances may be adduced: --
\132/
On this point also I may refer to my History of the literature, where
the
ancient testimony for each writing is carefully catalogued. Down to
about the
reign of Commodus the number of Christian writings is not very
striking, if one
leaves out the heretical productions; but when the latter are included,
as they
must be, it is very large.
Numerous
writings of the Roman Hippolytus were circulated throughout the East.
What a
large number of Christian writings were gathered from all parts of the
world in
the library at
\133/Compare
on this point the two tables, given in my Litteratur-Geschichte,
vol. 1
pp. 883-886, of “Early Christian Greek Writings in old Latin Versions,”
and “Early
Christian Greek Writings in old Syriac Versions.” No writing is
translated into
a foreign language until it appears to be indispensable for the
purposes of
edification or of information. Compare, in the light of this, the
extraordinary
amount of early Christian literature which was translated at an early
period
into Latin or Syriac. It is particularly interesting to ascertain what
writings
were rendered into Latin as well as into Syriac. Their number was
considerable,
and this forms an unerring aid in answering the question, which of the
early
Christian writings were most widely circulated and most influential.
Very
little was translated into Greek from Latin (Tertullian's Apology,
Cyprian's epistles) in the pre-Constantine period.
These
data are merely intended to give an approximate idea of how vital was
the
intercourse, personal and epistolary and literary, between the various
churches, and also between prominent teachers of the day. It is not
easy to
exaggerate the significance of this fact foission and propaganda of
Christianity. The co-operation, the brotherliness, and moreover [[376]] the mental activity
of Christians, are
patent in this connection, and they were powerful levers in the
extension of
-the cause. Furthermore, they must have made a powerful impression on
the
outside spectator, besides guaranteeing a certain unity in the
development of
the religion and ensuring the fact that when a Christian passed from
the East
to the West, or from one distant church to another, he never felt
himself a
stranger. Down to the age of
So far as I
know, the technical side of the spread of early Christian literature
has not
yet been investigated, and any results that can be reached are far from
numerous.\134/ We must realize, however, that a large number of these
writings,
not excluding the oldest and most important of them, together with
almost all the
epistolary literature, was never “edited” in the technical sense of the
term --
never, at any rate, until after some generations [[377]]
had passed. There were no editions of the New Testament (or of the
Old?) until
Origen (i.e., the Theodotian), although Marcion's New Testament
deserves to be
called a critical revision and edition, while revised editions.were
meant by
those early fathers who bewailed the falsification of the Bible texts
by the
gnostics. For the large majority of early Christian writings the
exemplars in
the library at
\134/
Cp. however, what Sulpicius Severus (Dial. 1.23, in the light of
3.17)
says of his little volume on “The Life of S. Martin.” Postumianus, the
interrogator, says: “Nunquam a dextera mea liber iste discedit. nam si
agnoscis, ecce -- et aperit librum qui veste latebat -- en ipsum! hic
mihi,
inquit, terra ac marl comes, hic in peregrinatione tota socius et
consolator
fuit. sed referam tibi sane, quo liber iste penetrarit, et quam nullus
fere in
orbe terrarum locus sit, ubi non nrateria tam felicis historiae
pervulgata
teneatur. primus eum Romanae urbi vir studiossimus tui Paulinus
invexit; deinde
cum tota certatim urbe raperetur, exultantes librarios vidi, quad nihil
ab his
quaestiosius haberetur, siquidem nihil ilia promptius, nihil carius
venderetur.
hic navigationis meae cursmn longe ante' praegressus, cum ad Africam
veni, iam
per totam Carthaginem legebatur. solus cum Cyrenensis ille presbyter
non
habebat, sed me largiente descripsit. nam quid ego de
Unedited
or unpublished writings were naturally exposed in a special degree to
the risk
of falsification. The church fathers are full of complaints on this
score. Yet
even those which were edited were not preserved with due care.\135/ [[378]]
\135/
To give one or two instances. Dionysius of Corinth found that his
letters were
circulating in falsified shape even during his own lifetime; lie
comforts
himself naively with the thought that even the Scriptures shared the
same fate
(so, apropos of Origen's writings, Sulpic. Sever. Dial. 1.7).
Irenaeus
adjures all future copyists of his works not to corrupt them, and to
copy out
his adjuration (Eus. H.E. 5.20). But the most striking proof of
the
prevailing uncertainty in texts is afforded by the fact that only a
century and
a half after Cyprian an attempt was actually made to set aside all his
letters
on the baptism of heretics as forgeries. Augustine's remarks on the
matter are
quite as remarkable (Ep. 93.38). He regards the hypothesis as
possible,
though he does not agree with it: “Non desunt, qui hoc Cyprianum
prorsus non
sensisse contendant, sed, sub eius nomine a praesumptoribus atque
mendacibus
fuisse confictum. neque enim sic potuit integritas atque notitia
litterarum
unius quamlibet inlustris episcopi custodivi quemadmodum scriptura
canonica tot
linguarum litteris et ordine ac succession celebrationis [[378b]] ecclesiasticae
custoditur, contra, quam
tamen non defuerat qui sub nominibus apostoloruni multa confingerent
frustra
quidem, quia illa sic commendata, sic celebrata, sic nota est” (“There
are,
indeed, some people who assert that Cyprian did not hold such opinions
at all,
but that the correspondence has been composed in his name by daring
forgers.
For the writings of a bishop, however distinguished, could not indeed
be
preserved in their integrity, like the holy canonical Scriptures, by
ecclesiastical order and use and regular succession -- though even here
there
have actually been people who issued many fabrications under the names
of
apostles. It was useless, however, for Scripture was too well attested,
too
well known, too familiar, to permit of them succeeding in their
designs”).
-- How Tertullian fared with the second edition of his anti-Marcion, he
tells
us himself: “Hanc compositionem nondum exemplariis suffectam
fraude tune
fratris, dehinc apostatae, amisi, qui forte descripserat quaedam
mendosissime
et exhibuit frequentiae” (“I lost it, before it was finally published,
by the
fraud of one who was then a Christian brother but afterwards
apostatized. He
happened to have transcribed part of it very inaccurately, and then he
published it”). -- The author of the Life of Polycarp
observes
that the works, sermons, and letters of that writer were pilfered
during the
persecution by the knavery of unbelievers.
To what extent the
literature of
Christianity fell into the hands of its opponents, is a matter about
which we
know next to nothing. Tertullian speaks quite pessimistically on the
point (de
Testim. 1), and Norden's verdict is certainly true (Kunstprosa,
pp.
517 f.): “We cannot form too low an estimate of the number of pagans
who read
the New Testament. . . . . I believe I am correct in saying that pagans
only
read the New Testament when they wanted to refute it.” Celsus furnished
himself
with quite a considerable Christian library, in which he studied deeply
before
he wrote against the Christians; but it is merely a rhetorical phrase,
when
Athenagoras assumes (Suppl, 9) that the emperors knew the Old
Testament.
The attitude of the apologists to the Scriptures, whether they are
quoting them
or not, shows that they do not presuppose any knowledge of their
contents
(Norden, loc. cit.). Writings of Origen were read by the
Neoplatonist
philosophers, who had also in their hands the Old Testament, the
gospels, and
the Pauline epistles. We may say the same of Porphyry and Arnelius. One
great
obstacle to the diffusion of the Scriptures lay in the Greek version,
which was
inartistic and offensive (from the point of view of style),\136/ but
still more
in [[379]] the old
Latin version of the
Bible, which in many parts was simply intolerable. How repellent must
have been
the effect produced, for example, by reading (Baruch 2.29) “Dicens: si
non
audieritis vocis ineae, si sonos magnos hagininis iste avertatur in
minima in
gentibus, hubi dispergain ibi.”\137/ Nor could Christianity in the West
boast
of writers whose work penetrated far into the general literature of the
age, at
a time when Origen and his pupils were forcing an entrance for
themselves.
Lactantius, whose evidence is above suspicion,\138/ observes that in
Latin
society Christians were still considered “stulti” (Instit. 5.1
f.),\139/
and personally vouches for the lack of suitable and skilled teachers
and
authors; Minucius Felix and Tertullian could not secure “satis
celebritatis,”
whilst, for all his admirable qualities as a speaker and writer,
Cyprian “is
unable to satisfy those who are ignorant of all but the words of our
religion, since
his language is mystical and designed only for the ears of the
faithful. In
short, the learned of this world who chance to [[380]]
become acquainted with his writings are in the habit of deriding him. I
myself
once heard a really cultured person call him ‘Coprianus’ [dung-man] by
the
change of a single letter in his name, as if he had bestowed on old
wives'
fables a polished intellect which was capable of better things”
(“placere ultra
verba sacramentum ignorantibus non potest, quoniam mystica hunt quae
locutus
est et ad id praeparata, ut a solis fidelibus audiantur: denique a
doctis huius
saeculi, quibus forte scripta eius innotuerant, derideri solet. audivi
ego
quendam hominem sane disertum, qui eum immutata una litera ‘Coprianum’
vocaret,
quasi quod elegans ingenium et melioribus rebus aptum ad aniles fabulas
contulisset”).
\136/
Nearly all the apologists (cp. even Clem. Alex. Protrept. 8.77)
tried to
justify the “unadorned” style of the prophets, and thus to champion the
defect.
Origen (Hom. 8.1, in Jesum Nave, vol. 11 P. 74) observes: “We
appeal to
you, O readers of the sacred books, riot to hearken to their contents
with
weariness [[379b]] and
disdain for what
seems to be their unpleasing method of narration” (“Deprecamur vos, O
auditores
sacroruni voluminum, non cum taedio vel fastidio ea quae leguntur,
audire pro
co quod minus delectabilis eorum videtur esse narration”); cp. Hom.
8.1, in
Levit. vol. 9 p. 313, de Princip. 4.1.7, 4.26 [the divine
nature of
the Bible all the more plain from its defective literary style], Cohort.
ad Graec. 35-36, 38.
\137/Even
the Greek text, of course, is unpleasing: λέγωv · ἐὰν μὴ ἀκoύσητε τῆs φωνῆς μου, εἰ μὴv ἡ βόμβησιs ἡ μεγάλη ἡ πολλὴ αὕτη ἀποστρέψει εἰς μικρὰν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνοσιν οὗ διασπερῶ αὐτοὺς ἐκεῖ. On the style of the New
Testament,
cp. Norden, Die antike Kunstprosa (1898), pp. 516 f. (“Educated
people
could not but view the literary records of the Christians as stylistic
monstrosities”). -- Arnobius (1.58) writes of the Scriptures: “They
were
written by illiterate and uneducated men, and therefore are not readily
to be
credited” (“Ab indoctis hominibus et rudibus scripta suit et idcirco
non swat
facili auditione credenda”). When he writes (1.59): “Barbarismis,
soloecismis
obsitae sunt res vestrae et vitioruni deformitate pollutae” (“Your
narratives
are overrun by barbarisms and solecisms, and disfigured by monstrous
blunders”),
he is reproducing pagan opinions upon the Bible. Compare the remarks of
Sulpicius Severus, and the reasons which led him to compose his
Chronicle of
the World; also Augustine's Confess. 3.5 (9). The
correspondence between
Paul and Seneca was fabricated in order to remove the obstacles
occasioned by
the poor style of Paul's letters in the Latin version (cp. my Litt.
Geschichte, 1 p. 765).
\138/
No doubt he is anxious to bring out his own accomplishments.
\139/Cp.
on this the extremely instructive treatise “ad Paganos” in the
pseudo-August. Quaest.
in Vet. et Nov. Test. No. 114. Underlying it is the charge of
stupidity
levelled at Christians, who are about thirty times called “stulti.” The
author
naturally tries to prove that it is the pagans who are the stupid folk.
In
the Latin West, although Minucius Felix and Cyprian (ad Donatum) wrote
in a well-bred style, Christian literature had but little to do with
the spread
of the Christian religion; in the East, upon the contrary, it became a
factor
of great importance from the third century onwards.
CHAPTER
2
METHODS
OF
THE
THE INVASION OF DOMESTIC LIFE
ANYONE
who inquires about the missionary methods in general must be referred
to what
has been said in our Second Book (pp. 86 f.). For the missionary preaching
includes
the missionary methods. The one God, Jesus Christ as
Son and Lord
according to apostolic tradition, future judgment and the resurrection
-- these
truths were preached. So was the gospel of the Savior and of salvation,
of love
and charity. The new religion was stated and verified as Spirit and
power, and
also as the power to lead a new moral life, and to practise
self-control. News was
brought to men of a divine revelation to which humanity must yield
itself by
faith. A new people, it was announced, had now appeared which was
destined to
embrace all nations; withal a primitive, sacred book was handed over,
in which
the world's history was depicted from the first day to the last.
In
1 Cor. 1-2. Paul expressly states that he gave a central place to the
proclamation of the crucified Christ. He summed up everything in this
preaching; that is, he proclaimed Christ as the Savior who
wiped sins
away. But preaching of this kind implies that he began by revealing and
bringing home to his hearers their own impiety and unrighteousness (ἀσέβεια
καὶ ἀδικέια), otherwise
the preaching of redemption could never have secured a footing or done
its work
at all. Moreover, as the decisive proof of men's impiety and
unrighteousness,
Paul adduced their ignorance regarding God and also regarding idolatry,
an
ignorance for which they themselves were to blame. To prove that this
was their
own fault, he appealed to the conscience [[382]]
of his hearers, and to the remnant of divine knowledge which
they still
possessed. The opening of the epistle to the Romans (chaps. 1-3) may
therefore
be considered to represent the way in which Paul began his missionary
preaching. First of all, he brought his hearers to admit “we are
sinners, one
and all.” Then he led them to the cross of Christ, where he developed
the conception
of the cross as the power and the wisdom of God. And interwoven
with all
this, in characteristic fashion, lay expositions of the flesh and the
Spirit,
with allusions to the approaching judgment.
So
far as we can judge, it was Paul who first threw into such sharp relief
the
significance of Jesus Christ as a Redeemer, and made this the central
point of
Christian preaching. No doubt, the older missionaries had also taught
and
preached that Christ died for sins (1 Cor. 15.3); but in so far as they
addressed
Jews, or people who had for some time been in contact with Judaism, it
was
natural that they should confine themselves to preaching the
imminence
of judgment, and also to proving from the Old Testament that the
crucified
Jesus was to return as judge and as the Lord of the messianic kingdom.
Hence
quite naturally they could summon men to acknowledge him, to join his
church,
and to keep his commandments.
We
need not doubt that this was the line taken at the outset, even for
many people
of pagan birth who had already become familiar with some of the
contents and
characteristics of the Old Testament. The Petrine speeches in Acts are
a proof
of this. As for the missionary address, ascribed to Paul in ch. 13, it
is
plainly a blend of this popular missionary preaching with the Pauline
manner;
but in that model of a mission address to educated people which is
preserved in
ch. 17.\140/ the Pauline manner of missionary preaching is perfectly
distinct,
in spite of what seems to be one vital difference. First we have an
exposition
of the true doctrine of God, whose main aspects are successively
presented
(monotheism, spirituality, omnipresence and omnipotence, creation and
providence, the unity of the human race and their religious capacities,
spiritual worship). The state of mankind hitherto is described as
“ignorance,”
and therefore [[383]]
to be repented of; God
will overlook it. But the new era has dawned: an era of repentance and
judgment, involving faith in Jesus Christ, who has been sent
and raised
by God and who is at once redeemer and judge.\141/ Many of the more
educated
missionaries, and particularly Luke himself, certainly preached in this
fashion, as is proved by the Christian apologies and by writings like
the “Preaching
of Peter.” Christian preaching was bent on arousing a feeling of
godlessness
and unrighteousness; it also worked upon the natural consciousness of
God; but
it was never unaccompanied by references to the coming judgment.
\140/
The address in 14.15 f. is akin to this.
\141/
Whatever be the origin of the address in Acts 17.22-31 and the whole
narrative
of Paul's preaching at Athens, it remains the most wonderful passage in
the
book of Acts; in a higher sense (and probably in a strictly historical
sense,
at some vital points) it is full of truth. No one should have failed
especially
to recognize how closely the passage fits into the data which can be
gathered
from 1 Cor. 1 f. and Rom. 1 f., with regard to the missionary preaching
of
Paul. The following points may be singled out: --
(a)
According to Acts 17.18, “Jesus and the Resurrection” were decidedly
put in the
front rank of Paul's preaching. This agrees with what may be inferred
from 1
Cor. 1 f.
(b)
As Rom. 1.19 f. and 2.14 f. prove, the exposition of man's natural
knowledge of
God formed a cardinal feature in the missionary preaching of Paul. It
occupies
most of the space in the address at
(c)
In this address the Judgeship of Jesus is linked on directly to the
“ignorance”
which has replaced the primitive knowledge of God (καθότι ἔστησεν ἡμέραν ἐν ᾗ μέλλει κρίνειν τὴν οἰκουμένην ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ ἐν ἀνδρὶ ᾧ ὥρισεν), precisely as Rom.
2.14 f. is
followed by ver. 16 (ἐν
ἡμέρᾳ ὅτε κρίνει ὁ θεὸς τὰ κρυπτὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων διὰ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ).
(d)
According to the Athenian address, between the time of “ignorance” and the future
judgment
there is a present interval which is characterized by the offer of
saving faith
(ver. 31). The genuinely Pauline character of this idea only needs to
be
pointed out.
(e)
The object of this saving faith is the risen Jesus (ver. 31) -- a
Pauline idea
of which again no proof is necessary.
The
one point at which the Athenian address diverges from the missionary
preaching
which we gather from the Pauline letters, is the lack of prominence
assigned by
the former to the guilt of mankind. Still, it is clear enough
that their
“ignorance” is implicitly condemned, and the starting-point of the
address (ὃ ἀγνοοῦντες εὐσεβεῖτε, τοῦτο ἐγὼ καταγγέλλω ὑμῖν)
made it almost impossible to lay any greater emphasis upon the negative
aspect
of the matter.
Several
important features of Paul's work as a pioneer missionary may be also
recognised in 1 Thessalonians (cp. Acts 20.18 f.). But it does not come
within
the scope of the present volume to enter more fully into such details.
The
address put into the mouth of Paul by the “Acta
Pauli” [[384]] (Acta
Theclae, 5-6) is
peculiar and quite un-Pauline (compare, however, the preaching of Paul
before
Nero). Strictly speaking, it cannot even be described as a missionary
address
at all. The apostle speaks in beatitudes, which are framed upon those
of Jesus
but developed ascetically. A more important point is that the content
of Christian
preaching is described as “the doctrine of the generation and
resurrection of
the Beloved” (διδασκαλία τῆς
τε γεννήσεως
καὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως
τοῦ ἠγαπημένου), and as
“the message of self-control
and of
resurrection” (λόγος τῆς έγκρατείας
καὶ ἀναστάσεως).\142/
\142/
A brief and pregnant missionary address, delivered by an educated
Christian, is
to be found in the Acta Apollonii (36. f.). The magistrate's
demand for
a brief statement of Christianity is met thus : οὗτος ὁ σωτὴρ ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ὡς ἄνθρωπος γενόμενος ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ κατὰ πάντα δίκαιος καὶ πεπληρωμένος θείᾳ σοφίᾳ, φιλανθρώπως ἐδίδαξεν ἡμᾶς τίς ὁ τῶν ὅλων θεὸς καὶ τί τέλος ἀρετῆς ἐπὶ σεμνὴν
πολιτείαν ἁρμόζον πρὸς τὰς τῶν ἀνθρώπων ψυχάς · ὃς διὰ τοῦ παθεῖν ἔπαυσεν τὰς αρχὰς τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν (“This Jesus Christ our
Savior, on
becoming man in Judaea, being just in all respects and filled with
divine
wisdom, taught us -- in his love for men -- who was the God of all, and
what
was that end of virtue which promoted a holy life and was adapted to
the souls
of men; by his sufferings he stopped the springs of sin”). Then follows
a list
of all the virtues, including the duty of honoring the emperor, with
faith in
the immortality of the soul and in retribution; all of these were
taught by
Jesus μετὰ πολλῆς ἀποδείξεως. Like the philosophers and
just men
before him, however, Jesus was persecuted and slain by “the lawless,”
even as
one of the Greeks had also said that the just man would be tortured,
spat upon,
bound, and finally crucified. As Socrates was unjustly condemned by the
Athenian sycophants, so did certain wicked persons vilify and condemn
our
Teacher and Savior, just as already they had done to the prophets who
foretold
his coming, his work, and his teaching (προεῖπον ὅτι τοιοῦτός τις ἀφίξεται πάντα δίκαιος καὶ ἐνάρετος, ὃς εἰς πάντας εὖ ποιήσας ἀνθρώπους e’π’ ἀρετῇ πείσει σέβειν τὸν πάντων θεόν, ὃν ἡμεῖς φθάσαντες τιμῶμεν, ὅτι ἐμάθομεν σεμνὰς ἐντολὰς ἂς οὐκ ᾔδειυεν, καὶ οὐ πεπλανήμεθα: they predicted
that “such
an one will come, absolutely righteous and virtuous, who in beneficence
to all
men shall persuade them to reverence that God of all men whom we now by
anticipation honor, because we have learnt holy commands which we knew
not, and
have not been deceived”).
The
effect of connected discourses, so far as regards the Christian
mission, need
not be overestimated; in every age a single stirring detail that moves
the
heart is of greater weight than a long sermon. The book of Acts
describes many
a person being converted all at once, by a sort of rush. And the
description is
not unhistorical. Paul was converted, not by a missionary, but by means
of a
vision. The Ethiopian treasurer was led to believe in Jesus by means of
Isaiah
53, and how many persons [[385]]
may have
found this chapter a bridge to faith! Thecla was won over from paganism
by
means of the “word of virginity and prayer” (λόγος
τῆς παρθενίας
καὶ τῆς
προσευχῆς, Acta Theclae, ch.
7), a
motive which is so repeatedly mentioned in the apocryphal Acts that its
reality
and significance cannot be called in question. Asceticism, especially
in the
sexual relationship, did prevail in wide circles at that period, as an
outcome
of the religious syncretism. The apologists had good grounds also for
declaring
that many were deeply impressed and eventually convinced by the
exorcisms which
the Christians performed, while we may take it for granted that
thousands were
led to Christianity by the stirring proclamation of judgment, and of
judgment
close at 'hand. Besides, how many simply succumbed to the authority of
the Old
Testament, with the light thrown on it by Christianity! Whenever a
proof was
required, here was this book all ready.\143/
\143/
Strictly speaking, we have no mission-literature, apart from the
fragments of
the “Preaching of Peter” or the Apologies, and the range of the latter
includes
those who are already convinced of Christianity. The New Testament, in
particular, does not contain a single missionary work. The Synoptic
gospels
must not be embraced under this category, for they are catechetical
works,
intended for the instruction of people who are already acquainted with
the principles
of doctrine, and who require to have their faith enriched and confirmed
(cp.
Luke 1.4). One might with greater reason describe the Fourth gospel as
a
missionary work; the prologue especially suggests this view. But even
here the
description would be inapplicable. Primarily, at any rate, even the
Fourth
gospel has Christian readers in view, for it is certainly Christians
and not
pagans who are addressed in 20.31. Acts presents us with a history of
missions;
such was the deliberate intention of the author. But ch. 1.8 states
what is
merely the cardinal, and by no means the sole, theme of the book.
The
mission was reinforced and actively advanced by the behavior of
Christian men
and women. Paul often mentions this, and in 1 Pet. 3.1 we read that men
who do
not believe the Word are to be won over without a word by means of the
conduct
of their wives.\144/ The moral life of Christians appealed [[386]] to a man like Justin
with peculiar force,
and the martyrdotns made a wide impression. It was no rare occurrence
for
outsiders to be struck in such a way that on the spur of the moment
they
suddenly turned to Christianity. But we know of no cases in which
Christians
desired to win, or actually did win, adherents by means of the
charities which
they dispensed. We are quite aware that impostors joined the church in
order to
profit by the brotherly kindness of its members; but even pagans never
charged
Christianity with using money as a missionary bribe. What they did
allege was
that Christians won credulous people to their religion with their words
of
doom, and that they promised the heavy-laden a vain support, and the
guilty an
unlawful pardon. In the third century the channels of the mission among
the
masses were multiplied. At one moment in the crisis of the struggle
against
gnosticism it looked as if the church could only continue
to exist
by prohibiting any intercourse with that devil's courtesan, philosophy;
the “simplices
et idiotae,” indeed, shut their ears firmly against all learning.\145/
But even
a Tertullian found himself compelled to oppose this standpoint, while
the
pseudo-Clementine Homilies made a vigorous attack upon the methods of
those who
would [[387]]
substitute dreams and visions
for instruction and doctrine. That, they urge, is the method\146/ of
Simon
Magus! Above all, it was the catechetical
\144/Details
upon Christian women follow in Book 4 Chap. 2. But here we may set down
the
instructive description of a Christian woman's daily life, from the pen
of
Tertullian (ad Uxor. 2.4 f.). Its value is increased by the fact
that
the woman described is married to a pagan.
“If
a vigil has to be attended, the husband, the first thing in the
morning, makes
her an appointment for the baths; if it is a fast-day, he holds a
banquet on
that very day. If she has to go out, household affairs of urgency at
once come
in the way. For who would be willing to let his wife go through one
street
after another to other men's houses, and indeed to the poorer cottages,
in
order to visit [[386b]]
the brethren? Who
would like to see her being taken from his side by some duty of
attending a
nocturnal gathering? At Easter time who will quietly tolerate her
absence all
the night? Who will unsuspiciously let her go to the Lord's Supper,
that feast
which they heap such calumnies upon? Who will let her creep into gaol
to kiss
the martyrs' chains? or even to meet any one of the brethren for the
holy kiss?
or to bring water for the saints' feet? If a brother arrives from
abroad, what
hospitality is there for him in such an alien house, if the very larder
is
closed to one for whom the whole storeroom ought to be thrown open! . .
. . Will
it pass unnoticed, if you make the sign of the cross on your bed or on
your
person f or when you blow away with a breath some impurity? or even
when you
rise by night to pray? Will it not look as if you were trying to engage
in some
work of magic? Your husband will not know what it is that you eat in
secret
before you taste any food.” The description shows us how the whole
daily life
of a Christian was to be a confession of Christianity, and in this
sense a
propaganda of the mission as well.
\145/Tert.
adv. Prax. 3: “Simplices quique, ne dixerim imprudentes et
idiotae, quae
maior semper credentium pars est” (“The simple -- I do not call them
senseless
or unlearned -- who are always the majority”); cp. de Resurr.
2.
Hippolytus, at the beginning of the third century, calls Zephyrinus,
the bishop
of
\146/
See Homil. 17.14-19, where censure is passed on the view that
it is
safer “to learn by means of an apparition than from the clearness of
truth
itself” (ὑπὸ ὀπτασίας ἀκούειν ἢ παρ’ αὐτῆς ἐναρyείας, 14); ὁ ὀπτασίᾳ πιστεύων, we read, ἢ ὁράματι καὶ ἐνυπνὶῳ ἀγνοεῖ
τίνι πιστεύει (“He who believes in an
apparition or vision and dreams, does not know in whom he is
believing”). Cp.
17: καὶ ἀσεβεῖς ὁράματα καὶ
ἐνύπνια ἀληθῆ βλέπουσιν . . . . τῷ εὐσεβεῖ ἐμφύτῳ καὶ καθαρῷ ἀναβλύξει τῷ νῷ τὸ ἀλήθες, οὐκ ὀνείρῳ σπουδαζόμενον, ἀλλὰ συνέσει ἀγαθοῖς διδόμενον (“Even impious men have
true
visions and dreams . . . . but truth bubbles up to the natural and pure
mind of
the pious ; it is not worked up through dreams, but vouchsafed to the
good
through their understanding”). In [[character]]
18
Peter explains that his own confession (Matt. 16) first became precious
to
himself when Jesus told him it was the Father who had allowed him to
participate in this revelation. Τὸ
ἔξωθεν δι’ ὀπτασιῶν καὶ ἐνυπνίων δηλωθῆναί τι οὐκ ἔστιν ἀποκαλύψεως ἀλλὰ ὀργῆς (“The declaration of
anything external
by means of apparitions and dreams is the mark, not of revelation, but
of wrath
divine”). In [[character]] 19 a
negative answer
is given to the question “whether anyone can be rendered fit for
instruction by
means of an apparition” (εἴ
τις δι’ ὀπτασίαν
πρὸς διδασκαλίαν σοφισθῆναι δύναται).
When
a newcomer was admitted into the Christian church he was baptized. This
rite (“purifici
roris perfusio,” Lactant. 4.15), whose beginnings lie wrapt in
obscurity,
certainly was not introduced in order to meet the pagan
craving for the
mysteries, but as a matter of fact it is impossible to think of any
symbolic
action which would prove more welcome to that craving than baptism with
all its
touching simplicity. The mere fact of [[388]]
such a rite was a great comfort in itself, for few indeed could be
satisfied
with a purely spiritual religion. The ceremony of the individual's
immersion
and emergence from the water served as a guarantee that old things were
now
washed away and gone, leaving him a new man. The utterance of the name
of Jesus
or of the three names of the Trinity during the baptismal act brought
the
candidate into the closest union with them; it raised him to God
himself.
Speculations on the mystery at once commenced.\147/ Immersion was held
to be a
death; immersion in relation to Christ was a dying with him, or an
absorption
into his death; the water was the symbol of his blood. Paul himself
taught this
doctrine, but he rejected the speculative notions of the Corinthians (1
Cor.
1.13 f.) by which they further sought to bring the person baptized into
a
mysterious connection with the person who baptizes. It is remarkakle
how he
thanks God that personally he had only baptized a very few people in
\147/Magical
ideas were bound up from the very first with baptism; cp. the baptism ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν at
“Fiunt, non nascuntur Christiani”; men
are not born Christians, but made Christians. This remark of Tertullian
(Apol.
18)\148/ may have applied to the large majority even after the middle
of the
second century, but thereafter a companion feature arose in the shape
of the
natural extension of Christianity through parents to their children.
Subsequently to that period the practice [[389]]
of infant baptism was also inaugurated; at least we are unable to get
certain
evidence for it at an earlier date.\149/ But whether infants or adults
were
baptized, baptism in either case was held to be a mystery which
involved
decisive consequences of a natural and supernatural kind. The general
conviction was that baptism effectually cancelled all past sins of the
baptized
person, apart altogether from the degree of moral sensitiveness on his
own
part; he rose from his immersion a perfectly pure and perfectly holy
man. Now
this sacrament played an extremely important role in the mission of
this
church. It was an act as intelligible as it was consoling; the ceremony
itself
was not so unusual as to surprise or scandalize people like
circumcision or the
taurobolium, and yet it was something tangible, something to which they
could
attach themselves.\150/ [[390]]
Furthermore,
if one added the story of Jesus being baptized by John -- a story which
was
familiar to everyone, since the gospel opened with it -- not merely was
a fresh
field thrown open for profound schemes and speculations, but, thanks to
the
precedent of this baptism of Jesus, the baptism to which every
Christian
submitted acquired new unction and a deeper content. As the Spirit had
descended upon Jesus at his own baptism, so God's Spirit hovered now
upon the
water at every Christian's baptism, converting it into a bath of
regeneration
and renewal. How much Tertullian has already said about baptism in his
treatise
de Baptisrno! Even that simple Christian, Hermas, sixty years
previous
to Tertullian, cannot say enough on the topic of baptism; the apostles,
he
exclaims, went down into the underworld and there baptized those who
had fallen
asleep long ago.
\148/
Cp. de Testim. 1: “Fieri non nasci solet christiana anima”
Those born in
Christian homes are called “vernaculi ecclesiae” (cp. de Anima,
51).
\149/
Here, too, I am convinced that the saying holds true, “Ab initio sic
non erat.”
\150/
At the same time, of course, people of refined feeling were shocked by
the rite
of baptism and the declaration involved in it, that all sins were now
wiped
out. Porphyry, whose opinion in this matter is followed by Julian,
writes thus
in Macarius Magnes (4.19): “We must feel amazed and truly concerned
about our
souls, if a man thus shamed and polluted is to stand out clean after a
single
immersion, if a man whose life is stained by so much debauchery, by
adultery,
fornication, drunkenness,, theft, sodomy, murder by poisoning, and many
another
shameful and detestable vice -- if such a creature, I say, is lightly
set free
from it all, throwing off the whole guilt as a snake sheds its old
scales,
merely because he has been baptized and has invoked the name of Christ.
Who
will not commit misdeeds, mentionable and unmentionable, who will not
do things
which can neither be described nor tolerated, if he learns that he can
get quit
of all these shameful offences merely by believing and getting
baptized, and
cherishing the hope that he will hereafter find forgiveness with him
who is to
judge the living and the dead? Assertions of this kind cannot but lead
to sin
on the part of anyone who understands them. They teach men constantly
to be
unrighteous. They lead one to understand that they proscribe even the
discipline of the law and righteousness itself, so that these have no
longer
any power at all against unrighteousness. They introduce a lawless life
into an
ordered world. They raise it to the rank of a first principle, that a
man has
no longer to shun godlessness at all -- if by the simple act of baptism
he gets
rid of a mass of innumerable sins. Such, then, is the position of
matters with
regard to this boastful fable.” But is Porphyry quite candid in this
detestation of sacraments and their saving efficiency in general, as
well as in
his description of the havoc wrought upon morals by baptism? As to the
latter
point, it is of course true that the practice of postponing baptism
became more
and more common, even as early as the second century, in order to evade
a
thorough-going acceptance of the Christian life, and yet to have the
power of
sinning with impunity (cp., e.g., Tert. de Paenit. 6). Even
strict
teachers advised it, or at least did not dissuade people from it, so
awful seemed
the responsibility of baptism. No safe means could be found for wiping
off
post-baptismal [[390b]]
sins. Yet this
landed them in a sore dilemma, of which they were themselves quite
conscious.
They had to fall in with the light-minded! Cp. Tertullian, loc. cit.
and
de Baptismo; at a later date, the second book of Augustine's Confessions.
Justin, however, declares that baptism is only for those who have
actually
ceased to sin (Apol. 1.61 f.).
It was as a mystery that the
Gentile
church took baptism from the very first,\151/ as is plain even from the
history
of the way in which the sacrament took shape. People were no longer
satisfied
with the simple bath of baptism. The rite was amplified; new ceremonies
were
added to it; and, like all the mysteries, the holy transaction
underwent a
development. Gradually the new ceremonies asserted their own
independence, by a
process which also is familiar. In the treatise I have just mentioned,
Tertullian exhibits this development at an advanced stage,\152/ but [[391]] on the main issue
there was little or no
alteration; baptism was essentially the act by which past sins were
entirely
cancelled.
\151/
This sacrament was not, of course, performed in secret at the outset,
nor
indeed for some time to come. It is not until the close of the second
century
that the secrecy of the rite commences, partly for educative reasons,
partly
because more and more stress came to be laid on the nature of baptism
as a
mystery. The significance attaching to the correct ritual as such is
evident as
early as the Didachê (7), where we read that in the first
instance running
water is to be used in baptism; failing that, cold standing water;
failing
that, warm water; failing a sufficient quantity even of that, mere
sprinkling
is permissible. The comparative freedom of such regulations was not
entirely
abolished in later ages, but it was scrupulously restricted. Many must
have
doubted the entire efficacy of baptism by sprinkling, or at least held
that it
required to be supplemented.
\152/
On the conception and shaping of baptism as a mystery, see Anrich's Das
antike Mysterienwesen in seinem Einfluss auf das Christentum
(1894), pp. 84
f., 168 f., 179 f., and Wobbermin's Religionsgeschich. Studien z.
Frage d.
Beeinflussung [[391b]]
des Urchristentums
durch das antike Mysterienwesen (1896), pp. 143 f. The latter
discusses σφραγίς,
σφραγίξειν,
φωτισμός, φωτίζειν, and σύμβολον, the
technical baptismal terms. The
mysteries are exhibited in greatest detail by the Pistis Sophia.
It was a mysterium
salutare, a
saving mystery; but it was also a mysterium tremendimi, an
awful mystery,
for the church had no second means of grace like baptism. The baptized
person
must remain pure, or (as 9. Clem., e.g., puts it) “keep the seal pure
and
intact.” Certain sects attempted to introduce repeated baptism, but
they never
carried their point; baptism, it was steadily maintained, could never
be
repeated. True, the sacrament of penance gradually arose, by means of
which the
grace lost after baptism could be restored. Despite this, however,
there was a
growing tendency in the third century to adopt the custom of postponing
baptism
until immediately before death, in order to make the most of this
comprehensive
means of grace.
No less important than
baptism itself
was the preparation for it, here the spiritual aspect of the Christian
religion
reached its highest expression; here its moral and social force was
plainly
shown. The Didachê at once corroborates and elucidates the
uncertain
information which we possess with regard to this point in the previous
period.
The pagan who desired to become a Christian was not baptized there and
then.
When his heart had been stirred by the broad outlines of the preaching
of the one
God and the Lord Jesus Christ as savior and redeemer, he was then
shown the
will and law of God, and what was meant by renouncing idolatry. No
summary
doctrines were laid down, but the “two ways” were put before him in a
most
comprehensive and thoroughgoing fashion; every sin was tracked to its
lurking-place within. He had to renounce all sins and assent to the law
of God,
nor was he baptized until the church was convinced that he knew the
moral code
and desired to follow it (Justin, Apol. I.67: λοῦσαι τὸν
πεπεισμένον καὶ συγκατατεθειμένον, “to wash him who is
convinced and who
has assented to our teaching”).\153/ The Jewish synagogue had already
drawn [[392]] up a
catechism for proselytes and made
morality the condition of religion; it had already instituted a
training for
religion. Christianity took this up and deepened it. In so doing it was
actuated by the very strongest motives, for otherwise it could not
protect
itself against the varied forms of “idolatry” or realize its cherished
ideal of
being the holy
\153/
Cp. Orig. c. Cels. 3.51: “Having previously tested, as far as
possible,
the hearts of those who desire to become their hearers, and having
given them [[392b]]
preliminary instruction by themselves,
Christians admit them into the community whenever they evince adequate
evidence
of their desire to lead a virtuous life. Certain persons are entrusted
by
Christians with the duty of investigating and testing the life and
conduct of
those who come forward, in order to prevent people of evil behavior
from
entering the community, and at the same time to extend a hearty welcome
to
people of a different stamp, and to improve them day by day.”
\154/
Cp. the Testimonia of Cyprian.
\155/
Origen distinctly remarks (3.53) that the moral and mental training of
catechumens and of young adherents of the faith varied according to the
requirements of their position and the amount of their knowledge. After
Zezschwitz,
Holtzmann, in his essay on “The Catechising of the
It is deeply to
be deplored that the first three centuries yield no biographies
depicting the
conversion or the inner rise and growth of any Christian personality.
It is not
as if such documents had perished: they were never written. We do not
even know
the inner history of Paul up to the day on which he reached
How deeply must
conversion have driven its wedge into marriage and domestic life! What
an
amount of strain, dispeace, and estrangement conversion must have
produced, if
one member was a Christian while another clung to the old religion!
“Brother
shall deliver up brother to death, and the father his child: children
shall
rise up against their parents and have them put to death.” “I came not
to bring
peace on earth, but a sword. For I came to set a man at variance with
his
father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law
against
her mother-in-law; and a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
He who
loveth father and mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who
loves son
or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (Matt. 10.21, 34-37). These
prophecies, says Tertullian (Scorp. 9), [[394]]
were fulfilled in none of the apostles; therefore they apply to us.
“Nemo
enim apostolorum aut fratrem aut patrem passus est traditorem, quod
plerique
iam nostri” (“None of the apostles was betrayed by father or brother, as
most of us to-day are”). Cp. ch. 11: “We are betrayed by our next
of kin.”
Justin (Dial. 35) says the same “We are put to death by our
kindred.” “The
father, the neighbor, the son, the friend, the brother, the husband,
the wife,
are imperilled; if they seek to maintain discipline, they are in danger
of
being denounced” (Apol. 2.1). “If anyone,” says Clement (Quis
Dives, 22),
“has a godless father or brother or son, who would be a hindrance to
faith and
an obstacle to the higher life, he must not associate with him or share
his
position; he must abjure the fleshly tie on account of the spiritual
hostility.”\156/
In the Recognitions of Clement (2.29) we read: “In unaquaque
domo, cum
inter credentem et non credentem coeperit esse diversitas, necessario
pugna
fit, incredulis quidem contra fidem dimicantibus, fidelibus vero in
illis
errorem veterem et peccatorum vitia confutantibus” (“When differences
arise in
any household between a believer and an unbeliever, an inevitable
conflict
arises, the unbelievers fighting against the faith, and the faithful
refuting
their old error and sinful vices”). Eusebius (Theophan. 4.12)
writes, on
Luke 12.51 f.: “Further, we see that no word of man, whether
philosopher or
poet, Greek or barbarian, has ever had the force of these words,
whereby Christ
rules the entire world, breaking up every household, parting and
separating all
generations, so that some think as he thinks whilst others find
themselves
opposed to him.” A very meagre record of these tragedies has come down
to us.
The orator Aristides (Orat. 46) alludes to them in a passage
which will
come up before us later on. Justin (Apol. 2) tells us of an
aristocratic
couple in
\156/
He continues (ch. 23): “Suppose it is a lawsuit. Suppose your father
were to
appear to you and say, ‘I begot you, I reared you. Follow me, join me
in
wickedness, and obey not the law of Christ,’ and so on, as any
blasphemer, dead
by nature, would say.”
\157/
Tertullian distinctly says (ad Uxor. 2.5) that heathen husbands
held
their wives in check by the fact that they could denounce them at any
moment.
The scenes
between Perpetua\158/ and her father are most affecting. He tried at
first to
bring her back by force,\159/ and then besought her with tears and
entreaties
(ch. 5)\160/ The crowd called out to the martyr Agathonikê, “Have
pity on thy
son!” But she replied, “He has God, and God is able to have pity on his
own.”
Pagan spectators of the execution of [[397]]
Christians would cry out pitifully: “Et puto liberos habet. nam est
illi
societas in penatibus coniunx, et tamen nec vinculo pignerum cedit nec
obsequio
pietatis abductus a proposito suo deficit” (Novat. de Laude Mart.
15: “Yet
I believe the man he has a wife, at home. In spite of this, however, he
does
not yield to the bond of his offspring, nor withdraw from his purpose
under the
constraint of family affection”). “Uxorem iam pudicam inaritus iam non
zelotypus, filium iam subiectum pater retro patiens abdicavit, servum
iam
fidelem dominus olim mitis ab oculis relegavit” (Tert. Apol. 3:
“Though
jealous no longer, the husband expels his wife who is now chaste; the
son, now
obedient, is disowned by his father who was formerly lenient; the
master, once
so mild, cannot bear the sight of the slave who is now faithful”).
Similar
instances occur in many of the Acts of the Martyrs.\161/ Genesius
(Ruinart, p.
312), for example, says that he cursed his Christian parents and
relatives. But
the reverse also happened. When Origen was young, and in fact little
more than
a lad, he wrote thus to his father, who had been thrown into prison for
his
faith: “See that you do not change your mind on our account” (Eus. H.E.
6.2).\162/ [[398]] In
how many cases the
husband was a pagan and the wife a Christian (see below, Book 4 Chap.
2). Such
a relationship may have frequently\163/ been tolerable, but think of
all the
distress and anguish involved by these marriages in the majority of
cases. Look
at what Arnobius says (2.5): “Malunt solvi conjuges matrintoniis,
exheredari a
parentibus liberi quam fidem rumpere Christianam et salutaris militiae
sacramenta
deponere” (“Rather than break their Christian troth or throw aside the
oaths of
the Christian warfare, wives prefer to be divorced, children to be
disinherited”).
\158/
“Honeste nata, liberaliter instituta, matronaliter nupta, habens patrem
et
matrem et fratres duos, alterum aeque catechuminum, et filium infantem
ad ubera”
(“A woman of respectable birth, well educated, a married matron, with a
father,
mother, and two brothers alive, one of the latter being, like herself,
a
catechumen, and with an infant son at the breast”).
\159/
“Tunc pater mittit se in me, ut oculos mihi erueret, sed vexavit
tantum .
. . . tunc paucis diebus quod caruissem patrem, domino gratias egi et
refrigeravi absentia illius” (“Then my father flung himself upon me as
if he
would tear out my eyes. But he only distressed me . . . . then a few
days after
my father had left me, I thanked the Lord, and his absence was a
consolation to
me”, ch. 3.
\160/
“Supervenit de civitate pater meus, consumptus taedio et adscendit ad
me, ut me
deiiceret dicens: Filia, miserere canis meis, miserere patri, si dignus
sum a te
pater vocari; si his te manibus ad hunc florem aetatis provexi, si to
praeposui
omnibus fratribus tuis; ne me dederis in dedecus hominum. aspice
fratres tuos,
aspice matrem tuam et materteram, aspice filium tuum, qui post to
vivere non
poterit . . . . haec dicebat quasi pater pro sua pietate, basians mihi
manus,
et se ad pedes meos jactans et lacrimans me iam non filiam nominabat,
sed
dominam” (“Then my father arrived from the city, worn out with anxiety.
He came
up to me in order to overthrow my resolve, saying, ‘Daughter, have pity
on my
grey hairs; have pity on your father, if I am worthy to be called your
father;
if with these hands I have brought you up to this bloom of life, if I
have
preferred you to all your brothers, hand me not over to the scorn of
men.
Consider your brothers, your mother, your aunt, your son who will not
be able
to survive you.’ . . . . So spake my father in his affection, kissing
my hands
and throwing himself at my feet, and calling me with tears not
daughter, but
lady”). Cp. 6: “Cum staret pater ad me deiciendam jussus est ab
Hilariano (the
judge) proici, et virga percussus est. et doluit mihi casus patri mei,
quasi
ego fuissem percussa: sic dolui pro senecta eius misera” (“As my father
stood
there to cast me down from my faith, Hilarianus ordered him to be
thrown on his
face and beaten with rods; and my father's ill case grieved me as if it
had
been my own, such was my grief for his pitiful old age”); also 9:
“Intrat ad me
pater consumptus taedio et coepit parbam suam evellere et in terrain
mittere et
prosternere se in faciem et inproperare armis suis et dicere tanta
verba quae
moverent universam creaturam” (“My father came in to me, worn out with
anxiety,
and began to tear his beard and to fling himself on the earth, and to
throw
himself on his face and to reproach his years, and utter such words as
might
move all ereation”).
\161/
During the persecution of Diocletian, Christian girls of good family
(from
Thessalonica) ran off and wandered about, without their fathers’
knowledge, for
weeks together in the mountains (“Acta Agapes, Chionke, Irenes,” in
Ruinart's Acta
Mart. Ratisbon, 1859, p. 426). How bitterly does the aristocratic
Fortunatianus complain before the judge, in the African Acts of
Saturninus
and Dativus (dating from Diocletian's reign; cp. above, p. 363),
that
Dativus crept into the house and converted his (the speaker's) sister
to
Christianity during the absence of her father, and then actually took
her with
him to Abitini (Ruinart, p. 417). Compare the scene between the
Christian
soldier Marcianus and his wife, a woman of pagan opinions, in the Acts
of
Marcianus and Nicander (Ruinart, p. 572). When her husband goes off
to be
executed, the woman cries: “Vae miserae mihi! non mihi respondes?
miserator
esto mei, domine; aspice filium tuum dulcissimum, convertere ad nos,
noli nos
spernere. Quid festinas? quo tendis? cur nos odisti?” (“Ah, woe is me!
will you
not answer me? pity me, sir. Look at your darling son. Turn round to
us; ah,
scorn us not. Why hasten off? Whither do you go? Why hate us?”) See
also the Acta
Irenai, ch. 3. (op. cit. p. 433), where parents and wife
alike
adjure the young bishop of Sirmium not to sacrifice his life. -- Of the
martyr
Dionysia we read (in Eus. H.E. 6.41.18): ἡ πολύπαις μέν, οὐχ ὑπὲρ τὸν
κύριον δὲ ἀγαπήσασα ἑαυτῆς τὰ τέκνα (“She had a
large family,
but she loved not her own children above the Lord”).
\162/
Cp. Daria, the wife of Nicander, in the Acts of Marcianus and
Nicander,
who exhorted her husband to stand firm. Also the Acts of
Maximilianus,
where the martyr is encouraged by his father, who rejoices in the death
of his
son; and [[398b]]
further, the Acta
Jacobi et Mariani (Ruinart, p. 273), where the mother of Marianus
exults in
her son's death as a martyr.
\163/
As, e.g., in the case of Augustine's home; cp. his Confess.
1.11(17)[[??]]: “Iam [as a boy]
credebam et mater et omnis
domus, nisi pater solus, qui tamen non evicit in me ius maternae
pietatis,
quominus in Christum crederem” (“Already I believed, as did my mother
and the
whole household except my father; yet he did not prevail over the power
of my
mother's piety to prevent me believing in Christ”). Augustine's father
is
described as indifferent, weak, and quite superficial.
A
living faith requires no special “methods” for its propagation; on it
sweeps
over every obstacle; even the strongest natural affections cannot
overpower it.
But it is only to a very limited extent that the third century can be
regarded
in this ideal aspect. From that date Christianity was chiefly
influential as
the monotheistic religion of mysteries and as a powerful church which
embraced
holy persons, holy books, a holy doctrine, and a sanctifying cultus.
She even
stooped to meet the needs of the masses in a way very different from
what had
hitherto been followed; she studied their traditional habits of worship
and
their polytheistic tendencies by instituting and organizing festivals,
deliverers, saints, and local sacred sites, after the popular fashion.
In this
connection the missionary method followed by Gregory Thaumaturgus (to
which we
have already referred on p. 315) is thoroughly characteristic; by
consenting to
anything, by not merely tolerating but actually promoting a certain
syncretism,
it achieved, so far as the number of converts was concerned, a most
brilliant
success. In the following Book (Chap. 3, sect. 3.9B) detailed
information will
be given upon this point.
[Harnack
bk3 ch3, 399- scanned by Moises Bassan, March 2004]
[[399]]
CHAPTER
3
THE
NAMES
OF CHRISTIAN BELIEVERS
JESUS called those who
gathered round
him “disciples” (μαθηταί); he called himself the “teacher”\164/
(this is
historically certain), while those whom he had gathered addressed him
as
teacher,\165/ and described themselves as disciples (just as the
adherents of
John the Baptist were also termed disciples of John). From this it
follows that
the relation of Jesus to his disciples during his lifetime was
determined, not
by the conception of Messiah, but by that of teacher. As yet the
Messianic
dignity of Jesus -- only to be revealed at his return -- remained a
mystery of
faith still dimly grasped. Jesus himself did not claim it openly until
his
entry into
\164/
The saying addressed to the disciples in Matt. 23.8 (ὑμεῖς
μὴ κληθῆτε ῥαββεί
· εἷς γάρ ἐστιν ὑμῶν
ὁ διδάσκαλος, πάντες δὲ
ὑμεῖς
ἀδελφοί ἐστε) is very noticeable. One
would
expect μαθηταί instead of ἀδελφοί
here; but the latter is quite appropriate, for Jesus is seeking to
emphasize
the equality of all his disciples and their obligation to love one
another. It
deserves notice, however, that the apostles were not termed “teachers,”
or at
least very rarely, with the exception of Paul.
\165/
Parallel to this is the term ἐπιστάτης,
which occurs more than once in Luke.
After
the resurrection his disciples witnessed publicly and confidently to
the fact
that Jesus was the Messiah, but they still continued to call themselves
“disciples”
-- which proves how tenacious names are when once they have been
affixed. The twelve
confidants of Jesus were called “the twelve disciples” (or, “the
twelve”).\166/
From Acts (cp. 1, 6, 9, 11, 13-16, 18, 21) we learn that although,
strictly
speaking, “disciples” [[400]]
had ceased to
be applicable, it was retained by Christians for one or two decades as
a
designation of themselves, especially by the Christians of
Palestine.\167/ Paul
never employed it, however, and gradually, one observes, the name of οἱ μαθηταί (with the addition
of τοῦ
κυρίον
) came to be exclusively
applied to personal disciples
of Jesus, i.e., in the first instance to the twelve, and thereafter to
others,
also,\168/ as in Papias, Irenaeus, etc. In this way
it became
a title of honor for those who had themselves seen the Lord (and also
for
Palestinian Christians of the primitive age in general?), and who could
therefore serve as evidence against heretics who subjected the person
of Jesus
to a docetic decomposition. Confessors and martyrs during the second
and third
centuries were also honored with this high title of “disciples of the
Lord.”
They too became, that is to say, personal disciples of the
Lord.
Inasmuch as they attached themselves to him by their confession and he
to them
(Matt. 10.32), they were promoted to the same rank as the primitive
personal
disciples of Jesus; they were as near the Lord in glory as were the
latter to
him during his earthly sojourn.\169/ [[401]]
\166/
Οἱ μαθηταί [“the
disciples”] is not a term exclusively reserved for the twelve in
the
primitive age. All Christians were called by this name. The term ἡ μαθήτρια [“the
(female) disciple”] also occurs (cp. Acts 9.36, and Gosp. Pet.
50).
\167/
In Acts 21.16 a certain Mnason is called ἀρχαῖος μαθητής [“and
early disciple” (RSV)], which implies perhaps that he is to be
regarded
as a personal disciple of Jesus, and at any rate that he was a disciple
of the
first generation. One also notes that, according to the source employed
by
Epiphanius (Haer. 29.7), μαθηταί was the name of the Christians
who left
\168/
Is not a restriction of the idea voiced as early as Matt. 10.42 (ὃς ἂν ποτίςῃ ἕνα τῶν μικρῶν τούτων ποτήριον ψυχροῦ μόνον εἰς ὄνομα μαθητοῦ)?
\169/
During the period subsequent to Acts it is no longer possible, so far
as I
know, to prove the use of μαθηταί (without the addition of τοῦ κυρίου or χριστοῦ) as a term used by all
adherents of
Jesus to designate themselves; that is, if we leave out of account, of
course,
all passages -- and they are not altogether infrequent -- in
which the
word is not technical. Even with the addition of τοῦ κυρίου, the term ceases to be a
title for
Christians in general by the second century. -- One must not let
oneself he
misled by late apochryphal books, nor by the apologists of the second
century.
The latter often describe Christ as their teacher, and themselves (or
Christians generally) as disciples, but this has no connection, or at
best an
extremely loose connection, with the primitive terminology. It is
moulded, for
apologetic reasons, upon the terminology of the philosophic schools,
just as
the apologists chose to talk about “dogmas” of the Christian teaching,
and “theology”
(see my Dogmensgeschichte, 1.(3)
pp. 482
f.; Eng. trans. 2.176 f.). As everyone is aware, the apologists knew
perfectly
well that, strictly speaking, Christ was not a teacher, but rather
lawgiver (νομοθέτης),
law (νόμος), Logos (λόγος
), Savior (σωτήρ), and judge (κριτής), [[401b]]
so that an expression like κυριακὴ
διδασκαλία, or “the Lord's instructions” (apologists and Clem. Strom.
6.15.124, 6.18.165, 7.10.57, 7.15.90, 7.18.165), is not to be adduced
as a
proof that the apologists considered Jesus to be really their teacher.
Rather
more weight would attach to διδαχὴ
κυρίου (the title of the well-known early catechism), and passages like
1 Clem.
13.1 (τῶν λόγων τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ οὓς ἐλάλησεν διδάσκων
= the word of the Lord Jesus which he spoke when teaching);
Polyc. 2
(μνημονεύοντες ὧ εἶπεν ὁ κύριος διδάσκων =
remembering what the
Lord said as he taught); Ptolem. ad Flor. 5 (ἡ διδασκαλία τοῦ σωτῆρος); and Apost. Constit.
p. 25 (Texte u. Unters.
2, part 5 – προορῶντας
τοὺς λόγους τοῦ διδασκάλον ἡμῶν = the words of our teacher);
p. 28 (ὅτε ᾔτησεν ὁ διδάσκαλος τὸν ἄρτον = when the teacher
asked for bread); p. 30 (προέλεγεν
ὅτε ἐδίδασκεν = he foretold when
he taught).
But, apropos of these passages, we have to recollect that the Apostolic
Constitutions is a work of fiction, which makes the apostles its
spokesmen
(thus it is that Jesus is termed ὁ
διδάσκαλος in
the original document underlying the Constitutions, i.e., the disciples
call
him by this name in the fabricated document). -- There are numerous
passages to
prove that martyrs and confessors were those, and those alone, to whom
the
predicate of “disciples of Jesus” was attached already, in the present
age,
since it was they who actually followed and imitated Jesus. Compare,
e.g.,
Ignat. ad Ephes. 1 (ἐλπίζω ἐπιτυχεῖν ἐν Ῥώμη θηριομαχμ Ἱνα ἐπιτυχεῖν δυνηθῶ μαθητὴς εἶναι, = my hope is to succeed in
fighting with beasts at Rome,
so that I may succeed in being a disciple); ad Rom. 4 (τότε ἔσομαι μαθητὴς ἀληθὴς τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὅτε οὐδὲ τὸ σῶμά μου ὁ κόσμος ὄψεται = then shall I be a true
disciple of
Christ, when the world no longer sees my body); ad Rom. 5 (ἐν τοῖς ἀδικήμασιν αὐτῶν μᾶλλον
μαθητεύομαι =
through their misdeeds I became more a disciple than ever); Mart.
Polyc.
17 (τὸν μἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ προσκυνοῦμεν, τοὺς δὲ μάρτυρας ὡς μαθητὰς καὶ μιμητὰς
τοῦ κυρίου ἀγαπῶμεν = we worship the Son of
God, and
love the martyrs as disciples and imitators of the Lord). When Novatian
founded
his puritan church, he seems to have tried to resuscitate the idea of
every
Christian being a disciple and imitator of Christ.
The term “disciples” fell
into disuse,
because it no longer expressed the relationship in which Christians now
found
themselves placed. It meant at once too little and too much.
Consequently other
terms arose, although these did not in every instance become technical.
The Jews, in the first
instance, gave
their renegade compatriots special names of their own, in particular
“Nazarenes,”
“Galileans,” and perhaps also “Poor” (though it is probably quite
correct to take
this as a self-designation of Jewish Christians, since “Ebionim” in the
Old
Testament is a term of respect). But these titles really did not
prevail except
in small circles. “Nazarenes” alone enjoyed and for long retained a
somewhat
extensive circulation.\170/ [[402]]
\170/
The first disciples of Jesus were called Galileans (cp. Acts 1.11,
2.7), which
primarily was a geographical term to denote their origin, but was also [[402b]] intended to heap
scorn on the disciples
as semi-pagans. The name rarely became a technical term, however.
Epictetus
once employed it for Christians (Arrian, Diss. 4.7.6). Then
Julian
resurrected it (Greg. Naz. Oral. 4: καινατομεῖ ὁ Ἰουλιανὸς περὶ τὴν προσηyορίαν, Γαλιλαίους ἀντὶ Χριστιανῶν ὀνομάσας τε καὶ καλεῖσθαι νομοθετήσας . . . . ὄνομα [Γαλιλαῖοι] τῶν οὐk εἰωθότων) and employed it as a
tern of
abuse, although in this as in other points he was only following in the
footsteps of Maximinus Daza, or of his officer Theoteknus, an opponent
of
Christianity (if this Theoteknus is to be identified with Daza's
officer), who
(according to the Acta
T heodoti Ancyrani, c.
31) dubbed Theodotus προστάτης
τῶν Γαλιλαίων, or “the
ringleader of the Galileans.” These Acta, however, are
subsequent to
Julian. We may assume that the Christians were already called
“Galileans” in
the anti-Christian writings which Daza caused to be circulated. The Philopatris
of pseudo-Lucian, where “Galileans” also occurs, has nothing whatever
to do
with our present purpose; it is merely a late Byzantine forgery. With
the
description of Christians as “Galileans,” however, we may compare the
title of “Phrygians”
given to the Montanists. -- Τhe name “Ebiοnites” (or poor) is not quite
obvious. Possibly the Christian believers got this name from their
Jewish
opponents simply because they were poor, and accepted the
designation.
More probably, however, the Palestinian Christians called themselves by
this
name on the basis of the Old Testament. Recently, Hilgenfeld has
followed the
church-fathers, Tertullian, Epiphanius (Haer. 30.18), etc., in
holding
that the Ebionites must be traced back to a certain Ebion who founded
the sect;
Dalman also advocates this derivation. Technically, the Christians were
never
described as “the poor” throughout the empire; the passage in Minuc. Octav.
36, is not evidence enough to establish such a theory. The term
“Nazarenes” or “Nazoreans”
(a Jewish title for all Jewish Christians, according to Jerome, Ep.
112.13,
and a common Persian and Mohammedan title for Christians in general)
occurs
first of all in Acts 24.5, where Paul is described by Tertullian the
orator as
πρωτοστάτης τῆς τῶν Ναζωραίων αἱρέσεως. As Jesus himself is
called ὁ Nαζωραῖος in the gospels, there seems
to be no
doubt that his adherents were so named by their opponents; it is
surprising,
though not unexampled. The very designation of Jesus as ό Ναζωραῖος is admittedly a problem.
Did the title
come really from Ναζαρέτ
(Ναζαρά) the town?
Furthermore, Matt. 2.23 presents a real difficulty. And finally,
Epiphanius
knows a pre-Christian sect of Jewish Nazarenes (Haer. 18; their
pre-Christian origin is repeated in ch. 29.6) in Galaaditis, Basanitis,
and
other trans-Jordanic districts. They had distinctive traits of their
own, and
Epiphanius (Haer. 29) distinguishes them from the Jewish
Christian sect
of the same name as well as from the Nasireans (cp. Haer.
29.5),
observing (between 20 and 21, at the conclusion of'his first book) that
all
Christians were at first called Nazoreans by the Jews. Epiphanius
concludes by
informing us that before Christians got their name at
The Christians
called themselves “God's people,” “
\171/
So far as I know, no title was ever derived from the name of “Jesus” in
the
primitive days of Christianity. -- On the question whether Christians
adopted
the name of “Friends” as a technical title, see the first Excursus at
the close
of this chapter.
\172/
Cp. Minuc. Felix, 11. “Elect” is opposed to οἱ πολλοί . Hence the latter
is applied
by Papias to false Christians (Eus. H.E. 3.39), and by
Heracleon the
gnostic, on the other hand, to ordinary Christians (Clem. Strom.
4.9.73)
\173/
Cp. the New Testament, and especially the “Shepherd” of Hermas.
From
the usage and vocabulary of Paul, Acts, and later writings,\174/ it
follows
that “believers” (πιστοί) was a technical [[404]]
term. In assuming the name of “believers” (which originated, we may
conjecture,
on the soil of Gentile Christianity), Christians felt that the decisive
and
cardinal thing in their religion was the message which had made them
what they
were, a message which was nothing else than the preaching of the one
God,
of his son Jesus Christ, and of the life to come.
\174/
Von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff is perhaps right in adducing also Min.
Felix,
14, where Caecilius calls Octavius “pistorum praecipuus et postremus
philosophus” (“chief of believers and lowest of philosophers”).
“Pistores” here
does not mean [[404b]]
“millers,” but is
equivalent to πιστῶν.
The pagan in Macarius Magnes (3.17) also calls Christians ἡ τῶν πιστῶν φρατρία. From Celsus also
one may
conclude that the term πιστοί was technical (Orig. c. Cels.
1.9). The
pagans employed it as an opprobrious name for their opponents, though
the
Christians wore it as a name of honor; they were people of mere “belief” instead of people of
intelligence and knowledge, i.e., people who were not only credulous
but also
believed what was absurd (see Lucian's verdict on the Christians in Proteus
Peregrinus). -- In
The
three characteristic titles, however, are those of “saints,”
“brethren,” and “the
\175/
They are the usual expressions in Paul, but he was by no means the
first to
employ them; on the contrary, he must have taken them over from the
Jewish
Christian communities in
\176/The
actual and sensible guarantee of holiness lay in the holy media, the “charismata,” and the power
of expelling
demons. The latter possessed not merely a real but a personal character
of
their own. For the former, see 1 Cor . 7.14: ἡγίασται ὁ ἀνὴρ ὁ ἄπιστος ἐν τῆ γυναικί, καὶ ἡγίασται ἡ γυνὴ ἡ ἅπιστος ἐν τῷ ἀδελφῷ · ἐπεὶ
ἄρα τὰ τέκνα ὑμῶν ἀκάθαρτά ἐστιν, νῦν δὲ ἅγιά ἐστιν .
\177/
But Gregory Thaumaturgus still calls Christians in general “the saints,” in the seventh
of his
canons.
\178/
The church formed by Novatian in the middle of the third century called
itself “the
pure” (καθαροί), but we
cannot tell whether this title was an original formation or the
resuscitation
of an older name. I do not enter into the question of the names taken
by
separate Christian sects and circles (such as the Gnostics, the
Spiritualists,
etc.).
Closely
bound up with the name of “saints” was that of “brethren” (and
“sisters”), the
former denoting the Christians' relationship to God and to the future
life (or
βασιλεία τοῦ
θεοῦ, the kingdom of God), the
latter the new
relationship in which they felt themselves placed towards their
fellow-men,
and, above all, towards their fellow-believers (cp. also the not
infrequent
title of “brethren in the Lord”). After Paul, this title became so
common that
the pagans soon grew familiar with it, ridiculing and besmirching it,
but
unable, for all that, to evade the impression which it made. For the
term did
correspond to the conduct of Christians.\179/ They termed themselves a
brotherhood [[406]] (ἀδελφότης; cp. 1 Pet. 2.17, 5.9,
etc.) as well
as brethren (ἀδεκφοί), and to
realize how fixed and frequent was the title, to realize how truly it
answered
to their life and conduct,\180/ one has only to study, not merely the
New
Testament writings (where Jesus himself employed it and laid great
emphasis
upon it\181/), but Clemens Romanus, the Didachê, and the writings of the
apologists.\182/ Yet even the name of “the brethren,” though it
outlived that
of “the saints,” lapsed after the close\183/ of the third century ; or
rather,
it was only ecclesiastics who really continued to call each other
“brethren,”\184/
and when a priest gave the title of “brother” to a layman, it
denoted a
special mark of honor.\185/ “Brethren” (“fraters”) survived only in [[407]] sermons, but
confessors were at liberty to
address ecclesiastics and even bishops by this title (cp. Cypr. Ep.
53).\186/
\179/
See the opinions of pagans quoted by the apologists, especially
Tertull. Apo1.
[[406b]] 39, and Minuc. Octav.
9, 31,
with Lucian's Prot. Peregrines. Tertullian avers that pagans
were amazed
at the brotherliness of Christians: “See how they love one another!” --
In
pagan guilds the name of “brother” is also found, but so far as I am
aware, it
is not common. From Acts 22.5, 28.21, we must infer that the Jews also
called
each other “brethren,” but the title cannot have had the significance
for them
that it possessed for Christians. Furthermore, as Jewish teachers call
their
pupils “children” (or “sons” and “daughters”), and are called by them
in turn “father,”
these appellations also occur very frequently in the relationship
between the
Christian apostles and teachers and their pupils (cp. the numerous
passages in
Paul, Barnabas, etc.).
\180/
Details on this point, as well as on the import of this fact for the
Christian
mission, in Book 2 Chap. 3.
\181/
/Cp. Matt. 23.8 (see above, p. 399), and 12.48, where Jesus says of the
disciples, ἰδοὺ ἡ μητήρ
μου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί μου. Thus they are not merely
brethren,
but his brethren. This was familiar to Paul (cp. Rom. 8.29,
πρωτότοκος ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς), but afterwards it became
rare,
though Tertullian does call the flesh “the sister of Christ” (de
Resurr.
9, cp. de Carne, 7).
\182/Apologists
of a Stoic cast, like Tertullian (Apol. 39), did not confine the
name of
“brethren” to their fellow-believers, but extended it to all men
“Fratres etiam
vestri sumus, lure naturae matris unius” (“We are your brethren also in
virtue
of our common mother Nature”).
\183/
It still occurs, though rarely, in the third century; cp., e.g.,
Hippolytus in
the Philosophumena, and the Acta Pionii, 9.
Theoretically, of
course, the name still survived for a considerable time; cp., e.g.,
Lactant. Div. Inst. 5.15: “Nec
alia causa est cur nobis invicem fratrum nomen impertiamus, nisi quia
pares
esse nos credimus” [p. 168]; August. Ep. 23.1: “Non te latet
praeceptum
esse nobis divinitus, ut etiam eis qui negant se fratres nostros esse
dicamus,
fratres nostri estis.”
\184/
By the third century, however, they had also begun to style each other
“dominus.”
\185/
Eusebius describes, with great delight, how the thrice-blessed emperor
addressed the bishops and Christian people, in his numerous writings,
as ἀδελφοὶ καὶ συνθεράποντεs (Vita
Const.
3.24).
\186/
The gradual restriction of “brethren” to the clergy and the confessors
is the
surest index of the growing organization and privileges of the
churches.
Since
Christians in the apostolic age felt themselves to be “saints” and
“brethren,”
and, in this sense, to be the true Israel and at the same time God's
new
creation,\187/ they required a solemn title to bring out their complete
and
divinely appointed character and unity. As “brotherhood” (ἀδελφότης
, see above) was too one-sided, the name they chose was
that of “church” or
“the
\187/
On the titles of “a new people” and “a third race,” see Book 2 Chap. 6.
\188/
Paul evidently found it in circulation; the Christian communities in
\189/
This may be inferred from the Pauline usage of the term itself, apart
from the
fact that the particular application of all such terms is invariably
later than
their general meaning. In Acts 12.1, Christians are first described as οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας.
\190/
קהל (usually rendered ἐκκλησία in LXX.) denotes the community in
relation to
God, and consequently is more sacred than the profaner עדה regularly
translated by συναγωγή in the LXX.).
The acceptance of ἐκκλησία
is thus intelligible for the same reason as that of “
\191/
Connected with the term ἐκκλησία
is the term ὁ
λαός, which frequently occurs as a contrast to τὰ ἔθνη. It also has, of course,
Old
Testament associations of its own.
\192/
On the employment of this term by Christians, see my note on Herm. Mand. 11. It was
not nervously
eschewed, but it never became technical, except in one or two cases. On
the
other hand, it is said of the Jewish Christians in Epiph. Haer.
30.18, “They
have presbyters and heads of synagogues. They call their church a
synagogue and
not a church; they are proud of no name but Christ’s” (πρεσβυτέρους οὗτοι ἔχουσι καὶ ἀρχισυναγώγους · συναγωγὴν δὲ οὗτοι καλοῦσι τὴν ἑαυτῶν
έκκλησίαν καὶ οὐχὶ έκκλησίαν · τῷ Χριστῷ δὲ ὀνόματι μόνον σεμνύνονται). Still, one
may doubt
if the Jewish Christians really forswore the name קהל (ἐκκλησία); that they called
their
gatherings and places of meeting συναγωγαί, may be admitted.
\193/
The ecclesia is in heaven, created before the world, the Eve of the
heavenly
Adam, the Bride of Christ, and in a certain sense Christ himself. These
Pauline
ideas were never lost sight of. In Hermas, in Papias, in Second Clement, in
Clement of Alexandria, etc.,
they recur. Tertullian writes (de Paenit. 10): “In uno et altero
Christus est, ecclesia vero Christus. ergo cum to ad fratrum genua
protendis,
Christum contrectas, Christum exoras” (“In a company of one or two
Christ is,
but the Church is Christ. Hence, when you throw yourself at your
brother's
knee, you touch Christ with your embrace, you address your entreaties
to Christ”).
\194/
The self-designation of Christians as “strangers and sojourners” became
almost
technical in the first century (cp. the epistles of Paul, 1 Peter, and [[409b]] Hebrews), while
παροικία (with παροικεῖν = to sojourn) became
actually a
technical term for the individual community in the world (cp. also
Herm. Simil.
1, on this).
\195/
Till far down into the third century (cp. the usage of Cyprian) the
word “secta”
was employed by Christians quite ingenuously to denote their
fellowship. It was
not technical, of course, but a wholly neutral term.
During
the course of the second century the term ἐκκλησία
acquired the attribute of “catholic” (in addition to that of “holy”).
This
predicate does not contain anything which implies a secularisation of
the
church, for “catholic” originally meant Christendom as a whole in
contrast to
individual churches (ἐκκλησία
καθολική=πᾶσα
ἡ ἐκκλησία). The conception of “all
the churches” is thus identical
with that of “the church in general.” But a certain dogmatic element
did exist
from the very outset in the conception of the general church, as the
idea was
that this church had been diffused by the apostles over all the earth.
Hence it
was believed that only what existed everywhere throughout the church
could be
true, and at the same time absolutely true, so that the conceptions of
“all
Christendom,” “Christianity spread over all the earth,” and “the true
church,”
came to be regarded at a pretty early period as identical. In this way
the term
“catholic” acquired a pregnant meaning, and one which in the end was
both
dogmatic and political. As this was not innate but an innovation, it is
not
unsuitable to speak of pre-catholic and catholic Christianity. The term
“catholic
church” occurs first of all in Ignatius (Smyrn. 8.2 : ὅπου ἂν φανῇ ὁ ἐπίσκοτος,
ἐκεῖ
τὸ τλῆθος
ἔστω
· ὥσπερ
ὅπου ἂν ᾖ
Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς,
ἐκεῖ ἡ
καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία),
who writes: “Wherever the bishop
appears, there
let the people be; just as wherever Christ Jesus is, there is the
catholic
church.” Here, however, the words do not yet denote a new conception of
the
church, in which it is represented as an empirical and authoritative
society.
In Mart. Polyc. Inscr. 16.2, 19.2, the word is probably an
interpolation
(“catholic” being here equivalent to “orthodox”: ἡ ἐν Σμύρνῃ καθολικὴ
ἐκκλησία). From Iren.
3.15.2 (“Valentiniani eos qui stmt ab ecclesia ‘communes’ et
‘ecclesiasticos’ dicunt”=“The Valentinians
called those who [[410]]
belong to the
Church by the name of ‘communes’ and ‘ecclesiastici’”) it follows that
the
orthodox Christians were called “catholics” and “ecclesiastics “ at the
period
of the Valentinian heresy.\196/ Irenaeus himself does not employ the
term; but
the thing is there (cp. 1.10.2; 2.9.1, etc.; similarly Serapion in
Euseb. H.E.
5.19, πᾶσα
ἡ
ἐν κόσμῳ ἀδελφότης). After
the Mart. Polyc. the term “catholic,” as a description of
the orthodox and visible church, occurs in the Muratorian fragment
(where “catholica”
stands without “ecclesia” at all, as is frequently the case in later
years
throughout the West), in an anonymous anti-Montanist writer (Eus. H.E.
5
16.9), in Tertullian (e.g., de Praescript.
26,
30; adv.
Marc. 4.4, 3.22), in Clem. Alex (Strom. 7.17, 106 f.), in
Hippolytus
(Philos. 9.12), in Mart. Pionii (2.9.13.19), in Pope
Cornelius
(Cypr. Epist. 49.2), and in Cyprian. The expression “catholica
traditio”
occurs in Tertullian (de Monog. 2), “fides catholica” in
Cyprian (Ep.
25), κανῶν καθολικός in Mart.
Polyc. (Mosq.
ad fin.), and Cyprian (Ep. 70.1), and “catholica fides
et religio”
in Mart. Pionii (18). Elsewhere the word appears in different
connections throughout the early Christian literature. In the Western
symbols
the addition of “catholica” crept in at a comparatively late period,
i.e., not
before the third century. In the early Roman symbol it does not
occur.
\196/
Ἐκκλησιαστικοί,
however, was also a term for orthodox Christians as opposed to heretics
during
the third century. This is plain from the writings of Origen; cp. Horn.
in
Luc. 16, vol. 5. P. 143 (“ego quia opto esse ecclesiasticus et non
ab
haeresiarcha aliquo, sed a Christi vocabulo nuncupari”), Hom. in Jesaiam 7, vol. 13. p. 291, Hom. in
Ezech.
2.2, vol. 14. P. 34 (“dicor ecclesiasticus”), Hom. in Ezech.
3.4, vol.
14. p. 47 (“ecclesiastici,” as opposed to Valentinians and the
followers of
Basilides), Hom. in Ezech. 6.8, vol, 14. p. 90 (cp. 120), etc.
We now come to
the name “Christians,” which became the cardinal title of the faith.
The Roman
authorities certainly employed it from the days of Trajan downwards
(cp. Pliny
and the rescripts, the “cognitiones de Christianis”), and probably even
forty
or fifty years earlier (1 Pet. 4.16; Tacitus), whilst it was by
this
name that the adherents of the new religion were known among the common
people
(Tacitus; cp. also the well known passage in Suetonius). [[411]]
Luke
has told us where this name arose. After describing the foundation of
the
(Gentile Christian) church at
\197/
In my opinion, the doubts cast by Baur and Lipsius upon this statement
of the
book of Acts are not of serious weight. Adjectival formations in -
ιανος are no
doubt Latin, and indeed late Latin, formations (in Kühner-Blass's grammar they
are not so
much as noticed); but even in the first century they must have
permeated the
Greek vernacular by means of ordinary intercourse. In the New Testament
itself,
we find Ἡρωδιανοί (Mark 3.6, 12.13, Matt.
22.16),
Justin writes Mαpκιαvoί, Οὐαλεντινιανοί, Βασιλιδιανοί,
Σατορνιλιανοί (Dial.
35), and similar formations are of frequent occurrence subsequently. If
one
wishes to be very circumspect, one may conjecture that the name was
first
coined by the Roman magistrates in
\198/The
reason why he did not speak out clearly was perhaps because the pagan
origin of
the name was already felt by him to be a drawback. But it is not
necessary to
assume this.
\199/
Possibly they intended the name originally to be written “Chrestus”
(not “Christus”), an error which
was widely
spread among opponents of Christianity during the second century; cp.
Justin's Apol.
1.4., Theophil. ad Autol. 1.1, Tert. Apol. 3, Lact. Instit.
4.7.5, with Suetonius, Claud. 25, and Tacitus (see below). But
this
conjecture is not necessary, although pagans had a pretty common proper
name in
“Chrestus” (but no “Christus”), and they may have thought from the very
first
that a man of this name was the founder of the sect.
\200/
“Christians” therefore simply means adherents of a man called Christ.
Cp.
Aristides, Apol. 2: οἱ
Χριστιανοὶ γενεαλογοῦνται ἀπὸ Ἰησοῦ
Χριστοῦ. Eusebius Demonstr.
1.5) gives another explanation of the name: “The friends of God [[412b]] under the old
covenant are called χριστοί
as we are called Χριστιανοί.”
Which is, of course, erroneous. Justin (Dial. 63 ) writes: καὶ ὅτι τοῖς εἰς αὐτὸν πιστεύουσιν, ὡς οὖσι μιᾷ ψυχῇ ἐν μιᾷ συναγωγῇ καὶ μιᾷ ὲκκλησίᾳ, ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ ὡς θυγατρί, τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τῇ ἐξ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ γενομένῃ καὶ μετασχούσῃ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ -- Χριστιανοὶ
γὰρ πάντες καλούμεθα -- [εἴρηται],
ὁμοίως φανερῶς οἱ λόγοι κηρύσσωοι, κ.τ.λ. (“The
word of God addresses those who believe in him as being of one soul, in
one
assembly, and in one church, as to a daughter, to the church born of
his name
and partaking of his name-for we are all called Christians: so the
words
proclaim,” etc.). Trypho answers (164) : ἔστω ὑμῖν, τῶν ἐξ ἐθνῶν, κύριος καὶ
Χριστὸς καὶ θεὸς yνωριζόμενος, ὡς αἱ γραφαὶ σημαίνουσιν, οἵτινες καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ Χριστιανοὶ καλεῖσθαι
πάντες ἐσχήκατε · ἡμεῖς δὲ, τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ καὶ αὐτὸν τοῦτον
ποιήσαντος λατρευταὶ ὄντες, οὐ δεόμεθα τῆς ὁμολογίας αὐτοῦ οὐδὲ τῆς
προσκυνήσεως (“Let him be recognised by you Gentiles who have been all
called
Christians from his name, as Lord and Christ and God; but we, who are
servants
of the God who made this Christ, do not need to confess him or to
worship him”). Origen, Hom. in Luc.
16. vol.
5 p. 143: “Opto a Christi vocabulo nuncupari et habere nomen quod
benedicitur
super terram, et cupio tam opere quam sensu et esse et dici
Christianus” (I
wish to be called by the name of Christ and to have the name which is
blessed
over the earth. I long to be and to be called a Christian, in spirit
and in
deed).
\201/
1 Pet. 4.16 μή τις ὑμῶν πασχέτω ὡς φονεὺς ἢ κλέπτης . . . . εἰ δὲ ὡς Χριστιανός, referring
obviously to
official tituli criminum. In Acts 26.28 Agrippa observes, ἐν ὀλίγῳ με πείθεις Χριστιανὸν ποιῆσαι.
\202/
He employs it even as an adjective (Trall. 6: Χριστιανή τροφή = Christian
food), and
coins the new term Χριστιανισμός
(Magn. 10, Rom.
3, Philad. 6).
\203/
Luke, too, was probably an Antiochene by birth (cp. the Argmnentum to
his
gospel, and also Eusebius), so that in this way he knew the origin of,
the
name.
\204/ Apol.
3: “Quid
novi, si aliqua disciplina de
magistro cognomenturn sectatoribus suisinducits nonne philosophi de
autoribus
suis nuncupantur Platonici, Epicurei, Pythagorici?” (“Is there anything novel in
a sect
drawing a name for [[413b]]
its adherents
from its master? Are not philosophers called after the founder of their
philosophies-Platonists, Epicureans, and Pythagoreans?”)
A word in
closing on the well-known passage from Tacitus (Annal. 15.44).
It is
certain that the persecution mentioned here was really a persecution of
Christians (and not of Jews), the only doubtful point being whether the
use of “Christiani”
(“quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Christianos appellabat“) is not a hysteron
proteron. Yet even this doubt seems to me unjustified. If
Christians were
called by this name in Antioch about 40-45 CE, there is no obvious
reason why
the name should not have been known in Rome by 64 CE, even
although the
Christians did not spread it themselves, but were only followed by it
as by
their shadow. Nor does Tacitus (or his source) aver that the name was
used by
Christians for their own party: he says the very opposite; it was the
people
who thus described them. Hitherto, however, the statement of Tacitus
has
appeared rather unintelligible, for he begins by ascribing the
appellation of “Christians”
to the common people, and then goes on to relate that the “autor
nominis,” or
author of the name, was Christ, in which case the common people did a
very
obvious and natural thing when they called Christ's followers”
Christians. Why,
then, does Tacitus single out the appellation of “Christian”
as a
popular epithet? This is an enigma which I once proposed to solve by
supposing
that the populace gave the title to Christians in an obscene or
opprobrious
sense. I bethought myself of “crista,” or of the term
“panchristarii,”
which (so far as I know) occurs only once in Arnobius, 2.38 “Quid
fullones,
lanarios, ph ygiones, cooos, panchristarios, muliones, lenones, lanios,
meretrices (What of the fullers, wool-workers, enibroiderers, cooks,
confectioners, muleteers, pimps, butchers, prostitutes)?” Tacitus, we
might
conjecture, meant to suggest this meaning, while at the same time he
explained
the real origin of the term in question. But this hypothesis was
unstable, and
in my judgment the enigma has now been solved by means of a fresh
collation of
the Tacitus MS. (see G. Andresen, Wochenschr. f. klass. Philologie,
1902,
No. 28, col. 780 f.), which shows, as I am convinced from the
facsimile, that
the original reading was “Chrestianos,” and that this was subsequently [[414]] corrected (though
“Christus” and not “Chrestus
“ is the term employed ad loc.). This clears up the whole
matter. The
populace, as Tacitus says, called this sect “Chrestiani,” while he
himself is
better informed (like Pliny, who also writes “Christian”), and silently
corrects the mistake in the spelling of the names, by accurately
designating
its author (actor nominis) as “Christus.” Blass had anticipated this
solution
by a conjecture of his own in the passage under discussion, and the
event has
proved that he was correct. The only point which remains to be noticed
is the
surprising tense of “appellabat.” Why did not Tacitus write “appellat,”
we may
ask? Was it because he wished to indicate that everyone nowadays was
well aware
of the origin of the name?\205/
\205/
Lietzmann (Gött. Gel. Anzeig. No. 6, 1905, p. 488),
thinks that
this interpretation is too ingenious. “Tacitus simply means to say that
Nero
punished the so-called Christians ‘qui per flagitia invisi
erant,’ but,
in his usual style, he links this to another clause, so that the tense
of the ‘erant’
is taken over into an inappropriate connection with the ‘appellabat.’
Whereupon
follows, quite appropriately, an historical remark on the origin and
nature of
the sect in question.” But are we to suppose that the collocation of
this “inappropriate”
tense with the change from Christiani to Christus is accidental?
One name still
falls to be considered, a name which of course never became really
technical,
but was (so to speak) semi-technical; I mean that of στρατιώτης Χριστοὺ (miles Christi, a soldier
of
Christ).\206/ With Paul this metaphor had already become so common that
it was
employed in the most diverse ways; compare the great descriptions in 2
Cor.
10.3-6 (στρατευόμεθα – τὰ ὅπλα τῆς στρατείας
– πρὸς καθαίρεσιν
ὀχυρωμάτων
– λογισμοὺς
καθαιροῦντε
s – αἰχμαλωτίζοντες),
and the
elaborate sketch
in Ephes. 6.10-18, with 1 Thess. 5.8 and 1 Cor. 9.7, 11.8; note also
how Paul
describes his fellow prisoners as “fellow-captives” (Rom. 16.7; Col.
4.10;
Philemon 23), and his fellow-workers as “fellow-soldiers” (Phil. 2.25;
Philemon
2). We come across the same figure again in the pastoral epistles (1
Tim. 1.18:
ἵνα
στρατεύῃ τὴν καλὴν στρατείαν;
2 Tim. 2.3 f.: συνκακοπάθησον ὡς καλὸς στρατιώτης Ἰ.
Χ. οὐδεὶς στρατευόμενος ἐμπλέκεται ταῖς τοῦ [[415]] βίου πραγματείας, ἵνα τῷ στρατολογήσαντι ἀρέςῃ. ἐὰν δὲ ἀθλήςῃ τις,
οὐ στεφανοῦταί ἐὰν μὴ νομίμως ἀθλήςῃ; 2
Tim. 3.6: αἰχμαλωτίζοντες γυναικάρια). Two military principles
were held as
fixed, even within the first century, for apostles and missionaries.
(1) They
had the right to be supported by others (their converts or churches).
(2) They
must not engage in civil pursuits. Thereafter the figure never lost
currency,\207/ becoming so naturalized,\208/ among the Latins
especially (as a
title for the martyrs pre-eminently, but also for Christians’ in general), that “soldiers
of Christ”
(milites Christi) almost became a technical term with them for
Christians; cp.
the writings of Tertullian, and particularly the correspondence of
Cyprian – where
hardly one letter fails to describe Christians as “soldiers
of God”
(milites dei), or “soldiers of Christ” (milites Christi), and where
Christ is
also called the “imperator” of Christians.\209/ The preference shown
for this
figure by [[416]]
Christians of the West,
and their incorporation of it in definite representations, may be
explained by
their more aggressive and at the same time thoroughly practical temper.
The
currency lent to the figure was reinforced by the fact that
“sacranietitum” in
the West (i.e., any μυστήριον
or mystery, and also anything sacred) was an extremely common term,
while
baptism in particular, or the solemn vow taken at baptism, was also
designated
a “sacramentum.” Being a military term (= the military oath), it made
all
Western Christians feel that they must be soldiers of Christ, owing to
their
sacrament, and the probability is, as has been recently shown (by Zahn,
Neue
kirchl. Zeitschrift, 1899, pp. 28 f.), that this usage explains the
description of the pagans as “pagani.” It can be demonstrated that the
latter
term was already in use (during the early years of Valentinian I; cp.
Theodos. Cod.
16.2.18) long before the development of Christianity had gone so far as
to
enable all non-Christians to be termed “villagers”; hence the title
must rather
be taken in the sense of “civilians” (for which there is outside
evidence) as
opposed to “milites” or soldiers. Non-Christians are people who have
not taken
the oath of service to God or Christ, and who consequently have no part
in the
sacrament (“Sacramentum ignorantes,” Lactant.)! They are mere
“pagani.”\210/ [[417]]
\206/
Since the first edition of the present work appeared, I have treated
this subject
at greater length in my little book upon Militia Christi: the
Christian
Religion and the Military Profession during the First Three Centuries
(1905).
\207/
Cp., e.g., Ignat. ad Polyc. 6 (a passage in which the technical
Latinisms are also very remarkable): ἀρέσκετε ᾧ
στρατεύεσθε, ἀφ’
οὗ καὶ τὰ ὀψώνια κομίσεσθε ·
μήτις ὑμῶν δεσέρτωρ εὑρεθῇ · τὸ βάπτισμα ὑμῶν μενέτω ὡς ὅπλα, ἡ πίστις ὡς περικεφαλαία, ἡ ἀγάπη ὡς δόρυ, ἡ ὑπομονὴ ὡς πανοπλία · τὰ
δεπόσιτα ὑμῶν τὰ ἔργα ὑμῶν, ἵνα τὰ ἀκκεπτα ὑμῶν ἄξια κομίσησθε (“Please him for whom ye
fight, and from whom ye shall
receive your pay. Let none of you be found a deserter. Let your baptism
abide
as your shield, your faith as a helmet, your love as a spear, your
patience as
a panoply. Let your actions be your deposit, that ye may receive your
due
assets”); cp. also ad Smyrn. 1 (ἵνα ἄρῃ σύσσημον εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, “that he might raise an
ensign to all eternity”).
\208/Clemens
Romanus's work is extremely characteristic in this light, even by the
end of
the first century. He not only employs military figures (e.g., 21: μή
λιποτακτεῖν ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ = we are not to be
deserters from his
will; cp. 28: τῶν αὐτομολούντων ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ = running away from him),
but (37)
presents the Roman military service as a model and type for Christians:
στρατευσώμεθα οὖν, ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί, μετὰ πάσης ἐκτενείας ἐν τοῖς ἀμώμοις προστάγμασιν αὐτοῦ · κατανοήοωμεν τοὺς στρατευομένους τοῖς ἡγουμένοις
ήμῶν · πῶς εὐτάκτως, πῶς εὐείκτως, πῶs ὑποτεταyμένως ἐπιτελοῦσιν τὰ διατασσόμενα · οὐ πάντες εἰσὶν ἔπαρχοι
οὐδὲ χιλίαρχοι οὐδὲ ἑκατόνταρχοι
οὐδὲ πεντακὀνταρχοι οὐδὲ τὸ
καθεξῆς, ἀλλ’ ἕκαστος ἐω τῷ ἰδίῳ τάγματι
τὰ ἐπιτασσόμενα ὑπὸ τοῦ
βασιλέως καὶ τῶν ἡγουμένων ἐπιτελεῖ (“Let us then enlist,
brethren, in his
flawless ordinances with entire earnestness. Let us mark those who
enlist under
our commanders, how orderly, how readily, how obediently, they carry
out their
injunctions; all of them are not prefects or captains over a hundred
men, or
over fifty, or so forth, but every man in his proper rank carries out
the
orders of the king and the commanders“).
\209/
Cp. Ep. 15.1 (to the martyrs and confessors): “
\210/
For the interpretation of paganus as “pagan” we cannot appeal to
Tertull, de
Corona, 11 (perpetiendum pro deo, quod aeque fides pagana condixit
= for
God we must endure what even civic loyalty has also borne; apud Jesum
tam miles
est paganus fidelis, quam paganus est miles fidelis = with Jesus the
faithful
citizen is a soldier, just as the faithful soldier is a citizen; cp.
de
Pallio, 4), for “fides [[417b]]
pagana”
here means, not pagan faith or loyalty (as one might suppose), but the
duty of
faith in those who do not belong to the military profession, i.e., in
those who
ate civilians. The subsequent discussion makes this clear, and it also
shows
that “paganus” was commonly used to mean “civilian.” In fact, this
connotation
can be proved from seven passages in Tacitus. It passed from the
military
language into that of ordinary people in the course of the first two
centuries.
The ordinary- interpretation of the term (= villagers) rests on the
authority
of Ulphilas (so still, Schubert, Lehrbuch d. Kirchengeschichte,
1 p.
477), who has similarly coined the term “heathen” (from pagus), and
also on the
later Latin church-fathers, who explain “pagani” as “villagers” (cp.
e.g.,
Orosius, adv. Paganes, praef. c. 9:
“Pagani alieni a civitate dei ex locorum
agrestium conpitis et pagis pagani vocantur”). Wilh. Schulze, however (cp. Berliner
Akad.
Sitzungsberichte, 1905, July 6), holds that the term “heathen” in
Orosius
has nothing to do-with “heathen,” but is a loan-word (ἔθνος), which was pronounced also
ἕθνος, as the Coptic and Armenian
transliteration shows. Even were this derivation shown to be incorrect,
neither
Ulphilas nor any of the later Latin fathers could fix the original
meaning of “paganus.”
None of them knew its original sense. About 300 CE -- to leave out the
inscription in C.I.L. 10.2, 7112 -- the non-Christian religions
could
not as yet be designated as “peasant” or “rural” religions. All doubts
would
have been set at rest if the address of Commodian's so-called Carmen
Apologeticum had run “adversus paganes” (as Gennadius, de Vir.
Inlust.
15, suggests), but unfortunately the only extant manuscript lacks any
title. --
The military figure originated (prior to the inferences drawn from the
term “sacramentum”
in the West) in the great struggle which every Christian had to wage
against
Satan and the demons (Eph. 6.12: οὐκ
ἔστιν ἡμῖν ἡ πάλη πρὸς αἷμα καὶ σάρκα, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὰς ἀρχάς, πρὸς τὰs ἐξουσίας, πρὸς τοῦς κοσμοκράτορους τοῦ σκότους τούτου, πρὸς τὰ πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις). Once the state assumed a
hostile
attitude towards Christians, the figure of the military calling and
conflict
naturally arose also in this connection. God looks down, says Cyprian (Ep.
76.4), upon his troops: “Gazing down on us amid the conflict of his
Name, he
approves those who are willing, aids the fighters, crowns the
conquerors,” etc.
(“In congressione nominis sui desu per spectans volentes
conprobat,adiuvat
dimicantes, vincentes coronat,” etc.). Nor are detailed descriptions of
the
military figure awanting ; cp., e.g., the seventy-seventh letter
addressed to
Cyprian (ch. 2): “Tu tuba canens dei milites, caelestibus armis
instructos, ad
congressionis proelium excitasti et in acie prima, spiritali gladio
diabolum
interfecisti, agmina quoque fratrum hinc et inde verhis tuis
composuisti, ut
invidiae inimico undique tenderentur et cadavera ipsius publici hostis
et nervi
concisi calcarentur” (“As a sounding trumpet, thou hast roused the
soldiers of
God, equipped with heavenly armor, for the shock of battle, and in the
forefront thou hast slain the devil with the sword of the Spirit; on
this side
and on that thou hast marshalled the lines of the brethren by thy
words, so
that snares might be laid in all directions for the foe, the sinews of
the
common enemy be severed, and carcases trodden under foot”). The African
Acts of
the Martyrs are full of military expressions and metaphors; see, e.g.,
the Acta
Saturnini et Dativi, 15 (Ruinart, Acta Mart. p. 420). It is
impossible to prove, as it is inherently unlikely, that the “milites”
of Mithra
exercised any influence upon the Christian conceptions of Christianity
as a
conflict. These “milites” of Mithra were simply one of the seven stages
of
Mithraism, and we must never regard as direct borrowings from a pagan
cult
ideas which were [[418b]]
spread all over
the church at a primitive period of its existence. On the other hand,
it is
likely that Christians in the Roman army desired the same treatment and
consideration which was enjoyed by adherents of Mithra in the same
position.
Hence the action of the soldier described by Tertullian in the de
Corona. --
The above-mentioned essay of Schulze is now printed in the Sitzungsberichte
d. Preuss. Akad. d. Wiss. 1905, pp. 726 f, 747 f (“Greek Loan-Words
in
Gothic”). He acknowledges (1) that “pagani” cannot have been adopted by
Christians in order to describe “pagans” as people dwelling in the
country; (2)
he proves carefully and conclusively that the term “heathen” in
Ulphilas has
nothing to do with heathen, but is a loan-word (ἔθνος). Non-Christians were
originally
called “pagani”as “sacramentum ignorantes” (Lactant. 5.1), or because
they were
“far from the city of
Pagans in
part caught up the names of Christians as they [[418]]
heard them on the latter's lips,\211/ but of course they used most
commonly the
title which they had coined themselves, viz., that of “Christians.”
Alongside
of this we find nicknames and sobriquets like “Galileans,”
“ass-worshippers”
(Tert. Apol. 16, cp. Minut.), “magicians” (Acta
Theclae, Tertull.),
“Third race,” “filth“ (copra, cp. Commod. Carm. Apolog. 612,
Lact. 5.1.27), “sarmenticii” and “semi-axii” (stake-bound, faggot
circled;
Tert. Apol. 1).\212/
\211/
Celsus, for instance, speaks of the church as “the great church” (to
distinguish it from the smaller Christian sects).
\212/
Terms drawn derisively from the methods of death inflicted upon
Christians.
Closely bound up with the
“names” of
Christians is the discussion of the question whether individual
Christians got
new names as Christians, or how Christians stood with regard to
ordinary pagan
names during the first three centuries. The answer to this will be
found in the
second Excursus appended to the present chapter.
EXCURSUS
1
“FRIENDS”
(οἱ φίλοι).
THE name φίλοι
(οἰκεῖοι) τοῦ θεοῦ (“amici dei,” “cari deo”)
was
frequently used as a self-designation by Christians, though it was not
strictly
a technical term. It went back\213/ to the predicate of Abraham, who
was called
“the Friend of God” in Jewish tradition. It signified that every
individual
Christian stood in the same relation to God as Abraham\214/ had done.
According
to two passages in the gospels,\215/ Jesus called his [[420]]
disciples his “friends.” But in after-years this title (or that of of οἱ γνώριμοι) was rarely used.
\213/
Cp. Jas. 2.23 with the editors’ notes. The prophets occasionally shared
this
title, cp. Hippolyt. Philos. 10.33: δίκαιοι ἄνδρες γεγένηνται φίλοι θεοῦ · οὗτοι
προφῆται κέκληνται (“Just
men have become friends of God, and these are named prophets”). Justin
gives
the name of Χριστοῦ
φίλοι (“Christ's friends”) to the prophets who wrote the Old Testament (Dial.
8). John the Baptist is φίλος
Ἰησοῦ (John 3.29). Cp.
Eus. Demonstr. 1.5.
\214/
Later, of course, it was applied pre-eminently to martyrs and
confessors:
Ephes. 2.19: οὐκέτι
έστὲ ξένοι καὶ πάροικοι, ἀλλ’ ἐστὲ συμπολῖται τὼν ἁγίων καὶ οἰκεῖοι τοῦ θεοῦ; Valentinus (in Clem. Strom.
6.6.52): λαὸς
ὁ ὴγαπημένου, ὁ φιλούμενος καὶ φιλῶν αὐτόν; Clem. Ρrotrept. 12.122 : εἰ
κοινὰ τὰ φίλων, θεοφιλὴς δὲ ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῷ θεῷ -- καὶ γὰρ οὖν φίλος μεσιτεύοντος τοῦ λόγουγίνεται δὴ οὖν τὰ πάντα τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ὅτι τὰ πάντα τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ κοινὰ ἀμφοῖν τοῖν φιλοῖν τὰ πάντα, τοῦ φεοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου; Ρaedag. 1.3: φίλος
ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῷ θεῷ (for the sake of the way in
which he was
created; so that all human beings are friends of God); Origen, de
Princ.
1.6.4: “amici dei”; Tertullian, de Paenit. 9 (the martyrs,
“cari dei“);
Cyprian, ad Demetr. 12 (“cari deo”), and pseudo-Clem. Recogn. 1.24: “Ex
prima voluntate iterum voluntas; post haec mundus; ex mundo tempus; ex
hoc
hominum multitudo; ex multitudine electio amicorum, ex quorum
unanimitate pacificum
construitur dei regnum“; pseudo-Cypr. de Sing. Cler. 27: “amici
dei.”
\215/ Luke 12.4: λέγω ὑμῖν, τοῖς φίλου μου; Jοhn 15.13
f: ὑμεῖς φίλοι μού ἐστε, ἐὰν ποιῆτε ἃ ἐντέλλομαι ὑμῖκ. οὐκέτι λέγω ὑμᾶς δούλους . . . . ὑμᾶς δὲ εἴρηκα φίλους, ὅτι πάντα ἃ ἤκουσα παρὰ τοῦ πατρός μου ἐγνώρισα ὑμῖν. Hence the
disciples are γνώριμοι of Jesus (Clem. Paed.
1.5, beginning; Iren.
4.13.4 “In eo quod amicos dicit suos discipulos, manifeste ostendit se
esse
verbum Dei, quern et Abraham . . . . sequens amicus factus est dei . .
.
quoniam amicitia [[420b]]
dei συγχωρητική ἐστι τῆs ἀθανασίας τοῖς ἐπιλαβοῦσιν αὐτήν”). Perhaps the words
quoted by Clement (Quis Dives 33: δώσω οῦ μόνον τοῖς φίλοις, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς φίλου τῶν φίλων) are an apocryphal
saying of
Jesus, but their origin is uncertain (cp. Jülicher in Theol.
Lit. Zeitung,
1894, No. 1). An inscription has been found in Isaura Nova with the
legend
φίλτατος ὁ μακάριοs ὁ θεοῦ φίλος (cp. A. M. Ramsay in Journal
of
Hellenic Studies, 24, 1904, p. 264, “The Early Christian Art of
Isaura Nova”).
The term οἱ φίλοι is to be
distinguished from that of φίλοι τοῦ θεοῦ (χριστοῦ). Did Christians also call
each other “friends”?
We know the significance which came to attach to friendship in the
schools of
Greek philosophy. No one ever spoke more nobly and warmly of friendship
than
Aristotle. Never was it more vividly realized than in the schools of
the
Pythagoreans and the Epicureans. If the former went the length of a
community
of goods, the Samian sage outstripped them with his counsel, “Put not
your
property into a common holding, for that implies a mutual distrust. And
if people
distrust each other, they cannot be friends” (μὴ
κατατίθεοθαι τὰs οὐσίαs
εἰς τὸ κοινὸν
· ἀπιστούντων γὰρ τὸ τοιοῦτον ·
εἰ δ’ ἀπίστων, οὐδὲ φίλων). The
intercourse of Socrates with his scholars -- scholars who were at the
same time
his friends -- furnished a moving picture of friendship. Men could not
forget
how' he lived with them, how he labored for them and was open to them
up to the
very hour of his death, and how everything he taught them came home to
them as a
friend's counsel. The Stoic ethic, based on the absence of any
wants in the
perfect wise man, certainly left no room for friendship, but (as is
often the
case) the Stoic broke through the theory of his school at this point,
and
Seneca was not the only Stoic moralist who glorified friendship and
showed how
it was a moral necessity to life. No wonder that the Epicureans, like
the
Pythagoreans before them, simply called themselves “friends.” It formed
at once
the simplest and the deepest expression for that inner bond of life
into which
men found themselves transplanted when they entered the fellowship of
the
school. No matter whether it was the common reverence felt for the
master, or
the community of sentiment and aspiration among the members, or the
mutual aid
owed by each individual to his [[421]]
fellows -- the relationship in every case was covered by the term of “
the
friends.”
We
should expect to find that Christians also called themselves “the
friends.” But
there is hardly any passage bearing this out. In one of the “we”
sections in
Acts (27.3) we read that Paul the prisoner was permitted τρὸς τοὺς φίλους πορευθέντι ἐπιμέλειας τυχεῖν. Probably οἱ φίλοι here means not
special friends
of the apostle, but Christians in general (who elsewhere are always
called in
Acts of οἱ
ἀδελφοί). But this is the
only passage
in the primitive literature which can be adduced. Luke, with his
classical
culture, has permitted himself this once to use the classical
designation. In 3
John 15 (ἀσπάζονταί
σε οἱ φιλοι
· ἀσπάζου τοὺς
φίλους
κατ’ ὄνομα)
it is most likely that special friends are meant, not all the
Christians at
[[422]]
EXCURSUS
2
CHRISTIAN
NAMES
DOES the use of Christian
names taken
from the Bible go back to the first three centuries? In answering this
question, we come upon several instructive data.
Upon consulting the earliest
synodical
Acts in our possession, those of the North African synod in 256 CE
(preserved
in Cyprian's works), we find that while the names of the eighty seven
bishops
who voted there are for the most part Latin, though a considerable
number are
Greek, not one Old Testament name occurs. Only two are from the New
Testament,
viz., Peter (No. 72) and Paul (No. 47). Thus, by the middle of the
third
century pagan names were still employed quite freely throughout
Now this is remarkable! Here
was the
primitive church exterminating every vestige of polytheism in her
midst,
tabooing pagan mythology as devilish, living with the great
personalities [[423]]
of the Bible and upon their words, and yet
freely employing the pagan names which had been hitherto in vogue! The
problem
becomes even harder when one recollects that the Bible itself contains
examples
of fresh names being given,\216/ that surnames and alterations of a
name were
of frequent occurrence in the Roman empire (the practice, in fact,
being
legalized by the emperor Caracalla in 212 for all free men), and that a
man's
name in antiquity was by no means regarded by most people as a matter
of
indifference.
\216/
Thus in the gospels we read of Jesus calling Simon “Kephas” and the
sons of
Zebedee “Boanerges” In Acts 4.36 we are told that the Apostles named a
man
called Joseph “Barnabas” (Saulus Paulus does not come under this
class).
We
may be inclined to seek various reasons for this indifference displayed
by the
primitive Christians towards names. We may point to the fact that a
whole
series of pagan names must have been rendered sacred from the outset by
the
mere fact of distinguished Christians having borne them. We may further
recollect how soon Christians got the length of strenuously asserting
that
there was nothing in a name. Why, from the days of Trajan onwards they
were
condemned on account of the mere name of “Christian” without anyone
thinking it
necessary to inquire if they had actually committed any crime! On the
other hand,
Justin, Athenagoras, and Tertullian, as apologists of Christianity,
emphasize
the fact that the name is a hollow vessel, that there can be no
rational “charge
brought against words,” -- “except, of course,” adds Tertullian, “when a name sounds barbarian
or
ill-omened, or when it contains some insult or impropriety!”
“Ill-omened”! But
had “daemonic” names like Saturninus, Serapion, and Apollonius no evil
connotation upon the lips of Christians, and did not Christians, again,
attach
a healing virtue to the very language of certain formulas (e.g., the
utterance
of the name of Jesus in exorcisms), just as the heathen did? No; surely
this
does not serve to explain the indiflerence felt by Christians towards
mythological titles. But if not, then how are we to explain it?
Hardly
any other answer can be given to the question than this, that the
general
custom of the world in which people were living proved stronger than
any
reflections of their own. At [[424]]
all
times, new names have encountered a powerful resistance in the plea,
“There is
none of thy kindred that is called by this name” (Luke 1.61). The
result was
that people retained the old names, just as they had to endorse or to
endure
much that was of the world, so long as they were in the world. It was
not worth
while to alter the name which one found oneself bearing. Why, everyone,
be he
called Apollonius or Serapion, had already got a second, distinctive,
and
abiding name in baptism, the name of “Christian.” Each individual
believer bore
that as a proper name. In the Acts of Carpus (during the reign of
Marcus
Aurelius) the magistrate asked the accused, “What is thy name?” The
answer was,
“My first and fore-most name is that of ‘Christian’; but if thou
demandest my
wordly name as well, I am called ‘Carpus.’” The “worldly” name was kept
up, but
it did not count, so to speak, as the real name. In the account of the
martyrs
at
\217/
Similarly Eusebius (Mart. Pal. p. 82, ed. Violet): “The
confessors, when
asked by the judge where they came from, forbore to speak of their home
on
earth, but gave their true heavenly home, saying, We belong to the
Jerusalem which
is above” (cp. also, in Eugipii epist. ad Pascasium, 9, how St
Severin
describes his origin). Augustine also is evidence for the use of
“Christianus”
as a proper name. Looking back on his childhood (though he was not
baptized
till he was a man), he writes: “In ecclesia mihi nomen Christi infanti
est
inditum” (Confess. 6, 4.5).
This one name satisfied
people till
about the middle of the third century; along with it they were content
to bear
the ordinary names of this world “as though they bore them not.” Even
surnames
with a Christian meaning are extremely rare. It is the exception, not
the rule,
to find a man like Bishop Ignatius calling himself by the additional
Christian
title of Theophorus at the opening of the second century.\218/ The
change first
came a little before the middle of the third century. And [[425]] the surprising thing
is that the change,
for which the way had been slowly paved, came, not in an epoch of
religious
elevation, but rather in the very period during which the church was
corning to
terms with the world on a larger scale than she had previously done. In
the
days when Christians bore pagan names and nothing more, the dividing
line
between Christianity and the world was drawn much more sharply than in
the days
when they began to call themselves Peter and Paul! As so often is the
case, the
forms made their appearance just when the spirit was undermined. The
principle
of “nomen est omen” was not violated. It remained extraordinarily
significant.
For the name indicates that one has to take certain measures in order
to keep
hold of something that is in danger of disappearing.
\218/
Other surnames (which were not Christian) also occur among Christians;
cp.
Tertull. ad Scapulam, 4: “Proculus Christianus, qui Torpacion
cognominabatur.” Similar cases were not unusual at that time, The
Christian
soldier Tarachus (Acta Tarachi in Ruinart's Acta Martyr.
Ratisbon
1859, p. 452) says: “My parents called me Tarachus, and when I became a
soldier
I was called Victor” (“a parentibus dicor Tarachus, et cum militarem
nominatus
sum Victor”). Cyprian (according to Jerome, de Vir. Illustr.
48) called
himself Caecilius after the priest who was the means of his conversion;
besides
that he bore the surname of Thascius, so that his full name ran, “
Caecilius
Cyprianus qui et Thascius “ (Ep. 62, an epistle which is written
to a
Christian called “Florentius qui et Puppianus “). Cumont (Les Inscr.
chrét.
de l’ Asie mineure, p. 22) has collected a series of examples from
the
inscriptions, some of which are undoubtedly Christian: Γέρων ὁ καὶ Κυριακός, Ἄτταλος ἐπίκλην Ἡσάΐας, Optatina Resticia
Pascasia, M.
Czecilius Saturninus qui et Eusebius, Valentina ancilla quae et
Stephana, Ascia
vel Maria. Of the forty martyrs of Sebaste two bear double names of
this kind,
viz., Λεόντιος ὁ καὶ Θεόκτιστος Βικράτιος ὁ καὶ Βιβιανόs. In The
Martyrdom of St
Conon we find a Ναόδωρος
ὁ καὶ Ἀπελλῆς. The martyr Achatius says,
“I am
called Agathos-angelus” (“vocor Agathos-angelus “).
In
many cases
people may not have been conscious of this. On the contrary, three
reasons were
operative. One of these I have already mentioned, viz., the frequent
occurrence
throughout the empire (even among pagans) of alteration in a name, and
also of
surnames being added, after the edict of Caracalla (in 212 CE). The second lay in
the
practice of infant baptism, which was now becoming quite current. As a
name was
conferred upon the child at this solemn act, it naturally seemed good
to choose
a specifically Christian name. Thirdly and lastly, and -- we may add --
chiefly, the more the church entered the world, the more the world also
entered
the church. And with the wofd there entered more and snore of the old
pagan
superstition that “nomen est omen,” the dread felt for words, and,
moreover,
the old propensity for securing deliverers, angels, [[426]]
and spiritual heroes upon one's side, together with the “pious” belief
that one
inclined a saint to be one's protector and patron by taking his name.
Such a
form of superstition has never been quite absent from Christianity, for
even
the primitive Christians were not merely Christians but also Jews,
Syrians,
Asiatics, Greeks, or Romans. But then it was controlled by other moods
or
movements of the Spirit. During the third century, however, the local
strain again
rose to the surface. People no longer called their children Bacchylus
or
Arphrodisius with the same readiness, it is true. But they began to
call
themselves Peter and Paul in the same sense as the pagans called their
children
Dionysius and Serapion.
The process of displacing
mythological
by Christian names was carried out very slowly. It was never quite
completed,
for not a few of the former gradually became Christian, thanks to some
glorious
characters who had borne them; in this way, they entirely lost their
original
meaning. One or two items from the history of this process may be
adduced at
this point in our discussion.
At the very time when we
find only two
biblical names (those of Peter and Paul) in a list of eighty-seven
episcopal
names, bishop Dionysius of Alexandria writes that Christians prefer to
call
their children Peter and Paul.\219/ It was then also that Christian
changes\220/ of name began to be common. It is noted (in Eus. H.E.
6.30)
that Gregory Thaumaturgus exchanged the name of Theodore for Gregory,
but this
instance is not quite clear.\221/ We are told that a certain Sabina,
during the
[[427]] reign of Decius
(in 250 CE) called
herself Theodota when she was asked at her trial what was her
name.\222/ In the
Acta of a certain martyr called Balsamus (311 CE), the accused cries
“According
to my paternal name I am Balsamus, but according to the spiritual name
which I
received at baptism, I am Peter.”\223/ Interesting, too, is the account
given
by Eusebius (Mart. Pal. 11.7 f) of five Egyptian Christians who
were
martyred during the Diocletian persecution. They all bore Egyptian
names. But
when the first of them was questioned by the magistrate, he replied not
with
his own name but with that of an Old Testament prophet. Whereupon
Eusebius observes,
“This was because they had assumed such names instead of the names
given them
by their parents, names probably derived from idols; so that one could
hear
them calling themselves Elijih,\224/ Jeremiah, Isaiah, Samuel, and
Daniel, thus
giving themselves out to be Jews in the spiritual sense, even the true
and
genuine Israel of God, not merely by their deeds, but by the names they
bore.”
\219
In Eus. H.E. 7.25.14: ὥσπερ
καὶ ὁ Παῦλος πολὺς καὶ δὴ καὶ ὁ Πέτρος ἐν τοῖς τῶν πιστῶν παισὶν ὀνομάζεται (“Even as the
children of the
faithful are often called after Paul and also after Peter”). This is
corroborated by an inscription from the third century (de Rossi, in Bullett.
di archaeol. crist. 1867, p. 6): DMM.
ANNEO.
PAVLO. PETRO. M. ANNEVS. PAVLVS:
FILIO. CARISSIMO. The
inscription is additionally interesting on account of the fact that
Seneca came
from this gens.
\220/
It has been asserted that Pomponia Graecina retained or assumed the
name of
Lucina as a Christian (de Rossi, Roma Sotterr. 1 p. 319, 2 pp.
362,
etc.), but this is extremely doubtful. -- Changes of name were
common
among the Jews as well as in the Diaspora (see C.I.G. vol. 4. No. 9905: “Beturia
Paula -- que bixit ann. 86 meses 6 proselyta ann. 16 nomine Sara mater
synagogarum Campi et Bolumni”).
\221/
Did he call himself Gregory as an “awakened” man?
\222/
Cp. Acta Pionii, 9; this instance, however, is hardly relevant
to our
purpose, as Pionius instructed Sabina to call herself Theodota, in
order to
prevent herself from being identified.
\223/
Three martyrs at Lampsacus are called Peter, Paul, and Andrew (cp.
Ruinart's Acta
Martyr. 1850, pp. 205 f.).
\224/
See Mart. Pal. 10.1, for a martyr of this name.
Obviously, the
ruling idea here is not yet that of patron saints; the prophets are
selected as
models, not as patrons. Even the change of name itself is still a
novelty. This
is borne out by the festal epistles of Athanasius in the fourth century,
which contain an extraordinary number of Christian names, almost all of
which
are the familiar pagan names (Greek or Egyptian). Biblical names are
still
infrequent, although in one passage, writing.of a certain Gelous
Hierakatnmon,
Athanasius does remark that “out of shame he took the name of Eulogius
in
addition to his own name.”\225/
\225/ Festal
Epistles, ed. by Larsow (p. 80).
It is very
remarkable that down to the middle of the fourth century Peter and Paul
are
about the only New Testament names to be met with, while Old Testament
names
again are so rare that the above case of the five Egyptians who had
assumed
prophetic names must be considered an exception to the rule. [[428]] Even the name of
John, so far as I know,
only began to appear within the fourth century, and that slowly. On the
other
hand, we must not here adduce a passage from Dionysius of Alexandria,
which has
been already under review. He certainly writes: “In my opinion, many
persons
[in the apostolic] had the same name as John, for out of love for him,
admiring
and emulating him, and desirous of being loved by the Lord even as he
was, many
assumed the same surname, just as many of the children of the faithful
are also
called Peter and Paul.” But what Dionysius says here about the name of
John is
simply a conjecture with regard to the apostolic age, while indirectly,
though
plainly enough, he testifies that Christians in his own day were called
Peter
and Paul, but not John.\226/ This preference assigned to the name of
the two
apostolic leaders throughout the East and West alike is
significant,\227/ and
it is endorsed by a passage from Eustathius, the bishop of Antioch, who
was a
contemporary of Athanasius. “Many Jews,” he writes, “call themselves
after the
patriarchs and prophets, and yet are guilty of wickedness. Many
[Christian]
Greeks call themselves Peter and Paul, and yet behave in a most
disgraceful
fashion.” Evidently the Old Testament names were left as a rule to the
Jews,
while Peter and Paul continue apparently to be the only New Testament
names
which are actually in use. This state of matters lasted till the second
half of
the fourth century.\228/ As the saints, prophets, [[429]] patriarchs, angels,
etc., henceforth took
the place of the dethroned gods of paganism, and as the stories of
these gods
were transformed into stories of the saints, the supersession of
mythological
names now commenced in real earnest.\229/ Now, for the first time,
do we
often light upon names like John, James, Andrew, Simon, and Mary,
besides --
though much more rarely is the West -- names from the Old Testament, At
the
close of the fourth century, Chrysostom, e.g. (ep. Hom. 52, in
Maith.
[[430]] Migne,
vol. 60.365), exhorts
the believers to call their children after the saints, so that the
saints may
serve them as examples of virtue. But in giving this counsel he does
not
mention its, most powerful motive, a motive disclosed by Theodoret,
bishop of
\226/
No older evidence is available. It is no proof to the contrary of what
we have
said, that the father of the Roman bishop Anicetus is said to have been
called “John”;
for, apart from the untrustworthiness of the notice (in the Liber
Pontif.),
he must have been a Syrian, and certainly he was not called after the
apostle.
According to the Acta Johannis (Prochorus), Basilius and Charis
called
the child given them by means of John, after the apostle's name, but
these Acts
belong to the post-Constantine age.
\227/
It is not certain that where “Paul” is found as a Christian name it
must be
referred to the great apostle. But “Paul” was rather more common than
“Peter”
even yet. We find it first of all as the name of a gnostic Christian of
Antioch, who stayed with young Origen at the house of a wealthy lady in
\228/
The bishops who attended the council of Nicoea got their names between
250 and
290. Of the 237 names which have come down to us, six-sevenths are
common pagan
names; there are even some like Aphrodisius, Orion, etc. About 18 names
are “pious,”
but neutral as regards any distinctively Christian value, [[429b]] e.g. Eusebius (five
times), Hosius,
Theodorus, Theodotus, Diodorus, Theophilus; of these, however, Pistus
(twice,
both times from the
\229/
The thirtieth of the Arabic canons of Nicaea is unauthentic and late:
“Fideles
nomina gentilium filiis suis non imponant ; sed potius omnis natio
Christianorum suit nominibus utatur, ut gentiles suis utuntur,
imponanturque
nomina Christianorum secundum scripturam in baptismo” (“Let not the
faithful
give pagan names to their children, Rather let the whole Christian
people use
its own names, as pagans use theirs, giving children at baptism the
names of
Christians according to the Scripture”).
\230/
Graec. affect. curat. 8. p. 923, ed. Schulze.
[Harnack
bk3 ch4, 431 -- scanned by Moises Bassan, March 2004]
[[431]]
CHAPTER
4
THE
ORGANIZATION OF THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY, AS
BEARING UPON THE CHRISTIAN MISSION\231/
\231/
Cp. on this Von Dobschütz's Die urchristlichen Gemeinden (1902)
[translated in this library under the title of Christian Life in
the
CHRISTIAN
preaching aimed at winning souls and bringing individuals to God, “that
the
number of the elect might be made up,” but from the very outset it
worked
through a community and proposed to itself the aim of uniting all who
believed
in Christ. Primarily, this union was one which consisted of the
disciples of
Jesus. But, as we have already seen, these disciples were conscious of
being the
true
But while this
organization, embracing all Christians on earth, rested in the first
instance
solely upon religious ideas, as a purely ideal conception it would
hardly have
remained effective for any length of time, had it not been allied to local
organization. Christianity, at the initiative of the original
apostles and
the brethren of Jesus, began by borrowing this as well from Judaism,
i.e., from
the synagogue. Throughout the Diaspora the Christian communities
developed at
first out of the synagogues with their proselytes or adherents. Designed
to
be essentially a brotherhood, and springing out of the synagogue, the
Christian
society developed a local organization which was of double strength, superior
to anything achieved by the societies [[432]]
of Judaism.\232/ One extremely advantageous fact about these local
organizations in their significance for Christianity may be added. It
was this:
every community was at once a unit, complete in itself; but it was also
a
reproduction of the collective
\232/
We cannot discuss the influence which the Greek and Roman guilds may
have
exercised upon Christianity. In any case, it can only have affected
certain forms,
not the essential fact itself or its fixity.
\233/
We do not know how this remarkable conviction arose, but it lies
perfectly
plain upon the surface of the apostolic and post-apostolic ages. It did
not
originate in Judaism, since -- to my knowledge -- the individual Jewish
synagogue did not look upon itself in this light. Nor did the
conception spring
up at a single stroke. Even in Paul two contradictory conceptions still
lie unexplained
together: while, on the one hand, he regards each community, so to
speak, as a “church
of God,” sovereign, independent, and responsible for itself, on the
other hand
his churches are at the same time his own creations, which consequently
remain
under his control and training, and are in fact even threatened by hire
with
the rod. He is their father and their schoolmaster. Here the apostolic
authority, and, what is more, the general and special authority, of the
apostle
as the founder of a church invade and delimit the authority of the
individual
community, since the latter has to respect and follow the rules laid
down and
enforced by the apostle throughout all his churches. This he had the
right to
expect. But, as we see from the epistles to the Corinthians, especially
from
the second, conflicts were inevitable. Then again in 3 John we have an
important source of information, for here the head of a local church is
openly
rebelling and asserting his independence, against the control of an
apostle who
attempts to rule the church by means of delegates. When Ignatius
reached
Such a
religious and social organization, destitute of any political or
national basis
and yet embracing the entire private life, was a novel and unheard of
thing
upon the soil of Greek and Roman life, where religious and social
organizations
only existed as a rule in quite a rudimentary form, and where they
lacked any
religious control of life as a whole. All that people could think of in
this
connection was one or two schools of philosophy, whose common life was
also a
religious life. But here was a society which united fellow-believers,
who were
resident in any city, in the closest of ties, presupposing a
relationship which
was assumed as a matter of course to last through life itself,
furnishing its
members not only with holy unction administered once and for all or
from time
to time, but with a daily bond which provided them with spiritual
benefits [[433]] and
imposed duties on them, assembling
them at first daily and then weekly, shutting them off from other
people,
uniting them in a guild of worship, a friendly society, and an order
with a
definite line of life in view, besides teaching them to consider
themselves as
the community of God.
Neophytes,
of course, had to get accustomed or to be trained at first to a society
of this
kind. It ran counter to all the requirements exacted by any other
cultus or
holy rite from its devotees, however much the existing guild-life may
have
paved the way for it along several lines. That its object should be the
common
edification of the members, that the community was therefore to
resemble a
single body with many members, that every member was to be subordinate
to the
whole body, that one member was to suffer and rejoice with another,
that Jesus
Christ did not call individuals apart but built them up into a society
in which
the individual got his place -- all these were lessons which had to be
learnt. Paul's
epistles prove how vigorously and unweariedly he taught them, and it is
perhaps
the weightiest feature both in Christianity and in the work of Paul
that, so
far from being overpowered, the impulse towards association was most
powerfully
intensified by the individualism which here attained its zenith. (For
to what
higher form can individualism rise than that reached by means of the
dominant
counsel, “Save thy soul”?) Brotherly love constituted the lever; it was
also
the entrance into that most wealthy inheritance, the inheritance of the
firmly
organized
What
a sense of stability a creation of this kind must have given the
individual!
What powers of attraction it must have exercised, as soon as its
objects came
to be understood! It was this, and not any evangelist, which proved to
be the
most effective missionary. In fact, we may take it for granted that the
mere
existence and persistent activity of the individual Christian
communities did
more than anything else to bring about the extension of the Christian
religion.\234/
\234/
We possess no detailed account of the origin of any Christian
community, for
the narrative of Acts is extremely summary, and the epistles of Paul
presuppose
the existence of the various churches. Acts, indeed, is not interested
in the
local churches. It is only converted brethren that come within its ken;
its
pages reflect but the onward rush of the Christian mission, till that
mission
is merged in the legal proceedings against Paul. The apocryphal Acts
are of
hardly any use. But from 1 Thessalonians, 1 Corinthians, and Acts we
can infer
one or two traits. Thus, while Paul invariably attaches himself to
Jews, where
such were to be found, and preaches in the synagogues, the actual
result is
that the small communities which thus arose are drawn mainly from
“God-fearing”
pagans, and upon the whole from pagans in general, not from Jews. Those
who
were first converted naturally stand in an important relation to the
organization of the churches (Clem.
Hence
also the injunction, repeated over and again, “Let us not forsake the
assembling of ourselves together,” -- “as some do,” adds the epistle to
the
Hebrews (10.25). At first and indeed always there were naturally some
people
who imagined that one could secure the holy contents and blessings of [[435]] Christianity as one
did those of Isis or
the Magna Mater, and then withdraw. Or, in cases where people were not
so
short-sighted, levity, laziness, or weariness were often enough to
detach a
person from the society. A vainglorious sense of superiority and of
being able
to dispense with the spiritual aid of the society was also the means of
inducing many to withdraw from fellowship and from the common worship.
Many,
too, were actuated by fear of the authorities; they shunned attendance
at
public worship, to avoid being recognized as Christians.\235/
\235/
Cp. Tertullian, de Fuga, 3: “Timide conveniunt in
ecclesiam:
dicitis enim, quoniam incondite convenimus et simul convenimus et
complures
concurrimus in ecclesiam, quaerimur a nationibus et timemus, ne
turbentur
nationes” (“They gather to church with trembling. For, you say, since
we
assemble in disorder, simultaneously, and in great numbers, the heathen
make inquiries,
and we are afraid of stirring them up against us”).
“Seek
what is of common profit to all,” says Clement of Rome (c. 48). “Keep
not apart
by yourselves in secret,” says Barnabas (4.10), “as if you were already
justified, but meet together and confer upon the common weal.” Similar
passages
are often to be met with.\236/ The worship on Sunday; s of course
obligatory,
but even at other times the brethren are expected to meet as often as
possible.
“Thou shalt seek out every day the company of the saints, to be
refreshed by
their words” (Did. 4.2). “We are constantly in touch with one
another,”
says Justin, after describing the Sunday worship (Apol. 1.67),
in order
to show that this is not the only place of fellowship. Ignatius,\237/
too,
advocates over and over again more frequent meetings of the church; in
fact,
his letters are written primarily for the purpose of binding the
individual
member as closely as possible to the community and thus [[436]] securing him against
error, temptation, and apostasy.
The means to this end is an increased significance attaching to the
church. In
the church alone all blessings are to be had, in its ordinances and
organizations. It is only the church firmly equipped with bishop,
presbyters,
and deacons, with common worship and with sacraments, which is the
creation of
God.\238/ Consequently, beyond its pale nothing divine is to be found,
there is
nothing save error and sin; all clandestine meetings for worship are
also to be
eschewed, and no teacher who starts up from outside is to get a hearing
unless
he is certificated by the church. The absolute subordination of
Christians to
the local community has never been more peremptorily demanded, the
position of
the local community itself has never been more eloquently laid down,
than in
these primitive documents. Their eager admonitions reveal the
seriousness of
the peril [[437]] which
threatened the
individual Christian who should even in the slightest degree emancipate
himself
from the community; thereby he would fall a prey to the “errorists,” or
slip
over into paganism. At this point even the heroes of the church were
threatened
by a peril, which is singled out also for notice. As men who had a
special
connection with Christ, and who were quite aware of this connection,
they could
not well be subject to orders from the churches; but it was recognized
even at
this early period that if they became “inflated” with pride and held
aloof from
the fellowship of the church, they might easily come to grief. Thus,
when the
haughty martyrs of
\236/
Herm. Simil. 9.20: οὗτοι
οἱ ἐν πολλοῖς καὶ ποικίλαις πραγματείαις ἐμπεφυρμένοι οὐ κολλῶνται τοῖς δούλοις τοῦ θεοῦ, ἀλλ’ ἀποπλανῶνται (“ These, being involved in
many
different kinds of occupations, do not cleave to the servants of God,
but go
astray”); 9.26: γενόμενοι
ἐρημώδεις, μὴ κολλὠμεωοι τοῖς δούλοις τοῦ θεοῦ, ἀλλὰ μονάζοντες ἀπολλύουσι τὰς ἑαυτῶν ψυχάς (“Having become barren, they
cleave not to the servants of
God, but keep apart and so lose their own souls”).
\237/
Cp. Ephes. 13: σπουδάζετε
πυκνότερον συνέρχεσθαι εἰς εὐχαριστίαν, θεοῦ (“Endeavour to meet more
frequently for the praise of God”);
Polyc. 4: πυκνότερον
συναγωγαὶ γινέσθωσαν (“Let meetings be held more
frequently”); cp. also Magn.
4.
\238/
The common worship, with its center in the celebration of the Supper,
is the
cardinal point. No other cultus could point to such a ceremony, with
its
sublimity and unction, its brotherly feeling and many-sidedness. Here
every
experience, every spiritual need, found nourishment. The collocation of
prayer,
praise, preaching, and the reading of the Word was modelled upon the
worship of
the synagogue, and must already have made a deep impression upon
pagans; but
with the addition of the feast of the Lord's supper, an observance was
introduced which, for all its simplicity, was capable of being
regarded, as it
actually was regarded, from the most diverse standpoints. It was a
mysterious,
divine gift of knowledge and of life; it was a thanksgiving, a
sacrifice, a
representation of the death of Christ, a love-feast of the brotherhood,
a
support for the hungry and distressed. No single observance could well
be more
than that, and it preserved this character for long, even after it had
passed
wholly into the region of the mysterious. The members of the church
took home
portions of the consecrated bread, and consumed them during the week. I
have
already (pp. 150 f) discussed the question how far the communities in
their
worship were also unions for charitable support, and how influential
must have
been their efforts in this direction. -- A whole series of testimonies,
from
Pliny to Arnobius (4.36), proves that the preaching to which people
listened
every Sunday bore primarily on the inculcation of morality: “In
conventiculis
summus orator deus, pax cunctis et venia postulatur magistratibus
exercitibus
regibus familiaribus inimicis, adhuc vitam degentibus et resolutis
corporum
vinctione, in quibus aliud auditor nihil nisi quod humanos faciat, nisi
quod
mites, verecundos, pudicos, castos, familiaris communicatores rei et
cum
omnibus vobis solidae germanitatis necessitudine copulatos” (“At our
meetings
prayers are offered to Almighty God, peace and pardon are asked for all
in
authority, for soldiers, kings, friends, enemies, those still in life,
and
those freed from the bondage of the flesh ; at these gatherings nothing
is said
except what makes people humane, gentle, modest, virtuous, chaste,
generous in
dealing with their substance, and closely knit to all of you within the
bonds
of brotherhood”).
While the
individual Christian had a position of his own within the organization
of the
church, he thereby lost, however, a part of his autonomy along with his
fellows. The so-called Montanist controversy was in the last resort not
merely
a struggle to secure a stricter mode of life as against a laxer, but
also the
struggle of a more independent religious attitude and activity as
against one
which was prescribed and uniform. The outstanding personalities, the
individuality of certain people, had to suffer in order that the
majority might
not become unmanageable or apostates. Such has always been the case in
human
history. It is inevitable. Only after the Montanist conflict did the
church, as
individual and collective, attain the climax of its development;
henceforth it
became an object of desire, coveted by everyone who was on the look-out
for
power, inasmuch as it had extraordinary forces at its disposal. It now
bound
the individual closely to itself; it held him, bridled him, and
dominated his
religious life in all directions. Yet it was not long before the
monastic
movement originated, a movement which, while it recognized the church
in theory
(doubt upon this point being no longer possible), set it aside in
actual
practice.
The progress of
the development of the juridical organization [[438]]
from the firmly organized local church\239/ to the provincial
church,\240/ from
that again to the larger league of churches, a league which realized
itself in
synods covering many provinces, and finally from that league to the
collective
church, which of course was never quite realized as an organization,
though it
was always present in idea -- this development also contributed to the
strengthening of the Christian self-consciousness and missionary
activity.\241/
It was indeed a matter of great moment to be able to proclaim that this
church
not only embraced humanity in its religious conceptions, but also
presented
itself to the eye as an immense single league stretching from one side
of the
empire to another, and, in fact, stretching beyond even these imperial
boundaries. This church arose through the co-operation of the Christian
ideal
with the empire, and thus every great force which operated in this
sphere had
also its part to play in the building up of the church, viz., the
universal
Christian idea of a bond of humanity (which, at root, of course, meant
no more
than a bond between the scattered elect throughout mankind), the Jewish
church,
and the Roman empire. The last named, as has been rightly pointed out,
became
bankrupt over the church;\242/and the same might be said of the Jewish
church,
whose powers of attraction ceased for a large circle of people so soon
as the
Christian church had developed, the latter taking, them over into its
own
life.\243/ Whether the Christian communities were as free creations as
they
were in the first century, whether they set [[439]]
up external ordinances as definite and a union as comprehensive as was
the case
in the third century -- in either case these communities exerted a
magnetic
force on thousands, and thus proved of extraordinary service to the
Christian
mission.
\239/
Christians described themselves at the outset as παροικοῦντεσ (“sojourners”; cp. p.
252); the
church was technically “the church sojourning in the city” (ἡ ἐκκλησία
ἡ παροικοῦσα τὴν πόλιν), but it rapidly
became well
defined, nor did it by any means stand out as a structure destined to
crumble
away.
\240/
How far this ascent, when viewed from other premises which are equally
real,
corresponded to a descent, may be seen from the first Excursus to this
chapter.
\241/
Tert. de Praescript. 20: “Sic omnes [sc. ecclesiae] primae et
omnes
apostolicae, dum una omnes, probant unitatem communicatio pacis et
appellatio
fraternitatis et contesseratio hospitalis, quae iura non alio natio
regit quam
eiusdem sacramenti una traditio” (“Thus all are primitive and all
apostolic,
since they are all alike certified by their union in the communion of
peace,
the title of brotherhood, and the interchange of hospitable friendship
-- rights
whose only rule is the one tradition of the same mystery in all”).
\242/
It revived, however, in the Western church.
\243/
Ever since the fall of the temple, however, the Jewish church had
consciously
and voluntarily withdrawn into itself more and more, and abjured the
Greek
spirit.
Within the
church-organization the most weighty and significant creation was that
of the
monarchical episcopate.\244/ It was the bishops, properly speaking, who
held
together the individual members of the churches; their rise marked the
close of
the period during which charismata and offices were in a state of
mutual flux,
the individual relying only upon God, hinmself, and spiritually endowed
brethren. After the close of the second century bishops were the
teachers, high
priests, and udges of the church. Ignatius already had compared their
position
in the individual church to that of God in the church collective. But
this
analogy soon gave way to the formal quality which they
acquired, first
in
\244/
I leave out of account here all the preliminary steps. It was with the
monarchical episcopate that this office first became a polder in
Christendom,
and it does not fall within the scope of the present sketch to
investigate the
initial stages -- a task of some difficulty, owing to the fragmentary
nature of
the sources and the varieties of the original organization throughout
the
different churches.
The extent to
which the episcopate, along with the other clerical offices which it
controlled, formed the backbone of the church,\245/ is shown by the
fierce war
waged against it by the [[440]]
state during
the third century (Maximinus Thrax, Decius, Valerian, Diocletian, Daza,
Licinius), as well as from many isolated facts. In the reign of Marcus
Aurelius, Dionysius of Corinth tells the
\245/
Naturally, it came more and more to mean a position which was
well-pleasing to
God and specially dear to him; this is implied already in the term
“priest,” [[440b]]
which became current after the close of
the second century. Along with the higher class of heroic figures
(ascetics,
virgins, confessors), the church also possessed a second upper class of
clerics, as was well known to pagans in the third century. Thus the
pagan in
Macarius Magnes (3.17) writes, apropos of Matt. 17.20, 21.21 ('”Have
faith as a
grain of mustard-seed”): “He who has not so much faith as this is
certainly
unworthy of being reckoned among the brotherhood of the faithful ; so
that the
majority of Christians, it follows, are not to be counted among the
faithful,
and in fact even among the bishops and presbyters there is not one who
deserves
this name.”
\246/
This is the language also of the heathen judge to bishop Achatius: “a
shield
and succourer of the region of Antioch” (“scutum quoddam ac refugium
Antiochiae
regionis”; Ruinart, Acta Mart. Ratisb. 1859, p. 201): “Veniet
tecum
[i.e., if you return to the old gods] omnis populus, ex tuo pendet
arbitirio” (“All
the people will accompany you, for they hang on your decision”), The
bishop
answers of course: “Illi omnes non meo nutu, sed dei praecepto
reguntur;
audiant me itaque, si iusta persuadeam, sin vero perversa et nocitura,
contemnant” (“They are ruled, not by my beck and call,
but all of
them by God's counsel; wherefore let them hearken to me, if I persuade
them to
what is right ; but despise me if I counsel what is perverse and
mischievous.”
-- Hermas (Sim. 9.31) says of the [[441b]]
shepherds: “Sin aliqua e pecoribus dissipate invenerit dominus, vae
erit
pastoribus. quod si ipsi pastores dissipati reperti fuerint, quid
respondebunt
pro pecoribus his? numquid dicunt, a pecore se vexatos? non credetur
illis.
incredibilis enim res est, pastorem pati posse a pecore “ (“But if the
master
finds any of the sheep scattered, woe to the shepherds. For if the
shepherds
themselves be found scattered, how will they answer for these sheep?
Will they
say that they were themselves worried by the flock? Then they will not
be
believed, for it is absurd that a shepherd should; be injured by his
sheep”).
\247/
For a distinguished missionary or teacher who had founded a church
becoming its
bishop, cp. Origen, Hom. 11.4 in Num. [as printed above, p.
351].
\248/
Cp. (trans. below, under “
\249/ I do not enter here into the development of the constitution in
detail,
although by its close relation to the divisions of the empire it has
many vital
points of contact with the history of the Christian mission (see
Lübeck, Reichseinteilung
and kirchliche Hierarchie des Orients his sum Ausgang des 4.
Jahrhunderts, 1901).
I simply note that the ever-increasing dependence of the Eastern Church
upon
the redistributed empire (a redistribution which conformed to national
boundaries) imperilled by degrees the unity of the Church and the
universalism
of Christianity. The church began by showing harmony and vigor in this
sphere
of action, but centrifugal influences soon commenced to play upon her,
influences which are perceptible as early as the Paschal controversy of
190 CE
between Rome and Asia, which are vital by the time of the controversy
over the
baptism of heretics, and which finally appear as disintegrating forces
in the
fourth and fifth centuries. In the West the Roman bishop knew how to
restrain
them admirably, evincing both tenacity and clearness of purpose.
One other
problem has finally to be considered at this point, a problem which is
of great
importance for the statistics of the church. It is this: how strong was
the
tendency to create independent forms within the Christian communities,
i.e., to
form complete episcopal communities? Does the number of
communities
which were episcopally organized actually denote the number of the
communities
in general, or were there, either as a rule or in a large number of
provinces,
any considerable number of communities which possessed no bishops of
their own,
but had only presbyters or deacons, and depended upon an outside
bishop? The
following Excursus\250/ is devoted to the answering of this
important question. Its aim is to show that the creation of complete
episcopal
communities was the general rule in most provinces (excluding Egypt)
down to
the middle of the third century, however small might be the number of
Christians in any locality, and however insignificant might be the
locality
itself.
\250/
Read before the
As important,
if not even more important, was the tendency, which was in operation
from the
very first, to have all the Christians in a given locality united in a
single
community. As [[443]]
the Pauline epistles
prove, house-churches were tolerated at the outset, (we do not know how
long),\251/ but obviously their position was (originally or very soon
afterwards) that of members belonging to the local community as a
whole. This
original relationship is, of course, as obscure to us as is the
evaporation of
such churches. Conflicts there must have been at first, and even
attempts to
set up a number of independent Christian θίασοι in
a city; the “schisms” at
\251/We
cannot determine how long they lasted, but after the New Testament we
hear next
to nothing of them -- which, by the way, is an argument against all
attempts,
to relegate the Pauline epistles to the second century. For the house
churches,
see the relevant sections in Weizsäcke's History of the
Apostolic Age. Hebrews
is most probably addressed to a special community in
\252/
The relation of the Christian διδασκαλεῖα to the local church (cp.
above, p. 356) is wrapt in
obscurity. We know of Justin's school, of Tatian's, Rhodon's,
Theodotus's,
Praxeas's, Epigonus's, and Cleomenes's in Rome, of the transition of
the
Thedotian school into a church (the most interesting case of the kind
known to
us), of catechetical schools in Alexandria, of Hippolytus scorning the
Christians in Rome who adhered to Callistus, i.e., the majority of the
church (or
a school), of various gnostic schools, of Lucian's school at Antioch
side by
side with the church, etc. But this does not amount to a clear view of
the
situation, for we learn very little apart from the fact that such
schools
existed. Anyone might essay to prove that by the second half of the
second
century there was a general danger of the church being dissipated into
nothing
but schools. Anyone else might undertake to prove that even ordinary
Christianity here and there deliberately assumed the character of a
philosophic
school in order to secure freedom and [[444b]] safeguard its interests
against the
state and a hostile society (as was the case, we cannot doubt, with
some
circles; cp. above, p. 364). Both attempts would bring in useful
material, but
neither would succeed in proving its thesis. So much is certain,
however, that,
during the second century and perhaps here and there throughout the
third, as
well, the “schools” spelt a certain danger for the unity of the
episcopal
organization of the churches, and that the episcopal church had
succeeded, by
the opening of the third century, in rejecting the main dangers of the
situation. The materials are scanty, but the question deserves
investigation by
itself.
\253/
Celsus had already laid sharp stress on heresy-hunting and the passion
with
which Christians fought one another: βλασφημοῦσιν
εἰς ἀλλήλουs
οὗτοι
πάνδεινα ῥητὰ καὶ ἄρρητα,
καὶ οὐκ ἂν εἴξαιεν
οὐδὲ καθ’ ὁτιοῦν
εἰs ὁμόνιαν πάντη ἀλλήλους ἀποστυγοῦντεs (5.63: “These people utter
all sorts of blasphemy, mentionable
and unmentionable, against one another, nor will they give way in the
smallest
point for the sake of concord, hating each other with a perfect hatred”).
[[445]]
EXCURSUS 1
ECCLESIASTICAL
ORGANIZATION AND THE EPISCOPATE (IN THE PROVINCES, THE CITIES, AND THE
VILLAGES), FROM PIUS TO
“In 1
Tim. 3 (where only bishops and deacons are mentioned) the apostle Paul
has not
forgotten the presbyters, for at first the same officials bore the name
of ‘presbyter'
as well as that of bishop.’ . . . . Those who had the power of
ordination and
are now called ‘bishops’ were not appointed to a single church
but to a
whole province, and bore the name of ‘apostles.’ Thus
\254/
Gk.: μέγισται δὲ οὐ πόλεις μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ χῶραι τῶν πεπιστευκότων ἧσαν; Lat. Version = repletae
autem sunt
non modo civitates credentium, sed regiones. Read, μεσταί therefore
instead of
μέγισται.
\255/
Gk.: διὰ μὲν τὴν χρείαν τὸ πρῶτον, ὕστερον δὲ καὶ ὑπὸ φιλοτιμίας τῶν ποιούντων; Ambition, it might be
conjectured,
would be mentioned as the motive at work, but in that case τῶν ποιούντων would require to be away. Φιλοτιμία therefore must mean
“liberal spirit,”
and this is the interpretation given in the Latin version: “Postea vero
et
illis adiecti sunt alii liberalitate comm qui ordinationes faciebant.”
Dr
Bischoff, however, proposes παροικούντων
for ποιούντων.
So Theodore of
Mopsuestia in his commentary upon First Timothy.\256/ The assertion
that “bishop”
and “presbyter” were identical in primitive ages occurs frequently
about the
year 400, but Theodore's statements in general are, to the best of my
knowledge, unique; they represent an attempt to depict the primitive
organization of the church, and to explain the most important
revolution which
had taken place in the history of the church's constitution. Theodore's
idea
is, in brief, as follows. From the outset, he remarks -- i.e. in the
apostolic
age, or by original apostolic institution -- there was a
monarchical office in
the churches, to which pertained the right of ordination. This
[[447]] office was one belonging
to the
provincial churches (each province lossessing a single
superintendent), and
its title was that of “apostle.”
Individual communities, again, were governed by bishops (presbyters)
and
deacons. Once the apostles\257/ (i.e. the original apostles)
had died,
however, a revolution took place. The motives assigned for this by
Theodore are
twofold: in the first place, the spread of the Christian
religion, and
in the second place, the weakness felt by the second generation of the
apostles
themselves. The latter therefore resolved (1) to abjure and thus
abolish\258/
the name of “apostle,” and (2) to distribute the
monarchical power, i.e., the right of ordination, among several
persons'
throughout a province. Hence the circumstance of two or three bishops
existing
in the same province -- the term “bishop” being now employed in the
sense of
monarchical authority. That state of matters was the rule until quite
recently
in most of the Western provinces, and it still survives n several of
them. In
the East, however, it has not lasted. Partly owing to the. requirements
of the
case (i.e., the increase of Christianity throughout the provinces),
partly
owing to the “liberality” of the apostles,\259/ the number of the
bishops has
multiplied, so that not only towns, but even villages, have come to
possess
bishops, although there was no real need for such appointments.
\256/
See Swete's Theodori episcapi Mopsuesteni in epp. b. Pauli
comentarii,
vol. 2 (1882), pp. 121 f.
\257/This
is the first point of obscurity in Theodore's narrative. “The blessed
apostles”
are not all the men whom he has first mentioned as “apostles,” but
either the
apostles in the narrowest sense of the term, or else these taken
together with
men like Timothy and Titus.
\258/
This has to be supplied by the reader (which is the second obscure
point); the
text has merely βαρὺ
νομίσαντες τὴν τῶν ἀποστόλων ἔχειν προσηγορίαν. Theodore says nothing
about what
became of them after they gave up their name and rights.
\259/
This is the third point of obscurity in Theodore's statement. By φιλοτιμία τῶν ποιούντων it seems necessary to
understand the
generosity of the retiring apostles,” and yet the process went on --
according
to Theodore himself -- even after these apostles had long left the
scene.
We must in the
first instance credit Theodore with being sensible of the fact that the
organization of the primitive churches was originally on the broadest
scale,
and only cane down by degrees (to the local communities). Such
was
indeed the case. The whole was prior to the part. That is, the [[448]] organization effected
by the apostles was
in the first place universal; its scope was the provinces of the
church. It is
\260/Compare
the remarks of Paul and the Didachê upon apostles, prophets, and
teachers. The
apostles are appointed by God or “the Spirit.”
\261/
It is even probable that he has particularly in mind, along with Tit.
1.5 f.
and 1 Tim. 3.1 f., the well-known passage in Clem. Alex. Quis Dives
Salvelu,
(cp. Eus. H.E. 3.23), since his delineation of the tasks
pertaining to
the [[449b]]
apostle-bishop coincides
substantially with what is narrated of the work of John in that passage
(6: ὅπου μὲν ἐπισκόπους καταστήων, ὅπου δὲ ὅλας ἐκκλησίας ἁρμόσων, ὅπου δὲ κλήρῳ ἕνα γέ τινα κληρώσων τῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος σημαινομένων = “Appointing bishops in
some
quarters, arranging the affairs of whole churches other quarters, and
elsewhere
selecting for the ministry some one of those indicated by the Spirit”;
cp. also
the description of how John dealt with a difficult case).
\262/
Clem.
He is right in
recognizing that any survey of the origin of the church's organization
must be
based upon the apostles and their missionary labors. We may add, the
organization which arose during the mission and in consequence of the
mission,
would attempt to maintain itself even after local authorities and
institutions
had been called into being which asserted rights of their own. But the
distinctive trait in Theodore's conception consists in the fact that he
knows absolutely nothing of any originally constituted rights
appertaining to
local authorities. He has no eyes for all that the New Testament
and the
primitive Christian writings, as a whole, contain upon this point ; for
even
here, on his view, everything must have flowed from some apostolic
injunction
or concession -- i.e., from above to below. He adduces, no doubt, the
“weakness”
of the “apostles” in the second generation which is quite a
remarkable
statement, based on the cessation of miraculous gifts.\263/ But it was
in
virtue of their own resolve that the, apostles withdrew from the scene,
distributing their [[450]]
power to other
people; for only there could the local church's authority
originate! Such
is his theory; it is extremely ingenious, and dominated throughout by a
magical
conception of the apostolate. The local church-authority (or the
monarchical
and supreme episcopate) within the individual community owed its origin
to the “apostolic”
provincial authority, by means of a conveyance of power. During the
lifetime of
the apostles it was quite in a dependent position. Even after their
departure,
the supreme episcopal authority did not emerge at once within each
complete
community. On the contrary, says Theodore, it was only two or three
towns in
every province which at the outset possessed a bishop of their own
(i.e., in
the new sense of the term “bishop”). Not until a later date, and even
then only
by degrees, were other towns and even villages added to these original
towns,
while in the majority of provinces throughout the West the old state of
matters
prevailed, says Theodore, till quite recently. In some provinces it
prevails at
present.\264/
\263/
It seems inevitable that we should take Theodore as holding that the
cessation
of the miraculous power hitherto wielded by the apostles was a divine
indication that they were now to efface themselves. -- It was a widely
spread conviction
(see Origen in several passages, which Theodore read with care)
that the
apostolic [[450b]]
power of working miracles
ceased at some particular moment in their history. The power of working
miracles and the apostles’ power of working miracles are not, however,
identical.
\264/Theodore
seems to regard this original state of matters as the ideal. At any
rate, he
expresses his dislike for the village-episcopacy.
This theory
about the origin of the local monarchical episcopate baffles all
discussions.\265/ We may say without any hesitation that Theodore had
no
authentic foundation for it whatever. Even when he might seem to be
setting up
at least the semblance of historic trustworthiness for his
identification of “apostles”
with “provincial bishops,” by his reference to Timothy, Titus, and
John, the
testimony breaks down entirely. We are forced to ask, Who were these
retiring
apostles? What sources have we for our knowledge of their resignation?
How do
we learn of this conveyance of authority which they are declared to
have
executed? These questions, we may say quite plainly, [[451]]
Theodore ought to have felt in duty bound to answer; for in what
sources can we
read anything of the matter? It was not without reason that Theodore
veiled
even the exact time at which this great renunciation took effect. We
can only
suppose that it was conceived to have occurred about the year 100
CE.\266/
\265/
All the more so that Theodore goes into the question of how the
individual
community was ruled at first (whether by some local council or
by a
single presbyter-bishop). He says nothing, either, of the way in which
the
monarchical principle was reached in the individual community. We seem
shut up
to the conjecture that in his view the individual communities were
ruled by
councils for several generations.
\266/
Theodore adduces but one “proof” for his assertion that originally
there were
only two or three bishoprics in every province. He refers to the
situation in
the West as this had existed up till recently, and as it still existed
in some
quarters. But the question is whether he has correctly understood the
circumstances of the case, and whether these circumstances can really
be linked
on to what is alleged to have taken place about the year 100.
At the same
time there is no reason to cast aside the statements of Theodore in
toto. They
start a whole set of questions to which historians have not paid
sufficient
attention, questions relating to the position of bishops in the local
church,
territorial or provincial bishops (if such there were), and
metropolitans. To
state the problem more exactly: Were there territorial (or provincial)
bishops
in the primitive Period? And was the territorial bishop perhaps older
than the
bishop of the local, church? Furthermore, did the two disparate systems
of
organization denoted by these offices happen to rise simultaneously,
coming to
terms with each other only at a later period? Finally, was the
metropolitan
office, which is not visible till the second half of the second
century,
originally an older creation? Can it have been merely the sequel of an
earlier
monarchical office which prevailed in the ecclesiastical provinces?
These
questions are of vital moment to the history of the extension of
Christianity,
and in fact to the statistics of primitive Christianity; for, supposing
that it
was the custom in many provinces to be content with one or two or three
bishoprics for several generations, it would be impossible to conclude
from the
small number of bishoprics in certain provinces that Christianity was
only
scantily represented in these districts. The investigation of this
question is
all the more pressing, as Duchesne has recently (Pastes
épiscopaux de l’ancienne
Gaule, 1, 1894, pp. 36 f.) gone into it, referring -- although
with caution
-- to the statements of Theodore, and deducing far-reaching conclusions
with
regard to the organization of the churches in Gaul. We shall require,
in the
first instance, [[452]]
to make ourselves
familiar with his propositions\267/ (pp. 1-59). I give the main
conclusion in
his own words.
\267/
Duchesne, be it observed, only draws these conclusions for
P. 32: “Dans les pays
situés à, quelque
distance de la Mediterranée et de la basse vallée
Pp. 38 f.: “Il en résulte que, dans l’ancienne Gaule celtique,
avec ses grandes
subdivisions en Belgique, Lyonnaise,
\268The
mention of the
P. 59: “Avant la fin du IIIe siècle -- sauf
toujours la région du
bas Rhône et de la Méditerranée -- peu
d’évêchés en Gaule et cela seulement
dans les villes les plus importantes, A l’origine, au premier
siècle chrétien
pour notre pays (150-250), une seule église, celle de Lyon,
réunissant dans un
même cercle d’action et de direction tous les groupes
chrétiens épars dans les
diverses provinces de la Celtique.”
Duchesne reaches this conclusion by means of the following
observations: --
1. No reliable evidence for a single Gallic bishopric, apart from that
of
\269/Arles
alone was certainly in existence before 250 CE, as the correspondence
of
Cyprian proves. But
2.
The heading of the well-known epistle from
\270/
Certainly this argument is advanced with some caution (p. 40): “Cette
formule
semble plutôt désigner un groupe ecclésiastique que
deux groupes ayant chacun
son organization distincte: en tout cas, elle n’offre rien de contraire
à l’indistinction
des deux églises.”
3. In this epistle “Sanctus,
deacon
from Vienne, is mentioned -- a phrase which would hardly be
intelligible
if it alluded to one of the deacons of the bishop of Vienne, but which
is
perfectly natural if Sanctus was the deacon who managed the uchoate
church of
Vienne, as a delegate of the Lyons bishop. In that event
4. Irenaeus in his great
work speaks of
churches in
\271/
It is in this way, I believe, that Duchesne's line of argument must be
taken
(pp. 40 f.). But its trend is not quite clear to my mind.
5. Theodore testifies that
till quite
recently there had been only two or three bishops in the majority of
the
Western provinces, and that this state of matters still lasted in one
or two of
them. Now, as a large number of bishoprics can be shown to have existed
in
southern and middle
6. Eusebius mentions a
letter from “the
parishes in
\272/
P. 42: “D’autres églises que
\273/
Duchesne also mentions the allusions to Christians in
\274/
This is the period, therefore, in which Duchesne places the anonymous
anti-Montanist. In my opinion, it is rather too late.
8. The extreme slowness with
which
bishoprics increased in [[455]]
Gaul is
further corroborated by the council of Arles (314 CE), at which four
provinces
(la Germaine I., la Séquanaise, les Grées et Pennines,
les Alpes Maritimes)
were unrepresented. It may be assumed that as yet they contained no
autonomous
churches whatever.\275/
\275/
A counter-argument is noticed by Duchesne. In Cypr. Ep. 68, we
are told
that Faustinus, the bishop of
Before
examining these arguments in favor of the hypothesis that episcopal
churches
were in existence, which covered wide regions and a.number of cities,
and in
fact several provinces together, let me add a further series of
statements
which appear also to tell in favor of it.
(1) Paul
writes . . . . τῇ
ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Κορίνθῳ σὺν τοῖς ἁγίοις πᾶσιν τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ Ἀχαΐᾳ (2 Cor. 1.1).
(2) In the
Ignatian epistles (c. 115 CE) not only is
(3) Dionysius of Corinth
writes a letter
“to the church sojourning at Gortyna, with the rest of the churches in
(5) In Eus. H.E.
3.4.6, we read
that “Timothy is stated indeed to have been the first to obtain the
episcopate
of the parish in
(6) “In the name of the
brethren in
(7) “Demetrius had just then
obtained
the episcopate over the parishes in
(8) “Xystus . . . . was over
the church
of Rome, Demetrianus . . . . over that of
(9) “Firmilianus was bishop
of Caesarea
in Cappadocia, Gregory and his brother Athenodorus were pastors of the
parishes in Pontes, and besides these Helenus of the parish in
Tarsus, with
Nicomas of Iconium,” etc. (Φιρμιλιανὸς
μὲν τῆς Καππαδοκῶν Καισαρείας ἐπίσκοπος ἦν, Γρηγόριος δὲ καὶ Ἀθηνόδωρος ἀδελφοὶ τῶν κατὰ Πόντον παροικιῶν ποιμένες, καὶ ἐπὶ τούτοις Ἕλενος τῆς ἐν Τάρςῳ παροικίας, καὶ Νικομᾶς τῆς ἐν Ἰκονίῳ, etc. – Eus, H.E.
7.28).
(10) “Meletius, bishop of
the churches in
(11) “Basilides, bishop of
the parishes
in Pentapolis” (Βασιλείδης
ὀ κατὰ τὴν Πενεάπολιν παροικῶν ἐπίσκοπος. – Eus. H.E.
7.26.3).
(12) Signatures to council
of Nicaea
(ed. Gelzer et socii): [[457]]
“Calabria
-- Marcus of Calabria; Dardania -- Dacus of Macedonia; Thessaly --
Claudianus
of Thessaly and Cleonicus of Thebes; Pannonia -- Domnus of Pannonia;
Gothia --
Theophilus of Gothia ; Bosporus -- Cadmus of Bosporus (Καλαβρίας · Μάρκος
Κ. – Δαρδανίας · Δάκος Μακεδανίας. – Θεσσαλίας · Κλαυδιανὸς Θ., Κλέονικος Θηβῶν. – Παννονίας · Δόμνος Π. – Γοτθίας · Θεόφιλος Γ. – Βοσπόρου · Κάδμος Β.).
(13) Apost. Constit.
7.46: Κρήσκης τῶν κατὰ Γαλατίαν ἐκκλησιῶν, Ἀκύλας δέ καὶ Νικήτης τῶν κατὰ Ἀσίαν παροικιῶν (“Crescens over the
churches in
\276/
Merely for the sake of completeness let me add that the Liber
Praedestinalus
mentions “Diodorus episc. Cretensis” (12), “Dioscurus Cretensis episc.”
(20),
Craton episc. Syrorum” (33), “Aphrodisius Hellesponti episc.” (47),
“Basilius
episc. Cappadociae” (48), “Zeno Syrorum episc.” (50), and “Theodotus
Cyprius
episc.” (56).
(14)
Sozomen (7.19) declares that the Scythians had only a single, bishop,
although
their country contained many towns (cp. also Theodoret, H.E.
4.31, where
Bretanio is called the high priest, of all the towns in
On 1. I note
that Duchesne's first argument is an argument from silence. Besides, it
must be
added that we have no writings in which any direct notice of the early
Gothic
bishoprics could be expected, so that the argument from silence hardly
seems
worthy of being taken into account in this connection. The one
absolutely
reliable piece of evidence (Cypr. Ep. 68)\277/ for the history
of the
Gothic church, which reaches us from the middle of the third century,
is
certainly touched upon by Duchesne, but he has not done it full
justice. This
letter of Cyprian to the Roman bishop Stephen, which aims at
persuading
the latter to depose Marcian, the bishop of Arles, who held to
Novatian's
ideas, opens with the words: “Faustinus, our colleague, residing at
Lyons, has
repeatedly sent me information which I know you also have received both
from
him and also from he rest of our fellow-bishops established in the same
province” (Faustinus collega noster Lugduni consistens semel adque
iterum mihi
scripsit significans ea quae etiam vobis scio utique nuntiata tam ab eo
quam a
ceteris coepiscopis nostris in eadem [[458]]
provincia constitutis”). It is extremely unlikely that by “eadem
provincia”
here we are meant to understand the provincia Narbonensis. For, in the
first
place, Lyons did not lie in that province; in the second place, had the
bishops
of Narbonensis been themselves opponents of Marcian and desirous of
getting rid
of him, Cyprian's letter would have been couched in different terms,
and it
would hardly have been necessary for the three great Western bishops of
Lyons,
Carthage, and Rome to have intervened; thirdly, Cyprian writes in ch. 2
(“Quapropter
facere to oportet plenissimas litteras ad coepiscopos nostros in Gallia
constitutos, ne ultra Marcianum pervicacem et superbum . . . . collegio
nostro
insultare patiantur”): “Wherefore it behoves you to write at great
length to
our fellow-bishops established in
\277/
See above, page 455.
\278/
This must be the meaning of Cyprian's phrase, “tam a Faustino quam a
ceteris
coepiscopis nostris in eadem provincia constitutis.”
On 2. Duchesne
holds that the heading of the letter (in Eus. H.E. 5.1: οἱ ἐν Βιέννῃ καὶ Λουγδούνῳ τῆς Γαλλίας παροικοῦντες δοῦλοι τοῦ Χριστοῦ) seems to describe the
Christians of
Vienne and Lyons as if they were a single church. But if such were the
case,
one would expect
On 3. “Their
whole fury was aroused exceedingly against Sanctus the deacon from
\279/
So, rightly, Schwartz.
\280/
Cp. Eus. H.E. 5.19: Αἴλιος
Πούπλιος Ἰούλιος ἀπὸ Δεβελτοῦ κολωνείας τῆς Θρᾴκης ἐπίσκοπος (“Aelius Publius Julius,
bishop of Debeltum, a colony of [[460b]]
\281/
Cp. what immediately follows -- “against Attalus a native of
On 4. The
passage from Iren. 1.10.2 (καὶ
οὔτε αἱ ἐν Γερμανίαις ἱδρυμέναι ἐκκλησίαι ἄλλως πεπιστεύκασιν ἤ ἄλλως παραδιδόασιν, οὔτε ἐν ταῖς Ἰβηρίαις, οὔτε ἐν Κελτοῖς, οὔτε κατὰ τὰς ἀνατολὰς οὔτε ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ, οὔτε ἐν Λιβύῃ οὔτε αἱ κατὰ μέσα τοῦ κόσμου ἱδρυμέναι = Nor did the churches
planted in Germany hold any
different faith or tradition, any more than do those in Iberia or in
Gaul or in
the East or in Egypt or in Libya or in the central region of the world)
remains
neutral if we read it and interpret it very sceptically. The language
affords
no clue to the way in which the churches in
On 5. No weight attaches to
Theodore's
evidence regarding the primitive age. Yet even he presupposes that
after the
exit of the “apostles” (= provincial bishops) each separate province
had two or
three bishops of its own, while Duchesne would prove that the three
Gauls had
merely one bishop between them or about a hundred years.
On 6. At first sight, this
argument
seems to be particularly conclusive, but on a closer examination it
proves
untenable, and in fact turns round in exactly an opposite direction.
The expression
τῶν κατὰ . . . . ἐπεσκόπει cannot, we are told, be
understood to
mean episcopal dioceses over which Irenaeus resided as metropolitan; it
merely
denotes scattered groups of Christians (though in the immediate context
ἡ παροικία does mean an episcopal
diocese), as έπισκοπεῖν need only imply direct
episcopal
functions. Yet in H.E. 7.26.3, Eusebius describes Basilides as ὁ κατὰ τὴν Πεντάπολιν παροικιῶν ἐπίσκοπος (see (11)), and Meletius. (H.E.
7.32.26 ; cp. (10))
as τῶν κατὰ Πόντον ἐκκλησιῶν ἐπίσκοπος, and it is quite certain --
even on
the testimony of Eusebius himself -- that there were several bishoprics
at that
period in Pentapolis and Pontus.\282/ Ἐπίσκοπος παροικιῶν, therefore, denotes in
this
connection the position of naetropolitan,\283/ and it is in
this
sense that παροικίας
ἐπισκοιπεῖν must also be understood with
reference
to Irenseus. The latter, Eusebius meant, was metropolitan of the
episcopal
dioceses in
\282/In
this very chapter Eusebius mentions the bishopric of Berenicê in
Pentapolis.
\283/On
Eus. H.E. 6.2.2, see below (p. 462).
\284/
Thus the expression used by Eusebius in H.E. 5.24.11 (ὁ Εἰρηναῖος ἐκ προςώπου ὧν ἡγεῖτο κατὰ τὴν Γαλλίαν ἀδελφῶν ἐπιστείλας -- cp. (6)) is also to be
understood
as a reference to the metropolitan rank of Irenaeus, since it is
employed as a
simple equivalent for the above expression in 5.23. Probst (Kirchliche
Disziplin in den drei ersten christlichen Jahrhunderten, p. 97) and
other
scholars even go the length of including Gallic bishops among
the ἀδελφοί, an interpretation which is
not
necessary, although it is possible, and is on one strong piece of
evidence in
the “parishes” of 5.23. -- The outcome of both passages relating to
Irenseus
and
On 7. This
argument is quite untenable. The
\285/
Προσφάτως γενόμενος ἐν Ἀγκύρᾳ τῆς Γαλατίας καὶ καταλαβὼν τὴν κατὰ τόπον (not Πόντον)
ἐκκλησίαν ὑπὸ τῆς νέας ταύτης . . . . ψευδοπροφητείας διατεθρυλημένην (“When I was recently at
Ancyra in Galatia, I found the
local church quite upset by this novel form . . . . of false
prophecy”). Κατὰ Πόντον
is in one other passage of
Eusebius a
mistake for κατὰ
πάντα τόπον (4.15.2).
On 8.
Duchesne's final argument proves nothing, because it is uncertain
whether the
four recent provinces mentioned here had still no bishops by 314 CE.
Nothing
can be based on the fact that they were not represented at
I have added to
Duchesne's reasons fourteen other passages which appear to favor his
hypothesis. Three of these (6), (10), (11) have been already noticed
under 6,
and our conclusion was that they were silent upon provincial bishops,
being
concerned [[463]]
rather with metropolitans.
It remains for us to review briefly the other eleven.
We must not
infer from 2 Cor. 1.1 that, when Paul wrote this epistle, all the
Christians of
Achaia belonged to the
Ignatius's
description of himself as “bishop of
\286/
Some of the bishoprics adjoining Antioch, of which Eusebius speaks in H.E.
7.30.10 (ἐπίσκοποι
τῶν ὁμόρων ἀγρῶν τε καὶ πόλεων), were therefore in
existence by c.
115 CE -- It seems to me impossible that Philadelphia is referred to in
the expression
of ἔγγιστα ἐκκλησίαι in Phil. 10 (“the
nearest
churches”). Even Lightfoot refers it to
From Eus. H.E.
4.23.5-6, it would appear that there was only a single bishop (3), (4),
in
The statement
of Eusebius (5) that Titus was bishop of the Cretan churches is an
erroneous
inference from Titus 1.5; it is destitute of historical value.
According to
the habitual terminology of Eusebius (7), τῶν δὲ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ παροικιῶν τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν τότε Δημήτριος ὑπειλήφει describes Demetrius as a
metropolitan, not as a provincial
bishop (see above, on (6)). Other evidence, discussed by Lightfoot (in
his Commentary
on Philippians, 3rd ed., pp. 228 f.), would seem to render it
probable that
Demetrius was really the only bishop (in the monarchical sense) in
Egypt in
188-189 CE; but this fact is no proof whatever that the Alexandrian
bishop was
a “provincial” bishop, for it does not preclude the possibility that,
while
Demetrius was the first monarchical bishop in Alexandria itself, Egypt
in
general did not contain any churches up till then except those which
were
superintended by presbyters or deacons. The whole circumstances of the
situation are of course extremely obscure. Nevertheless, it does look
as if
Demetrius and his successor Heraclas were the first bishops (in the
proper
sense of the term), and as if they ordained similar bishops (Demetrius
ordained
three, and Heraclas twenty) for
In both of the
passages (8) and (9) where Gregory and Athenodorus are described as bishops
of the Pontic church, the dual number shows that we have to do
neither with
provincial' nor with metropolitan bishops. Eusebius is expressing
himself
vaguely, perhaps because he did not know the bishoprics of the two men.
In Eus. H.E.
8.13.4-5, two bishops who happen to bear the same name (“Silvanus”) are
described
as bishops of the churches “round Emesa,” or round “
As regards
provincial bishops, it seems possible to cite the signatures to the
council of
\287/The
signature Δαρδανίας
· Δάκος Μακεδονίας is obscure, and must
therefore be set aside.
No value
whatever attaches to the statements of the Apost. Constit. (14)
and
of the Liber Predestinatus. The former are based, so far as
regards the
first half of them, upon an arbitrary deduction from 2 Tim. 4.10, while
their
second half is utterly futile, since several Asiatic city bishoprics
are
mentioned in the context. The latter statement is a description of metropolitans
(i.e., so far as any idea whatever can be ascribed to the forger),
as is
proved abundantly by the entry, “Basilius, bishop of
The result
is, therefore, that the alleged evidence for the hypothesis of
provincial
bishops instead of local (city) bishops and metropolitans throughout
the
empire, yields no proof at all.
Out of all the material which we have examined, nothing is left to
support this
conjecture. The sole outcome of it is the un-important possibility that
in 178
CE (and even till about the middle of the third century),
\288/
If there were several (episcopal) parishes in
The
passage 3.3.1 runs thus: “Traditionem apostolorum in toto mundo
manifestatam, in
omni ecclesia adest perspicere omnibus qui vera velint videre, et
habemus annumerare
eos qui ab apostolis instituti sunt episcopi in ecclesiis et
successiones eorum
usque ad nos. . . . . Sed quoniam valde longum est, in hoc tali
volumine omnium
ecclesiarum enumerare successions,” etc. (“All who desire to see facts
can
clearly see the tradition of the apostles, which is manifest all over
the
world, in every church; we are also able to enumerate those
whom the
apostles appointed as bishops in the churches, as well as to recount
their line
of succession down to our own day. . . . . Since, however, in a volume
of this
kind it would take up great space to enumerate the various lines of
succession
throughout all the churches,” etc.).
It is certain
(cp. pp. 432 f.) that an internal tension prevailed between two forms
of
organization during the first two generations of the Christian
propaganda.
These forms were (1) the church as a missionary church, created by a
missionary
or apostle, whose work it remained; and (2) the church as a local
church,
complete in itself, forming thus an image and expression of the church
in
heaven. As the creation of an apostolic missionary, the church was
responsible
to its founder, dependent [[467]]
upon him,
and obliged to maintain the principles which he invariably laid down in
the
course of his activity as a founder of various churches. As a compact
local
church, again, it was responsible for itself, with no one over it save
the Lord
in heaven. Through the person of its earthly founder, it stood in a
real
relationship to the other churches which he had founded but as a local
church
it stood by itself, and any connection with other churches was quite a
voluntary matter.
That the founders
themselves desired the churches to be independent, is perfectly clear
in the
case of Paul, and we have no reason to believe that other founders of
churches
took another view (cp. the Roman church). No doubt they still continued
to give
pedagogic counsels to the churches, and in fact to act as guardians to
them.
But this was exceptional; it was not the rule. The Spirit moved them to
such
action, and their apostolic authority justified them in it, while the
unfinished state of the communities seemed to demand it.\289/ And in
the
primitive decision upon the length of time that an apostle could remain
in a
community, as in similar cases, the communities secured, ipso
facto, a
means of self-protection within their own jurisdiction. Probably the
perfected
organization of the
\289/
What they did, the churches also did themselves in certain
circumstances. Thus,
the Roman church exhorted, and in fact acted as guardian to, the
Corinthian
church in one sore crisis (c. 96 CE).
The third
epistle of John affords one clear proof that conflicts did occur
between the
community and its local management upon the one hand and the “apostles”
on the
other. This same John (or, in the view of many critics, a different
person)
does not impart his counsels to the Asiatic communities directly. He
makes the “Spirit”
utter them. He proclaims, not his own coming with a view to punish
them, but
the coming of the Lord as their judge. But we need not enter more
particularly
into these circumstances and conditions. The point is that the
apostolic
authority soon faded; nor was it transmuted as a [[468]]
whole, for all that passed over to the monarchical episcopate was but a
limited
portion of its contents.
The apostolic
authority and praxis meant a certain union of several communities in a
single
group. When it vanished, this association also disappeared. But another
kind of
tie was now provided for the communities of a single province by their
provincial association, and proofs of this are given by the Pauline
epistles
and the Apocalypse of John. The epistle to the Galatians, addressed to
all the
Christian communities of
\290/
By addressing himself also to the church at
\291/
The collocation of Christians from several large provinces in 1 Peter
is
remarkable. But as the address of this letter has been possibly drawn
up
artificially, I do not take it here into account.
Not in all cases did a definite
town,
such as the capital, [[469]]
become the
headquarters which dominated the ecclesiastical province. No doubt
Jerusalem
(while it lasted), Antioch,\292/ Corinth,\293/ Rome, Carthage, and
Alexandria
formed not merely the centers of their respective provinces, but in
part
extended heir sway still more widely, both in virtue of their
importance as
large cities, and also on account of the energetic Christianity which
they
displayed.\294/ Yet Ephesus, for example, did not become for a long
while the
ecclesiastical metropolis of Asia in the full sense of the term; Smyrna
and
other cities competed with it for this honor.\295/ In Palestine, Aelia
(Jerusalem)
and Caesarea stood side by side. Certain provinces, like Galatia and
extensive,
districts of Cappadocia, had no outstanding towns [[470]]
at all, and when we are told that in the provinces of Pontus; Numidia,
and
Spain the oldest bishop always presided at the episcopal
meetings, the
inference is that no single city could have enjoyed a position of
superiority
to the others from the ecclesiastical standpoint.
\292/
Cp. the very significant address in Acts 15.23: οἱ ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι ἀδελφοὶ τοῖς κατὰ τὴν Ἀντιόχειαν καὶ Συρίαν καὶ Κιλικίαν ἀδελφοῖς. For our present purpose,
it does not
matter whether the letter is genuine or not.
\293/According
to the extract from the correspondence of Dionysius of Corinth, given
by
Eusebius (H.E. 4.23), the bishop of
\294/This
requires no proof, as regards
\295/
All this was connected, of course, with the political organization of
But the
question now arises, whether the “metropolitans,”\296/ who had been
long in
existence before they were recognized by the law of the church or
attained
their rights and authority, in any way repressed the tendency towards
the
increase of independent communities within a province; and further,
whether, in
the interests of their own power, the bishops also made any attempt to
retard
the organization of new independent communities under episcopal
government. In itself, such a course of action would not be surprising.
For
wherever authority and rights develop, ambition and the love of power
invariably are unchained.
\296/ A learned
treatise in Russian has just been published on the metropolitans by P.
Giduljanow (Die Metropoliten in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten des
Christentuns, Moscow, 1905), which also contains ample material for
ecclesiastical geography, besides a colored map of “The Eastern Half of
the
In order to solve this problem,
we must
first of all premise that the tendency of early Christianity to form
complete,
independent communities, under episcopal government, was
extremely
strong.\297/ [[471]] Furthermore,
I do
not know of a single case, from the first three centuries; which would
suggest
any tendency, either upon the part οf metropolitans or of
bishops, to curb
the independent organization of the churches. Not till after the opening
of the
fourth century does the conflict against the chor-episcopate\298/
commence; at
least there are no traces of it, so far as I know, previous to that
period.
Then it is also that -- according to our sources -- the bishops begin
their
attempt to prohibit the erection of bishoprics in the villages, as well
as to
secure the discontinuance of bishoprics in small neighboring townships
-- all
with the view of increasing their own dioceses.\299/
\297/
As Ignatius cannot conceive of a community existing at all without a
bishop, so
Cyprian also judges that a bishop is absolutely necessary to every
community;
without him its very being appears to break up (see especially Ep.
66.5). The tendencies voiced by Ignatius in his epistles led to every
Christian
community in a locality, however small it might be, securing a bishop,
and we
have every reason to suppose that the practice which already obtained
in
\298/Cp. Gillmann,
Das
Institut der Chorbischöpe im
Orient (1903). The names of these clergy are χωρεπίσκοποι, ἐπίσκοποι τῶν ἀγρῶν (ἐν ταῖς κώμαις ἢταῖς χώραις), συλλειτουργοί [i.e., of
the town bishops]. Originally,
as the name ἐπίσκοποι
shows, they stood alongside of the town bishops; but as a real distinct
point
-- was drawn from the outset between the bishop of a provincial capital
and the
bishops of other towns, so a country bishop always was inferior to his
colleagues in the towns, and indeed often occupied a position of real
dependence a them (cp. Gillmann, pp. 30 f.).
\299/
The chor-episcopi were first of all declassed by their very name; then
they
were deprived of certain rights retained by the town bishops, including
especially
the right of ordination. Finally, they were suppressed. The main stages
of this
struggle throughout the East are seen in the following series of
decisions.
Canon 13 of the Council of Ancyra (314 CE): χωρεπισκόππυς μὴ ἐξεῖναι πρεσβυτέρους ἢ διακόνους χειροτονεῖν (“Chor-episcopi are not
allowed to elect [[472b]]
presbyters or deacons”). Canon 13 of the
Council of Neo-Caesarea: οἱ
χωρεπίσκοποι εἰσι μὲν εἰς τύπον τῶν ἑβδομήκοωτα · ὡς
δὲ συλλειτουργοὶ διὰ τὴν σπουδὴν τὴν εἰς τοὺς πτωχοὺς προσφέρουσι τιμώμενοι (“The chor-episcopi are
indeed on the pattern of the
Seventy, and they are to have the honor of making the oblation, as
fellow-laborers,
on account of their devotion to the poor”). Canon 8 of the Council of
Antioch
(341 CE): “Country priests are not to issue letters of peace [i.e.,
certificates]; they are only to forward letters to the neighboring
bishop.
Blameless chor-episcopi, however, can grant letters of peace.” Ibid.
canon 10: “Even if bishops in villages and country districts, the
so-called
chor-episcopi, have been consecrated as bishops, they must recognize
the limits
of their position. Let them govern the churches under their sway and be
content
with this charge and care, appointing lectors and sub-deacons and
exorcists ;
let them be satisfied with expediting such business, but never dare to
ordain
priest or deacon without the bishop of the town to whom the rural
bishop and
the district itself belong. Should anyone dare to contravene these
orders, he
shall be deprived of the position which he now holds. A rural bishop
shall be
appointed by the bishop of the town to which he belongs” (cp. on this,
Gillmann, pp. 90 f.). Canon 6 of the Council of Sardica (343 CE):
“Licentia
vero danda non est ordinandi episcopum aut in vico aliquo aut in modica
civitate, cui sufficit onus presbyter, quia non est necesse ibi
episcopum
fieri, ne vilescat nomen episcopi et auctoritas. non debent illi ex
alia
provincia invitati facere episcopum, nisi aut in his civitatibus, quae
episcopos habuerunt, aut si qua talis aut tam populosa est civitas,
quae
mereatur habere episcopum” (the contemporary Greek version does not
correspond
to the original; its closing part runs thus: ἀλλ’ οἱ τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἐπίσκοποι ἐν ταύταις ταῖς πόλεσι καθιστᾶν ἐπισκόπους ὀφείλουσιν, ἔνθα καὶ πρότερον ἐτύγχανον γεγονότες [[473b]] ἐπίσκοποι
· εἰ δὲ εὑρίσκοιτο οὕτω πληθύνουσά τις ἐν πολλῷ ἀριθυῷ λαοῦ πόλις, ὡς ἀκίαν αὑτὴν καὶ ἐπισκοπῆς νομίζεσθαι, λαμβανέτω). “It is absolutely
forbidden to
ordain a bishop in any village or small town for which a single
presbyter is
sullicient -- for it is needless to ordain bishops there -- lest the
name and
authority of bishops be lowered. Bishops called in from another
province ought
not to appoint any bishop except in those cities where there were
bishops
previously; or if any city contains a population large enough to merit
a see,
then let one be founded there.” Canon 57 of the Council of Laodicea:
“In
villages and country districts no bishops shall be appointed, but only
visitors
(περιοδευταί), nor
shall those already appointed act without the consent of the city
bishop.” By
the opening of the fifth century this process had gone to such a length
that Sozomen
(H.E. 7.19) notes, as a curiosity, that “there are cases where
in other
nations bishops do the work of priests in villages, as I myself have
seen m
Arabia and Cyprus and in Phrygia among the Novatians and Montanists” (ἐν ἄλλοις ἔθνεσίν ἐστιν ὅπη καὶ ἐν κώμαις ἐπίσκοποι ἱεροῦνται, ὡς παρὰ Ἀραβίοις καὶ Κύπροις ἔγνων καὶ παρὰ τοῖς ἐν Φρυγίαις Ναυατιανοῖς καὶ Μοντανισταῖς. (According to Theodore of
Mopsuestia
-- see Swete's ed., vol. 2 p. 44 -- this was still force about the year
40o in
the district which he supervised, much to his disgust). In
Furthermore, we
have not merely an “argumentum e silentio” before us here. On
the
contrary, after surveying (as we shall do in Book 4) the Christian
churches
which can be traced circa 325 CE, we see that it is quite
impossible for
any tendency to have prevailed throughout the large majority of the
Roman
provinces which checked the formation of bishoprics, inasmuch as almost
all the
churches in question can be proved to have been episcopal. We conclude,
then,
that wherever communities, [[472]]
episcopally governed, were scanty, Christians were also scanty upon the
whole;
while, if a town had no bishop at all, the number of local Christians
was
insignificant. Certainly during the course of the Christian
mission, in
several cases, whole decades passed without more than one bishop in a
province
or in an extensive tract of country. We might also conjecture, a
priori, that
wherever a district was uncultivated or destitute of towns -- as
on the
confines of the empire and beyond them -- years passed without a single
bishop being
appointed, the scattered local Christians being superintended by
the
bishop of the nearest town, which was perhaps far away. It is quite
credible
that, even after a fully equipped hierarchy had been set up in such an
outlying
district, this bishop should have retained certain rights of
supervision -- for
it is a question here, not simply of personal desire for power, but of
rights
which had been already acquired. Still, it is well-nigh impossible for
us
nowadays to gain any clear insight into circumstances of this kind,
since after
the second century all such cases were treated [[473]]
and recorded from the standpoint of a dogmatic theory of ecclesiastical
polity
-- the theory that the right of ordination was a monopoly of the
original
apostles, and consequently that all bishoprics were to be traced
back,
either directly to them, or to men whom they had themselves appointed.
The
actual facts of the great mission promoted by
\300/ Hoffmann,
Auszüge aus syrischen
Akten persischer Märtyrer (1880), p. 46; and Uhlemann, Zeitschrift
f. d.
hist. Theol. (1861), p. 15. But the
primitive
history of Christianity in
There are also
instances, of course, in which, during the third century (for, apart
from
\301/
No case is known, so far as I am aware, during the pre-Constantine
period in
\302/
We must not, of course, include cases in which presbyters, or
presbyters and
deacons, ruled a community during an episcopal vacancy. Even though
they
employed language which can only be described as episcopal (cp. the
eighth document
of the Roman clergy among Cyprian's letters), they were simply regents;
see Ep.
30.8, “We thought that no new step should be taken before a
bishop
was appointed” (ante constitutionem episcopi nihil innovandum
putavimus).
\303/See
Mommsen's Röm. Gesch. 5.81 f. [
\304/Two
systems prevailed in the civil government, as regards the country
districts;
the latter were either placed under the jurisdiction of a neighboring
town or
assigned magistrates of their own (see Hatch-Harnack, Gesellschaftsverfassung
der christlichen Kirchen, p. 202). The latter corresponded
to the
chor-episcopate, the former to the direct episcopal jurisdiction and
administration of the town bishop. The blending of the two systems,
with more
or less independent country presbyters and reserved rights on the part
of the
bishop, was the latest development. Its earliest stage falls within the
second
half of the third century. A number of small localities were often
united into
a commune, whose center was called μητροκωμία.
It is
impossible, therefore, to prove that for whole decades there were
territorial
or provincial bishops who ruled over a number of dependent Christian
churches
in the towns; we thus rather assume that if bishops actually did wield
episcopal rights in a number of towns, it was in towns where only an
infinitesimal
number of Christians resided within the walls. Anyone who asserts the
contrary
with regard to some provinces cannot be refuted. I admit that. But the
burden
of proof rests with him. The assertion, for example, that Autun,
Rheims, Paris,
etc., had a fairly large number of Christians by the year 240 or
thereabouts,
while the local Christian churches had no bishop, cannot be proved
incorrect,
in the strict sense of the term. We have no materials for such a proof.
But all
analogy favors the conclusion: if the Christians in Autun,
We come back
now to one of Theodore's remarks. “At the outset,” he wrote, “there
were but
two or three bishops, as a rule, in a province -- a state of matters
which
prevailed in most of the Western provinces till quite recently,
and which
may still be found in several, even at the present day.” This is a
statement which yields us no information whatever. Theodore
did not know
any more than we moderns know about the state of matters “at the
outset.” The
assertion that there were not more than two or three bishops in the majority
of the Western provinces “till quite recently,” is positively
erroneous,
and it only proves how small was Theodore's historical knowledge of the
Western
churches; finally, while the information that several Western provinces
even
yet had no more than two or three bishops, is accurate, it is
irrelevant, since
we know, even apart from Theodore's testimony, that the number of
bishoprics in the Roman provinces adjoining the large northern
:frontier of the
empire, as well as in England, was but small. But this scantiness
of
contemporary bishoprics did not denote an earlier (and subsequently
suspended)
phase of the church's organization tenaciously maintaining itself. What
it
denoted was a result of the local conditions of the population and also
the
rarity of Christians in those districts. So far, of course, these local
circmstances resembled those in which Christianity subsisted from the
very
outset over all the empire, when the Christians -- and the Romans -- of
the
region lived still in the Diaspora.
At this point
we might conclude by saying that the striking historical paragraph of
Theodore
does not cast a single ray of truth upon the real position of affairs.
But in
the course of our study we have over and again touched upon the special
position of the metropolitan or leading bishop of the province.\305/ [[478]] It is perfectly
clear, from a number of
passages, that the metropolitan was frequently described in the time of
Eusebius simply as “the bishop of the province.” The leading bishop was
thus
described even as early as Dionysius of Corinth or Ignatius himself.
With
regard to the history of the extension of Christianity -- in so far as
we are
concerned to determine the volume of tendency.making for the formation
of
independent churches -- the bearing of this fact is really neutral. But
it is
not neutral with regard to our conception of the course taken by the
history
of ecclesiastical organization. Unluckily our sources here fail us
for the
most part. The uncertain glimpses they afford do not permit us to
obtain any
really historical ideaa o the situation, or even to reconstruct any
course of
developmen along this line. How old is the metropolitan? Is his
position
connected with a power of ordination which originally parse from one
man to
another in the province? Does the origin o the metropolitan's authority
go back
to a time when the apostles still survived? Was there any connection
between
them? And are we to distinguish between one bishop and another, so that
in
earlier age there would be bishops who did not ordain, or who were
merely the
vicars of a head bishop?\306/ To all these questions we are probably to
return
a negative answer in general, though an affirmative may
perhaps be true
in one or two cases. Certainty we cannot reach. At least, in spite of
repeated
efforts, I have not myself succeeded in gaining any sure footing.
Frequently
the facts of the situation may have operated quite as strongly
as the
rights of the case; i.e., an [[479]]
individual bishop may have exercised rights at first, and for a
considerable
period, without possessing any title thereto, but simply as the outcome
of a
strong position held either on personal grounds or on account of the
civic
repute and splendor of his town churches.\307/ The state provincial
organization and administration, with the importance which it lent to
individual towns, may have also begun here and there to affect the
powers f
individual bishops in individual provinces by way of
aggranizenient.\308/ But
all this pertains, probably, to the sphere of ose elements in the
situation
which we may term “irrational,” ements which do not admit of
generalization or
of any articular application to ecclesiastical rights and powers within
e
primitive age. No evidence for the definition of the metropolitan's right
of
jurisdiction can be found earlier than the in which the synodal
organization had defined itself, and presupposition of such a right lay
in the
sturdy independence, the substantial equality, and the closely knit
union of
all the bishops in any given province. All the “preliminary stages” lie
enveloped in mist. And the scanty rays which struggle through may
readily prove
deceptive will-o’-the-wisps.
\305/Augustine
once (Ep. 22.4) remarks of the Carthaginian church in relation
the
churches of the province; “Si ab una ecclesia inchoanda est medicina
[i.e., [[478b]] the
suppression of an abuse], sicut
videtur audaciae mutare conari quod Carthaginiensis ecclesia tenet, sic
magnae
impudentiae est velle servare quod Carthaginiensis ecclesia correxit.”
This
would represent a widely spread opinion, held long before the fourth
century,
with regard to the authority of the metropolitan church.
\306/ We are led to put this question by learning that injunctions were
laid
down in the fourth century, which delimited the ordination rights of
the
chor-episcopi (see above, p. 471). Does this restriction go back to an
earlier
age? Hardly to one much earlier, though Gillmann (p. 521) is right in
holding
that the decisins of
\307/
One recollects at this point, e.g., the second epistle of Cyprian,
mentioned
already on pp. 175, which tells how the Carthaginian church
was prepared
to ndertake the support of an erstwhile teacher of the dramatic art, if
his own
hurch was not in a position to do so. It is clear that the Carthaginian
church
or bishop would acquire a superior position amid the sister provincial churches,
if cases of this kind occurred again and again. Compare also the
sixty-second epistle, in which the Carthaginian church not only
subscribes
100,000 sesterces towards the emancipation of Christians in Africa who
had been
carried off captives by'the barbarians, but also expresses herself
ready to
send still more in case of need [cp. pp. 175 f., 301]. It is well known
that
the repute of the Roman church and its bishops was increased by such
donations,
which were bestowed frequently even on remote churches.
\308/The
instructive
investigations of Lübeck (“Reichseinteilung
und kirchliche Hierarchie des Orients,” in Kirchengeschichtliche
Studien, herausgeg.
von Knöpfler, Schrörs, and Sdralek, Bd. 5 Heft 4, 1901) afford many
suggestions on this point.
These
investigations into the problems connected with the History of the
extension of
Christianity lead to the following result, viz,, that the number of
bishoprics in the individual rovinces of the Roman empire affords a
criterion,
which is essentially reliable, for estimating the strength of the
Christian [[480]]
movement. The one exception is
\309/
Previous to the middle of the third century I do not know of a single
case
(leaving out
\310/
With this reservation, that in certain provinces the tendency to form
independent communities proceeded more briskly than in others. This,
however,
is purely a matter of conjecture; it cannot be strictly proved. The
Episcopal
churches of the third century were most numerous in North Africa,
Palestine,
Syria, Asia, and Phrygia; and this tells heavily in support of the view
that
the Christians of these provinces were also most numerous.
\311/
When Sozomen continues: ἐν
ἄλλος δὲ ἔθνεσιν ἐστὶν ὅπη καὶ ἐν κώμαις ἐπίσκοποι ἱεροῦνται, ὡς παρὰ Ἀραβίοις καὶ Κυπρίοις ἔγνων καὶ παρὰ τοῖς ἐν Φρυγίαις Ναυατιανοῖς καὶ Μοντανισταῖς [cp. above, p.473], we see
that
village bishops no longer existed in most of the provinces when he
wrote (c.
430 CE). That they had been common at an earlier period is shown by the
mere
fact of their survival among the Phrygian adherents of Novatian and
Montanus,
since these sects held fast to ancient institutions.
In conclusion, it must be remembered that the whole of this
investigation
relates soley to the age between Pius and Constantine, not to the
primitive
period during which the monarchial episcopate first began to develop.
During
this period – which lasted in certain provinces till Domitian and
Trajan, and
in many other still longer – a collegiate government of the individual
church,
by means of bishops and deacons (or by means of a college of
prebysters,
bishops and deacons) was normal. How this passed over into the other
(i.e. the
monarchic control) we need not ask in this connection. But the
hypothesis that
wherever communities which are not [[482]]
episcopally organized are to be found throughout the third century,
they are to
be considered as having retained the primitive organization -- this
hypothesis,
I repeat, is not merelt incapable of proof, but incorrect. Such
non-episcopal
village churches are plainly recent churches, which are
managed, not b a
college of presbyters, but by one or two presbyters. They are “country
parishes”
whose official “presbyters” have nothing in common with the members of
the
primitive college of presbyters except the name. Here I would again
recall how
EXCURSUS 2
THE
CATHOLIC CONFEDERATION AND THE
BEFORE
general synods and patriarchs arose within the church, prior even to
the
complete development of the metropolitan system, there was a catholic
confederation
which embraced the majority of the Christian churches in the East and
the West
alike. It came into being during the gnostic controversies; it assumed
a relatively
final shape during the Montanist controversy; and its headquarters were
at
The
fact of this catholic federation was of very great moment to the spread
of the
church. The Christian was at home everywhere, and he could feel himself
at
home, thanks to this inter-communion. He was protected and controlled [[484]] wherever he went. The
church introduced,
as it were, a new franchise anion her members. In the very era when
Caracalla
bestowed Roman citizenship upon the provincials -- a concession which
amounted
to very little, and which failed to achieve its ends -- the catholic
citizenship became a significant reality.
EXCURSUS 3
FROM
the close of the first century the Roman church was in a position of
practical
primacy over Christendom. It had gained this position as the church of
the
metropolis, as the church of Peter and Paul, as the community which had
done
most for the catholicizing and unification of the churches, and above
all as
the church which was not only vigilant and alert but ready\312/ to aid
any poor
or suffering church throughout the empire with gifts.\313/ The question
now
rises, Was this church not also specially active in the Christian
mission,
either from the first or at certainn epochs of the pre-Constantine
period? Our
answer must be in the negative. Any relevant evidence on this point
plainly
belongs to legends with a deliberate purpose and of late origin. All
the
stories about Peter founding churches in Western and
\312/Evidence is forthcoming from the second and the third centuries,
for
\313/
A considerable amount of the relevant material is collected in my
History of
Dogma, I(3) pp.455
f.
(Eng. trans., vol. 2. pp. 149-168), under the title of “Catholic and
Roman.”
The Roman
church must not be charged with dereliction of duty on this score.
During the
first centuries there is no evidence whatever for organized missions by
individual churches; such were not on the horizon. But it was a
cardinal duty
to “strengthen the brethren,” and this duty
[[487]]
CHAPTER
5
COUNTER-MOVEMENTS
I
WE have already
discussed (pp. 57 f.) the first systematic opposition offered to
Christianity
and its progress, viz., the Jewish counter-mission initiated from
\314/
Cp. the martyrdom of Polycarp or of Pionius. In the Martyr. Cononis
the
magistrate says to the accused: τί
πλανᾶσθε, ἄνθρωπον θεὸν λέγοντες, καὶ τοῦτον βιοθανῆ; ὡς ἔμαθον παρὰ Ἰουδαίων ἀκριβῶς, καὶ τί τὸ γένος αὐτοῦ καὶ ὅσα ἐνεδείξατο τῷ ἔθνει αὐτῶν καὶ πῶς ἀπέθανεν σταυρωθείς · προκομίσαντες γὰρ
αὐτοῦ τὰ ὑπομνήματα [? ?] ἐπανέγνωσάν μοι (von Gebhardt's Acta
Mart. Selecta, p. 131) Why do
ye err, calling a man God, and that too a man who died a violent death?
For so
have I learnt accurately from the Jews, both as to his race and his
manifestation to their nation and his death by crucifixion. They
brought
forward his Memoirs and read them out to me.” In his polemical
treatise, Celsus
makes a Jew come forward against the Christians -- and this reflected
the
actual state of matters. Any pagans who wished to examine Christianity
closely
and critically, had first of all to get information from the Jews. On
the other
hand, as has been already shown (pp. 66 f.), the Christians did not
fail to
condemn the Jews most severely. The instance narrated by liippolytus (Philos,
9.12) apropos of the Roman Christian Callistus, is certainly
remarkable, but
none the less symptomatic. In order to secure a genuine martyrdom,
Callistus
posted himself on Sabbath at a synagogue and derided the Jews.
We cannot
depict in detail the counter-movements on the part of the state, as
these
appear in its persecutions of the [[488]]
church.\315/ All that need be done here is to bring out some of the
leading
points, with particular reference to the significance, both negative
and
positive, which the persecutions possessed for the Christian mission.
\315/ See
Neumann's Der
römische Staat and die allg. Kirche,
1 1890; Mommsen, “Der Religionsfrevel nach röm. Recht” (in the Hist.
Zeitschr.
vol. 64 [N. S. vol. 28], part 3, PP- 389 - 429; Harnack on
“Christenverfolgungen”
in the Prot. Real-Encykl. 3(3) Weiss, Christenverfolgungen
(1899); and Linsenmayer's Die Bekämpfung des Christentums
durch den röm.
Staat (1905).
Once Christianity presented
itself in the eyes of the law
and the authorities as a religion distinct from that of Judaism, its
character
as a religio illicita was assured. No express decree was
needed to make
this plain. In fact, the “non licet” was rather the presupposition
underlying
all the imperial rescripts against Christianity. After the Neronic
persecution,
which was probably\316/ instigated by the Jews (see above, p. 58),
though it
neither extended beyond Rome nor involved further consequences, Trajan
enacted
that provincial governors were to use their own discretion, repressing
any
given case,\317/ but declining to ferret Christians out.\318/ Execution
was
their fate if, when suspected of lèse-majesté as
well as of
sacrilege\319/ they stubbornly refused to sacrifice before the images
of the
gods of the emperor, thereby avowing themselves guilty of the former
crime. On
the cultus of the Caesars, and on this point alone, the state and the
church
came into collision.”\320/ The apologists are really incorrect in
asserting
that the Name itself (“nomen ipsum”) was visited with death. At least,
the
statement only becomes correct when [[489]]
we add the corollary that this judicial principle was adopted simply
because
the authorities found that no true adherent of his sect would ever
offer
sacrifice.\321/ He was therefore an atheist and an enemy of the state.
\316/
Without this hypothesis it is scarcely possible, in my opinion, to
understand
the persecution. Cp. my essay in Texte u. Unser. 28.2 (1905).
\317/
Trajan approves Pliny's procedure in executing Christians who, upon
being
charged before him, persistently refused to sacrifice. But he adds,
“nothing
can be laid down as a general principle, to serve as a fixed rule of
procedure”
(“in universum aliquid quad quasi certain formam habeas constitui non
potest “).
\318/This did not, of course, exclude criminal procedure in certain
cases at
the discretion of the governor. Even during the second century special
regulations were enacted for the treatment of Christians. For a true
appreciation of the repressive and the criminal procedure, cp. Augar in
Texte
u. Unters. 28.4 (1905).
\319/
“Atheism”; cp. my essay in Texte u. Unters. (ibid.).
\320/
Tert. Apol, 10: “Sacrilegii et majestatis rei convenimur, summa
haec
causa, immo tota est” (“We are arraigned for sacrilege and treason;
that is the
head and front, nay, the sum total of our offence”). But the
“sacrilegium” was
hardly to be distinguished practically from “majestas.”
\321/
Pliny (Ep. 96.5): “Quorum nihil posse cogi dicuntur qui sunt re
vera
Christiai” (“Things which no real Christian, it is said, can be made to
do”).
Down to the
closing year of the reign of Marcus Aurelius, the imperial rescripts
with which
we are acquainted were riesigned, not to protect the Christians, but to
safeguard the administration of justice and the police against the
encroachments of an anti-Christian mob,\322/ as well as against the
excesses of
local councils who desired to evince their loyalty in a cheap fashion
by taking
measures against Christians. Anonymous accusations had been already
prohibited
by Trajan. Hadrian had rejected the attempts of the Asiatic diet, by
means of
popular petitions, to press governors into severe measures against the
Christians. Pius in a number of rescripts interdicted all “novelties”
in
procedure; beyond the injunctions that Christians were not to be sought
out (“quaerendi
non sunt”), and that those who abjured their faith were to go
scot-free, no
step was to be taken. During this period, accusations preferred by
private
individuals came to be more and more restricted, both in criminal
procedure as
a whole, and in trials for treason. Even public opinion\323/ was
becoming more
and more adverse to them. And all this told in favor of Christianity.
Most
governors or magistrates recognized that there was no occasion for them
to
interfere with Christians; convinced of their real harmlessness, they
let them
go their own way. Naturally, the higher any person stood in public
life, the
greater risk he ran [[490]]
of coming into
collision with the authorities on the score of his Christian faith.
Only on the
lowest level of society, in fact, did this danger become at all equally
grave,
since life was not really of very much account to people of that class.
People
belonging to the middle classes, again, were left unmolested upon the
whole;
that is, unless any conspiracy succeeded in haling them before a
magistrate. Down
to the middle of the third century, this large middle class furnished
but a
very small number of martyrs. Irenaeus writes (about 185 CE; see
above:
p. 369): “Mundus pacem habet per Romanos, et nos [Christiani] sine
timore in
via ambulamus et navigamus quocumque voluerimus.” Soldiers, again, were
promptly detected whenever they made any use of their Christian faith
in
public. So were all Christians who belonged to the numerous domains of
the
emperors.
\322/
Observe that society and the populace down to about Caracalla's reign
(and
during that reign) were keenly opposed to Christianity; the state had
actually
to curb their zeal. Thereafter, the fanaticism of the rabble and the
aversion
of a section of society steadily declined. People likely began to get
accustomed
to the fapt of the new religion's existence. Tertullian (Scorp. 1)
says that the “ethnici de melioribus” (the better sort of pagans)
asked: “Siccine
tractari sectam nemini molestam? perire homines sine causa?” (“Is a
harmless
sect to be treated thus? Are men to die for no reason?”). This meant
that Roman
emperors and governors of pagan disposition had to redouble their
vigilance.
\323/
Tertullian does declare (Apol. 2) that “every man is a soldier
against
traitors and public enemies” (“in reos majestatis et publicos hostes
omnis homo
miles est”), but he is referring to open criminals, not to suspected
persons.
Apart from the
keen anti-Christian temper of a few proconsuls and the stricter
surveillance of
the city-prefects, this continued to be the prevailing attitude of the
state
down to the days of Decius, i.e., to the year 249. During this long
interval,
however, three attempts at a more stringent policy were made.
“Attempts” is the
only term we can use in this connection, for all three lost their
effect
comparatively soon. Marcus Aurelius impressed upon magistrates and
governors
the duty of looking more strictly after extravagances in religion,
including
those of Christianity. The results of this rescript appear in the
persecution
of 176-180 CE; but when Commodus came to the throne, the edict fell
into
abeyance. Then, in 202 CE, Septimius Severus forbade conversions to
Christianity, which of course involved orders to keep a stricter watch
on
Christians in general. As the persecutions of the neophytes and
catechumens in
202-203 attest, the rescript was not issued idly; yet before long it
too was
relaxed. Finally, Maximinus Thrax ordered the clergy to be executed,
which
implied the duty of hunting them out -- in itself a fundamental
innovation in
the imperial policy. Outside
These attempts
at severity were of brief duration. But the comparative favor shown to
Christianity, upon the other hand, by Commodus, Alexander Severus, and
Philip
the Arabian led to a steady improvement in the prospects of
Christianity with
the passage of every decade.
Viewed
externally, then, the persecutions up to the middle of the third
century were
not so grave as is commonly represented. Origen expressly states that
the
number of the martyrs during this period was small; they could easily
be
counted.\324/ A glance at
\324/
Cp, c. Cels. 3.8. It is also significant that he
expressly
declares the last days would be heralded by general persecutions,
whereas
hitherto there had been only partial persecutions: “Nunquam quidem
consenserunt
omnes gentes adversus Christianos; cum autem contigerint quae Christus
praedixit, tunc quasi succendendi sunt omnes a quibusdam gentilibus
incipientibus Christianos culpare, ut tunc fiant persecutiones iam
non ex
parte sicut ante, sed generaliter ubique adversus populum dei”
(Comment.
Ser. in Matt. 39, vol. 4 p. 270, ed. Lommatzsch) =
“Never,
indeed, have all nations combined against Christians. But when the
events
predicted by Christ come to pass, then all must be as it were inflamed
by some
of the heathen who begin to charge Christians, so that persecutions
then occur universally
against all God's people, instead of here and there, as hitherto has
been the
case” (cp. also p. 271). Not to exaggerate Origen's remark about the
small
number of the martyrs, cp. Iren. 4.33.9: “Ecclesia omni in loco
multitudinem
martyrum in omni tempore praemittit ad patrem” (“The church in every
place and
at all times sends on a multitude of martyrs before her to the Father”).
Despite the
small number of martyrs, we are not to underrate the courage requisite
for
becoming a Christian and behaving as a Christian. We are specially
bound to
extol the staunch adherence of the martyrs to their principles. By the
word or
the deed of a moment, they might have secured exemption from their
punishment,
but they preferred death to a base immunity.\325/
\325/Martyrs
and confessors, of course, were extravagantly honored in the churches,
and the
prospect of “eternal” glory might allure several (Marcus Aurelius
condemns the
readiness of Christians for martyrdom as pure fanaticism and vainglory;
cp.
also Lucian's Proteus Peregrinas). The confessors were
assigned a
special relationship to Christ. As they had attached themselves to him,
so he
had thereby attached himself to them. They were already accepted,
already
saved; Christ gave utterance through their lips henceforth.
Furthermore, they
had a claim to be admitted into the ranks of the clergy (oldest passage
on this
in Tertullian, de Fuga, 11); and on important ecclesiastical
occasions,
especially on all matters relating to penitence, their decision had to
be
accepted (cp., e.g., Tert. ad Mart. 1, where they
restore the
excommunicated). It was not easy to differ from them. The blood shed by
martyrs
was held to possess an expiatory value like the blood of Christ (cp.,
e.g.,
Origen, Hom. 24.1 in Num. vol. 10 p. 293, Hom. 7.2. in
Judic. vol.
11 p. 267). Even in Tertullian's day there were hymns to the
martyrs
(cp. de scorp. 7: “cantatur et exitus martyrum”). On the other
hand, we
must not forget how the Christians themselves depreciated martyrdom
when the
martyrs did not belong to their own party in the church. How the
opponents of
the Montanists scoffed and sneered at the Montanist confessors! And how
meanly
Tertullian speaks (e.g., in de Ieiun. 12), towards the end of
his life,
about the catholic martyrs! Think of Tertullian on Praxeas the
confessor, of
Hippolytus on Callistus the confessor, of Cyprian on martyrs who were
disagreeable to him! And sneers were not all. They spoke of vainglory
in this
connection, just as Marcus Aurelius did.
The illicit
nature of Christianity unquestionably constituted a serious impediment
to its
propaganda, and it is difficult to say whether the attractiveness of
all
forbidden objects and the heroic bearing of the martyrs compensated for
this
drawback. It is an obstacle which the Christians themselves rarely
mention;
they dwell all the more upon the growth which accrued to them ever and
anon
from the martyrdoms.\326/ All over, indeed, history [[493]]
shows us that it is the “religio pressa” which invariably waxes strong
and
large. Persecution serves as an excellent means of promoting
expansion.\327/
\326/Cp.,
e.g., Justin, Apol. 2.12 (where he admits that the
Christian
martyrdoms helped to convert him), Dial. 110; Tert. Apol.
50; Lact.
Inst. 5.19; and August. Epist. 3.
\327/
Reference must be made, however, to the fact that even among Christians
there
were certain circles which eschewed open confession and martyrdom for
good reasons.
Clement of
From the
standpoint of morals, the position of living under a sword which fell
but
rarely, constituted a serious peril. Christians could go on feeling
that they
were a persecuted flock. Yet as a rule they were nothing of the kind.
Theoretically, they could credit themselves with all the virtues of
iism, and
yet these were seldom put to the proof. They could represent themselves
as
raised above the world, and yet they were constantly bending before it.
As the
early Christian literature shows, this unhealthy state of matters led
to
undesirable consequences.\328/ [[494]]
\328/This
does not even take into account the clandestine arrangements made with
local authorities,
or the intrigues and corruption that went on. From Tertullian's
treatise de
Fuga we learn that Christian churches in
The development
went on apace between 259 and 303. From the days when Gallienus
ruled
alone, Gallienus who restored to Christianity the very lands and
churches which
Valerian had confiscated, down to the nineteenth year of Diocletian,
Christians
enjoyed a halcyon immunity which was almost equivalent to a manifesto
of
toleration.\329/ Aurelian's attempt at repression never got further
than a
beginning, and no one followed it up the emperor and his officials,
like
Diocletian the reformer subsequently, had other business to attend to.
It was
during this period that the great expansion of the Christian religion
took
place. For a considerable period Christians had held property and
estates (in
the name, I presume, of men of straw); now they could come before the
public
fearlessly,\330/ as if they were a recognized body.\331/
\329/ From the fragments of Porphyry's polemical treatise, and indeed
from his
writings as a whole, we see how Christians were recognized (in
contemporary
society) as a well-known party which had no longer to fear any
violence.
\330/
We do not know under what title they came forward.
\331/
Cp. the pagan (Porphyry) in Macar. Magnes. 4.21: οἱ Χριστιανοὶ μιμούμενοι τὰς κατασκευὰς τῶν ναῶν μεγίστους οἴκους οἰκοδομοῦσιν (“The Christianss erect
large buildings, in imitation of
the temple-fabrics “). So previously Caecilius, Minuc. 9: “Per
universum
orbem sacraria ista taeterrima impiae coitionis adolescent” (“All over
the
world the utterly foul rites of that impious union are flourishing
apace”). For
details on church-building, see below. -- The epithet of Χριστιανός occurs quite openly for the
first time,
so far as I am aware, in the year 279 upon a tomb in Asia Minor (see
Cumont, Les
Inscr. chrét. de l'Asie mineure, p. 11).
Between 249 and
258, however, two chief and severe persecutions of Christians took
place, those
under Decius and Valerian, while the last and fiercest began in
February of
303. The former lasted only for a year, but they sufficed to spread
fearful
havoc among the churches. The number of the apostates was much larger,
very
much larger indeed, than the number of the martyrs. The rescript of
Decius, a
brutal stroke which was quite unworthy of any statesman, compelled at
one blow
all Christians, including even women and children, to return to their
old
religion or else forfeit their lives. Valerian's rescripts were the
work of a
statesman. They dealt merely with the clergy, with people of good
position, and
with members of the court; all other Christians were let alone,
provided that
they refrained from worship. Their lands and churches were, [[495]] however,
confiscated.\332/ The tragic fate
of both emperors (“mortes persecutorum!”) put a stop to their
persecutions.
Both had essayed the extirpation of the Christian church, the onnr by
the
shortest possible means, the other by more indirect methods.\333/ But
in both
cases the repair of the church was effected promptly and smoothly,
while the
wide gaps in its membership were soon filled up again, once the rule
was laid
down that even apostates could be reinstated.
\332/
The state never attacked the religion of private individuals. All it
waged war
upon was the refusal to perform the ceremonies of the cultus. Cp. the
pregnant
statement of the Acta Cypriani, 1: “Sacratissimi
imperatores
praeceperunt, eos qui Romanam religionem non colunt, debere Romanas
caerimonias
recognoscere” (“The most sacred Roman emperors enjoined that those who
did not
adhere to the Roman religion should recognize the Roman rites”). It was
on
principle therefore that Valerian and Diocletian attempted to stamp out
Christian worship.
\333/
Obviously, they saw that the procedure hitherto adopted was absurd, and
that it
had failed to harm the church. They rightly judged that Christians must
be
exterminated, if they were not to be let alone. “They must be sought
out and
punished” (“Quaerendi et puniendi sunt “).
The most severe
and prolonged of all the persecutions was the last, the so-called
persecution
under Diocletian. It lasted Largest and raged most fiercely in the east
and
south-east throughout the domain of Maximinus Daza; it burned with
equal
fierceness, but for a shorter period, throughout the jurisdiction of
Galerius;
while over the domain of Maximianus and his successors its vigor was
less
marked, though it was still very grievous. Throughout the West it came
to
little. It began with imperial rescripts, modelled upon the statesman
like
edict of Valerian, but even surpassing it in adroitness. Presently,
however,
these degenerated into quite a different forrn, which, although covered
by the
previous edicts of Decius, outdid them in pitiless ferocity throughout
the
East. Daza alone had recourse to preventive measures of a positive
character.
He had Acts of Pilate fabricated and circulated in all directions
(especially
throughout schools), which were drawn up in order to misrepresent
Jesus;\334/
on the strength of confessions extorted [[496]]
from Christians, he revived the old, abominable charges brought against
them,
and had these published far and wide in every city by the authorities
(Eus. H.E.
1.9; 9.5.7); he got a high official of the state to compose a polemical
treatise against Christianity;\335/ he invited cities to bring before,
him
anti-Christian petitions;\336/ finally -- and this was the keenest
stroke of
all -- he attempted to revive and reorganize all the cults, headed of
course by
that of the Caesars, upon the basis of the new classification of the
provinces,
in order to render them a stronger and more attractive counterpoise to
Christianity.\337/ “He ordered temples to be built in every city, and
enacted
the careful restoration of such as had collapsed through age; he also
established idolatrous priests in all districts and towns, placing a
high
priest over them in every province, some official who had distinguished
himself
in some line of public service. This man was also furnished with a
military
guard of honor.” Eus. H.E. 8.14; see 9.4: “Idolatrous priests
were now
appointed in every town, and Maxitninus further appointed high priests
himself.
For the latter position he chose men of distinction in public life, who
had
gained high credit in all the offices they had filled. They showed
great zeal,
too, for the worship of those gods.” Ever since the close of the second
century
the synodal organization of the church, with its metropolitans, had
been
moulded on the provincial diets of the empire -- i.e., the latter
formed the
pattern of the former. But so much more thoroughly had it been worked
out, that
now, after the lapse of a century, the state attempted itself to 'copy
this
synodal organization with its priesthood so firmly centralized and so
distinguished for moral character. Perhaps this was the greatest, at
any rate
it was the most conspicuous, triumph of the church prior to
\334/
“Even the school teachers were to lecture on these zealously to their
pupils,
instead of upon the usual scholastic subjects; they were also to see
that they
were Isarnt by heart.” “Children at school repeated the names of Jesus
and of
Pilate, very day, and also recited the Acts of Pilate, which were
composed in
order to deride us.”
\335/
The emperor himself is probably concealed behind Hierocles.
\336/
The cities were subservient to this command; cp, the inscription of
Arycanda
and Eus. H.E. 9.7.
\337/
Julian simply copied him in all these measures. The moving spirit of
the whole
policy was Theoteknus (Eus. H.E., 9.2 f.), for we cannot
attribute it to
an emperor who was himself a barbarian and abandoned to the most
debased forms
of excess.
The extent of
the apostasy which immediately ensued is [[497]]
unknown, but it must have been extremely large. When Constantine
conquered
Maxentius, however, and when Daza succumbed before Constantine and
Licinius, as
did Licinius in the end before Constantine, the persecution was
over.\338/
During its closing years the 'churches had everywhere recovered from
their
initial panic; both inwardly and outwardly they had gained in strength.
Thus
when
\338/Licinius
was driven in the end to become a persecutor of the Christians, by his
opposition to
2
Several
examples have been already given (in Book 2, Chapters 4 and 6) of the
way in
which Christians were thought of by Greek and Roman society and by the
common
people during the second century.\339/ Opinions of a more friendly
nature were
not common. No doubt, remarks like these were [[498]]
to be heard: “Gaius Seius is a capital fellow. Only, he's a Christian!
“I'm
astonished that Lucius Titius, for all his knowledge, has suddenly
turned
Christian” (Tert. Apol. 3). “So-and-so thinks of life and of
God just as
we do, but he mingles Greek ideas with foreign fables” (Eus. H.E. 6.19).\340/
They were reproached with being inconceivably credulous and absolutely
devoid
of judgment, with being detestably idle (“contemptissma inertia”) and
useless
for practical affairs (“infructuositas in negotiis”).\341/ These,
however, were
the least serious charges brought against them. The general opinion was
that
Christian doctrine and ethics, with their absurdities and
pretensions,\342/
were unworthy of any one who was free and cultured (so Porphyry
especially).\343/ [[499]]
The majority,
educated and uneducated alike, were still more hostile in the second
century.
In the foreground of their calumnies stood the two charges of
OEdipodean incest
and Thyestean banquets, together with that of foreign, outlandish
customs, and
also of high treason. Moreover, there were clouds of other accusations
in the
air. Christians,\344/ it, was reported, were magicians and atheists;
they
worshipped god with an ass's head, and adored the cross, the sun, or
the
genitalia of their priests (Tert. Apol. 16., and the parallels
in
Minucius).\345/ It was firmly believed that they were magicians, that
they had
control over wind and weather, that they commanded plagues and famines,
and had
influence over the sacrifices.\346/ “Christians to the lions” -- this
was the
cry of [[500]] the
mob.\347/ And even when
people were less rash and cruel, they could not get over the fact that
it
seemed mere pride and madness to abandon the religion of one's
ancestors.\348/
Treatises against Christianity were not common in the second or even in
the
third century, but there may have been controversial debates. A Cynic
philosopher named Crescens attacked Justin in public, though he seems
to have
done no more than echo the popular charges against Christianity.
Fronto's
attack moved almost entirely upon the same level, if it be the case
that h
arguments have been borrowed in part by the pagan Cecilius in Minucius
Felix.
Lucian merely trifled with the question of Christianity. He was no more
than a
reckless, though an acute, journalist. The orator Aristides, again,
wrote upon
Christianity with ardent contempt,\349/ while the treatise of [[501]] Hierocles, which is
no longer extant, is
described by Eusebius as extremely trivial. Celsus and Porphyry alone
remain,
of Christianity's opponents.\350/ Only two men; but they were a host in
themselves.
\339/
A complete survey is given in my Gesch. der altchristl. Litt.
1, pp. 865
f.
\340/
This is Porphyry's opinion of Origen. It deserves to be quoted in full,
for its
unique character. “Some Christians, . . . . instead of abandoning the
Jewish
scriptures, have addressed themselves to the task of explaining them.
These
explanations are neither coherent and consistent, nor do they harmonize
with
the text; instead of furnishing us with a defence of these foreign
sects they
rather give us praise and approbation of their doctrines. They produce
expositions which boast of what Moses says unambiguously, as if it were
obscure
and intricate, and attach thereto divine influence as to oracles full
of hidden
mysteries. . . . This sort of absurdity can be seen in the case of a
man whom I
met in my youth [at
\341/
Cp. the charge brought against the consul, T. Flavius Clemens (in
Suelonius).
Tert. Apol. 42: “Infructuosi in negotiis dicimur.” What
Tertullian makes
the cloak say (de Pallio, 5; cp. above, p. 306) is to be
understood as a
Christian's utterance. The heathen retorted that this was “ignavia.”
\342/
Cp. Tert. de Scorp. 7: “funesta religio, lugubres ritus,
ara rogus,
pollinctor sacerdos” (the deadly religion, the mournful ceremonies, the
altar-pyre, and the undertaker-priest).
\343/
No one takes the trouble, the apologists complain, to find out what
Christianity really is (Tert. Apol, 1 f.); even a pagan thinker
would be
condemned forthwith [[499b]]
if he
propounded ideas which agree with those of Christianity. Cp. Tert. de
Testim.
1. “Ne suis quidem magistris alias probatissimis atque lectissimis
fidem inclinavit
humana de incredulitate duritia, sicubi in argumenta Christianae
defensionis
impingunt. tunc vani poetae . . . . tunc philosophi duri, cum veritates
fores
pulsant. hactenus sapiens et prudens habebitur qui prope Christianum
pronuntiaverit, cum, si quid prudentiae aut sapientiae affectaverit seu
caerimonias
despuens seu saeculum revincens pro Christiano denotetur” [“The
hardness of the
human heart in its unbelief prevents them even from crediting their own
teachers (who otherwise are highly approved and most excellent),
whenever they
touch upon any arguments which favor Christianity. Then are the poets
vain, . .
. . then are the philosophers senseless, when they knock at the gates
of truth.
Anyone who goes the length of almost proclaiming Christian ideas will
be held
to be wise and sagacious so far; he will be branded as a Christian if
he affect
wisdom and knowledge in order to scoff at their rites or to expose the
age”).
Christian writings were not read. “Tanto abest ut nostris literis
annuant
homines, ad quas nemo venit nisi iam Christianus” (Tert., loc.
cit.: “Far
less do men assent to our writings; nay, none comes to them unless he
is a
Christian already”).
\344/
Christ himself was held to be a magician; cp. evidence on this point
from
Justin to Commodian.
\345/
It is not difficult to trace the origin of these calumnies. The ass's
head
came, as Tertullian himself was aware, from the Histories of
Tacitus,
and referred originally to the Jews. They were doubtless worshippers of
the
sun, because they turned to the east in prayer. The third libel was of
course
based upon the attitude assumed at confession.
\346/
Emphasis was often laid also upon the empty and terrible chimeras
circulated by
Christians (Minuc. 5). Origen (Comment. Ser. in Matth. 39,
vol.
4, p. 270, Lomm.): “Scimus et apud nos terrae motum factum in locis
quibusdam
et factas fuisse quasdam ruinas, ita ut, qui erant impii extra fidem,
causam
terrae motus dicerent Christianos, propter quod et persecutiones passae
sunt
ecclesiae et incensae sunt; non solum autem illi, sed et qui videbantur
prudentes,
talia in publico dicerent quia propter Christianos fiunt gravissimi
terrae
motus” (“We know, too, that there have been earthquakes in our midst, [[500b]] with several ruinous
results, so that the
impious unbelievers declared that Christians were to blame for the
earthquakes.
Hence the churches have suffered persecutions and been burnt. And not
only such
people, but others who seemed really sensible gave open expression to
the
opinion that Christians are the cause of the fearful earthquakes”).
Similar
allusions often occur in Tertullian. The fear of Christians influencing
the
sacrifices played some part in the initial persecution of
Diocletian.
\347/
“Christianos ad
\348/
Cp. Clem. Alex. Protrept. 10.89: ἀλλ’ ἐκ
πατέρων, φατέ, παραδεδομένον ἡμῖν ἔθος ἀνατρέπειν οὐκ εὄλογον (“But, you say, it is
discreditable to overturn the custom
handed down to us from our fathers”). The author of the pseudo-Justin Cohort.
ad Graecos goes into this argument with particular thoroughness
(cp. 1, 14,
35-36).
\349/
Orat. 46. He defends “the Greek nationality against the
Christian
and philosophic cosmopolitanism.” To him, Christians are despisers of
Hellenism
(cp. Bernays, Ges. Abhandl. 2 p. 364). How a man like
Tatian must
have irritated him! Neumann (Der röm. Staat u. die allgem.
Kirche, p.
36) thus recapitulates the charge of Aristides (though Lightfoot, in
his Ignatius,
vol. 1 p. 517, thinks that it is the Cynics who are pilloried); “People
who
themselves are simply of no account venture to slander a Demosthenes,
while
solecisms at least, if nothing more, are to be found in every one of
their own
words. Despicable creatures themselves, they despise others; they pride
themselves on their virtues, but never practise them; they preach
self-control,
and are lustful. Community of interests is their name for robbery,
philosophy
for ill-will, and poverty for an indifference to the good things of
life.
Moreover, they degrade themselves by their avarice. Impudence is dubbed
freedom
by them, malicious talk becomes openness forsooth, the acceptance of
charity is
humanity. Like the godless folk in
\350/
Lactantius professes to know that “plurimi et multi” wrote in Greek and
Lgtin
against the Christians in Diocletian's reign (Instit. 5.4),
but
even he adduces only one anonymous writer besides Hierocles.
Occasionally a
single littérateur who was hostile to Christianity
stirred up a local
persecution, as, e.g., was probably the case with Crescens the Cynic
philosopher at
They resembled
one another in the seriousness with which they undertook their task, in
the
pains they spent on it, in the h ftiness of their designs, and in their
literary skill. The great difference between them lay in their
religious
standpoint. Celsus's interest centers at bottom in the Roman
Empire.\351/ He is
a religious man because the empire needs religion, and also because
every
educated man is responsible for its religion. It is hard to say what
his own
conception of the world amounts to. But for all the hues it assumes, it
is
never coloured like that of
\351/We
can only surmise about his personality and circumstances. He
represented the
noble, patriotic, and intelligent bureaucracy of
\352/The
same sort of attitude is adopted by the pagan Caecilius (in Min.
Felix,
5. f.), a sceptic who approves of religion in general, but who
entertains grave
doubts about a universal providence. “Amid all this uncertainty, your
best and
noblest course is to accept the teaching of your forebears, to honor
the
religious customs which have been handed down to you, and humbly to
adore the
deities [[502b]] whom
your fathers taught
you not to know but, first and foremost, to fear.” Chap. 7. then runs
in quite
a pious current.
\353/
Born at
Our first
impression is that Celsus has not a single good word to say for
Christianity.
He re-occupies the position taken by its opponents in the second
century; only,
he is too fair and noble an adversary to repeat their abominable
charges. To
him Christianity, this bastard progeny of Judaism\354/ --
itself the basest of all national religions -- appears to have been
nothing but
an absurd and sorry tragedy from its birth down to his own day. He is
perfectly
aware of the internal differences between Christians, and he is
familiar with
the various stages of development in the history of their religion.
These are
cleverly employed in order to heighten the impression of its
instability. He
plays off the sects against the Catholic Church, the primitive age
against the
present, Christ against the apostles, the various revisions of the
Bible
against the trustworthiness of the text, and so forth, although, of
course, he
admits that the whole thing was quite as bad at first as it is at
present. Even
Christ is not exempted from this criticism. What is valuable in his
teaching
was borrowed from the philosophers; the rest, i.e., whatever is
characteristic
of himself, is error and deception, so much futile [[503]]
mythology. In the hands of those deceived deceivers, the apostles, this
was
still further exaggerated; faith in the resurrection rests upon nothing
better
than the evidence of a deranged woman, and from that day to this the
mad folly
has gone on increasing and exercising its power -- for the assertion,
which is
flung out at one place, that it would speedily be swept out of
existence, is
retracted on a later page. Christianity, in short, is an
anthropomorphic myth
of the very worst type. Christian belief in providence is a shameless
insult to
the Deity -- a chorus of frogs, forsooth, squatting in a bog and
croaking, “For
our sakes was the world created”!
\354/
Like Porphyry and Julian at a later period, however, Celsus lets
Judaism alone,
because it was a national religion. Apropos of an oracle of Apollo
against the
Christians, Porphyry observes: “In his quidem irremediabile sententiae
Christianorum manifestavit Apollo, quoniam Judaei suscipiunt deum magis
quam isti”
(“In these verses Apollo exposed the incurable corruption of
Christians, since
it is the Jews, said he, more than the Christians, who recognize God”),
Aug. de Civil. Dei, 19.26.
But there is
another side to all this. The criticism of Celsus brings out some
elements of
truth which deserve to be considered; and further, wherever the critic
bethinks
himself of religion, he betrays throughout his volume an undercurrent
of
feeling which far from being consonant with his fierce verdict. For
although he
shuts his eyes to it, apparently unwilling to admit that Christianity
could be,
and had already been, stated reasonably, he cannot get round that fact;
indeed
-- unless we are quite deceived -- he has no intention whatever of
concealing
it from the penetrating, reader. Since there has really to be such a
thing as
religion, since it is really a necessity, the agnosticism of Celsus
leads him
to make a concession which does not differ materially from the
Christian
conception of God. He cannot take objection to much in the ethical
counsels of
Jesus -- his censure of them as a plagiarism being simply the result of
perplexity. And when Christians assert that the Logos is the Son of
God, what
can Celsus do but express his own agreement with this dictum? Finally,
the
whole book culminates in a warm patriotic appeal to Christians not to
withdraw
from the common régime, but to lend their aid in order
to enable the
emperor to maintain the vigor of the empire with all its ideal
benefits.\355/
Law and piety must be upheld against their inward and external foes!
Surely we
can read between [[504]]
the lines. Claim no
special position for yourselves, says Celsus, in effect, to Christians!
Don't
rank yourselves on the same level as the empire! On these terms we are
willing
to tolerate you and your religion. At bottom, in fact, the “True Word”
of
Celsus is nothing more than a political pamphlet, a thinly disguised
overture
for peace.\356/
\355/
In several of the proceedings against Christians the magistrate
expresses his
concern lest the exclusiveness of Christians excite anarchy; cp., e.g.,
the Acta
Fructuosi Tarrac. 2: “Qui audiuntur,
qui
timentur, qui adorantur, si dii
non coluntur nec imperatorum vultus adorantur?”
\356/
Caecilius, too, was in the last resort a politician and a patriot,
since he
defended the old religion by asserting that “by means of it
A hundred years
later, when Porphyry wrote against the Christians, a great change had
come over
the situation. Christianity had become a power. It had taken a Greek
shape, but
“the foreign myths” were still retained, of course, while in most cases
at
least it had preserved its sharp distinction between the creator and
the
creation, or between God and nature, as well as its doctrine of the
incarnation
and its paradoxical assertions of an end for the world and of the
resurrection.
This was where Porphyry struck in, that great philosopher of the
ancient world.
He was a pupil of Plotinus and Longinus. For years he had been engaged
in keen
controversy at
\357/
At best we must leave it an open question whether a plagiarism has been
perpetrated
upon Porphyry.
This work of
Porphyry is perhaps the most ample and thoroughgoing treatise which has
ever
been written against Christianity. It earned for its author the titles
of πάντων δυσμενέστατος καὶ πολεμώτατος (“most malicious and hostile
of all”), “hostis
dei, veritatis inimicus, sceleratarum artium magister” (God's enemy, a
foe to
truth, a master of accursed arts), and so forth.\358/ But, although our
estimate
can only be msed on fragments, it is not too much to say that the
controversy
between the philosophy of religion and Christianity lies to-day in the
very
position in which Porphyry placed it. Even at this time of day Porphyry
remains
unanswered. Really he is unanswerable, unless one is prepared first of
all to
agree with him and proceed accordingly to reduce Christianity to its
quintessence. In the majority of his positive statements he was
correct, while
in his negative criticism of what represented itself in the third
century to be
Christian doctrine, he was certainly as often right as wrong. In
matters of
detail he betrays a good deal of ignorance, and he forgets standards of
criticism which elsewhere he has at his command.
\358/ Augustine, however,
called him “the
noble philosopher, the great philosopher of the Gentiles, the most
learned of
philosophers, although the keenest foe to Christians” (“philosophus
nobilis,
magnus gentilium philosophus, doctissimus philosophorum, quamvis
Christianorum
acerrimus inimicus,” de Civit. Dei, 19.22). Compare the
adjectives
showered on him by Jerome: “Fool, impious, blasphemer, math shameress,
a
sycophant, a calumniator of the, church, a mad dog attacking Christ”
(“Stultus,
impius, blasphemus, vesanus, impudens, sycophantes, calumniator
ecclesiae,
rabidus adversus Christum canis”).
The weight
which thus attaches to his work is due to the fact that it was based
upon a
series of very thoroughgoing studies of the Bible, and that it was
undertaken
from the religious standpoint. Moreover, it must be conceded that the
author's
aim was neither to be impressive nor to persuade or take the reader by
surprise, but to give a serious and accurate refutation of
Christianity. He
wrought in the bitter sweat of his brow -- this idealist, who was
convinced
that whatever was refuted would collapse. Accordingly, he confined his
attention o what he deemed the cardinal points of the controversy.
These four
points were as follows: -- He desired to demolish he myths of
Christianity, i.e.,
to prove that, in so far as they [[506]]
were derived from the Old and New Testaments, they were historically
untenable,
since these sources were themselves turbid and full of contradictions.
He did
not reject the Bible in toto as a volume of lies. On the
contrary, he
valued a great deal of it as both true and divine. Nor did he identify
the
Christ of the gospels with the historical Christ.\359/ For the latter
he
entertained a deep regard, which rose to the pitch of a religion. But
with
relentless powers of criticism he showed .in scores of cases that if
certain
traits in the gospels were held to be historical, they could not
possibly be
genuine, and that they blurred and distorted the figure of Christ. He
dealt
similarly with the ample materials which the church put together from
the Old
Testament as “prophecies of Christ.” But; the most interesting part of
his
criticism is unquestionably that passed upon Paul. If there are any
lingering
doubts in the mind as to whether the apostle should be credited, in the
last
instance, to Jewish instead of to Hellenistic Christianity, these
doubts may be
laid to rest by a study of Porphyry. This [[507]]
critic, a Hellenist of the first water, feels keener antipathy to Paul
than to
any other Christian. Paul's dialectic is totally unintelligible to him,
and he
therefore deems it both sophistical and deceitful. Paul's proofs
resolve
themselves for him into flat contradictions, whilst in the
apostle's
personal testimonies lie sees merely an unstable, rude, and insincere
rhetorician,
who is a foe to all noble and liberal culture. It is from the hostile
criticism
of Porphyry that we learn for the first time what highly cultured
Greeks found
so obnoxious in the idiosyncrasies of Paul. In matters of detail he
pointed to
much that was really offensive; but although the offence in Paul almost
always
vanishes so soon as the critic adopts a different standpoint, Porphyry
never
lighted upon that standpoint.\360/
\359/
It is only in a modified sense, therefore, that he can be described as
an “opponent”
of Christianity. As Wendland very truly puts it, in his Christentum
u.
Heltenismus (1902), p. 12, “The fine remarks of Porphyry in the
third book
of his περὶ τῆς ἐκ λογίων φιλοσοφίας (pp. 180 f., Wolff), remarks
to which theologians have not
paid attention, show how from the side of Neoplatonism also attempts
were made
to bring about a mutual understanding and reconciliation.” “Praeter
opinionem,”
says Porphyry (cp. August. de Civit. Dei, 19.23), “profecto
quibusdam
videatur esse quod dicturi sumus. Christum enim dii piissimum
pronuntiaverunt
et immortalem factum et cum bona praedicatione eius meminerunt,
Christianos
vero pollutos et contaminatos et errore implicatos esse dicunt” (“What
I am
going to say may indeed appear extraordinary to some people. The gods
have
declared Christ to have been most pious; he has become immortal, and by
them
his memory is cherished. Whereas the Christians are a polluted secs,
contaminated and enmeshed in error”). Origen (Cels. 1.15, 4.51)
tells
how Numenius, the Pythagorean philosopher, quoted the Jewish scriptures
with
deep respect, interpreting them allegorically (Clem. Alex. Strom. 1.22.150,
indeed ascribes to him the well-known saying that Plato is simply Moses
Atticizing – τί
γάρ ἐστι Πλάτων ἢ Μωυσῆς ἀττικίζων; cp. also Hesych. Miles. in
Müller’s Fragm.
Hist. Gr. 4.171, and Suidas, s. 5 “Νουμήνιος” with the more cautious
remarks of
Eusebius in his Praep. 11.9.8-18, 25). Amelius the Platonist, a
contemporary of Origen, quoted the gospel of John with respect (Eus. Praep.
11.19.1); cp. August. de Civit. Dei, 10.29:
“Initium
evangelii secundum Johannem quidam Platonicus aureis litteris
conscribendum et
per omnes ecclesias in locis eminentissimis proponendum esse dicebat”
(“A certain
Platonist used to say that the opening of John's gospel should be
inscribed in
golden letters and set up in the most prominent places of every
church”).
\360/
The apostle
Paul began
to engage the attention of pagans as well. This comes e.g., in the
cross-examinations
of the Egyptian governor Culcianus (shortly after 303 CE), as is
confirmed by
the two discussions between him and Phileas and Dioscorus (cp. Quentin,
“Passio
S. Dioscuri” in Anal. Boll. vol. 25, 1905, pp. 321 f.),
discussions
which otherwise are quite independent of each other. In the latter
Culcianus
asks, “Was Paul a god?” In the former he asks, “He did not immolate
himself?”
Further, “Paul was not a persecutor?” “Paul was not an uneducated
person? He
was not a Syrian? He did not dispute in Syriac?” (To which Phileas
replies, “He
was a Hebrew; he disputed in Greek, and held wisdom to be the chief
thing.”)
Finally, “Perhaps you are going to claim that he excelled Plato?” I
know of
nothing like this in other cross-examinations, and I can only
conjecture, with
Quentin, that it is an authentic trait. At that period, about the
beginning of
the Diocletian persecution, the Scriptures were ordered to be given up.
The
very fact of this order shows that the state had come to recognize
their importance,
and this in turn presupposes, as it promoted, a certain acquaintance
with their
contents.
Negative
criticism upon the historical character of the Christian religion,
however,
merely paved the way for Porphyry's full critical onset upon the three
doctrines
of the, faith which he regarded as its most heinous errors. The first
of these
was the Christian doctrine of creation, which separated the world from
God,
maintained its origin within time, and excluded any reverent, religious
view of
the universe as a whole. In rejecting this he also rejected the
doctrine of the
world's overthrow as alike irrational and irreligious; the one was
involved in
the other. He then directed his fire against the doctrine of the
Incarnation,
arguing that the Christians made a false separation (by their doctrine
of a
creation in time) and [[508]]
a false union
(by their doctrine of the incarnation) between God and the world.
Finally,
there was the opposition he offered; to the Christian doctrine of the
resurrection.
On these points
Porphyry was inexorable, warring against Christianity as against the
worst of
mankind's foes; but in every other respect he was quite at one with
the
Christian philosophy of religion, and was perfectly conscious of this
unity. And
in his day the Christian philosophy of religion was no longer entirely
inexorable on the points just mentioned; it made great efforts to tone
down its
positions for the benefit of Neoplatonism, as well as to vindicate its
scientific (and therefore its genuinely Hellenic) character.
How close\361/
the opposing forces already stood to one another! Indeed, towards
the end
of his life Porphyry seems to have laid greater emphasis upon the
points which
he held in common with the speculations of Christianity;\362/ the
letter he addressed to his wife Marcella might almost have been written
by a
Christian.\363/
\361/
This is particularly clear from the Neoplatonic works which were
translated
into Latin, and which came into the possession of Augustine (Confess.
7.9). He owed a great deal to them, although he naturally conceals part
of his
debt. He admits frankly that the ideas of John 1.1-5, 9, 10, 13, 16,
and Phil.
2.6, were contained in these volumes.
\362/
The magical; thaumaturgic element which Porphyry, for all his clear,
scientific
intellect, held in honor, was probably allowed to fall into the
background
while he attacked the Christians. But his Christian opponents took note
of it.
Here, indeed, was one point on which they were the more
enlightened of
the two parties, so far as they were not already engulfed themselves in
the
cult of relics and bones. The characterization of Porphyry which
Augustine
gives in the de Civit. Dei (10.9) is admirable: “Nam et
Porphyrius
quandam quasi purgationem animae per theurgian, cunctanter tamen et
pudibunda
quodam modo disputatione, promittit, reversionem vero ad deum hanc
artem
praestare cuiquam negat, ut videas eum inter vitium sacrilegae
curiositatis et
philosophiae professionem sententiis alternantibus fluctuare” (“For
even
Porphyry holds out the prospect of some kind of purgation of the soul
by aid of
theurgy; though he does so with some hesitation and shame, denying that
this
art can secure for anyone a return to God. Thus you can detect his
judgment
vacillating between the profession of philosophy and an art which he
feels to
be both sacrilegious and presumptuous”).
\363/
The Christian charm of the letter comes from the pagan basis of the
Sextus
sayings which are preserved in the Christian recension; cp. my Chronologie,
2.2
pp. 190 f.
In the work of
Porphyry Hellenism wrote its testament with regard to Christianity --
for
Julian's polemical treatise savored [[509]]
more of a retrograde movement. The church managed to get the testament
ignored
and invalidated, but not until she had four times answered its
contentions. It
is an irreparable loss that these replies have not come down to us,
though it
is hardly a loss so far as their authors are concerned.
We have no
information regarding the effect produced by the work, beyond what may
be
gathered from the horror displayed by the fathers of the church. Yet
even a
literary work of superior excellence could hardly have won the day. The
religion of the church had become a world-religion by the lime, that
Porphyry
wrote, and no professor can wage war successfully against such
religions,
unless his hand grasps the sword of the reformer as well as the
author's pen.
[[extra space]]
The daily
intercourse of Christians and pagans is not to be estimated, even in
Tertullian's age, from the evidence supplied by episodes of
persecution. It is
unnecessary to read between the lines of his ascetic treatises, for
numerous
passages show, involuntarily but unmistakably, that as a rule
everything went
on smoothly in their mutual relationships. People lived together,
bought and
sold, entertained each other, and even intermarried. In later days it
was
certainly not easy to distinguish absolutely between a Christian and a
non-Christian in daily life. Many a Christian belonged to “society”
(see Book 4
Chap. 2), and the number of those who took umbrage at the faith
steadily
diminished. Julius Africanus was the friend of Alexander Severus and
Abgar.
Hippolytus corresponded with the empress. Origen had a position in the
world of
scholarship, where he enjoyed great repute. Paul of Samosata, who was a
bishop,
formed an influential and familar figure in the city of
CONCLUSION
Hergenröther (Handbuch
der allgem. Kirchengesch. 1 pp. 109 f.) has drawn
up, with care
and judgment, a note of twenty causes for the expansion of
Christianity,
together with as many causes which must have operated against it. The
survey is
not without value, but it does not clear up the problem. If the
missionary
preaching of Christianity in word and deed embraced [[511]]
all that we have attempted to state in Book 2, and if it was allied to
forces
such as those which have come under our notice in Book 3, then it is
hardly
possible to name the collective reasons for the success, or for the
retardation, of the movement. Still less can one think of grading them,
or of
determining their relative importance one by one. Finally, one has
always to
recollect not only the variety of human aptitudes and needs and
culture, but
also the development which the missionary preaching of Christianity
itself
passed through, between the initial stage and the close of the third
century.
Reflecting more
closely upon this last-named consideration, one realizes that the
question here
has not been correctly put, and also that it does not admit of any
simple,
single answer. At the opening of the mission we have Paul and some
anonymous
apostles. They preach the unity of God and the near advent of judgment,
bringing tidings to mankind of Jesus Christ, who ad recently been
crucified, as
the Son of God, the Judge, the Savior. Almost every statement here
seems
paradoxical and upsetting. Towards the close of our epoch, there was
probably
hardly one regular missionary at work. The scene was occupied by a
powerful
church with an impressive cultus of its own, with priests, and with
sacraments,
embracing a system of doctrine and a philosophy of religion which were
capable
of competing on successful terms with any of their rivals. This
church
exerted a missionary influence in virtue of her very existence,
inasmuch as she
came forward to represent the consummation of all previous movements in
the
history of religion. And to this church the human race round the basin
of the
Meditterranean belonged without exception, about the year 300, in so
far as the
religion, morals, and higher attainments of these nations were of any,
consequence. The paradoxical, the staggering elements in
Christianity were
still there. Only, they were set in a broad frame of what was familiar
and
desirable and “natural”; they were clothed in a vesture of mysteries
which made
people either glad to welcome any strange, astonishing item in the
religion, or
at least able to put up with it.\364/ [[512]]
\364/ Alongside of the church in its developed form, one man may
perhaps be
mentioned who did more than all the rest put together for the mission
of
Christianity [[512b]]
among the learned
classes, not only during his lifetime, but still more after his death.
I mean
Origen. He was the “Synzygus” of the Eastern Church in the third
century. The
abiding influence of the man may be gathered, two centuries after he
died, from
the pages of Socrates the church historian. He domiciled the religion
of the
church in Hellenism (for thinkers and cultured people), so far as such
a
domicile was possible.
One must first of all answer
this question by getting some
idea of the particular shape assumed by Christianity as
missionary force
about the year 50, the year 100, the year 150, the year 200, the year
250, and
the year 300 respectively before we can think of raising the further
question
as to what forces may have been dominant in the Christian propaganda at
any one
of these six epochs. Neither, of course, must we overlook the
difference
between the state of matters in the East and in the West, as well as in
several
groups of provinces. And even were one to fulfil all these preliminary
conditions, one could not proceed to refer to definite passages as
authoritative for a solution of the problem. All over, one has to deal
with
considerations which are of a purely general character. I must leave it
to
others to exhibit these considerations with the caveat that it is easy
to
disguise the inevitable uncertainties that meet us in this field by
means of
the pedantrti which falls back on rubrical headings. The results of any
survey
will be trustworthy only in so far as they amount to such commonplaces
as,
e.g., that the distinctively religious element was a stronger factor in
the
mission at the outset than at a later period, that a similar remark
applies to
the charitable [[513]]
and economic element
in Christianity, that the conflict with polytheism attracted some
people and
offended others, that the same tray be said of the rigid
morality, and
so forth.
From the very outset
Christianity came forward with a
spirit of universalism, by dint of which it laid hold
of the
entire life of man in all its functions, throughout its heights
and depths,
in all its feelings, thoughts, and actions. This guaranteed its
triumph. In and
with its universalism, it also declared that the Jesus whom it preached
was the
Logos. To him it referred everything that could possibly be
deemed of
human value and from him it carefully excluded whatever belonged to the
purely
natural sphere. From the very first it embraced humanity and he world,
despite
the small number of the elect whom it contemplated. Hence it was that
those
very powers of attraction, by means of which it was enabled at once to
absorb
and to subordinate the whole of Hellenism, had a new light thrown upon
them.
They appeared almost in the light of a necessary eature in that age.
Sin and
foulness it put far from itself. But otherwise it built itself up by
the aid of
any element whatsoever that was still capable of vitality (above all,
by means
of a powerful organization). Such elements it crushed as rivals and
conserved
as materials of its own life. It could do so for one reason --
a reason
which no one voiced, and of which no one was conscious, yet
which every
truly pious member of the church expressed in his own life. The reason
was that
Christianity, viewed in its essence, was something simple, something
which
could blend with coefficients of the most diverse nature, something
which, in
fact, sought out all such coefficients. For Christianity, in its
simplest
terms, meant God as the Father, the Judge and the Redeemer of men,
revealed in and through Jesus Christ.
And was not this religion
bound to conquer? Alongside
of other religions it could not hold its own for any length of
time; still
less could it succumb. Yes, victory was inevitable. It had to prevail.
All the
motives which operated in its extension are as nothing when taken one
by one,
in face of the propaganda which it exercised by means of its
own
development from Paul to Origen, a development which maintained withal
an
exclusive attitude towards polytheism and idolatry of every kind.
[[514]]
ADDENDA
TO VOLUME 1
P. 57, note 2,
adds: “We cannot at this point enter into the very complicated question
of
Paul's reputation in the Gentile church. The highest estimate of him
prevailed
among the Marcionites. Origen, after declaring that they held that Paul
sat on
Christ's right hand in heaven, with Mareion on his left, adds: ‘Porro
alii
legentes: Mittam vobis advocatum spiritum veritatis, volunt intellegere
apostolum Paulum’ ( Hom. 25. in Lucam, vol. 5 pp. 181 f., ed.
Lomm.).
Even were these people supposed to belong to the Catholic
Church -- which
I think unlikely -- this conception would not be
characteristic of
the great church. It would be rather abnormal.”
P. 57, line 5
from top, add the following note: “The persecution of king Herod now
began. It
was directed against the twelve (Acts 12). He made an example of James
the son
of Zebedee, whom he caused to be executed (why, we do not know). Then
lie had
Peter put in prison, and, although the latter escaped death, he had to
leave
P. 355,
line 23 from top, after “Hermas” add: “A whole series of teachers is
mentioned
by Clement of Alexandria, in a passage (Strom. 1.11) which also
shows
how international they were: 'My work is meant to give a simple outline
and
sketch of those clear, vital discourses and of those blessed and truly
notable
men whom I have been privileged to hear. Of these, one, an Ionian, was
in
//end
of Harnack book 3//