The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries

by Adolph (von) Harnack
translated and edited by James Moffatt
Second, enlarged and revised English edition;
London: Williams and Norgate / New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1908 (from the 2nd German 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)

[[319]] 

BOOK 3

 

THE MISSIONARIES: THE METHODS OF THE MISSION AND 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. [Eng. trans. vol. 1. pp. 212 f.], Seufert on Der Ursprung and die Bedeutung des Apostolats in d. Christliche Kirche (1887), Weiz­säcker's Der Apost. Zeitalter2 (1892, s. v. ), Zahn's Skizzen aus dem Leben der alien Kirche2 (1898), p. 338, Haupt on Zum Verständnisse des Apostolats im N.T. (1896), Wernle's Anfänge unserer Religion2 (1904), and Monnier's La notion de l’Apostolat des origines à Irénée (1903)­.

 

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 ιβαἱ φυλαὶ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ (“They are twelve for a testimony to the tribes, for there are twelve tribes in Israel”).

 

\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 (
ποίησεν δώδεκα, να σιν μετ’ ατο κα να ποστέλλ ατος κηρύσσειν κα χειν ξουσίαν κβάλλειν τ δαιμόνια) corresponds to the original facts of the case. The mission (within Israel) was one object of their election from the very first; see, further, the saying upon “fishers of men” (Mark 1.17). -- In this connection we must also note those passages in the gospel where ἀποστέλλειν is used, i.e., where it is applied by Jesus to his own commissions and to the disciples whom he commissions (particularly John 20.21, καθς πέσταλκέν με πατρ, κγω πέμπω μς).

 

 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, 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 o 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 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 παρἀποστόλοις, 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 ιβἀποστόλων (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 Jerusalem and with each other. According to Justin (Dial. 17, 108, 117), the thoroughly systematic measures which were initiated from [[328]] Jerusalem in order to counteract the Christian mission even in Paul's day were the work of the high priests and teachers, who despatched men (ἄνδρας χειροτονήσαντες ἐκλεκτούς) all over the world to give correct information about Jesus and his disciples. These were “apostles;”\35/ that is, this task was entrusted to the “apostles” who kept Jerusalem in touch with the Diaspora.\36/

 

\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 Rome, ἀπόστολος αὐτῶν (Antiq. 17.2.1). The classical usage does not explain the Jewish-Christian. Hence it is probable that ἀπόστολος on Jewish soil retained the technical sense of “messenger.”

 

\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 ερουσαλὴμ 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 διἐπιστολῶν 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 παρὑμῖν 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: οτος τν παρ’ ατος ξιωματικν νδρν ναρίθμιος ν · εσ δ οτοι μετ τν πατριάρχην πόστολοι καλούμενοι, προσεδρεύουσι δ τ πατριάρχ κα σν ατ πολλάκις κα ν νυκτ κα ν μέρ συνεχς διάγουσι, δι τ συμβουλεύειν κα ναφέρειν ατ τ κατ τν νόμον.\38/ He tells (chap. 11) when this Joseph became an apostle (or, got the εὐκαρπία τῆς ἀποστολῆς), and then proceeds: καμετ’ πιστολν οτος ποστέλλεται ες τν Κιλίκων γν · ς νελθν κεσε π κάστης πόλεως τς Κιλικίας τ πιδέκατα κα τς παρχς παρ τν ν τ παρχί ουδαίων εσέπραττεν . . . . πε ον, οα πόστολος (οτως γρ παρατος, ς φην, τ ξίωμα καλεται), μβριθέστατος κα καθαρεύων δθεν τ ες κατάστασιν ενομίας, οὕτως ἐπιτελεῖν προβαλλόμενος, πολλος τν κακῶν κατασταθέντων ρχισυναγώγων κα ερέων κα πρεσβυτέρων κα ζανιτν . . . . καθαιρν τε κα μετακινν τοξιώματος π πολλν νεκοτετο, κ.τ.λ. (He was despatched with epistles to Cilicia, and on arriving there proceeded to levy from every city of Cilicia the titles and first­fruits paid by the Jews throughout the province. When, therefore, in virtue of his apostleship (for so is this order of men entitled by the Jews, as I have said), he acted with great rigor, forsooth, in his reforms and restoration of good order -- which was the very business before him -- deposing and removing from office many wicked chiefs of the synagogue and priests and [[330]] presbyters and ministers . . . . he became hated by many people”).

 

\37/ The allusion is to Isa. 18.1-2, where the LXX. reads : οὐαὶ . . . . 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 Jerusalem. The importance henceforth attached by Paul to this side of his work is well known; on it he spent unceasing care, although it involved him in the sorest vexations and led finally to his death. Taken by itself, it is not easy to under­stand exactly how the primitive apostles could impose this task on Paul, and how he could quietly accept it. But the thing becomes intelligible whenever we assume that the church at Jerusalem, together with the primitive apostles, considered [[331]] themselves the central body of Christendom, and also the re­presentatives of the true Israel. That was the reason why the apostles whom they recognized were entrusted with a duty similar to that imposed on Jewish “apostles,” viz., the task of collecting the tribute of the Diaspora. Paul himself would view it, one imagines, in a somewhat different light, but it is quite probable that this was how the matter was viewed by the primitive apostles. In this way the connection between the Jewish and the Christian apostles, which on other grounds is hardly to be denied in spite of all their differences, becomes quite evident.\41/

 

\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 Jerusalem dicebant hanc stellam indicate nativitatem Christi”), since the passage is merely a late paraphrase of the genuine Matthew.

 

\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 καθἡμᾶς χρόνου γέγραπται μὲν ἕκαστα, πίστεως δοὐχ ὁμοίας ἠξίωται τοῖς πρὸ αὐτῶν, διὰ τὸ μὴ γενέσθαι τὴν τῶν προφητῶν ἀκριβῆ διαδοχήν). Julian, c. Christ. 198 C: τὸ παρἙβραίοις [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 Palestine; but in order to explain historically the prestige claimed and enjoyed by the Christian διδάσκαλοι it is necessary to allude to the prestige of the Jewish teachers. The rabbis claimed from their pupils the most unqualified reverence, a reverence which was to exceed even that paid to father and mother.” “Let esteem for thy friend border on respect for thy teacher, and respect for thy teacher on reverence for God.” “Respect for a teacher surpasses respect for a father; for son and father alike owe respect to a teacher.” “If a man's father and teacher have lost anything, the teacher's loss has the prior claim; for while his father has only brought the man into the world, his teacher has taught him wisdom and brought him to life in the world to come. If a man's father and teacher are bearing burdens, he must help the teacher first, and then his father. If father and teacher are both in captivity, he must ransom the teacher first.” As a rule, the rabbis claimed everywhere the highest rank. “They love the uppermost places at feasts and the front seats [[334]] in the synagogues, and greetings in the market-place, and to be called by men ‘rabbi’” (Matt. 23.6 f. and parallel passages). “Their very dress was that of people of quality.”\48/

 

\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 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 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 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, 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 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, 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 μἀπόστολοι 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 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 Asia as an “apostolic and prophetic teacher.”

 

\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. Rom. 1.3, 21.6 ; (d) from Acts 15.22, 32, where the same persons are called ἡγούμενοι and then προφῆται; and (e) from the Shepherd” of Hermas.

 

(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 διδάσκαλον 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 προφῆταιἐφἡμῶν 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 προφητείας 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 καθἡμᾶς χρὸνοις διδάσκαλος ἀποστολικὸς καὶ προφητικός, γενόμενος ἐπίσκοπος τῆς ἐν Σμὐρνῃ καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας (cp. Acta Pion. 1: ἀποστολικὸς ἀνὴρ τῶν καθἡμᾶς 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 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 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 σωτὴρ ἐλάλει καὶ ἰᾶτο, οὕτως καὶ πρότερον διὰ τῶν προφητῶν,” νῦν δὲ διὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ διδασκάλων” . . . . καὶ πάντοτε ἄνθρωπον 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 Jerusalem (and that from a very early period) were connected with the “Spirit” which possessed the community. Christian prophets are referred to in the context of Acts 2. (cp. verse 18) ; they made their appearance very soon (Acts 4.36). Unfortunately, we do not know any further details, and the real origin of the enthusiastic group of “apostles, prophets, and teachers” is as obscure as that of the ecclesiastical group of “bishops, deacons, and presbyters,” or of the much later complex of the so-called inferior orders of the clergy. In each case it is a question of something consciously created, which starts from a definite point, although it may have sprung up under pressure exerted by the actual circumstances of the situation. [[347]]

 

\71/ I would point, not to the words of Matt. 11.13 (πάντες οἱ προφῆται καὶ 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 ἐπαὐξήσει 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 ἀπόστολος ἐρχόμενος πρὸς ὑμᾶς δεχθήτω ὡς κύριος · οὐ μενεῖ δὲ εἰ μὴ ἡμέραν μίαν · ἐὰν δὲ χρεία, καὶ τὴν ἄλλην · τρεῖς δὲ ἐὰν μείνῃ, ψευδοπροφήτης ἐστίν · ἐξερχόμενος δὲ 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. Rom. 43.1, and Polyc. Epist. 6.3; in Barn. 8.3 the twelve indeed, without the designa­tion of “apostles,” are thus described). Eusebius calls the evangelists the imitators of the apostles, but in the earliest period they were held by most people simply to be apostles.

 

\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 Rome, and certainly under the influence of the genius of the city and the empire, that this idea was condensed and applied to the conception and theory of a tradition which transmitted itself through an apostolic succession. Afterwards this theory became the common possession of Christianity and constituted the idea of “catholicity.” Origen (cp. de Princ. 4.9) defends it as confidently as Ter­tullian (“Regula et disciplina quam ab Jesu Christo traditam sibi apostoli per successionem posteris quoque suis sanctam ecclesiam docentibus tradiderunt”).

 

\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 “India” (Eus. H.E. 5.10). [[Note to editor – New paragraph here?]] Perhaps we should look upon Papylus in the Acts of Carpus and Papylus as a missionary; for in his cross-examination he remarks: ἐν πάσῃ ἐπαρχία καὶ πόλει εἰσίν μου τέκνα κατὰ θεόν (ch. 32, “in every province and city I have children according to God”). Attalus in Lyons was probably a missionary also (Eus. H.E. 5.1). Neither of these cases is, however, beyond doubt. If we could attach any value to the romance of Paul and Thecla (in the Acta Pauli), one name would come up in this connection, viz., that of Thecla, the only woman who was honored with the title of ἀπόστολος. But it is extremely doubtful if any basis of fact, apart from the legend itself, underlies the veneration felt for her, although the legend itself may contain some nucleus of historic truth. Origen knows of cases within his own experience in which a missionary or teacher was subsequently chosen to be bishop by his converts,\82/ but the distinction between missionary and teacher had been blurred by this time, and the old triad no longer existed. 

 

\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.”

 

 

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. Harvey]: οὗτος οὐκέτι ὡς προφήτης ἀλλὡς μάντις λογισθήσεται). Still, the characteristics are not always distinctive or distinct. The faculty of prediction (“aliquid praenuntiare”), e.g., belongs to the prophet as well as to the seer, according to Tertullian (de Carne, 2).

 

\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, 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 προφητικὴ τάξις, cp. Serapion of Antioch's Ep. ad Cericum et Pontium (Eus. H.E. 5.19.2): 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 Israel are said to have been men, none is mentioned as a prophet save Deborah. This very fact affords great comfort to the female sex, and incites them not to despair by any means of being capable of prophetic grace, despite the weakness of their sex; they are to under­stand and believe that purity of mind, not difference of sex, wins this grace” (Cum plurimi iudices viri in Israel fuisse referuntur, de nullo eorum dicitur quia propheta fuerit, nisi de Debbora muliere. praestat et in hoc non minimam consolationem mulierum sexui etiam prima ipsius literae facies, et provocat eas, ut nequaquam pro infirmitate sexus desperent, etiam prophetiae gratiae capaces se fieri posse, sed in­telligant et credant quod meretur hanc gratiam puritas mentis non diversitas sexus).

 

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 ἀλλὡς 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, ἀλλὡς 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 Greece; two others were in Magna Graecia -- one of them came from Coele-Syria, the other from Egypt. Others, again, I met in the East: one came from Assyria, the other was a Hebrew by birth, in Palestine. When I came across the last (though in importance he was first of all), I found rest. I found him concealed in Egypt, that Sicilian bee.”]] An elaborate charge to teachers is given in the pseudo-Clementine Epist. de Virginitate (1.11): “Doctores esse volunt et disertos sese ostendere . . . . neque adtendunt ad id quod licit [Scriptura] : ‘Ne multi inter vos lint doctores, fratres, neque omnes sitis prophetae.’ . . . . Timeamus ergo iudicium quod imminet doctoribus ; grave enim vero iudicium subituri sent doctores illi, qui docent\93/ et non faciunt, et illi [[356]] qui Christi nomen mendaciter assumunt dicuntque se docere veritatem, at circumcursant et temere vagantur seque exaltant atque gloriantur in sententia carnis suae Verumtamen si accepisti sermonem scientiae aut sermonem doctrinae aut prophetias aut ministerii, laudetur dens . . . . illo igitur charis­mate, quod a deo accepisti (sc. χαρίσματι διδαχής), illo inservi fratribus pneumaticis, prophetis, qui dignoscant dei esse verba ea, quae loqueris, et enarra quod accepisti charisma in ecclesi­astico conventu ad aedificationem fratrum tuorum in Christo” (“They would be teachers and show off their learning . . . . and they heed not what the Scripture saith: ‘Be not many teachers, my brethren, and be not all prophets.’ . . . . Let us therefore dread that judgment which hangs over teachers. For indeed a severe judgment shall those teachers undergo who teach but do not practise, as also those who falsely take on themselves the name of Christ, and say they are speaking the truth, whereas they gad round and wander rashly about and exalt themselves and glory in the mind of their flesh. . . . . But if thou hast re­ceived the word of knowledge, or of teaching, or of prophecy, or of ministry, let God be praised. . . . . Therefore with that spiritual gift received from God, do thou serve thy brethren the spiritual ones, even the prophets who detect that thy words are the words of God ; and publish the gift thou hast received in the assembly of the church to edify thy brethren in Christ”). [[Note to editor – New paragraph here (or not) ?]] 

 

\89/ On the other hand, in 9.9 he writes: οἶδεν 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 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 Rome in the days of Marcion), the teachers stand beside the presbyters (not inside the college of presbyters): οἱ ἐπιεικεῖς πρεσβύτεροι καὶ διδάσκαλοι, a position which is still theirs in Egyptian villages after the middle of the third century. Dionysius of Alexandria (Eus. H.E. 7.24.6), speaking of [[360]] his sojourn in such villages, observes, “I called together the presbyters and teachers of the brethren in the villages” (συνεκάλεσα τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους καὶ διδασκάλους τῶν ἐν ταῖς κώμαις ἀδελφῶν). As there were no bishops in these localities at that period, it follows that the teachers still shared with the pres­byters the chief position in these village churches.  

 

\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 Ephesus.

 

\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 Asia, Rome, and Carthage, is called a “doctor” by Tertullian; cp. also the schools of Epigonus, Cleomenes, and Sabellius, in Rome.

 

\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 παραὐτοῖς συνεστῶτος (“The school of the faithful in Alexandria was under the charge of a man greatly distinguished for his learning; his name was Pantunus. A school of sacred letters has been in existence there from early days, and still survives”). Jerome (Vir. Illust. 36) remarks: “Alexandriae Marco evangelista instituente semper ecclesiastici fuere doctores” (“There have always been ecclesiastical teachers instituted by Mark the evangelist at Alexandria”); Clem. Strom. 1.1.2.

 

\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 Constantine to Alexandria, which was intended to quiet the Arian controversy, the emperor holds up the practice of the philosophic schools as an example to the disputants (Eus. Vita Const. 2.71); still, he does so in a way that shows plainly that nothing lay farther from him than any idea of the church as a philosophic school: ἵνα μικρῷ παραδείγματι τὴν ὑμετέραν σύνεσιν ὑπομνήσαιμι, ἴστε δήπου καὶ τοὺς φιλοσόφους αὐτοὺς ὡς ἑνὶ μὲν ἅπαντες δόγματι συντίθενται, πολλάκις δὲ ἐπειδὰν εἴ τινι τῶν ἀποφάσεων μέρει διαφωνῶσιν, εἰ καὶ τῇ τῆς ἐπιστήμης ἀρετῇ χωρίζονται, τῇ μέντοι τοῦ δόγματος ἑνώσει πάλιν εἰς ἀλλήλους συμπνέουσιν (“Let me recall to your minds a slight example of what I mean. You know, of course, that while the philosophers all agree in one principle, they often differ in details of their argument. Yet, for all their disagreement upon the virtue of knowledge, the unity of their principles seems to reconcile them once more”). The distinction drawn between χωρίζουσα τῆς ἐπιστήμης ἀρετή and τοῦ δόγματος ἕνωσις is interesting.

 

\99/ The Theodotian church at Rome was dubbed a school by its opponents (cp. Euseb. H.E. 5.28); Hippolytus inveighs against the church of Callistus, his opponent, as a διδασκαλεῖον (Philos. 9.12, p. 458.9; p. 462.42); and Rhodon similarly mentions a Marcionite διδασκαλεῖον (Eus. H.E. 5.13.4).

 

\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 Egypt; and, unless all signs deceive us, we find that in Egypt generally, and especially at Alexandria, the institution of teachers survived longest in juxtaposition with the episcopal organization of the churches (though their right to speak at services of worship had expired; see below). Teachers still are mentioned frequently in the writings of Origen,\104/ and what is more, the “doctores” constitute for him, along with the “sacerdotes,” quite a special order, parallel to that of priests within the church. He speaks of those “who discharge the office of teachers wisely in our midst” (c. Cels. 4.72), and of “doctores ecclesiae” (Hom. 14. in Gen. vol. 2 p. 97). In Hom. 2. in Num. (vol. 2 p. 278) he remarks: “It often happens that a man of low mind, who is base and of an earthly spirit, creeps up into the high rank of the priesthood or into the chair of the doctorate, while he who is spiritual and so free from earthly ties that he can prove all things and yet himself be judged by no man -- he occupies the rank of an inferior minister, or is even left among the common throng” (“Nam saepe accidit, ut is qui humilem sensum gerit et abiectum et qui terrena sapit, excelsum sacerdotii gradum vel cathedram doctores insideat, et ille qui spiritualis est et a terrena conversa­tione tam liber ut possit examinare omnia et ipse a nemine iudicari, vel inferioris ministerii ordinem teneat vel etiam in plebeia multitudine relinquatur”).\105/ In Hom. 6. in Levit (vol. 9 p. 219) we read: “Possunt enim et in ecclesia sacerdotes et [[361]] doctores filios generare sicut et ille qui dicebat (Gal. 4.19), et iterum alibi dicit (1 Cor. 4.15). [[Note to editor – New paragraph here?]] Isti ergo doctores ecclesiae in huiusmodi generationibus procreandis aliquando constrictis femoralibus utuntur et abstinent a generando, cum tales invenerint auditores, in quibus sciant se fructum habere non posse!”\106/ These passages from Origen, which might be multi­plied (see, e.g., Hom. 2. in Ezek. and Hom. 3 for the difference between magistri and presbyteri), show that during the first thirty years of the third century there still existed at Alexandria an order of teachers side by side with the bishop, the presbyters, and the deacons. But indeed we scarcely need the writings of Origen at all. There is Origen himself, his life, his lot -- and that is the plainest evidence of all. For what was the man himself but a διδάσκαλος τῆς ἐκκλησίας, busily travelling as a teacher upon endless missions, in order to impress true doctrine on the mind, or to safeguard it? What was the battle of his life against that “ambitious” and utterly uneducated bishop Demetrius, but the conflict of an independent teacher of the church with the bishop of an individual community? And when, in the course of this conflict, which ended in a signal triumph for the hierarchy, a negative answer was given to this question among other things, viz., whether the “laity” could give addresses in the church, in presence of the bishops, was not the affirmative answer, which was still given by bishops like Alexander and Theoktistus, who pointed to the primitive usage,\107/ simply the final echo of an organization of the Christian churches older [[362]] and more venerable than the clerical organization which was already covering all the field? [[Note to editor – New paragraph here?]] During the course of the third century, the “teachers” were thrust out of the church, i.e., out of the service;\108/ some of them may have even been fused with the readers.\109/ No doubt, the order of teachers had developed in such a way as to incur at a very early stage the exceptionally grave risk of sharply Hellenizing and thus secularizing Christianity. The διδάσκαλοι of the third century may have been very unlike the διδάσκαλοι who had ranked as associates of the prophets. But Hellenizing was hardly the decisive reason for abolishing the order of teachers in the churches; here, as elsewhere, the change was due to the episcopate with its intolerance of any office that would not submit to its strict control and allow itself to be incorporated in the simple and compact organization of thc hierarchy headed by the bishop. After the middle of the third century, not all, but nearly all, the teachers of the church were clerics, while the instruction of the catechumens was under­taken either by the bishop himself or by a presbyter. The organizing of the catechetical system gradually put an end to the office of independent teachers. 

 

\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 Alexandria (in Theodoret's H.E. 1.3), that Lucian remained outside the church at Antioch (ἀποσυνάγωγος) during the régime of three bishops. Lucian was the head of a school.

 

\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 Rome was arraigned on a charge of Christianity, her teacher Ptolemaeus (διδάσκαλος ἐκείνης τῶν Χριστιανῶν μαθημάτων γενόμενος) was immediately arrested also (Justin, Apol. 2.2). In the African Acta Saturnini et Dativi, dating from Diocletian's reign, we read (Ruinart's Acta Mart. Ratisbon, 1859, p. 417) the following indictment of the Christian Dativus, laid by Fortunatianus (“vir togatus”) with regard to his sister who had been converted to Christianity: “This is the fellow who during our father's absence, while we were studying here, perverted our sister Victoria, and took her away from the glorious state of Carthage with Secunda and Restituta as far as the colony of Abitini ; he never entered our house without beguiling the girls' minds with some wheedling arguments” (“Hie est qui per absentiam patris noster, nobis hit studentibus, sororem nostram Victoriam seducens, hint de splendidissima Carthaginis civitate una cum Secunda et Restituta ad Abitinensem coloniam secum usque perduxit, quique nunquam domum nostram ingressus est, nisi tunc quando quibusdam persuasionibus puellares auimos illicicbat”). This task also engaged the whole activity of the Christian apologists. The effects upon the inner growth of Christianity we may estimate very highly.\111/ But we know [[364]] nothing of the scale on which they worked among pagans. We have no information as to whether the apologies really reached those to whom they were addressed, notably the emperors; or, whether the educated public took any notice of them. Tertullian bewails the fact that only Christians read Christian literature (“ad nostras litteras nemo venit nisi iam Christianus,” de Testim. 1), and this would be true of the apologies as well. Celsus, so far as I know, never takes them into account, though there were a number of them extant in his day. He only mentions the dialogue of Aristo of Pella; but that cannot have been typical, otherwise it would have been preserved.

 

\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 ὑπαὐτοῦ 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 Gaul, Tertullian in Carthage, probably Athenagoras in Athens and Theophilus in Antioch. By the end of the second century Tertullian had a whole corpus of apologetic writings at his command; cp. de Testim. 1: “Nonnulli quidem, quibus de pristina litteratura et curiositatis labor et memoriae tenor perseveravit, ad eum modum opuscula penes nos condiderunt, commemorantes et contestificantes in singula rationem et originem et traditionem et argumenta sententiarum, per quae recognosci possit nihil nos aut novum aut portentosum suscepisse, de quo non etiam communes et publicae litterae ad suffragium nobis patrocinentur, si quid aut erroris eiecimus aut aequitatis admisimus” (“Some, indeed, who have busied themselves inquisitively with ancient literature, and kept it in their memories, have published works of this very kind which we possess. In these they record and attest the exact nature, origin, tradition, and reasons of their opinions, from which it is plain that we have not admitted any novelty or extravagance, for which we cannot claim the support of ordinary and familiar writings; this applies alike to our exclusion of error and to our admission of truth”).

 

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; 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, καθἡμᾶς 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 noon? No one. On the contrary, they pull down your gods openly, and in their writings arraign your religious customs, and you applaud them for it! Most of them even snarl at the Caesars.” The number of sects in Christianity also confirmed well-disposed opponents in the belief that they had to deal with philosophic schools (c. 47). 

 

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 Constantine, Christianity cannot possibly have been a military religion, like Mithraism and some other cults.\121/ 

 

\121/ Africa is the only country where we may feel inclined to conjecture that the relations between Christianity and the army were at all intimate. [Contrast Jewish military activities under the Persians and the Ptolemaic Egyptians?]

 

 [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 Hierapolis in Phrygia, that lie voyaged from Asia to Rome seventy-two times (C.I.G. 3920). The author of Acts treats Paul's journey from -Ephesus to Jerusalem and his return by land as a simple excursion (18.21-32). No excessive length of time was needed to cover the distances. In twelve days one could reach Alexandria from Neapolis, in seven from Corinth. With a favorable wind, the voyage from Narbo in Southern France to Africa occupied only five days (Sulpic. Sever. Dial. 1.3); from the Syrtes to Alexandria took six days (ibid. 1.6). The journey by land from Ephesus to Antioch in Syria certainly took a month (cp. Evagrius, Hist. Eccles. 1.3); but there were rapid messengers who traversed the empire' with incredible speed. Of one it is said (Socrates, H.E. 7.19), οτοs ό Παλλάδιοs μεγίστην οσαν τών  ωμαίων άρχν μικρν δειξε τ ταχύτητι (“This Palledius made the huge empire of Rome seem small by his speed”). Cp. Friedländer's Sittengeschichte (vol. 2, at the beginning). For the letters, cp. Deissmann's Bible Studies (Eng. trans. 1901) and Wehofer's Untersuch. zur altchristl. Epistolographie (in “Wiener akad. Sitzungsber. Philos.-Hist. Klasse, 143, 1901,” pp. 102 f). Norden (Antike [[370b]] Kunstprosa, p. 492) observes: “The epistolary literature, even in its artless forms, had a far greater right to exist, according to the ideas of the age, than we can understand at the present day. The epistle gradually became a literary form into which any material, even of a scientific nature, could be thrown loosely and freely.”

 

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 Rome.

 

\123/ Read the sixteenth chapter of Romans in particular, and see what a number of Paul's acquaintances were in Rome

 

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 Samaria, stayed in Ephesus and Rome. Hegesippus reached Rome via Corinth after starting, about the middle of the second century, on an Eastern tour occupying several years, during which he visited many of the churches. Julius Africanus from Emmaus in Palestine also appeared in Edessa, Rome, and Alexandria. But the most extensive travels were those of Origen, who, from Alexandria and Caesarea (in Palestine) respectively, made his appearance in Sidon, Tyre, Bostra, Antioch, Caesarea (in Cappadocia), Nikomedia, Athens, Nicopolis, Rome, and other cities\125/ (sometimes more than once). [[371]]  

 

\125/ Abercius turned up at Rome and on the Euphrates from Hieropolis in Phrygia.

 

            The following notable Christians\126/ journeyed from abroad to Rome: --

 

\126/The apostolic age is left out of account. It is very probable, I think, that Simon Magus also really came to Rome. Ignatius was taken thither from Antioch against his will, but several Christians accompanied him of their own accord. John, too, is said to have come to Rome, according to an early but poorly authenticated legend.

 

 

\127/ Euelpistus and Hierax, however, were probably involuntary travellers; they seem to have come to Rome as slaves.

 

\128/Different motives prompted a journey to Rome. Teachers came to prosecute their vocation, others to gain influence in the local church, or to see this famous church, and so forth. Everyone was attracted to the capital by that tendency to make for the large towns which characterizes each new religious enterprise. How eagerly Paul strove to get to Rome!

 

Shortly after the middle of the second century, Melito of Sardes journeyed to Palestine (Eus. H.E. 4.26), as did Alexander from Cappadocia (Eus. H.E. 6.11) and Pionius froth Smyrna (about the middle of the third century: see the Acta Pionii); Julius Africanus travelled to Alexandria (Eus. H.E. 6.31); Hermogenes, a heretic, emigrated from the East to Carthage (Theophilus of Antioch opposed him, as did Tertullian); Apelles went from Rome to Alexandria (Tert. de Praescr. 30); during the Decian persecution and afterwards, Roman Christians were despatched to Carthage (see Cyprian's epistles); at the time of Valerian's persecution, several Roman brethren were in Alexandria (Dionys. Alex., cited by Euseb. H.E. 7.11); while Clement of Alexandria got the length of Cappadocia (Eus. H.E. 6.11). This list is incomplete, but it will give some idea of the extent to which the travels of prominent teachers promoted intercommunication.

 

         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 Armenia.

 

\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 Caesarea (in Palestine) is known to us from the Church History of Eusebius, which was written from the material in this collection. It is owing primarily to this library, which in its way formed a counterpart of the Alexandrian, that we possess to-day a coherent, though very limited, knowledge of Christian antiquity.\133/ And even previous to that, if one takes the trouble (and it is no trouble) to put together, from the writings of Celsus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, their library of Christian works, it becomes evident that they had access to an extensive range of Christian books from, all parts of the church.  

 

\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 Constantine, or at any rate until the middle of the third century, the centripetal forces in early Christianity were, as a matter of fact, more powerful than the centrifugal. And Rome was the center of the former tendencies. The Roman Church was the Catholic Church. It was more than the mere symbol and representative of Christian unity; to it more than to any other Christians owed unity itself.

 

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 Caesarea served as the basis for editions (i.e., transcripts) from the fourth and fifth centuries onwards. Yet even after editions of the Scriptures were published they were frequently transcribed at will from some rough copy. From the outset the apologies, the works of the gnostics (which were meant for the learned), and any ecclesiastical writings designed, from Irenaeus downwards, for the educated Christian public, were published and circulated. The first instance of a bishop collecting and editing his own letters is that of Dionysius of Corinth, during the reign of Marcus Aurelius (Eus. H.E. 4.23).  

 

\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 Alexandria loquar? ubi paene omnibus magis quam tibi notus est. hic Aegyptum, Nitriam, Thebaidain ac tota Memphitica regna transivit. hunc ego in eremo a quodam sene legi vidi,” etc. (“That book never leaves my right hand. Look, said he -- and he showed the book under his cloak -- here it is, my companion by land and sea, my ally and comforter in all my wanderings. I'll tell you where it has penetrated; let me tell you, pray, how there is no single spot where this blessed story is not known. Paulinus, your great admirer, brought it first to Rome. The whole city seized on it, and I found the booksellers in delight, because no demand was more profitable, no book sold so keenly and quickly as [[377b]] yours. I found it before me wherever I sailed. When I reached Africa, it was being read in Carthage. That presbyter of Cyrene did not only possess it; at my expense, he wrote it out. And what shall I say of Alexandria, where nearly everyone knows it better than you do yourself. Through Nitria, the Thebais, and all the Memphis district it has circulated. I saw it also being read in the desert by an old anchorite,” etc.). This refers, of course, to a book which appeared about 400 CE, but the description, even when modified, is significant for an earlier period.

 

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 μ κoύσητε τs φωνς μου, ε μv βόμβησιs μεγάλη πολλ ατη 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.

[[381]]

 

CHAPTER 2

 

METHODS OF THE MISSION: CATECHIZING AND BAPTISM,
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 (σέβεια κα δικέια), 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 Athens.

 

(c) In this address the Judgeship of Jesus is linked on directly to the “ignorance” which has replaced the primitive knowledge of God (καθότι στησεν μέραν ν μέλλει κρίνειν τν οἰκουμένην ν δικαιοσύν ν νδρ ρισεν), precisely as Rom. 2.14 f. is followed by ver. 16 (ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ὅτε κρίνει θεὸς τὰ κρυπτὰ τῶν νθρώπων δι Χριστο ησο).

 

(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 ( ἀγνοοῦντες εὐσεβεῖτε, τοτο γ 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 τς τε γεννήσεως κα τς ναστάσεως το γαπημένου), and as the message of self-control and of resurrection” (λόγος τς έγκρατείας κα ναστάσεως).\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 σωτρ μν ησος Χριστὸς ὡς νθρωπος γενόμενος ν τ ουδαί κατ πάντα δίκαιος κα πεπληρωμένος θεί σοφί, φιλανθρώπως δίδαξεν μς τίς τν λων θες κα τί τέλος ρετῆς π σεμνν πολιτείαν ρμόζον πρς τς τν νθρώπων ψυχάς · ὃς δι το παθεν παυσεν τς αρχς τν μαρτιν (“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 (προεπον τι τοιοτός τις φίξεται πάντα δίκαιος κα νάρετος, ς ες πάντας ε ποιήσας νθρώπους e’πρετ πείσει σέβειν τν πάντων θεόν, ὃν μες φθάσαντες τιμμεν, ὅτι μάθομεν σεμνς ἐντολς ἂς οκ δειυεν, κα 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 τς παρθενίας κα τς προσευχς, 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 school of Alexandria, it was men like Clement and Origen, who by their patient and unwearied efforts won the battle for learning, and vindicated the rights of learning in the Christian church. Henceforward, Christianity used her learning also, in the shape of word and book, for the purpose of her mission (i.e., in the East, for in the West there is little trace of this). But the most powerful agency of the mission during the third century was the church herself in her entirety. As she assumed the form of a great syncretistic religion and managed cautiously to bring about a transformation which gnosticism would have thrust upon her violently, the mere fact of her existence and the influence exerted by her very appearance in history wielded a power that attracted and captivated men.

 

\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 Rome, an  διώτης and γράμματος (Philos. 9.11), and Origen often bewails the large number of ignorant Christians.

 

\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” (π πτασίας κούειν παρ’ ατς ἐναρyείας, 14); πτασί πιστεύων, we read, ράματι κα ἐνυπνὶῳ γνοε τίνι πιστεύει (He who believes in an apparition or vision and dreams, does not know in whom he is believing”). Cp. 17: κα σεβες ράματα κα νύπνια ληθ βλέπουσιν . . . . τ εσεβε ἐμφύτ κα καθαρ ναβλύξει τ νῷ τὸ λήθες, οὐκ ὀνείρῳ σπουδαζόμενον, λλ συνέσει γαθος 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 διὀπτασιῶν 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” (ε τις δι’ πτασίαν πρὸς διδασκαλίαν σοφισθναι 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 Corinth. This is not, of course, to be taken as a depreciation of baptism. Like his fellows, Paul recognized it to be simply indispensable. The apostle is merely recollecting, and recollecting in this instance with satisfaction, the limitation of his apostolic calling, in which no duty was imposed on him beyond the preaching of the word of God. Strictly speaking, baptism does not fall within his jurisdiction. He may perform the rite, but commonly it is the business of other people. In the majority of cases it implies a lengthy period of instruction and examination, and the apostle has no time for that: his task is merely to lay the foundation. Baptism marks therefore not the act of initiation but the final stage of the initiation.

 

\147/Magical ideas were bound up from the very first with baptism; cp. the baptism ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν at Corinth and Paul's attitude towards it (1 Cor. 15.29).

 

      “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: λοσαι τν πεπεισμένον κα 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 church of God. For over a century and a half it ranked everything almost secondary to the supreme task of maintaining its morality. It recognized no faith and no forgiveness that might serve as a pillow for the conscience, and one reason why the church did not triumph over Gnosticism at an earlier period was simply because she did not like to shut out people who owned Christ as their Lord and led a strictly moral life. Her power lay in the splendid and stringent moral code of her baptismal training, which at once served as an introduction to the Scriptures;\154/ moreover, every brother was backed up and assisted in order that he might continue to be fit for the duties he had undertaken to fulfil.\155/ Ever since the great conflict with gnosticism and Marcionitism, some instruction in the rule of faith was added. People were no longer satisfied with a few fundamental truths about God and Christ; [[393]] a detailed exposition of the dogmatic creed, based on the baptismal formula, and presented in apologetic and controversial shape, was also laid before the catechumen. At the same time, prior to Constantine, while we have requirements exacted from the catechumens (or those recently baptized), we possess no catechisms of a dogmatic character.

 

\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 Early Church” (Abhandl. f. Weizsäcker, 1892, pp. 53 f.), has given the most thorough account of the pedagogy of the church. But we must refrain from imagining that catechetical instruction was uniformly as thoroughgoing and comprehensive during the third century as it was, say, in Jerusalem under Cyril in the fourth. In the majority of churches there were no clergy capable of taking part in this work. Still, the demand was there, and this demand for initiation into religion by means of regular, public, and individual instruction in morals and religion raised Christianity far above all pagan religions and mysteries, while at the same time it allied Christianity to knowledge and education. Even when it clothed part of its doctrine in mysteries (as in the third century), the message still remained open and accessible to all. The letter of Ptolemoeus to Flora shows the graded instruction in Christianity given by the Valentinians. 

 

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 Damascus; all we know is the rupture which Paul himself felt to be a sudden occurrence. Justin indeed describes (in his Dialogue with Trypho, 1. f.) the steps leading up to his secession to Christianity, his passage through the philosophic schools, and finally his apprehension of the truth which rested on revelation; but the narrative is evidently touched up and it is not particularly instructive. Thanks to Tatian's Oratio, we get a somewhat deeper insight into that writer's inner growth, but here, too, we are unable to form any real idea of the change. Otherwise, Cyprian's little treatise ad Donatum is of the greatest service. What he sought for was a power to free him from an unworthy life, and in the Christian faith he found this power.  

 

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 Rome who were leading a profligate life. The woman becathe a Christian, and, unable ultimately to put up with her profligate husband any [[395]] longer, proposed a divorce; whereupon he denounced her and her teacher to the city prefect as Christians.\157/ When Thecla became a Christian, she would have nothing to do with her bridegroom -- a state of matters which must have been fairly common, like the refusal of converted wives to admit a husband's marital rights. Thecla's bridegroom denounced her teacher to the magistrates, and she herself left her parents' house. Celsus (Orig. adv. Cels. 3.54) gives a drastic account of how Christian fanatics of the baser classes sowed dispeace in families of their own standing. The picture is at least drawn from personal observation, and on that account it must not be left out here. “As we see, workers in wool and leather, fullers and cobblers, people entirely uneducated and unpolished, do not venture in private houses to say a word in presence of their employers, who are older and wiser than themselves. But as soon as they get hold of young people and such women as are as ignorant as themselves, in private, they become wonderfully eloquent. ‘You must follow us,’ they say, ‘and not your own father or teachers; the latter are deranged and stupid; in the grip of silly prejudices, how can they conceive or carry out anything truly noble or good? Let the young people follow us, for so they will be happy and make the household happy also!’ If they see, as they talk so, a teacher or intelligent person or the father himself coming, the timorous among them are sore afraid, while the more forward incite the young folks to fling off the yoke. ‘So long as you are with them,’ they whisper, ‘we cannot and will not impart any good to you; we have no wish to expose ourselves to their corrupt folly and cruelty, to their abandoned sinfulness and vindictive tempers! If you want to pick up any good, leave your fathers and teachers. Come with your play-mates and the women to the women's apartments, or to the cobbler's stall, or to the fuller's shop! There you will attain the perfect life!’ Such are their wheedling words.” A sketch like this, apart from its malice, was certainly applicable to the time of the Antonines; hardly so, when Origen wrote. Origen is quite indignant that Christian teachers should be [[396]] mixed up with wool-dressers, cobblers, and fullers, but he cannot deny that young people and women were withdrawn from their teachers and parents. He simply declares that they were all the better for it (3.56). 

 

\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): πολύπαις μέν, οχ πρ τν κύριον δ γαπήσασα αυτς τ 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 Jerusalem.

 

\164/ The saying addressed to the disciples in Matt. 23.8 (μες μ κληθτε αββεί · ες γάρ στιν μν διδάσκαλος, πάντες δ μες δελφοί στε) is very noticeable. One would expect μαθηταί instead of δελφοί 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 πιστάτης, 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 ο μαθηταί (with the addition of το 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/ Ο 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 μαθήτρια [“the (female) disciple”] also occurs (cp. Acts 9.36, and Gosp. Pet. 50).

 

\167/ In Acts 21.16 a certain Mnason is called ρχαος 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 Jerusalem for Pella. I should not admit that Luke is following an unjustifiable archaism in using the term μαθηταί so frequently in Acts.

 

\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 το κυρίου or χριστο) 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 κυριακ 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 διδαχ κυρίου (the title of the well-known early catechism), and passages like 1 Clem. 13.1 (τν λόγων το κυρίου ησο οὓς λάλησεν διδάσκων = the word of the Lord Jesus which he spoke when teaching); Polyc. 2 (μνημονεύοντες επεν κύριος διδάσκων = remembering what the Lord said as he taught); Ptolem. ad Flor. 5 ( διδασκαλία το σωτρος); and Apost. Constit. p. 25 (Texte u. Unters. 2, part 5 – προορῶντας τοὺς λόγους το διδασκάλον μν = the words of our teacher); p. 28 (ὅτε ᾔτησεν διδάσκαλος τὸν ἄρτον = when the teacher asked for bread); p. 30 (προέλεγεν τε δίδασκεν = 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 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 (λπίζω πιτυχεν ἐν ώμη 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 σομαι μαθητς ληθὴς το Χριστο, τε οδ τ σμά μου κόσμος ὄψεται = then shall I be a true disciple of Christ, when the world no longer sees my body); ad Rom. 5 (ν τος δικήμασιν ατῶν μλλον μαθητεύομαι = through their misdeeds I became more a disciple than ever); Mart. Polyc. 17 (τν μἱὸν το θεο προσκυνομεν, τος δ μάρτυρας ὡς μαθητὰς κα μιμητὰς το κυρίου γαπμεν = 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: καινατομε ουλιανς περ τν προσηyορίαν, Γαλιλαίους ἀντ Χριστιανν ὀνομάσας τε κα καλεσθαι νομοθετήσας . . . . ὄνομα [Γαλιλαοι] τν οk εωθότων) 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 τν 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 τς τν Ναζωραίων αρέσεως. As Jesus himself is called ζωραῖος 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 Antioch, they were for a short while called “Jessaeans,” which he connects with the Therapeutae of Philo. Epiphanius is known to have fallen into the greatest confusion over the primitive sects, as is plain from this very passage. We might therefore pass by his pre-Christian Nazarenes without more ado, were it not for the difficulty connected with Ναζωραῖος as a title of Jesus (and Nazarenes” as a title for his [[403b]] adherents). This has long been felt by scholars, and W. B. Smith, in a lecture at St. Louis (reprinted in The Monist, Jan. 1905, pp. 25-45), has recently tried to clear up the problem by means of a daring hypothesis. He conjectures that Jesus had nothing to do with Nazareth, in fact that this town was simply invented and maintained by Christians, on the basis of a wrong interpretation of Ναζωραῖος. Ναζωραος is to be understood as a title equivalent to “Nazar-ja” (God is guardian), in the sense of σωτήρ = Jesus, etc. This is not the place to examine the hypothesis; it will be a welcome find for the “historical religion” school. An unsolved problem undoubtedly there is; but probably, despite Epiphanius and Smith, the traditional explanation may answer all purposes, the more so as the pre-Christian Nazarenes had nothing that reminds us of the early Christians. Epiphanius says that they were Jews, lived like Jews (with circumcision, the Sabbath, festivals, rejecting fate and astronomy), acknowledged the fathers from Adam to Moses (Joshua), but rejected the Pentateuch (!!). Moses, they held, did receive a law, but not the law as known to the Jews. They observed the law part from all its sacrificial injunctions, and ate no flesh, holding that the books of, Moses had been falsified. Such is the extent of Epiphanius’ knowledge. Are we really to believe that there was a pre-Christian Jewish sect across the Jordan, called Nazarenes, who rejected sacrifice and the eating of flesh? And, supposing this were credible, what could be the connection between them and Jesus, since their sole characteristic, noted by Epiphanius, viz., the rejection of sacrifice and flesh, does not apply to Jesus and the primitive Christians? Is it not more likely that Epiphanius, who simply says the “report” of them had reached him, was wrong in giving the name of Nazarenes to gnostic Jewish Christians, about whom he was imperfectly informed, or to some pre-Christian Jewish sect which lived across the Jordan? Or is there some confusion here between Nazirites and Nazarenes?  

 

The Christians called themselves “God's people,” “Israel in spirit (κατ πνεμα),” “the seed of Abraham,” “the chosen people,” “the twelve tribes,” “the elect,” “the servants of God,” [[403]] “believers,” “saints,” “brethren,” and the “church of God.”\171/ Of these names the first seven (and others of a similar character) never became technical terms taken singly, but, so to speak, collectively. They show how the new community felt itself to be heir to all the promises and privileges of the Jewish nation. At the same time, “the elect”\172/and “the servants of God”\173/ came very near being technical expressions.

 

\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 ο 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 τν πιστν 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 Noricum an inscription has been found, dating from the fourth century (C.I.L., vol. 3. Supplem. Pars Poster. No. 13,529), which describes a woman as “Christiana fidelis,” i.e., probably as a baptized Christian. “Fidelis” in the Canon of Elvira means baptized Christian, and “Christianus” means catechumen. The name of “Pistus” was afterwards a favorite name among Christians: two bishops of this name were at the Council of Niceea. The opposite of “fidelis” was “paganus” (see below). 

 

The three characteristic titles, however, are those of “saints,” “brethren,” and “the church of God,” all of which hang together. The abandonment of the term “disciples” for these self-chosen titles\175/ marks the most significant advance made by those who believed in Jesus (ep. Weizsäcker, op. cit. pp. 36 f.; Eng. trans. 1 pp. 43 f.). They took the name of “saints,” because they were sanctified by God and for God through the holy Spirit sent by Jesus, and because they were conscious of being truly holy and partakers in the future glory despite all the sins that [[405]] daily clung to them.\176/ It remains the technical term applied by Christians to one another till after the middle of the second century (cp. Clem. Rom. Hermas, the Didachê, etc.); thereafter it gradually disappears,\177/ as Christians had no longer the courage to call themselves “saints,” after all that had happened. Besides, what really distinguished Christians from one another by this time was the difference between the clergy and the laity (or the leaders and the led), so that the name “saints” became quite obliterated; it was only recalled in hard times of persecution. In its place, “holy orders” arose (martyrs, confessors, ascetics, and finally -- during the third century -- the bishops), while “holy media” (sacraments), whose fitful influence covered Christians who were personally unholy, assumed still greater prominence than in the first century. People were no longer conscious of being personally holy;\178/ but then they had holy martyrs, holy ascetics, holy priests, holy ordinances, holy writings, and a holy doctrine. 

 

\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 Palestine. At the same time they acquired a deeper content in his teaching. In my opinion, it is impossible to maintain the view (which some would derive from the New Testament) that the Christians at Jerusalem were called “the saints,” κατ’ ξοχήν, and it is equally erroneous to conjecture that the Christianity of the apostolic and post-apostolic ages embraced a special and inner circle of people to whom the title of “saints” was exclusively applied. This cannot be made out, either from 1 Tim. 5.10, or from Heb. 13.24, or from Did. 4.2, or from any other passage, although there was at a very early period a circle of ascetics, i.e., of Christians who, in this sense, were especially “holy.” The expression “the holy apostles” in Eph. 3.5 is extremely surprising; I do not think it likely that Paul used such a phrase.  -- The earliest attribute of the word “church,” be it noted, was “holy”; cp. the collection of passages in Hahn-Harnack's Bibliothek der Symbole(3), p. 388, and also the expressions “holy people” (θνος γιον, λας γιος), “holy priesthood.”

 

\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 ἀνὴρ ἄπιστος ἐν τῆ γυναικί, καὶ ἡγίασται γυνὴ 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 το θεο, 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]] (δελφότης; cp. 1 Pet. 2.17, 5.9, etc.) as well as brethren (δεκφοί), 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, δο μητήρ μου κα ο δελφοί μου. Thus they are not merely brethren, but his brethren. This was familiar to Paul (cp. Rom. 8.29, πρωτότοκος ν πολλος δελφος), 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 κα 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” (δελφότης , see above) was too one-sided, the name they chose was that of “church or “the church of God” (κκλησία, κκλησία το θεοῦ). This was a masterly stroke. It was the work,\188/ not of Paul, nor even of.Jesus, but of the Palestinian communities, which must have described themselves as קהל . Originally, it was beyond question a collective term;\189/ it was the most solemn expression of the Jews for their worship\190/ as a collective body, and as such it was taken over by the Christians. But ere long it was applied to the individual communities, and then again to the general meeting for worship. Thanks to this many-sided usage, together with its religious coloring (“the church called by God”) and the possibilities of personification which it offered, the conception and the term alike rapidly came to the front.\191/ [[408]] Its acquisition rendered the capture of the term “synagogue”\192/ a superfluity, and, once the inner cleavage had taken place, the very neglect of the latter title served to distinguish Christians sharply from Judaism and its religious gatherings even in terminology. From the outset, the Gentile Christians learned to think of the new religion as a “church” and as “churches.” This did not originally involve an element of authority, but such an element lies hidden from the first in any spiritual magnitude which puts itself forward as at once an ideal and an actual fellowship of men. It possesses regulations and traditions of its own, special functions and forms of organization, and these become authoritative; withal, it supports the individual and at the same time guarantees to him the content of its testimony. Thus, as early as 1 Tim. 3.15 we read: οκος θεο, τις στν κκλησία θεο ζῶντσς, στλος κα δραίωμα τς ληθείας. Ecclesia mater” frequently occurs in the literature of the second century. Most important of all, however, was the fact that κκλησία was conceived of, in the first instance, not simply as an earthly but as a heavenly and transcendental entity.\193/ He who belonged to the κκλησία ceased to have the rights of a citizen on earth;\194/ instead of these he acquired all assured citizenship in heaven. This transcendental meaning of the term still retained [[409]] vigor and vitality during the second century, but in the course of the third it dropped more and more into the rear.\195/ 

 

\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 Jerusalem and Judea already styled themselves κκλησίαι (Gal. 1.22). Jesus did not coin the term; for it is only put into his lips in Matt. 16.18 and 18.17, both of which passages are more than suspect from a critical standpoint (see Holtzmann, ad loc.); moreover, all we know of his preaching well-nigh excludes the possibility that he entertained any idea of creating a special κκλησία (so Matt. 16.18), or that he ever had in view the existence of a number of κκλησίαι (so Matt. 18.17).

 

\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 ο π τς κκλησίας.

 

\190/ קהל  (usually rendered κκλησία 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 κκλησία is thus intelligible for the same reason as that of “Israel,” “seed of Abraham,” etc. Among the Jews, κκλησία lagged far behind συναγωγή in practical use, and this was all in favor of the Christians and their adoption of the term.

 

\191/ Connected with the term κκλησία is the term λαός, which frequently occurs as a contrast to τ θνη. 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 οτοι χουσι κα ρχισυναγώγους · συναγωγν δ οτοι καλοσι τν αυτν έκκλησίαν κα οχ έκκλησίαν · τ Χριστ δ νόματι μόνον σεμνύνονται). Still, one may doubt if the Jewish Christians really forswore the name קהל (κκλησία); 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 παροικεν = 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 κκλησία 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 (κκλησία καθολική=πσα κκλησία). 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 : που ν φαν πίσκοτος, κε τ τλθος στω · σπερ που ν Χριστς ησος, κε καθολικ κκλησία), 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”: ν Σμύρν καθολικ κκλησία). 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, πσα ν κόσμ δελφότης). 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), κανν 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/ κκλησιαστικοί, 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 Antioch, he proceeds (11.26): χρηματίσαι πρώτως ν ντιοχεί τος μαθητὰς Χριστιανούs [Χρηστιανούς]. It is needless to suppose that the name was given immediately after the establishment of the church, but neither need we assume that any considerable interval elapsed between the one fact and the other.\197/ Luke does not tell us who gave the name, but he indicates it clearly enough.\198/ It was not the Christians (otherwise he would not have written Χρηματίσαι for they simply could not have given it to themselves. The essentially inexact nature of the verbal form precludes any such idea. And for the same reason it could not have originated with the Jews. It was among the pagans that the title arose, among pagans who heard that a man called “Christ” [Chrestus] was the lord and master of the new sect. Accordingly they struck out\199/ the name of “Christians,” as though “Christ” were a proper name, just as they spoke of “Herodiani,” “Marciani,” etc.\200/ At first, of [[412]] course, Christians did not adopt the title. It does not occur in Paul or anywhere in the New Testament as a designation applied by Christians to themselves, for in the only two passages\201/ where it does occur it is quoted from the lips of an opponent, and even in the apostolic fathers (so-called) we look for it in vain. The sole exception is Ignatius,\202/ who employs it quite frequently a fact which serves admirably to corroborate the narrative of Acts, for Ignatius belonged to Antioch\203/ Thus the name not only originated in Antioch, but, so far as we know, it was there that it first became employed by Christians as a title. By the days of Trajau the Christians of Asia Minor had probably been in possession of this title for a considerable period, but its general vogue cannot he dated earlier than the close of Hadrian's reign or that of Pius. Tertullian, however, employs it as if it had been given by the Christians to themselves.\204/ [[413]]

 

\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 ρωδιανοί (Mark 3.6, 12.13, Matt. 22.16), Justin writes Mαpκιαvoί, Οαλεντινιανοί, 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 Antioch, -- and then passed into currency among the common people. The Christians themselves hesitated for long to use the name; this, however, is far from surprising, and therefore it cannot be brought forward as an argument against the early origin of the term.

 

\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: ο Χριστιανο γενεαλογονται π ησο Χριστο. 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, 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) : στω μν, τν ξ ἐθνν, κύριος κα Χριστὸς κα θες yνωριζόμενος, ς α γραφα σημαίνουσιν, οτινες κα ἀπὸ το νόματος ατο Χριστιανο καλεσθαι πάντες ἐσχήκατε · μες δ, το θεο το κα ατν τοτον ποιήσαντος λατρευτα ντες, ο δεόμεθα τς μολογίας ατο οδ τς 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 μν πασχέτω ς φονεὺς κλέπτης . . . . ε δὲ ς 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 Χριστο (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 – τ πλα τς στρατείας – πρὸς καθαίρεσιν χυρωμάτων – λογισμος καθαιροντε s – αχμαλωτίζοντες), 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: να στρατεύ τν καλν στρατείαν; 2 Tim. 2.3 f.: συνκακοπάθησον ς καλὸς στρατιώτης . Χ. οὐδεὶς στρατευόμενος μπλέκεται ταῖς τοῦ [[415]] βίου πραγματείας, να τῷ στρατολογήσαντι ἀρέςῃ. ἐὰν δὲ θλήςῃ τις, οὐ στεφανοῦταί ἐὰν μὴ νομίμως θλήςῃ; 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): ρέσκετε στρατεύεσθε, ἀφ’ ο κα τ ψώνια κομίσεσθε · μήτις μν δεσέρτωρ ερεθ · τ βάπτισμα μν μενέτω ς πλα, πίστις ς περικεφαλαία, ἀγάπη ὡς δόρυ, 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 λιποτακτεν μς π το θελήματος ατο = we are not to be deserters from his will; cp. 28: τν ατομολούντων π’ ατο = running away from him), but (37) presents the Roman military service as a model and type for Christians: στρατευσώμεθα ον, νδρες δελφοί, μετ πάσης κτενείας ἐν τος μώμοις προστάγμασιν ατο · κατανοήοωμεν τος στρατευομένους τος γουμένοις ήμν · πς ετάκτως, πς εὐείκτως, πs ποτεταyμένως πιτελοσιν τ διατασσόμενα · ο πάντες εσν παρχοι οδ χιλίαρχοι οδ ἑκατόνταρχοι οδ πεντακὀνταρχοι οδ τ καθεξῆς, λλ’ καστος ἐω τ δί τάγματι τ πιτασσόμενα π το βασιλέως κα τν γουμένων πιτελε (“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): “Nam cum omnes milites Christi custodire oportet praecepta imperatoris sui [so Lact. Instit. 6.8 and 7, 27], tune vos magis praeceptis eius obtemperare plus convenit” (“For while [[416b]] it behoves all the soldiers of Christ to observe the instructions of their commander, it is the more fitting that you should obey his instructions”). The expression “camp of Christ” (castra Christi) is particularly common in Cyprian; cp. also Ep. 54.1 for the expression “unitas sacramenti” in connection with the military figure. Cp. pseudo-Augustine (Aug. Opp. 5, App. p. 150): “Milites Christi sumus et stipendium ab ipso donativumque percepimus” (“We are Christ's soldiers, and from him we have, received our pay and presents”).  -- I need not say that the Christian's warfare was invariably figurative in primitive Christianity (in sharp contrast to Islam), It was left to Tertullian, in his Apology, to play with the idea that Christians might conceivably take up arms in certain circumstances against the Romans, like the Parthians and Marcomanni ; yet even he merely toyed with the idea, for he knew perfectly well, as indeed he expressly declares, that Christians were not allowed to kill (occidere), but only to let themselves be killed (occidi).

 

\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 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 God” (“longe sunt a civitate dei,” Cassiod. in Cant. 7.11; cp. Schulze, p. 751). Attention has also been called of late to several inscriptions with the word “paganieum” (cp. Compt. rendus de l’acad. des Inscr. et Belles Lett. 1905, May-June, pp. 296 f). The scope and the meaning of the word are rather obscure (“une sorte de chapelle rurale”? A building in the country devoted to public purposes? Or has the reference to the country even here become obliterated?). 

 

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.  

[[419]]

 

EXCURSUS 1

 

“FRIENDS” (ο φίλοι). 

 

THE name φίλοι (οκεοι) το θεο (“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 ο 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 νδρες γεγένηνται φίλοι θεο · οτοι προφται κέκληνται (“Just men have become friends of God, and these are named prophets”). Justin gives the name of Χριστο 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, ἀλλἐστὲ συμπολῖται τὼν ἁγίων καὶ οἰκεῖοι τοῦ θεοῦ; Valentinus (in Clem. Strom. 6.6.52): λαὸς ὴγαπημένου, φιλούμενος καὶ φιλῶν αὐτόν; Clem. Ρrotrept. 12.122 : εἰ κοινὰ τὰ φίλων, θεοφιλὴς δὲ 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 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 ἐντέλλομαι ὑμῖκ. οὐκέτι λέγω ὑμᾶς δούλους . . . . ὑμᾶς δὲ εἴρηκα φίλους, ὅτι πάντα 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 στι τs θανασίας τος ἐπιλαβοσιν ατήν). Perhaps the words quoted by Clement (Quis Dives 33: δώσω ο μόνον τοῖς φίλοις, λλ κα 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 μακάριοs θεο φίλος (cp. A. M. Ramsay in Journal of Hellenic Studies, 24, 1904, p. 264, “The Early Christian Art of Isaura Nova”).

 

The term ο φίλοι is to be distinguished from that of φίλοι το θεο (χριστο). 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” κατατίθεοθαι τs οσίαs ες τ κοινν · ἀπιστούντων γὰρ τὸ τοιοῦτον · εἰ δἀπίστων, 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 τρς τος φίλους πορευθέντι πιμέλειας τυχεν. Probably ο φίλοι here means not special friends of the apostle, but Christians in general (who elsewhere are always called in Acts of ο δελφοί). 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 (σπάζονταί σε οἱ φιλοι · σπάζου τος φίλους κατ’ νομα) it is most likely that special friends are meant, not all the Christians at Ephesus and at the place where the letter is composed. Evidently the natural term ο φίλοι did not gain currency in the catholic church, owing to the fact that ο δελφοί (cp. above, pp. 405 f) was preferred as being still more inward and warm. In gnostic circles, on the other hand, which arose subsequently under the influence of Greek philosophy, ο φίλοι seems to have been used during the second century. Thus Valentinus wrote a homily περ φίλων (cp. Clem. Strom. 6.6.52); Epiphanius, the son of Carpocrates, founded a Christian communistic guild after the model of the Pythagoreans, and perhaps also after the model of the Epicurean school and its organization (Clem. Strom. 3.5-9); while the Abercius-inscription, which is probably gnostic, tells how faith furnished the fish as food for (τος) φίλοις. Clement of Alexandria would have had no objection to describe the true gnostic circle as “friends.” It is he who preserves the fine saying (Quis Dives, 32): “The Lord did not say [in Luke 16.9] give, or provide, or benefit, or aid, but make a friend. And friendship springs, not from a single act of giving, but from invariable relief vouchsafed and from long intercourse” (ο μ οδ’ εἶπεν κύριος, Δος, Παράσχες, υεργέτησαν, Βοήθησαν · φίλον δ ποισαι · δ φίλος οκ κ μίας δόσεως γίνεταί, λλ’ ἐξ λης ναπαύσεως κα συνουσίας μακρς).

[[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 Northern Africa, and the necessity of employing Christian names had hardly as yet arisen. The same holds true of all the other regions of Christendom. As inscriptions and writings testify, Christians in East and West alike made an exclusive or almost exclusive use of the old pagan names in their environment till after the middle of the third century, employing, indeed, very often names from pagan mythology and soothsaying. We find Christians called Apollinaris, Apollonius, Heraclius, Saturninus, Mercurius, Bacchylus, Bacchylides, Serapion, Satyrus, Aphrodisius, Dionysius, Hermas, Origen, etc., besides Faustus, Felix, and Felicissimus. “The martyrs perished because they declined to sacrifice to the gods whose names they bore”!

 

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 Lyons, Sanctus the Christian is said to have withheld his proper name from the magistrate, contenting himself with the one reply, “I am a Christian!”\217/ 

 

\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 κα Κυριακός, τταλος πίκλην σάΐας, 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 κα Θεόκτιστος Βικράτιος κα Βιβιανόs. In The Martyrdom of St Conon we find a Ναόδωρος κα πελλῆς. 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: σπερ κα Παλος πολς κα δ κα Πέτρος ἐν τος τῶν πιστν παισν νομάζεται (“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 Cyprus in Syria, thirty years afterwards. It is this: that people are to give their children the names of saints and martyrs, in order to win them the protection and patronage of these heroes.\230/ Then and thereafter this was the object which determined the choice of names. The result was a selection of names varying with the different countries and provinces; for the calendar of the provincial saints and the names of famous local bishops who were dead were taken into account together with the Bible. As early as the close of the fourth century, e.g., people in Antioch liked to call their children after the great bishop Meletius. Withal, haphazard and freedom of choice always played some part in the choice of a name, nor was it every ear that could grow accustomed to the sound of barbarian Semitic names. As has been observed already, the Western church was very backward in adopting Old Testament names, and this continued till the days of Calvinism. 

 

\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 Alexandria (Eus. H.E. 6.2.14). Then there is Paul of Samosata, and the martyr Paul (Mart. Paul. p. 65), besides another martyr of the same name at Jamnia (op. cit. p. 86).

 

\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 Balkan peninsula) may be regarded with a certain probability as Christian. The other iq names show Paul six times (Palestine, Coele-Syria, proconsular Asia, Phrygia, Isauria, and Cappadocia) Peter four times (Palestine twice, Coele-Syria, Egypt: it is interesting to notice the absence of Asia), Mark three times (Lydia, Calabria, Achaia -- but it is extremely questionable, at least, if the name was taken from the evangelist), John cake (Persia) and James once (Nisibis), -- though in both cases it is doubtful if the apostles were taken as the originals, since Jewish names would be common in the far East, -- Moses once (in Cilicia, perhaps a Jew by birth), Stephen twice (Cappa. dot's and Isauria -- very doubtful if any reference to the biblical Stephen), and Polycarp once (Pisidia). It is quite possible that the last-named may have been called after the great bishop of Smyrna, but there was also a Polycarp among the 87 bishops of the Synod of Carthage, As for the Old Testament names, the earliest instances, which are still very rare (in the second half of the third century), ere almost all from Egypt. A list may be appended here, at Lietzmann's suggestion, Hilary, in the extant fragments of his collection of documents relating to the Roman controversy (2 and 3), gives 134 episcopal names for the council of Sardica (61 orthodox and 73 semi-Arian), while Athanasius gives 284 orthodox names for the same synod (Apol. c. Arian. 50), though he has unfortunately omitted the episcopal sees. All these bishops must have got their names between 270 and 310 CE. Among Hilary's 134, there is a Moses, an Isaac, a Jonah (?), and a Paul (the Moses in Thessalian Thebes, the Isaac in Luetum [= Λουειθά, Arab. Petr. ?]). All the rest bear current and in part purely pagan names (the latter may have been quite probably Jews by birth). As for the 284 names of Athanasius, the same holds true of 270. The other 14 (i.e., only 5 per cent.) include Paul (five times), Peter (once), Andrew (once ; in Egypt, possibly after the apostle), Elijah (three times, in Egypt), Isaiah, Isaac, Joseph, Jonah (just once) -- all in Egypt, except Jonah. This confirms what we have just said. The pagan names have remained untouched. Only “Paul” and “Peter” (to a slight extent) have slipped in. The Old Testament names are still confined to Egypt, and even there they are not yet common.

 

\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 Primitive Church].

 

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 Israel and the ecclesia of God. Such they held themselves to be. Hence they appropriated to themselves the form and well-knit frame of Judaism, spiritualizing it and strengthening it, so that by one stroke (we may say) they secured a firm and exclusive organization. 

 

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 church of God, and it had to recognize and manifest itself as such.\233/ 

 

\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 Asia not long afterwards, the idea of the sovereignty of the individual church had triumphed.

 

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 church of Judaism. In addition to this there was also the wonderfully practical idea, to which allusion has already been made, of setting the collective church (as an ideal fellowship) and the individual community in such a relationship that whatever was true of the one could be predicated also of the other, the church of Corinth or of Ephesus, e.g., being the church of God. Quite apart from the content of these social formations, no statesman or politician can hesitate to admire and applaud the solution which was thus devised for one of the most serious problems of any large organization, viz., how to maintain intact the complete autonomy of the local communities and at the same time to knit them into a general nexus, possessed of strength and unity, which [[434]] should embrace all the empire and gradually develop also into a collective organization. 

 

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. Rom. 42: οἱ ἀπόστολοι κατὰ χώρας καὶ πόλεις κηρύσσοντες . . . . καθίστανον τὰς ἀπαρχὰς αὐτῶν, δοκιμάσαντες τῷ πνεύματι, εἰς ἐπισκόπους καὶ διακόνους τῶν μελλόντων πιστεύειν = Preaching throughout the country districts and cities, the apostles . . . . appointed those who were their firstfruits, after proving them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons for those who were to believe); as we learn from 1 Thess. 5.12 f and Phil. 1.1, a sort of local superintendence at once arose in some of the communities. But what holds true of the Macedonian churches is by no means true of all the churches, at least during the initial period, for it is obvious that in Galatia and at Corinth no organization whatever existed for a decade, or even longer. The brethren submitted to a control of “the Spirit.” In Acts 14.23 (χειροτονήσαντες αὐτοῖς κατἐκκλησίαν πρεσβυτέρους) the allusion may be accurate as regards one or two communities (cp. also Clem. Rom. 44), but it is an extremely questionable statement if it is held to imply that the apostles regularly appointed officials in every locality, and that these were in all cases “presbyters.” Acts only mentions church-officers at Jerusalem (15.4) and Ephesus (20.28, presbyters who are invested with episcopal powers).

 

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 Carthage and Rome, both during and after the Decian persecution, started cross-currents in the churches and began to uplift themselves against the officials, the great bishops finally resolved to reduce them under the laws common to the whole church.

 

\236/ Herm. Simil. 9.20: οὗτοι οἱ ἐν πολλοῖς καὶ ποικίλαις πραγματείαις ἐμπεφυρμένοι οὐ κολλῶνται τοῖς δούλοις τοῦ θεοῦ, ἀλλἀποπλανῶνται (“ 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 παροικοντεσ (“sojourners”; cp. p. 252); the church was technically “the church sojourning in the city( κκλησία παροικοσα τν 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 Rome and the West, after the gnostic controversy. In virtue of this quality, they were regarded as representatives of the apostolic office. According to Cyprian, they were “judices vice Christi” (judges in Christ's room); and Origen, in spite of his unfortunate experience with bishops, had already written that “if kings are so called from reigning, then all 'who rule the churches of God deserve to be called kings” (“si reges a regendo dicuntur, omnes utique, qui ecclesias dei regunt, reges merito appellabuntur,” Hom. 12.2 in Num. vol. 10. p. 133, Lomm.). On their conduct the churches depended almost entirely for weal or woe. As the office grew to maturity, it seemed like an original creation; but this was simply because it drew to itself from all quarters both the powers and the forms of life.

 

\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 church of Athens (Eus. H.E. 4.23) that while it had well-nigh fallen from the faith after the death of its martyred bishop Publius, its new bishop Quadratus had reorganized it and filled it with fresh zeal for the faith. In de Fuga, 11 Tertullian says that when the shepherds are poor creatures the flock is a prey to wild beasts, “as is never more the ease than when the clergy desert the church in a persecution” (“quod nunquam magis fit quam cum in persecutione destituitur a clero”). Cyprian (Ep. 55.11) tells how in the persecution bishop Trophimus had lapsed along with a large section of the church, and had offered sacrifice; but on his return and penitence, the rest followed him, “qui omnes regressuri ad ecclesiam non essent, nisi cum Trofimo comitante venissent” (“none of whom would have returned to the church, had they not had the companionship of “Trophimus”). When Cyprian lingered in retreat during the persecution of Decius, the whole community threatened to lapse. Hence one can easily see the significance of the bishop for the church; with him it fell, with him it stood,\246/ and in these days a vacancy or interregnum meant a serious crisis for any church. Without being properly a missionary, [[441]] the bishop exercised a missionary function.\247/ In particular, he preserved individuals from relapsing into paganism, while any bishop who really filled his post was the means of winning over n any fresh adherents. We have instances of this, e.g., in the cruse of Cyprian or of Gregory Thaumaturgus. The episcopal dignity was at once heightened and counterbalanced by the institution of the synods which arose in Greece and Asia (modelled possibly upon the federal diets),\248/ and eventually were adopted by a large number of provinces after the opening of the third century. On the one hand, this association of the bishops entirely took away the rights of the laity, who found before very long, that it was no use now to leave their native church in order to settle down in another. Yet a synod, on the other hand, imposed restraints upon the arbitrary action of a bishop, by setting itself up as an ecclesiastical “forum publicum” to which he was responsible. The correspondence of Cyprian resents several examples of individual bishops being thus arraigned by synods for arbitrary or evil conduct. Before very long too (possibly from the very outset) the synod, this “representatio totius nominis Christiani,” appeared to be a specially trustworthy organ of the holy Spirit. The synods which expanded in the course of the third century from provincial synods to larger councils, and which would seem to have anticipated Diocletian's redistribution of the empire in the East, naturally gave an extraordinary impetus to the prestige and authority of the church, and thereby heightened its powers [[442]] of attraction. Yet the entire synodal system really flourished in the East alone (and to some extent in Africa). In the West it no more blossomed than did the system of metropolitans, a fact which was of vital moment to the position of Rome and of the Roman bishop.\249/

 

\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 “Asia Minor,” 9, in Book 4. Chap. 3) Tertull. de Jejunio, 13: “Aguntur per Graecias (for the plural, cp. Eus. Vita Const. 3.19) illa certis in locis concilia ex universis ecclesiis, per quae et altiora quaeque commune tractantur et ipsa repraesentatio totius nominis Christiani magna veneratione celebratur.”


\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 Royal Prussian Academy of Science, on 28th Nov. 1901 (pp. 1186 f.).

 

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 Corinth, combated by Paul, would seem to point in this direction. Nor is it quite certain whether, even after the formation of the monarchical episcopate, there were not cases here and there of two or more episcopal communities existing in a single city. But even if this obtained in 'certain cases, their number must have been very small; nor do these avail to alter the general stamp of the Christian organization throughout its various branches, i.e., the general constitution according to which every locality where Christians were to be ound had its own independent community, and only one community.\252/ This organization, with its simplicity and naturalness, proved itself extraordinarily strong. No doubt, the community was soon obliged to direct the full force of its [[444]] anti-pagan exclusiveness against such brethren of its own number as refused submission to the church upon any pretext whatsoever. The sad passion for heresy-hunting, which prevailed among Christians as early as the second century, was not only a result of their fanatical devotion to true doctrine, but quite as much an outcome of their rigid organization and of the exalted predicates of honor, which they applied to themselves as “the church of God.” Here the reverse of the medal is to be seen. The community's valuation of itself, its claim to represent the κκλησία το θεο (“the church of God” or “the catholic church” in Corinth, Ephesus, etc.) prevented it ultimately from recognizing or tolerating any Christianity whatever outside its own boundaries.\253/ 

 

\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 Rome. Schiele has recently tried to prove, for reasons that deserve notice, that the community in question was developed from the Συναγωγὴ τν βραίων, for which there is inscriptional evidence at Rome (American Journal of Theology, 1905, pp. 290 f.), and I have tried to connect the epistle with Prisca and Aquila (Zeits. für die neutest. Wiss. 1, 1900, pp. 16 f.). The one theory does not exclude the other.

 

\252/ The relation of the Christian διδασκαλεα 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: βλασφημοσιν ες λλήλουs οτοι πάνδεινα ητ κα ρρητα, κα οκ ἂν εξαιεν οδ καθ’ τιον εs μόνιαν πάντη λλήλους ἀποστυγοντεs (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 CONSTANTINE.

 

“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 St Paul set Timothy over all Asia, and Titus over Crete. And plainly he also appointed other individuals to other provinces in the same way, each of whom was to take charge of a whole province, making circuits through all the churches, ordaining clergy for ecclesiastical work wherever it was necessary, solving any difficult questions which had arisen among them, setting them right by means of addresses on doctrine, treating sore sins in a salutary fashion, and in general discharging all the duties of a superintendent -- all the towns, meanwhile, possessing the presbyters of whom I have spoken, men who ruled their respective churches. Thus in that early age there existed those who are now called bishops, but who were then called apostles, discharging functions for a whole province which those who are nowadays ordained to the episcopate discharge for a single city and a single district. Such was the organization of the church in those days. But when the faith became widely spread, filling not merely towns, but also country districts with believers,\254/ [[446]] then, as the blessed apostles were now dead, came those who took charge of the whole [province]. They were not equal to their predecessors, however, nor could they certify themselves, as did the earlier leaders, by means of miracles, while in many other respects they showed their inferiority. Deeming it therefore a burden to assume the title of ‘apostles,’ they distributed the other titles [which had hitherto been synonymous], leaving that of ‘presbyters’ to the presbyters, and assigning that of 'bishops' to those who possessed the right of ordination, and who were consequently entrusted with leadership over all the church. These formed the majority, owing, in the first instance, to the necessity of the case, but subsequently also, on account of the generous spirit shown by those who arranged the ordinations.\255/ For at the outset there were but two, or at most three, bishops usually in a province -- a state of matters which prevailed in most of the Western provinces until quite recently, and which may still be found in several, even at the present day. As time went on, however, bishops were ordained not merely in towns, but also in small districts, where there was really no need of anyone being yet invested with the episcopal office.”

 

\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 Judaea, Sarnaria, Syria, Cilicia, Galatia, Asia, Macedonia, etc., that are present to the minds of the apostles, and figure in their writings. Just as, in the missions of the present day, outside sects capture “Brandenburg,” “Saxony,” and “Bavaria” by getting a firm foothold in Berlin, Dresden, Munich, and one or two important cities; just as they forthwith embrace the whole province in their thoughts and in some of the measures which they adopt, so was it then. Secondly, Theodore's observation upon the extension of the term “apostle” is in itself quite accurate. But it is just at this point, of course, that our doubts begin. It is inherently improbable that the apostles, i.e., the twelve together with Paul, appointed the other “apostles” (in the wider sense of the word) collectively; besides, it is contradicted by positive evidence to the contrary,\260/ and Theodore's statement of it may be very simply explained as due to the preconceived opinion that everything must ultimately run back to the apostles' institution. Further, the idea of each province having an apostle-bishop set over it is a conjecture which is based on no real evidence, and is contradicted by all that we know of the universal ecclesiastical nature of the apostolic office. Finally, we cannot check the statement which would bind up the right of ordination exclusively with the office of the apostle-bishop. In all these respects Theodore seems to have introduced into his sketch of the primitive churches' organization features which were simply current in his own day, as well as hazardous hypotheses. Moreover, we can still show how slender are the grounds on which his conjectures rest. Unless I am mistaken, he has nothing at his disposal in the shape of materials beyond the traditional idea, drawn from the pastoral epistles, of the position occupied by Timothy and Titus in the church, as well as the ecclesiastical notices and legends of the work of John in Asia.\261/ All this he has generalized, evolving there from the [[449]] conception of a general appointment of “apostles” who are equivalent to “provincial bishops.”\262/ “Apostles” are equivalent “provincial bishops”; such is Theodore's conception, and the conception is a fantasy. Whether it contains any kernel of historical truth, we shall see later on. Meantime we must, in the first instance, follow up Theodore's statements a little further.

 

\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. Rom. 40. f. cannot have been present to his mind, for his remarkable and ingenious idea of the identity of “apostles” and “provincial bishops” would have been shattered by a passage in which it is quite explicitly asserted that the apostles κατὰ χώρας καὶ πόλεις κηρύσσοντες καὶ τοὺς ὑπακούοντας τῇ βουλήσει τοῦ θεοῦ βαπτίζοντες καθίστανον τὰς ἀπαρχὰς αὐτῶν, δοκιμάσαντες τῷ πνεύματι, εἰς ἐπισκόπους καὶ διακόνους τῶν μελλόντων πιστεύεινν (see above, p. 434), while 42 describes a succession, not of apostles one after another, but of bishops.

 

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 Gaul, nor has he yet said his last word upon the other provinces. I have reason to believe that his verdict and my own are not very different; hence in what follows I am attacking, not himself, but conclusions which may be drawn from his statements.

 

P. 32: “Dans les pays situés à, quelque distance de la Mediterranée et de la basse vallée du Rhône, il ne s’est fondé aucune église (Lyon exceptée) avant le milieu du IIIe siècle environ.”

 
Pp. 38 f.: “Il en résulte que, dans l’ancienne Gaule celtique, avec ses grandes subdivisions en Belgique, Lyonnaise,
Aquitaine et Germanie, une seule église existait au IIe siècle, celle de Lyon . . . . ce que nos documents nous apprennent, c’est que l’église de Lyon était, en dehors de la Narbonnaise, non la premiere, mais la seule. Tous les chrétiens épars depuis le Rhin jusqu’ aux Pyrénées\268/ ne formaient qu’une seule communauté; ils reconnaissaient un chef unique, l’évêque de Lyon.” 

 

\268The mention of the Pyrenees shows that Duchesne includes Aquitania and the extreme S.W. of France in the province of which Lyons is said to have formed the only bishopric.

 

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
Lyons, goes back beyond the middle of the third century.\269/ Nor do the episcopal lists, so far as they are relevant in this connection, take us any farther back. Verus of Vienne, e.g., who was present at the council of Arles in 314 CE, is counted as the fourth bishop in these lists; which implies that the bishopric of Vienne could hardly have been founded before ±250 CE.  [[453]]

 

\269/Arles alone was certainly in existence before 250 CE, as the correspondence of Cyprian proves. But Arles lay in the provincia Narbonensis, which is excluded from our present purview.

 

2. The heading of the well-known epistle from Vienne and Lyons (Eus. H.E. 5.1) runs thus : οἱ ἐν Βιέννῃ καὶ Λουγδούνῳ τῆς Γαλλίας παροικοῦντες δοῦλοι Χριστοῦ (“the servants of Christ sojourning at Vienne and Lyons”). This heading resembles others, such as ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ παροικοῦσα Ῥώμην, or Κόρινθον, Φιλίππους, Σμύρναν, etc. (“ the church of God sojourning at Rome, Corinth, Philippi, Smyrna“ etc.), and consequently represents both churches as a unity -- at least upon that reading of the words which first suggests itself.\270/  

 

\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 Vienne had no bishop of its own. 

 

4. Irenaeus in his great work speaks of churches in Germany and also among the Iberians, the Celts, and the Libyans. Now it is a well-established fact that there were no organized churches, when he wrote, in Germany (i.e., in the military province, for free Germany is out of the question). When Irenaeus speaks of churches, he must therefore mean churches which were not episcopal churches.\271/ 

 

\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 Italy, as well as in Africa, we are thrown back upon the other countries of the West. Strictly speaking, it is true, Theodore's evidence only covers his own period; but it fits in admirably with our first four arguments, and it is in itself quite natural, that bishoprics were less numerous in the earlier than in the later period. [[454]]  

 

6. Eusebius mentions a letter from “the parishes in Gaul over which Irenaeus presided” (τῶν κατὰ Γαλλίαν παροικιῶν ἃς Εἰρηναῖος ἐπεσκόπει, H.E. 5.23). Now although, παροικία usually means the diocese of a bishop, in which sense Eusebius actually employs it in this very chapter, we must nevertheless attach another meaning to it here. “Le verbe ἐπισκοπεῖν ne saurait s’entendre d’une simple presidence comtne serait celle d’un métropolitain à la tête de son concile. Cette dernière situation est visée dans le même passage d’Eusèbe; en parlant de l’évêque Théophile, qui présida celui du Pont, it se sert de 1’expression προὐτέτακτο.” In the present instance, then, παροικίαι denote “groupes détachés, dispersés, d’une même grande église” – “plusieurs groupes de chrétiens, épars sur divers points du territoire, un seul center ecclésiastique, un seul évêque, celui de Lyon.” 

 

7. Analogous phenomena (i.e., the existence of only one bishop at first and for some time to come) occur also in other large provinces, but the proof of this would lead us too far afield.\272/ Duchesne contents himself with adducing a single instance which is especially decisive. The anonymous anti-Montanist who wrote in 192-193 CE (Eus. H.E. 5.16) relates how on reaching Ancyra in Galatia he found the Pontic church (τὴν κατὰ Πόντον ἐκκλησίαν) absorbed and carried away by the new prophecy. Now Ancyra does not lie in Pontus, and – “ce n’est pas des nouvelles de 1’église du Pont qu’il a eues à Ancyre, c’est l’église elle-même, l’église du Pont, qu’il y a reneontrée.” Hence it follows in all likelihood\273/ that the church of Pontus had still its “chef-lieu” in Ancyra during the reign of Septimius Severus (c. 200 CE).\274/

 

\272/ P. 42: “D’autres églises que celle de Lyon ont eu d’abord un cercle de rayonnement très étendu et ne se sont en quelque sorte subdivisées qu’après une indivision d’assez longue duree. Je ne veux pas entrer ici dans l’hittoire de l’évangélization de l’empire romain: cela m’entraînerait beaucoup trop loin. Il me serait facile de trouver en Syrie, en Égypte et ailleurs des termes de comparaison assez intéressants. Je les néglige pour me borner à un seul exemple,” etc.

 

\273/ Duchesne also mentions the allusions to Christians in Pontus which we find in Gregory Thaumaturgus.

 

\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 Lyons, wrote to Stephen the pope (c. 254 CE), not only in his own name but in that of “the rest of my fellow-bishops who hold office in the same province” (“ceteri coepiscopi nostri in eadem provincia constituti”). Duchesne admits that the earliest of the bishoprics (next to that of Lyons) may have been already in existence throughout the provincia Lugdunensis, but he considers that it is more natural to think of bishops on the lower Rhone and on the Mediterranean, i.e., in the provincia Narbonesis, which had had bishops for a long while.

 

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 Antioch called ἐν Συρόᾳ ἐκκλησία (“the church in Syria,” Rom. 9, Magn. 14, Trall. 13) absolutely, but Ignatius even describes himself as “the bishop of Syria” ( ἐπίσκοπς Συρίας, Rom. 2).  

 

(3) Dionysius of Corinth writes a letter “to the church sojourning at Gortyna, with the rest of the churches in Crete, commending Philip their bishop” (τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τῇ παροικούσῃ Γορτύναν ἅμα ταῖς λοιπαῖς κατὰ Κρήτην, Φίλιππον έπἰσκοπον αὐτῶν ἀποδεχόμεωος. -- Eus. H.E. 4.23.5). 

 

(4) The same author (op. cit. 4.23.6) writes a letter to the church sojourning in Amastris, together with those in Pontus, in which he alludes to Bacchylides and Elpistus as having incited him to write . . . . and mentions their bishop Palmas by name” (τῇ ἐκκησία τῇ παροικούςῃ Ἄμαστριν ἅμα ταῖς κατὰ Πόντον, Βακχυλίδου μὲν καὶ Ἐλπίστου ὡσὰν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὸ γράψαι προτρεψάντων μεμνημένος . . . . ἐπίσκοπον αὐτῶν ὀνόματι Πάλμαν ὑποσημαίνων). [[456]] 

 

(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 Ephesus, just as Titus did over the churches in Crete”; (Τιμοθεός γε μὴν τῆς ἐν Ἐφέςῳ παροικίας ἱστορεῖται πρῶτος τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν εἰληχέναι, ὡς καὶ Τίτος τῶν ἐπὶ Κρήτης ἐκκλησιῶν). 

 

(6) “In the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, Irenaeus sent despatches,” etc. ( Εἰρηναῖος ἐκ προσώπου ὧν ἠγεῖτο κατὰ τὴν Γαλλίαν ἀδελφῶν ἐπιστείλας, Eus, H.E. 5.24, 11); cp. 6.46: Διονύσιος τοῖς κατὰ Ἀρμενίαν ἀδελφοῖς ἐπιστέλλει, ὧν ἐπεσκόπευε Μερουζ άνης (“Dionysius despatched a letter to the brethren in Armenia over whom Merozanes presided”).

 

(7) “Demetrius had just then obtained the episcopate over the parishes in Egypt, in succession to Julian” (τῶν δὲ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ παροικιῶν τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν νεωστὶ τότε μετὰ Ἰουλιανὸυ Δημήτριος ὑπειλήφει – Eus. H.E. 6.2.2).  

 

(8) “Xystus . . . . was over the church of Rome, Demetrianus . . . . over that of Antioch, Firmilianus over Caesarea in Cappadocia, and besides these Gregory and his brother Athenodorus over the churches in Pontus” (τῆς μὲνΡωμαίων ἐκκλησίας . . . . Ξύστοςμ τῆς δὲ ἐπἈντιοχείας . . . . Δημητριανὸς δέ Καισαρείας τῶς Καππαδοκῶν, καὶ ἐπὶ τούτοις τῶν κατὰ Πόντον ἐκκλησιῶν Γρηγόριος καὶ τούτου ἀδελφὸς Ἀθηνόδωρος. – Eus. H.E. 7.14).

 

(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 Pontus” (Μελέτιος τῶν κατὰ Πόντον ἐκκλησιπων ἐπίσκοπος. — Eus. H.E. 7.32.26).  

 

(11) “Basilides, bishop of the parishes in Pentapolis” (Βασιλείδης 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 Galatia, Aquila and Nicetes over the parishes in Asia”).\276/ 

 

\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 Scythia).

 

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 Gaul, not to tolerate any longer the wanton and insolent insults heaped by Marcian . . . . upon our assembly”; and in ch. 3 (“Dirigantur in provinciam et ad plebem Arelate consistentem a te litterae quibus abstento Marciano alius in loco eius substituatur”): “ Let letters be sent by you to the province and to the people residing at Arles, to remove Marcian, and put another person in his place.” Obviously, then, it is a question here of two (or three) letters, i.e., of one addressed to the bishops of Gaul, and of a second (or even a third) addressed not only to the “plebs Arelate consistens,” but also to the “provincial” (which can only mean the provincia Narbonensis, in which Arles lay). It follows from this that the “coepiscopi nostri in Gallia constituti” (2) are hardly to be identified with the bishops of Narbonensis, which leads to the further conclusion that these “coepiscopi” are the bishops of the provincia Lugdunensis -- a conclusion which in itself appears to be the most natural and obvious explanation of the passage. The provincia Lugdunensis thus had several bishops in the days of Cyprian, who were already gathered into one Synod,\278/ and corresponded with Rome. We cannot make out from this passage how old these bishoprics were, but it is at any rate unlikely that all of them had just been founded. In this connection Duchesne also refers to the fact that bishop Verus of Vienne, who was present at the council [[459]] of Arles in 314, is counted in one ancient list as the fourth bishop of Vienne; which makes the origin of the local bishopric fall hardly earlier than ± 250 CE. But the list is not ancient. Besides, it is a questionable authority. And, even granting that it were reliable, it is quite arbitrary to assume a mean term of eighteen years as the duration of an individual episcopate; while, even supposing that such a calculation were accurate, it would simply follow that Vienne (although situated. in the provincia Narbonensis, where even Duchesne admits tat bishoprics had been founded in earlier days) did not receive her bishopric till later. No inference could be drawn from this regarding the town of Lyons.

 

\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 Lyons to be put first, since it was Lyons and not Vienne which had a bishop. Besides, the letter does not speak of ἐκκλησίαι or ἐκκλησία but of δοῦλοι Χριστοῦ, just as the address of the letter mentions “the brethren in Asia and Phrygia” (οἱ κατὰ τὴν Ἀσίαν καὶ φρυγίαν ἀδελφοί) and not “churches” at all. Hence nothing at all can be gathered from this passage regarding the organization of the local Christians. Though Vienne and Lyons belonged to different provinces, they lay very close together; and as the same calamity had befallen the Christians of both places, one can quite understand how they write a letter in common on that subject.

 

On 3. “Their whole fury was aroused exceedingly against Sanctus the deacon from Vienne” (ἐνέσκηψεν ὀργὴ πᾶσα ἐις Σάγκτον τὸν\279/ διάκονον ἀπὸ Βιέννης). It is possible to take this, with Duchesne, as referring to a certain Sanctus who managed the inchoate church of Vienne as a delegate of the Lyons bishop. But the explanation is far from certain. This sense of ἀπό is unusual (though not intolerable),\280/ and the words may quite well [[460]] be rendered, “the deacon who came from Vienne” [sc. belonging to the church of Lyons].\281/ But even supposing that Sanctus was described here as the deacon of Vienne, it seems to me hasty and precarious to infer, with Duchesne, that Vienne had only a single deacon and no bishop (not even a presbyter) at all. Surely this is to build too much upon the article before διάκονον. Of course, it may be so; we shall come back to this passage later on. Meantime, suffice it to say that the explicit description of Pothinus in the letter as “entrusted with the bishopric of Lyons(τὴν διακονίαν τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς τῆς έν Λουγδούνῳ πεπιστευμένος), instead of as “our bishop” or even “the bishop,” does not tell in favor of the hypothesis that Lyons alone, and not Vienne, had a bishop at that period. 

 

\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]] Thrace”). The parallel, of course, is not decisive, as Julius was at a gathering in Phrygia when he penned these words.

 

\281/ Cp. what immediately follows -- “against Attalus a native of Pergamum” (εἰς Ἄτταλον Περγαμηνὸν τῷ γένει), and also 49 (Ἀλέξανδρος τις, φρὺξ μὲν τὸ γένος, ἰατρὸς δὲ τὴν ἐπιστήμην = a certain Alexander, of Phrygian extraction, and a physician by profession). Neumann, in his Röm. Staat und die allgem. Kirche, 1 (1980), p. 30, writes thus: “As Sanctus, the deacon of Vienna, appears before the tribunal of the legate of Lyons, he must have been arrested in Lyons.” 

 

On 4. The passage from Iren. 1.10.2 (καὶ οὔτε αἱ ἐν Γερμανίαις ἱδρυμέναι ἐκκλησίαι ἄλλως πεπιστεύκασιν 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 Germany and among the Celts were organized. But the most obvious interpretation is that these “churches” were just as entire and complete in themselves as the churches of the East, of Egypt, of Libya, and of all Europe, which are mentioned with them on the samelevel. At any rate, nothing can be inferred from this passage in support of Duchesne's opinion. It is a pure “petitio principii” to hold that complete churches could not have existed in Germany. [[461]]

 

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 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 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 Gaul. So far from proving, then, that about 100 CE there was only one bishop in Gaul, our passage proves the existence of several bishops.\284/ [[462]]

 

\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 ( 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 Gaul is that it is impossible to ascertain whether the Meruzanes mentioned in H.E. 6.46 as the bishop of the Armenian brethren was the sole local bishop at that period or the metropolitan. See on (6).

 

On 7. This argument is quite untenable. The church of Pontus, we are told, had its episcopal headquarters in the Galatian Ancyra about 200 CE! But about 190 CE it already had a metropolitan of its own, for Eusebius mentions a writing sent during the Paschal controversy by “the bishops of Pontus over whom Palmas, as their senior, presided” (τῶν κατὰ Πόντον ἐπισκόπων, ὧν Πάλμας ὡς ἀρχαιότατος προὐτέτακτο, H.E. 5.23). How Duchesne could overlook this passage is all the more surprising, inasmuch as a little above he quotes from this very chapter. Besides, this Palmas, as we may learn from Dionysius of Corinth (in Eus. H.E. 4.23.6; see below, p. 463), seems to have stayed not in Ancyra but in Amastris. Furthermore, in the passage in question τόπον (so Schwartz) must be read\285/ instead of Πόντον, despite the Syriac version. Πόντον is meaningless here, even if the territorial bishop of Pontus resided at that time in Ancyra. Thus it is not in Pontus, but in Phrygia and Gaul, that we hear of Montanist agitations, and, moreover, one could not possibly have got acquainted with the church of Pontus in Ancyra, even if the latter place had been the residence of that church's head. Can one get acquainted in Alexandria nowadays with the church of Abyssinia?  

 

\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 Arles, for the representation of churches at the great synods was always an extremely haphazard affair. But even supposing that these provinces were still without bishops of their own, this proves nothing with regard to Lyons.  

 

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 church of Corinth. In Rom. 16.1 f. Paul mentions a certain Phoebê, διάκονος τῆς ἐκκλησίας τῆς ἐν Κεγχρεαῖς, speaking highly of her as having been a προστάτις πολλῶν καὶ ἐμοῦ αὐτοῦ, so that, while many Christians scattered throughout Achaia may have also belonged to the church at Corinth at that period, there was nevertheless a church at Cenchrem besides, which we have no reason to suppose was not independent. 

 

Ignatius's description of himself as “bishop of Syria,” and his description of the church of Antioch as ἐν Συρίᾳ ἐκκλησίᾳ, appear to prove decisively that there was only one bishop then in Syria, viz., at Antioch (2). Yet in ad Phil. 10 we read how some of the neighboring churches sent bishops, others presbyters and deacons, to Antioch (ὡς καὶ αἱ ἔγγιστα ἐκκλησίαι ἔπεμψαν ἐπισκόπους, αἱ δὲ πρεσβυτέρους καὶ διοκόνους), which shows that there were bishoprics\286/ in Syria, and indeed in the immediate vicinity of Antioch, c. 115 CE The bishop of Antioch called himself “bishop of Syria” on account of his metropolitan position. 

 

\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 Syria. To be quite accurate he ought to have said, “to the church in Antioch,” as that church is mentioned just above.

 

From Eus. H.E. 4.23.5-6, it would appear that there was only a single bishop (3), (4), in Crete and in Pontus c. 170 CE, inasmuch as Dionysius of Corinth designates Philip as bishop of Gortyna and the rest of the churches in Crete, and Palmas bishop of Amastris and the churches of Pontus. But whether the expression be attributed to Dionysius himself, or ascribed, as is more likely, to Eusebius, the fact remains that the same collection of the letters of Dionysius contained one to the church of Cnossus in Crete, or to its bishop Pinytus (loc cit., 7), while, as we have already seen (on 7), Palmas was not the sole bishop in Pontus. Philip and Palmas were therefore not provincial bishops but metropolitans, with other bishops at their side. [[464]]  

 

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 Egypt. It is perfectly possible, no doubt, but at the same time it is incapable of proof, that the Egyptian churches were in a dependent position towards the Alexandrian church at a time when Alexandria itself had as yet no bishop of its own.  

 

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 “Gaza” (12). There can be no question of provincial bishops here however; as we know that these districts contained a large number of bishoprics. The position of matters can be understood from the history of Emesa and Gaza, both of which long remained pagan towns; [[465]] we are told that they would not tolerate a Christian bishop. Bishops, therefore, were unable to reside in either place. But as the groups of Christian villages in the vicinity had bishops or themselves (so essential did the episcopal organization seem to Eastern Christians), there were probably bishops in partibus infidelium for Emesa and Gaza, although otherwise they were territorial bishops, over quite a limited range of territory.  

 

As regards provincial bishops, it seems possible to cite the signatures to the council of Nicaea (13), viz., the five instances in which the name of the province accompanies that of the bishop. These are Calabria, Thessaly, Pannonia, Gothia, and tie Bosphorus.\287/ But in the case of Thessaly, bishop Claudianus of rhessaly is accompanied by bishop Cleonicus of Thebes, so that the former was not a provincial bishop but a metropolitan. Besides, it is quite certain that Calabria and Pannonia had more than one bishop in 325 CE, although only the metropolitans of these provinces were present at Nicaea (as indeed was also the case with Africa, whose metropolitan alone was in attendance). Thus only Gothia and the Bosphorus are left. But as these lay outside the Roman Empire, and as quite a unique set of conditions prevailed throughout these regions, the local situation there cannot form any standard for estimating the organization of churches inside the empire. The bishops above mentioned may have been the only bishops there. 

 

\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 Cappadocia.” Finally, the communication of Sozomen (15), which he himself describes as a curiosity, refers to a barbarian country. [[466]]

 

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), Vienne had no independent bishop of its own. Even this conjecture, as has been shown, is far from necessary, while it is opposed by the definite testimony of Eusebius, who knew of a letter from the parishes of Gaul c. 190 CE\288/ And even supposing it were to the point, we should have to suppose that the Christians in Vienne were numbered, not by hundreds, but merely by dozens, about the year 178, i.e., some decades later still.  

 

\288/ If there were several (episcopal) parishes in Gaul c. 190 CE, Vienne would also form one such parish. The hypothesis that a number of bishoprics existed in middle and northern Gaul in the days of Irenaeus is confirmed by the fact that Irenseus (in a passage 1.10, to which I shall return) speaks, not of Christians in Germany, but of “the churches founded in Germany.” Would he have spoken of them if these churches had not had any bishops? While, if they did possess bishops of their own, -- and according to 3.3.1, the episcopal succession reaching back to the apostles could be traced in every individual church, -- then how should there have been still no bishops in middle and northern Gaul?

 

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 Jerusalem church became, mutatis mutandis, a pattern for all and sundry Christian communities were not “churches of Paul” or “of Peter” (ἐκκλησίαι, Παύλου, Πέτπου) ; each was a “church of God” (ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ). 

 

\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 Galatia, falls to be considered in this aspect, and much more besides, Paul's range of missionary activity was regulated by the provinces; Asia, Macedonia, Achaia, etc., were ever in his mind's eye. He prosecutes the great work of his collection by massing together the communities of a single province, and the so-called epistle “to the Ephesians” is addressed, as many scholars opine, to a large number of the Asiatic communities. John writes to the churches of Asia.\290/ Even at an earlier period a letter had been sent (Acts 15) from Jerusalem to the churches of Syria and Cilicia.\291/ The communities of Judaea were so closely bound up with that of Jerusalem, as to give rise to the hypothesis (Zahn, Forschungen, 6 p. 800) that the ancient episcopal list of Jerusalem, which contains a surprising number of names, is a conflate list of the Jerusalem bishops and of those from the other Christian communities in Palestine. Between the apostolic age and c. 180 CE, when we first get evidence of provincial church synods, similar proofs of union among the provincial churches are not infrequent. Ignatius is concerned, not only for the church of Antioch, but for that of Syria; Dionysius of Corinth writes to the communities of Crete and to those in Pontus; the brethren of Lyons write to those in Asia and Phrygia; the Egyptian communities form a sphere complete in itself, and the churches of Asia present themselves to more than Irenaeus as a unity.

 

\290/ By addressing himself also to the church at Laodicea, he passes on into the neighboring district of Phrygia. But the other six churches are all Asiatic.

 

\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 Corinth seems to have stood in a different relation to the churches of Lacedaemon and Athens from that in which he stood towards communities lying outside Greece.

\294/This requires no proof, as regards Rome. But the church of Jerusalem also pushed far beyond Palestine; it gave Paul serious trouble in the Diaspora, and tried even to balk his plans. In the third century bishop Firmilian set up the “observations” of the Gentile Christian church at Jerusalem against those of )tome, thereby attributing to the former a certain prestige outside Palestine for the church at large. The bishop of Antioch, again, reached as far as Cilicia, Mesopotamia, and Persia; the bishop of Carthage as far as Mauretania; the bishop of Alexandria as far as Pentapolis. Cp. the second canon of the Council of Constantinople (381), which prohibits a bishop or metropolitan from invading another diocese, but at the same time expressly makes an exception of “barbarian” districts, on the ground of ancient use and wont (τὰς δὲ ἐν τοῖς βαρβαρικοῖς ἔθνεσιν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκκλησίας οἰκονομεῖσθαι χρὴ κατὰ τὴν κρατήσασαν συνήθειαν τῶν πατέρων. -- The sphere of Alexandria's influence, however, several times embraced Palestine and Syria, even prior to Athanasius, Cyril, and Dioscorus. It is very remarkable, e.g., that no fewer than three Alexandrians -- Eusebius, Anatolius, and Gregory -- occupied the see of Laodicea (Syr.) at the close of the third and the beginning of the fourth centuries (Eus. H.E. 7.32; Philostorgius, 8.17). There was already a sort of prescriptive right which afterwards passed into the division of the patriarchate. Thus, in the intercourse of, the churches the Roman bisnop already, represented all the West (including illyria afterwards); while the bishop of Antioch, as well as the bishop of Alexandria, seem to have had the prescriptive privilege of attending to the entire East. Apart from this privilege, however, the spheres of Alexandria (South) and Antioch (Middle and North) respectively were delimited. Caesarea (Cappadocia) and Ephesus now attained positions of some independence.

 

\295/ All this was connected, of course, with the political organization of Asia.

 

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 Roman Empire during the First Three Christian Centuries.” Special reference is made to the ecclesiastical arrangements and spheres in their relation to the political framework.

 

            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 Syria and Asia corresponded to these tendencies. From the outset we observe that local churches spring into life on all sides, as opposed to uncertain transient unions, and while Christians might and did group themselves in other forms (e.g., mere guilds of worship and schools of thought), these were invariably attacked and suppressed. Neighboring cities, like Laodicea, Colossê, and Hierapolis, had churches of their own from the very first. So had the seaport of Corinth, as early as the days of Paul, while the localities closely “adjacent to” Antioch (Syr.) had churches of their own in Trajan's reign (Ignat. ad Phil. 10), and not long afterwards we have evidence of village churches also. Then, as soon as we hear of the monar. chical episcopate, it is in relation to small communities. The localities which lay near Antioch had their own bishops, and two decades afterwards we find a bishop quartered in the Phrygian village of Comana (Eus. H.E. 5.16). The Nicene [[471b]] Council was attended by village bishops from Syria, Cilicia, Cappadocia, Bithynia, and lsauria, who had the same rights as the town bishops. In the so-called Apostolic Constitutions (middle of second century) we read: “If the number of men be small, and twelve persons cannot be found at one place, who are entitled to elect a bishop, let application be made to any of the nearest churches which is well established, so that three chosen men may be sent who shall carefully ascertain who is worthy,” etc. Which assumes that even in such cases a complete episcopal church is the outcome. We must therefore assume that it was the ule in some at least and probably in many, of the provinces to give every community a bishop. Thus the number of the local churches or communities would practically be equivalent to the number of bishoprics.

 

\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 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: ἀλλοἱ 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 Northern Africa, upon the other hand, no action was taken against the smaller bishops. Augustine himself (Ep. 261) erected a new bishopric within his own diocese, whilst even after the year 400 it is plain that the number of bishoprics in Northern Africa went on multiplying. We may take it that in provinces where the village bishoprics were numerous (i.e., in the majority of e provinces of Asia Minor, besides Syria and Cyprus), the total number of bishoprics did not materially increase after 325 CE. Probably, indeed, it even diminished.

 

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 Antioch (as far as Persia, eastwards), Alexandria (into the Thebais, Libya, Pentapolis, and eventually Ethiopia), and Rome seemed to corroborate this theory. The authenticated instances from ancient history (for we have no detailed knowledge of the osphorus or of Gothia) permit us to infer, e.g., that the power of ordination possessed by the bishop of Alexandria extended over four provinces. Still, as has been remarked already, the original local conditions remain obscure. It is relevant also at this point to notice the tradition, possibly an authentic one, that the first bishop of Edessa was consecrated by the bishop of Antioch (Doctr. Addaei, p. 50), and that the ersian church was for a long while dependent upon the [[474]] church of Antioch, from which it drew its metropolitans.\300/ When this was in force, the imperial church had already firmly embraced the theory that episcopal ordination could only be perpetuated within the apostolic succession.  

 

\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 Persia lies wrapt in obscurity or buried in legend.

 

There are also instances, of course, in which, during the third century (for, apart from Egypt, no sure proofs can be adduce at an earlier period), Christian communities arose in country districts which were superintended by presbyters or even by deacons alone, instead of by a bishop. Such cases, however, are by no means numerous.\301/ They are infrequent till in and after the age of Diocletian.\302/ Previous to that period, so far as I know, there was but one large district in which presbyterial organization was indeed the rule, viz., Egypt. Yet, as has beeii already observed, the circumstances of Egypt are extremely obscure. It is highly probable that for a considerable length of time there were no monarchical bishops at all in that country, the separate churches being grouped canton-wise and superintended by presbyters. Gradually the episcopal organization extended itself during the course of the third century, yet even in the fourth century there were still large village churches which had no bishop. We must, however, be on our guard [[475]] against drawing conclusions from Egypt and applying them to any of the other Roman provinces. It has been inferred, from the subscriptions to the Acts of the synod of Elvira, that some Spanish towns, which were merely represented by presbyters at the synod, did not possess any bishops of their own. This may so, but the very Acts of the synod clearly show how precarious is the inference; for, while many presbyters subscribed, these Acts, it can be proved that in almost every case the town churches which they represented did possess a bishop. The latter was prevented from being present at the synod, and, like the Roman bishop, he had himself represented by a presbyter or eputation of the clergy. Nevertheless it is indisputable, on the mind of the sixty-seventh canon of Elvira (“si quis diaconus gens plebem sine episcopo vel presbytero,” etc.), that there were churches in Spain which had not a bishop or even a presbyter, although we know as little about the number of such arches as about the conditions which prevented the appointment of a bishop or presbyter. In any case, the management of church by a deacon must have always been the exception mainly an emergency measure in the days of persecution), since was unlawful for him to perform the holy sacrifice (see the bfteenth canon of Arles). It is impossible to decide whether the ἐπιχώριοι πρεσβύτεροι mentioned in the thirteenth canon of Neo-Caesarea mean independent presbyters in country churches, or presbyters who had a chor-episcopus over them. Possibly the latter is the true interpretation, since we must assume a specially vigorous development of the chor-episcopate in the neighboring vountry of Cappadocia, which sent no fewer than five chorepiscopi to the council of Nictea. On the other hand, it follows roan the Testament of the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste that there were churches in the adjoining district of Armenia which were ruled by a presbyter, and in which no chor-episcopate seems to ave existed (cp. Gillmann, p. 36). Armenia, however, was a frontier province, and we cannot transfer its peculiar circumstances en masse to the provinces of Pontus and Cappadocia. The “priests in the country,” mentioned in the eighth canon of Antioch (341 CE), are certainly priests who had supreme authority in their local spheres, but the synod of Antioch was [[476]] held in the post-Constantine period, and the circumstances of 341 CE do not furnish any absolute rule for those of an earlier age. It is natural to suppose that the contemporary organization of the cantons in Gaul,\303/ which hindered the development of towns, proved also an obstacle to the thorough organization of the episcopal system ; hence one might conjecture that imperfectly organized churches were numerous in that country (as in England). But on this point we know absolutely nothing. Besides, even in the second century there was a not inconsiderable number of towns in Gaul where the local conditions were substantially the same as those which prevailed in the other Roman towns.\304/ 

 

\301/ No case is known, so far as I am aware, during the pre-Constantine period in Northern Africa. One might infer, from epistles 1 and 58 of Cyprian, that there were no bishops at Furni and Thibaris, but from Sentent. Episcop. (59 and 37) it is evident that even these churches were ruled by one bishop. Probably the see was vacant when Cyprian wrote epistle 1; but this hypothesis is needless so far as regards epistle 58. The reference to Cypr. Ep. 68.5, is extremely insecure. It is unlikely that even in Middle and Lower Italy churches existed without bishops during the third century. We must not use cpp. 4 and 7 of the letter written by Firmilian of Iconium (Cypr. Ep. 75) as an argument in favor of churches without bishops, surprising as is the expression “ seniors et praepositi” or “praesident maiores natu.” There was such a church at the village of Malus near Ancyra (see Acta Mart. Theodot. 11.12), but the evidence is almost worthless, as the Acta in question are not contemporary.

 

\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. [Eng. trans. 1.92 f.], and also Marquardt's Röm. Staatsverwaltung, 1.7 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, Rheims, Paris, etc., were so numerous circa 240 C.E., then they had bishops; if they had no bishops, then they were few and far between. In my opinion, we may put it thus: (1) It is [[477]] quite possible, indeed it is extremely likely (ep. the evidence of Arian), that before the middle of the third century there were already some other episcopal, churches in Gaul, even apart orrm the “province”; (2) if Lyons was really the sole episcopal church of the country, then there was only an infinitesimal limber of Christians in Gaul outside that city.

 

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
Ancyra and Neo-Caesarea did not come with the abruptness of a pistol-shot; they codified what had previously been the partial practice of wide circles in the church. We must therefore look back as far as the period beginning with the edict of Gallienus. But we know nothing as to whether the country bishop was in any respect subordinate to the city bishop from the first (especially in the natter of ordination). A priori, it is unlikely that he was.

 

\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 Egypt. Apart from that province, we may say that Christian communities, not episcopally organized, were quite infrequent throughout the East and the West alike during the years that elapsed between Antonitlus Pius and Constantine.\309/ Not only small towns, but villages also had bishops. Cyprian was practically right when he wrote to Antonian (Ep. 4.24): “lam pridem per omnes provincias et per [[481]] urbes singulas ordinate sunt episcope” (“Bishops have been for long ordained throughout all the provinces and in each city”)\310/ And what was unique in the age of Sozomen (H.E. 7.19), viz., that only one bishop ruled in Scythia, though it had many towns\311/  --  this would also have been unique a century and a half earlier.

 

\309/ Previous to the middle of the third century I do not know of a single case (leaving out Egypt). All the evidence that has been gathered from the older period simply shows that there were Christians in the country, or that country people here and there came in to worship in the towns; evidently they had no place of worship at home, and consequently no presbyters. Furthermore the original character of the presbyter's office, a character which can be traced duwu into the third century, excludes any differentiation among the individual, independent presbyters, each of whom was a presbyter as being the member of a college and nothing more (cp. also Hatch-Harnack, Gesellschaft. der christlichen Kirchen, pp. 76 f., 200 f.; the right of presbyters to baptize was originally a transmitted right and nothing more. Hatch refers the rise of parishes also to a later time). I should conjecture that the organization of presbyterial village churches began first of all when the town congregation in the largest towns had been divided into presbyters' and deacons' districts, and when the individual presbyters had thus become relatively independent. In Rome this distribution emerged rather later than the middle of the third century, and originally it sprang from the division into civic quarters (not the synagogue). The necessity of having clergy appointed for the country, even where there were no bishops, emerged further throughout the East wherever a martyr's grave or even a churchyard had to be looked after (cp. the Testament of the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste). Again, we know from the history of Gregory Thaumaturgus and other sources (cp. the Acta Theodoti Ancyr.) that after the middle of the third century the great movement had begun which sought to appropriate and consecrate as Christian the sacred sites and cults of paganism throughout the country, as well as to build shrines for the relics of the saints. In these cases also a presbyter, or at least a deacon, was required, in order to take care of the sanctuary. Finally, the severe persecutions of Decius, Valerian, Diocletian, and Maximinus Daza drove thousands of Christians to take refuge in the country; the last-named emperor, moreover, deliberately endeavored to eject Christians from the towns, and condemned thousands to hard labor in the mines throughout the country. We know, thanks to the information of Dionysius of Alexandria and Eusebius that in such cases communities sprang up in the country districts for the purpose of worship; naturally these were without a bishop, unless one happened to be among their number. It may be supposed that all these circumstances combined to mature the organization of presbyterial communities, an organization which subsequently, under the countenance of the town bishops, entered upon a victorious course of rivalry with the old chor-episcopate. Frequently, however, in the country the nucleus lay, not in the community, but in the, sacred sites -- and such were in existence even before the adoption and consecration of pagan ones, in the shape of martyrs' graves and churchyards. These considerations lead me to side with Thomassin in the controversy between [[481b]] that critic and Binterim: the “country parish” did not begin its slow process of development till after about 250 CE. On the other hand, I disagree with Thomassin in thinking that the “country episcopate” is the older of the two. It can be traced back unmistakably in Phrygia to the beginning of the Montanist controversy. For the origin of the “country parishes” cp. the recent keen investigations by Stutz and his pupil (Stutz, Gesch. des kirchl. Benefizialwesens I., 1895; Schäfer, Pfarrkirche und Stift im deutschen Mittelalter, 1903; and Stutz’s review in Gött. Gel. Anz., 1904, No. I, pp. 1-86, of Imbart de la Tour’s Les paroisses rurales du 4e au IIe siècle, 1900). Although these studies do not touch the pre-Constantine period, they need to be collated by anyone who desires to elucidate the history of the primitive organization of the church.

 

\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. Africa is the one country where I should conjecture that special circumstances led to a rapid increase of independent i.e. of Episcopal communities; but what those circumstances were, no one can tell.

 

\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 Egypt forms the exception to the rule, inasmuch as large Christian churches throughout Egypt still continue to be governed by the collegiate system down to the middle of the third century. Nothing prevents us, in this connection, from supposing that these churches did hold tenaciously to the primitive form of ecclesiastical organization. Yet alongside of the presbyters in Egypt, even διδάσκαλοι would seem also to have had some share in the administration of the churches (Dionys. Alex., in Eus. H.E. 7.24).

[[483]]


EXCURSUS 2

 

THE CATHOLIC CONFEDERATION AND THE MISSION

 

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 Rome. The federation had no written constitution. It did not possess one iota of common statutes. Nevertheless, it was a fact. Its common denominator consisted of the apostles’ creed, the apostolic canon, and belief n the apostolical succession of the episcopate. Indeed, long before these were generally recognized as the common property of the churches, the maintenance of this body of doctrine constituted a certain unity by itself. Externally, this unity manifested itself in inter-communion, the brotherly welcome extended to travellers and wanderers, the orderly notification of any changes in ecclesiastical offices, and also the representation of churches at synods beyond the bounds of their own provinces and the forwarding of contributions. What was at first done spontaneously -- and as a result of this, in many cases, both arbitrarily and uselessly -- became a matter of regular prescriptive right, carried out along fixed lines of its own.

 

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.

 

[[485]]


EXCURSUS 3

 

THE PRIMACY OF ROME IN RELATION TO THE MISSION

 

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 Northern Europe (by means of delegates and subordinates) are pure fables. Equally fabulous is the mass of similar legends about the early Roman bishops, e.g., the legend of Eleutherus and Britain. The sole residuum of truth is the tradition, underlying the above-mentioned legend that Rome and Edessa were in touch about 200 CE. This fragment of information is isolated, but, so far as I can see, it is trustworthy. We must not infer from it, however, that any deliberate missionary movement had been undertaken by Rome. The Christianizing [[486]] of Edessa was a spontaneous result. Abgar the king may indeed have spoken to the local bishop when he was at Rome, and a letter which purports to be from Eleutherus to Abgar might also be historical. The Roman bishop may perhaps have had some influence in the catholicizing of Edessa and the bishops of Osrhoene. But a missionary movement in any sense of the term is out of the question. Furthermore, if Rome had undertaken any organized mission to Northern Africa (or Spain, or Gaul, or Upper Italy) we would have found echoes of it, at least in Northern Africa. Yet in the latter country, when Tertullian lived, people only knew that while the Roman church had an apostolic origin, their own had not; consequently the “auctoritas” of the former church must be recognized. Possibly this contains a reminiscence of the fact that Christianity reached Carthage by way of Rome, but even this is not quite certain. Unknown sowers sowed the first seed of the Word in Carthage also; they were commissioned not by man but by God. By the second century their very names had perished from men's memory.


\312/Evidence is forthcoming from the second and the third centuries, for
Corinth, Arabia, Cappadocia, and Mesopotamia (cp. above, pp. 157, 185, 376; and below, Book 4). In a still larger number of cases Rome intervened with her advice and opinion.

 

\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 Rome amply discharged.

 

[[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 Jerusalem. This expired with the fall of Jerusalem, or rather, as it would seem, not earlier than the reign of Hadrian. Yet its influence continued operate for long throughout the empire, in the shape of malicious charges levelled by the Jews against the Christians. The synagogues, together with individual Jews, carried on the struggle against Christianity by acts of hostility and by inciting hostility.\314/

 

\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 Rome, however, it is unlikely that this order was put into practice, save in a few provinces, although we do not know what were the obstacles to its enforcement. Down to the days of Maximinus Thrax [[491]] the clergy do not appear to have attracted much more notice than the laity, and the edict of Maximinus did not strike many of them down. Still, it was significant. Plainly, the state had now become alive to the influential position occupied by the Christian clergy.

 

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 Carthage and Northern Africa (as seen in the writings of Tertullian) bears out this observation. Up till 180 CE there were no local martyrs at all; up to the time of Tertullian's death there were hardly more than a couple of dozen, even when Numidia and Mauretania are included in the survey. And these were always people whom the authorities simply made an example of. Yet it would be a grave error to imagine that the position of Christians was quite tolerable. No doubt they were able, as a matter of fact, to settle down within the empire, but the sword of Damocles hung over every Christian's neck, and at any given moment he was sorely tempted to deny [[492]] his faith, since denial meant freedom from all molestation. The Christian apologists complained most of the latter evil, and their complaint was just. The premium set by the state upbu denial of one's faith was proof positive, to their mind, that the administration of justice was controlled by demonic influence.

 

\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 Alexandria and Tertullian (Scorp. 1) mention the Valentinians and some other gnostics in this connection. But obviously there were, some in the church who shared this view. “Nesciunt simplices animae,” they held, “quid quomodo scriptum sit, ubi et quando et coram quibus confitendum, nisi quod nec simplicitas ista, sed vanitas, immo dementia pro deo mori, ut qui me salvum faciat. sic is occidet, qui salvum facere debebit? semel Christus pro nobis obiit, semel occisus est, ne occideremur. si vicem repetit, num et ille salutem de mea nece expectat? an deus hominum sanguinem flagitat, maxime si taurorum et hircorum recusat? certe peccatoris paenitentiam mavult quam mortem” (“The simple souls do not know what is written, or the meaning of what is written, about where and when and before whom we must make confession; all they know is that to die for God, who preserves me, is not simple artlessness but folly and madness! Shall he slay me, who ought to preserve me? Christ died once for us, was killed once, that we should not die. If he requires this in return, does he look for salvation from my death? Or does God, who refuses the blood of bulls and goats, demand the blood of men? Assuredly he would rather have the sinner repent than die.”) They also said (ch. 15) that the word of Jesus about confessing him does not apply to a human tribunal but to that of the heavenly ones (aeons) through whose sphere the soul rises up after death (“Non in terris confitendum apud homines, minus vero, ne deus humanum sanguinem sitiat nec Christus vicem passionis, quasi et ipse de ea salutem consecuturus, exposcat”).

 

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 Africa frequently paid moneys to the local funds -- i.e., of course, to the local authorities -- to ensure that their tuembers were left unmolested. The authorities themselves often advised this. Cp. Tert. Apol, 27: “Datis consilium, quo vobis abutamur” (“You advise us to take unfair advantage of you”); and ad Scap. 4: “Cincius Severus [the proconsul] Thysdri ipse dedit remedium, quomodo responderent Christiani, ut dimitti possent” (“Cincius Severus himself pointed out the remedy at Thysdrus, showing how Christians should answer so as to get acquitted “).

 

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 Constantine.

 

\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 Constantine stretched out his royal hand, he found a church which was not prostrate and despondent but well-knit, with a priesthood which the persecution had only served to purify. He had not to raise the church from the dust, otherwise that politician would have hwrdly stirred a finger: on the contrary, the church confronted him, bleeding from many a wound, but unbent and vigorous. All the counteractive measures of the state had proved of no avail besides, of course, these were no longer supported by public opinion at the opening of the fourth century, as they had been during the second. Then, the state had to curb the fanaticism of public feeling against the Christians; now, few urere to be found whoo countenanced hard measures of the state gainst the church. Gallienus himself had, on his deathbed, to revoke the edicts of persecution, and his rescript, which was unkindly phrased (Eus. H.E. 8.17), was ultimately replaced by Constantine's great and gracious decree of toleration (Eus. H.E. 10.5; Lact. de Mort. 48).

 

\338/Licinius was driven in the end to become a persecutor of the Christians, by his opposition to Constantine (cp. the conclusion of Eusebius's Church History and his Vita Const. 1 ad fin., 2 ad init.). Among his laws, that bearing upon the management of prisons (to which allusion has been made already; cp. p. 164) deserves notice (cp. Eus. H.E. 10.8), as do the rescripts against the nutual intercourse of bishops, the holding of synods, the promiscuous attendance of nien and women at worship, and the instruction of women by the bishops (Vita Const. 1.51.53).


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 Caesarea], and who at that time was very famous, as he still is by his writings. I mean Origen, whose fame is widely spread among the teachers of these doctrines, He was a pupil of Ammonius, the greatest philosopher of our day, and -- so far as knowledge was concerned -- he had gained much from the instruction of his teacher. But in the right conduct of life he went directly against Ammonius. . . . . Educated as a Greek among Greeks, he diverged to barbarous impudence. To this he devoted himself and his attainments; for while he lived outwardly like a Christian, in this irregular fashion, he was a Greek in his conception of life and of God, mixing Greek ideas with foreign fables. Plato was his constant companion. He had also the works of Numenius, Cronius, Apollophanes, Longinus, Moderatus, Nikomachus, and the most eminent Pythagoreans constantly in his hands, He also used the writings of the Stoic Chreremon and of Cornutus. Thence he derived the allegorical method of exegesis common in the Greek mysteries, and applied it to the Jewish scriptures.”

 

\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 leones!” Tertullian recalls this fearful shout no fewer than four times (Apol. 40, de Spectac. 27, de Exhort. 12, de Resurr. 23).

 

\348/ Cp. Clem. Alex. Protrept. 10.89: ἀλλἐκ 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 Palestine, they combine servility with sauciness. They have severed themselves deliberately from the Greeks, or rather from all that is good in the world. Incapable of cooperating for any useful end whatsoever, they yet are masters of the art [[501b]] of undermining a household and setting its members by the ears. Not a word, not, an idea, not a deed of theirs has ever borne fruit. They take no part in organizing festivals, nor do they pay honor to the gods. They occupy no seats on civic councils, they never comfort the sad, they never reconcile those who are at variance, they do nothing for the advancement of the young, or indeed of anybody. They take no thought for style, but creep into a corner and talk stupidly. They are venturing already on the cream of Greece and calling themselves 'philosophers’! As if changing the name meant anything! As if that could of itself turn a Thersites into a Hyacinthus or a Narcissus!”

 

\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 Rome. Even kefore the edict of Decius a persecution had broken out in Alexandria, of which Dionysius (in Eus. H.E. 6.41.1) writes as follows: οὐκ ἀπὸ τοῦ βασιλικοῦ προστάγματος διωγμὸς παρἡμῖν ἤρξατο, ἀλλὰ γὰρ ὅλον ἐνιαυτὸν προὔλαβε, καὶ φθάσας λαλῶν τῇ πόλει ταύτῃ μάντις καὶ ποιητής, ὅστις ἐκεῖνος ἦν, ἐκίνησε καὶ παρώρμησε καθἡμῶν τὰ πλήθη τῶν ἐθνῶν, εἰς τὴν ἐπιχώριον αὐτοὺς δεισιδαιμονίαν ἀναρριπίσας (“Our persecution did not begin with the imperial decree, but preceded that decree by a whole year. The prophet and framer of evil for this city, whoever he was, previously stirred up and aroused against us the pagan multitude, reviving in' them the superstition of their country”).

 

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 Cicero or of Seneca. For Celsus is an agnostic above all things,\352/ [[502]] so that he appreciates the relative validity of idealism apart from any stiffening of Stoicism, just as he appreciates the relative validity of every national religion, and even of mythology itself. Porphyry,\353/ on the other hand, is a thinker pure and simple, as well as a distinguished critic. And he is not merely a religious philosopher of the Platonic school, but a man of deeply religious temperament, for whom all thought tends to pass into the knowledge of God, and in that knowledge to gain its goal.

 

\351/We can only surmise about his personality and circumstances. He represented the noble, patriotic, and intelligent bureaucracy of Rome, about which we know so little otherwise.

 

\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 Tyre. His original name was Malchus, so that he was a Semite (for Malchus as a Christian name in the vicinity of Caesarea (Pal.) during Valerian's reign, cp. Eus. H.E. 7, 12).

  

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 Rome has won the world” (Min. Felix, 6).

 

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 Rome with teachers of the church and gnostics, realizing to the full that the matter at stake was God himself and the treasure possessed by mankind, viz., rational religious truth. Porphyry knew nothing of political ideals. The empire had indeed ceased to fill many people with enthusiasm. Its restorer had not yet arrived upon the scene, and religious philosophy was living meanwhile in a State which it wished to begin and rebuild. Porphyry himself retired to Sicily, where he wrote his fifteen books “Against the Christians.” This work, which was “answered” by four leading teachers of the church (Methodius, p usebius, Apollinarius, and Philostorgius), perished, together with his other polemical treatises, owing to the victory of the church and by order of the emperor. All that we possess is a number of fragments, of which the most numerous and important occur in Macarius Magnes. For I have no doubt whatever that Porphyry is the pagan philosopher in that author's “Apocriticus.”\357/ [[505]]

 

\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 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 Antioch. The leading citizens of Carthage -- who do not seem to have been Christians -- were friends of Cyprian, according to the latter's biography (ch. 14), and even when he lay in prison they were true to him. “Meantime a large number of eminent people assembled, people, too, of high rank and good family as well as of excellent position in this world. All of these, for the sake of their old friendship with Cyprian, advised him to beat a retreat. And to make their advice substantial, they further offered him [[510]] places to which he might retire” (“Conveniebant interim plures egregii et clarissimi ordinis et sanguinis, sed et saeculi nobilitate generosi, qui propter amicitiam eius antiquam secessum subinde suaderent, et ne parum esset nuda suadela, etiam loca in quae secederet offerebant”). Arnobius, Lactantius, and several others were philosophers and teachers of repute. Yet all this cannot obscure the fact that, even by the opening of the fourth century, Christianity still found the learning of the ancient world, so far as that survived, in opposition to itself. One swallow does not make a summer. One Origen, for all his following, could not avail to change the real posture of affairs. Origen's Christianity was passed over as an idiosyncrasy; it commended itself to but a small section of contemporary scholars; and while people learned criticism, erudition, and philosophy from him, they shut their eyes to his religion. Nor were matters otherwise till the middle of the fourth century. Learning continued to be “pagan.” It was the great theologians of Cappadocia and, to a more limited extent, those of Antioch (though the latter, judged by modern standards, were more scientific than the former), who were the first to inaugurate a change in this respect, albeit within well-defined limits. They were followed in this by Augustine. Throughout the East, ancient learning really never came to terms at all with Christianity, not even by the opening of the fifth century; but, on the other hand, it was too weak to be capable of maintaining itself side by side with the church in her position of privilege, and consequently it perished by degrees. By the time that it died, however, Christianity had secured possession of a segment, which was by no means inconsiderable, of the circle of human learning.
 

 

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.

 

            Thus, in the first instance at any rate, our question must not run, “How did Christianity win over so many Greeks and Romans as to become ultimately the strongest religion in point of numbers?” The proper form of our query must be, “How did Christianity express itself, so as inevitably to become the religion for the world, tending more and more to displace other religions, and drawing men to itself as to a magnet?” For an answer to this question we must look partly to the history of Christian dogma and of the Christian cultus. For the problem does not lie solely within the bounds of the history of Christian missions, and although we have kept it in view throughout the present work, it is impossible within these pages to treat it exhaustively.

 

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 Jerusalem. This took place in the twelfth year after the death of Christ. Thereafter only individual apostles are to be found at Jerusalem. Peter was again there at the Apostolic Council (so called). Paul makes his agreement not with the eleven, however, but simply with Peter, James the Lord's brother, and John. Where were the rest? Were they no longer in Jerusalem? or did they not count on such an occasion? “

 

 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 Greece; two others were in Magna Graecia -- one of them came from Coele-Syria, the other from Egypt. Others, again, I met in the East: one came from Assyria; the other was a Hebrew by birth, in Palestine. When I came across the last (though in importance he was first of all), I found rest. I found him concealed in Egypt, that Sicilian bee.’”

 

 //end of Harnack book 3//